Appeals court unappealing to 9/11 mastermind KSM's plea deal

On Friday, a panel of federal appeals court judges, in a 2-1 gut-punch ruling, obliterated a plea deal that would’ve let 9/11 mastermind and scumcrumpet Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators dodge the death penalty for guilty pleas. The agreement, hammered out over two grueling years, promised Mohammed and his crew life without parole, a cushy escape from the needle of eternity.

The military prosecution of Mohammed and his fellow plotters has been dragging on for over two decades, mired in endless preliminary hearings and defense lawyers screaming about evidence tainted by torture.

Back in July, the Biden administration’s Defense Department announced pretrial agreements with Mohammed and three other 9/11 orchestrators. But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a power move, spiked the deal just two days later, declaring himself the sole gatekeeper of such agreements. 

A military appeals court in December slapped back at Austin’s play, reinstating the plea deal to sidestep execution. But on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit said, “Not so fast,” torching the agreement and backing Austin’s authority to kill it.

Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao didn’t mince words: “In light of the clear and indisputable errors committed by the military judge, which implicate issues of immense national importance, we conclude that issuance of the writs is appropriate under these circumstances.” Boom. Done.But Judge Robert Wilkins wasn’t having it. He came out swinging in his dissent, calling the majority’s move to overturn a military judge “stunning.” His words cut deep: “Our deference should be at its zenith when military courts follow persuasive military precedent in the construction of military rules. I am befuddled.” Ouch.

Mohammed, the alleged brain behind the deadliest attack on American soil, when hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, still sits at the center of this legal storm. And it’s far from over.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

Cory Booker shown to be as dumb as a blowfish by Kavanaugh replacement

Cory Booker is the poster boy for the political version of the Peter Principal. He has risen to the level of his incompetence and the idiot wants to run for president.

Booker was schooled by Neomi Rao after Spartacus asked her about whether or not she had "LGBTQ law clerks." If Booker had even half a brain in his head, he would have known that only judges have law clerks and Rao was never a judge.

"Have you ever had any LGBTQ law clerks?" Booker asked.

Rao responded: "Senator, I've yet to be a judge. I don't have law clerks."

Booker didn’t miss a beat, and covered up his stupidity by saying that he meant “someone working for you.” 

She answered: "To be honest, I don't know the sexual orientation of my staff."

Rao is currently the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a position described as the Trump administration’s “deregulatory czar."

Rao then answered: “To be honest I don’t know the sexual orientation of my staff. I take people as they come, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation. I treat people as individuals.” Wow, definitely not a leftist, is she--taking people as they come. How very non-intersectional of her. Shame on her.

The Constitution ensures that you aren't allowed to bar someone from a  federal position on the basis of their religion, and that's exactly what Booker is seeking to do. During the Judiciary Committee hearing, 

Booker, evidently unaware or uncaring about the illegality of a religious test, showed how he, and his fellow high level Democrats, have such disdain for religion in America. 

For them, if you see certain behaviors based on your religion as  "sin," you should not be allowed to hold a federal position. This is such nonsense and like something else unpleasant, it comes floating to the top for all now to see. Judges are there to basically "call balls and strikes," and their religious views should not interfere with how they rule. 

But Booker, 55 IQ, continued making a fool of himself and asked Rao if she thinks gay relationships are "immoral."

"I am not sure the relevance of that," Rao said, responding to the moron's question.

"Do you think gay relationships are immoral?" Spartacus asked again.

"I do not," Rao said.

"Do you believe they are a sin?" Booker said

"My personal views on any of these subjects are things I would put to one side," the nominee responded.

Rao, 45, worked in the George W. Bush White House but has never tried a case in state or federal court. Thus far, she has no law clerks but hopes to some day.

I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet