The Remains of administration - Obama scandals coming to light

[Nepperhan]

(Indirectly) watching the coverage of the Flynn case leads me to believe the media sees the truth as an irrelevancy. Despite the obvious, blatant offenses by the DOJ and FBI in prosecuting Flynn, it is AG Barr who is being castigated (in the media) for allowing the charges to be dropped.

It is no wonder the country is so radically split when the only two possible explanations involve so much corruption by one side or the other.

Consider what the former judge said about dropping the charges against Flynn: He was overwhelmingly guilty and refusal to prosecute was pure politics. That’s castigation of Barr by a disinterested party!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you’re right.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You think perhaps that the media developed the death of George Floyd?

Of course not. But they do have the ability to decide what stories they’re going to promote day after day, and it’s certainly possible they have communication lines with the likes of antifa.

Consider what the former judge said about dropping the charges against Flynn: He was overwhelmingly guilty and refusal to prosecute was pure politics. That’s castigation of Barr by a disinterested party!

That very statement tells me he’s not “disinterested”.

 

[Nepperhan]

Of course not. But they do have the ability to decide what stories they’re going to promote day after day, and it’s certainly possible they have communication lines with the likes of antifa.

Now you’re just getting silly. The incidents drive the coverage much more than any political views determine what issues are stressed. That’s a paranoid suggestion.

That very statement tells me he’s not “disinterested”.

Don’t quibble because you don’t like the answer. Is John Roberts biased in favor of LGBTQ because he wrote today’s decision?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The first Syrian I ever met had blond hair and blue eyes. I understand that’s not common, but not unusual. Probably there are plenty of Palestinians of similar appearance. Probably plenty with some African in them. Israeli Jews, of course, are pretty fair as Middle Eastern people go, though many were in Europe for a long time.

Palestine has been a “crossroads” of peoples for millenia, and undoubtedly certain ethic types would tend to predominate for a while, to be replaced by another.

Now you’re just getting silly. The incidents drive the coverage much more than any political views determine what issues are stressed. That’s a paranoid suggestion.

Not at all. Have you not noticed that the liberal networks even use the same descriptive words when they all run a story at the same time? Those people are as political as political gets.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not sure what alleged scandals are being discussed now, but it’s okay. According to the current president, a president can do what ever he wants.

 

[Nepperhan]

Not at all. Have you not noticed that the liberal networks even use the same descriptive words when they all run a story at the same time? Those people are as political as political gets.

Sometimes that happens due to AP, UPI and Ganett. With those chains they get similar takes. How many ways can you say something?

Your suggestion that an underground, unorganized political movement has the ear of mainstream media in the US is just plain silly. It doesn’t work like that.

I always thought that the media was too close to those in power in DC, as a matter of fact. Well-behaved reporters got info from places like the FBI and the White House.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your suggestion that an underground, unorganized political movement has the ear of mainstream media in the US is just plain silly. It doesn’t work like that.

I never said that. More likely it’s the other way around.

 

[toabb]

This topic is about the long, long, long list of scandals under the Obama administration, and how his legacy is coming apart.

Just wait till the current crew leaves the House…

 

[YADA]

Sometimes that happens due to AP, UPI and Ganett. With those chains they get similar takes. How many ways can you say something?

Right … every single news source would use the same word to describe a candidate/president or other news worthy person - a word that is not most commonly used …all on the same day and in the same way … without prompting … Bridge for Sale

One I remember explicitly from the 1990s was “gravitas” … like this is a word used daily in average conversations across America. Every news outlet used that word - over and over again [it was sent out to the media from the DNC] … not one outlet used the word ‘serious’, or ‘dignity’, or ‘decorum’ … and while decorum might not have been in common parlance - I think dignity and serious are very common used descriptors.

You see it with Trump where every news outlet will use the same word/phrase in unison … “treasonous traitor” “white supremacist” “mentally deranged” Its more striking when the word selected is uncommon like gravitas was - but once you realize this happens - its un-mistakable …

Also, I will concede that many organizations do this talking point routine. Of course depending on who is sending it out the media responds differently and to varying degrees… Suffice it to say - the media loves and runs with the negative Trump talking points.

 

[Ender]

Consider what the former judge said about dropping the charges against Flynn: He was overwhelmingly guilty and refusal to prosecute was pure politics. That’s castigation of Barr by a disinterested party!

This is exactly my point. On one side is this claim: Flynn is guilty, Barr is playing politics. On the other side is the claim that Flynn was railroaded by the FBI and DOJ and the judge is playing politics. How will it be possible to convince either side they’ve been misled? Who can be believed when no one on the other side is considered trustworthy?

This is why I’ve been posting so many columns. If the evidence that has already been uncovered is insufficient to cause people to reconsider will more future revelations matter? Given what is at stake what is the likelihood that any evidence will change perceptions?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How will it be possible to convince either side they’ve been misled?

Look at the actual court filings. Flynn plead guilty to 3 things: 2x lying to the FBI, 1x illegal dealings with Turkey. The DOJ motion to dismiss only argues that the FBI interview which produced the lies was ill founded (it also contradicts the assertions the DOJ made in court), but more importantly it fails to mention the entirely separate Turkey issue. Judge Sullivan rightfully wants to know what he is supposed to do with the Turkey plea, insofar as the government is literally telling the Judge to let Flynn “get out of jail free” for no reason on that charge.

See here for the simple facts:

Judge Sullivan can be an American hero World News

Nixon’s cover-up failed because federal Judge John Sirica believed that something was seriously amiss in the Watergate burglary trial over which he was presiding. He was sure that the burglars were shielding higher-ups and that the Justice Department was not adequately pursuing that question. On the eve of sentencing, Sirica’s skepticism and reputation for tough sentences caused one defendant to admit that higher-ups were involved and that perjury had been committed at trial. That admission u…

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This ignores lots of other facts, but its obvious no amount of facts will disrupt your firmly etrenched emotions about the man.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This ignores lots of other facts, but its obvious no amount of facts will disrupt your firmly etrenched emotions about the man

Trump supporters: it is inappropriate for the judge to listen to arguments not made by the DOJ in this case.

Also Trump supporters: the judge should know about OUR arguments even though they were not made by the DOJ.

 

[Ender]

The DOJ motion to dismiss only argues that the FBI interview which produced the lies was ill founded (it also contradicts the assertions the DOJ made in court), but more importantly it fails to mention the entirely separate Turkey issue.

Let’s take these one at a time and discuss the Turkey question later. The motion to drop the lying charge(s?) was not simply that the interview was “ill founded”; it’s much worse than that. There were any number of problems, starting with the obvious one that there was no basis for the interview in the first place.

Second, the charge made against Flynn requires more than proof of lying; the lie must be materially false to the matter under investigation. Given that there was no basis for the interview and that the FBI had a transcript of the phone call there was no possibility of materiality even if there was a lie. Given that the FBI even documented their doubts about the lie it was highly doubtful even the lying aspect could be successfully prosecuted.

But it gets worse. The FBI 302 was highly edited well after it had been written, was edited by Lisa Page (Strzok’s girl friend) who wasn’t part of the interview…and the original still hasn’t been produced by the FBI. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team, some of which is still dribbling out.

And we’re not done…The DOJ compromised Flynn’s original legal defense team by suggesting they would be investigated for FARA violations on unrelated matters. It became in the law firm’s best interest to see Flynn convicted. This is one of Flynn’s justifications for withdrawing his guilty plea.

Aaaand finally, the DOJ threatened to go after Flynn’s son for a FARA violation unless Flynn cooperated (pled guilty), and failed to disclose that at the trial when all of the agreements were entered into the record.

But you are surely right in claiming the new DOJ assertions contradict those originally made in this case.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team, some of which is still dribbling out

So then why didn’t the DOJ put that into their justification for dismissal? If this is true, the right thing to do would be to have the judge declare a mistrial, then the DOJ could decline to re-file the charges.

Answer: because it is not true that exculpatory information was withheld, or that evidence was tampered with, so the DOJ cannot make that claim in court.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

this is one of Flynn’s justifications for withdrawing his guilty plea.

Flynn was asked, under oath, if the was satisfied with his legal representation. He said yes. Unless the DOJ threatened the lawyers directly (I.e. threatened to investigate the lawyers themselves) this is ordinary negotiation between the prosecution and defense.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

DOJ threatened to go after Flynn’s son for a FARA violation unless Flynn cooperated (pled guilty)

This is also ordinary negotiation between prosecution and defense, it happens all the time, e.g. in mafia cases. Flynn was asked more than once, under oath, if he was entering a guilty plea because he was guilty and for no other reason. He said yes.

 

[josie_L]

He was PROTECTING HIS SON. Get over what he said and look at the GLARING IN YOUR FACE corruptive/malfeasant actions that led to the false charges in the first place, i.e., stop putting the cart in front of the horse!!

The FBI didn’t even have the decency to notify Flynn that he could have a lawyer present or that one was necessary!

They LIED TO HIM about the nature of that interview!

 

[Ender]

So then why didn’t the DOJ put that into their justification for dismissal? If this is true, the right thing to do would be to have the judge declare a mistrial, then the DOJ could decline to re-file the charges.

Judge Sullivan was careful to order all “Brady documents” be turned over to the defense. This includes all relevant information that might be exculpatory, and this absolutely was not done by the DOJ who turned over a pile of Brady documents around April 24, 2020. You can perhaps make some argument that the documents were not really exculpatory, but there is no argument that they should have been turned over years earlier when it was ordered.

Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?

With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that ther…

jonathanturley.org

Answer: because it is not true that exculpatory information was withheld, or that evidence was tampered with, so the DOJ cannot make that claim in court.

Given the release of information by the DOJ in April there is simply no argument that information was not withheld. As for the tampering, the DOJ has disclosed the emails between Strzok and Page where they discuss the edits they were making to the official 302.