plagiarism. the judge didn t have to point this out. he just made sure to. the court first considers mr. flynn s requests and the party s arguments then analyzes mr. flynn s request for classified information and concludes that mr. flynn has failed to establish a single brady violation by the government. before turning to the specific requests, though, the court will address the ethical concerns with mr. flynn s brief. and the judge goes on to explain that the ethical concerns with flynn s brief is that his lawyer copied stuff from a supreme court ruling, which is the kind of thing a judge might notice. i mean, copy stuff from wikipedia, right? maybe the judge won t have supreme court ruling, the judge might so now mike flynn has had his scheduling sentenced again. it s not going to be wednesday while the president is going to be impeached. his sentencing is going to be next month toward the end of january. the only real drama now left in the flynn case is whether there s going t
single one of flynn s motions and every single one of flynn s requests for more information from the government and prosecutors, the judge counts 50 separate requests for information to try to put off his sentencing even more. in addition to rejecting all of those, every single one of them, the judge goes out of his way to note that in the filings that flynn s lawyer made on his behalf in this case, his lawyer appears to have committed plagiarism. the judge didn t have to point this out. he just made sure to. the court first considers mr. flynn s requests and the party s arguments then analyzes mr. flynn s request for classified information and concludes that mr. flynn has failed to establish a single brady violation by the government. before turning to the specific requests, though, the court will address the ethical concerns with mr. flynn s brief. and the judge goes on to explain that the ethical concerns with flynn s brief is that his lawyer copied stuff from a supreme court ruli
do you hear me? that is not the normal kind of thing a judge has to say in any criminal trial let alone one connected this closely to the president of the united states. so lots to get to tonight. these are crazy times. but things have been crazy for a while now as you know. and that brings us to this scoop that we ve got tonight. it was more than a year ago now, september 5th of last year when an op-ed was published in the new york times. the headline was i am part of the resistance, inside the trump administration. i worked for the president but like minded colleagues and i have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. that op-ed published in the new york times last september, the author anonymous. before you got to the actual op-ed there was this paragraph of explanation from the new
do you hear me? that is not the normal kind of thing a judge has to say in any criminal trial let alone one connected this closely to the president of the united states. so lots to get to tonight. these are crazy times. but things have been crazy for a while now as you know. and that brings us to this scoop that we ve got tonight. it was more than a year ago now, september 5th of last year when an op-ed was published in the new york times. the headline was i am part of the resistance, inside the trump administration. i worked for the president but like minded colleagues and i have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. that op-ed published in the new york times last september, the author anonymous. before you got to the actual op-ed there was this paragraph of explanation from the new york times exexplaining why the
was granted. there s another thing a judge did, which is also really striking. this is judge amy berman jackson. fascinating thing happens last week a lawsuit about the trump white house preserving records of calls with foreign leaders. suddenly incredibly relevant. they tell doj you got to save these records. are you going to do it? and doj goes silent for 24 hours. and then they come back and go, yeah, we will. usually it would end there. the judge would trust them to. but the judge actually ordered them, the white house, to preserve records of trump s dealings with foreign leaders. is that as extraordinary a condemnation of the level of trust she has in them as i feel like it is? yes. it is extraordinary. because normally the government believes the government. yes. remember, these are both federal these are two federal entities, and normally you have full expectation that there will