Brutal takedown of Barry's recent factually incorrect rant.
"Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.
“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama’s spokeswoman to the Washington Post and other outlets. Mr. Obama added: “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
Even discounting for Mr. Obama’s partisan audience, this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.
As for “scot-free,” that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate. We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn’t bring that up.
We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.
Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.
Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.
All of this was moved along politically by leaks to the media about Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian. The U.S. eavesdrops on foreign officials as a routine, but names of innocent Americans on those calls are supposed to be shielded from review to protect their privacy. Yet senior Obama officials have had to acknowledge that they “unmasked” Mr. Flynn’s name and others in their last months in power. Then, what a surprise, news of Mr. Flynn’s call and its contents pop up in the Washington Post. Did someone say “institutional norms”?
All of this raises questions about the role the Obama Justice Department and White House played in targeting Mr. Flynn. We already know the FBI had opened up a counterintelligence probe into Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign officials, yet it had come up with no evidence of collusion.
Donald Trump’s victory increased the chances that this unprecedented spying on a political opponent would be uncovered, which would have been politically embarrassing at the very least. Targeting Mr. Flynn—and flogging the discredited Steele dossier—kept the Russia collusion pot boiling and evolved into the two-year Mueller investigation that turned up no evidence of collusion.
This among other things is what U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr. Maybe that’s why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution."
Link: Barry
(no message)
Given the meddling of the DOJ by Trump, which has happened on a much, much larger scale than anything Obama did, his DOJ would be beyond stupid to go after Obama as it would guarantee that Trump would be indicted the minute he left office. You really think Trump and Barr want to set that precedent?
(no message)
What say you?
(no message)
(no message)
And, what makes you think the Left isn't already planning on going after Trump? Could anything Trump does now stop that? The Left's pursuit of Flynn has shown they are willing to use our justice system for political gain. The precedent has already been set, and approved by at least half the nation.
(no message)
By the way, my answer applies to all judges. I'm sure this Judge Sullivan is important to a case you are following, but I don't know who he or she is.
Needless to say, and I assume you agree, if leniency is applied in one case, it should be applied in similar cases. And, prosecutorial discretion should not mean prosecute R's, but don't prosecute D's. If our justice system is not perceived as fair, above all other things, then that is a recipe for disaster for the Republic.
(no message)
Then again, that's why I donate to Dem candidates now. I'm hoping when you come down our street to "enforce the law," you will pass by my house, and go to the next one to extract your confessions.
He did get better though.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Is that something beyond your ken that you can’t understand and answer?
(no message)
and gnaw frequently should understand.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Don’t focus on the criminality of our guy and his lackys.
(no message)
(no message)
I understand why some establishment people don't want the people at large to be distracted by the big picture. If we stay focused on a single violation, unfairness can prevail, and the people might not notice that we have been pushed into a banana republic style of justice...rule by men, not rule by laws.
same type of lying. All of you supported impeaching Clinton for lying in a CIVIL deposition.
Wonder what your fairness position will be when Durham starts charging people with lying.
You are as usual completely full of shit.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Lock'em up, lock'em up, lock'em up
Good Times
Link: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/20/us/20russiameeting/20russiameeting-articleLarge-v2.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale
Granted, I was told that the President can declassify anything he wants when Obama did it, so no crime there. But, a pardon doesn't require an admission of a crime; it can just be used to stop persecutorial prosecutions.
Given the precedent set by this process, and the threats made by the Left, I would assume every president from here on out walks out the door with a secret pocket pardon.
BTW I don't own a gun. Haven't needed one since VN. Just saying, could happen. BTW again, why do these clowns believe they need their guns here? Love their bullet proof vests. LMAO.
Link: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t-s&p=michigan+militia+protest#id=4&vid=fc5a3e8f5256825ea868292b16493285&action=click
Interesting that no one got hurt, don't you think?
I would not have gone there with a gun like they did.
But, I dare say that got their point across: "Don't go too far, government. Don't go too far." They were looking out after your rights and my rights. Because they did that, maybe the government will now think twice about going too far.
in Afghanistan?
the intimidation message it sends. Now Antifa, BLM, TBP’s and the other nutties will be doing the same thing. You are a fecked up person.
P.S. Try doing that shit at the federal capital rotunda. You will be in handcuffs and doing plenty of time right quick.
I said their crazy behavior may have some benefits in that it might make government officials think twice before going too far in using their power.
Maybe I should ask why you are cheering on the abuse of power by government officials? That makes as much sense as you saying I was cheering them on so you can criticize that straw man.
I can't support their actions at all. I'm just making some observations about effects.
You love to make up a viewpoint for me (exaggerate something I said into something else), and when I deny that "something else," you say I shuffle...that is a good internet debate tactic by you, I suppose, but it certainly is dishonest.
You didn’t say their crazy behavior may have some benefit. You never used the word crazy.
This is what you said in admiring terms:
“But, I dare say that got their point across: ‘Don't go too far, government. Don't go too far.’ They were looking out after your rights and my rights. Because they did that, maybe the government will now think twice about going too far.”
You are full of shit and yeah that’s what I call cheering them on I dare say to borrow a phrase.
I was trying to talk about effect, not as if they are protective angels of the Bill of Rights.
Also, nowhere did you say they were acting in an unknowing manner.
Seemed like you were saying you personally wouldn’t go that far, but what they did was a positive thing......you dare said.
Of course Neddie speak can be variable.
(no message)
And as he said that, a few people on here were probably hugging their TVs because they love this fraud. I love getting lectured by people who believed all the bullshit that has been spewed over the last few years. It’s sad and hysterical at the same time,
(no message)
Lock'em up, lock'em up lock'em up
More Good Times
Link: https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1028x675/format/jpg/quality/85/http%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fhss%2Fstorage%2Fmidas%2Fd5f750e4f3a8fe53c1180630679713b0%2F205855768%2Frussias-president-vladimir-putin-and-us-president-donald-trump-during
computer, eavesdropped on the Israeli Embassy's discussions with members of Congress in 2011, hacked the US Senate Intelligence Committee's computers for years, eavesdropped on the Israeli Ambassador in 2015 when he was in the same room meeting with US Congressmen and women about the Iran Deal (people often forget that one - Link below), and serially unmasked--with no justification whatsoever--the names of Americans innocently caught up in FISA warrants. Any Administration which acted this way would have no problem using opposition research to spy on the opposing campaign.
There is so much more to come, and I expect that the FBI's use of intelligence from FOREIGN governments (UK, Italy, and Australia) will be coming in to play soon.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/us-spying-netanyahu-israel-iran-nuclear-deal-obama-nsa