Flynn Exonerated

Deep State Freaking Out.

1 Like

Turley begs to differ.

There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]

The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First, the exhaustive search may have been hampered by the fact that Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with a single count of false statements to a federal investigator under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I have previously wrote that the Justice Department should move to dismiss the case due to recently disclosed evidence and thus I was supportive of the decision of Attorney General Bill Barr.

Second, there is ample precedent for this motion even though, as I noted in the column calling for this action, such dismissals are rare. There is a specific rule created for this purpose. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) states the government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint “with leave of the court.” Moreover, such dismissals are tied to other rules mandating such action when there is evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or fundamental questions about the underlying case from the view of the prosecutors. I wrote recently about the serious concerns over the violation of Brady and standing court orders in the production and statements of the prosecutors in the case.

Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States , 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States , 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”

There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority.

3 Likes

President Trump says that The Kenyan Prince and his jester Slo Jo will be implicated.

OH That would be delicious. When justice comes it will come with a vengeance.

2 Likes

Turley Rips Apart Barry O’s fake leaked statement about DoJ and Flynn.

1 Like

Georgetown Profs: Bloodied, bruised, barely breathing, defending the left’s attack on General Flynn.

1 Like

BO seems to think it is his job to monitor the activities of the President and Congress. After all, folks, he was a self-proclaimed activist.

1 Like

I am so glad for Flynn and his family! The anguish they all must have went thru is staggering. The only remedy to ever stop this from happening again is… execution! At the very least…loooooong prison sentences…as in…“never to see the light of day”!

1 Like

Don’t expect anything to happen to the people who committed these crimes.

This is new Democrat strategy. If you are a wealthy, successful person who gets high up in the election campaign for a Republican candidate, like Trump, they are going to come after you. They will harass you with false accusations and make you spend millions to defend yourself. They will persecute you until you crack or they invent something that sticks that will send you to jail. They will force you to commit perjury in an attempt to get them off your back.

This is worse than in the early 1970s when Richard Nixon used the IRS to punish his enemies. At least then you could defend yourself on one type of charge. Here the Democrats are out for blood.

Message is clear from the Democrats. Oppose us and we will punish you. They become the American Fascist and the American Socialist Party wrapped up in one.

3 Likes

Yes. I’m with you @Sendgop about much of this… 2 things though. 1. I see what the trump admin is doing. they have to flip the little fish to get to the big fish and it appears they’ve got there. We’ll see what happens. It will be hell on wheels to find out a former president attempted a coup on the newly elected president but I think we all see that.

I will continue to pray for justice in that matter.

and 2. We have the media lying through their teeth to protect the left. And they did just that this weekend. I MEAN Blatantly altering the words of Barr in order to make him appear corrupt. THey need to be taken down themselves.

1 Like

Sadly, everything you say is true @Sendgop I never thought I’d see this day in America.

Sadly the training grounds for the Democrsts who act like this are our colleges and universities. Those institutions indoctrinate students with the “new political morality” that the Democrat Party is the source of all goodness and light. Republicans are evil reactionaries who must be stamped out.

yes and we see the fruit of their university experience when they get jobs in social media…shut down anything they find personally repugnant. All little snowflakes.

History is repeating itself as we write these comments.

Did you see the little snowflake reporter at the end of yesterday’s press conference?

After they had grilled Trump with questions as to why every American had not been tested, she asked him why his statement that the U.S. had tested more people than any other country in the world mattered because people were still dying. Trump told her to ask China and suggested that she would get a bogus answer.

“Why are you going after me personally?” She asked as she lifted her mask. (I guess she had been rested and didn’t have any viruses.)

“Because it was a nasty question,” Trump responded. That really set her off in a snowflake hissy fit.

It was a nasty question. On the one hand every American should be tested perhaps every day. On the other hand, Trump can’t say that we have tested more people than anyone else.

Next question: “Have you stopped beating the First Lady?”

Was that question from that Alcindor water buffalo?

No, she was a young Asian woman.

In point of fact, she was a young CHINESE woman.

2 Likes

Yes, I am sure that added to her hissy fit. Now she can claim discrimination. You know that will make her even happier.

If she is working for one of the Chinese news outlets, the suggestion that she ask the Chinese Government the question is even more relevant.

1 Like

every last one of our own media, the bums, is working for the Chinese, or the Russians or anyone who is our enemy.

That’s because those regimes are run by Communists or dictators, and that’s the system many people in the news media want see imposed here.

Mussolini talked about an “efficient system of government.” The news media wants a one party government where we would not have to mess with the dirty business of democracy. The “experts” will make all of the right decisions. They will end bigotry, poverty and every other problems because they will have all the answers.

When you point out them that that system has always ended up with oppressive dictatorships, they tell you that they are “enlightened.” THEY will get it right this time. :heart_eyes: