Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
    I'm probably most annoyed by the attack on Flynn. He was literally doing his job in trying to temper the Russian reaction to the Obama sanctions in his last month in office. It was a new administration and they signaled that they were going to have a different approach.

    Napolitano's reference of the Logan Act is that flag that keeps getting waived. The reality is that all kinds of people independently try to influence foreign governments. While we only have one President at a time, the incoming administration has to get up to speed and build the contacts that they will need.

    The Logan Act is generally considered to be an unconstitutional attempt to control speech. The only reason it's still on the books is that since it was passed in 1799 only two people have been indicted and none convicted so no one has had standing to appeal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
      Biggest violator of the Logan Act is former Secretary of State John Kerry. One could also bring former President Carter in on that one as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
        The Logan act is a violation of free speech. You can't tell people what conversations they are allowed to have with people in foreign countries. It's over 200 years old and if they ever convict anyone of it, it will be ruled unconstitutional on appeal.

        In the meantime it's what everyone threatens each other with and may have been part of the excuse the FBI had for getting involved in something that they had no business getting involved with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
          That's an interesting way of looking at it. The other is as treason. It is one thing to actively petition one's own government for change. It is quite another to stand on one's laurels as a former representative of the United States to then denigrate it. If you are that ashamed of the United States, leave. It is that simple.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
            I wasn't defending John Kerry, he's a disgrace. I was specifically talking about the Logan Act which involves having discussions with a foreign power without being part of the state.

            The implication is that if Flynn had suggested to the Russians that instead of getting into increasing hostilities that they just wait a month and deal with Trump that he was violating the Logan act by negotiation with a foreign government without being an official agent of the U.S. government (yet).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 11 months ago
              The problem is, I have never found anything that defined what he talked about, AND I am not sure the Logan Act is applicable to the incoming NSA, who needs to prepare and set up contacts, etc before taking office, for a transition to be quick and effective.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 years, 11 months ago
                Whatever he mentioned there is no evidence that it was "negotiation" on behalf of the previous administration (which negotiation would not be "freedom of speech").

                Kerry's collaboration with Iran was deliberately undermining administration policy by exploiting an official position Kerry no longer had. Flynn was persecuted with a setup of misleading the FBI as a means to pressure him under threats.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
              I don't know all the specifics of the Logan Act, but I think that the State has a vested interest in having negotiations with foreign powers be conducted through official channels through recognized representatives. If you have business dealings that may be one thing, but policy matters between the two nations are jeopardized and undermined when non-official players - especially those who used to hold a position of authority but no longer do - are the ones getting involved. In effect, the Logan Act simply makes it criminal to pretend to authority one does not or no longer holds because it is a form of sedition. Remember, not all speech is protected Speech.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
                We are not talking about pretending to be an authority. The other states know who they are talking to and what authority they have. You cannot have business without politics being involved in some fashion.

                It is common for opposition candidates to travel to foreign countries and talk to leaders to help build their own policies, it is inevitable that the opinions they reflect may change how other nations react based on their calculations as to who is likely to win. These calculations can be wrong.

                Yes, the officials want to have control. Tough.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
                  "We are not talking about pretending to be an authority."

                  We'll agree to disagree. In my opinion, people like John Kerry and Jimmy Carter are inserting themselves into political affairs and leveraging their former positions to attempt to influence policy in direct opposition to those holding real negotiation power at the time. This undermines any legitimate negotiations or agreements.

                  "It is common for opposition candidates to travel to foreign countries and talk to leaders to help build their own policies..."

                  They may reach out to make contacts, but not to actually discuss policy matters - not until they are formally elected and therefore in line to hold legitimate negotiating power. And in the case of Kerry and Carter, there was no pending election - they were doing it simply as partisan opposition to a sitting President. Neither one was a "candidate" for anything.

                  I don't view this as a freedom of Speech issue at all. Freedom of speech has to do with individuals operating in an individual capacity - not as representatives of nations. I view this as a delegation of authority issue - more specifically of usurpation of authority. This is like you going down to try to buy a used car and having your next door neighbor tell the car dealership that you like to torture puppies in your spare time and so they shouldn't do business with you. Your neighbor has no authority to interfere with those negotiations between you and the car dealership.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 4 years, 11 months ago
    No he did not commit Obstruvction of Justice. Yes it should be. Appropriation of Government funds under false pretenses. If you bill for a fraudulent action, it is a crime.
    Mueller and company knew there was no collusion and not Obstructions but billed $35,000,000. That is fraud.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 4 years, 11 months ago
    It seems simple, the full resources of a sitting president (Obama) and the full, silent cooperation of all government agencies, both seeking to remove a Constitutionally elected president could not present any actionable evidence. Mensa credentials are not required to see it for what it was - and still is, a conspiracy to commit treason at worst, or several big dog felonies at best.The question is, will Trump see it through? If not, the Republic will never begin to recover as our largest threat, the DNC will see it, rightfully, as a serious weakness that may give them full control for the duration.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 4 years, 11 months ago
      Trump has the killer instinct. He didn’t take all this abuse for you and me to let them skate. He is a mentor/student of Roy Cohn. Cohn was the prosecutor of the Rosenbergs. They recieved death for their treason. It is an attempted coup de tate in the middle of the “Uncivil War” and they have been caught red handed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 11 months ago
    The Democrats point to Trump's firing of Jim Comey as an example of obstruction, but Comey himself refuted that, declaring as the Executive the President has the authority to fire any member of a cabinet agency at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. The same would have held if Trump had fired Mueller, but he didn't, however peeved he was at the abuse of the people around him. The President didn't use Executive Privilege once, even though the Mueller team subpoenaed a million and a half pages of White House communications, and had free rein to interview anyone they wished. I doubt any previous president would have shown such restraint in not interfering with the investigation. Barr made all of these points in defending his and Rosenstein's conclusion that there was no obstruction, with which I concur.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 11 months ago
    Well, lets look at this beyond just the basic facts at that level:

    "Flynn was charged and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about whether he discussed sanctions in a telephone call with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, before Trump became president. Such a communication could have been unlawful if it interfered with American foreign policy.

    So, when Trump learned of the lie, he fired Flynn. Yet in his plea negotiations with Mueller, Flynn revealed why he discussed sanctions with Kislyak -- because the pre-presidential Trump asked him to do so. An honest revelation by Trump could have negated Flynn's prosecution. But the revelation never came."

    The deep state is not a new thing, it has not been uncovered recently, it has been around for maybe hundreds or thousands of years. So, you are in a war with a group so antithetical to you, knowing they use subterfuge and lies as basic tools of policy, what do you do? Force themn to commit their crimes in the open, where you can record and capture the data, to provide a LEGAL and MORAL basis to indict and convict. Not the demonrat rumor and innuendo, but the legal way (now you know why Barr is so needed). Next, you need people willing to sacrifice themselves to get that info, and Flynn is such a guy. He had an unblemished record and was last assigned as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. What do you think he did there? Yes, he was able to see ALL the secrets, the data and the goings on. Would he be stupid enough to do something to throw himself under the bus? Is he a political creature? No.
    He sacrificed himself, allowed himself to be dishonored, because they needed to prove Muellrs gang of "18 Angry Democrats" was using any leverage, making up any story and breaking a whole bunch of laws, to GET TRUMP. It was the Insurance Plan. Now, would your average sheeple understand or even get to the point they see how bad all this is? NO. You need to be able to prove it hard, unequivocally, undeniably. You are fighting the biggest propaganda machine in the world.
    Flynn agreed to be bait.
    Every other indicted person on the list, was either a planted mole (Manaforte), or a Trump supported blackmailed with false evidence (Papadopolous), who may also have been a sacrificail anode, given the revelations coming out that Hillary was in Italy, talking and having dinner with the same guy who provided the evidence against Papadopolus, and who, by the way, was found to NOT be the Russian Agent Mueller claimed he was, just an out of work Hungarian professor paid a lot to do the job. The dirt in this sordid mess goes VERY deep.

    So:
    "Last week, Attorney General William Barr released publicly a redacted version of Mueller's final report. That report concluded that notwithstanding 127 confirmed communications between the campaign and Russians from July 2015 to November 2016 (Trump said there were none), the government could not prove the existence of a conspiracy."
    OK, but what constitutes "Communication"? There is abundant evidence the Obama Transition team had numerous conversations with several "foreign entities" before he took office, so do those count? Yet, not one word. Oh yea, Flynn also was one of those communications, and he was doing what any other transition team did "test the waters before you have to jump in". Only if it effects foreign policy, would it have been an issue and that was NEVER discussed or proven (remember: "Such a communication could have been unlawful if it interfered with American foreign policy." )

    His discussion of obstruction is sweet, because NO ONE has gone after Comey, Strozk, Page, Brennan, Clapper, Holder, Lynch etc for any of their obstructions that were both treason and treasonous. Yet Napolitano is trying to make a case that there is enough wiggle room to say Trump did? Not only is this scalar (even if you were to say he did do it, it was all an investigation that was created and concocted on a false evidence, and based on information that was illegally obtained by FISA warrants obtained through deception and false certification, so throw everything from all that out. In the end, he is trying to say Trump obstructed justice by interfering in an investigation that had no legal basis and was completely fabricated from the start.

    You cannot obstruct something that is illegal in the beginning.

    Congress can try to do it, but then, it would be a huge public display, and ALL the skeletons would come out, and ALL those players on the other side who leaked secrets (Schiff) made stuff up (too many to list) participated in manufacturing evidence and making false statements (again too many) would be revealed and then have to hire their own team of lawyers to defend themselves, and Trump would still NOT be impeached.

    The Senate was the key.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
      I believe Flynn was fired for lying to the Vice President and Chief of Staff causing them to make misleading press statements, not for lying to the FBI.

      Frankly, I don't know what business the FBI has in asking about policy discussions between the incoming administration and the Russians.

      The Logan act is generally considered to be unconstitutional. Had they charged him with that and he been convicted it would have almost certainly been overturned -- they've never convicted anyone on it although private interactions with foreign countries are routine.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 11 months ago
        Look a little closer, and connect the dots: Strozk had Pences COS wife working with him, she was to be the conbnection, the COS was leaking ll the Trump admin back to them through her, and so they pushed him to whisper in Ceasers ear "He's lying"., when Flynn told Pence the truth (or Pence was told to fire him) he is fired. Flynn did nothing wrong at any time. His "lie" to Pence was all a story, or a cover to get rid of him, since at DIA he had huge access to enough data to map the deep state, and he was a huge threat to them with access to Trump. They did not take Q seriously. Flynn is probably a big part of Q.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 11 months ago
      nickursis that was quite an essay, thanks.
      Some questions-

      You cannot obstruct something that is illegal
      I know that courts will not enforce illegal contracts. I think you are right.

      What appears to be the case here is that the inquiry was a fishing expedition- as much money as you want to investigate anything you want to get evidence that one nominated person committed a/any crime.
      And get the same on anyone connected with the target.
      Is this giving unlimited power? Is this constitutionally prohibited?

      Is the accusation- the obstruction of justice, or- of Justice - The concept, or the department and its employees?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 11 months ago
        Lucky, it is such a generic charge that it can be used in almost anyway spun correctly, which was the whole thing that the demonrats babble about. It may have no legal standing, but they don't care. But, also in line with Flynn (and supporting my thesis):


        3330
        New: Title TBD
        Q
        !!mG7VJxZNCI
        27 Apr 2019 - 12:13:33 PM
        https://saraacarter.com/breaking-fbi-...
        Chain of Command
        Chain of Custody
        PENCE' CoS + Wife
        FBI 302's
        FISA (spy) > Flynn
        Will newly discovered evidence (AG Barr - SDNY) FREE FLYNN?
        Q

        Hmmm..part of the Plan all along?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 11 months ago
    One minor detail which "Judge" Napolitano forgot: obstruction requires one to prove motive in addition to proving that the person actually obstructed the investigation. Nothing Trump "said" can be construed as obstruction. That was correctly identified by Barr when explaining away the ten so-called suspicious activities. Why? Because as Barr pointed out, nothing came of them. The President was venting - and rightly so given the obviously partisan nature of the entire investigation - and its predicate - in the first place.

    And here's the kicker: if the predicate (the reason for the investigation) was the Steele Dossiere, then EVERYONE involved in putting it forth in order to justify the FISA warrant and everything else, is guilty of creating a false investigation in the first place. And if the reason for the investigation was false, there can't be any justifiable obstruction on the part of the accused.

    Sorry, but there are way too many holes in this opinion article for me to buy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 11 months ago
    As to obstruction, it's a dangerous law that should be limited to actual physical obstruction. It can, and has, been interpreted broadly to include such things as publicly saying "I am innocent". So, given the argument that you can obstruct an investigation into a case where you are innocent, claiming your innocence when you ARE innocent could make you guilty of obstruction.

    In the McGhan case, according to the Mueller report, Trump told McGhan to communicate to Rosenstein that he thought Mueller had a conflict of interest and should not be the independent counsel. He said it strongly and is quoted as saying "I want him gone".

    There are a lot of interlocking connections and the team that Mueller put together looked far from unbiased truth seekers so he, at least arguably, wasn't a good person for the job. So Trump, who is in charge of the executive branch had a reason to communicate his opinion.

    There is nothing that says he told McGhan to fire Mueller, and while McGhan fancies himself as a modern Elliot Richardson, standing up to Nixon, unlike Richardson, he had no authority to fire Mueller, all he could do was communicate Trump's opinion -- which he was reluctant to do.

    When Nixon had the Saturday Night Massacre where he went through two attorney generals trying to fire Archibold Cox, Cox had presented a subpoena for the White House tapes and Nixon was clearly trying to stop that subpoena from being pursued. That was a clear attempt to block an investigation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 11 months ago
    Good Point...seems obstructing a corrupt political witch hunt that is against the law in the first place deserves a Congressional Metal of Honor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by exceller 4 years, 11 months ago
      Napolitano's "reasoning" was soundly defeated by Derschowitz.

      I never liked Napolitano and after his drivel I like him even less. One more on FOX I won't watch again.

      Don't know what is behind it: the guy sees an opportunity to join CNN?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 4 years, 11 months ago
        He Napolitano apparently asked Trump for the Supreme Court appointment and was properly rejected IMHO
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by exceller 4 years, 11 months ago
          I don't like the guy. He reminds me of a baboon with his low forehead.

          Apparently he saw a chance to establish his "legacy" with the left.

          At the same time he had a the nerve to claim that he has been friends with the president for 30 years and will be for another 30.

          He is a perfect resident of the swamp.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 4 years, 11 months ago
        Everyone can switch sides. His logic is bogus, simply because you cannot be convicted of obstructing an illegal investigation. The entire basis, 99% of their evidence, was illegally obtained under fraudulent FISA documents. All the "Guilty" will indeed be restored, once the rats are all trapped. They were the bait. There is a real reason all they ever were able to do was blackmail people into submission, and that blackmailing will be one part of their undoing. This is just starting. Hang on and get the popcorn hot....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 4 years, 11 months ago
          Napalitano has been groomed to distort the truth about the constitution and the reality of Justice.

          Blackmail.
          You nailed it Brian. They Twist and pervert humans desires and weaknesses. Turning themselves on themselves. The EVIL has no creativity. It repeats like the symbols of the everready bunny. Predictable when you understand. The “natural laws” of human behavior is the ancient knowledge the Masononic Luciferian Illuminati (1000 points of light my ass) deletes , secretly passed down and employed. If you know the NXIVM story you will know to join the DOS(Satanic Latin abbreviation) , the victims were required to give incriminating videos or evidence about themselves or family. Basically the NXIVM story
          Has mind control , human experimentation, human slavery trafficking Blackmail all rolled into one. The light is revealing what was concealed in darkness. The truth is the light.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo