CPT Lawrence Cable - I actually read it the day it came out. There's this government website called "Pacer" where all case filings and orders are maintained, and where those with access (e.g., lawyers) can download the documents for either a nominal fee (10¢ per page) or free (in the case of orders). That's where the copy you linked to came from originally.

And I comprehended the legal issues addressed by the order. That wasn't, however, what I asked you. You asserted that Judge Sullivan should be impeached for ignoring "sections of the Constitution and Court Precedents [sic]" and I asked you to "list those sections and those precedents that he ignored", which you haven't done.

The question remains if you can answer my question, or it you cannot. If you can't, then pointing to a document that you don't understand and saying that it is in there, is understandable. That's why some people believe that the Masterpiece Cake decision upheld the right of a baker to discriminate against people because of his religious beliefs (hint, it doesn't).

So again, can you list those sections of the Constitution and those legal precedents that Judge Sullivan allegedly ignored or not? You, not somebody else.

CPT Lawrence Cable - Still waiting...

Capt Gregory Prickett - Since you don't like to read, here is a Lawyer to read the decision for you. I believe they cover all the precedents and Constitutional issues pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogG1lNp8GR8

CPT Lawrence Cable - So again, can you list those sections of the Constitution and those legal precedents that Judge Sullivan allegedly ignored or not? You, not somebody else. I don't want you to post something that you obviously do not understand. Especially something by a Canadian lawyer. You do realize that Canada is not part of the United States, and that they even have a different Constitution, don't you?

Flynn wasn't committing treason, but he did violate the law and did confess.

Capt Gregory Prickett I guess, you know better than the Judges and you support setting a trap for those you disagree with. Keep holding on to your narrative. Regardless of the facts. Perhaps, we can railroad you and you would be OK with it.

Cpl Mark A. Morris - Or perhaps, you could ask some of the other lawyers on RP on whether Flynn could manage a successful lawsuit against the government after a guilty plea. That issue, BTW, has nothing to do with the mandamus action or the panel's decision. Patricia Overmeyer for example can explain that it's going to be hard for Flynn to collect damages when he pleaded guilty, twice, in open court. Flynn wasn't railroaded.

Capt Gregory Prickett - •The DOJ's review of the new documents concluded that the FBI’s interview of Flynn was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.” Because the FBI's investigation no longer had a proper predicate at the time of Flynn's interview, his statements are immaterial according to the DOJ's motion.
I do not need to ask. I can read for myself.
I wonder if what Biden knows will come out. CNN tried to help him with his answer. Did you notice?

Cpl Mark A. Morris - And? So what? None of that has anything to do with a potential lawsuit against the government. He pleaded guilty. Twice. His chances of being successful in a lawsuit are slim and none.