May 9, 2020

"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... 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.'... [But] former Attorney General Eric Holder... moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan.... The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First... Flynn was never charged with perjury... Second, there is ample precedent for this motion... Third, there is also case law.... 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.... The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence... 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."

Writes Jonathan Turley.

173 comments:

narciso said...

what is the Swahili word for chutzpah, he's using isikoff who was steele's pawn,

Shouting Thomas said...

The heat is getting very close to Obama.

He, along with Hillary, obviously cooked up the spying on the Trump campaign, and the fabrication of the Russia collusion hoax.

So, he’s got to come out fighting.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Logan Act is a tell. Any law enforcement official (DOJ/FBI/NSA/ODNI) who utters it is a fraud, plain and simple. It is a legal pretext to to do bad things in secret - like illegally unmasking the identity of US citizens on wire tapped phone calls, and then leaking it to the press.

Obama here sounds weak. He has basically gone full Marcel Marceau for the past 3 years, making his millions from Netflix & speeches. Ok, fine. He recently endorsed Slow Joe. Ok, fine.

And, now he is babbling incoherently about "the rule of law", when he has no idea what USA Jeff Jenson turned up for Barr, after reviewing the Flynn case.

Maybe, Obama should sit down for an interview and tell the world whether he ordered the counter-intelligence investigation of Trump's campaign.

Marshall Rose said...

Why is the destruction of Flynn still so important?

I understand the destroy Trump by any means crowd as he is a threat to their world, but what threat does Flynn still represent that a former president feels the need to interject himself?

Night Owl said...

He's doubling down. Makes me think that Obama has more to fear than I thought. I still don't believe he will ever be indicted for anything; but his "scandal-free" legacy may be destroyed.

joshbraid said...

This is indeed a moment of great historical importance. Will we totally abandon the pretense of justice and protection of God-given, unalienable rights as a country? Certainly Obama is correct in his saying, "the rue of law is at risk", this abandonment of the rule of law is especially his legacy.

Bay Area Guy said...

Prof. Jonathan Turley is a National treasure. Need more like him.

David Begley said...

This is classic Dem technique. Just like when Hillary paid for a false Russian dossier and then accused Trump of being a Russian agent.

Obama destroyed the Rule of Law. He ordered the FBI and CIA to spy on the Trump campaign. The FISA warrants were wrongly granted.

Obama then helped the coup attempt on Trump. He tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

People are going to jail. Obama’s reputation will be trash.

I’m happy to see this leak. Barack knows he is in trouble. I suggest he be interviewed for a couple hours by Laura Ingraham or Brett Baier. What did the President know and when did he know it?

This is the biggest scandal in American political history.

JAORE said...

Prof. Jonathan Turley is a National treasure. Need more like him.

He is an honest liberal. Rare enough. But the progressives are trying mightily to make them extinct. I'm sure his "traitor!" messages are plentiful.

Bay Area Guy said...

The brilliant and dogged Mollie Hemingway sets out how the Russisn Hoaxers set out to frame Trump .

rhhardin said...

These days almost anything you say can be used against you, unless you're outside the grips of a human resources department.

Original Mike said...

Obama will never see consequences. But the more he is found to be involved, the greater the risk to Comey/Brennan/Clapper. Someone big would have to take the fall.

Sebastian said...

"the 'rule of law is at risk'"

In this instance, as in the Russia collusion hoax, the truth is the exact opposite of what O asserts: he and his minions subverted the rule of law, weaponizing "the law" against their political opponents.

Michael K said...

Obama destroyed the Rule of Law. He ordered the FBI and CIA to spy on the Trump campaign. The FISA warrants were wrongly granted.

Oh, he began well before that. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Fast and Furious. There is a long list going back to the "New Black Panthers" and election interference. It's the Chicago Rules. The gold makes the rules.

CJinPA said...

* Obama's call was basically a campaign speech.

* Media outlets are using the "There's no precedent" and "Rule of Law is at risk" in their headlines, while waiting to note late in the story that *both* statements are based on Obama getting the charge wrong.

* Obama tried hard to prevent Trump from hiring Flynn, and then Obama-hired prosecutors tried to destroy Flynn after he was hired.

It's going to be difficult for HBO to make Flynn look like the villain when they inevitably dramatize this sorry affair. Difficult, but they'll find a way because they're pros.

Tomcc said...

That is a dubious president.

holdfast said...

I wonder what Flynn did when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency is so pissed off Obama. This is way beyond politics and anti-trump warfare. This is clearly person.

Skeptical Voter said...

The particular part of the "rule of law" that's at risk here is Obama's mangy hide. He'll never see any real legal consequences, but his reputation may get dinged up a bit. And for a narcissist like him that's important and has got to hurt.

On the other hand so long as the true facts re his administration's abuse of the law aren't reported in the New York Times or the Washington Post--well, it never happened. Or so he believes.

narciso said...


he noted that al queda was not dead, but resting a regeneration,

https://www.steynonline.com/10273/the-road-to-mann-delay

penn state got 55 million from the bailout?

Original Mike said...

"I wonder what Flynn did when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency is so pissed off Obama. This is way beyond politics and anti-trump warfare. This is clearly person."

It may not have been much. Obama is notoriously thin-skinned.

zipity said...


Obama is sweating. This whole coup attempt leads straight to the Obama White House.

J. Farmer said...

I wonder if anyone has ever used the phrase "rule of law is at risk" and meant it sincerely. Twitter sleuths quickly dug up an example of Eric Holder dropping charges against someone for prosecutorial misconduct. Oddly, Obama also refers to Flynn as having been charged with "perjury." I guess that's close enough, but it's still kind of an odd mistake.

Is there anything lamer than a big investigation that ends with nothing but a charge of lying to the FBI? "Yeah, we don't have any evidence that you did the thing we were investigating, but in the process of determining that, you lied to us about something else, so we're gonna charge you with that."

It's sort of like when I get an arrest report, and the only charge is "resisting an officer without violence."

wild chicken said...

Well at least he's not letting down the side. This is for consumption by the faithful. They will stick to this story til they die, and they will write the history books.

Unknown said...

For Marshall Rose...Obama wanted Flynn out because Flynn vociferously opposed Obama's Iran deal, and he must have thought that Flynn would convince Trump to kill the deal...and who knows why else....Maybe Flynn had dirt on Obama.

Paul Zrimsek said...

There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free

The 44th President of the United States does not remember the 42nd President of the United States. Noted.

Shouting Thomas said...

The current panic, state shutdowns and general campaign of economic sabotage is a continuation of the Democrats’ Get Trump schemes.

Achilles said...

Obama is a traitor.

He was ultimately responsible for crimes that make Watergate seem trivial.

He should hang.

Lurker21 said...

Why is the destruction of Flynn still so important?

Personal dislike and unpleasant run-ins with Flynn may have tipped the scales and made Obama willing to believe the worst about him. For others, it may just have been that they needed a scalp to justify their efforts, and Flynn's was one they could take.

Danno said...

Trump has to raise all of these unreported news items in the upcoming Presidential debates. That is the only way they get put in front of WaPo and NYT believers. I can't wait.

bagoh20 said...

Well, there is ample evidence of him being full of shit, so this is exactly what you should expect from the lightworker. I do appreciate him stopping the rise of the oceans though. That was a close call.

narciso said...

this was around she hired her Chinese spy as driver and office manager no?


https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/05/dianne-feinstein-abandons-believeallwomen-with-scathing-remarks-about-biden-accuser-tara-reade/

Blogger Login Procedure is Lame said...

The questions raised about the Obama administration's weaponization of the federal government should never omit to mention Lois Lerner and the IRS. It's not like this is some weird lower-level thing that accidentally happened one time. The administration was characterized by this kind of thing all along.

And the one thing the media is even less likely to report on than Obama administration corruption is its own complicity. It's a lot easier to use federal power against your political enemies when you know you are never going to be held to account for it because all of the major media organs are on your side and will cover for you.

bagoh20 said...

The Trump campaign might have to educate more Americans than the entire media has in four years, not to mention clearing out all the misinformation as well. Watch for the full court press of lies coming from the media denying every single revelation - revelations on how they lied the first time.

Michael K said...

Is there anything lamer than a big investigation that ends with nothing but a charge of lying to the FBI?

Wasn't that the Martha Stewart charge ?

Shouting Thomas said...

The Get Trump Scheme:

Act 1: Russia Collusion Hoax. Fabricated by Obama, Hillary & FBI.

Act 2: Impeachment. 53 witnesses admit in secret testimony that they have no knowledge of collusion, then later go before the national media to say they testified to direct knowledge of collusion. Impeachment proceeds based on false public testimony.

Act 3: Pandemic Panic. The virus, while real, provides an opportunity for damaging Trump’s re-election chances via economic sabotage, i.e., shutdowns and massive unemployment.

stephen cooper said...

The interesting thing to watch for is that moment when people with self-respect and knowledge of the relevant legal context publicly defect from the side of the Flynn haters to the side of Flynn supporters.

Remember, Flynn's career prospered during the Obama regime, so they can do so without the psychological pain it would take to defend Roger Stone from the runaway jury.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

I want to see Obama locked up.

Kevin said...

Oddly, Obama also refers to Flynn as having been charged with "perjury."

Bill Clinton committed perjury. He had it knocked down to contempt of court.

How much time did he serve?

Danno said...

David Begley said..."This is the biggest scandal in American political history."

The understatement of the millenia! Makes Tricky Dick Nixon look like a bit player.

Iman said...

What would 0bama know, he's not a lawyer.

Marshall Rose said...

I appreciate that Obama wanted Flynn out at the time, my main question is why still ?

Flynn has already been sidelined. Why is Obama now breaking his silence on the matter?

JackWayne said...

“ The Obama statement is curious on various levels.” This is virtue signaling. Can’t say the magic words, criminal intent, about the black President. Obama got every pass available from moderates and progs. And he’s still getting the pass.

Sam L. said...

Obama just hates, Hates, HATES that danged TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!!!

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Obama Defense Official Evelyn Farkas Admitted She Lied On MSNBC About Having Evidence Of Collusion

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-defense-official-evelyn-farkas-admitted-she-lied-on-msnbc-about-having-evidence-of-collusion/#.XrVhqy1PIHs.twitter

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

#ADAM-SCHITT#MUST-RESIGN

Jason said...

Obama the Harvard Law lecturer also claimed there was no precedent for the Supreme Court striking down a "duly constituted" law.

He also said "no nation can or should dominate another."

He also claimed that liability-only auto insurance "wasn't serious insurance."

He got the Citizens United case ass backwards during a State of the Union address, when Justice Alito had to mouth "it's not true."

He's an idiot.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Scott Adams pipes in

Mike Sylwester said...

On December 29, 2016, President Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats. The purported reason was that Russia had meddled in the USA's Presidential election.

However, Russia had not meddled in the election, and none of the diplomats has been accused of participating in any such meddling.

The real purpose of the expulsion was to poison US-Russia relations shortly before Donald Trump became the new US President. Furthermore, any effort by the Trump Administration to improve those poisoned relations would be treated as proof that Trump and his campaign staff had colluded with Russia to affect the election.

That was Obama's plan, and Obama's plan indeed was executed when Trump's new National Security Advisor Michael Flynn talked on the phone with Russia's Ambassador. Flynn's phone conversation was treated as proof that Flynn was a secret agent of Vladimir Putin.

CJinPA said...

This is pretty interesting: The 12 revelations that sunk Mueller's case against Flynn

Iman said...

I wonder what Flynn did when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency is so pissed off Obama. This is way beyond politics and anti-trump warfare. This is clearly person[al].

Flynn made plain what he thought of 0bama. He wouldn't bend the knee. 0bama doesn't tolerate anything short of being worshipped.

Original Mike said...

Blogger BleachBit-and-Hammers said..."Obama Defense Official Evelyn Farkas Admitted She Lied On MSNBC About Having Evidence Of Collusion"

Wanna bet she wins her election? I bet 'yes'.

PB said...

When you start seeing flak, you know you're over the target.

bagoh20 said...

"Flynn was given a very generous plea deal; just a single count of lying to the FBI. It was generous by design, and by agreement of all of the parties. So Flynn would provide cooperation in the ongoing investigation."

Let that sink in for a minute. Forced to support the "ongoing investigation" that we now know was a complete fraud, kept ongoing through severe violations of laws intended to protect us all from the kind of people we obviously had in these agencies who were willing to do anything legal or illegal for political purposes. It was also revealed this week that the FBI had determined that there was no case against Flynn and was dropping the investigation until Peter Strzok overrode that finding and decided to lie it back into being. Where is that upstanding defender of the law today. We aren't seeing new evidence exonerating him, just his victims.

PB said...

Someone in his Obama administration alumni group recorded the call. That's stunning.

tim in vermont said...

https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-limbaugh/content/2019-10-07-pn-rush-limbaugh-bombshell-admission-clapper-says-obama-made-them-do-it/

CJinPA said...

Obama also refers to Flynn as having been charged with "perjury." I guess that's close enough, but it's still kind of an odd mistake.

Funny thing is, the agent who interviewed Flynn didn’t think Flynn lied.

"Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview," a memo from Mueller's team stated.

Temujin said...

Turley's stepped in it big time now. It's one thing to come to the aide of Kavanaugh, it's another thing entirely to question Him. It's interesting that Obama is the only person every to be the president of the Harvard Law Review who published nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. In his entire law career before he became President, his name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship.

That's not a crime. But it leaves his law expertise to his actual pronouncements and actions. As we see here. Or as we saw him using the IRS to silence political opponents. In reality, his crimes are so far beyond Nixon's it's laughable to even compare. Don't recall Nixon leading a subterfuge coup.

The outer layer of this coup attempt has been pulled back. The investigation is getting a layer closer. Or more. Obama has to release the hounds in the press and his allies throughout government to step on this before it actually moves any further. You will see and hear more from His Greatness in the next month- guaranteed.

ABCNBCCBSCNNNYTWAPO are all on alert to suffocate this thing. I don't know if it'll work. It has until now, but the damn has a leak and is in danger of breaking.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm not into all the Flynn fluffing. He's a weak man and probably should not have been in a position of authority. And no of course not, he should not have been railroaded.

He pled guilty to a crime he did not commit. He agreed to work with corrupt and dishonest prosecutors. He agreed with those same prosecutors to hide the fact his son would not be prosecuted thereby cheating future defendants out of a fair trial. He is just another bureaucrat in uniform. We have way too many of those.

Roger Stone has shown way more backbone and integrity than Flynn.

bagoh20 said...

"I wonder what Flynn did when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency is so pissed off Obama. This is way beyond politics and anti-trump warfare. This is clearly person[al]."

Once Flynn was installed, he would have to be told about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, and that would have blown the whole effort against Trump before it got going. He had to go, it had to take a while, and it had to look like it was related to collusion charge on Trump. It almost worked.

PB said...

Flynn's conflict with Obama was around the Iran deal. He knows all about the negotiations that led to the deal and the massive shipment of untraceable cash in the dark of night to the Iranians.

Wince said...

In the campaign against Biden, Trump supporters should focus on Biden's involvement in this Obama era HOAX scandal rather than Tara Reade allegations.

1.) Democrats will have to fall in line and double-down on the lies because to give up on Biden on the issue of the HOAX is to sacrifice Obama and his legacy. The damage will be more pervasive and long lasting than Biden being tossed for a 25 year old contested allegation of groping.

2.) Defending the HOAX will force Democrats to continually defend the indefensible, which will become increasingly obvious despite media bias.

3.) The damage to Democrats' credibility across the board will extend beyond Biden and hurt their down ticket chances in the fight for control of Congress.

Consequently, watch the Tara Reade scandal become even more of an inside Democrat hot-job on Biden to eliminate the HOAX issue (as well as his other infirmities).

NYC JournoList said...

Wasn’t it the the comments Trump made to Comey over dinner that Flynn was a good man and could Comey go easy on him that Comey says caused him to memorialize his meetings. The notes Comey then leaked to the professor to get Mueller appointed. Does not EVERYTHING that has happened in the Deep State war circle around Flynn. Why would the Deep State want Flynn so discredited that even Trump would not believe him? Why are we not permitted to mention Eric Ciaramella? Are he and Flynn tied in some way?

Original Mike said...

" It was also revealed this week that the FBI had determined that there was no case against Flynn and was dropping the investigation until Peter Strzok overrode that finding and decided to lie it back into being."

Not really Strzok. He made the request, but the order came down 'from the 7th floor'.

Bay Area Guy said...

@CJinPA,

John Solomon is a National treasure. So is, Sharyl Atkisson.

CJinPA said...

I don't like that Turley is quoting a news report of Obama's conversation and not a direct quote of Obama. Did you notice that, Althouse?

It is a direct quote from Obama. Yahoo News listened to a tape of the call. Turley links to Business Insider, which links to Yahoo News.

Flynn was not charged with a Logan Act violation. Nobody ever asked Flynn to make a plea to a Logan Act charge.

The obscure Logan Act was the ridiculous pretext for interviewing Flynn, while plotting to trick him into believing it was an informal interview and he didn't need legal counsel present.

FBI officials debated whether they could avoid, disguise or slip in the required FBI admonition against lying to agents at the start of Flynn’s interview to keep him off guard. “It would be an easy way to just casually slip that in,” FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted during the discussions.

The FBI agent who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn lied.

Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview,” a memo from Mueller’s team stated.

Flynn -- a reminder here -- was FIRED by Trump for lying.

Because the FBI lied to Trump. We now know Flynn didn't lie.

Flynn admitted to the charge in court, and twice allocuted his guilt in front of two different US District Judges.

YOU know why he did that. I know why he did that. EVERYONE knows why he did that.

Wince said...

Here's one, maybe the first, of many reasons why Obama hated Flynn.

The real source of Team Obama’s ‘despair’ over Mike Flynn
Marc Thiessen November 22, 2016
https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/the-real-source-of-team-obamas-despair-over-mike-flynn/

So why are Obama aides so upset about Flynn, who Foreign Policy magazine reports “as a boy … would help arrange bus rides for Democratic voters on election days in his hometown.”

Simple. Because he warned them about the danger of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal and predicted rise of ISIS – and then, after leaving office, called Obama out for failing to heed that advice.

It was under Flynn’s leadership that DIA issued a classified report in 2012 predicting everything that has come to pass in Iraq since Obama’s withdrawal of American troops – warning that the chaos in Syria was creating conditions that could allow al-Qaeda in Iraq (now ISIS) to make a comeback and declare an Islamic caliphate. The report, dated August 2012 and obtained by Judicial Watch last year, warned:

“The deterioration of the situation [in Syria] has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and … creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq, now ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory … [and] renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into [the] Iraqi arena.”

Then, in February 2014 – a month after Obama had publicly dismissed ISIS as the “jayvee team” that is “engaged in various local power struggles and disputes” and is not “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into” – Flynn went to Capitol Hill to deliver DIA’s “annual threat assessment” to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He accurately predicted ISIS would probably “attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014, as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah, and [by] the group’s ability to concurrently maintain safe havens in Syria.”

Everything Flynn’s DIA predicted came true – and he was pushed out because people in the White House didn’t want to hear it. As Flynn told the New York Times, “it didn’t meet the narrative.”

He was right and they were wrong. Now he’s in and they are out. Hence the “creeping sense of despair” on the Obama team.

Openidname said...

"There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been *charged* with perjury just getting off scot-free."

Because being charged means you're guilty. No need for a trial.

cronus titan said...

This is the clearest sign that the investigation will reach Obama. First, it establishes the narrative Obama wants (which is ridiculous on its face but the media will go with it). Second, it was leaked to Isikoff, who as the go-to scrivener for Obama administration narratives (Isikoff was the scrivenere FBI and Steele used to get the FISA warrant). It tells us something significant is about to break and Obama feels compelled to get ahead of it.

If there are any indictments of Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, etc., the ultimate Trump troll would be to pardon Obama of any crimes provided he cooperates with the investigation.

PB said...

Focus on the Iran deal. Follow the money (if you can). Did it just/all go to them or were there "commissions" paid?

cronus titan said...

@Openidname

Isn't that the standard set by MeToo? Yes. Yes it was. The Obama administration was way too comfortable destroying due process when the target was from an identity group they did not like. And to quote from Obama's mentor, the chickens have come home to roost.

Darrell said...

Obama knows that Althouse will never support any legal action against him, especially for treason. One day the people, though, will flush the toilet and the Left will disappear from sight.

Openidname said...

"PB said...

"Someone in his Obama administration alumni group recorded the call. That's stunning."

How naïve. Surely Obama said it so it could be leaked and instructed the leaker to record it.

bagoh20 said...

"He pled guilty to a crime he did not commit. He agreed to work with corrupt and dishonest prosecutors. He agreed with those same prosecutors to hide the fact his son would not be prosecuted thereby cheating future defendants out of a fair trial."

Agree that sucks, but he didn't create that terrible choice for himself. It's one thing to sacrifice yourself for principle, but to sacrifice someone else too (his son) takes it out of the realm of courage or selfishness. I think we agree that sacrificing yourself for your principles is a noble thing, but to hurt some other innocent is a much tougher thing to justify. The FBI assholes obvious assumed Flynn was willing to sacrifice himself. That's why they had to threaten the son too.

Darrell said...

Obama ordered everyone to do everything by the book.
Unfortunately, that book was Rules for Radicals.

narayanan said...

Blogger Iman said...

I wonder what Flynn did when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency is so pissed off Obama. This is way beyond politics and anti-trump warfare. This is clearly person[al].

Flynn made plain what he thought of 0bama. He wouldn't bend the knee. 0bama doesn't tolerate anything short of being worshipped.
-------------================
getting Flynn to plea deal was a way of bending his knee.

and how his knee is unbent.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

the ultimate Trump troll would be to pardon Obama of any crimes provided he cooperates with the investigation.

No. Just pardon Obama and then force him to cooperate because no 5th Amendment. Then if he lies, charge him with obstruction and "perjury."

narayanan said...

It cannot be gainsaid that Flynn brought this on himself by agreeing to talk with FBI in the White House without notifying having WH counsel present. Then wasted his fortune on incompetent counsel.

He is damaged goods for his poor judgment

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

They will stick to this story til they die, and they will write the history books.

5/9/20, 11:26 AM

In the immediate future, that will be true.

However, interpretations of history do not stay static. There will be historians determined to get at the truth who will have no dog in the fight and they will debunk and refute the "conventional wisdom." In reading David Hackett Fischer, I am struck by how many interpretations of the Revolution there have been, with each interpretation reflecting the time it was written. The 1619 Project says more about 2020 than 1619 and since it is not based in fact, it will ultimately be discarded.

But that might be decades from now.

Wince said...

Flynn in his own words, 2016.

The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis
By Michael FlynnJuly 9, 2016
https://nypost.com/2016/07/09/the-military-fired-me-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis/

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.

In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are)...

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will...

On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them...

So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines...

This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?

Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.

Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.

It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.

With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.

wendybar said...

TICK TOCK...TICK TOCK....TICK TOCK....

Mark said...

Why is the destruction of Flynn still so important?

What I have heard is that they went after him in the first place because in his new job in the Trump Administration, he would have been in a position to discover all of the illegal machinations by Hillary, the Obama Administration and the Dems in their campaign of seeking, paying for and disseminating disinformation obtained from the Russians via Steele. Thus, he needed to be taken out to protect themselves.

It was part of the cover-up. And if they could get him to turn against Trump, all the better.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"What's fascinating is how the Left/Right stereotypes about civil liberties & free speech have been completely reversed."

Not to mention the ACLU's complete silence about the rights of lockdown opponents to demonstrate, while they focus on letting criminals out of prison to protect them from Wuhan flu.

Original Mike said...

"What I have heard is that they went after him in the first place because in his new job in the Trump Administration, he would have been in a position to discover all of the illegal machinations by Hillary, the Obama Administration and the Dems in their campaign of seeking, paying for and disseminating disinformation obtained from the Russians via Steele. Thus, he needed to be taken out to protect themselves."

This makes oodles of sense. Can you imagine them getting away with the Russia hoax with Flynn in a position to observe?

chuck said...

Perhaps Obama should take social distancing more seriously and not risk getting infected by the pandemic revelations.

buwaya said...

There are solid examples of sacrificing one's son out of duty.

There are several in Spanish history.
The classic case (which every schoolboy used to know) is that of Guzman "El Bueno", who held the city of Tarifa in 1296 against besieging Moors and their ally the rebellious Don Juan, the Kings brother. Guzman's son was Don Juans captive. Guzman was threatened with the death of his son if did not surrender the city. His reply is a classic - "I did not beget a son to be made use of against my country..."

In 1936 Colonel Moscardo, commander of the besieged Alcazar of Toledo, was threatened by the Republican militias. His son was a prisoner of the besiegers. He was told that they would execute the young man if he didn't surrender. They even let father and son speak on the telephone.

This is alleged to be the official transcript, as recorded at the Alcazar -

Luis Moscardó Guzmán: ¡Papá!
Coronel Moscardó: ¿Qué hay, hijo mío?
Luis Moscardó Guzmán: Nada, que dicen que me van a fusilar si el Alcázar no se rinde, pero no te preocupes por mí.
Coronel Moscardó: Si es cierto, encomienda tu alma a Dios, da un viva a Cristo Rey y a España y serás un héroe que muere por ella. ¡Adiós, hijo mío, un beso muy fuerte!
Luis Moscardó Guzmán: ¡Adiós, papá, un beso muy fuerte!

That is how one makes a sacrifice for duty, father and son.

Its maybe too easy for me to say that Flynn should have done something like this, but, well, yes he should have.

Original Mike said...

"I like to put up my facts against a Lefty to see how well mine stand up. It's a good practice, I find."

Good luck finding one. They skedaddled.

Big Mike said...

For all their legal firepower, a legal malpractice suit seems like something Covington and Burling should settle at just about the speed of light.

A long time ago I did some political work with an attorney who specialized in legal malpractice cases (no, nobody liked her one bit -- except her former clients). In DC a legal malpractice case requires that it be demonstrated that the case was winnable. And Sidney Powell has amply proved that.

gspencer said...

Perhaps our former AA president is concerned that too much info is gonna be revealed about him.

Michael said...

Not sure what gave Turley the idea that Obama was smart or well educated.

Darrell said...

Never talk to cops. Always get a lawyer.

And make sure Eric Holder doesn't work at your lawyer's lawfirm. And make sure your lawyer hasn't been co-opted by the FBI and isn't feeding you bad advice.

If you can't count on a fix, what can you trust?

MeatPopscicle1234 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Begley said...

A legal malpractice case against Covington would be tough a very fact specific. The fact that the FBI threatened the son and that was not disclosed to the judge seems promising but the big issue is the lack of Brady material. If Covington asked for it and it wasn’t turned over, then there’s an intervening event.

A bad result is not malpractice. The test is failure to meet the standard of care.

Narr said...

Morkoth4682 makes a good point. Weren't we assured that Trump would provoke so much hate and resentment from the suffering masses of the Greater Middle East that we would be fighting new wars there?

Narr
How fare the Kurds?

Mary Beth said...

And now, watch this comment get deleted by Meade.

Is this the blog comment version of going to someone's house, dumping your garbage on the floor, and then getting pissed off if they clean it up?

Original Mike said...

"but the big issue is the lack of Brady material. If Covington asked for it and it wasn’t turned over, then there’s an intervening event."

Powell got it.

Owen said...

Flynn was not fired, he resigned. Obviously under pressure from Pence, who felt embarrassed. Why did he feel embarrassed? Because the media were telling him Flynn had discussed stuff with Kislyak. How did the media know that? The NSA knew what had been said, but that transcript was not (legally) in the hands of any media. Right there is some criminalizin' goin' on.

More interesting to me is that Sally Yates on January 26 was warning the WH that Pence was wrong in his public statements about Flynn's talk. How could she know that? Was she privy to the NSA tapes? Was she telling WH that Flynn was misleading Pence on his talks with Kislyak? How would she know that? January 26 is only 2 days after the FBI agents interviewed Flynn (and about 3 weeks before they belatedly filed the heavily-doctored FD-302 of that interview: dates and actions we only learn now, years after the fact, because DOJ finally abandoned the persecution of Flynn). How could Sally Yates know so much, and with such confidence as to issue warnings to the WH, only 2 days after an interview which, initially, the FBI agents found to be innocent?

I think a malpractice case against Covington would be greatly interesting. We might see some good discovery. I bet Flynn. would waive any privilege issues.

Tom said...

It’s cute to see Obama trying to save his sterling reputation.

Rabel said...

"He pled guilty to a crime he did not commit."

What do you figure it costs to defend yourself when the prosecution presents 900,000 documents to your lawyers?

Jim at said...

Obama is sweating. This whole coup attempt leads straight to the Obama White House.

It does, but he's not sweating. Nobody's every held that prick accountable for anything. Why would they start now?

Bob Smith said...

Obama and his inner circle created the Russia collusion story out of whole cloth to hide using the levers of power to affect an election. I call Chicago Democrat.

The Tangerine Tornado said...

Tag: Posted without comment.

JAORE said...

"Not sure what gave Turley the idea that Obama was smart or well educated. "

It was in all the papers....

steve uhr said...

Flynn's "lock her up" chants revealed that he has never had much respect for principles of due process. He understands correctly that all that really matters is having friends in high places. Too bad Trump didn't have the courage to pardon him; instead once again DOJ has to do his bidding, at the expense of the rule of law.

Perhaps the judge will grant the motion in part and dismiss without prejudice. Forcing Trump to use his pardon power after all.

Iman said...

Turley must have seen 0bama's transcripts... /sarc

Michael K said...

Perhaps the judge will grant the motion in part and dismiss without prejudice. Forcing Trump to use his pardon power after all.<

So, because he is not on your side, you want an innocent man to need a pardon. Got it.

What creeps these leftists are.

Drago said...

Steve uhr: "Flynn's "lock her up" chants revealed that he has never had much respect for principles of due process. He understands correctly that all that really matters is having friends in high places. Too bad Trump didn't have the courage to pardon him; instead once again DOJ has to do his bidding, at the expense of the rule of law."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Li'l Stevie Uhr is STILL pretending we don't have all the actual documentation and notes and transcripts which proves what this was all about!

Still!

Even better, is the fact that this action taken by Barr based on Jensen's recommendation after review has a PRECISE precedent in actions taken by Obambi/Holder!

Hey Stevie, were you really upset when Holder and the obambi DOJ dropped the case against Stevens due to prosecutorial (DOJ) misconduct?

It's very healthy to see the Steve Uhr's and Ingas continue their non-stop lying AFTER we have all the real facts and not just Schiff-ty's "facts".

Spiros said...

While Obama was president, John Brennan and Peter Strzok spied on the Trump campaign with the help of foreign intelligence bodies such as MI6. Top campaign officials were "wire tapped" by the FBI and other national security agencies. This is obvious. The national security agencies capture every single electronic communication and engage in pervasive surveillance of many, many Americans and foreigners alike. Trump got caught in a very wide net. Trump was treated like an enemy combatant by our government. So what? We all are. And what does this have to do with Obama anyways?

But if the information Brennan and Strzok got on Trump was improperly exploited during the election for political gain, then we have a serious abuse of power problem. Obama's conduct would be reprehensible and criminal and, to casual observers, even treason. But where is your proof? It's one thing to pretend that Democrats are no better than dictators using their secret police to "manage popular mobilization" and to defend against "potential coups." But we need proof.

(I always thought the Access Hollywood tape was something of a smoking gun. The Trump campaign tried suppress the tape for weeks. But since the campaign was being spied on, it was impossible to prevent the tape's release. The Dems knew too much...)

Michael K said...

A bad result is not malpractice. The test is failure to meet the standard of care.

How about the conflict of interest on the FARA complaint ?

Drago said...

Morkoth4682: "As a side note... anyone else suddenly realize that the incessant daily drumbeat of terrorist attacks and Islamic radicals taking over the middle east has pretty much completely disappeared???"

Indeed.

Remember when our Althouse lefties were screaming that Trump killing the dems beloved Soleimani would trigger another global conflagration that would get everyone killed?

And that was after Trump had already killed everyone by starting a nuke war with NK and had already killed millions by dumping the obamacare mandate and had already killed millions due to the net neutrality ruling.

Remember all that?

It's all down the memory hole now for the Inga's and Steve Uhr's.

Michael K said...

(I always thought the Access Hollywood tape was something of a smoking gun. The Trump campaign tried suppress the tape for weeks. But since the campaign was being spied on, it was impossible to prevent the tape's release. The Dems knew too much...)

What evidence do you have that they "tried to suppress it?" I thought it was too but it sounded like a hit job similar to the Bush DUI case in 2000. It is still amazing that Billy Bush kept that tape all those years.

Do you have any evidence they knew about it before the release ?

Drago said...

Spiros: "But where is your proof? It's one thing to pretend that Democrats are no better than dictators using their secret police to "manage popular mobilization" and to defend against "potential coups." But we need proof."

We have Obama's Deputy Attorney General under oath testifying that obama knew about the Flynn call intercept and strategizing how to set him up prior to Jan 5, 2017.

This is in addition to 2016 text messages between Strzok and Page speaking about getting materials ready for presentation to obama at obama's request. Again, in 2016.

We also have James Clapper the moron speaking extemporaneously in public saying he was only doing what the White House had ordered.

Maybe we need to appoint Rudy Giuliani and about 15 other die hard republicans as Special Counsel to get to the bottom of that.

Anonymous said...

Police state Democrats are defending the actions of the Stasi-FBI and Stasi-DoJ officials by saying that the Stasi simply does this to everyone, so why should Flynn have been treated any differently. Of course, the Stasi-FBI and Stasi-DoJ did not give any member of the Clinton Gang this same treatment, despite lies by Huma Wiener, Cheryl Miller, and some of the secret server IT team, as IG Horowitz reported. Instead, those liars got immunity after lying. Despite their criminal referrals, neither McCabe nor Comey got the same offer as Flynn: plead guilty or we destroy your family. Occam’s Political Razor suggests that the only difference between the treatment of the Clinton Gang, McCabe, and Comey, and the treatment of Pappadopolous, Roger Stone, and Flynn is political alignment.

daskol said...

But Obama was such a lovely man.

n.n said...

the incessant daily drumbeat of terrorist attacks and Islamic radicals taking over the middle east has pretty much completely disappeared

Following the end of the Iraq war, a segue to Obama's greater Middle East war from Tripoli to Cairo to Damascus to Kiev and beyond, and Trump seems to have mitigated progress of that social justice adventure.

Fritz said...

buwaya said...
There are solid examples of sacrificing one's son out of duty.

. . .

Its maybe too easy for me to say that Flynn should have done something like this, but, well, yes he should have.


Especially when you consider that the judge threw out the FARA violations for another defendant in Flynn's group, the same charge they were threatening against Flynn and Flynn Jr.

Both the Logan Act and FARA need to be taken off the books. I suggest enforcing them vigorously against Democrats for the next year, and let them appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

daskol said...

Right: I realize that Flynn's "biz partner" got his charges tossed after Flynn made his plea, but come on. I won't pretend to know the story here, only speculate wildly about hidden bad deeds, conspiracies, skullduggery and cloak and dagger honeypot/rope-a-dope stuff, but the story as currently told stinks.

n.n said...

He, along with Hillary, obviously cooked up the spying on the Trump campaign, and the fabrication of the Russia collusion hoax.

Obama spied, Biden obstructed, Clinton lied, the press published hope and change, and people died in social justice adventures, on trails, in the water, and targeted communities in America and other sanctuaries throughout Water Closet.

daskol said...

And while there is much I admire about Dershowitz, I don't think his weighing in on the civil libertarian angle of prosecutorial practice lends any weight at all to the notion that this was a case of plea-bargaining gone awry.

h said...

It's interesting that there is an Obama Alumni association that coordinates media responses. But the story that Obama and associates should be much more worried about is the release of the House committee transcripts which begin to provide documentation of the road map from malfeasance at DoJ and Intelligence agencies to Obama himself.

Spiros said...

Michael K., I don't have any evidence that Trump tried to suppress the Access Hollywood tape. But when the FBI raided Michael Cohen's law, they were looking into whether Cohen tried to use "illegal tactics" to try and keep the “Access Hollywood” tape from reaching the public. This part of the search warrant raised eyebrows.

Ray - SoCal said...

Or this was planned, and a known leaker was used.

Interesting, author, Michael Isikoff, wrote a book called "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump" and was one of the biggest proponents of the Russia Gate, so it's kinda suspicious about this "private" phone call being leaked without authorization.

> PB said...
>
> Someone in his Obama administration alumni group recorded the call. That's stunning.

Bob Smith said...

Kelly thought he was a member of the Washington Insiders Club. Just because you know the handshake doesn’t mean they won’t find room for you under the bus.

Lem said...

At The Federalist, Mollie's theory is that Flynn had to be fired so as to render him unable to review the operations against the Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and Trump administration.

And in the end, it will all be for very precious little (except for poor Flynn, his exoneration is a big fucking deal to him) if we don't get to find out who and why?

Fox News anchor Shannon Bream tweeted: "If you're still catching your breath from today (May 7), I'm told next week will involve "a bombshell". I'm standing by ..."

Let's hope the pandemic wont be able to suck all the oxygen out of this story.

RigelDog said...

The fact that the FBI threatened the son and that was not disclosed to the judge seems promising but the big issue is the lack of Brady material. If Covington asked for it and it wasn’t turned over, then there’s an intervening event.)))

All true, but it's even worse for the FBI because you don't have to ASK for Brady material--it's mandatory that the government provide complete discovery including any Brady material. That obligation is ongoing, even after a conviction.

Josephbleau said...

This has brought the center of mass to the fulcrum. The smart kids are realizing that there was more to the past three years than orange man bad. They will have to re-evaluate Trump’s evil in the context of growing suspicion that Obama abused his powers for personal political gain. Smart kids don’t like being the fool. Smart kids flock to the new cool belief structure all at once, but they regain sanity one at a time after personal evaluation of the new revealed facts.

Bay Area Guy said...

From the Solomon article cited above:

"The tip resulted in a two-and-a-half-year journey by myself and a small group of curious and determined journalists like Carter, Catherine Herridge, Greg Jarrett, Mollie Hemingway, Lee Smith, Byron York, and Kimberly Strassel to slowly peel back the onion."

These are all outstanding journalists. Strassell has a nice perch at the WSJ; Herridge now has a nice perch across enemy lines at CBS.

Josephbleau said...

"The tip resulted in a two-and-a-half-year journey by myself and a small group of curious “

I like the reference to the “small group.”

sdharms said...

some one ask Eric Holder about him dismissing the case against the blacks who carried guns and intimidated voters at polling places. how did that affect the rule of law.

Michael K said...

But when the FBI raided Michael Cohen's law, they were looking into whether Cohen tried to use "illegal tactics" to try and keep the “Access Hollywood” tape from reaching the public. This part of the search warrant raised eyebrows.

Was that when he went to Prague ? I was pretty sure you had no evidence. That's how those hit piece stories are done.

Bush got hurt badly by the DUI story because it was true and he had concealed it.

With Trump, he was pretty much immune because of the outrageous stuff previously thrown against the wall. Stormy Daniels was another attempt but no evidence besides a photo like those taken at every golf tournament.

narciso said...

I noted elsewhere, how the Flynn exoneration, resembled the one that Stephen hatfill received from the bureau, except so far I haven't seen the apology or the settlement,

Crazy World said...

The head snake refers his nasty voice, the recording of this 1.30 minutes is astounding to hear (in between all the uh ah umm blather).

Crazy World said...

**rears** and the recording I heard was the Conservative Treehouse place.

wholelottasplainin' said...

cronus titan said...

If there are any indictments of Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, etc., the ultimate Trump troll would be to pardon Obama of any crimes provided he cooperates with the investigation.
*************************
Actually, the ultimate Trump troll would be for him to unconditionally pardon Obama "for any offenses he may have committed against the United States", which how Ford phrased it after Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Imagine the white-hot rage among those who still consider Barack a Lightworker, upon hearing of a Trump "pardon by innuendo", and the humiliation Obama himself would experience.

THAT would be Cosmic Level trolling.



Bruce Hayden said...

The best malpractice angle is that Covington helped Flynn fill out his FARA application. When the FBI and Mueller prosecutors questioned that, they should have resigned from representing Flynn in criminal matters. But when the prosecutors went after Covington for FARA violations (since they were the ones filling out Flynn’s forms), their interests were now adverse, and withdrawal from representing Flynn in criminal matters was then mandatory and unwaivable. They did not withdraw. Instead, part of their deal with Van Grack and the Mueller prosecutors was to get Flynn, Sr to plead out to lying to the FBI in a criminal investigation. Which, as things turned out was even more adverse to Flynn’s interests. If they had done their homework, they would probably have seen that none of the charges that Flynn was being potentially charged with (Logan Act, FARA, and §1001 lying to the FBI) were credible. They didn’t apparently do that. Instead they appeared to have exercised some persuasion to get Flynn to agree to the one §1001 charge, and, in trade, the charges against them, as well as Flynn, Jr, were not pursued, and ultimately dropped.

I have seen no evidence yet that either Covington or Van Glick ever informed Flynn about the side deal that Covington had entered into with the Mueller prosecutors.

Right Man said...

When do they pivot to, "What we did was good and necessary. We have all seen the extraordinary danger Trump poses to our republic and we required extraordinary measures. We are proud of our efforts to hinder the dangerous Trump regime." ?

I think most Dems already agree with this.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Donald Trump threatened John Kerry with the Logan Act.

Lurker21 said...

These are people who had to admit under oath (and people whose own documents show) that they didn't actually evidence to back up their allegations. Why would anyone assume that they actually had evidence that Michael Cohen was trying to get the Access Hollywood tape? It was a fishing expedition.

Josephbleau said...

Yes, I agree that Covington as an officer of the court is exposed for supporting their own interest in opposition to the client’s interest. I would like to see this go before a DC jury and have them find for Covington in the face of devastating testimony for Flynn. It would be glorious to see the jury foreman go on CNN and say, we could not punish Trump, so we had to punish Flynn.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
Donald Trump threatened John Kerry with the Logan Act.
****************************************

Empty whatabout-ism. The constitutionality of the Logan act is in doubt, but what is not in doubt is that Kerry WAS a private citizen unauthorized to speak on behalf of/against US policy with foreign officials, while --- as AG Barr has pointed out---Flynn was NOT.

Previous members of Presidential transition teams, such as Susan Rice, have made identical contacts with their foreign counterparts before formally taking office. The US government even provides funding and space for such teams, recognizing that the gap between the election and new President's inauguration needs to be managed.

In any case, Trump's twitter threat is a far cry from an actual DOJ threat of prosecution, as occurred in Flynn's case.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "Donald Trump threatened John Kerry with the Logan Act."

Left Bank is very very angry over that thing that the obama administration did and the Trump administration did not do.

Discuss.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Meanwhile, more exposed lies on the part of Left Banks democrat "heroes":

NYT from Oct 25, 2017:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html?_r=0

"Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton only found about Mr. Steele’s research after Buzzfeed published the dossier, according to two associates who discussed the matter with her."

My goodness. The Clinton campaign and the DNC had no idea this dossier thing was floating around......right?

I distinctly recall Inga telling us that anyone saying the Clinton campaign or the DNC funded the hoax dossier was a wild-eyed crazy right wing conspiracist.

Truth? Podesta admitted under oath they did know.

Here you go: https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1258880006505234433

Whoopsie!

KellyM said...


Blogger buwaya said...
"There are solid examples of sacrificing one's son out of duty."

This might not really apply, but it brought to mind for me an event during England's civil war between Stephen and the Empress Matilda. William Marshal, Duke of Pembroke, offered his only son as a royal hostage in the negotiations between the two factions. There were a lot of high ranking barons who switched allegiances at the drop of a hat, Marshal included. His son was all of nine years old at the time.

steve uhr said...

As usual Ann searches for the rare article that her fan base will eat up, and fails to say what she thinks. I forgot, she will give you her unbiased legal opinion but you have to pay her for it.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"Actually, the ultimate Trump troll would be for him to unconditionally pardon Obama "for any offenses he may have committed against the United States", which how Ford phrased it after Nixon resigned in disgrace."

Please, Lord, make this happen.

The Left is fond of pointing out that Trump's impeachment will forever be a part of his legacy.

Well, a pardon coming from the man Obama tried to destroy would forever be part of Obama's legacy.

Drago said...

steve uhr: "As usual Ann searches for the rare article that her fan base will eat up...."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yes indeed!

The declassification and release of documentation that further proved the democrat/media coup attempt was an utter sham and hoax as well as demonstrated conclusively that the dems were engaged in a 4+ year media disinformation campaign with their media allies to advance that coup represent a "rare article"!!!!

My God.

How is it possible for Li'l Stevie Uhr could be that stupid?

Michael K said...

steve uhr: "As usual Ann searches for the rare article that her fan base will eat up...."

Steve, are you are artist ? Scott FitzsGerald said an artist could hold two opposing viewpoints without going crazy. Is that you, steve ?

The Godfather said...

I worked for a large Washington law firm for decades. It WASN’T Covington & Burling, but I did have a summer job with Covington after my second year of law school, and I worked on a number of matters both with and against Covington over the years. I have always had great respect for that firm and the Covington lawyers that I’ve dealt with. That doesn’t mean that I know that accusations against the firm of unethical behavior are wrong. It does mean that I would be surprised if they were true. So far, I haven’t read any comments on this blog or elsewhere that presents EVIDENCE of professional misconduct by the Covington firm. Speculation is not evidence. If speculation were evidence, Kavanaugh would not be Justice Kavanaugh, and President Trump would be the ex-President, having been removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

daskol said...

He does seem stupid. General Flynn, OTOH, does not. And yet he wouldn't realize if he or his son and business partner were facing FARA violations, that might conflict the attorneys who did his FARA work, charges so flimsy that when they were brought against his biz partner they blew up in the government's face.

daskol said...

If it was a threat they made to Flynn, it was way worse than FARA charges against his son, and not some vague threat of endless expensive litigation.

daskol said...

President Obama, and Druge, are trying to change the subject. This is the main header on Drudge now, "Disaster," with pics of Trump and Obama:

Former President Barack Obama harshly criticized President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic as an “absolute chaotic disaster” during a conversation with ex-members of his administration, according to a recording obtained by Yahoo News.

This should be exciting.

Rick said...

I like Turley because he's willing to assert a conclusion and back it up. He shows it's possible to remain consistent with principles even though it may offend either team.

It's a shame Althouse isn't willing to state and defend a position.

Bruce Hayden said...

“"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.'..”

Thank goodness he isn’t practicing law.

18 USC § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years...


This is the statute that Flynn admitted violating. Notice first that this is not a perjury statute. Perjury would require being under oath. But also not that each subsection requires materiality. You could argue that Flynn made a false statement (he very likely did not). But the statute also requires materiality, and he had no way of knowing at the time whether his statement(s) was/were MATERIAL. They were not for two reasons. First, they couldn’t be material because the FBI did not need his statements to know the contents of his call with the Russian Ambassador. They had the transcripts (and he didn’t).

Secondly, there was no legitimate ongoing counterintelligence.investigation underway at the time where his knowledge of the contents of the call would be relevant. The Washington field office had searched for incriminating information about Flynn, and found none. As a result, they filled out the paperwork to close the investigation and filed it. Because of the bureaucracy, the FBI had not yet completed the closing of the investigation, when CD DAD Strzok discovered the closure, communicated with top management, and the closure was rescinded on orders of the “7th Floor”, meaning by personal orders of Dir Comey or DD McCabe. It was therefore kept open for purely political, and not counterintelligence, reasons. And the (Hurricane Razor) investigation lacked any legitimate purpose or predication (esp since Strzok, Comey, and/or McCabe failed to provide additional new predication). Because there was no legitimate counterintelligence (or criminal - but Barr concentrated on CI) investigation ongoing at the time, there could be no materiality.

The key here (as pointed out by both AG Barr and former acting AG Whitaker) is that this was information that was not available to Flynn or his attorneys at the time. Indeed, some of it was not made available to Flynn’s attorney until just last week. They had no way of determining materiality. Only the DOJ (and FBI) had sufficient information available to them to make that determination, and they determined last week that they could not prove materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the argument made by both Barr and Whittaker on multiple occasions since the motion to dismiss was filed by the DOJ in Flynn’s case. Anyone ignoring or sidestepping this justification by ignoring the statutory requirement of materiality is just posturing and spinning. Even former President and adjunct law professor Barack Obama II.

Christy said...

When has Obama ever demonstrated competency as a lawyer?

Birkel said...

daskol,
It is my strong belief you are wrong.

My take on your response:
You really don't seem to want to notice the corruption of the FBI/CIA/IRS/NSA/etc so you prefer to blame Flynn.

If you admit the corruption, what difference does it make regarding Flynn's behavior?

Bruce Hayden said...

“ So far, I haven’t read any comments on this blog or elsewhere that presents EVIDENCE of professional misconduct by the Covington firm. Speculation is not evidence. If speculation were evidence, Kavanaugh would not be Justice Kavanaugh, and President Trump would be the ex-President, having been removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Ok. Why was failing to withdraw from representing Flynn in his criminal matters when faced with criminal liability for having helped fill out his FARA paperwork not unethical? Why was it not unethical to negotiate a plea deal for themselves that would keep them from being charged for FARA violations at the same time that they were negotiating a deal for Flynn? And esp when the two deals were interconnected? Why was this not an Irreconcilable unwaivable conflict of interest (not that there is any record of Covington trying to have Flynn waive the conflict)?

I will agree that firms such as Covington don’t usually operate like this. There are typically structures and procedures in place in firms like this to prevent ethical and malpractice issues. Have to be to get decent malpractice rates. Maybe they got an outside ethics opinion that they were just fine. I expect not. But I don’t know. But putting politics aside, with the evidence we have seen so far, I expect that most people taking the MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination) would agree that this was a pretty flagrant conflict of interest.

Crazy World said...

Just saw that Drascol 10:24. It is so laughable

Chris N said...

We’ll need more outreach to the Iranian activists out on the street, deals with the mullah and appeals to the Good Muslims around the world, We need to keep bending that arc of History towards Justice.

Huckster Donald Trump will mean going back to cussin’, fightin’, war and casual racism. Not on my watch.

My life’s activist work could vanish like a dream.

Not on my watch.

-Imagined Barack O

tomfromchicago said...

Having read the governments motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn, it becomes clear that the Obama White House was fully in the loop with Comey and McCabe plan to target Flynn. And, it is somewhat surprising that the the DOJ was arguing against the FBI pursing an interview with Flynn. It seems to me that Comey would not have ignored the DOJ, if he didn't have the full support of President Obama. If charges are filed against Comey and McCabe, which one do you think turns on Obama first?

Michael K said...

Why was failing to withdraw from representing Flynn in his criminal matters when faced with criminal liability for having helped fill out his FARA paperwork not unethical? Why was it not unethical to negotiate a plea deal for themselves that would keep them from being charged for FARA violations at the same time that they were negotiating a deal for Flynn? And esp when the two deals were interconnected? Why was this not an Irreconcilable unwaivable conflict of interest (not that there is any record of Covington trying to have Flynn waive the conflict)?

Yeah, this is where they are liable. The Brady stuff they can defend by blaming DOJ. The next questio9n is whether the DOJ and FBI principals have sovereign immunity for actions that were criminal violations of their own rules ?

For example, one reason why medical peer review is so difficult when dealing with real bad actors is that the bad actor and his/her lawyer always accuses the persons trying to enforce rules of actions in restraint of trade or competition trying to eliminate a rival. This then takes the action out of the good faith insurance coverage provided by the hospital or medical group. That means anyone trying to do peer review on a bad actor (not just somebody who made a mistake. A crook.) has to hire their own lawyer and the costs get large quickly. I have seen a good orthopedic partnership end up leaving the community because of the retaliation by a crazy bad orthopod who we were trying to rein in. He kept suing them and drove them away.

I was chief of Surgery and chose the group because they were NOT competitors. They practiced in another hospital mostly. We ended up with the worst possible result.

daskol said...

Birkel, I am sorry if I've confused you: I am not blaming Flynn. I am saying the story we're fed about his plea doesn't add up. I think the corruption of our intelligence and law enforcement/DOJ is complete and their weaponization on behalf of partisan political interests and swamp dwelling deep state supremacy is the most dangerous thing facing our country. If you told me Flynn signed the plea because they literally put his balls in a vice and squeezed, or literally held a gun to his head, or threatened to murder him or his son, I would not dismiss it. And it would make more sense than what they're selling today.

daskol said...

I didn't think so a year or so ago, but after Epstein's murder, I would be shocked if Seth Rick were not killed by DNC-deep state interests.

Don said...

Hang him then put his head on a pike.

Birkel said...

I have always thought the DNC leak came from a flash drive download. And that the download would be easily traceable to an individual. And if that individual were Seth Rich, then murder would be a reasonable resolution. To encourage the others.

Leftist Collectivists have never shied away from murder.

And Jeffrey Epstein definitely did not kill himself.

mtrobertslaw said...

Obama doesn't know it yet, but he has assured himself a place in the Pantheon of American Villains right along side Aaron Burr.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ So far, I haven’t read any comments on this blog or elsewhere that presents EVIDENCE of professional misconduct by the Covington firm. Speculation is not evidence. If speculation were evidence, Kavanaugh would not be Justice Kavanaugh, and President Trump would be the ex-President, having been removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Something else. One of the Covington partners is apparently none other than former Obama AG Eric Holder. Who very likely saved the career of AUSA Brandon Von Glick, lead prosecutor in the Flynn case. He probably should have been formally screened from the case. Was he?

A friend of mine claimed that he would love to be a fly on the wall at a Covington partner’s meeting, discussing the Flynn case. If they didn’t go through their internally required conflicts check that took into account that they were very likely adverse to their client, Flynn, while still representing him, they could be “naked” here, facing malpractice liability with their carrier declining coverage. That could conceivably mean millions coming out of the partners’ pockets. They then dug the hole deeper by failing to provide Flynn’s replacement counsel with all of the Brady evidence they had in their possession until a month or two ago. Some of it was significant.

Another thing. They were supplied the FD 302s that had been edited by Lisa Page and personally approved by DD McCabe. This was the primary evidence that the prosecution had of Flynn’s §1001 culpability. But the 302s supplied to Covington were facially questionable, having been submitted to their Sentinel system months after the interview, when FBI rules require submission in apparently five days. Even 5 days would seem to put them outside an exception to the Hearsay Rule. Several months, and there is no vaguely credible argument that they weren’t inadmissible hearsay. And absent getting the 302s admitted as evidence, the prosecution would have been left depending on the testimony of agents Strzok and Pietka (Strzok having been fired by that time for lying). Covington did not apparently call this out to the prosecution. Replacement counsel, Sydney Powell, did. Not a biggie, just sloppy. But maybe because Covington wasn’t dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s when faced with a deal that would get the firm out of criminal jeopardy if they would just convince their client to take the feds’ deal.

RigelDog said...

The Godfather said: So far, I haven’t read any comments on this blog or elsewhere that presents EVIDENCE of professional misconduct by the Covington firm. Speculation is not evidence."

I haven't seen the evidence either, I've only seen certain comments. As an attorney, I am aware that the question of conflict of interests in this case can't be evaluated without special knowledge/expertise in the area of FARA regulations and related questions of potential conflict of interests. It is a fact that Flynn waived the conflict issue and asserted that he still wished to be represented by Covington. What I've seen claimed, though, is that this conflict was one that is actually not waivable. I've done some appellate work on the question of whether conflict is un-waivable, but that was related to criminal law and whether a co-defendant's attorney could represent a defendant in some capacity.

stevew said...

Obama was quoted from a private phone call, that was leaked. "Leaked". Uh-huh, that's the ticket.

Nichevo said...


narayanan said...
It cannot be gainsaid that Flynn brought this on himself by agreeing to talk with FBI in the White House without notifying having WH counsel present. Then wasted his fortune on incompetent counsel.

He is damaged goods for his poor judgment

5/9/20, 12:48 PM


I forget if you're a lefty, but if not you should be ashamed of yourself. Specifically, to regard Covington & Burling conduct as mere incompetence is perfectly vicious on your part.




steve uhr said...
Flynn's "lock her up" chants revealed that he has never had much respect for principles of due process. He understands correctly that all that really matters is having friends in high places. Too bad Trump didn't have the courage to pardon him; instead once again DOJ has to do his bidding, at the expense of the rule of law.

Perhaps the judge will grant the motion in part and dismiss without prejudice. Forcing Trump to use his pardon power after all.

5/9/20, 3:11 PM

Forget I said that, narayanan, that was kid stuff.

Steve Uhr, please convert to Islam as soon as possible and emigrate somewhere, I'm ashamed for you, I'm ashamed that you claim to be a Jew and an American.

Much better that there should be no justice system and that every man take the law into his own hands, than that people like you should have any power whatsoever over others. If conversion and emigration is too much trouble, I'll settle for your committing suicide painfully. Let me know if you need any help.




Spiros said...
Michael K., I don't have any evidence that Trump tried to suppress the Access Hollywood tape. But when the FBI raided Michael Cohen's law, they were looking into whether Cohen tried to use "illegal tactics" to try and keep the “Access Hollywood” tape from reaching the public. This part of the search warrant raised eyebrows.

Jesus, where do they get people like you? I was with a guy at college who got mad at a tow truck who towed him, the trucker quietly radioed in either to his HQ or directly to the cops, and almost immediately my friend (who had yelled at him but never touched him) was surrounded by a dozen police out of must have been four or five cars.

They efficiently cut me out of the circle and were all around him, then one of them pushed him in the chest; I think his hands flew up by reflex as he staggered back, then that apparently provided there cause to arrest him.

I've never seen anything like it, of course I haven't seen a lot of things, but that has colored my opinions at least of university/university town police ever since then, and, as I have grown older and seen more, that coloration is seeping over to all forms of authority.





Rick said...
I like Turley because he's willing to assert a conclusion and back it up. He shows it's possible to remain consistent with principles even though it may offend either team.

It's a shame Althouse isn't willing to state and defend a position.

5/9/20, 11:14 PM

"And you love me

I love you.

You are, then, cold coward.

Aye; but, beloved,..." -- Stephen Crane

Bruce Hayden said...

“ So far, I haven’t read any comments on this blog or elsewhere that presents EVIDENCE of professional misconduct by the Covington firm. Speculation is not evidence. If speculation were evidence, Kavanaugh would not be Justice Kavanaugh, and President Trump would be the ex-President, having been removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Something else. One of the Covington partners is apparently none other than former Obama AG Eric Holder. Who very likely saved the career of AUSA Brandon Von Glick, lead prosecutor in the Flynn case. He probably should have been formally screened from the case. Was he?

A friend of mine claimed that he would love to be a fly on the wall at a Covington partner’s meeting, discussing the Flynn case. If they didn’t go through their internally required conflicts check that took into account that they were very likely adverse to their client, Flynn, while still representing him, they could be “naked” here, facing malpractice liability with their carrier declining coverage. That could conceivably mean millions coming out of the partners’ pockets. They then dug the hole deeper by failing to provide Flynn’s replacement counsel with all of the Brady evidence they had in their possession until a month or two ago. Some of it was significant.

Another thing. They were supplied the FD 302s that had been edited by Lisa Page and personally approved by DD McCabe. This was the primary evidence that the prosecution had of Flynn’s §1001 culpability. But the 302s supplied to Covington were facially questionable, having been submitted to their Sentinel system months after the interview, when FBI rules require submission in apparently five days. Even 5 days would seem to put them outside an exception to the Hearsay Rule. Several months, and there is no vaguely credible argument that they weren’t inadmissible hearsay. And absent getting the 302s admitted as evidence, the prosecution would have been left depending on the testimony of agents Strzok and Pietka (Strzok having been fired by that time for lying). Covington did not apparently call this out to the prosecution. Replacement counsel, Sydney Powell, did. Not a biggie, just sloppy. But maybe because Covington wasn’t dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s when faced with a deal that would get the firm out of criminal jeopardy if they would just convince their client to take the feds’ deal.

Bruce Hayden said...

Talking abot Obama and the Rule of Law. He apparently had a copy of the unmasked transcript of Flynn’s phone call with the time Russian Ambassador, when he met privately with DAG Yates, and I think Comey. How is that legal? What legitimate counterintelligence purpose did that serve to justify access to the unmasked (and thus no longer minimized) FISA intercept. Rereading in particular 50 USC § 1806, there is no Presidential exception to the requirements of minimizing the inadvertently intercepted conversations of US Persons (such as Flynn).

hstad said...

"There is no precedent that anybody can find for somebody who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." - President Obama.

Obama may want to take back his statement?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-pardons-james-cartwright-general-who-lied-to-fbi-in-leak-case.html

hstad said...

President Obama 'do as I say not as I do'?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-pardons-james-cartwright-general-who-lied-to-fbi-in-leak-case.html