Sunday, May 10, 2020

Obama Lies: Obama Pardoned General Who Pled Guilty To "Perjury"

A big Hat Tip to indispensable blogger Don Surber, who refers to this January 17, 2017, NYT story via one of his readers. I found the link:

Obama Pardons James Cartwright, General Who Lied to F.B.I. in Leak Case

This is truly stunning.

Just days before President Trump was inaugurated--at the very same time that the FBI was plotting to ambush interview Michael Flynn and frame him for a non-crime--disgraced former President Obama pardoned a general who had pled guilty to "lying to the FBI," or "perjury" as Obama calls it in his legal ignorance. The law the story is referring to, the law to which Michael Flynn initially pled guilty and to which Jame Cartwright pled guilty, is 18 USC 1001, False Statements to the United States Government.

OK, a pardon isn't the same thing as having the case dismissed for lack of evidence and for government misconduct. Nevertheless, most people, especially those with as sketchy a knowledge of legal matters as Obama, would agree that James Cartwright, perfectly fits the description in Obama's very recent words:

"was someone who [had] been charged with perjury [and] just [got] off scot-free."

 Here's how the NYT describes this episode:

President Obama on Tuesday pardoned James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his discussions with reporters about Iran’s nuclear program, saving him from a possible prison sentence. 
General Cartwright, who was a key member of Mr. Obama’s national security team in his first term and earned a reputation as the president’s favorite general, pleaded guilty late last year to misleading investigators looking into the leaking of classified information about cyberattacks against Iran. 
He was due to be sentenced this month. His defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years. 
Now, the retired general will be spared such punishment.

Will the sycophantic media hold Obama to account for that precedent--just one more of his lies?


  1. Cartwright was the commander of USSTRATCOM when I was stationed there. He screwed that command up, particularly with respect to the nation's nuclear mission being sidelined for more "sexy" missions such as space and cyber warfare. Shortly after my departure, evidence of the weakened AF nuclear mission was evidenced when a flight from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB carrying nuclear ACMs occurred that ultimately resulted in the firing of the Secretary of the AF, the AF Chief of Staff, and many others down the AF food chain...

  2. Nice get, Mark. Obama is such a sleaze.

    Speaking of which, an OMG post by Larry Johnson on long-hidden testimony about how Steele's handler knew it was BS (Felix Sater knew this as well) and was cut out of the loop:

    1. I just came back from online Mass. However, before that I was reading all that stuff. Floodgates opened for the time being. Also, on Lauran Ingraham show, Raymond Arroyo had a good interview with Kevin Brock that I may transcribe:

  3. A letter from Attorney Ty Clevenger to DNI Richard Grenell, dated May 7, 2020

    Clevenger's letter includes the following passages:

    I represent Ed Butowsky in the cases ... [about] whether former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich played a role in leaking emails from the DNC to Wikileaks in 2016. I respectfully request your assistance in de-classifying National Security Agency records that would settle this question once and for all. ....

    I am reliably informed that the NSA or its partners intercepted at least some of the communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. ...

    On March 20, 2020, I deposed former Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines, the prosecutor assigned to the Seth Rich murder case. She testified that (1) the FBI investigated a possible intrusion into Mr. Rich’s electronic accounts; (2) the FBI examined Mr. Rich’s computer; and (3) the FBI did have records pertaining to Mr. Rich.

    Ms. Sines further testified that she met with a prosecutor and an FBI agent from Mr. Mueller’s team (ergo there should be an FD-302 form from that interview). Again, this flatly contradicts the FBI’s official narrative that (1) Mr. Rich was never the subject of an FBI investigation; and (2) the FBI has no records pertaining to Mr. Rich.

    In a recorded telephone conversation with my client, famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh claimed that he spoke with a high-ranking FBI official who confirmed the existence of email communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. My client separately spoke with another federal official who said he had seen the emails between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. ...

    I have enclosed an October 4, 2018 letter wherein the NSA refused to produce 32 pages of records about Seth Rich insofar as those records were classified. I have also enclosed a November 22, 2019 letter wherein the NSA declined to produce records in response to a subpoena duces tecum.

    One of my consulting experts, Larry C. Johnson, was informed that the NSA possesses additional communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. Mr. Johnson is retired from the CIA, and he has spoken with an intelligence official who said there were additional communications.

    1. Mike, I read that earlier but am overwhelmed with the flow of info this morning--so thanks. My take on that was probably the same as yours, namely, of course NSA knows the truth of it. And if they didn't know on their own initially, GCHQ probably did and would have told them. There's no possible way, IMO, that this is a secret unknown to the two biggest technical collection agencies in the world.

  4. One wonders if this is coming to light now because this was part of the trove of docs Grenell was reported to drop off at the DOJ. If it was known that Seth Rich was actually the source of the Clinton email leaks, that destroys all pretense of investigating Trump. That would certainly fit the billing of all the chatter of a bombshell discovery. The implications of such a discovery would be even more disturbing than anything we have learned to date.

    1. That would definitely fit the bill. It would also definitely fit in with Durham's known focus on Brennan and the ICA. It would essentially debunk the ICA. Very important.

    2. Disagree - what is most disturbing is the proven politicization of justice.

      Some Examples:

      - Weiner Laptop
      - Aswan Brothers
      - Hillary Emails
      - Michael Flynn Charges
      - Dinesh D'Souza

      >more disturbing than anything we have learned to date

      Kurt Schlichter column, but only includes the Flynn / Trump travesty.

    3. We have to assume this goes back in various forms all the way to 2008. For example, you can add the massive IRS scandal to your list. The mind boggles. Also the NSA abuse, so central to it all.

    4. Agree Mark with Boggles.

      At lunch today with my parents, I commented that 4 years ago, that what I know now, I would have classed as crazy conspiracy territory. And the breadth is sprawling.

    5. As far as what would be the biggest "bombshell" I think politicization of justice, to the average American, would pale in comparison to proof that one, or more, agencies of .gov covered up, colluded in, participated in, or possibly instigated the blatant murder of an American citizen on American soil.
      Most Americans take for granted a certain level of corruption in .gov. They assume that politics attracts grifters like moths to a flame. Murder, on the other hand, is a red pill the size of a Buick. If that can be tied to the Oval Office then Watergate will hence forth be considered such small potatoes as to disappear from history books altogether.
      Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself and Seth Rich wasn't "mugged".
      Tom S.