With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that there was no criminal conduct uncovered and then prosecutors creating a crime (including the use of a clearly unconstitutional law never used to convict anyone since the start of the Republic). Many of these same experts who have been espousing untethered (and ultimately rejected) theories for criminal and impeachment charges for years. Yet, what was most striking is how many also rejected any claim that the undisclosed evidence, at a minimum, violated Brady, the case requiring the government to turn over exculpatory information. Indeed, Ben Wittes, a staunch defender of James Comey, assured readers “while you might not know much about federal law enforcement,” this is all “standard practices.” In fact, this is a clear and flagrant violation of the both Brady and the orders of Judge Emmet Sullivan. The fact that such violations are also dismissed by mainstream media and experts reflects how rage has distorted legal analysis in this Administration.
Brady v. Maryland is a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court that prosecutors must under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment. There are also due process rights requiring the disclosure of any evidence that would allow the defense to attack the reliability, thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation or to impeach the credibility of the state’s witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Courts like Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case issue standard orders under this and other cases requiring disclosure of evidence that are exculpatory or material to issues like impeachment.
Many of us who work on the criminal defense side have long frustrating histories with courts in dealing with violations of Brady and other cases. Often these violations are exposed after sentencing (unlike in Flynn). Courts often cite cases like Strickler v. Greene to decline to order a new trial unless “the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” That is a standard that is difficult to overcome. However, this case exposes a particularly obvious set of violations.
The Background
These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.
It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.
Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”
On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”
Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”
That exchange is not disconcerting as Strzok’s actions. After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law. Thus, faced with a lack of evidence of any crime, Strzok’s response was to order the investigation be kept open and then focused attention on an unconstitutional law never used to convict a single person. Its use against the incoming national security advisor to say it is a crime to discuss foreign relations with a Russian official during the transition would have been utterly absurd.
The same officials then sent two investigators into the White House, knowingly evading the long-standing rules of contacting the White House Counsel’s office in advance — something former FBI Director James Comey later bragged about and said that he “got away with it.”
So what happened then? We know that the investigators did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them about the sanctions discussion and told their superiors that they did not see evidence of a crime. Later Robert Mueller and his staff proceeded to charge Flynn with the single count. They then drained Flynn of millions and threatened to prosecute his son. He proceeded to take the plea.
Brady and the Sullivan Orders
Now back to Brady and the prior orders of Judge Sullivan (who is have practiced in front of for many years).
At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”
In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”
So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.
There are also new questions raised about Van Grack’s representations to the Court.
I have been a long critic of the failure of federal judges to sanction prosecutors for misrepresentations and withholding of evidence. That could prove the case here but that will not alter the fact that this is in open defiance of these orders. I have been counsel in cases where clear violations occurred, including a well-known case in front of Judge Sullivan that led to years of hearings before a Special Master and federal magistrate. This material was clearly within the court orders to be produced.
That brings us back to the reflexive response of these experts to assure the public that there is nothing to see here, or, as Wittes declared, this is all just standard practice. There was a time when media like CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post were outspoken critics of prosecutorial misconduct. Yet, in this age of rage, those principles are now inconvenient obstacles in an overriding narrative in the media. Many of these same experts have spent years advancing ridiculously twisted interpretations of the criminal code to claim “smoking gun” evidence of criminal acts by Trump and his associates. Those claims ranging from treason to bribery have been uniformly rejected by prosecutors as well as the House impeachment proceeding. Yet, it does not matter. Any sweeping legal theory or denial is replicated in the media to fit a carefully maintained narrative.
Yet, as the Supreme Court said in Brady, “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”
Even those saying that this is all “standard” stuff seem to suggest that “what is standard” is abuse. Wittes declared:
“If you’re outraged by the FBI’s tactics with Flynn, keep in mind that they do these things every day against drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists. Except those people are black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern—not “lock ‘er up” lily white.”
Putting aside the weird rationale of abuse as a victory for racial justice, the statement was widely and favorably cited despite the fact that it is the ultimate rationalization of abuse. This legal relativism is the touchstone of legal analysis in the Trump era.
We have long had echo journalism where networks pander to the desire (and fantasies) of viewers. However, it was only in the last few years that we have seen the systematic misrepresentation of core legal principles by legal experts, including constitutional rights, to fit such a journalistic and political agenda. To suggest that Flynn was abused or that the Mueller staff violated core rights is intolerable in this environment. Yet, Donald Trump will not be our last president. What will these experts and media outlets have when he leaves office other than a Pyrrhic victory based on the abandonment of these core principles? What will be left of legal analysis after years of grotesquely distorted interpretations?
The #MeToo Democrats —–>>
I believe Joe Biden!
“Me Too!” said Nancy Pelosi. “Me Too!” said Stacy Abrams. “Me Too!” said Kamala Harris. #Me Too!! Said every single other liberal woman who is a big flaming hypocrite counting on the stupidity of the American people to actually believe thier #MeToo Movement was ever about “women”….sorry….it was NEVER about women….not ever…..it is…and always was about one thing: political power.
Obama and his admin. also made sure the expelled the 35 Russians on the exact date of Flynn’s vacation in the Dominican Republic, knowing he would not have secure comms and knowing he would be three sheets in the wind via his fav. drinks. Thus there should be no wonders he didn’t remember every detail, that was their objective.
As per Mr. Wittes and his Lawfare Group, I think they should all be jailed for sedition, their goal was always to overthrow this President.
It’s no “Pyrrhic” victory for Dems in the legal system or media because they know that the abuse of laws and legal procedures they inflict on Republicans is never used against Dems. Repubs respect the Constitution whereas Dems write in penumbras or ignore what’s inconvenient to advance their policies. The Dem DOUBLE STANDARD is what keeps them in business. If they were required to live up to the standards they impose on Repubs or if their opponents were equally corrupt, dishing out gander sauce to the Dem goose, Dems would never be elected again.
We should start requiring it then, that sounds like a lovely result!
Here is Glenn Greenwald regarding the Russia Hoax — interestingly enough printed at Fox News.
Here is Glenn Greenwald on the F.B.I. Terrorist Hoax — interestingly enough printed at Salon.
Glenn Greenwald is being utterly consistent in his analysis of both.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/glenn-greenwald-rips-msnbc-for-exploiting-fears-in-russia-probe-coverage-claims-ban
https://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/
Here is Glenn Greenwald regarding the Russia Hoax — interestingly enough printed at Fox News.
___________________________________________________
The Russia hoax was created by the Trump team for the Trump team.
It was always a phony investigation created by the trump administration to make it look like trump was engaged in mortal combat with the deep state which he would eventually win.
And yes the main stream media were the main cheerleaders for this phony kayfabe exhibition match.
And yes the Mueller investigation made it look like the same tactics that the FBI uses against poorly educated Muslims that they frequently entrap.
But Flynn is not some high school drop out with court appointed attorney that the prosecutors can easily deprive of their rights. Flynn was asked questions about a conversation that he knew the FBI had taped and he had no good reason to lie.
Glenn is hated by the liberals especially the China News Network faux journalists
OK, with piles of evidence of crimes, when will we see Comey, et al, being perp walked?
Meuller was in violation from day one when he didn’t immediately say, “There is no such crime as collusion case closed. And then send a bill for one hour attorney fees. The rest was an expensive comedy.
But it did serve to expose the dirty cops and so forth in the government. That has yet to be decided as the investigations on Clinton, Comey, Strzok, and company are still in progress and now it’s seems it may be a case of overload to sort out just how many crimes were committed and follow each thread. Too bad for Clinton she’s not covered by any of the get out of jail free cards.
Replace Biden? Replace one rotten egg with one twice as rotten? Bring it on I want to see the vote go 95 to 5 this time except the five will be Clintons partners in crime.
Meuller was in violation from day one when he didn’t immediately say, “There is no such crime as collusion case closed. And then send a bill for one hour attorney fees. The rest was an expensive comedy.
______________________________________________________
That is absolutely correct. There was never anything to investigate in regard to Trump/Russia collusion or obstruction. It all had to be invented by the Trump team. And if you read the Mueller Report it does very much resemble a sit-com.
the first episode of the sit com, where the media cheerleaders started hyperventilating that the walls were closing in on Trump was when Comey testified to congress that Trump had pressured him to “go easy” on Flynn and to”let him go”. But the FBI investigators had already at that point concluded both that Flynn had done nothing wrong and there was no Russia collusion. But that didn’t matter because the Trump administration had told the FBI to Butt out and the Mueller was taking over.
So Trump and Comey pretended that Flynn had done something wrong and now Mueller had to investigate this made up story that Trump was obstructing the prosecution of Flynn.
So you believe Comey was working with Trump to achieve the same goal?
I believe in what the facts show.
The facts show that the story Flynn lied to the FBI is not believable.
The facts show that Trump and Comey after he was fired both promoted the story that Flynn lied to the FBI. I know of nobody else who did.
The facts show that the FBI investigators did not believe Flynn had lied.
The facts show that when Flynn agreed to plea to lying it was still not a believable story so Trump had to jump in the next day and again assert that Flynn lied to the FBI
Also unrelated to Flynn:
Comey helped Trump get elected by repeatedly reminding the public that Hillary was the subject of a criminal investigation while no word of criminal investigations of team trump leaked out before the election.
Turley was right on this. How about the 53 transcripts that there was no evidence of collusion or coordination between the trump campaign and russia II also believe in Jonathan Turley’s analysis of the case..
Where is the proof of that. Mueller and Trump was never working together.
Mueller and Trump both were pushing the same false narrative that Flynn lied to the FBI. Both of them knew that Flynn had not lied to the FBI.
I’ve been reading Turley’s posts from the Bush era to now. With Obama and Bush he was very critical. He rarely appeared partisan but was a concerned American citizen and constitutional lawyer. With Trump something changed and it was apparent. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for at least a year, sure that his more defensive posts were a result of Conway being one of his prized students, and he is always protective of his students. However the most often cited attorney by Trump supporters has changed his typical routine. He’s gone from hyper critical to protective, with only the most outlandish actions resulting in tepid criticism.
Can I spend hours reviewing all of his posts from 2007 to now to show how much he’s changed, probably but 1 I don’t have time, 2 that alone would not prove the rationale. I like Turley and think he’s a decent and necessary force. That doesn’t mean he’s infallible. He’s human and like all humans he’s capable of moral failings even if they’re subconscious or ones he’s in denial of. Most in his position, with his knowledge and leanings would do the same. I still hope I’m wrong and that the reason for his change, but if I’ve reached the conclusion that he has changed and I view it objectively I have to conclude that the explanation offered by natacha, btb, etc is the most likely one. Another explanation could exist such as him going against the grain and preferring playing devils advocate, however he didn’t do that during the Bush administration when the media wasn’t particularly favorable of Bush. In Turley’s words, Res Ipsa Loquitor. As far as why not follow someone else; why? As I noted, Turley is human and capable of moral failings. So is every other blogger. When it comes to media,
I believe HuffPost and MSNBC have been consistent in their leanings CNN has been the opposite of Turley. Skewing left because of a personal vendetta as Trump antagonizes them. At least with Turley I remain confident that once his best window for Judicial appointment dissipates post Trump, he’ll return to his usual unbiased self, an advocate for the people as opposed to an administration. Plus it allows for interesting discussion and counterpoints, as opposed to preaching to the choir, when time allows for it.
CK07. So Trump arranged to have Flynn charged of false crimes. I guess that means it’s Trumps fault when Flynn is exonerated. (for the simple minded, exoneration is what happens when you are found not guilty by the court, it is not a special little cupcake party the prosecutor holds for you)
I guess there is no lengths people suffering from TDS will go to achieve their aims. What you should be keeping in mind is every law you break in achieving your aim will be broken again to take down your candidate should when they reach office.
Ramon Z, Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI twice. The DOJ under Bill Barr decided for drop charges in declaring the investigation improper. In other words he was released on a technicality. It would be akin to OJ getting off on the basis of Mark Furman being crooked as opposed to proof of his innocence
Do you know why he plead guilty? Why don’t you get all the facts without prejudice and then decide or moreover answer your own question! Do you think he is the first person to ever be arm twisted into pleading guilty? His lawyers (where Eric Holder worked) had a side deal that he would plead guilty and the prosecutor would not go after Flynn’s son. I would throw myself on the sword to save my kids! Ask yourself why his lawyers are in hot water after producing 17,000 documents. Ask yourself why Flynn was such a target, what does he know from the Obama administration, does he know where all the bodies are at? Ask yourself why a highly decorated, highly accomplished and highly intelligent 3 star General would be stupid enough to be entrapped??? He like every other soldier would fall on there sword to save their country, this man will go down in history as part of the team that saved this country from the evil that had taken over. Semper Fi to General Flynn! He now sits up there with Patton and MacArthur!
“Proof of his innocence”? I have some old Perry Mason videos you need to watch….
@Della Street, don’t bother. Huge Raymond Burr fan here. I’ve seen them all. However you’re talking about overturning a guilty plea. Innocent until proven guilty, but if you admit guilt a judge will typically need evidence of innocence to dismiss the charges. Here he’s getting off on a technicality. Barr’s DOJ is dropping the charges. The argument the right seems to be making is the evidence against Flynn was fruit of the poisonous tree of sorts, not that Flynn didn’t lie about contact with the Russian ambassador at the same time the US was imposing heavy sanctions on Russia.
Figuratively a gun was placed at Flynn’s head to get a “confession”. Millions in legal fees, lost house and then a threat of going after his son. He had no money and the power of government agents illegally altering evidence appeared unstoppable.
The tecnicality you mention was illegal actions by the DOJ and FBI to investigate Flynn, change the testimony of Flynn, entrapment, illegal invterview etc. Add to that the fact that the investigators thought Flynn was truthful until more politics entered the game.
” not that Flynn didn’t lie about contact with the Russian ambassador ”
Flynn admitted having contact with the Russian ambassador which was proper and usual. Flynn said he didn’t remember the discussion he had and that makes sense. In his position Flynn already knew the FBI had a tape of that discussion. What Flynn actually said was consistent with Obama’s stated policy.
“ Flynn admitted having contact with the Russian ambassador which was proper and usual. Flynn said he didn’t remember the discussion he had and that makes sense.”
Proper and usual? On vacation in the DR as sanctions are being imposed and Russian spies kicked out of the US and you get not one but several calls with the Russian ambassador same day. Obama warned Trump about hiring Flynn back in November of 2017 for a reason and Trump made him his National security advisor anyway. Kislyak was desperate to get what he could out of the former lobbyist for Turkey and Russia there. Even Chris Christie was against hiring him and claims that was why he was passed over.
Mike Pence on the firing of Flynn “What I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me, and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.”
So Flynn lied about discussing sanctions with Kislyak shortly thereafter. Lies about the work he did as a paid lobbyist for Turkey during the campaign. Mueller recommends against jail time because Flynn provided “substantial assistance” in several unspecified cases on top of the Russia probe, and yet he did nothing wrong? That’s like me claiming there was a gun to Clinton’s head when investigators asked him about the Lewinsky affair because his wife would have found out, and no man wants his wife to know of his affair. The biggest difference is that it wasn’t the subject of national security. Here Flynn’s son was a subject of investigation because Flynn made him the president of his Flynn intel group. He was being paid by Russian Television to travel to Moscow, he like his father, was paid for work on behalf of the Turkish government, and if he committed a crime, like his father, he would be subject to investigation. Once again you’re affording conservatives leeway you would never afford liberals and I hope that you wouldn’t for either
So which is it? Flynn lied about lying to the FBI because he was under duress? Or he lied about his activities as a paid agent for the Turkish government and his contact with Kislyak several times in the same day that sanctions were imposed about said sanctions out of fear? That’s like being an advisor to the mob, and the same day investigators are going after Capone, you get 20 calls from his consigliere, out of the blue. A month later the FBI asks you about it, and you just happen to forget that the call had anything to do with the investigation into Capone. You do the math. If the DOJ is dropping charges because Flynn did nothing wrong, it’s not a technicality. It seems fairly clear that he did so = technicality
Yes, proper and usual. He’s the incoming National Security Adviser.
None of the lot of you seem to have an actual perspective on public policy. Your avocation is to defend whichever shi!!y scam Democratic politicians and lawfare artists are pushing this week. My suggestion would be that you master an actual political discourse or you stop thinking about public life, because absolutely all of you are deadweight when you’re not malignant.
Paying off the Russians for services rendered and then lying about it is not “public policy”.
He and you are both as malignant as he claims. Funny how the moralizing from both sides misses that salient point.
As you carry on with your mutually assured destruction, please speed it up: others in need could use the finite resources both of you lard asses consume
Michael Esposito, “He and you are both as malignant as he claims”
Sir, you are not the first to make that public observation.
Anon you are being libelous again. Flynn was the incomming NSA. What he did has been done on a continuous basis and he did nothing to compromise American interests. I think he was responding hoping that the Russian didn’t escalate the problems.
Keep lying. That is the name of your game.
Paying off the Russians for services rendered and then lying about it is not “public policy”.
_________________________________________
How is convincing the Russians to not retaliate against the US equate to paying them off?
The simple fact is Flynn screwed the Russians. He talked them into not striking back in response to sanctions and then the Trump administration did not lift the sanctions.
book is making stuff up. there were no services rendered that Flynn was aware of , there was no payoff, this is pure dishonest fabrication
It is a proven fact that the Russians interfered in our 2016 election and in favor of Trump. Immediately after Obama announced sanctions for this, Flynn and the Russian ambassador talked privately and agreed those sanctions would be ignored. The next day Putin announced this and Trump praised him. This collusion continues as Trump regularly goes down on Putin in public and still will not take any actions to better secure our future elections against interference.
“t is a proven fact that the Russians interfered in our 2016 election and in favor of Trump.”
Anon has a weird understanding of the word “proven”. It is not proven either way and most likely the Russian effort was more to create disharmony rather than support one cadidate over the other.
However, in the end it was Cinton who dealt with the Russians. “Podesta testimony: Hillary Clinton knew in 2016 about Russia dirt digging on Trump
Former Clinton campaign chairman talks about how DNC, Clinton campaign funded research” The Steele Dossier… When one thinks of collusion one thinks of Hillary Clinton. When one thinks of liars one thinks of Anon.
“Proper and usual?”
Absolutely, informed people recognize this happens whenever administrations change. It’s almost a necessity.
Yes, Obama had reasons to warn Trump because Flynn had the experience in intelligence and was being given a job that would see that the Obama Administration was using the DOJ improperly. That is the best reason for the Obama Administration wanting Flynn gone. He wanted the criminality of his DOJ to go unnoticed. We see that criminality now with the release of the FBI documents that are showing actions of that Administration that no American should condone.
Mike Pence and Trump did not have the information they have today. Had they had it they likely would have acted differently. There is no way of knowing especially since we don’t have all the information. Adam Schiff has been trying to hide it as has the FBI.
“So which is it? Flynn lied about lying to the FBI because he was under duress?”
You can be a wannabe Stalin, Mao or Hitler and use duress to force a person to admit to guilt for something he didn’t do or something they can’t prove. Alternatively one can be an American and not lie to FISA and everyone else. That is your choice.
There is no law against him doing work for the Turkish Government. That is of concern if he were doing something wrong but our government provides aid to countries all over the world so what he did wasn’t illegal or immoral. In fact the work might have been advantageous to the US. You don’t know and I don’t know but for some reason you draw a conclusion that it is bad. That is in general what you write about, unfounded or unproven conclusions.
Flynn said very little to Kyslyak and it wasn’t a memorable conversation as it agreed with Obama policy. Your comparisons between different incidents demonstrates a deep flaw in understanding as to what has occurred.
Without question Flynn is innocent and has been wrongly harmed. I hope he is given the opportunity to sue in court those that cost him so dearly. I also hope that justice will be done and those that engaged in criminality be jailed. That is the American way.
“ Allan says:
Anon you are being libelous again. Flynn”
“ Yes, Obama had reasons to warn Trump because Flynn had the experience in intelligence and was being given a job that would see that the Obama Administration was using the DOJ improperly. ”
Allan, now who is being libelous? You or btb?
You’re claiming the Obama administration wanted to keep Trump from hiring Flynn because Flynn had too much dirt on their misdeeds, ignoring the blatant conflict of interest in hiring someone who’s been a paid advocate for Russia and Turkey (as recently as Election Day) presents. Ignoring the fact that he was conversing with the Russians likely to cut back door deals the same day the US was kicking out their spies. Ignoring the fact the Obama administration had pushed Russia into the deepest corner they’d seen since the end of the Cold War, and with the Trump administration they’ve come to reclaim all of their Soviet glory, whether it’s taking a leadership role in Syria, or kicking out our diplomats as Trump says, and I quote “I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down on payroll, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people, because now we have a smaller payroll.”
You insinuate I’m being Stalinesque and btb is libelous, as you’re entrenching yourself deeper into propaganda only favorable to Russia to defend your position that Trump’s guy, Flynn did nothing and said nothing wrong. You don’t know that, and the fact that he had extensive information to provide Mueller on Russian activities, such that Mueller recommended not jail time suggests he not only did wrong but knew a lot more wrongdoing that could have compromised national security, and Trump the bumbler didn’t care about truly putting America first. The FBI wasn’t careful in their prosecution and the DOJ exploited that to get Flynn off on a technicality but it doesnt make Flynn a hero
We need a Stalin now to set this right. To conduct a leftward purge such like as Stalin did against the Trotskyites.
Anyhow Putin is no Stalin. Under Stalin the USSR grew its population (in spite of the 20 million or so dead during the war) grew its territory and grew its industry. And they got the bomb. And half of Europe.
Under Putin Russia has only consolidated its political regime and sold some oil. Population has declined year over year. The annexation of Crimea is not even vaguely comparable to the conquest of Eastern Europe under the Warsaw pact.
Putin is no Stalin.
But you guys keep on worrying about him, that will let the friend of the Democrat leadership, Comrade Xi, continue his own genuinely Stalinist project.
CK, nothing I have said hasn’t been demonstrated true in the FBI reports that have been released. The unacceptable actions of the FBI recently exposed were during the Obama Administration. Do you think it makes anyone in the Obama Administration or Obama himself pleased that this information is out with more to follow? I didn’t say Flynn had dirt. My claim is that Flynn had experience in intelligence and that experience plus his position could make Flynn notice the improprieties in Obama’s DOJ. You seem to have a tendency of adding your own dialogue to someone else’s statements. Not appropriate.
” likely to cut back door deals”
What back door deals was Flynn going to cut? You don’t know. You are making that up.
” Obama administration had pushed Russia into the deepest corner they’d seen since the end of the Cold War”
The Obama administration pushed the Russians so far the Russians took over the Crimea, invaded Ukraine and built a base in Syria. Somewhere along the line you have to let reality in.
” Flynn did nothing and said nothing wrong. You don’t know that”
I know what the FBI papers said.
“You insinuate I’m being Stalinesque”
You are, because you seem to find duress a proper way of getting a confession for political reasons. The Flynn case was going to be closed because the agents found Flynn did nothing wrong. That is when politics pushed its weight around even more so that ridiculous claims could be made and accepted by Flynn who had already been bankrupted, lost his home and now found that because he wouldn’t confess his son was being threatened. Since you think that this is proper you are indeed Stalinesque.
So far all I see is a bit of a word salad that doesn’t get to the point, make things up, and doesn’t recognize history. The writer seems not to know any of the things released from the hearings that state what Flynn said, admitted the agents found him truthful and wanted to close the case.
Trust me Kurtz, I’m concerned about Xi, and I think it’s a mistake to buy into the idea that admitting Trump made bumbling mistakes with regard to Covid, means you have to ignore the fact that China participated in a cover-up. Whether it came from a lab or the wet market, neither have closed. And China has been putting their tentacles in buying media influence across the globe. Still that doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to Putin. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. And the goal shouldn’t be to be like Stalin and cut our nose to spite our face as we go on hating one another right and left in the US. Instead it would be better to be Kissinger-esque in pitting our enemies, China and Russia alike against each other. When Romney claimed Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat, he was almost laughed out because in 2012 they weren’t anything close to it. Now they have a real shot at it but China is. However we’re getting off topic here
Ck is right. We should pit foes against each other.
China is the ultimate powerful adversary and we have a natural ally right alongside their northern border in Russia
Russian economy and US economy both have common interests in exports of oil
Russia is now up to its eyeballs in its own COVID disaster too
Natural ally among these foes is right now Russia not China. China will own the world in 10 years if they are not stopped now.
This is war, you guys heard it from Navarro yesterday. Pearl Harbor has come and not went yet. It’s happening all around us. this is war. Wake up
I still think it was an accidental lab release btw but the counter-evidence that it was a bioweapon is growing. But keep on blaming Trump. That’s what Comrade Xi wants you to do, no doubt about that
@Allan
“ Do you think it makes anyone in the Obama Administration or Obama himself pleased that this information is out with more to follow?”
The information that the FBI went to great lengths to protect national security from a guy who was a paid advocate for Turkey and Russia? That’s like asking do you think the Bush administration is pleased the info on Prism was leaked by Snowden. Of course not. The man was a threat however and even Bridgegate Christie could see that. This is like claiming Christie did nothing wrong at bridgegate when we have photos of him out on the beach with his family, after he ensured it remained closed to others. The issue is how the evidence was obtained. I make no excuse for that but a technicality is a technicality.
My lunch is ending, I’ll have to deal with your other points some other time perhaps.
“The information that the FBI went to great lengths to protect national security from a guy who was a paid advocate for Turkey and Russia?”
CK, You are making things up again. Tell us what Flynn did that was criminal or was against the interests of the United States. Then provide the proof.
It’s amazing how many times you say things that you know little about and almost never have real proof for your basic claims.
I agree with you. The documents don’t prove that conspiracy by any means.
Why don’t you address his arguments instead of attacking his character. I bet I know why. Lol Transparent as all get up
paid DNC trolls
@exige24, about to get started with work for the day. I’m looking at this on the site and think it was in response to me. The short answer is the post you’re replying to wasn’t meant to go here and was in response to Mr. Kurtz asking me “ why do you guys believe he’s fishing for a judicial appointment?“ When I realized my response went in the wrong place I reposted it but perhaps since I post on the site since I don’t get the comments through email or since I post via cell I don’t have a way to delete the out of place post.
We had a broader discussion on the subject of FBI involvement if you care to read it, but I was asked my thoughts on JT, and misplaced the reply, so my reply appears out of the blue.
I must have missed the reply. The genuine answer of course is that you are saying this to discredit him, because you want to bully him into denouncing Trump. It’s all as simple as that.
The reality of whether Turley hopes for an appointment inside his own breast or not is besides the point. isnt that right?
It’s ‘not unusual’ to blindside a government official by interviewing him under false pretenses?
____________________________________________________
What false pretenses. Flynn was not blindsided.
2 weeks before the jan 23 FBI interview it was reported in the press that Flynn had talked to Kislyak and the the phone call was monitored by FBI counter Intelligence as part of their Russia investigation. On Jan. 12 a WaPo reporter wrote a story that Flynn may have violated the Logan act by talking to Kislyak right after Obama announced the sanctions.
The FBI did not prosecute Flynn. It is shameful that Turley tries to imply the FBI tried to prosecute Flynn. The FBI concluded that Flynn was not being deceptive in the interview. And that should have been the end of it.
But Trump team saw the opportunity to make this political victory and Mueller was hired by the trump team to make it look like Trump was doing mortal combat with the deep state. And of course the outcome was predetermined that trump would win the battle. The phony deal between Mueller and Flynn was just part of this giant deception. Immediately after the Flynn indictment was announced Trump jumped in to make the story sound legitimate because the Flynn plea deal was extremely fishy given that he supposedly lied about what he had said in a conversation that he knew was recorded and he had absolutely no reason lie about.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/05/04/america-doesnt-have-a-justice-system-anymore-n2568070
Here’s a story from what 2011 about Robert Meuller’s FBI using fake plots and entrapments
Plus ca change plus le meme chose!
I bet Peter Sztroke is an “old hand” at tricking innocent people into perjury traps
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots
Mr. K:
“I bet Peter Sztroke is an “old hand” at tricking innocent people into perjury traps.”
****************
He’s in the FBI isn’t he? The feds conviction rate is north of 93%. You don’t get that number unless you pick and choose your battles, game the rules or have the referee in your pocket or at least being a dedicated fan. Sometimes they do all three.
I’m going with “pick their battles”. Of course the last thing lawyers will ever do is try to “game the rules”, so that’s out. “Judges in their pocket” only works for prosecutors in conservative courts.
We know all FBI agents and DOJ lawyers are liberals – so our 2 legal experts Kurtz and mespo say – so the tension for “lock ’em up” conservative judges must be hard for them to deal with.
Btb:
Lawyers bad, eh? Doesn’t that include you kid who allegedly works for DOJ or just all the other ones?
So, “gaming the rules” is something only prosecutors do, but neither you or JT would stoop to those tactics. Is that what you are so clumsily trying to say?
One of my FBI heroes was Bill Roemer, from a family of distinguished patriotic midwestern Democrats including his nephew Tim Roemer you may have heard of once or twice. He was a name among Democrats before he was shuffled offstage by the pro-choice faction.
Bill wrote many books on his adventures chasing organized crime figures around in Chicago for decades as an FBI agent. Buy the one in the link below, it’s excellent
In his book on Tony Accardo, he wrote about how the FBI deployed a clever combined perjury trap – immunity strategem for use on Sam Giancana. Who was a notorious murderer and racketeer.
Flynn is not even close to the likes of Sam Giancana even if you believe he’s a naughty liar.
So the FBI has sunk very low since then it would seem.
https://www.amazon.com/Accardo-Godfather-William-Roemer-Jr/dp/0804114641
I never said that. dont put words in my mouth.
there are some good FBI agents, i said the other day. most are probably just young law school grads who didn’t want to ride a desk and had the grades to get hired.
but along in that throng, there are a number of ethically diseased, amoral, ticket-punching, aspiring Deep State would be string pullers like Comrade Sztroke
Yes Kurtz, and in your mind it’s a conspiracy of the liberals that weaponized the agency, even though the IG found nothing of the sort, no one has been frogged marched out of the Hoover Building as promised innumerable times here and elsewhere, and the agency protected the Trump campaign from public knowledge of it’s investigation before the election while sinking Hillarys – by the way, almost certainly and at leas partly because NY agents tied to Giuliani would leak the Weiner info.
It’s entirely possible that Comey was furious at the Clintons for the way Bill Clinton put Loretta Lynch into a compromised position with his unethical approach to her at the hangar. Which forced Comey to make a call that was hers to make, not his. That’s Bill Clinton’s fault it seems to me.
as for what is in my mind, you can’t see inside it, and I don’t recommend it. It’s a dark place– a map of it would just say “there be monsters here!”
It’s entirely possible that Comey was furious at the Clintons for the way Bill Clinton put Loretta Lynch into a compromised position with his unethical approach to her at the hangar. Which forced Comey to make a call that was hers to make, not his.
________________________________________________
Comey helped Trump defeat Hillary. Period. Full stop.
That is all you can conclude from the events you brought up.
What excuses Comey or you may fabricate for Comey’s illegally helping trump to win notwithstanding.
ps i am hoping the durham frog marches happen closer to the election. the delay of course may be due to what we call “developing the evidence fully”
Yeah, good luck with that Kurtz. Maybe that date with Scarlett Johansen will come though too.
Well yes a few people have been fired (not sure about the frog marching) and there is still plenty of time yet for prosecutions.
And dates with Scarlett
Oh my! You really have to wake up! The perp walks are already happening but the media will not cover them. We usually have about 3000 sealed indictments in the US per year. We now have 169,000 sealed indictments waiting for perp walks. Here is a recent perp walk verifiable at the DOJ website. “Barack Obama’s Homeland Security IG indicted on 16 counts of theft, fraud and more. These are high crimes. You are either listening to the mockingbird media, you are part of the mockingbird media, you are a paid troll or you are still asleep! Wake up man! I walked away and I have never felt better! Semper Fi to the best President ever @realDonaldJTrump.
Trending Today:
Kushner’s Volunteer Force Hindered Pandemic Response: Whistleblower Complaint
Records and emails obtained by The Times — along with interviews with current and former FEMA officials, former task force volunteers and others briefed on the agency’s work — provide the most detailed picture yet of how the Kushner-installed personnel complicated the government response amid a deadly crisis.
The whistle-blower memo, which has been provided to lawmakers on a House oversight committee, was disclosed on Tuesday by The Washington Post.
In April, as the virus spread, the shortages continued and the volunteers struggled, Dr. Hendricks waited, eager to move forward. Some of his messages to the volunteers went unreturned, he said, as he read news reports of the government making other, questionable, deals.
“When I offered them viable leads at viable prices from an approved vendor, they kept passing me down the line and made terrible deals instead,” said Dr. Hendricks, who has since sold supplies to hospitals in Michigan and elsewhere.
Some praised Mr. Kushner for ensuring that other White House officials did not meddle further in the response effort, and for quickly enlisting the Pentagon to link FEMA with the military’s suppliers. At meetings, some said, Mr. Kushner was well prepared with data and determined to act quickly. His deputies, including a Kushner friend and Trump appointee named Adam Boehler, were responsive to questions and concerns.
But other officials described Mr. Kushner’s efforts as the solution to a problem of the president’s own making. Had Mr. Trump acted earlier than mid-March to assign FEMA to lead the federal government’s coronavirus response, the agency’s normal procedures might have been able to cope with the swelling demand. By the time Mr. Trump’s decision came, the Strategic National Stockpile was already running low on critical supplies. FEMA had no choice but to pursue every available lead, officials said, no matter how far-fetched.
And while the volunteers who began arriving around March 20 put eyes on the influx of tips at the agency, the officials did not understand why the White House did not recruit more manpower from the military or other agencies with logistics expertise, as FEMA typically does in a crisis. Two current and a former FEMA official briefed on the agency’s operations said the White House effort led to missed opportunities to procure personal protective gear from legitimate sources.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/jared-kushner-fema-coronavirus.html
…………………………………………………………
The Washington Post broke this story today. The New York Times followed up. Both papers devoted prominent space to it.
totally irrelevant to the essay about Flynn’s entrapment, but Peter is on the job promoting the NYT, up with the sparrows and the other newspapermen. Hey Peter, I’m up early too!
“The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.”
Kurtz, it turns out tomorrow didn’t belong to those singers.
Who wrote the song?
Two Jewish guys who raked in fat royalties for years off of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kander_and_Ebb
Yes, from a work of fiction based on history. You got that, right? They weren’t NAZI sympathizers.
no but they were good songwriters. who can’t like this song?
Duran Duran played it at the opening of their very first concert in 1980
Seth:
Are you paid by the word or the drivel content? Citing these sources is akin to citing Stormfront on the deeds of Rev. King. Might be some truth there but it’s credibility is shattered by its past dealings. Carry on though, we want you to make a living ‘cause nobody posts this much without either a financial incentive or diagnosed condition.
mespo prefers his news from happy talk Fox, where the virus is a hoax.
Btb:
No you’re the hoax; the virus is a hype led by hoaxes like you.
No, you are!
Btb:
I’m there for all the world to see; you’re the clown poster. hiding behind anonymity.
So’s Dennis Rodman and Lindsay Lohan.
Funny you mention this. Some themes are perennial. Here is a quote from a widely circulated diatribe against MLK that has been widely reposted on racist sites like SF and others. I dont quote this to start a conversation about MLK but only why is the FBI still up to smearing people it doesn’t like to this current day? Maybe the author of this article was on to something.
“that the man most responsible for the FBI’s probe of King was Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially “I was one hundred per cent. for King…because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights….” The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King’s Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral ….”
Plus ca change, plus le meme chose! Can we trust the FBI? Then, during the dubious “Operation Patcon” that produced both Ruby Ridge and Waco, or under Mueller “WMDS in IRAQ” or under Comey and his illegal surveillance of a lawful campaign for the Presidency…… or ….. even now?
@Mr Kurtz: The FBI and CIA’s actions during the 60’s and prior were often deplorable. Assassinations within the US, empowering drug cartels abroad and a lack of oversight and accountability. I have no doubt that they played a role in the murders of MLK, JFK and Malcolm X among others. That being said I recall during my own personal research years ago, a statement on the FBI’s research stating something along the lines of “We understand that there are many concerns and conspiracies regarding the FBIs participation in questionable activities. However the FBI has been under complete oversight of a congressionally appointed Inspector General since 1988, making these concerns unfounded.” Or something to that extent.
I don’t know if anyone who visited FBI.gov in the early to mid 2000s remembers reading something like that, but I can assure you I’m not making it up. That’s not to say they are anything close to perfect now or haven’t participated in coverups or the like since the mid 80’s, that’s just to say the 60’s was more akin to the Wild West, and their disclaimer was practically an implicit admission (hence why I believed it was removed or restated). I do believe the missteps in Waco and Ruby Ridge to have been negligent as opposed to the planned conspiracies of the 60’s, however “parallel construction” and illegal surveillance where things are flagged and local law enforcement is given a tip to find an excuse to crackdown on citizens with false positives routinely occurring is a thing. Those privacy concerns leading to SWAT raids, dogs being shot, kids being hit and the routine violation of rights of all citizens and minorities in particular without much care and concern are among the main reasons I began following Turley years ago. I don’t care much for what looks like his recent appeal for a judicial appointment (with a litany of false equivalences used to show every president since George Washington could have been impeached if Dems dare proceed with the Nixon standard) but I can’t say he would be a bad choice. Pre Trump he was fair & impartial
why do you guys believe he’s fishing for a judicial appointment? any facts to prove that or do you simply wish to discredit the professor?
seems like this is pure speculation on your part. but you and natacha are repeating it regularly now. if you think turley is a bad guy then you could always find a place more congenial to your own preferences
@Mr Kurtz: This post should have gone here. I guess I can’t delete the misplaced one but this was my response-
I’ve been reading Turley’s posts from the Bush era to now. With Obama and Bush he was very critical. He rarely appeared partisan but was a concerned American citizen and constitutional lawyer. With Trump something changed and it was apparent. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for at least a year, sure that his more defensive posts were a result of Conway being one of his prized students, and he is always protective of his students. However the most often cited attorney by Trump supporters has changed his typical routine. He’s gone from hyper critical to protective, with only the most outlandish actions resulting in tepid criticism. If I had to come to a rationale why…Turley is an obsessive on a variety of issues. He sets about to find something or prove something and will spend any length of time to get to the bottom of it. I believe he would make an excellent judicial appointment as far as strict fundamentalists of the constitution go, but with Trump his obsessive goal has become to prove he’s no worse than every other president we’ve had (and perhaps it began to help defend his former student who was under attack). At some point he must have realized he was wrong as even he has had to shake his head in dismay as Trump hurts his own case, but as a rational being Turley could continue to justify his stubborn position because it not only results in increased attention, but is likely his best shot for an SC nomination, so why suddenly pivot like Drudge or other rational fundamentalists, when he could instead continue to act as if advocating for a client, and reap the benefits?
Can I spend hours reviewing all of his posts from 2007 to now to show how much he’s changed, probably but 1) I don’t have time, 2) that alone would not prove the rationale. I like Turley and think he’s a decent and necessary force. That doesn’t mean he’s infallible. He’s human and like all humans he’s capable of moral failings even if they’re subconscious or ones he’s in denial of. Most in his position, with his knowledge and leanings would do the same. I still hope I’m wrong and that the reason for his change, but if I’ve reached the conclusion that he has changed and I view it objectively I have to conclude that the explanation offered by natacha, btb, etc is the most likely one. Another explanation could exist such as him going against the grain and preferring playing devils advocate, however he didn’t do that during the Bush administration when the media wasn’t particularly favorable of Bush. In Turley’s words, Res Ipsa Loquitor. As far as why not follow someone else; why? As I noted, Turley is human and capable of moral failings. So is every other blogger. When it comes to media,
I believe HuffPost and MSNBC have been consistent in their leanings CNN has been the opposite of Turley. Skewing left because of a personal vendetta as Trump antagonizes them. At least with Turley I remain confident that once his best window for Judicial appointment dissipates post Trump, he’ll return to his usual unbiased self, an advocate for the people as opposed to an administration. Plus it allows for interesting discussion and counterpoints, as opposed to preaching to the choir, when time allows for it.
All of what you said CK proves at best that Turley favors Trump
not one word of it proves that he “wants a judicial appointment”
Turley is as free to like Trump as you are to dislike him.
I doubt he likes him but he’s being fair in his own mind is my best guess.
The anti Trump faction is not troubled by things like fairness, dated concepts from centuries past
Postmodernism rejects fairness as a fiction that impedes power. That’s the Democrat mindset. Very powerful and not very fair.
“why do you guys believe he’s fishing for a judicial appointment?”
Kurtz, you are right on target. His blog knocks him off any list. Too much information that irritates both sides. Turley is center left so he will not be nominated by Republicans or Trump. Turley has mostly stood his ground on freedom of speech. The left has moved towards restricting freedom of speech so Turley will not be nominated by Democrats.
Agreed. Turley isn’t Laurence Tribe ca. 1985. He isn’t hustling for anything, except in the imagination of fools. Were he nominated for a judicial position, it would (one might wager) be in a situation of the sort that prevailed in 1987-91, when an effective deadlock prevailed between the President and Congress.
Turley was critical of Obama. I believe his criticisms were often warranted. He was also critical of Bush. With Trump he is far less critical. He was also the sole witness at the House Judiciary Committee gearing for a reason. You’d be hard pressed to find a Supreme Court qualified judge that hasn’t had something negative to say about Trump’s actions, and that includes Garland and Kavanaugh. While Turley might not be his best friend like say Kim Jong, I’m sure he’s on Trump’s short list if an opening appears.
He’s one of the few (if not the only) attorneys Trump has quoted repeatedly and tweeted about in a positive light. Gorsuch’s position on Roe v Wade would have been more likely knock him off any list than Turley’s tepid criticisms of Trump’s ridiculous actions, in light of his full throated and occasionally convincing defenses, that were strong enough to coerce the Dems into adjust strategy on impeachment and leave out the Muelller report (minus a couple vague references [i personally believe they erred in leaving McGahn out in particular but save that for another time]). If you want a Justice capable of swaying judicial opinion to the right beyond just a body count, Turley would be an excellent conservative leanings choice.
“He was also the sole witness at the House Judiciary Committee gearing for a reason.
Turley is an expert on the subject and his views are based on the Constitution.
“I’m sure he’s on Trump’s short list if an opening appears.“
Trump’s list of potential appointees has been published. Turley isn’t on it and won’t be.
“He’s one of the few (if not the only) attorneys Trump has quoted repeatedly and tweeted about in a positive light.”
In part because Turley is an admitted center left individual.
“Turley would be an excellent conservative leanings choice.”
That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.
@Allan “ Trump’s list of potential appointees has been published. Turley isn’t on it and won’t be.”
When? Back in 2016? I’m talking about post impeachment hearings. And it wouldn’t be the first time Turley’s been floated. Gary Johnson had Turley on his shortlist of 2 nominees. And who did Turley vote for? He’s only said it wasn’t Trump, but given he’s views which are closer to right of center or libertarian if I had to put money on it, I’d say Johnson, not HRC.
“In part because Turley is an admitted center left individual.”
Did he ever state this explicitly? He testified favorably on Clinton’s impeachment and eviscerated the Obama Administration’s actions on a consistent basis so I find that hard to believe. He was critical of Bush as well, yes, but I’ve seen no indication he’s left leaning, particularly not now, even if he, like most Independents, voted for Obama in 2008
“ “ Turley would be an excellent conservative leaning choice.”
That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.”
I’m not far left. Andrew Yang is far left. Cortez and Bernie as well. In Europe I’d fall squarely into moderate. In the US, I’m closer to moderate left. I’m pro public option, not medicare for all, I don’t think free college is realistic in the US and there is no way I would label myself a socialist even if I think certain policies of Sanders like campaign finance reform made sense, and that he was treated unfairly by the DNC, during the 2016 election.
Trump has published the list more than just in 2016 mostly adding to the list. Turley’s name wasn’t on the list. Trump need not publish a list every week. Trump is not Gary Johnson. Why you brought Johnson’s name up eludes me.
Your exact statement was: “I’m sure he’s on Trump’s short list if an opening appears.“
I guess what you are sure of is not true.
—-
Did he ever state this explicitly?
Yes.
—-
“I’m not far left.”
That is a matter of definition. Turley is NOT to the right of center. I didn’t even say you were far left. You are getting too many things wrong. What I said was “That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.”
@Alllan “Get some sleep and come back on the weekend rested.”
—
Thanks for the consideration, though I can’t help but think back to all those television and movie scenes where one character walks away as the other yells “yeah, you better run” or something to that extent.
—
“The way you use quotes is abominable making it difficult to follow.”
—
First time I’ve heard that word used without connection to a yeti in a long time. I’d have opted for atrocious but dashes ‘—‘ have been added to this reply for your viewing pleasure.
—
“You seem to think that Trump’s short list has Turley’s name on it and if an opening appears Turley’s name would magically appear on the list.”
—
The discussion is about whether Turley has been going soft on the Trump admin in order to gun for a judicial appointment. If he’d been on the list for years, there’d be little need to advocate as hard for Trump as he has in recent months, in comparison to his typical baseline with past presidents. Your confusion seems to stem from your subjective decision of when to take people literally. You make several exaggerated statements including claiming Trump doesn’t have to update a list every week, when he hasn’t updated it in 2 years. You give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he makes explicit incorrect statements that are open to limited interpretation. Me on the other hand you’ll take completely literal for using the present tense in making an if statement. The logical thing to do would be to understand my meaning that, if an opening appears, Trump will re-evaluate his list and likely make additions if not subtractions as he did the last time an opening appeared, and it is highly probable Turley would make said list this time given his memorable defense of Trump in December.
This is not surprising coming from someone who repeatedly labeled me disingenuous, all the while repeatedly speculating as to my reason for discontinuing discussion, then acting annoyed as I restarted it.
—
“Obviously you do not know the ideologies of the parties involved and you don’t recognize how Trump created his list.”
—
Oh wise expert, please tell us how you came to the determination that Turley and possibly all of former republican Gary Johnson’s Supreme Court picks are left of center. Providing a quote would be helpful, though not if it includes “voted for Obama in 08” or something we’ve already acknowledged. Please enlighten us as to how Trump created his list, because to us mere mortals it appears he must have sent a bill to Hogwartz
“Your confusion seems to stem from your subjective decision of when to take people literally.”
CK, between you not wanting to be taken literally and your Gish Gallop few will be able to follow much of what you say. That is not a problem. Left of center Turley bright as he is will not be appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court. Gary Johnson who will not be appointing anyone has the comfort of saying whatever he wants.
You have your characterization of how I labelled your continuous statements that you don’t have time and have to work. I labelled that type of continuous rhetoric as disingenuous. It seems to have been spot on and taken by you as a mortal blow. No, I was not annoyed but I do find it a bit crazy that one with so little time can write so many words while saying so little.
Still not one word which indicates that Turley is fishing for an appointment.
He may adore Trump for all we know, secretly, but you have not shown at all any evidence whatsoever he seeks an appintment .
And yet this accusation of bias is leveled against Turley every day by the Dem leadership cheerleaders here.
@Allan
“ Turley’s name wasn’t on the list. Trump need not publish a list every week.”
Trump last posted an updated the list in 2018, before Kavanaugh was nominated.
“ Your exact statement was: “I’m sure he’s on Trump’s short list if an opening appears.“
I guess what you are sure of is not true.”
JT’s high profile defense of Trump was in December. The post clearly stated “if an opening appears”. You seem to think sharing that Trump didn’t include Turley the last time a list was made is some kind of revelation.
“ Did he ever state this explicitly?
Yes.”
This is the part where you say something useful and actually provide the explicit quote.
“That is a matter of definition. Turley is NOT to the right of center. I didn’t even say you were far left. You are getting too many things wrong. What I said was “That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.””
And this is the part where you look in the dictionary for the word implicit. No one is “getting too many things wrong”. I read what you said and what you were implying was clear. As to why Gary Johnson was brought up, that much should have been clear to you at this point in the discussion. It was a clear segue into Turley’s voting record and political leanings. The former republican would have been unlikely to nominate a candidate who was truly left of center. His list was made almost entirely of influential voices in the GOP and libertarian movements (including only 2 judges, both a W. Bush and a Reagan appointee). Or did you really think I had confused Trump with Gary Johnson?
The last time we spoke you seemed annoyed as you claimed you understood something the 1st, 2nd and 3rd time I said it, despite speculating on the subject in post after post as if the opposite were true. I’m not sure what to believe at this point when it comes to your ability to read between the lines but I don’t have time for games. Too many things are eluding you as you ignore your own hypocrisy
You said: “I’m sure he’s on Trump’s short list if an opening appears.“
You seem to think that Trump’s short list has Turley’s name on it and if an opening appears Turley’s name would magically appear on the list. Obviously you do not know the ideologies of the parties involved and you don’t recognize how Trump created his list.
The way you use quotes is abominable making it difficult to follow. Additionally it’s a weekday and you appear tired so I think that explains why much of what you wrote didn’t make much sense.
Get some sleep and come back on the weekend rested.
Turley’s CV makes him totally unsuitable for judicial appointment. Turley is a lawyer not a judge. This is obvious to lawyers. He is the kind of real lawyer who is also a real professor. A rare bird and the reason I started posting here a few scant years ago. He has my admiration, as a lawyer
Judges are usually lawyers who were not that great at practicing law, which is why they took the robes.
Turley is above them.
@allan “ CK, between you not wanting to be taken literally and your Gish Gallop few will be able to follow much of what you say.”
—-
As usual you are a master of twisting others meaning when it suits you. You’re not the first person I’ve had a discussion with online, however you’re the first that have required so much attention to get so little through.
. Trump can say 1+1=3 and you’ll say, well he meant 2. I can say 99×5 is 500. You’ll note I have no idea what I’m talking about because clearly it is 495. I’ll explain the logic of approximation. You’ll note clearly I didn’t say that. I’ll explain how ridiculous you’re being and you’ll accuse me of a gish galllop for spending an exhaustive amount of time trying to get you to realize your own hypocrisy. It’s not a matter of me not wanting to be taken literally. It’s a matter of you choosing to have the strictest possible interpretation of my statements when it’s unreasonable to do so. You bringing up the fact that Turley didn’t make Trump’s list in 2018 as proof he would not when we’re talking about his statements in the past half year in particular was unreasonable.
—
“ Left of center Turley bright as he is will not be appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court.”
—
Still waiting on that quote. You know the one where you prove you’re not full of it.
—
“ I labelled that type of continuous rhetoric as disingenuous. It seems to have been spot on and taken by you as a mortal blow.”
—
You might want to look up the definition of disingenuous. Speculating as to how there may be so many reasons why someone is responding haphazardly, including not wanting to appear like they’re backing away from an argument, then complaining that you understood it the first 3 times they claimed they were walking away because they don’t have time would be disingenuous on your part. Characterizing someone’s side point as the focus of their counter argument when you’re clearly aware of their point for point counter would be disingenuous on your part. Claiming Turley is left of center, answering yes when asked if he said it, then failing to provide any evidence when asked repeatedly would be disingenuous on your part.
—
“ No, I was not annoyed but I do find it a bit crazy that one with so little time can write so many words while saying so little.”
—
It takes quite a lot to prove a little when someone has an exhausting habit of twisting others words and meaning and hypocritically complains of Democrats supporting a team and not policy, all the while defending statements he would have used to demand a mental evaluation if made by a dem president
“As usual you are a master of twisting others meaning when it suits you. ”
Thanks for the compliment but your words are your downfall. Too many.
“Trump can say 1+1=3 ”
You rely too much on what you think makes sense.
“Still waiting on that quote”
Which “that” are you referring to? You should learn to use more nouns so you don’t have to rely on the imprecise pronoun.
“You might want to look up the definition of disingenuous. ”
The dictionary confirms my use of the word.
“It takes quite a lot to prove a little”
A little can prove a lot. It’s much better that way. You seem to get lost in your voluminous use of words.
@allan “You rely too much on what you think makes sense.”
—
Stated in response to an example I presented that was so simple a child would understand it. I toned down the snark so as not to offend your sensitivities but clearly you understood the example. Perhaps you have a problem accepting your own hypocrisy.
—
“Which “that” are you referring to? You should learn to use more nouns so you don’t have to rely on the imprecise pronoun.”
—
English may be an imprecise language, however in the context of my quote I afforded your memory nominal credit where perhaps I should not have. Allow me to jog it:
““ Did he ever state this explicitly?
Yes.”
This is the part where you say something useful and actually provide the explicit quote.”
—
“The dictionary confirms my use of the word.”
—
I have no doubt. It seems lost on you that it also confirms your hypocrisy, hence the purpose of my examples provided thereafter.
—
“A little can prove a lot. It’s much better that way. You seem to get lost in your voluminous use of words.”
—
Intentionally removing the context of ones quote to prove a point yet again. Allow me to summarize for you. A little can prove a lot to a reasonable person. It takes a lot to prove a little to an unreasonable person. If your hypocrisy hasn’t begun to sink in yet, someone far more “voluminous” than me, with more time available will have to help you
“Stated in response to an example I presented that was so simple a child would understand it.”
CK, Maybe a child would, but that is because you are talking like a child. Gibberish, no supporting fact, whiny. I suppose a child of 6 could think you a genius,
“Stated in response to an example I presented that was so simple a child would understand it.”
It becomes more imprecise when you use pronouns instead of nouns and when you provide childish gimmicks instead of fact.
“it also confirms your hypocrisy”
Hypocrisy can be demonstrated with two quotes that conflict with one another and a short expalnation. That package is what you lack.
“Intentionally removing the context of ones quote to prove a point yet again.”
You have to learn that the use of simple phrases absent fact end up stabbing you in the back and right now you are a bloody mess,
@allan “CK, Maybe a child would, but that is because you are talking like a child. Gibberish, no supporting fact, whiny. I suppose a child of 6 could think you a genius,”
—
Whiny? Coming from the guy who routinely insults liberals on the forum, then whines of my impoliteness previously. As I stated I toned down the snark on my original post because I realize you’re sensitive. Still the fact that you fail to comprehend something a child would clearly grasp says more about your lack of understanding than anything else
—
“It becomes more imprecise when you use pronouns instead of nouns and when you provide childish gimmicks instead of fact.”
—
The irony in your words is astounding. I’ll present yet again, Exhibit A: “ That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.” Where is the fact in your statements? I’ve only been asking for it for the last 4 days now.
—
“Hypocrisy can be demonstrated with two quotes that conflict with one another and a short expalnation. That package is what you lack.”
—
Oh Allan… why implicitly demand I go back to the old thread and pull the quotes I referred to when providing examples of you being a disingenuous hypocrite when you could just save everyone the trouble and admit that you made such statements? Thus far you have yet to deny it, though given your past precedent I’m sure if I don’t explicitly remind you here to what I’m referring you’ll feign ignorance in your typical disingenuous manner: “ Speculating as to how there may be so many reasons why someone is responding haphazardly, including not wanting to appear like they’re backing away from an argument, then complaining that you understood it the first 3 times they claimed they were walking away because they don’t have time would be disingenuous on your part. Characterizing someone’s side-point as the focus of their counter argument when you’re clearly aware of their point for point counter would be disingenuous on your part. Claiming Turley is left of center, answering yes when asked if he said it, then failing to provide any evidence when asked repeatedly would be disingenuous on your part.”
You label me whiny and disingenuous while coming here to complain yet again and addressing none of this. Allan the Hypocrite…
—
“You have to learn that the use of simple phrases absent fact end up stabbing you in the back and right now you are a bloody mess,”
—
Like you repeatedly claiming Turley is left of center while providing no evidence? Do you own a mirror Allan? Please do yourself a favor and right the word HYPOCRITE in Permanent Marker. It will help your self improvement efforts, and I suppose in your mind, keep your self inflicted bloodstains from clogging the washer and dryer. Can you see the bloodstains of your hypocrisy from the front of your mirror as well? If you make yet another hypocritical reply lacking substance or evidence I will have to leave you there to look for it. You can hold on to that “victory” you seem to desperately seek: The last word.
“whines of my impoliteness previously.”
I don’t whine, I leave that to you.
“Where is the fact in your statements?”
,,,And I have provided the answer numerous times. Turley admits verbally and in writing that he is not on the left side of the line. I think he even stated that on this blog.
“why implicitly demand I go back to the old thread and pull the quotes”
I don’t demand that at all. However, when you make such an accusation be prepared to back it up. Try formulating your attacks where you have tangible proof and don’t prove yourself right with childish equations 1+1=3
“Please do yourself a favor and right the word HYPOCRITE in Permanent Marker”
When you point out an act of hypocrisy I will explain what was said and if it was hypocritical I will explain why. Unfortunately you are short on fact but very long on words.
Are you paid by the word or the drivel content?
I stated months ago he is paid by the character. Mo money
Two sources I never read nor believe! New York Times and Washington Post! I want my country back so stop with your BS stories and false facts. Stop spending our money on fairy tales!
No, Michael Flynn Was ‘Not’ Entrapped
It’s almost impossible for an interview like this to amount to a “set up,” because Flynn was entirely in control of his own fate. Any witness interviewed by the FBI has essentially three choices: tell the truth, lie or assert the right to remain silent. The FBI had no way of knowing which option Flynn would choose when he walked into the interview. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth, or tell the agents he wasn’t comfortable talking to them. He chose instead to lie.
This could not constitute Flynn being “framed.” That suggests he was accused of a crime he did not commit. But no one really denies that Flynn lied to the agents during the interview — as Flynn himself has admitted repeatedly in open court. You can’t frame the guilty.
Nor is there any basis for a claim that Flynn was “entrapped”. Entrapment requires evidence that the government so pressured the defendant that his will was overborne and he committed a crime he was not otherwise predisposed to commit. Flynn was a military leader who rose to the rank of lieutenant general, led troops in combat and became national security adviser. The idea that he was so intimidated by a couple of FBI agents during a consensual interview that he simply had no choice but to lie is laughable.
Edited from: “No, Michael Flynn Wasn’t Set Up”
The Washington Post, 4/30/20
“Edited from: “No, Michael Flynn Wasn’t Set Up””
Unfortunately for the truthfulness of the Washington Post the FBI handwritten reports show that he was.
😂😂😂😂😂
You have really swallowed a blue pill, drank the blue Kool-Aid and will be very sad very soon. Tik Tok!
Flynn was charged with supposedly lying about legal activity. And it was legal activity that occurred after the elections. And it was legal activity that occurred after the elections and for which the F.B.I. already had the tapes.
The vacuousness of this indictment was obvious to anyone who read it. Ethical and legal questions simply oozed out of it.
The only difference I have with Turley is that it hasn’t changed my view of the F.B.I. They still have a file on Elvis you know. Your tax dollars in action.
The vacuousness of this indictment was obvious to anyone who read it. Ethical and legal questions simply oozed out of it.
_____________________________________________
Well of course it was. But how does the FBI get the blame for this?
Flynn voluntarily agreed to talk to the FBI informally. It was public knowledge that Flynn had talked to Kislyak and that the conversation was recorded by the FBI. There had been speculation in the press that Flynn may have violated the Logan act.
Flynn was obviously well prepared for the interview. Anybody who believed that Flynn would lie under those circumstances has to be an idiot because he had no reason to lie.
The FBI had absolutely nothing to do with Flynn’s decision to plead guilty. That was entirely out of their hands. After appointing Mueller, Rosenstein had given the acting director of the FBI strict orders to to turn everything over to the Mueller team and to stay clear of the Russia investigation. So how does the FBI get the blame for this?
It was the F.B.I. who questioned Flynn about legal activity occurring after the elections for which the F.B.I. already had the tapes. Flynn was indicted based on an F.B.I. interview. That questioning was as vacuous as the indictment.
It was the F.B.I. who questioned Flynn about legal activity occurring after the elections for which the F.B.I. already had the tapes.
____________________________________________________
Yes and this was all known to Flynn. The news media had reported that the conversation was monitored as part of the Russia investigation. Flynn was also well prepared on the question of the Logan act since that question had been raised by the news media
The Kislyak phone call and sanctions was not the only thing that the FBI discussed with Flynn
___________________________________________________
Flynn was indicted based on an F.B.I. interview.
___________________________________________________
Flynn was indicted because Flynn and Trump and Mueller and Comey all pretended that Flynn had lied at that interview. The evidence indicates the FBI investigators did not think Flynn lied. The FBI investigators had nothing to do with the decision to strike a plea deal.
FBI Handling Of Flynn Was ‘Not’ Unusual
In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.
Mr. Flynn dissembled about the call, and his lies were made public, exposing him to potential blackmail by Russia. He then lied to the F.B.I. about it, was indicted and ultimately entered a guilty plea in December 2017 for those false statements. He is now seeking to withdraw that plea, resulting in the release of this new material.
Three of the pages of new material released this week show the F.B.I. discussing at what time in their conversation with Mr. Flynn they should warn him that lying is a crime. They are balancing his rights with the need to learn the truth and assessing how to do so without rattling him. Far from entrapment, that is standard operating procedure.
The fourth page of the documents consists of notes debating precisely the issues that Mr. Trump accuses the F.B.I. of barreling past. The notes include the question of “What’s our goal” and query whether it is “Truth/admission or get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
Given the gravity of the situation, it would have been malpractice not to at least ask those questions as they prepared. The F.B.I. agents were confronted with a senior national security official who had already had a conversation with Russia that raised serious legal issues and had already lied about it. The notes are examining the two basic options in the situation: Mr. Flynn can tell the truth or lie, with consequences flowing accordingly.
When the F.B.I. has serious evidence of wrongdoing, it is normal to put targets in this bind. Law enforcement seldom puts all its cards on the table when questioning a suspect. This is not “entrapment,” where one is induced to commit a crime. Rather, the F.B.I. was trying to elicit the truth of whether a crime had already been committed. The alternative would be to lay out all the evidence (which the notes also discuss). But that would have put accountability and our national security at risk by possibly discouraging Mr. Flynn from talking.
Edited from: “Why Trump Is Obsessed With The Michael Flynn Case”
The New York Times, 5/1/20
…………………………………………………………….
This Opinion Piece opened with speculation that the sudden focus on Flynn is a means of distraction to cover for Trump’s handling of the pandemic.
Really? It’s ‘not unusual’ to blindside a government official by interviewing him under false pretenses? Good to know.
Absurd, the interests of investigators is never the same as the defendant’s. And when Obama warned Trump about Flynn there was, no doubt, a reason. So Trump was warned 2 months early on Flynn.
Now you can go round and round arguing that Obama was only a partisan. But Trump was also warned by Chris Christie. So I dont think Michael Flynn deserved special treatment.
Flynn, in fact, probably knew early on that his NSA job would be brief. He had already opened himself to legal scrutiny.
Seth:
“Absurd, the interests of investigators is never the same as the defendant’s“
******************
When you’re innocent they are — assuming good faith of the “investigators.” You oughta work for the FBI since your statement betrays the assumptions you made without any proof, too.
By the way, your categorical nonsense is beginning to sound like btb’s flights of fancy.
TIA:
Well, Seth is a big Billy Joel fan and takes his music to heart.
No actually the deceptive, provocative entrapment of Flynn by the unethical Sztroke was a story that was a long time overdue to be told regardless of the pandemic.
Note To Self:
– Sue China Into Insolvency
– Throw Obama Coup Co-conspirators In Prison
“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.”
Your goat king suggested this. Try it out. It may just fix your mental problems.
This is now standard protocol in a number of Top 50 Hospitals. Maybe the Goat king knew something you did not. Who is the goat now?
Dr. Paul:
Hutom makes his online career by being perennially wrong. He’s on a roll here, so just sit back and enjoy the utter ignorance punctuated with supreme confidence. He’s the Marx Brothers!
Thanks for reading.
— Take my meds
— Give up posting
FIFY, your welcome.
Thanks for reading…again!
OT: “CIA Watchdog Sitting on Secret House Report Allegedly Critical of Brennan’s Role in Russian Meddling Assessment
BY IVAN PENTCHOUKOV AND JAN JEKIELEK May 4, 2020 Updated: May 5, 2020 Print
The CIA Inspector General has taken more than a year to clear the release of a House Intelligence Committee report which contradicts the key conclusion of the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to the former chief of staff of the National Security Council.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), prepared at the behest of President Barack Obama, claimed that Russia interfered in the presidential election in order to help candidate Donald Trump. The House Intelligence Committee’s public report (pdf) on Russia had already challenged the analytic tradecraft behind this central claim and suggested that the process of arriving at the assessment was not free of political interference.
A separate, classified report holed up at the office of the CIA Inspector General (IG) sheds damning light on the role then-CIA Director John Brennan played in the preparation of the report, former National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz learned from House Intelligence Committee staff. A source familiar with the report’s fate would not deny that the report went to the office of the CIA IG.
The report states that Brennan overruled agency analysts who wanted to include strong intelligence in the assessment to show that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted Hillary Clinton to win the election, Fleitz says, citing conversations with House Intelligence Committee staffers. Brennan had also rejected analysts who wanted to strike weak intelligence from the report which suggested that Russia favored Trump, Fleitz said.
“So Brennan actually slanted this analysis, choosing anti-Trump intelligence and excluding anti-Clinton intelligence,” Fleitz told The Epoch Times.”
continued: https://www.theepochtimes.com/cia-watchdog-sitting-on-secret-house-report-allegedly-critical-of-brennans-role-in-russian-meddling-assessment_3337863.html
Alan – I think you ask me the other day what my philosophy was on the elimination of property tax.
I am thinking Henry George, and the Land Value Tax instead of Property Tax.
It is time we start implementation of the Georgist policy. 🙌🤝
WW33, I still don’t know your philosophy and what your personal principles are based on your statement below even though I understand the different forms of taxation.
“Allan – private property. You do not even own your property, real property, that is, if you don’t pay your property tax, even if retired and/or not bringing in income. Its a system of baloney and cheese.”
Allan – Alright, I will try again.
If you do not pay your property tax, then the taxing authority could sell your home through a tax sale, via the foreclosure process to satisfy the tax debt.
Depends where you live…in CA, you can be 5 years delinquent before the process begins.
I am not talking about tax rates, but tax appraisal and the tax assessor who determines what the value of the property is, how much it is worth.
If the tax rate x tax appraisal = property tax.
These property tax go to the local county for the desired needs of the people who live there, i.e., K-12, to name one area the funds go. I am okay with supporting education. 👍
The property tax goes up with increased appraisals, in a good real estate market, and so the local county budget goes up.
And then, not saying all, but a lot of local govt are forced every year to spend the whole budget instead of saving some of that money for next year. A reduction in budget means the county doesn’t need as much. Thus, new initiatives, more budgets, more spending.
There is a joke about govt budgets still going up, up, up….even though there is a recession and everyone is going down, down, down.
Long story, short…your appraisal on your property stays high, they leave the tax rate stagnant, all the while the economy and the actual of the real estate is lower.
Everyone should go fight their tax appraisal on their home, 1x per year, or however, your county does it.
The whole neighborhood should pull their appraisal value down if being overcharged for some superfluous local budget.
And I get a little passionate about this… The govt “use it all, or get less next year,” is wrong.
I say we abolish property tax and move into a Georgist “Land Value Tax,” for the greater good.
No retiree with or without an exemption should lose a home due to an increase in property tax. Or those on a fixed income…all because a budget is ballooning.
WW33, I still don’t know what your principles are or what you actually want. Are you completely against property taxes or are you against property taxes that rise with the value of the property? Are you against property taxes on the improvement value of the property?
Understand I have my gripes regarding property taxes and other taxes but some sort of taxation is necessary. Of course government agencies should be keeping their expenditures to a minimum.
I assume the appraised value of a property is an approximation of what the property would sell for multiplied or otherwise changed by some fudge factors.
It seems that you are most angered if taxes based on property value rise. Should someone who has been living on a property initially worth $100,000 that increases in value to $5,000,000 pay the same amount as the family that recently buys a house for $100,000?
I understand your sentiments to fight new appraisals that cause the house’s value to go up but the question is should the taxes go up with a rise in real value?
WW33 – in AZ you can buy the tax liens and after 3 years foreclose on them. The rate of interest was about 10% or something. It was worth buying them.
😲😱
Flynn’s Distinguished Military Career Faltered Around 2012
In 2012, Flynn became director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in charge of all military attachés and defense-intelligence collection around the world. He ran into serious trouble almost immediately. I’ve spoken with some two dozen former colleagues who were close to Flynn then, members of the D.I.A. and the military, and some who worked with him in civilian roles. They all like Flynn personally. But they described how he lurched from one priority to another and had trouble building a loyal team. “He made a lot of changes,” one close observer of Flynn’s time at the D.I.A. told me. “Not in a strategic way—A to Z—but back and forth.”
Flynn also began to seek the Washington spotlight. But, without loyal junior officers at his side to vet his facts, he found even more trouble. His subordinates started a list of what they called “Flynn facts,” things he would say that weren’t true, like when he asserted that three-quarters of all new cell phones were bought by Africans or, later, that Iran had killed more Americans than Al Qaeda. In private, his staff tried to dissuade him from repeating these lines.
Flynn’s temper also flared. He berated people in front of colleagues. Soon, according to former associates, a parallel power structure developed within the D.I.A. to fence him in, and to keep the nearly seventeen-thousand-person agency working. “He created massive antibodies in the building,” the former colleague said.
Flynn had been on the job just eighteen months when James Clapper told him he had to go. Clapper said that he could stay for another nine months, until his successor was vetted and confirmed, according to two people familiar with their conversation. Flynn was livid.
Edited From: “The Disruptive Career Of Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser”
The New Yorker, 11/23/20
……………………………………………………………..
This piece was written before Trump took office. Yet it demonstrates that Flynn was already a controversial figure. Notice that passage about “Flynn Facts”, a term subordinates used to describe false assertions that Flynn had gotten in the habit of uttering. Those “Flynn Facts” may have previewed the trouble Flynn would have the FBI.
CORRECTION:
That New Yorker article was written 11/23/16
IOW, he irritated Obama, ergo his career ‘faltered’. Thanks, NPC.
Enough already!
There is far too much deliberation and adjudication. Decisions must be no longer than the law itself. Justice is not justice if it is not swift justice. The co-conspirators in the coup d’etat against and assassination of Lincoln were hung by the neck until dead within three months. Until recent centuries, the British sentence for the high treason of challenging the authroity of the [duly elected President] was swift and sure Drawing and Quartering.
Obama, Obama “holdovers,” the 7th Floor, Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller’s Gestapo and the various and sundry “Intel” soldiers are all criminals as guilty as the perpetrators of the Lincoln execution and certainly deserving of the olde, unfortunatly archaic, British penalty. Attorney General William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr, is shoving John Durham down the same path-to-nowhere as John Huber, who vanished in a silent “poof.” America and Americans know the truth. Americans know that the Deep Deep State is firmly in control. It is long past time for the Second American Revolution to throw off the tyranny and dictatorship without representation, the yoke of the Deep Deep State.
Is there a George Washington in the house?
___________________________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour, Lisa Page
_________________________________
“POTUS (Obama) wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour, Peter Strzok
_________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates,
Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner,
Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler,
Schiff, Pelosi, Obama, James E. Boasberg et al.
Tell me why no one is going to jail for crimes committed?
“40 years ago, Church Committee investigated Americans spying on Americans”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/05/06/40-years-ago-church-committee-investigated-americans-spying-on-americans/
45 years, now. Did anyone go to jail?
Flynn Violated Emoluments Clause And Withheld Information When Renewing Security Clearance
On December 10, 2015, Flynn attended a gala dinner in Moscow in honor of RT (formerly “Russia Today”), a Russian government-owned English-language media outlet, on which he made semi-regular appearances as an analyst after he retired from U.S. government service.
Flynn sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at the dinner, leading journalist Michael Crowley of Politico to report that “at a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putin’s table startled” U.S. officials. As part of the festivities, Flynn gave a talk on world affairs for which he was paid at least $45,000. Flynn defended the RT payment in an interview with Michael Isikoff.
On February 1, 2017, the ranking Democratic members on six House committees sent a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, requesting a Department of Defense investigation into Flynn’s connection to RT. The legislators expressed concern that Flynn had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution by accepting money from RT.
A 2017 report by the United States Intelligence Community characterized RT as “The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet” and said that RT America is set up as an autonomous nonprofit organization “to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act”.
As a retired military intelligence officer, Flynn was required to obtain prior permission from the Defense Department and the State Department before receiving any money from foreign governments. Flynn apparently did not seek that approval before the RT speech, and he did not report the payment when he applied for renewal of his security clearance two months later. Glenn A. Fine, the acting Defense Department Inspector General, has confirmed he is investigating Flynn.
Edited From: “Michael Flynn”, Wikipedia
……………………………………………………………..
Here again we see that Flynn kind of has this habit of ‘forgetting’ to follow proper procedures. No wonder the FBI perceived Flynn as someone worthy of investigation.
How about investigating Larry King? His show is now on RT. I remember when it was on CNN.
They gave Donald hell for giving Larry King an interview, because the show is hosted on RT
So much for freedom of speech! Deny and denounce it for Americans daring to broadcast on a Russian channel, but lick their boots clean if they’re Chicoms! That’s how the Democrat party and its censors in social media operate.
https://www.rt.com/ slogan: “Question More!”
oooh that’s so scary! Check out the forbidden content! Spasiba!