Buy American, Rebuild America.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Logic would dictate the president who brought about a huge increase in employment would be the one best suited to return unemployed, due to the pandemic, to their jobs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jonathan Turley's view of the Flynn litigation: https://mobile.twitter.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Long overdue: Trump Sets the Military's Sights on Asia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My lawyer friend and I engaged in a discussion about the Flynn matter and I made the point it once was if you had no solid evidence you refrained from bringing a law suit but that no longer seemed the case. His lengthy response:
"I fear it has become the norm. We have raised a generation of prosecutors who have gotten used to it. In fact, the rules of evidence and the costs of trial are so high, no one tries to prove a case. Justice is always a negotiated approximation.
Let's look at what happened here. Flynn was kind-of, sort-of guilty of not completing his FARA forms. But that's not such a big deal, and the enforcement of the law and the enforcement of penalties is spotty. But he should probably have at least paid a fine?
And maybe he misremembered or downplayed his conversation with Ambassador Kisleyk. But what did anyone expect the incoming NSA head to say to the Russian Ambassador? Something like, "We'll consider all aspects of our relationship, and look at the sanctions as part of that review...." That's the way I would have expected the conversation to have gone. I would not have expected Flynn to say, "I hope you rot in hell, you commie bastard," But the media seems shocked, shocked, by the fact that Flynn used the occasion of a diplomatic conversation to say some sweet nothings to the Russians.
Did he deceive the Vice President in his reporting on the conversation? The Vice President seems to think so, and it seems to have caused Pence enough embarrassment that he believed he was lied to. That is certainly grounds for firing. Is it criminal? Maybe it is, but would the laws be applied to criminalize an understatement like this in most circumstances? Probably not. The employee would be fired, or would resign, or would quietly be demoted. Criminal prosecution?
When the FBI sent someone in to speak to him about it, he seems to have remembered more, but no one -- at that time -- thought he was lying -- intentionally being deceptive.
But then the prosecutors needed a small fish to flip a big fish. And that's where they flipped into the full modern prosecutor mode. Let's accuse the small guy of something ... tax evasion, misstating financials on a filing, etc. Or lying to the FBI. The offer to go easy on the sentence for the next guy up the line. Until you can get the big fish.
That's what they promised Ollie North. John Dean, etc. It is common practice, particularly inside the Beltway. That's why I was not surprised to find out the rules of prosecutorial conduct in DC and Virginia bar rules are more ... relaxed ... than other places.
But the DoJ ethics rules are not. They know that the country was founded in opposition to prosecutorial misconduct ... first of Star Chamber and later of Oliver Cromwell. They do not permit this kind of activity. The question is,why have we had to wait for Bill Barr to restore some sense of self-awareness to DoJ?
I agree with you that there are a lot of senior lawyers that should march down to the courthouse and turn in their law licenses. But they won't. At least Hillary Clinton had the decency to resign from the Bar. Not so Rod Rosenstein or Bill Priesteps.
I heard Steve Hayes Thursday night speaking with Jonah Goldberg on a live podcast for The Dispatch. Steve told a story about knowing Louis Freeh when their kids were playing soccer together on Saturdays. (He said they both had a lot of kids.) Steve recounted that shortly after Clinton appointed Freeh as director of the FBI, the White House called him on a Saturday -- while his kids were on the soccer field -- and told him to come to the White House. Freeh asked if there was an emergency that required his presence. No, said the operator, Clinton was just wanting to set up a regular meeting with the FBI director. Freeh refused to go to the White House, saying it was inappropriate for the FBI director to have regular meetings with the President. He was not asked again.
That is a man who has a sense of propriety and a sense of self-awareness. It's not about "me" (or Jim Comey) saving the country. It's about following the rule of law. That is the principle that undergirds all our liberties. And it is sorely missing. R-----"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment