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.
That’s ex-president, thank you very much!
Obama and the establishment(DoD, CIA, FBI[specifically Andrew McCabe]) all had a very special animus towards Flynn for multiple reasons that have long been known, but are *rarely” discussed:
(1) In 2012, the Flynn lead DIA outed the Obama WH policy of supporting ISIS(then known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and the Musim Brotherhood via an intelligence report generated in Aug 2012 and released under FOIA years later:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/
1. “The Salafist, The Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency”
2. “The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.”
3. “If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria(Hasaka and Der Zor), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”
Flynn was interviewed by Hasan Mehdi at Al-Jazeera in Aug 2015 regarding this document and the outrageous Obama policy of supporting ISIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs
(2) The excellent interview above details many other reasons for Obama and the establishment to hate his guts: Flynn was [a] opposed to a peace deal with Iran, [b] highly critical of the intelligence coming from the military in Afghanistan, [c] highly critical of prison policy in Iraq, [d] highly critical of the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya…etc.
(3) Flynn supported an FBI special agent(Robyn Gritz) who filed a complaint with the EEOC against Andrew McCabe. She accused McCabe of creating a hostile work environment and defaming her character. Flynn offered to testify in support of the 17 year FBI veteran and even wrote to the judge.
*It should be noted that McCabe’s wife received $500,000 for her run for office from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe who gave the Clintons their first mortgage after leaving the WH because they were effectively broke at the time. Deputy Director McCabe, the #2 at the FBI, did not recuse himself from the FBI investigation into Hillary’s violation of the Espionage Act until after it was all but finished. McCabe was ultimately fired for lying multiple time to the FBI.
There is no precedent for a former president being charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors either but we are about to see justice (I hope) and set another new precedent.
This has been the hidden story from the beginning and it’s why Obama has been in hiding until now: Obama must be impeached for his illegal, seditious pursuit of Trump and his associates using government power to deprive these American citizens of their rights. It is a crime to do this(“deprivations of rights under color of law”) and jail is where he belongs for the good of the nation.
hopefully you are correct in the proposed outcome. Obozo needs to be an American ‘first’, a President perp-walked to prison
I like how Obama backed Biden. It was like betting on a horse after it won the race.
Readers will notice a troll named Seth who does nothing but complain and acts like a deranged maniac. He is like this dog on youtube ….harmless and sad
Have you reviewed Turley’s civility rule?
If not, here you go: https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
You’re breaking that rule. Your comment is nothing but a personal attack. Please stop.
I ignore it all the time and my comments never get removed so, nahhhh, carry on with the double standards. We Democrats do that better than anyone else
I doubt that many people take the time to email Turley and ask him to remove comments.
And I have no idea what double standards your referring to. If you think I’ve engaged in any personal attacks, please cite what you’re referring to.
He didn’t say you engaged in personal attacks. Book was saying he does it all the time. Apparently he thinks it makes his statements more persuasive. Probably learned that in Seth’s nail salon.
Who is this Young guy? Is he one of them puppet stooges? He seems like such a weasel.
Seth and the others hate Turley and his blog…this is obvious to any regular reader of the comments section. They regularly accuse Turley of being a Trump loving Republican when Turley is in fact a lifelong Democrat who voted for Hillary. They are here simply to try to discredit Turley and his posts so I HIGHLY DOUBT that Turley will come to their defense…that said, Turley doesn’t moderate the comments section anyway- you would know that if you were a regular 🙂
Sounds like a regular poster has added a new alias.
REGARDING ABOVE:
Does this look like a post from a serious legal blog? Or does it look like an intimidation campaign by malicious stooges?
When do you do nails, gurlfriend? I am in need of a fabulous set
Does this look like a post from a serious legal blog?
No, it looks like a post to a serious legal blog.
REGARDING ABOVE:
I’m on pins and needles waiting for your next stupid comment/question.
I notice that you are writing about, if I understand correctly, from the perspective the Government has in fact moved to dismiss cases, in many instances, for a variety of reasons? Is this right? Am I also correct in my understanding, the government has never, in the past, moved to dismiss a case, after the defendant has pled guilty and a plea agreement is executed, while still maintaining the crime occurred, but is being dismissed, for, well, I guess I am not understanding the specific grounds or reasoning to seek dismissal this late in the process, while also saying the crime occurred, but is “not a big deal?”
Mountain Biker, you raise an obvious question: “If the defendant knowingly enters guilty pleas, how can he later be declared innocent?’
It seems like anyone could pull this stunt if they’ve got the President and Attorney General on their side.
your disgruntled nail salon customers say you paint nails while talking discombobulated politics
bwahahaha
Seth is definitely that
REGARDING ABOVE:
Again, this is a Station Identification Announcement from our Puppet Stooges; letting Readers know how present they are.
Funny and appropriate.
If a defendant wearing thumb screws pleads guilty to stop the pain can he later retract the coerced plea?
Yes.
You should devote all your time to your nail salon, Seth, and leave the lying political b.s. to loons like Book.
Young, since you first started commenting here, all you’ve done is stir anger on these threads. Like we didn’t have enough of that! Like Allan and George were too mellow! But now we’ve Young commenting, every 5 minutes, with some false assertion or sneak attack. What a cowardly loser; par for the course with Trumpers.
Seth, how do we make appointments to get our nails done at your nail salon?
Peter’s getting cranky with all the social distancing. He misses happier times.
Grow up you pathetic creep.
Book- This from a poster who just admitted he is an a$$ h**e who breaks civility rules all the time? Pathetic, Book, pathetic.
Absurd– I think that club is a couple doors down from his nail salon. Why does he keep insisting he isn’t gay?
PASSAGE FOR ABSURD:
Absurd: some helpful puppet using the name ‘D’ posted an article from the Associated Press regarding Obama. Said article offered little to support his assertions. The article did, however, cover claims you were making today in an argument with Book.
……………………………………………………………..
“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”.
Edited from: “Harvard Experiences Sculpt Obama Appeal”
The Associated Press, 1/26/07
………………………………………………………..
See ‘that’, Absurd? It identifies the President of the Harvard Law Review as the “Top Editor”. But you were trying to dismiss it as just ‘political job’. Like it really had ‘nothing to do with writing’. Sounds like you don’t really know what you’re talking about regarding Obama.
REGARDING ABOVE:
The puppet stooges are a 24 hour presence. The idea is to intimidate any would-be liberal commenter.
“The puppet stooges are a 24 hour presence. The idea is to intimidate any would-be liberal commenter.”
Do you mean that puppet stooges are doing what you have done over and over again?
Paint Chips, if one had to point to the most divisive personality, one that lies, one that is hypocritical, one that appears brain dead one would have to point to you and I didn’t even mention your sexuality or you penchant for Nail Salons
Your stupidity knows no bounds nor does it ever end.
“how can he later be declared innocent?”
Our judicial system NEVER declares someone “innocent.” The system never “exonerates.” The word “exonerate” does not appear in any legal textbook. Anyone with the simplest understanding of our law knows that.
There are a near infinite number of cases in the record where people have plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. Oftentimes those cases are overturned despite the prior guilty plea because it came to be understood by the court that the case against the defendant was defective in any of a number of ways.
Ivan–Normally I would agree, but the Duke Lacrosse boys were, in fact, declared innocent.
Not by a court of law.
There has never been a judicial verdict of “innocence.” That’s simply not possible in a court of law.
However, AG’s and prosecutors are not disallowed from making such statements if they see fit but it has no legal weight…it is simply a statement of opinion.
In the Duke case, the AG was disbarred, but the woman maintains her allegation is true…the public, for good reason, believes otherwise and the new AG was right, to my mind, to say those kids were innocent. But the AG’s saying they were innocent is not a legal determination that can then be used to prosecute the woman. Again, it has no legal weight.
Barr said Trump is innocent and what good does that do Trump. The Dems still think he is guilty and no court of law or trial in the Senate could ever declare his innocence!
Ivan– True, the Lacrosse boys were not declared innocent by a court of law– there is no such verdict. They were declared innocent by the attorney general, the highest legal officer in the state, after he dismissed the charges, and he is a part of the ‘judicial system’ to a degree and his declaration coupled with the dismissal had full and final legal effect.
The attorney general was not disbarred. The district attorney who prosecuted the boys was referred to the bar association for discipline and they disbarred him. He should have been jailed. So should have been the false accuser. She did go to prison, but not for that. She stabbed her boyfriend to death–murder.
“his declaration coupled with the dismissal had full and final legal effect.”
That’s 100% Wrong.
A new AG could legally charge them again as absurd as that sounds, but that would set themselves up to be sued for malicious prosecution.The pronouncement has no legal force other than to indicate the opinion of that AG. The decision not to prosecute and the statement made can not stop another AG from charging the crime. A successful prosecution of the woman who made the obviously false charge would of course bar any future prosecutions of the Duke Lacrosse players.
This, again, is made obvious by looking at what happens on a regular basis with Trump and his associates. The mere “declaration” of innocence by any current AG is no bar for the next AG. This is why you’ll occasionally hear talk of Trump needing to do overly broad pardons for everybody(including himself) in case the Dems retake control of the Presidency and continue down their lunatic path.
Possibly. It depends on whether it was dismissed ‘with prejudice ‘ or ‘without prejudice’. In the latter re-charging is possible but unlikely. In the former they are done.
I don’t really recall which it was, but I suspect the charges were dismissed with prejudice.
Otherwise why declare they are innocent?
Test
Time to break out your critical-thinking cap:
Given the the totality of evidence to date, do you believe the FBI should have:
a. Never pursued Flynn.
b. Closed Crossfire Razor when it was recommended to be closed.
c. Closed Crossfire Razor after the Jan. 24 FBI interview as the 302 reflects he had not committed a crime.
d. Pursued Flynn with every tool they had available until they could refer him for indictment and prosecution.
The correct answer is…
e. “Crossfire Hurricane” should never have been opened because there never was a proper predicate to start an investigation of Obama’s political opponent and his campaign.
The FBI knew the Steele Dossier was bogus and Alexander Downer’s report that Papdapolous said Russia has Hillary’s emails is a known intelligence set-up using Josef Mifsud.
Therefore all convictions that can trace their root to the illicit Crossfire Hurricane investigation must be tossed out by the court as being “fruit of the poisoned tree.”
Of course none of this should have ever happened, given the evidence available. Still, there other options for an objective mind to consider.
I went with “a” AND “b”, but I thought a proper answer needed the extra info.
The FBI had evidence in their possession (not given to the defendant’s attorney) that proved “no crime” occurred. That is the fruit of poisonous tree. It was a set up!
Lying to the FBI is itself a crime, and Flynn testified under oath both that he lied to the FBI and that he was aware — at the time the FBI interviewed him — that it was a crime to lie to the FBI.
Lying got Bill Clinton really far so it does have its place
Lying got Clinton disbarred.
REGARDING ABOVE:
This was posted by one of our puppet stooges. Said puppets have been a constant presence on these threads for more than a month. Today they are out in full force to demonstrate their commitment to make these comment threads as stupid as possible.
Seth – @ ~ 30 seconds, you can See the duping delight. Omg. The left side of his mouth.
You know who also does this, Trump, and Bush, and many others.
It is such a give away that the person is full of sh*t.
He did both under crushingly coercive pressure from the FBI and DoJ – the modern equivalent of using the rack and thumbscrews to extract a confession. Confessions extracted under such duress should have no validity in our Republic…
It worked for waterboarding in Guantanamo against Muslim terrorists! But that was bad….but now it is good!
Democrats make it very hard to support them
There was no coercive pressure from either the FBI or the DOJ when Flynn admitted in court **to Judge Sullivan, who does not work for either the FBI or the DOJ** that he lied to the FBI and that he was aware — at the time the FBI interviewed him — that it was a crime to lie to the FBI (see, for example, p. 8 of this court transcript: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf )
As for your claim, I accept that you believe it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. You don’t provide any evidence of it. In fact, in the above transcript, Judge Sullivan explicitly asked Flynn “Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?,” and Flynn responds “No, your honor.”
It is perfectly acceptable to lie. We do it all the time to rule the world…or is it rue?
The coercive pressure came from the FBI threat to go after his son if he didn’t plead guilty in the first place. That coercive pressure doesn’t magically disappear when it comes time to plead before the judge. Your post makes no sense, as usual.
No, lying to the FBI is not a crime in and of itself. That’s 100% incorrect and shows that you are “committed to a dishonest discussion.”
The lie must be about something material, and there must be a proper predicate to justify the interview.
Ivan,
You’re awfully quick to accuse me of being “committed to a dishonest discussion” without even waiting to see how I respond. (The fact that you think I’ve made a false claim doesn’t itself imply that I’m not honest. It could be that you’re wrong about the claim being false. Or it could be that you’re right, but that it was an honest mistake on my end rather than the result of dishonesty.)
Here’s the text of the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
I already provided a link to the transcript of Flynn’s sentencing proceeding. The fact is that Judge Sullivan asked Flynn “At the time of your January 24th, 2017 interview with the FBI, were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?” and Flynn responded “I was not — I was aware.” Sullivan: “You were aware?” Flynn: “Yeah.”
So if you have a problem with my wording, take it up with Judge Sullivan. Unless you think that you also understand it better than he does. You may want people to state “materially false” each time instead of “lying,” but in this context, it’s often assumed that people understand that only material lies are the focus.
Personally, I’m happy to revise my claim to: it *can be* a crime to lie to the FBI, as long as it meets the conditions of 18 U.S. Code § 1001. In this case, Flynn himself admitted under oath that he committed this crime. He agreed that he had made materially false statements, and he chose not to challenge the circumstances of the interview, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so by Judge Sullivan. Flynn also stipulated to this crime in his plea agreement.
If you think there wasn’t a proper predicate, you’ll have to substantiate that claim. Inspector General Horowitz determined that the FBI’s Russia probe was properly predicated: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf
Yes, I’m aware of Shea’s argument in the recent motion. I’m also aware that Shea misstated the law. If you read the link above, it says “in any matter within the [agency’s] jurisdiction,” not limited to matters “under investigation.” The interview was absolutely within the FBI’s jurisdiction.
“The fact that you think I’ve made a false claim doesn’t itself imply that I’m not honest.”
Stupid, then?
The Judge said: “were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?” The correct answer is still that lying to FBI investigators, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not a federal crime. They could ask you what you had for breakfast and you could lie if it’s not material and it WOULD NOT BE A CRIME. It doesn’t take too much brain power to understand that so, yeah, I’m going with stupid and dishonest.
I already noted that it has to be material. And both Flynn and Judge Sullivan had accepted that the false statements were material. They don’t have to repeat “material” every time you want them to repeat it.
And since you (a) ignored the evidence that the false statements were material and the interview was predicated and (b) seem to enjoy insults, a further exchange seems like a waste of time. Bye.
“both Flynn and Judge Sullivan had accepted that the false statements were material.”
The FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn’t plead guilty…part of that agreed bogus plea is that he’ll tell the judge that the “lie” was “material” of course.
The interview was not properly “predicated”, nor was the alleged false statement “material.” The Logan Act is not due cause for any FBI interview- only a deeply corrupted mind or someone who is entirely ignorant of the law would spew such nonsense.
You can’t stand behind your obvious b.s. Only idiots say that a suspected violation of the Logan Act is a proper predicate for an interview. You deserve the insults and it felt good delivering them. Don’t say painfully stupid sht and you won’t get called out. ‘Til the next time.
Given the evidence known to date, is it more likely Flynn received the best of our justice system, or the worst of it?
Olly- Flynn needs to be made whole, reimbursed for what he has spent, reimbursed for the suffering of his family and friends, reimbursed for his emotional suffering, reimbursed for the damage to his career, reimbursed for the damage to his reputation and then awarded punitive damages on top of all.
If he has received the best of the justice system then the monster needs to be shut down.
Young, Flynn can never be made whole again, his reputation was destroyed. Hopefully he will be able to sue and win to return some of the money he lost. I think the best way or returning Flynn’s reputation is by placing those responsible for this misdeed in jail.
Young, not only was Flynn abused by our justice system, the abusers have shown themselves to be psychopaths in the process. Same with those in the MSM and general public that have enabled and supported this abuse. The penalties need to be so severe that it shocks the conscience. As much as that process needs to be very public, the government needs to make every effort to make Flynn whole. It too needs to be very public.
Agree.
Turkey doesn’t care about being consistent any more than Trump or Barr. If course there’s no precedent but Turkey makes his bread and butter on the Q Anon crowd and those that are convinced Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim. Turkey is a proven hack and Pied Piper to the severely ignorant.
judicial misconduct and extortious prosecution are grounds for either dismissal or full pardon with the charges expunged and the actors law licenses revoked.
The general was given the choice of pleading guilty or the feds were going to bring a truckload of specious charges against his son and the rest of the family, bankrupting all of them regardless of outcome. Like a good soldier, he took the bullet so others might survive. This was all documented in the e-press and blogs at the time. The LSM, of course, buried any exculpatory testimony or evidence.
General Flynn entered into a plea agreement which is the way 94% of cases are settled. It’s often the ONLY way to stop the bleeding as in Flynn’s case. Flynn’s lie was a process lie that they laid a purgery trap which was their goal!
Perjury
A crime occurred. But it was committed by the government.
DNC = Democrat Network of Crime. If it walks like a crime syndicate, talks like a crime syndicate and acts like a crime syndicate; it’s a crime syndicate!!!
Covid-19 blinders are resulting in collateral damage of non-Covid-19 medical conditions like strokes, coronary catheterizations, cancer, acute medical conditions and more. We are killing Americans with our current COVID-19 strategy
…
Reduction in ST-Segment Elevation Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations in the United States during COVID-19 Pandemic
Our preliminary analysis during the early phase of the COVID pandemic shows an estimated 38% reduction in US cardiac catheterization laboratory STEMI activations, similar to the 40% reduction noticed in Spain (4). A priori, given potential heightened environmental and psychosocial stressors, and a higher case of STEMI induced by viral illness (e.g. similar to influenza) (5) or mimickers such as COVID-19 myopericarditis an increase in STEMI activations would have been expected. Potential etiologies for the decrease in STEMI PPCI activations include avoidance of medical care due to social distancing or concerns of contracting COVID-19 in the hospital, STEMI misdiagnosis, and increased use of pharmacological reperfusion due to COVID-19.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
April 2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011
###
Collateral Effect of Covid-19 on Stroke Evaluation in the United States
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2014816
Thank you for the important update, Estovir!
The cure is sometimes worse than the disease. In Covid’s case fear is a killer.
If you’re a moron completely oblivious to how medicine works
I don’t know how to explain this briefly to such ignorance. Have you considered the deaths from people that are too afraid to go to the hospital? No you are too ignorant to know that all too many hospitals aren’t seeing many elective patients or emergency patients other than Covid. Can you figure out what that means? I doubt it. What is considered “elective” today? Are you too ignorant to figure that out as well? Stents, breast biopsies, etc.
Do you eat Wadsworth? Who provides your food? Who provides the dollars so that you can buy food? Are you that stupid that you don’t know that too much fear paralizes a nation and that causes loss of life as well. Increased alcoholism, increased drug use, increased suicides. Do you have any experience with those things or is substance abuse how you keep your mind as dull as it is?
What about loss of livlihoods, schooling and everything else that life offers?
Wadsworth, you can go back in your coma now.
He is.
Wadsworth has only shown ignorance on a certain subject. That can be rectified. YNOT, you show pure stupidity and there is nothing that can be done to help you.
Yep.
Anonymous the Stupid the following comment goes for you as well. We all note the emptyness of all your replies. “Wadsworth has only shown ignorance on a certain subject. That can be rectified. YNOT, you show pure stupidity and there is nothing that can be done to help you.”
Allan is projecting again.
Anonymous the Stupid, compare the content of our posts and even you will find that you are the Stupid one.