De-Cloaking Gyges

@3:57..."you will NOT hear a single bit of this on cable news..."
...as the Cloakers continue to cover for his majesty, Lord Obama. Meanwhile, the saga continues:

Sundance, "Understanding Likelihood of DC Circuit Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus…."

After listening to oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court for the Flynn petition for a Writ of Mandamus (appeals court intervention); it seems very likely the panel of three judges will deny the Flynn defense and DOJ request, here’s why….

For the past decade CTH has been accurate in predicting these judicial events based on one overarching principle. The issues at hand are political arguments being made in the sphere of legal proceedings. As a consequence, all judicial proceeding continue -regardless of legal merit- until such time as they run into the final barrier of legal standing.

This same principle played out in the George Zimmerman case (Trayvon Martin). This same principle played out in the Baltimore Six case (Freddie Gray). A modified version of this principle played out in the Darren Wilson case (Michael Brown).

In the assembly of each prosecution there was no legal basis for the underlying case to proceed into the judicial branch, and yet those proceedings continued. They continued because the case travel is based on politics, not law. This is the essence of Lawfare.

As soon as the political runway of the case runs-out; then, and only then, does the case itself run into the law, and the case collapses. The Michael Flynn case is still on the political runway; and the DC Circuit will not intervene as long as the runway still exists.

Again, these are political cases being tried in the judiciary. Most lawyers who review these cases, and follow the underlying aspects, continually view the activity through the wrong prism, because they do not accept that politics is the driving force. Not law, politics.

In each example, based on the fortitude of the defendant; which assumes the pressure is withstood and acquiescence to a plea does not happen; there does -eventually- come a time when statutory law and the underlying factual evidence is confronted. When those end-of-runway moments are reached, the cases collapse on their lack of merit because they were built upon false political foundations. Notice it is only at the moment the political runway terminates that we find ourselves witnessing the legal collapse.

Thus we saw George Zimmerman found not-guilty because the underlying case was devoid of merit and built upon political fraud. Thus we saw the Baltimore Six found not-guilty and remaining cases dispatched because the underlying case(s) were devoid of merit and the public evidence was built upon political fraud. Thus we saw a Grand Jury no-true bill finding in the Darren Wilson case because it was devoid of merit and the underlying (public) evidence was built upon political fraud. Same. Same. Same.

In the oral arguments today the DC Circuit panel recognized there was still a great deal of political runway to travel as they questioned why they should intervene prior to a ruling by Judge Emett Sullivan on the unopposed motion to dismiss.

Behind their arguments, unspoken but visible, was a familiar position. There is still distance on the political runway before Sullivan’s July 16, 2020, District Court hearing and ultimately a ruling on the unopposed DOJ and Defense standing motion for dismissal.

Judge Sullivan’s lawyer, Beth A. Wilkinson, argued Judge Sullivan’s request for an amicus briefing is moot to the interests of superior court intervention because the DC Circuit cannot evaluate Judge Sullivan’s intent until after he issues his ruling on the unopposed motion to dismiss. That argument is what the panel wanted; that’s what the panel needed; that’s what the panel received. Thus, there’s plenty of political runway yet to be traveled.

Each of these political cases has a similar, perhaps identical, trajectory. Each case seems to use the same airport; albeit with different lengths of runway; and each case travels that runway regardless of merit or legal standing for the underlying case.

Standing on the sidelines, viewing cases through the prism of the rule-of-law, while watching cases traveling on the runway of politics is frustrating. Accepting the political motives of each case will lower blood pressure and save energy for the moment that really does matter, when the political runway is exhausted and legal statutes and principles do indeed apply.

Until the moment the value of politics expires, all judicial activity is an exercise in futility…. unless a target happens to come across a judge who will not support the politics of it (ie. Judge Andrew Hanen), but that is increasingly rare.

As long as a superior court judge, or panel of judges, can find a scintilla of legal space to justify political continuance, they will.

After two decades of this political metastasis, and despite the efforts of some lower courts trying to block it, even the U.S. supreme court is now infected.

If you find yourself as a target for one of these political cases, don’t hire a lawyer well versed in the legal aspects of your case; start first with a lawyer well versed in politics. One that is not afraid to take your case loud and public.

CTH - Breaking through the HyperNormalised Hyper-Realities of our time.