[late]

Are you anti semantic?

He is definitely anti-semantic

[late]

They can content all they want.

The constitution is deterministic.

The DoJ didn't even exist until 1870.

It's contend, not content.

Your fiction is deterministic, the Constitution? Not so much.

Yes, that was mentioned in the article, surprised you read it.

Here is an article about the different ways the Constitution is interpreted:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45129.pdf

We need to talk more broadly. The country has changed dramatically a number of times, and the law has had to adapt.

Fortunately, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, although some seem to think it is.

The Founding Fathers knew it would have to change.

That doesn't mean it was easy.

When capitalism kicked the cart over, we had to adapt or lose economic momentum. Part of that was the Commerce clause, and the many decisions that pertain to it. Legally, it's quite awkward. It had to be. It's been awkward for every country to go through the development of a capitalist economy. I've talked about this many times in reference to the British experience, which was the first.

The SC has 9 members, appointed for life. What that implies is that they need to try to reach consensus when they can. They are supposed to avoid partisan politics, which means the more they can reach compromise or consensus, the more they are doing what the Founding Fathers intended.

That also means that while they expected things to change, they wanted to moderate our reaction to it.

There is a lot going on, if you are interested in learning.

[jimjam]

they could not find that General Flynn did anything wrong

they should have asked Flynnski …. he pleaded guilty twice.

[Hindsite]

Like nobody is, it's obviously a political power struggle. The biggest problem with Flynn was that he was rivaling Pence even as a possible VP-candidate and happened to be too close to the Russians, or rather Putin, although the latter one was supposed to be one of his advantages. So he lost ground pretty quickly, however, he still could avoid getting destroyed legally it seems.

Actually, that was an asset because President Trump wanted to try to get along with Putin and Russia. However, the Russian collusion hoax put and end to any cooperation and friendship with Russia.

[late]

However, the Russian collusion hoax put and end to any cooperation and friendship with Russia.

Way back when the Soviet Union collapsed, a bow tie wearing conservative (real conservative, not crazy) pundit said that Russian history and culture would wind up giving them another autocrat ruler.

The West put some money and effort in trying to develop a Western style economy and Justice system there.

It didn't work. You could argue we should have tried a LOT harder, but Putin had no interest in doing things our way. It was going to be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances.

Putin was a counterintelligence guy. Which is all about tactics, long term strategy is not really a part of his outlook. So he's tactically brilliant, but his country is going to keep struggling.

The way this played out was that Putin kept playing nasty little games with the West. Eventually, we slapped the Magnitsky Act on him, which really hit him where he lives.

That's when he went nuts.

This big ol world is a lot more complicated than you seem to think..

[Hindsite]

Way back when the Soviet Union collapsed, a bow tie wearing conservative (real conservative, not crazy) pundit said that Russian history and culture would wind up giving them another autocrat ruler.

The West put some money and effort in trying to develop a Western style economy and Justice system there.

It didn't work. You could argue we should have tried a LOT harder, but Putin had no interest in doing things our way. It was going to be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances.

We never know without trying. Driving them away is only a pathway to eventual war. Making up lies about Russia is certainly not a pathway to peace and friendship with them.

[late]

Driving them away is only a pathway to eventual war.

The USSR didn't collapse because of war.

Sanctions fill a crucial role as one of the tools you can use in a conflict that doesn't have to escalate things.

Make no mistake, Putin sees this as a conflict.

"To an American ear, the offer seemed like something operatives might think but would never put in writing — more like a plot twist from “House of Cards” too implausible to be believed. But it makes a lot more sense if you read up on Putin and the Russia he has led for 17 years. A whole stack of brilliant books make abundantly clear that Putin’s Russia is a land of political intrigue and suspicion, where conspiracy theories often turn out to be true, kompromat is the weapon of choice and power is centralized to a surprising degree around “the new tsar” in the Kremlin.

The collapse of the Moscow center was a trauma for Putin, and it went on to become the foundational myth of his presidency, the rationale for what he invariably portrays as a decades-long exercise to restore the Russian state — and even, as his takeover of Crimea in 2014 and aggressive moves since then suggest, to recover parts of the lost Russian empire, too."

The dude wants to put the old gang back together...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-books-that-best-explain-putin-and-his-russia/2017/07/14/8f48d87c-6809-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html

[Hindsite]

The USSR didn't collapse because of war.

Sanctions fill a crucial role as one of the tools you can use in a conflict that doesn't have to escalate things.

Make no mistake, Putin sees this as a conflict.

Russia didn't become much of a foe to the USA for Obama and the Democrats until Trump won the 2016 election.

In the final debate of the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama tried to portray challenger Mitt Romney as a novice who lacks understanding of complex world issues.

"Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years," Obama said.

In March 2012, at a summit in South Korea, Obama was caught in a "hot mic" incident. Without realizing he could be overheard, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more ability to negotiate with the Russians about missile defense after the November election.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space," Obama was heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president Vladi­mir Putin.

"Yeah, I understand," Medvedev replied.

Obama interjected, saying, "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Blitzer asked Romney if he thought Russia is a bigger foe than Iran, China or North Korea.

"I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors," Romney said. "Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them ... who is it that always stands up with the world's worst actors? It's always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... itical-fo/

[late]

Russia didn't become much of a foe to the USA for Obama and the Democrats until Trump won the 2016 election.

Doesn't take much to fool you.

Bush and Obama had been trying to be nice to Russia, to get them to play nice.

Didn't work.

[Hindsite]

Doesn't take much to fool you.

Bush and Obama had been trying to be nice to Russia, to get them to play nice.

Didn't work.

It was Obama and the Democrats that were acting like fools.

[late]

It was Obama and the Democrats that were acting like fools.

Tell Magnitsky.

[Hindsite]

Tell Magnitsky.

I can't. He is dead, dead, dead.

Recently unsealed notes show top FBI officials debated whether they should get President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn “to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired,” or “admit to breaking the Logan Act” for talking to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. As the deep-state onion gets peeled back layer by layer to its rotten core, it becomes clear this wasn’t mere government misconduct. It was a criminal conspiracy.

A pattern of collusive illegality on the part of the FBI and key Justice Department officials has become increasingly clear from these and other revelations.

The newly released notes contain shocking revelations of how the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigators and top FBI officials set their “perjury trap” for Flynn.

Flynn, you will recall, pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to federal officials. But he did so only after being forced to sell his home to fund his legal defense, and after threats to prosecute his son if he didn’t cop a plea.

It was coercion, plain and simple. The kind of thing a totalitarian or dictatorial regime would do. Yet such skullduggery was routine for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which tried to gin up false charges of Russian collusion first against the Trump campaign and later against the incoming Trump administration.

In questioning Flynn in January 2017, the FBI circumvented its own rules that require it to go through the White House counsel’s office. Instead, it brazenly barged in and questioned Flynn, a former Army lieutenant general, in his office just three days after Trump was sworn in.

Among the other illegalities, the FBI’s own notes of the meeting were later re-written – that is, tampered with – by both FBI special agent Peter Strzok and his paramour FBI lawyer Lisa Page. That tampered document was used as a pretense to overturn a decision in early January to close the case against Flynn. Instead, lacking any real evidence, the FBI chose to pursue an investigation it hoped would lead to a prosecution.

Earlier emails released in the investigation of the FBI’s misconduct show that Strzok and Page loathed Trump and desperately wanted Hillary Clinton elected president. Yet, Strzok spearheaded the investigation into Trump, a clear conflict of interest. And he was one of the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn in the White House.

Moreover, both Strzok and Page later admitted under questioning that they had never made the case of collusion with the Russians against Trump, either. And yet, their non-findings were used to create the Mueller investigation into a non-crime.

The notes, written by FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, provide a backdrop to Flynn’s White House interview that led to his bogus prosecution. They were written after Priestap met with FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and show the conspiracy to go after Flynn went to the very top of the bureau.

It’s damning on a number of levels. It shows not only the top FBI officials’ willingness to pursue a prosecution without evidence of a crime, but also their willingness to break their own rules to do so.

Comey even joked about violating FBI protocols in 2018, telling a laughing audience that it was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more . . . organized administration.”

As you read this, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the Crossfire Hurricane fiasco is grinding ahead. Durham’s probe comes on the heels of a report on the FBI’s Russia investigation last December by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointee. It found at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” in the bureau’s FISA application to spy on Trump and for relying on the tainted Steele dossier, which may have been distorted by Russian disinformation.

These, it’s clear, are the real crimes. Not the imaginary collusion of Trump and his aides, including Flynn, with the Russians.

n January of this year, Flynn, still awaiting sentencing and no longer fearing retribution from the deep-state minions of the Obama administration, withdrew his guilty plea. We would hope, given the damning evidence against the government, that he would gain complete exoneration for his non-crimes and have his record wiped clean.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/05/01/n ... t-the-fbi/

[late]

I can't. He is dead, dead, dead.

That was the point.

[Hindsite]

That was the point.

Here is the real point:

Flynn attorney files emergency appeal to shut down Judge Sullivan's orders, boot him from case

Michael Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell on Tuesday filed an emergency writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking the immediate removal of Judge Emmet Sullivan from the case -- and saying that under appellate precedent set by the "Fokker Services" case, Sullivan or his replacement must dismiss the prosecution, as the Justice Department has requested.

Writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies, which are appropriate when there has been a "usurpation of judicial power" that is "clear and indisputable" -- and, Powell argued, Sullivan's behavior fits the bill. Powell pointed in particular to Sullivan's bizarre suggestion in December 2018 that Flynn had "sold out his country" and could have been prosecuted for "treason," as well as Sullivan's misstatements on the facts of the case.

Powell also demanded the appellate court vacate Sullivan's order appointing an "amicus curiae," or "friend of the court," to argue in favor of preserving Flynn's guilty plea on one count of making false statements to the FBI during an unusual January 24, 2017 White House interview. Oral arguments are set for July 16.

The amicus appointed by Sullivan, retired federal judge John Gleeson, has openly criticized the Trump administration's handling of Flynn's case, raising concerns that he was selected to improperly bolster Sullivan's efforts to keep the Flynn case alive even though both the government and defendant want it dismissed. (In 2013, Gleeson himself held that “the government has near-absolute power under [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] to extinguish a case that it has brought" -- but he has since apparently changed his opinion.)

"Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the district court’s local rules authorize amicus participation in criminal cases," Powell wrote in Tuesday's filing. "Prior to issuance of its extraordinary May 12, 2020, order, the district judge adhered scrupulously to the district court’s rules, denying some two dozen attempts by third parties to intervene or file amicus briefs in this very case."

Further, Powell cited the 2016 D.C. Circuit court case United States v. Fokker Services for the proposition that a "district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has 'a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,' such as 'a view that the defendant should stand trial' or 'that more serious charges should be brought.'"

Powell also said trial courts cannot second-guess the government's “conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.” (“We are unaware … of any appellate decision that actually upholds a denial of a motion to dismiss a charge” on grounds that dismissal would not serve the “public interest,” the D.C. Circuit stated in the Fokker case.).

Separately, Powell also cited the 1996 Supreme Court case United States v. Armstrong for the proposition that the district court must be mindful that "the presumption of regularity" applies to "prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.’"

The DOJ, Powell said, had ample reason to seek the dismissal of Flynn's case, in the light of newly released exculpatory information. "Now additional facts have established he was not interviewed for a legitimate purpose, and therefore any statements he made were not 'material' under 18 U.S.C. §1001, the Government justly believes that he is not guilty of any crime," Powell wrote.

For example, explosive handwritten notes that surfaced earlier this month -- written by Priestap after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told -- suggested that agents planned to interview Flynn at the White House on January 24, 2017 "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."

In the alternative, Priestap's note suggested a possible goal was to get Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to Russia's then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

The Logan Act has never been successfully used in a criminal prosecution and has a questionable constitutional status; it was enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones, and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.

Priestap's memo conspicuously surfaced only this month, even though the Justice Department and FBI had been under an obligation to turn over all relevant, potentially exculpatory materials to Flynn's legal team since February 2018. (Attorney General Bill Barr had appointed U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen to review the DOJ's handling of the Flynn case, and Jensen apparently unearthed the documents.)

Meanwhile, top DOJ prosecutor who had repeatedly told the court that the FBI had complied with the order to turn over exculpatory materials, Brandon Van Grack, was abruptly pulled from the Flynn case after Fox News pointed out his apparent misrepresentations.

When he pleaded guilty, Powell wrote, "General Flynn could swear truthfully that he committed the acts constituting the crime with which he was charged—after all he had no duty to tell FBI line agents about missions he undertook in his capacity as Security Advisor to the President Elect—but he had to accept on faith that the questions were 'material' to a legitimate criminal investigation, even though that was not made clear to him at the time. In truth, they were not. Because the Government failed to disclose this information to the defense, General Flynn had no way of knowing that it was false."

Finally, Powell sought Sullivan's immediate removal, citing his incendiary comments from the bench in December 2018, a year after Flynn's guilty plea.

Attorney Sidney Powell on federal judge signing off on DOJ dropping Flynn case
Attorney Sidney Powell on federal judge signing off on DOJ dropping Flynn case
Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell joins ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’

"If the Court grants the principal relief Petitioner seeks, there may not be much by way of further proceedings in the case, but there could be. Petitioner, the Government, and the appearance of justice will best be served by having another judge—one who has not implied that [Flynn] is a traitor—conduct any further proceedings in the case," the writ says.

Sullivan suggested Flynn may have committed treason, in the bizarre December 2018 courtroom outburst, and seemingly confused key details about Flynn's overseas lobbying work. More recently, Sullivan has suggested he isn't bothered by the FBI's missing FD-302 witness report of agents' January 24, 2017 White House interview with Flynn that Comey has previously said was prepared within days of the interview, as required by policy.

"[T]hings happen and documents are lost," Sullivan stated. "I mean, it just happens.”

Former FBI SWAT agent James Gagliano called that a "shockingly cavalier" reaction by Sullivan. Gagliano, who initially defended the FBI's Flynn probe, has more recently said Flynn was "railroaded," after this month's bombshell revelations.

"The district judge’s manifest confusion about the facts of this case, accusing General Flynn of treason and having 'sold out his country,' and his punitive intentions are well documented," Powell wrote. Sullivan also said he had "disdain" and "disgust" for Flynn's actions.

Specifically, also during his December 2018 outburst, Sullivan incorrectly accused Flynn of working as an agent of a foreign government "while serving as national security adviser." The only accusations against Flynn pertaining to possible Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations related to his consulting work in Turkey, well before his appointment as national security adviser. Flynn was never charged with FARA violations.

Powell continued: "The district judge’s latest actions— failing to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, appointing a biased and highly-political amicus who has expressed hostility and disdain towards the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the prosecution, and the promise to set a briefing schedule for widespread amicus participation in further proceedings—bespeaks a judge who is not only biased against Petitioner, but also revels in the notoriety he has created by failing to take the simple step of granting a motion he has no authority to deny. This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself. He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field."

"Text messages between the FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s special counsel), revealed that, weeks after the pretextual interview, Strzok was still rewriting the 302 so completely that he struggled to 'maintain Joe [Pientka]’s voice,'" Powell wrote in Tuesday's filing, referring to one of the agents who interviewed Flynn. "Page and Strzok massaged the 302 until McCabe approved it, and it was filed as final on February 15, 2017—two days after General Flynn resigned from the White House."

Pientka was removed from the FBI's website after Fox News contacted the FBI about his extensive role in Crossfire Hurricane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) matters -- a change first noticed by Twitter user Techno Fog -- but sources said Pientka remained in a senior role at the agency's San Francisco field office. The FBI told Fox News shortly before Pientka's removal from the website that reporting on his identity could endanger his life, even though he serves in a prominent senior role at the bureau.

Then-FBI Director James Comey admitted in 2018 that the Flynn interview at the White House by Strzok and Pientka didn't follow protocol, and came at his direction.

And, then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe later said the interview was "very odd" because "it seemed like [Flynn] was telling the truth" to the two agents who interviewed him. Flynn, the interviewing agents told McCabe, "had a very good recollection of events, which he related chronologically and lucidly," did not appear to be "nervous or sweating," and did not look "side to side" -- all of which would have been "behavioral signs of deception."

Further, the FBI 302 indicated that Flynn apparently was aware his communications had been monitored, and at several points he thanks the FBI agents for reminding him of some of his conversations with Russian officials. A Washington Post article published one day before Flynn's White House interview with the agents, citing FBI sources, publicly revealed that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn's calls with Kislyak and cleared him of any criminal conduct. It was unclear who leaked that information to the Post -- or why the FBI would need to question Flynn about his contacts given that the bureau had already recorded them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn- ... case-alive

[late]

Here is the real point:

Flynn attorney files emergency appeal to shut down Judge Sullivan's orders, boot him from case

No, my point is perfectly valid, things changed, and your narrative was pure fiction.

I really did not see that emergency appeal coming, that's nuts.

The court will be the DC Court of Appeals, the Trump judges have recused themselves, so it will be all Dems.

So the next question will prob be will they appeal to the SC?

I'd bet they do, but I wouldn't bet on the result. This is a grey area in the law, and if I was in their shoes, I'd want as narrow a ruling as I could get. Which doesn't speak to which party wins, just that this situation may have gotten a lot dicier than the court wanted to see so soon after that previous decision.

[Hindsite]

No, my point is perfectly valid, things changed, and your narrative was pure fiction.

I really did not see that emergency appeal coming, that's nuts.

The court will be the DC Court of Appeals, the Trump judges have recused themselves, so it will be all Dems.

So the next question will prob be will they appeal to the SC?

I'd bet they do, but I wouldn't bet on the result. This is a grey area in the law, and if I was in their shoes, I'd want as narrow a ruling as I could get. Which doesn't speak to which party wins, just that this situation may have gotten a lot dicier than the court wanted to see so soon after that previous decision.

Accepting the political truth is a big problem for you and all your left-wing buddies.

[late]

Accepting the political truth..

I like how you have adopted the things I say. A for effort...

But you still write mostly fiction, so even grading on a curve, you flunk.

That's the problem with supporting an incompetent compulsive liar.

[blackjack21]

I really did not see that emergency appeal coming, that's nuts.

Why didn't you see that coming? That was obvious. SCOTUS ruled a few weeks ago against lower courts using amicus curiae briefs to reframe cases away from the actual parties to the case. Sullivan's actions only prolong a case for which the courts have long held the outcome is determined. The courts have to drop the case if that's what both the prosecution and defendant wants. The court is not an adversarial party in the case.

The court will be the DC Court of Appeals, the Trump judges have recused themselves, so it will be all Dems.

And you think they will rule with political bias when RBG was the author of the SCOTUS ruling a few weeks ago?

This is a grey area in the law,

No it's not. The SCOTUS ruling several weeks ago was 9-0 and the opinion authored by its most liberal member.

[late]

No it's not. The SCOTUS ruling several weeks ago was 9-0 and the opinion authored by its most liberal member.

I know that, but in the law, context is crucial.

That's why I mentioned a narrow ruling, either way I would guess they would want to avoid the scylla of judicial overreach and the charybdis of an overly restrained judicial system.

[Hindsite]

That's the problem with supporting an incompetent compulsive liar.

Then you should not support the lying and creepy Joe Biden. Here is one example you will not hear form your left-wing propaganda media:

Biden's Memory Isn't the Only Problem; It's His Lies
Mar 19, 2020

The same media that post running tabs on President Donald Trump's "lies" ignore, downplay or otherwise dismiss Biden's gaffes, memory lapses and frequent incoherence.

So what if he says, without proof, that he worked to "desegregate restaurants and movie houses of Wilmington, Delaware"? So what if he says since 2007, "150 million people" -- almost half of the U.S. population -- "have been killed" due to gun violence?

So what if he boasts about his "arrest" in South Africa for supposedly attempting to visit Nelson Mandela, an effort Mandela allegedly later thanked Biden for attempting? Never mind that none of it is true -- not the arrest, not the attempted visit and not the thank you from Mandela.

According to the Daily Beast: "Biden finally admitted that the story was much different than he'd initially described, saying he told police while on a congressional delegation to South Africa that he was 'not going to go in that door that says white only' and separate from his black colleagues."

And so what if Biden, who voted for the Iraq War resolution and publicly accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction, now claims he "didn't believe (Saddam Hussein) had those weapons of mass destruction"?

More disturbingly, Biden lied on at least two occasions about a man named Curtis C. Dunn. Dunn was the tractor-trailer driver who, in 1972, tragically struck and killed Biden's wife and his infant daughter. Along with many other news outlets, the Huffington Post, in 2008, described the accident this way: "Delaware's Senator-elect would face a more difficult challenge soon after his election, when a drunk driver struck the car carrying his family, killing his wife Neilia and daughter Naomi and severely wounding sons Hunter and Beau."

Based on Joe Biden's account, the Huffington Post got it right. After all, in a 2001 speech at the University of Delaware, Biden said, "An errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit -- a tractor-trailer -- hit my children and my wife and killed them." But the then-Delaware prosecutor, now a judge, who investigated the accident says, "The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver (Dunn), is incorrect." Furthermore, the tractor-trailer driver had the right of way, and Dunn immediately got out of his truck and tried to render assistance. He was no drunk driver.

Joe's calling card is decency, an affable man without a malicious bone in his body. Yet he allowed Dunn, who died in 1999, to go to his grave having been falsely shamed by Biden as a drunk driver responsible for the death of Biden's wife and newborn daughter. What "decent" man does that?

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryel ... s-n2565249