Court of appeals heard oral argument Via Teleconference on whether they should order the trial judge of the d. C. District to dismiss the justice departments perjury case against michael flynn. Well show you that oral argument next. Michael t. Flynn, the honorable emmett g. Sullivan. Good morning, counsel. Well here first from ms. Powell. Good morning. This is Sidney Powell for petitioner michael flynn. Were here now to stop further intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should all of the factors that go into that, include the provision of evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jensen who not only had ten Years Experience as an fbi agent, but ten years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr tasked him to review this
Honorable emmett g. Sullivan. Good morning, counsel. Well here first from ms. Powell. Good morning. This is Sidney Powell for petitioner michael flynn. Were here now to stop further intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should all of the factors that go into that, include the provision of evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jensen who not only had ten Years Experience as an fbi agent, but ten years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr tasked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case because we have both issues of judicial of prerogatives and a clear abuse. Theres no case or controversy any longer. The government has quit, and he also has no authority to go into the re
Up next, live coverage as the d. C. Appeals Court Hearings argument via teleconference, will they should vote on the case of michael flynn, National Security advisor. 5143 in re michael flynn. And the honorable emma g sullivan. Good morning, well hear first from miss powell. Good morning, may it please the court. This is sydney powell for petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an if ib fbi agent, but 10 years before mr. Barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessen
Vote the presiding officer are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote . On this the vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 40. The nomination is agreed to and confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senates actions. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of Lawrence Vandyke, of nevada, to be United States circuit judge for the ninth circuit. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of Lawrence Vandyke, of nevada, to be United States circuit judge for the ninth circuit shall be brought to a close . The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the rol
Like which is that you know nothing in the missing oh no nothing in the morning i mean when you see the people who committed so i thought they were not really you missed him we focus a lot of a nation they were people lets so much before they were standing in the coffee Drinking Alcohol so the problem is not islam the problem is the money big the problem is the do you feel the problem is mainly about are the feeling that we did and did not do as politician and as media also that that make them feel that those people so its clear that from the society so they were just like really enough to be onboard it in some in some extreme areas. But could this just be an exultant i want to find some hard evidence. So we arrived at the Free University of brussels. And were trying to see very is the office of. Dr of korean korean has been studying the experiences of muslims in belgium including discrimination and radicalization. Here this. Is what were observing versions that if you have more oaken