Buy American - Rebuild America
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Finally:
A very long time friend and fellow memo reader's rant:
Dick,
My abbreviated rant.
G-----
1. I did not vote for Obama.
2. Once elected, I wanted him to turn out to be a great President.
3. If the first non-white President was great, it would have helped to close the racial divide in America.
4. Unfortunately he turned out to he a disappointment and quite likely made the racial problem worse.
5. He surrounded himself with "dim wits" without any sense of ethics.
6. The logical outcome has brought us to where we are now.
My response:
G-----: I concur in all you said and might not have been so genteel. Me
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Schiff forced to come clean even though he is as dirty as they get. He is Pelosi's stooge and she pulls his string.
Republican Congressmen demand Schiff release Russiagate transcripts
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has been blocking the release of 53 Russiagate witness interviews. Republican representatives are now trying to force him to release them. Ohio Representative Jim Jordan is leading the charge. The House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously in late 2018 to release the interviews, but this has not happened. It has become clear that this is entirely due to Adam Schiff, despite his shrill cries during the Russiagate debacle for transparency.
The Republican representatives argue that the American people deserve to know why figures like Schiff continue to make wild accusations against the President despite his exoneration by various investigations.
Schiff is covering for Russiagate originators
The Horowitz investigation, which is a softball prelude to the coming main event, a more in-depth investigation led by John Durham, found 17 serious errors in the FISA warrants used to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. Horowitz also found serious issues with FBI procedures surrounding the use of the Steele Dossier as a rationale for the Russiagate investigation. The dossier was funded by the Hillary campaign and was known from the beginning to contain false information.
Americans deserve to know more about how the Russiagate charade was staged and executed, who is responsible and whether they should be prosecuted. The Republican representatives have submitted their demands to release the interviews to that end. It appears that Schiff is colluding with the guilty parties. Although 43 of the 53 transcripts have already been declassified, Schiff has still refused to release them. Schiff is trying to prevent the White House from reviewing the last ten interviews, which is standard procedure in the declassification process.
The noose is tightening on the Russiagate cabal
The Republican demand to release the interviews comes on the back of the exoneration of former Trump Administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Disgraced FBI agent Peter Sztrok threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son if Flynn refused to sign a confession for breaking the Logan Act, which outlaws private citizens from engaging in diplomacy with foreign powers. Flynn later retracted his confession and no case against his son has materialized. Sztrok also pressed to keep the Flynn case open although it was clear that the FBI had nothing on him.
Attorney General Bill Barr has referred to the origins of Russiagate as ‘the greatest travesty in American history.’ Lawmen of his stature do not use such words lightly. Unlike Horowitz, whose investigation relied entirely on interviews with those involved, special investigator John Durham is digging deep into the paper trail. All indications are that prosecutions will follow for those at the highest level of the FBI and CIA under the Obama Administration.
Schiff Finally Forced to Release Transcripts Proving Trump Russia Collusion Claim Was a Lie
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board hammers Obama:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board hammers Obama:
Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.
The Editorial Board
Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.
“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama’s spokeswoman to the Washington Post and other outlets. Mr. Obama added: “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
Even discounting for Mr. Obama’s partisan audience, this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.
As for “scot-free,” that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate. We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn’t bring that up.
We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.
Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.
Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.
All of this was moved along politically by leaks to the media about Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian. The U.S. eavesdrops on foreign officials as a routine, but names of innocent Americans on those calls are supposed to be shielded from review to protect their privacy. Yet senior Obama officials have had to acknowledge that they “unmasked” Mr. Flynn’s name and others in their last months in power. Then, what a surprise, news of Mr. Flynn’s call and its contents pop up in the Washington Post. Did someone say “institutional norms”?
All of this raises questions about the role the Obama Justice Department and White House played in targeting Mr. Flynn. We already know the FBI had opened up a counterintelligence probe into Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign officials, yet it had come up with no evidence of collusion.
Donald Trump’s victory increased the chances that this unprecedented spying on a political opponent would be uncovered, which would have been politically embarrassing at the very least. Targeting Mr. Flynn—and flogging the discredited Steele dossier—kept the Russia collusion pot boiling and evolved into the two-year Mueller investigation that turned up no evidence of collusion.
This among other things is what U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr. Maybe that’s why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment