Nixon’s Resignation Reconsidered
New Watergate evidence suggests that presidential resignation is a mistake — then and now.
I'm half way through it, but I've previously read basically identical accounts by Shepard. It's an eye opener that everyone needs to read.
Today Don Surber riffs off Shepard's article in What Trump learned from Watergate. I like Surber's choice of quotes from Shepard--it's a great tease to get people to read Shepard:
"There is documented proof of a series of secret meetings between Chief Judge John Sirica and Watergate prosecutors. I don’t know which is the bigger surprise: that they were secretly meeting to resolve issues in advance of trial or that they were documenting their agreements in memos to their files. The mother lode of these documents, improperly removed in 1974 when Jaworski left office, first came to light in 2013 in response to my FOIA requests.
"At one point, Cox became so worried about the sustainability of Judge Sirica’s one-sided rulings in favor of the prosecutors that he feared their conviction verdicts would be overturned on appeal. He secretly approached Chief Appellate Judge David Bazelon to explain how the judicial panels could be stacked to maintain Bazelon’s slim one-vote liberal majority. Sure enough, each of the 12 appeals from Sirica’s criminal trials was heard by the full nine-judge appellate court, sitting en banc — a circumstance unprecedented in any federal appellate court anywhere in the country, before or since."
Archibald Cox in retrospect made Jimmy the Weasel Comey look honest.
The deep state won.
However, Surber goes on to make what could be an important point in his conclusion:
Donald Trump prepared for impeachment all along. He kept his nose clean and gave Democrats plenty of room [sic: rope?] to hang themselves with the Mueller Report. And they did. They had one shot at President Trump and Russian collusion was the shot they decided to take.
...
President Trump learned from Nixon's firing of Cox, which created a backlash. He kept Mueller, which avoided an obstruction of justice claim.
The president has needled and ridiculed the hapless Democrats, but he also has given them everything they asked for. When they objected to his July 25 phone call to Ukraine, President Trump released the transcript. There will be no nonsense about the cover-up being worse than the crime on his watch.
That transcript should have ended the controversy, but Adam Schiff is insane, Jerry Nadler is a fool, and the press is corrupt. Down the rabbit hole of impeachment they dove.
Public sentiment, the law, and the facts are in President Donald John Trump's favor. He learned from Nixon. it is not paranoia when they really are out to kill you.
Read it all. It's excellent.
So, while the judge presiding over Flynn's case may be prejudicial, the FISA court issued an order stating the FBI misled the National Security Division and, hence, the FISA court itself.
ReplyDelete1st paragraph, last sentence no less.
The court orders the FBI to declass info to comply with answering exactly how and why this illegality occurred.
It specifically notes that an FBI agent was a fall guy.
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf
"an FBI agent was a fall guy."
DeletePersonally, I take that with a grain of salt. The fact of the matter is that long before that final application--actually, starting with the first one--there was every reason to doubt the validity of the information contained in them. The only reason to focus on Clinesmith is that he confessed to actually altering a doc, whereas all the other BS docs were unaltered. Which made them no less BS than the altered one.
I guess Clapper told Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi to go ahead and take the kill shot.
DeleteLooks to me like the ricochet possesses excellent judgement in whom it actually hit.
Today’s Fairness Doctrine: An Unstated Imperative in a Divisive Era, another article written by Geoff Shepard, published by The American Spectator on December 17.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mike.
DeleteFrom Geoff Shepard's article: "...one of the more interesting things about the law of conspiracy is that, once a conspiracy plot is shown to exist, it takes almost no proof to add additional defendants. Thus, in a highly politicized prosecution, simply having been nearby could (and did) have catastrophic consequences."
ReplyDeleteIf Barr/Durham's probe results in an iota of proof of some conspiracy plot against Trump, it may indeed follow what is quoted above and the entire cast of characters might end up being defendants, including those that "simply were nearby".
On the other hand, Mueller et al couldn't establish any hints of Trump-Russia, and thus the whole thing collapsed.
Interesting insight in that quote from the article.
Yes, absolutely. You see from this why I'm so keen on the use of conspiracy to defraud the government of honest services.
Delete