Flynn Retweets Call For Trump To Declare Martial Law To Hold New Elections

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn embraced an extreme call this week for President Donald Trump to declare martial law to hold a new presidential election. In a tweet, Flynn appeared to endorse a call from We the People Convention to declare martial law. He added “Freedom never kneels except for God.” As someone who long criticized Flynn’s prosecution as abusive, his association is deeply disappointing. While it does not alter the view of the prosecution, it will alter the view of Flynn to support such a call.

Flynn rightfully demanded review of his charges and his treatment by the court was irregular and improper in my view. The refusal to dismiss his case led to a presidential pardon.

Some of us have encouraged courts to review the voting allegations of the Trump campaign and I have specifically encouraged Democrats to support such scrutiny to help resolve the widespread view of this election as flawed.  I believe the failure to do so was a failure of leadership by Biden. However, dozens of lawsuits have been reviewed by the courts and rejected. This includes rulings by Trump appointees and conservative judges.

Ordinarily, I do not put much stake in retweets, which often occur quickly and without much thought. However, the large headline of the original tweet prominently refers to martial law. It is hard to miss. If he did not read the headline and does not support the call, he should immediately issue a correction.

The call for martial law is an invitation for virtual civil war. It is also a rejection of our judicial system that has continued to function as intended by the Framers. Federal judges have rejected these lawsuits for legal errors and lack of evidentiary foundation. The campaign has appealed many of these rulings and lost.

In a full-page Washington Times ad from We the People Convention, Ohio Tea Party leader Tom Zawistowski draws a comparison between Lincoln trying to save the union in 1863 and the need for Trump to declare martial law to stop “Democrat/Socialist federal officials plotting to finish gutting the U.S. Constitution.”

The reference to Lincoln is bitterly ironic. Lincoln has long been criticized for his unconstitutional action to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus.

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” That decision rests in Article 1 with Congress, not the President. Moreover, this is not a case of rebellion or invasion. This is a contested election. If a president could unilaterally declare martial law over his own election, it would not be an invitation to tyranny, it would be tyranny itself.

As for Congress, there is no chance that such a declaration would garner the support of both houses, including many Republicans.

The danger is not such Congress would approve such a move, but that such extreme calls are fueling the growing tension in this nation. For a former National Security Adviser to embrace such a call is chilling and reckless.

[Parts of this posting were updated]

291 thoughts on “Flynn Retweets Call For Trump To Declare Martial Law To Hold New Elections”

  1. There are so many election investigations in Georgia (about 250), that the Secretary of State had to request the assistance of the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.

    “Earlier this week, Secretary Raffensperger announced that his office had approximately 250 open investigations related to the 2020 General Election,” Governor Kemp said. “In order for Georgians to receive a timely conclusion to these important investigations, I thank the secretary for formally requesting Georgia Bureau of Investigation assistance in order to provide additional manpower and resources.

    “Highly qualified GBI personnel will work alongside law enforcement officers within the Secretary of State’s Office to ensure that Georgia’s election laws are followed and the investigations are completed as soon as appropriate.”

    I guess that a hand recount is *not* the final word on an election.

  2. Brad Heath (Reuters legal reporter):
    “- Courts in AZ and NV find no election fraud, after letting Trump & co. put on evidence
    “- WI Sup. Ct. majority says throwing out an election is pretty brazen, in bad sign for Trump
    “- MI court nixes “purportedly emergent” Trump case
    “- 11th Cir. befuddled by Kraken jujitsu
    “But also, Trump raised $207 million after asking supporters to help fund his avalanche of legal defeats. And so far it’s cost him $8.8 million (about a quarter of which was spent on text-message ads!). So overall it’s probably working OK for him.”

    And those are just today’s legal rulings. IIRR, the majority of the $207M that Heath mentioned is actually going to pay off prior Trump Campaign debts rather than post-election legal costs. Trump’s a grifter, and his supporters close their eyes to it.

    Many of the losing cases were filed by allies like Powell or the PA GOP, not by the Trump Campaign. According to Marc Elias (of Democracy Docket, which has fought a lot of the post-election legal cases re: the presidential election), “Trump and his allies are now 1-46 in post election litigation.” Less than an hour ago, he added “NEW: The same day that an Arizona court dismissed an election contest, Republicans file another one. Unbelievable. Shameful. Frivolous.” (a link to the new suit is appended)

    Anyone who’s interested can also find the post-election cases here:

  3. Jonathan: You have spent several columns defending Michael Flynn. The ink was barely dry on his pardon (which is effectively an admission of guilt) and now Flynn has revealed his true colors He would overturn the constitutional order by urging Trump to declare martial law and overturn the results of a free and fair election. One would expect this from a general in a “banana republic” but not from a US Retired Army General who took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Sedition is a lot worse than lying to the FBI! Flynn is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ defines “sedition” as an act “with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”. Endorsing an ad in the Washington Times calling for the declaration of martial law probably won’t get Flynn charged under the UCMJ but it should. Flynn is a disgrace to the US military. It is doubtful Trump will heed Flynn’s call to arms but he has certainly abused his pardon power in the case of Roger Stone and now Michael Flynn. Trump is even considering pardons for Giuliani (requested by his personal attorney), Jared Kushner and his three children. Trump is even contemplating a pre-pardon for himself, an act clearly unconstitutional. This is something totally innocent people do, right?

    What is really troublesome is that you continue to support Trump and Flynn’s false claims that the election was corrupted by massive voter fraud. You say that president-elect Biden has demonstrated a “failure of leadership” by not supporting Trump’s legal challenges to the election. Do you really expect Biden, who has already won the election, to back Trump’s unfounded claims of “massive voter fraud”. Get real! But you think Biden should do this because, to use your words, of the “widespread view of this election as flawed”. Really? Only among Trump and his loyal supporters is this view “widespread”. So far Trump is 1 for 40 in his legal challenges to the election. Judges around the country, Democratic and Republican, have rejected Trump’s claims. All state election officials have declared the election legitimate and most have already certified the results. Even Chris Krebs, Trump’s former head of cyber security, was willing to speak truth to power. That got him fired! When are you going to stop being Trump’s enabler?

    1. Turley did not defend Flynn. He pointed out that he was being illegally prosecuted/persecuted. Only a BAMN partisan could imagine that one implies the other.

    2. “When are you going to stop being Trump’s enabler?”

      After there’s a serious investigation of this:

      In the *fall of 2020*, UBS Securities LLC — which is 75% owned by the Chinese government — invested $400 million in Staple Street Capital. Staple Street Capital owns Dominion Voting Systems (DVS). Dominion’s voting machines were widely used in the election. With $400 million from China, Dominion’s corrupt Security Chief, Eric Coomer, then put that dirty money to “good” use in the election.

      Coomer is a passionate defender of Antifa, and loathes Trump. He said to Antifa members: “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!” And so, flush with Chinese cash, he did.

      Here is a link to the SEC filing:

      1. Evidence of UBS investing in Staple Street Capital isn’t evidence of Dominion doing anything illegal.

        1. Loose screw. If China has significant ownership then Dominion becomes less than reliable.Intelligent people recognize that fact.

          1. Staple Street owns a bunch of companies. Investing in Staple Street doesn’t mean the money gets used for Dominion. Intelligent people recognize that fact.

            1. It depends on the amount of money and the amount of influence. You dismiss everything you don’t like without any concern. That demonstrates a lack of knowledge and an inability to deal with complex facts.

              Nothing more need be said until you can add to the discussion.

            2. Anon: “Staple Street owns a bunch of companies. Investing in Staple Street doesn’t mean the money gets used for Dominion.”

              Some people have a fantastic capacity to swallow coincidence.

              Of the some 16,600 investment firms in the U.S. (and that’s just the U.S.), China just happened to invest $400 million (in the fall of 2020) in the one that owns Dominion Voting Systems.

        2. “Evidence of UBS investing in . . .”

          I think what you mean is: “Evidence of *China* investing in . . .”

          Kind of changes the picture.

          If this were “Russia investing in . . .” — and Trump had been declared the winner — your side would be up in arms. (And rightfully so.)

        3. It is evidence of a $400B link between the CCP and Dominion, certainly worth investigating more than the lie known as the Russia witch hunt.

          Do you deny the CCP prefers Biden for POTUS over Trump? Do you deny the quote from the Dominion executive?

          1. PT: “Do you deny the CCP prefers Biden for POTUS over Trump?”

            China admits that fact, openly. Before Trump, China could influence U.S. policies. And they want that influence back. How to get it? With a $400 million “investment” in the election, to support Biden.

            Here is a video of a November speech by a Chinese official speaking candidly about that “influence.” (It starts at about 2:00 in the top video. There’s a transcript below the video.)


            Incidentally, that official confirms that China helped Hunter Biden create and fund his foundations:

            “Trump has been saying that Biden’s son has some sort of global foundation. Have you noticed that? Who helped him [Biden’s son] build the foundations? Got it? There are a lot of deals in all these. [laughter, applause]”

      2. Sam, I don’t disagree with you but I only see the latter SEC filing so a direct link using SEC filings doesn’t exist on this blog at the moment. Do you have a more complete official linkage of China to Dominion?

        1. Mel “Do you have a more complete official linkage of China to Dominion?”

          The links from China to Dominion Voting systems are: UBS Securities Co. to UBS Securities LLC, to Staple Street/Dominion (and then into the corrupt hands of Dominion’s Security Chief, Eric Coomer).

          That China owns UBS Securities Co. is a matter of public record. That it invested, in the fall 2020, some $400 million in Staple Street is also a matter of public record. (That’s the link to the SEC filing.) That Staple Street owns Dominion is a matter of public record. That Dominion’s *Security Chief* promised a win for Biden is also a matter of public record.

          None of those facts are hidden. And the connections are easy to make. Some, though, wish to evade them. (That last comment, Mel, was *not* directed at you.)

          Some might assert: None of the China/Staple $400 million made its way to Dominion Voting Systems. Such an assertion does not pass the laugh test.

          As frauds go, this one is not that complex. (In comparison, for example, to the Enron debacle.) I suspect that the perpetrators were hoping to wait out the clock. Instead, they got caught rather quickly — and now the rats are jumping ship. Dominion’s head rat, Eric Coomer, was scrubbed from the company.

          1. Sam, I agree but I am looking for similar paper work that documents China’s involvement along with their % involvement compared to others.

            Thanks. I know the Chinese are involved but I can’t get that clear paperwork line with the %involvement.

            1. Mel: “I know the Chinese are involved but I can’t get that clear paperwork line with the %involvement.”

              UBS (the Swiss investment bank) owns 24.99% of UBS Securities. China owns the other 75.01%.

    3. “Lawful” being the term of art…..apparentky unlawful activity is ok….so long as it doesn’t overturn an election….but who knows what it overturned….all red counties know is they have been supplying the cannon fodder. … Why? So when their boss talks people get anxious… they should since the most the dod is fly over country. That the civilians hope to control….can they? Maybe with real elections….but then again there are thousands of dod voters with their own stories….and maybe votes in old states are being cast in their names….illegally. Maybe audit that ….virginia

  4. I too supported Flynn. Thought he was a decent man. No longer, maybe he should have got gaol. I think we are seeing the REAL Flynn now. He fit right in with the orange Turd. Disgusting.!!

        1. Only a “dumb POS” like yourself fails to understand the difference between “The end justifies the means” and “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”

        2. You know dumb.

          I abbreviated to accommodate the deficient, such as yourself.

          Global communist dominion justifies the “dictatorship of the proletariat” imposed by violence as the means.

          “It’s the [communist dominion], stupid!”

          – James Carville

  5. “The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: the abolition of private property.”

    – Karl Marx

  6. I very much support President Trump, but I DO NOT support martial law. Professor Turley says this would be an invitation to “virtual civil war.” Nothing virtual about it. It would be a real civil war. I hope and believe that General Flynn is alone in this nonsense. This is scary stuff and General Flynn needs to dial it back. PLEASE!

    As for you idiot trolls, threatening go after Trump and his family after he leaves office (and we know you meant it) hasn’t helped this situation at all. This is why Presidents never prosecute each other. Both sides make such threats (“lock her up”), but the difference is you imbeciles actually mean it, just like you mean to pack the courts–another insane idea that might precipitate violence. Grow up. Che Guevara is dead for a lot of good reasons.

    1. If Hillary Clinton committed crimes, she should be indicted.
      If Donald Trump committed crimes, he should be indicted.

      No one should be above the law.

    2. Unfortunately, you’re wrong about Che Guevara. He is very much “alive.” I was at an outdoor gym the other day doing my workout when another gym member walked by me with a prominent tatoo of Che Guevara’s face permanently etched on his arm. To many on the left, Che Guevara remains a hero in their “minds.” As the Leftist Indoctrincation Entities (“LIEs)–that used to be called college, universities, and high schools–continue their programming of impressionable “minds,” I’m certain there will come a time in the not too distant future (hopefully after I’m long since gone) when tatoos of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler will be commonplace.

        1. You must be thinking of the Republican guy in PA who tried to vote for his dead mother. He was arrested.

          1. No bigger crooks like the Dims who ran out Rep observers in GA only to be caught hauling out suitcases full of fake votes. Those guys.

  7. Turley, I hope you are reading the batsh*t crazy that you have unleashed. Reality really isn’t their thing.

    1. Yep, nothing to see here. Move along:

      “Video evidence that appears to show stashed cases of ballots in Georgia was played during a legislative hearing on Thursday.

      President Donald Trump’s attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, presented bombshell evidence from surveillance cameras that appeared to catch cases of “absentee and military” ballots being pulled out from under a table to be counted in Fulton County, Georgia.

      The alleged incident occurred at 10:30 p.m. at State Farm Arena after counting allegedly stopped when the observers and other workers were told to go home.

      The woman testifying said she witnessed four “suitcases” be pulled out from under the table. That occurred after a supervisor “with blond braids” told poll workers to leave the room. Four people, including the woman with the braids who told the others to leave, stayed behind to continue counting votes, according to the allegation.

      “[Attorney] Pick said the unobserved counting went on from 10:30 p.m. until about 1:00 a.m. The attorney alleged the counting resumed only after the Republican observers and members of the media left the room.”

      1. “See that guy in the blue jacket in some of the camera screens in this video? That’s an official monitor from the secretary of state’s office who was there watching the vote counting – like the SOS+Fulton said. While some partisan monitors left, it wasn’t unsupervised.”

        More reliable than the Breitbart article you’re plagiarizing from.

        1. Anon: “See that guy in the blue jacket in some of the camera screens in this video? That’s an official monitor from the secretary of state’s office who was there watching the vote counting . . .”

          Nice try.

          During the time in question, that “guy in the blue jacket” was *not* in the room. That time is roughly 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. (on the tape, from the 2:00 mark to the 11:00 mark). Here is a link to that surveillance video:

          The blue-jacket person left the room, with everyone else, at about 10:30 p.m. The observers and the media were told that counting had stopped for the night. So they left. They all left at the same time, why? Just a coincidence? They had reservations at the local men’s club? (It is a violation of Georgia election law to count ballots while observers are not present.)

          And yet, in fact, the ballot counting did continue, from about 11 p.m. until about 1 a.m. — after the observers and media had left the room. And that’s when the 4 boxes/suitcases of ballots magically appeared.

          And now the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is involved.

          “’Earlier this week, Secretary Raffensperger announced that his office had approximately 250 open investigations related to the 2020 General Election,’ [Governor] Kemp said.” “I thank the secretary for formally requesting Georgia Bureau of Investigation assistance in order to provide additional manpower and resources.”

          The State Farm Arena debacle is one of those investigations.

          1. Sam,

            The video you linked to is just under 14 minutes long. It cannot possibly show that someone was not in the room from 11pm to 1am. You’d need an uninterrupted 2-hour-long video to show that.

            “The State Farm Arena debacle is one of those investigations.”

            My understanding is that they already investigated it and concluded that there’s nothing illegal going on.

            I’ll repeat two questions I asked you earlier and that you ignored:
            Is there anything in the world that could convince you that you’re wrong? If so, what would do it?

            1. “The video you linked to is just under 14 minutes long. It cannot possibly show that someone was not in the room from 11pm to 1am. You’d need an uninterrupted 2-hour-long video to show that.”

              From the testimony it appears that Republicans were told and in some cases forced to leave the room or placed in position where not only could they not film a 2-hour long video, but they could not see what happened when the spike in Biden votes occurred. Windows of the doors were even taped shut.

              Your argument is that the bank tape no longer showed the robbery once the robbers destroyed the cameras. Therefore despite witness testimony and affidavits the robbery never happened.

            2. “Is there anything in the world that could convince you that you’re wrong?”

              The parting of the heavens, the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, and the streets flowing with Godiva chocolate.

    2. That sounds like an apt description of the conversations “unleashed” between Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Revere, Jefferson, Henry, Hale, Allen, Monroe et al.

      “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      – Declaration of Independence

      “Reality really isn’t their thing.”

      – FW

  8. The call for martial law is an invitation for virtual civil war.

    We’re already in a virtual civil war and no invitation is necessary. If we are to cite Lincoln, it would be more appropriate to consider his House Divided speech, because that is exactly where we are. This election has been an absolute clusterfuc* and one half of this country is certain to not accept the results. And whoever sits in the White House on January 20th 2021 will find it necessary to invoke martial law, with only one possible exception: If Biden wins and Republicans retain the Senate, then conservatives might be persuaded to see if the Senate Republicans are able to minimize the damage sure to be efforted by Biden and the Democrats over the next 2 years. Even then, if nothing is done to prevent another election like this one; if the Justice department does nothing to prosecute those involved in the Russia collusion fraud over the last 4 years, then all bets are off.

    1. At this point either way, Trump or Biden all pro America 1st people should at least move to a MLK civil disobedience type positions as we can no long tolerate this current corrupt old media/big tech monopolies/DOJ/FBI/Etc.., with these corrupt elections. This massive corruption crap is ph’in Over. Lock’em Up already!

    2. Olly, months before the 2016 Election, Trump claimed, without any evidence, that Hillary would ‘rig’ the election. Then, as soon as he took office, Trump claimed, without any evidence, that Hillary’s Popular Vote lead was inflated by ‘millions of illegals’. Trump appointed a commission to investigate. That commission went nowhere and fell apart without finding any evidence whatsoever.

      As far back as June of this year, many observers were predicting that Trump would refuse to concede if he lost this election. So the fact that Trump is howling fraud while failing to find any evidence is simply par for the course with Donald Trump. To characterize this election as a ‘massive fraud’ is overlooking Trump’s history of baseless claims.

      1. So the fact that Trump is howling fraud while failing to find any evidence is simply par for the course with Donald Trump.

        You say fact, as if you would recognize one that was presented to you.You have your truth and I have mine. The difference is mine comes with facts and evidence. Yours is feelings based. So if you still believe the entire Russiagate boondoggle was justified; if you still believe Ukrainegate and impeachment was justified; if you still believe a non-witness whistleblower (QPQ) is a patriot and hundreds of fact-witness whistleblowers (election fraud) are not, then you are either being willfully ignorant, or you’re an enemy of the state.

        1. Olly, Donald Trump had never held public office. He was an absolute novice starting at the top. As an upstart Trump was out of his league from the start. Trump thought the White House was entertainment. So that’s how he played it; a 24 hour reality show centered on Donald Trump in his improbable role of ‘President’. The ultimate swamp creature claiming to ‘drain the swamp’.

          Being an upstart Trump made stupid mistakes from the very start. Trump had no respect for the office he won. Trump actually went about denigrating the presidency while sabotaging government. And all he keeps improvising this reality show character. This bloated old playboy with the trophy wife. Trump talks like John Gotti despite his privileged upbringing. Isn’t that peculiar? Trump was raised in Jamaica Estates, the Beverly Hills of Queens.

          So what’s with the Wise Guy persona? Trump’s grandfather was well-to-do and highly successful. Trump should be talking like the Ivy Leaguer he is. It would make more sense. His mother’s Scottish accent should show up now and then. Trump should talk Sean Connery at times. That would be more logically natural than that John Gotti stuff.

          Why should anyone take Trump seriously? Trump is just a showman.

          1. Olly, Donald Trump had never held public office. He was an absolute novice starting at the top. As an upstart Trump was out of his league

            You keep uttering these inanities, Peter. At the same time, you fancy Barack Obama was ‘experienced’ because he’d punched his ticket in legislatures for 12 years. In truth, he’d never held an executive position, was a known maven in no area of policy, and had done nothing notable in lines of work other than politics. You like empty suits, because stupid.

    3. “If Biden wins and Republicans retain the Senate, then conservatives might be persuaded to see if the Senate Republicans are able to minimize the damage sure to be efforted by Biden and the Democrats over the next 2 years.”

      Since Repub administrations tend to bring smoldering economic ruin I’m curious if you could define exactly what this damage is, Olly.

      And make no mistake, what you refer to as the Russia collusion fraud, which I take to mean the work of Mueller, it gives the exact travel directions of how to prosecute trump for obstruction once he doesn’t have protection of the office to run interference for him.

      -Elvis Bug

      1. And make no mistake, what you refer to as the Russia collusion fraud, which I take to mean the work of Mueller,

        Not surprisingly, your take is egregiously myopic.

        Keep trying.

        1. Don’t have to try, Olly. The truth is on my side and your delusion, while disturbing, provides me a good bit of dark humor because i always look for the best in things. Even when you fall down so hard in trying to “be best”.

          -Elvis Bug

    4. one could call it a an ongoing “low intensity conflict” to use the parlance of military analysts

      Saloth Sar

      1. Riots, looting, businesses destroyed, cops killed, innocent civilians killed, crime statistics in major urban areas up dramatically. I guess it’s a matter of how one qualifies low intensity.

  9. Given that the “novel” coronavirus has been weaponized by the left, Mr Flynn has a point. Fear of dying from an unknown virus.. better than planes flown into buildings. Statistics say 90% of those who’ve died of the novel coronavirus had DNR do not resuscitate orders… meaning they had underlying serious health issues.

      1. Haven’t had a chance to read the paper yet, but here’s this:

        “Deceased positive SARS-CoV-2 patients were significantly more likely to have a DNR order on admission compared to recovered positive SARS-COV-2 patients (p < 0.05), similar to those who tested negative for SARS-COV-2. COVID-19 DNR patients had a higher mortality compared to COVID-19 non-DNR patients (log rank p < 0.001). DNR patients had a significantly increased hazard ratio of dying (HR 2.2 [1.5-3.2], p <0.001) compared to non-DNR patients, a finding that remained significant in the multivariate model."

        1. Thanks, but “patients admitted to two New Jersey hospitals between March 15 and May 15” isn’t a representative sample of all COVID patients in the US.

            1. Thanks, but really I only want Judith to show 90% of those who’ve died of the novel coronavirus had DNRs

              1. I found a PJ Media touting the 90% statistic, based on the same study I found.

                It is interesting data that may warrant further investigation. Since a third of all Covid deaths happened to people over 80 (many of whom may already have specified they wanted a DNR), then having 30, maybe 40% total, dying with a DNR makes sense. Ninety seems a bit high. However, could the fears of disabled people be warranted, as noted in a subsequent article? Were blanket DNRs being put in place?

                1. I agree that 90% sounds high, which is why I asked. If doctors created DNRs for disabled patients that the patients and caregivers didn’t agree to, they should lose their licenses.

        2. “In the U.S., several states including Tennessee, Washington, Kansas Pennsylvania and New York have issued protocols deprioritizing the treatment of disabled people in the event of scarce medical resources.

          Additionally, Alabama was compelled in April by the Office for Civil Rights to abandon its crisis management policy of “denying ventilator services to individuals based on the presence of intellectual disabilities, including ‘profound mental retardation’ and ‘moderate to severe dementia.””

          1. Decades ago Medicare made a trial run to create a numerical system (quality of life index) so if one fell below a certain number they would be more likely to get comfort care then expensive medical care. That means that the blind or deaf started with a lower number It was silently discontinued but all these trial runs return. They are pushed by leftist zealots. One of the most prominent today is Zeke Emanuel M.D.

  10. “A former FBI lawyer [Kevin Clinesmith] who pleaded guilty to altering an email during the Donald Trump-Russia investigation ‘made a grievous mistake’ but should be spared prison time and given probation instead, his attorneys said in a sentencing memorandum Thursday. … In June 2017, as the FBI was seeking to renew its surveillance of Page, Clinesmith was instructed to ask the CIA whether Page had ever been a source for the intelligence agency. Any relationship Page had had with the CIA could have been important to disclose to the extent that it could have helped explain contacts Page had had with Russians. Clinesmith understood the response he received to mean that Page was a subsource, not a source, for the CIA. according to his lawyers. In an email he then passed along to an FBI agent involved in the case, he added that Page was ‘not’ a source, believing that information to be true. …”

    1. In what legal universe is that supposed to be mitigating? It’s EXACERBATING because it means he would do it again because he doesn’t even understand what the crime was.

      His job was not to make an argument to the FISA court,. It was to faithfully submit evidence. Whether the statements in the email were true is irrelevant to the question of whether he committed a crime or how serious it was. The idiot (or his legal team) seems to think that the crime is something other than lying about what the author of the email said. It is not.

      1. Commit wants to jail Flynn for things he didn’t do and things the FBI thought he didn’t do as well. She was furious that the DOJ wanted to drop the case because there was none. She said he was guilty of the initial charges and that was proven in the FBI files that were released. She could never quote the words but insisted to everyone they weren’t looking hard enough to find them.

        That tells one a bit about Commit’s mindset when one is on Trump’s side and it tells us of her hypocrisy as she explains the Clinesmith affair where Clinesmith was clearly guilty of what he was charged. The sentence was to dissuade others from doing the same. There is no way to argue with a person who has so much hate. Her hate overrides her feelings towards justice.

        Now she is demonstrating how her hate overrides common sense. What you say is absolutely true, William, but there is no way that you can pass through that concrete lining over her brain. Mindless hatred does strange things to people.

        1. You’re the one filled with mindless hatred Allan. Like Trump, all of your insults are really about you.

          1. Your ghosts are consuming you anonymous. Your latest claim of an Allan substitute is William JD. Allan or anyone else would be proud to write informative discussion in the fashion of William JD. To date you have named 1/3rd to ½ of the conservative persons listing as Allan. Allan must be quite a guy. Envy does crazy things especially to crazy minds. Don’t go too far over the edge Anonymous. You are already half there, incoherent with very little to say except Allan…Allan…Allan.

            1. “Ron,” interesting that you just show up to insert yourself in the middle of this.

              Allan is a troll. If you like trolls, then he’s quite a guy.

            2. Thanks for the kind words, Ron. I will try to live up to the compliment in the future.

              1. You are welcome. I generally don’t post but lately I have been hearing the rantings of a maniac and I thought your comments were adding interest to the blog. Thanks for that.

            3. Ron,

              FWIW, the anonymous commenter who posted the December 4, 12:06am comment that you responded to is correct that the anonymous commenter who posted the December 3, 11:03pm comment is someone who used to post here under the name “Allan.” Allan harassed me for months, posting lies and insults about me like the ones in that December 3, 11:03pm comment. The anonymous commenter you responded to is correct that Allan is a troll, and I stopped responding to Allan months ago because of that, but he continues to address me. I didn’t respond to the 12/3 comment because I recognized it as having been written by Allan.

              So far, I don’t have the impression that William JD is Allan, but Allan has posted under several names since the election, and there’s some overlap in Allan’s and William’s commenting styles, so you shouldn’t assume that the December 4, 12:06am commenter is consumed by “ghosts.” Allan is a real troll. If you need, I can give you links to some old comments of Allan’s about me that should make it clear to you that the December 3, 11:03pm comment came from Allan too.

              1. I don’t want to get into your personal gripes. I am sure those here longer than me already know the score.

                William JD seems to make a lot of sense . I hear some of your explanations which have to be considered but the crime cannot be excused and I don’t think your explanations prove the crime didn’t take place. I am not an expert so I weigh the various opinions and at this time you come up short.

                The anonymous commentator I responded to sounds a bit crazy and a troll him or herself. Anyone listening to that poster can easily recognize that that poster has gone over the edge. In the short time I have been here he keeps popping up with a type of ranting seemingly out of the blue. I don’t know what was said or how it was said though I have seen other comments in recent days but don’t want to engage. I am limiting my view to what you and William have to say and to be honest I think William has underlying knowledge and the advantage.

                That you accuse William of being “Allan” is not important. I don’t care who says what. I look at what is being said and judge on that basis. If you respond and I don’t, I am not being impolite. As I have already stated I don’t want to engage in the craziness I am seeing from people like anonymous.

                1. Ron,

                  Just to be clear, I haven’t accused William of being Allan. The anonymous commenter did that. I’m not saying that I agree William is Allan, only saying that I don’t think the anonymous commenter is as crazy as you think he is. Allan is a real troll, and he’s been posting under a bunch of different names, so it’s not surprising that some people are trying to identify him.

                  Allan has twice responded to comments I posted to William. He did it again right after I responded to you this morning, once again using a new name:
                  I’m not going to respond to him. It’s a lose-lose situation, and the best solution is to ignore him for the troll he is.

                  In terms of my exchange with Willam re: Clinesmith, it’s certainly possible that I’m mistaken. It’s clear that he knowingly altered the email (though he also forwarded an unaltered copy of it). He has pleaded guilty. I’m simply not certain that his actions satisfy the crime he’s been accused of, and I’m especially not convinced of William’s view that if Clinesmith didn’t intend to do anything wrong, that makes things worse rather than being mitigating when it comes to sentencing. I’m open to changing my mind. William and I have exchanged comments about it in another column, and I’m waiting for William’s response to my comment there this morning:

                  1. “Just to be clear, I haven’t accused William of being Allan. The anonymous commenter did that. I’m not saying that I agree William is Allan, only saying that I don’t think the anonymous commenter is as crazy as you think he is.”

                    I did not want to engage in this but that anonymous character is crazy and it should be obvious to any poster. Whether or not he or she says things that are true has little to do with him being crazy though craziness frequently expresses itself with ideas frequently disassociated from the truth

                    I judge what you say based on what you say and what you said in the past. For me, the past is limited. I do the same for William. I don’t even consider what was said by the third party or look to see what the third party said. It doesn’t matter. Only what you and William said matters. I look at proof and the levels of proof. You haven’t proven your case. The documents prove Williams.

                    1. Ron,

                      OK. You and I have different opinions about the anonymous person calling Allan out. Allan has now posted 3 comments to me on different columns under 2 different names this morning, all with lies and insults. He’s an extreme troll, and I simply don’t fault anyone who decides to address Allan’s trolling, even though I don’t think it’s the best response. I can’t prevent Allan from trolling me all the time, I can only choose not to respond to him. If you don’t want to get drawn into Allan’s trolling, that makes sense. Be thankful that you’re not the focus of his lies and insults.

                      Re: my exchange with William, I’m still waiting for his response on the other column. So far, he hasn’t proved that Clinesmith intended to deceive with a knowingly false statement. Why do you think the documents prove that he was trying to deceive?

                    2. Commit, I don’t like to waste time and energy. Some of the comments I have seen seem to be appropriate opinion but that is just an impression from quickly scanning them. I would have to look more carefully at them before rendering my opinion.

                      If you wish to post what you think are incorrect statement go ahead and I will look at them but only with regard to specific facts dealing with the issues, not personalities.

                      I think based on listening to both sides William had a far stronger case. You can refer to Williams posts which were quite specific.

                    3. Sorry, the 1:24pm comment was from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion, I must have mistyped my email address for it to post with the wrong avatar.

      2. In the legal universe where you pay attention to the actual crime he was charged with, which requires that it be knowingly false.

        1. Clinesmith said that the author of the email wrote that Page was not a source. Clinesmith knew that the email’s author did not write that Page was not a source. Clinesmith knew that what he (Clinesmith) said was false. .This is elementary. You can’t be arguing in good faith.

          1. Clinesmith didn’t say anything about the author of the email. You’re confused about the facts of case.

            1. That’s the ONLY thing he said. You’re confused about the facts AND the law.

                1. I don’t know who Allan is, and you don’t know anything about the Clinesmith case, even after it was clearly explained to you. Pick a name, so people can avoid your lunacy,

                  1. Allan, you can deny it, but we all know you’re a liar. Since the election, you’ve posted a few comments under one of your old icons (, under other names, and anonymously, like you did in this column yesterday at 11:03 PM.

                    Clinesmith didn’t say anything about the author of the email, a liaison at a different agency. He only added a few words about Page. You’re just too cowardly to admit when you’re wrong.

                    1. The criminal case is based on the fact that Clinesmith lied (materially) about what the liaison said, It is about that AND NOTHING ELSE.

    2. A “sub source” is absolutely a type of “source.” If Clinesmith said a “sub source” is “not” a source he lied, is dumber than dirt or both.

    3. In what mental case universe do you live where a “sub source” is NOT A SOURCE? Lie much, to defend DNC felons? So “sub text” is not “text” when it defends DNC felons, right?

      Sheesh, what a pathetic dope. Do you really think any reasonable person buys your heap’o feces?

    4. What exactly and specifically prevented Clinesmith from answering that Page was a “sub source” for the CIA? A: this statement would have increased the likelihood of Page’s warrant being refused, which would have been better for Trump, and would have have hurt the DNC cause, period, full stop.

      You don’t have any idea if Clinesmith lied or told the truth. If he told the truth about his earlier actions then he lied when he plead guilty. When did he lie, liar? Is there any lie you won’t tell to defend the DNC and harm Page for working for Trump? You would not know honesty if it bit you.

  11. “Lincoln has long been criticized for his unconstitutional action to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus.
    Wasn’t unConstitutional since it was an open constitutional question at the time about which branch could suspend habeas corpus. Congress later ratified Lincoln’s actions and the Union was saved in the meantime.

    As for declaring martial law, that seems a tad overdone. I’d just round up the defrauding Dims and lock ’em up pending trial. Maybe we could use a football stadium or something to hold the miscreants. You know something in Florida where its warm. And we could teach ’em some basic statistical analysis, so the next batch of Dim crooks wouldn’t be so obvious in their fraud:

    1. Two Republicans were arrested for voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

      If you have evidence of others committing voter fraud, ask a judge for an arrest warrant.

Comments are closed.