The transcripts released Friday make clear that Flynn’s only request to Kislyak concerned the expulsion of the Russian diplomats and not the sanctions instituted by then-President Obama’s executive order. Yet Mueller’s team charged Flynn with lying to the FBI about his discussion with Kislyak about sanctions.Mueller’s Team Lied to the Court and the American PeopleWhile Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge, he did so having not seen the transcript of his actual conversation with Kislyak. In seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, Flynn said he still doesn’t “remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak.” As Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell told me, his defense team “has been asking for the transcripts and recordings of his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak for almost a year.”Yet Van Grack, the federal prosecutor who has since been removed from the Flynn case, refused to provide Powell with the transcript. Powell only received access to the details of the call following the recent declassification and release.
Further, Powell should not have even needed to ask for the transcript because presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan entered a standing order requiring the special counsel’s office to provide Flynn’s attorneys with all material exculpatory information. Yet Van Grack withheld the transcripts.Later, when Sullivan directly ordered the government to file “the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including, but not limited to audio recordings of Mr. Flynn’s conversations with Russian officials,” Van Grack refused, telling the court instead that it is not relying on that recording “for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentence.”
How is it considered a good look to have political leaders — those vying for the highest office — saying that they verbally and financially support people whose actions are criminal in alleged appearance?This is being done, by all appearances, at the expense of those residents and business owners who have been decimated by the riots. The Democrats are seemingly forsaking those most affected by the violence, and looking to have those who committed the violence upon the communities released and free to exact more of the same. It is more than a blind spot; it is a slap in the face to the victims. And it is fully sanctioned by the Democratic Party. Kamala’s suggestion is to donate to the cause through Act Blue, the fundraising arm of the DNC. So the Democrats fully own now this support of the anarchists torching America.
Donald J. Trump
NYC, CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD. The lowlifes and losers are ripping you apart. Act fast! Don’t make the same horrible and deadly mistake you made with the Nursing Homes!!!
ADDENDUM: Another example of problems with New Blogger. I tried to embed the Trump tweet, but it didn't work.
UPDATE: Could anything be more predictable? And yet it's somehow a mystery to the Dems:
71 percent of polled American voters said they support the use of the National Guard to supplement city police forces in addressing “protests and demonstrations” (the poll did not use the word “riots”) in American cities.
Of these, 42 percent of voters said they “strongly support” use of the National Guard and 29 percent said they “somewhat support” it.
Only 11 percent “strongly oppose” the measure and 9 percent “somewhat oppose” it.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support the use of the National Guard, but a large majority of Democrats (63 percent) either “strongly” or “somewhat” support it as well.
African-American voters are evenly split on the use of the National Guard.
43 percent of polled African-American voters either “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” use of the National Guard, while 42 percent either “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the measure.
Hispanic voters support the use of the National Guard.
54 percent of polled Hispanic voters either “strongly” or “somewhat” support the use of the National Guard, compared to 25 percent who “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose.
A smaller majority of American voters (58 percent) support the use of the U.S. Military to supplement city police forces. 33 percent said they strongly support the measure and 25 percent somewhat support it, compared to 19 percent who strongly oppose and 11 percent who somewhat oppose.