Saturday, May 9, 2020

UPDATED: Obama Feeling The Heat?

He ought to be, after the revelations of what Sally Yates and Mary McCord told Mueller and House investigators about Obama's knowledge regarding the Flynn/Kislyak phone call: Mary McCord: Leak To David Ignatius Could Have Come From Obama WH. Where did that leak come from? Obama knows that Barr wants to know--and probably does know already.

Listen to this pathetically incoherent phone link to Obama--this is what he sounds like without a teleprompter. Anybody who tells you that smoking dope doesn't damage a person, here's the proof to the contrary. How would you as a law student have liked sitting through stammering lectures from this guy? No wonder other law profs at U of Chicago said that Obama avoided interacting with them.

And kudos to Matt Gaetz for calling out the two guys who set the GOP to lose the House in 2018--Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy:

UPDATE: Earlier I commented:

Two things about what Obama said, may seem technical, but this is a guy who was supposedly a law prof: 
1. He says no precedent for charges being withdrawn by government? Absurdly and demonstrably untrue.  
2. He says Flynn was charged with "perjury"? Also absurdly and demonstrably untrue.

It's nice to be in good legal company on this. Commenters TexasDude and Anonymous provided excellent links in this regard. I especially like this very concise Twitter thread by law prof Jonathan Turley--the kind of law prof Obama would have avoided so as not to expose his woeful ignorance:

President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement.
First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury... 
>>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 there … 
Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.
Finally, there is precedent...  
There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.... 
The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent? 


  1. My blood is boiling early this morning. Obama says no precedent for Flynn getting off scot free, which means "without suffering any punishment or injury". Last I checked he was down millions in legal fees and was put through the wringer for 3 years...

    1. Two things about what Obama said, may seem technical, but this is a guy who was supposedly a law prof:

      1. He says no precedent for charges being withdrawn by government? Absurdly and demonstrably untrue.

      2. He says Flynn was charged with "perjury"? Also absurdly and demonstrably untrue.

    2. Obama was never a professor at U of Chicago. He lectured on his version of constitutional law, which was basically intended to teach students how to get around it, to use it. He used no textbook. He made it up as he went along. He was called a “lecturer”. (Can you imagine listening to that drone?) It seemed to amount to an extension of his community organizing, and it gave him access to others there who benefitted him greatly over the years.

      At his Wiki page:

      During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law.

  2. Barr smoked Barry out of his hole with the Flynn decision. Then Trump stating wait and see what comes out in the next few weeks must have Saint Obama clutching his worry beads...

    1. You can see why I've been saying that the Flynn case, while it may seem peripheral to the main Russia Hoax, in fact leads right to the heart of it.

  3. It looks like its all coming together.

    The way I read Obama's phone call he knows Trump is going after him and he's afraid.

    And way to go, Gaetz!

    Richard Burr...Mitt Romney...Jeff Flake...John McCain...Bob Corker...And yes, Paul Ryan...and, I think some people call him: Roosterhead.

    Would love to see copies of those guys' bank statements and phone records...

    Its pretty amazing when you consider what they've thrown at him over the last four years that Trump has somehow, so far, prevailed.

    A major eye-opener for me were the Kavanaugh hearings. If they would do what they did to Kavanaugh...there is no limit to where they will go to get Trump. And then there was the impeachment. There is No limit.

    So November 2020 is shaping up to be cosmic. By Summer we'll have Durham's indictments. The backlash will be ferocious. They will use everything they've got and then some to destroy Trump...and save themselves.

    Trump will, undoubtedly, fight back.

    This video is a preview of coming attractions:

    Have a nice day.

  4. No precedent for perjury and getting off scott free?

    I am no lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, but that statement is false. Betcha a simple internet search would prove it.

    Yep, found one ...

    News article from 2017 ... headline ... “Witnesses who recanted in Jerome Morgan case found not guilty of perjury“

    What about defendants pleading guilty even though they are not, yeah perjury?

    From Forbes in 2018 ...

    “A new paper published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) “The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How to Save It.” We may not know every amendment to the Constitution, but we all embrace the fact that in the U.S. everyone is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of our peers. However, going to trial can be a gamble with one’s life. One conclusion reached by the NACDL was that “ There is ample evidence that federal criminal defendants are being coerced to plead guilty because the penalty for exercising their constitutional rights is simply too high to risk.”

    Of course defense attorneys would assert this, but does that make their accusations wrong?

    Matter of fact, it appears there is precedent applying to Flynn as noted here ...

    “ As a further illustration, in United States v. Groll," the defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea at her sentencing hear- ing based upon her legal innocence. After retaining new counsel, Groll learned that because the witness who had goaded her into selling drugs was actually a confidential informant, she had a viable entrapment defense to the charges." Even though Groll had admitted the underlying facts that amounted to a crime during the guilty plea hearing, she asked the court to dis- regard that evidence because it was improperly through her entrapment. obtained The court recognized that although 16 "claims of innocence alone do not mandate permission to withdraw a plea ... being legally innocent of the crime is a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea" as long as such assertions are "substantiated by evidence.' 7 Because her entrapment claim was colorable and did "not contradict her admissions at the change of plea hearing," the court permitted Groll to with draw her guilty plea.' As this case demonstrates, once innocence is established, a court is hard-pressed to deny a defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea.”

    - TexasDude

    If I am wrong, fine, I am far from an expert, but there is precedent.

    1. A criminal defense attorney once explained to me that there are two kinds of defendants who plead guilty: The very guilty and the very innocent.


    And then wait until Trump goes after Biden for China, and Burisma/Ukraine, and Biden's brothers, and Hunter Biden, and Tara Reid...and what did Joe know and when did he know it?

  6. Sorry, I don't take calls from Mr. Soetoro. There's nothing the execrable former ROTUS could ever have to say that I would need, much less want, to hear. However, I did see somewhere that the fraud is reportedly babbling something about somebody's twisted notion of the rule of law being in jeopardy. He must be developing dementia; the rule of law was bound and gagged in a dark corner of the DOJ basement for eight years while criminals ran the country. But that was just over three years ago. The rule of law has finally been found and freed. And with any luck, it will pay him a visit, for old times' sake. Maybe that's what he's so concerned about.

  7. No precedent for acquittals or similar relief following prosecutorial abuse? Sidney Powell wrote the book!

  8. How revealing to listen to that herky-jerky stream of consciousness phone call. We saw a transcript of it, but that was so cleaned up that it hardly seemed like the same statement. The media do really protect this guy…still…

    I thought “worried” was an interesting choice of words and he used it more than once. More self-revelation?

  9. Term limits would help with respect to Cassander's rogues gallery list of Romney, Ryan, etc.

    Repealing a lot of laws and said penalties would help.

    Levelling the playing field between the government and the common man when it comes to trials would help.

    The judges that the President is nominating will help.

    The people being educated by Hillsdale College and other right-thinking institutions will help.

    The continued outing of the dishonest Fake News will help.

    Returning to God will really help, more than anything. It doesn't guarantee the country's success but does edify the inner man and is the right path for an individual.

  10. I'll add one more to the list. Legal reform as in needing an attorney so bad that a man spends $3 million-plus to defend himself. It's outrageous that attorneys charge over $1K per hour, especially when they are shafting the client.

    Why couldn't I defend myself on some charges? I'm not a lawyer but am no dummy.

    How about reform of juror instructions and more juror nullification?

    Restore the right to privacy, reform the selling of our names, income, social security number, health records to only those who truly need the information. To process a medical claim is a legitimate example; to sell me U-verse TV is not.

    Allow no foreign powers to control critical components of our economy such as media. Yes, I know that there are some laws in place but there are ways around it.

    Stop allowing mergers like Sprint and T-Mobile, AT&T and Time Warner, Comcast and NBC Universal.

    The following is tricky but sotp giving the "press" an automatic out to lie, libel, mislead and leak. I am aware of the valuable role the media, including Mr. Wauck, play in our nation. But David Ignatius taking a "kill shop" and CNN, et. al., slandering the Cov kids is not acceptable.

    I guess this is enough of a rant.

    1. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," a good idea in the 16th century and an even better one today, since they have metastasized.

  11. Smokescreen. Obama is 1000x more desperate now than they were using the Logan Act to 'kill' Flynn.

    Asking Comey at the 1-05 meeting whether Flynn should be "treated differently" after the Kisleyak call was just like Henry II crying 'who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?'.

    Beckett is assassinated. Flynn is politically assassinated.

  12. Apologies if these links were earlier posted:

    Obama, Biden Oval Office Meeting On January 5 Was Key To Entire Anti-Trump Operation

    Actual law professor Jonathan Turley on pseudo-professor Obama's ill-advised comments

    Also see: Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?

    1. Tx especially for the excellent Turley twitter thread.

  13. Another thought. We don't know how many Obama loyalists have been interviewed by Durham who may have passed along the topics/questions to Obama and others. That information could be another cause for Obama's discomfort and the need to say something - anything.

  14. Looks and sounds like the stuttering effete little cigarette chump is cracking... oh, I hope the popcorn fresh and buttered...

  15. Was reading the Turley tweet reference Obama and waaaaaaaaaaaay down the comments was a tweet from:

    Her tweet had an interesting comment reference a 'FVEY SIGNT UK spying on Trump order of 8/28/16!!!' It included a document from GCHQ regarding a US Presidential Request for monitoring Trump HQ and his committee. Have you ever seen this and is this hooey or what?

    Another anonymous who enjoys reading your blog daily for its insights on political chicanery.

    1. It appears to be a hoax document:

      However, I believe it's beyond doubt that GCHQ did assist the USIC in the Russia Hoax. There's a reason why Hannigan resigned for "personal reasons" within days of the Trump inauguration and that Trump treated Terry May so contemptuously in public on repeated occasions. Probably this was one of the major revelations that Adm. Mike Rogers made to Trump when he traveled without authorization to visit Trump Tower--after which Trump immediately switched Transition HQ to his golf club in NJ.

    2. It is indeed fake. I recall having seen that quite a long time ago and immediately noticed a few glaring problems, not least of which was the purportedly British author's use of American spelling — gets the halfwit hoaxers every time.

      But Mark is right, it's beyond clear that at least some elements of the UK intelligence apparatus were involved. I have my own suspicion that after Trump defeated the Wicked Witch of Westchester, the Brits scrambled to, uh..."yank" the plugs, shove Steele under the bus (Dec2016 letter to Flynn re: Steele credibility), make nice with new admin, and distance themselves as much as possible from the entire extraordinarily foolish debacle.

    3. "Interestingly, CCDH spells the word 'Center' in its name by the U.S. English convention, as opposed to the British 'Centre'."


    Not sure whether I got this link to Mollie Hemingway's article here or elsewhere, but I've just read it. Words escape me.

    Not only did they plot to overthrow the President...well, we've known that...but now we can see they did it at Obama's direction...and they have lied to the American people about it for over three years.

    Every public statement since then by Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Rice, Yates...and Biden...and Obama...a damned lie.

    It was Obama. It was Obama all along.

    I am disgusted to my core.

    In a strange way it explains the utter desperation of Comey and Brennan. And Weissmann and Mueller. And Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler. Good little soldiers doing literally anything and everything to try to save their leader and his legacy and their Party.

    1. Disgusted, yes. But are you surprised?
      Tom S.

    2. No Tom, I'm not surprised in the slightest. Kind of relieved to see the dots definitively connected, but not surprised.

      I do hope that Durham is able to prove the case in court and that justice is served. Don't you?

    3. Absolutely!
      I was becoming concerned that Obama had effectively insulated himself from responsibility by ensuring there was no paper trail into the Oval Office and various stratagems such as the too-cute-by-half memo insisting on a "by the book" investigation.
      Hopefully he will receive his just reward in historical purgatory a couple of levels lower than Benedict Arnold.
      Tom S.