Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”
There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority. For example, in the D.C. Circuit (where the Flynn case was brought), the ruling in United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., No. 15-3016 (D.C. Cir. 2016) reaffirms the deference to prosecutors on such questions. The Court noted that this deference extends to core constitutional principles:
“The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996); In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 262-63 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, “lie[] at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.” Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court thus has repeatedly emphasized that“[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion.” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979); see Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
Correspondingly, “judicial authority is . . . at its most limited” when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations. . . . The Executive routinely undertakes those assessments and is well equipped to do so.”
Fourth, there are cases where the Department has moved to dismiss cases on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or other grounds touching on due process, ethical requirements or other concerns. One that comes to mind is United States v. Stevens where President Obama’s own Attorney General, Eric Holder, asked the same judge in the Flynn case to dismiss that case. That was just roughly ten years ago. As with Flynn, there was an allegation of withheld evidence by prosecutors.
At the time of the motion Holder declared “The Department of Justice must always ensure that any case in which it is involved is handled fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice. Under oftentimes trying conditions, the attorneys who serve in this Department live up to those principles on a daily basis.” What is obvious is the new guidelines issued at the time were honored in the breach during the Flynn prosecution.
While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.
The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence. As I discussed in a column this morning in the Hill newspaper, the new material shows that Obama was following the investigation of Flynn who he previously dismissed from a high-level position and personally intervened with President Donald Trump to seek to block his appointment as National Security Adviser. Obama reportedly discussed the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. For a person concerned with precedent, that was also a curious focus. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to successfully convicted a single person since the early days of the Republic. Now that is dubious precedent.
Barr’s Decision To Drop Flynn Case Reflects
Hyper-Political Nature Of Administration Where Scientists Are Fired For Sticking To Science
Attorneys for Rick Bright, the government scientist who said he had been reassigned and subsequently filed a whistleblower complaint, say a government watchdog agrees that he should be reinstated to his post.
Bright was serving as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which is working on a vaccine to combat the coronavirus.
He said he was ousted from the position last month because he wanted to spend money on safe and vetted treatments for COVID-19 — not on ones without “scientific merit,” such as hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that President Trump and others had been touting.
Trump on Wednesday called Bright “a disgruntled employee who’s trying to help the Democrats win an election.”
Bright’s attorneys say that the Office of Special Counsel, which hears whistleblower cases, determined there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that his removal was retaliatory and therefore prohibited.
Bright’s attorneys say OSC plans to contact the Department of Health and Human Services to request that it put Bright’s removal on hold for 45 days so the office can complete its investigation into the allegations.
The OSC said it “cannot comment on or confirm the status of open investigations.”
Edited From: “Watchdog Wants Coronavirus Scientist Reinstated Amid Probe”
NPR, 5/8/20
Guess he missed this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, et al.
Rose, does that make any sense?? You’re claiming this high level scientist missed an article in your post. Therefore he didn’t know what he was talking about! And presumably, ‘all’ the scientists uncertain of the Malaria Drug missed your article.
Seth does fabulous nails at her nail salon in WeHo
REGARDING ABOVE:
Another post by the Puppet Stooges. Said puppets want to make sure that no one with a shred of intelligence wants to read these threads.
She’s a wanna-be, Seth.
Seth,
Good grief. Really?
He seems to have missed it in the literature. If he isn’t sure about chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine and the efficacy for coronavirus, he could have checked Pubmed.
Or, maybe he has connections to Gilead. Or, maybe he just hates Trump so much he cannot stand that maybe Trump had even one good suggestion.
It’s better to assume he was unaware of the efficacy.
K8nder, not better or more accurate.
Since Obama himself undoubtedly approved if not instigated the witch hunt against Flynn, his conflict of interest is glaring. Previously he had fired Flynn for criticizing his appeasement toward Iran, Afghanistan and Muslims in general and recommended to Trump that he not hire him, advice Trump rightly ignored. Obama had much to hide and Flynn was likely to bring some of it to light. Therefore he had to be marginalized and Obama’s minions in the FBI were only too happy to oblige him.
It even goes beyond a witch hung against Flynn by Obama. Obama himself predicated the call the Russian Ambassador made to Flynn by expelling Russian Diplomats from the USA when Obama publicly accused Russia of hacking the DNC Servers. Without that call, there was no crime for Flynn to be accused of.
What evidence did Obama have that Russians hacked the DNC server? It was not the evidence of any investigation by any Federal Government agency, because no investigation ever occurred.
So, why did Obama take such an extreme move against an important country with geo-political implications if no authority showed him evidence that Russians did anything. James Clapper the head of the NSA is on record telling Congress that there was no direct evidence that he knew of proving Russian interference.
Obama’s decision was a reckless abuse of his power as he left office. It needs to be investigated as part of a conspiracy to overthrow the incoming administration.
Gypo O’Leary:
Your claim that “It was not the evidence of any investigation by any Federal Government agency, because no investigation ever occurred” is nonsense. Not only did an investigation occur, a public version of the report was released while Obama was still in office: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Your claim that “James Clapper the head of the NSA is on record telling Congress that there was no direct evidence that he knew of proving Russian interference” is also false. He said “I was not aware, to my knowledge, of any direct content knowledge of collusion between the Trump camp and the Russians.” That’s not a claim of “no direct evidence … proving Russian interference,” as Russian interference (your claim) is not at all synonymous with collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians (his claim). Clapper was quite clear that there was direct evidence of Russian interference: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05-08-17%20Clapper%20Testimony.pdf
Keep telling yourself that and stay on those meds. Source please?
Seriously “Jay”? Really?
Trolls arent what they used to be
THE STEVENS CASE BELOW
Professor Turley compared the Flynn Case to the case of the late Ted Stevens, a once powerful Republican senator from Alaska who was prosecuted by a Republican-appointed Attorney General. But it was a Demoratic-appointed Attorney General who dropped the case after Judge Sullivan accused the prosecution of gross misconduct.
That’s nice Seth. He was actually prosecuted by crooked local AUSAs, i.e. career prosecutors, who received just a slap on the wrist for their malfeasance.
NO, Absurd, Steven’s was tried in Washington D C before Judge Emmet Sullivan, the same Judge who heard Flynn’s case.
THE STEVENS CASE..
AND TURLEY’S PRAISE FOR JUDGE SULLIVAN 10 YEARS AGO
Professor Turley seemingly offers a ‘What About’ by telling us that President Obama had his Attorney General, Eric Holder, dismiss a Federal prosecution under similar circumstances. But that case, The United States Vs Theodore Stevens, was dramatically different than the Flynn case in almost every respect.
Theodore Stevens, better known as Ted Stevens, has been Alaska’s longtime Republican Senator. Steven was prosecuted in 2008 by George W Bush’s Justice Department. The case involved an old ski chalet, in Alaska, that Stevens had bought to remodel. The crux of the prosecution was that Stevens had failed to list on Senate disclosure forms about $250,000 in goods and services he had received, mostly in the remodeling of his home, from oil services company VECO Corporation.
The following is an account of the Stevens case as it appeared in “Washington Lawyer” in October of 2009. Towards the end of this piece, Professor Johnathan Turley is quoted as praising Judge Emmet G. Sullivan as “smart, courteous and even keeled”.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. “In nearly 25 years on the bench,” he said, “I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Stevens had been convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury.
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done. In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors’ handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were “too serious and too numerous” to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.Throughout the trial, government and defense lawyers had battled over the Justice Department’s production of evidence. Judge Sullivan considered declaring a mistrial, but he decided against it. On several occasions, the judge admonished the prosecution and even struck the use of certain evidence.
“Judge Sullivan is one of the most liked judges on the bench,” says Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and constitutional law professor at the George Washington University Law School. “He is smart and courteous and even-keeled. To get Judge Sullivan that irate, it takes monumental misconduct.”
REGARDING ABOVE:
In case anyone missed it, Professor Turley had the highest praise for Judge Sullivan 10 years ago.
The piece above is from: “Washington Lawyer”, October 2009
Perhaps the praise was for the pre-corrupted or incompetent judge.
Young, on what basis are you calling Judge Sullivan ‘corrupted’?? Because he accepted not ‘one’ but ‘two’ guilty pleas from Michael Flynn??
If you’re really a lawyer, Young, explain how Judge Sullivan should have handled the Flynn case.
Fairly.
Well, we know what was in the talking points this morning.
Absurd, tell us what we’re supposed to think. You’re saying Eric Holder intervened on behalf of a Republican for– For–
Holder moved to dismiss the charges after Sullivan had appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of “six career Justice Department prosecutors…” (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html
None lost their jobs, although one of the prosecutors committed suicide:
“Six prosecutors were investigated. Two were suspended from their work (though those suspensions were later overturned). The lead prosecutor was found to have exercised poor judgment, and left the government. Another committed suicide before the investigation was complete. None was prosecuted.”
The key finding was: “The case was indeed about concealment, but it was government prosecutors who did the concealing. An independent investigation ordered by presiding Judge Emmet G. Sullivan found that the prosecution was “permeated by the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence…”
https://www.rollcall.com/2014/10/28/recalling-the-injustice-done-to-sen-ted-stevens-commentary/
If Judge Sullivan is to remain consent than he should throw the book at prosecutor Van Grack who not only concealed evidence, he lied directly to Judge Sullivan about it-and other things as well
Remain consistent
Richard, one strongly suspects Judge Sullivan sees no parallels between the two radically different cases.
Not to worry. The Justice Dept spelled it out clearly in their Motion to Dismiss.
Again!
Scurried over to here. 🏁🚏
OBAMA doesn’t know the law, even though he graduated from Harvard, he was a Community Organizer, pretending to be a Lawyer. He has wired and confused ideas of the law.
Obama hates Trump, for undoing most of Obama’s failed and dumb policies. He hates Flynn. It appears Obama is knee deep in framing Flynn and heavily involved in trying to get rid of Trump.
Perhaps Obama dirty hands will be exposed by Barr and Durham, as the real coup leader or co coup leader with Clinton
Since Obama had a particular issue with Flynn, its a reasonable hypothesis that his fingerprints are all over this. Some of the other shenanigans maybe not.
In a January 2007 article, the Washington Post published an article stating the following:
>>Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, “The Curvature of Constitutional Space.”<<
Evidently, he was not only an expert in the law, but also among the best of theoretical physicists. I can only imaging the bullshyte contained in that article.
D, are you another puppet?? Let’s see this WaPo article.
Seth,
Does the truth hurt? I never thought Tribe or the other Harvard law profs were so gullible. But now we know where Obama received his god-complex – that when he would become president, the planet could begin to heal because The Great One was now elected and could integrate theoretical physics with constitutional law. LOL
It looks like either WaPo or the search engines have scrubbed it from availability, but I saved it and you get to be the beneficiary:
_________________________
Harvard Experiences Sculpt Obama Appeal
By GLEN JOHNSON
The Associated Press
Friday, January 26, 2007; 2:10 PM
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The hair, now closely cropped, was a short Afro. He dressed in a leather coat and high-ankle boots, not the conservative business suits and power ties that fill his wardrobe today.
And dinner, most nights, was at the C’est Bon sandwich shop in Harvard Square, not the rubber- chicken circuit in Washington.
Yet as a student at Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991, Sen. Barack Obama displayed the traits _ and attracted the same kind of following and accolades _ that have made him a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
And for anyone who doubts whether a senator little more than two years removed from the Illinois Legislature can win the presidency, let alone become the first black chief executive, some of those around this high temple of legal thought believe they have already seen the future.
In 1990, Obama became the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position that usually falls to the student with the sharpest elbows. Obama won by convincing liberals and conservatives alike of the strength of his intellect, the soundness of his judgment and the merit of his vision.
“I can’t pretend that I had any idea then that he would be a serious presidential candidate _ that would have been a crazy thing for anyone to project at that stage of a career _ but he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades,” said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard for whom Obama served as a research assistant.
Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, “The Curvature of Constitutional Space.”
Charles Ogletree _ a professor who has served as a mentor to countless black students at Harvard Law, including Obama _ said, “He was really a moderating influence on the campus by being mature, very much open to a variety of perspectives, but trusted by everyone to reach the right conclusions without some strong ideological link.”
Obama, now 45, came to Harvard in 1988 after graduating from Columbia University and spending four years as a community organizer in Chicago. While most of the 550 students admitted each fall are on a trajectory toward high-paying corporate law firms or the judicial bench, Obama aimed for public-interest law from the outset.
“You can try to do things to improve society and still land on your feet,” he told an interviewer in 1990. “That’s what a Harvard education should buy: enough confidence and security to pursue your dreams and give something back.”
Christina Bryan, a Houston attorney who shared first year classes with Obama and considered herself a conservative at the time, said, “I felt that he always took the time to listen to opposing points of view and address it in a thoughtful way. That’s not always the case in that setting.”
At the end of his first year, Obama was selected to be one of 80 editors on the Law Review, a student-run journal of legal research and opinion.
Midway through his second year, Obama was elected president, the top editing job. He beat out 17 others, including four fellow black students.
“Conservatives marveled at his use of language and metaphors that resonated with their core beliefs,” Kenneth Mack, a Harvard Law professor who was an Obama classmate and fellow candidate for the Law Review presidency, later wrote in an essay about the competition. “Liberals and progressives believed that the rise to prominence of a self- identified African-American with impeccable civil rights credentials represented a triumph for their own core agenda.”
Obama, however, did not want the achievement to be misperceived.
“The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress,” Obama told The New York Times at the time. “But it’s important that stories like mine aren’t used to say that everything is OK for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don’t get a chance.”
The eight issues that Obama presided over included articles on Martin Luther King Jr., and gender and racial discrimination in retail car negotiations, as well as an anonymous, student-written “Note” arguing the legal system had not provided adequate protections against discrimination for those who are both black and men.
Fellow students and Senate aides say Obama was not the author of the Note, but as president, he gave each article the final substantive edit.
For all his success, Obama did suffer one defeat at the Law School: He was rejected by a screening committee of female students for a pinup calendar of black students created as both a fundraiser and a source of black pride.
————————————————–
D, thanks for posting that article. It says very little about Obama’s article on Einstein’s theory. So it’s hard to say what that was even about. But the article actually refutes a couple of claims made on these same threads by Commenter Absurd.
I also noticed this interesting passage:
“Obama, now 45, came to Harvard in 1988 after graduating from Columbia University and spending four years as a community organizer in Chicago. While most of the 550 students admitted each fall are on a trajectory toward high-paying corporate law firms or the judicial bench, Obama aimed for public-interest law from the outset”.
Yes, it is hard to say what “The Curvature of Constitutional Space” is all about. Maybe that also has been scrubbed from the internet. But the article’s attributions to what Obama did…. “integrated Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity,” are outright laughable.
D – It sounds a lot like Sokal’s Hermenuetics of quantum theory which, of course was a hoax that a leftist journal stupidly published as genuine.
Young,
It very much does. I happened to attend a talk Sokal gave shortly after he revealed it was all a hoax. In the audience were many of the university charlatans that were “victims” of their own nonsense. Some of them were visibly weeping. I’ll never forget it.
D- Thanks so much for that story! I am envious. What a treat to watch them weeping after being revealed as rubes. What a treat to hear Sokal.
They learned nothing. As you must know several more bogus articles have been peer reviewed and published recently. One, I think, touched on female dogs being raped in the park by male dogs, a feminist perspective, of course.
One not a hoax, though I thought it surely must be at first, was a U of Oregon study of glaciers from a feminist, post-colonial perspective to achieve more ethical human/ice interactions. At that point the department, which defended the article, has gone insane.
Young,
I hope this pandemic does some culling of the herd of the university post-modernists (i.e., any program that goes by the name of _X_ Studies). They advocate for freakishness (in both mind and body) and call it original research. Sokal exposed them but they’ve multiplied since then and are putting universities every where in a very bad light.
D– My hope too. The ‘studies’ courses have corrupted academia. They are maggots.
State legislatures need to cut funding so long as those b.s. programs continue. Should be easier with the shortfalls coming with the Wihan plague.
Actually,no. State legislatures need to amend the enabling legislation government state colleges &c. to prescribe that they provide tertiary schooling and define what tertiary schooling is. All degree programs, certificate programs, and concentrations within degrees would have to be nominated according to a glossary incorporated in state statutes. The glossary would provide a capsule description of each sort of degree and all faculties would have to be in compliance . Every institution would have a franchise stated in law and elaborated upon by permits issued by the state board of regents. An institution wishing to change categories (from community college to state college or state college to state university or special purpose institution to general purpose institution) would have to receive permission to the legislature. An institution wishing to offer a new degree or certificate program within that franchise would have to apply to the state board. An institution’s license to continue offering given programs would be contingent on periodic audits undertaken by the state auditor.
One other thing. The application to offer a degree or certificate program must come from the board of trustees of the institution in question. Community colleges boards would be composed of delegates from each local school board within a given geographic catchment. The boards of other institutions would be elected quadrennially by a postal ballot of alumni registered to vote in the state.
Absurd x22 — Tertiary schools are licensed by national organizations now. Adding more bureaucracy is a step backwards; there are already too many administrators.
Absurd x22 — Tertiary schools are licensed by national organizations now.
Thanks for the issue of your imagination.
The utility of federal regulation concerns transactions between schools and aspirant students domiciled in separate states.
Again, it is important to dictate to those running higher education what they may and may not do, because they are untrustworthy people. It is particularly so with regard to a state’s own institutions.
North of here is a Jesuit school, originally founded to provide post-secondary education to the area indigenees. It is a highly rated so-called liberal arts school. Here’s a program announcement:
https://www.gonzaga.edu/college-of-arts-sciences/departments/environmental-studies
Graduates are sometimes pre-law but also fisheries management, park rangers, BLM range managers, foresters, etc.
Don’t knock it.
Jesuit schools are fraudulent and properly liquidated. The Society of Jesus is a gay cult.
Seth, precious, you want to see that article?
My God you are easy.
You are like an exceptionally stupid trout in a catch and release stream. No matter how often you bite the hook and are hauled out of the water, you go for it again as soon as the lure smacks the water.
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 143 people had their convictions overturned last year. 24 people, or 17% of the total, were exonerated because of false confessions.
93 people, or 65%, were exonerated due to some form of official misconduct.
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Exonerations_in_2019.pdf
The non-believers are the same ol’ loaded with BS Dum’s that couldn’t think straight if they were sent to a Stalag reorientation camp!
Does anyone really think that Strzok and his ilk were rogue agents acting alone, untethered from the political leadership? Of course not. The entire effort was orchestrated from the very top. It is now coming out that Obama was knee-deep in Flynn. If the investigation continues, we will soon learn that he was involved in FISA abuse as well. So far, they have been able to keep it under wraps. The priority now will be do delay and stop Barr any cost. The 2020 election and returning the DOJ and intelligence apparatus to Democratic control is critical to this effort.
Did anyone happen to notice California governor Newsome’s executive order mandating mail-in voting because of the Covid-19 crisis? “Today, we become the first state in the nation to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic by mailing every registered voter a ballot.” To prevent any time for reflection, counties have until May 30 to fall in line or he will figure it out for them.
How long until other Democratic governors like Whitmer in Michigan fall in line? We don’t need epidemiological models to tell us that mail-in voting will spread more quickly than the coronavirus. As a vehicle for enabling voter fraud on a massive sale, mail-in voting is vastly more dangerous.
Yeah, Epstein, anyone who wants to vote in November should be willing to risk their life.
Is your IQ above 60? Good, then you can answer a question.
Do you eat? Where do you go to get food?
@Allan- for some, vote fraud is a feature, not a bug.
Allan–Like Renfield he probaly snares rats for lunch in the basement of his nail salon.
Someone posted a note saying we should vote in Walmart or Home Depot since they are safe.
Seth,
Do you actually care about empirical data, or do hypotheticals rule the day for you?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-wisconsin-election-no-spike-cases-after-in-person-voting/
Epstein — Washington state does all ballots by mail. For the last election the state auditing office has looked at all the ballots. They identified 16 possible cases of voter fraud. Those still have to be vetted.
Out of 5.9 million potential voters.
@David- That’s an amazing statistic, but according to the North Korean government, Kim Jong Un was elected with 100 percent of the vote. Out of 25 million people, 99% of whom voted. With no fraud.
In industry, they call it continuous improvement. The 2016 election effort came up just short, even with a massive, illegal assist from Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and as if it is any kind of surprise, Obama and Biden (if Biden said that he doesn’t remember any of it, at least he would be credible). All it takes is a small number of votes in some key districts to tip the national scales in 2020. From there, it will only take a few more election cycles to work out the last of the kinks.
If Newsom has his way, the entire country will soon be under one-party rule, just like California and Washington State. Facilitated by a crisis, and justified through a false choice.
Epstein — Both of my state senators are Republicants. So is my state representative. Also my federal district representative.
Grow up
@David-
Washington State and California are both under one-party rule. It’s simply a fact. I’d be willing to bet that 15 of the 16 cases of fraud were in Republican districts. And we can all count on the beneficiaries of the system to police it. Kind of like the DNC investigating Joe Biden’s rape and sexual assault allegations.
As to growing up, I’ve been around long enough to know that people entrusted with too much power will abuse it.
David, you are an anecdote waiting to happen.
😉
The “Voter Fraud Handbook” as published in today’s New York Times:
——————————————————————-
“You do get to learn from these things,” said Ramsey Reid, the battleground states director for the Democratic National Committee, who has facilitated calls between Wisconsin officials and their counterparts in other states. “You get to train more volunteers, you get to build habits around voters and apply lessons learned to states that have challenges.”
While officials are publicly bragging about tactics like video calls with voters who need hand-holding to navigate often-cumbersome absentee ballot request forms, they’ve been more circumspect about efforts they’ve employed in the event of a narrow defeat.”
——————————————————————-
Translation: Even the stuff we do out in the open is dishonest, but that’s only the half of it.
——————————————————————-
Some of the other gems from a Democratic memo linked in the Times article:
1. Do away with burdensome witness and notarization requirements.
2. Encourage ‘community groups’ to help people fill out and return their ballots.
3. Put up unmonitored drop boxes to accept the ballots, and ensure ‘geographic diversity’ in their placement.
4. For ballots that are left in a dropbox, no worries if they don’t arrive in time. We’ll count ’em even if they show up a few days late.
5. Have procedures to cure small ‘administrative issues’ like a lack of signature
6. Make sure the process is run under the watchful eye of the Democrats. Those nasty Republicans stand in the way of voter rights.
This will spread much more quickly than the coronavirus, and it is much more lethal.
Again, the use of postal balloting is gratuitous for all about 5-6% of the population in the eastern states and for all but ~11% in the western states. These people live in circumstances that abide from year to year (e.g. military service). People who happen to be out of town on election day will number perhaps 5% of the electorate in any give year. People who are so year after year will amount to < 0.5%. No need to compromise ballot security to accommodate them.
Even if there were a precedent or not. Doesn’t matter. If a law is properly passed and used properly it might be just the first time that situation has occurred. So lack of precedent means nothing. On the other hand If no such law exists and for example a President says to his staff…… ‘find me away around the Constitution’…. or better yet one might say ‘that hasn’t been visited yet by the supreme court’ or I have a phone and a pen and I’m read to sign and then does so when the law calls for confirmation by the Senate. Different story The first a direct quote from President Clinton and the next two direct quotes from President Obama.
Clinton got his budget balanced by putting the negatives ahead to the next president term. Obama almost routinely violated the requirement for Senate Approval and didnt bother to send it to the Senate on a number of issues and then deemed them passed by executive order. In one case a large amount of money changed hands from usa to another country as result. That was Grand Larceny. Just to pick on two of the most recent violations. There have been more but those are more recent.
Is anyone surprised Zero is speaking out now about this and his claim the Trump Administration has bungled the Chinese virus response? He has now been exposed for all to see that he was up to his jug ears in the attempt to illegally stop Trump from winning the 2016 election and then having lost that battle he initiated and supported the attempted coup against a U.S. President. The noose is tightening and the fish is now thrashing mightily to escape the noose. Barack Obama is a man of Zero morals with loyalty only to himself. I hope he is hung by his own disloyal actions.
We can dream, but ain’t gonna happen. Obama will carry on with his ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous’ life, relatively unscathed. How? Because the media and Hollywood useful idiot mouthpieces will assist Obama as he continues his massive disinformation campaigns. Netflix deals? Remember those? Susan Rice is on Netflix board. How about Valerie Jarrett? The Obama alum all somehow landed deals and board seats at media companies, or as on-air “analysts” –giving them power to spin their lies and crimes and to create and control the narrative being fed to the ignorant masses sitting in airports and office waiting rooms as CNN blares its propaganda over the airwaves….
They count on the stupidity of the American people….they told us so.
Democrats only get prosecuted when (1) they run afoul of some other faction in the Democratic Party or (2) they do something quite crude, like keep a chest freezer full of bribe money in their basement or use campaign treasuries (or office accounts) as personal piggy banks. If a prosecutor is going to get creative, the target has to be a Republican.
I am pretty sure Obama knew he was misleading. This has become the modus of the left.
Make demonstrably false assertions, have them go viral, have the sheep consume and ruminate before the truth gets out.
With all the cries of “Trump lies!”, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Obama was awarded the LIE OF THE YEAR in 2013 by left wing Politifact.
Exactly right. Obama’s other massive disinformation campaign was this one: He was most proud of running a “scandal-free” administration.
BOOM! Lie of the century right there….
Obama’s “smidgens” are piling up.
It will be interesting to observe Judge Sullivan’s behavior. He hasn’t exactly been the model for professional temperate judges on this one. In fact he made an ass out of himself when asking the prosecutors if Flynn could be charged for treason.
Somebody who behaves like that is going to consider it too humiliating to simply sign off with a casual stroke of a pen.
SteveJ, Flynn admitted in court under oath to colluding with the Russian ambassador and he was also an undeclared agent of Turkey while serving as national Security Advisor. Sullivan asked if prosecutors considered charging him with treason.
PS Let’s hope Sullivan at a minimum sends this back to DOJ. None of the career prosecutors on this case would sign the motion which was signed only by the interim USA.
The career prosecutors who didn’t sign the motion are likely busy hiring their own lawyers.
SteveJ, Flynn admitted in court under oath
Evidently your handlers told you to keep repeating this meme even after people have explained to you multiple times that extorted pleas are null.
TIA, there’s 2 posts waiting for you back on Obama’s legal credentials.
So your saying Flynn did not admit to colluding with the Russian ambassador? Really?
In North Korea, China, etc, people admit to things all the time…do you believe those confessions were done willingly? Perhaps physical cruelty was not used on Flynn, but mental coercion was obviously the trigger for his so called “confession.”
If Judge Suliivan is an honorable person, he will see that his own language was caused by the same prosecutors that wongfully sought this conviction.
Judtice– Very good point. The Chinese doctor who first warned about Wuhan virus was forced to confess he was lying. Of course he wasn’t.
Yes, and of course the DOJ and FBI are just like North Korean and Chinese police and legal forces.
Beginning to look like it. And that’s the problem.
Flynn did not admit to colluding with the Russians. Show us where he admitted to that.
Flynn also didn’t lie about
“FLYNN stated it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so.” That statement is from the FBI notes.
Flynn pled guilty to a Statement of Facts which the judge summarized without objection at the Sentencing Heaiing in Dec 2018:
“With respect to the Statement of Facts, when he pleaded
guilty Mr. Flynn agreed to the follow facts: ….
The Statement of Facts further describes Mr. Flynn’s false
statements. One, Mr. Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask
the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to refrain from, quote, escalating the situation, end quote, in response to sanctions the
Obama Administration had imposed upon Russia.
On December the 28th, 2016, then-President Obama signed
Executive Order 13757 which was to take effect on December the
29th, 2016. The executive order announced sanctions against
Russia as a response to Russia’s interference in the 2016
presidential election.
On December the 28th, 2016, the ambassador contacted
Mr. Flynn. The next day Mr. Flynn called a senior transition
official who was with other senior officials at the Mar-a-Lago
Resort. They discussed the sanctions and their shared desire
that Russia not escalate the situation. Immediately after this phone call, Mr. Flynn called the
ambassador, quote, and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond in a reciprocal manner, end quote.
Shortly after this conversation, Mr. Flynn spoke again
with the senior official to report on the call.
Mr. Flynn also falsely stated that he did not remember a,
quote, follow-up conversation, end quote, in which the ambassador
stated that Russia had, quote, moderated its response to those
sanctions as a result of Mr. Flynn’s request, end quote.
On December 30th, 2016, President Putin announced that he
would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions
imposed by then-President Obama.
On December 31, 2016, the ambassador called Mr. Flynn to inform him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate. After this
call, Mr. Flynn spoke with senior members of the transition team
about the conversation and Russia’s decision not to escalate the
situation….”
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf
In other words, Flynn did not admit to colluding with the Russians.
OK, Steve if we have to go sentence by sentence, let’s do it.
Flynn agreed to this:
“Mr. Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to refrain from, quote, escalating the situation, end quote, in response to sanctions the Obama Administration had imposed upon Russia.”
Keeping in mind this is merely my amusement, (I think you’re just trolling on this one) I appreciate your confirmation that the word collusion is not used.
Go to the FBI notes”
“Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview,”
Go to the rest of the FBI notes that contradict the pleading. What does that mean? Simple. They intimidated Flynn sufficiently to get him to agree to whatever they wanted. In all sorts of dictatorial countries where human life is not valued they always get guilty pleas if they want it. Torture, threats to family etc. works wonders on people but we know the type of person you are. You agree to anything that satisfies your wants. That is how animals live, but humans are supposed to be different. There is no question they bankrupted him, forced him to sell his house, threatened him with more for the rest of his life and threatened his family. The Nazi’s did that and you seem to agree with their techniques. Are you a type of Nazi?
The prophet Amos was a fierce character.
“But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
And this happens to this nation’s US Attorneys offices, and their superordinates in Washington. Whose gonna get hurt real bad?
He never confessed to either of those things. Read the plea agreement.
Kan’t find the anonycat. Instead,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/514107_Ka%CA%BBepaoka%CA%BBawela
😮
Why do you torture yourself?
Supposedly, Judge Sullivan had been watching MSNBC the night before. He was just repeating what they said. I don’t watch MSNBC so I can’t verify. But, at the end of the day, he did Flynn a huge favor that day because he wasn’t sentenced and they had to continue with Flynn’s partners trial (the one with no evidence), Flynn refused to lie to convict his partner, his lawyers finally had to admit they had a conflict as one of Flynn’s defense attorneys did testify against Mr. Kian, Flynn found Powell, he learned he actually hadn’t violated the FARA, etc. etc.
Now over here, anonykitty.
Not much of a mouser, are you?
🐉
Turley wrote:
[Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
Surprised? Is anyone really surprised by this “leaked conversation”?
Do you believe Obama Alumni would “leak” something from a private conversation that Obama himself did not want to be leaked to media? Of course not.
This is part of a calculated plan on Obama’s and his “alums.”
CNN ran with it, just as Obama wanted, and they did it without correcting the factual errors. Yes, CNN (and other media, of course) just ran with Obama’s words AS IF TRUE.
Now those words – Obama’s ‘private comments’ – are out on the airwaves being repeated over and over AS IF THE TRUTH!
And those words are now penetrating the weak minds of many Americans in our soundbite nation. “Did you hear what Obama said in his private conversation??” Yup. “No precedent!” “Never before.” These lies are now being repeated over and over again all over the media — just as Obama wanted.
Thus, for Obama, and his media mouthpieces – mission accomplished.
Put another way: this is part of Obama’s disinformation campaign.
Obama got caught He’s now been revealed as having used the Federal justice system and the intelligence agencies to (attempt to) prevent his successor from finding out about his own illegal actions. He hates General Flynn and did not want him to be in a position to expose himself..
Professor–Great comment. Thank you
“The rule of law is at risk.”
– Barack Obama
Barack Obama knew well and repudiated the law when he became a candidate for the U.S. presidency.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
Meanwhile, over at shill headquarters, the shills here are trying to create their script:
—————
Peter Shill/Seth Warner – Holy Crap! Turley done caught Obama in a lie! What do we do???
bythebook – Yeah, this is pretty serious;
Shill HQ- Let me get some coffee in me – OK, here’s what we do. First, we distract. Just comment about something bad about Republicans or Trump while I get another cup of coffee. Anything will do. Call him OrangeMan or something until I get woke up.
10 minutes later. . .
SHQ – OK, here is what we do. We DISTINGUISH between Stevens and Flynn.
PS/SW – How??? The FBI was crooked as crap in both of them.
btb – Easy! Stevens never plead guilty.
SHQ – Right on!
PS/SW – What difference does that make? Brady violations are Brady violations. Set-ups are set-ups. The FBI was out of control and corrupt.
btb – It doesn’t make any difference. We just PRETEND that we believe it does!
SHQ – Right! I knew there was a reason we gave you a bonus!
PS/SW – Oh, so we just keep on lying with a straight face? OK, I can do that.
SHQ – We prefer you not use the word, “lying”. We just present a less-truthy version of truth..
PS/SW – Right, I’m sorry. So that’s the plan. Is Obama kewl with it??? He isn’t going to come out and admit he was wrong or anything is he???
SHQ – BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
btb – BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
PS/SW – Oh right! Silly me!
————–
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Anyone who knows a true narcissist knows how deep it runs. They can “lie” in a way that they don’t know it’s a lie. As David/Seinfeld wrote for the character George Costanza, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.” The implies some effort on the part of the speaker, but some narcissism runs so deep that some don’t have the capacity to view matters in a manner even close to objective. If you’ve ever met such a narcissist, and you originally thought they knew they were knowingly lying, you know what I’m talking about here.
Is it possible for a nation to be narcissistic?
__________________________________
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
It iworks on the tRumpsters but that would require self awareness on your part to recognize.
“Tell me anyway–Maybe I can find the truth by comparing the lies.”
– Leon Trotsky
“No precedent for someone *charged* with perjury getting off scot-free.”
Because being charged is all it takes to make you guilty. No need for a trial.
From Rasmussen: “Republicans Are More Willing To Risk Deaths, Illness to Get Country Going Again
That must mean a lot of Democrats want to sit at home receiving food from those that risk their own safety to feed the nation. Alternatively it means that a lot of Democrats believe that money grows on trees.
Diaper Man: Republicans are more likely to live in small towns and outer suburbs. So the risk is possibly lower for reopening those areas.
However my elderly aunt in central Wisconsin tells me there are 11 virus infections in her county where the biggest city has just 15,000 people. That sounds a little ominous. Theoretically there shouldn’t be any cases in rural counties that size. But there are!
The bottom line is that we have only ONE chance to get this reopening right. If it goes badly, the setback could be devastating in terms of lives and financial costs. We can’t do another $2 trillion rescue fund because we botched our reopening attempt.
Paint Chips, aside from the crazy and ignorant that run Democrat politics no one wants to keep the entire country shut down. Most people wish to open the country while being cautious. Our great President has provided a road map which is not a guarantee that there won’t be outbreaks but it is based on a multiplicity of risk factors including death from Covid, death from fear, people who need other medical care, have been drinking more, taking more drugs, killing themselves , losing their livlihoods, etc. You have no facility in epidemiology, statistics or mathematics so what you generally say is just dumb.
Your elderly aunt should stay at home isolated like other old or sick people while the country opens up. We should focus on risks. Our Democratic Mayor of NYC and the Democrats governor of NYState through their policies have killed many people. The death numbers due to Cuomo’s policy of placing Covid patients back into nursing homes has killed according to one source 5,000 nursing home patients. Neither the state nor the city took due caution or did things to reduce the risk of death for their inhabitants and it is not surprising that ~half of the deaths occurred in the NY area.
All we have heard from Democrats is criticism without any productive suggestions that could gain traction among Democrats.
Thank goodness we have a President that can withstand the stupidity that comes from the left.