Obamagate and Flynn
Obamagate is bigger and more dangerous than Watergate. But if you follow the mainstream media, you may not know that. Watergate involved the misuse of the powers of government to cover up a break-in; the goal was to spy on Democrats at the DNC headquarters. This was done by members of the President’s campaign committee. Obamagate is the attempt to use the powers of government (FBI, CIA, Justice Department, etc.) to spy on, hinder, disrupt and sabotage, an incoming administration. At its core, it is the interference in the peaceful transfer of power, which is one of the crowning achievements of our government. It is vital if we are to be a country ruled by the people. The last threat to the peaceful transfer of power was 1860.
For nearly four years, there were almost daily stories on the alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. Now with the Muller report and the forced release of documents from the House a few weeks ago, we know this was a fabricated controversy for which there was no evidence. In case you missed it, all those Obama administration officials who have been on TV for years saying there was clear evidence of collusion, testified secretly under oath that they never saw any evidence. If there had been any, they would have been in a position to know. So we now know they have been lying on TV for years, that is unless they lied under oath. The bottomline, there was never any evidence. The whole thing was a sham created to damage Trump and force him from office.
Now we also know that a key part of this effort, the Flynn prosecution, was really a persecution without grounds. In light of the newly released evidence, the Justice Department has asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. From exhibit 4 in the Justice Department filing, we learned that Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates only found out about the investigation of Flynn in a White House meeting with Obama. It is troubling that while Obama was asking her about the Flynn investigation, she did not know anything about it. Given her position, she should have been informing Obama. This raises the question of what exactly did Obama know, and when did he know it. There is also the question of who started this investigation?
Yet if you listen to the left, this is no big deal. There is nothing to see here; these are not the droid you are looking for, move along. In what is one of the strangest arguments I have heard since Flynn plead guilty if he wants to withdraw his plea now, he should be held in contempt of court for lying to the Judge!
I have long been concerned with process crimes. I do not like them for both Republicans and Democrats. So I have been troubled by the Flynn case from day one. After all, what is it he was supposed to have done? As the incoming National Security Advisor, it would be normal and expected for him to talk to the Russian ambassador. The FBI had recordings of the call, so there was no need to ask Flynn about what was on the call. As someone known as an outstanding intelligence officer, of course, he knew the call was recorded. So why lie to the FBI? It did not make sense. Besides, why only charge him with lying? Why not charge him for what he did that supposedly caused him to lie? This whole situation never made sense, except as a perjury trap.
Now we know more. The agents who interviewed him reported following his interview that he had been truthful. They were going to close the case. But then it was suddenly given new life with a Logan Act claim. Until recently, how or why this happened was unclear. The Logan Act would be a hail Mary attempt at best. No one has ever been convicted of a Logan Act violation in over 200 years, and it has been 150 years since someone was even prosecuted. Add to this that the law is widely regarded as unconstitutional. So going after Flynn with the Logan act can only be seen as a desperate attempt to keep the investigation going. This is a perfect example of an investigation seeking a justification, any justification, for its existence. And people thought Javert was obsessed.
The basis for the charge that Flynn lied is the 302, the form completed by the agents documenting their discussion. The agents filled this out the day of the interview when they though Flynn has been truthful. But then it was not finished for three weeks, implying that it had several edits. Where is this key piece of evidence now? With the case falling apart, somehow, it has gone missing.
We know that with Carter Page, the documents for the FISA court were doctored to hide that Page had worked for the CIA. This made his contacts with a Soviet agent seem suspicious and thus a justification for a warrant. What changes were made to Flynn’s 302 so that the agent’s view that he had been truthful, became a charge of perjury? Also, we now know that the Law Firm representing Flynn at the time was also working with the FBI to bring Logan Act charges. This is a clear conflict of interest, and Flynn has since fired these lawyers.
Recently we learned from newly released meeting-notes that Obama was involved in keeping the investigation alive despite a lack of evidence. Also, it was Biden who suggested using the antiquated and almost certainly unconstitutional Logan Act, as a means of keeping the investigation of Flynn alive. But, again, these facts are meaningless to those who hate Trump. Orangeman bad is the only thing that matters. Whatever anyone does to get Trump is just fine.
For some, there is still the question of why did Flynn plead guilty? What would you do? He was financially ruined, deep in debt, with little ability to continue to pay his legal fees. Most of the media and even the “impartial” Judge in the case labeled him a traitor and a Russian assets – which is still happening. Then prosecutors threatened to go after Flynn’s son and ruin his son’s life as well. The only way to stop this was to accept a plea deal. What would you do?
As if this story could not get any more bizarre, Judge Sullivan, despite the misconduct of the FBI, would not dismiss the case. In an unprecedented step, he appointed another Judge to handle the prosecution, while asking the public for comment on how he should rule.
We have separation of powers for a reason. Article One, the Congress, passes the laws; Article Two, the Executive, enforces the law, and Article Three, the Judiciary, adjudicates disputes. Article Three does not have the right to take on the role of the prosecutor; they are restricted to ruling on issues before them. They are a judge, not a participant, and thus supposed to be impartial. Just the week before, the Supreme Court had a 9-0 decision overturning a 9th circuit decision reaffirming this principle. So, Judge Sullivan’s actions are lawless, and not surprisingly, the Appeals Court overruled him. Now Judge Sullivan is appealing to the full appeals court. Franky, he should be removed as a judge as he clearly is not impartial.
But, again, for the major media, none of this matters. Using the FBI and FISA court to go after your political opponent is just fine, as long as it is going after Trump. Nothing to see here move along. Why do I believe my news sources over the mainstream media? A major reason is my sources not only mention, but cite documents, court filings, and transcripts, some of which I have read myself. Most of the anti-Trump media completely ignore these.
There is also an easy test for bias. Simply reverse the names. This particularly easy to do here as now Trump is President, and Biden is the candidate. If Trump directed the FBI to go after Biden and his people, with no evidence, would that be a problem? If these subordinates were falsifying documents to get warrants at the FISA court so they could spy on the Biden campaign, would this be okay? Is that really the new norm we want?
