A Weekly Dose of President Trump- Trump Family Train 5/2/2020

Free Republic ^ | Deplorables

[STARLIT]

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/20/erik-prince-sues-the-intercept-for-defamation/

Prince’s lawsuit, filed on May 19 in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, said he had “no choice but to defend himself” after The Intercept accused him “of being a criminal and a traitor based on dishonest and biased anonymous sources that it made no effort to corroborate.”

According to the text from the lawsuit, The Intercept “acted with actual malice” when they published the report. The suit also heavily criticized the site for publishing the story without a witness on the record. In addition, the suit accuses The Intercept of knowingly publishing false statements.

Prince’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, “injunctive and declarative relief,” legal fee coverage, an award of “pre and post-judgment interest,” and other compensation the court may deem appropriate.

[gubamyster]

Amazing, we are starting to get some court wins before the need to appeal 3 or 4 times.

[STARLIT]

Finally!!

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

.

[stylin19a]

***
3:17
NOW PLAYING
An audio recording of a conversation between John Kerry and Petro Poroshenko on May 13, 2016
805 views
4 hours ago
***

The file name says 05/13/2016.
The conversation was about getting rid of Shokin.
Shokin was gone by 03/29/2016.

This convo is actually labeled as 12/03/2015

[STARLIT]

Tracy Beanz

Fasten Seatbelts. The call that General Flynn had with Kislyak was likely obtained using a warrant in a previously unannounced criminal investigation.— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) May 19, 2020

May 19 The fact that Yates references the NSD here, makes me think that the FBI had an open criminal investigation into the FARA accusations against General Flynn early on- before the December call to Kislyak. The implications of this are STUNNING.

@That means, there were WARRANTS related to the initial comlaint – about the Kislyak call. It also means that THAT is how the FBI got the call and it didn’t need to be unmasked- there was an ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, likely in re: to FARA, that yielded NO CHARGES:

Addendum 2: I am revising my theory on what the basis for the investigation was. I don’t think it was related to FARA and Turkey. More soon.

10:26 PM · May 20, 2020

[stylin19a]

what always troubled me about this Rice “interview”

“I reached out to try to introduce myself to General
Flynn and to congratulate him and to offer any and all support that we could provide”

Gen. Flynn was DIA for Pres. Obama from July 24, 2012 – August 7, 2014

Rice was NSA from July 1, 2013 – January 20, 2017

and they never met?
they never were in the same intel meeting interacting?
and not one of the questioners called her on it, that I could find?

[djstex]

Agree!
Makes my stomach hurt to see so many like
Hannity claims to be pro Trump,BUT kisses Cuban’s butt and says what a smart guy and you don't support Trump over Biden.
What's wrong with this whole picture is....
Hannity is supposedly so Conservative but brags and whines like a puppy lappingup to Cuban.
So pathetic for Hannity to act like this.
No one REALLY Gives A Flip ABOUT Sleazy Mark Cuban, except Hannity! Hannity not only pander but made a complete fool of himself!

[STARLIT]

NIKK..I posted this

3:17

NOW PLAYING

An audio recording of a conversation between John Kerry and Petro Poroshenko on May 13, 2016

805 views

4 hours ago

NIKK..and your saying its ...

The file name says 05/13/2016.

The conversation was about getting rid of Shokin. Shokin was gone by 03/29/2016.

This convo is actually labeled as 12/03/2015 NIKK...I went back and re-coped.

3:17 NOW PLAYING

WATCH LATER

ADD TO QUEUE

An audio recording of a conversation between John Kerry and Petro Poroshenko on May 13, 2016

24K views

NIKK....1 day ago

31:50

NOW PLAYING

WATCH LATER

ADD TO QUEUE

Facts of international corruption: Conversations between P. Poroshenko, J. Biden and J. Kerry

20K views

1 day ago

[gubamyster]

I wonder how big this scandal has to get before it actually gets traction outside of twitter?

Flynn, unmasking, Ukraine judge names Biden in crime, quid pro Joe calls leaked.... and Biden leads Trump by 11 pts.

[STARLIT]

Exactly..her story and Yates aren't adding up. I think Rice slipped up. Perhaps in several places because it happens when someone doesn't stick close to the truth. One gets caught up in a lie or more when they don't stick to the truth.

[sweetiepiezer]

Have a Happy Birthday and have a great time on your trip.

[STARLIT]

Hannity is playing a role in my opinion. One tends to really open up when someone plays up to them. Our President does the same. Look how Dr. Small gave the thumbs up sign to the media one day. He was over confident because he thought he had the President fooled.

As in Cuban...Hannity gets him talking that otherwise he wouldn't do because Cuban knows Hannity is a close friend of our President's. What better way for our President to view tonight thanks to Hannity getting Cuban all Cocky? Hannity was willing to play the humble role for another person's benefit *our President*. Because Cuban needs to stay out of the race.....My Opinion for 2 cents.

[STARLIT]

and Biden leads Trump by 11 pts.

THIS IS BOLOGNA! No Bern is taking time to go vote for OLD SENILE Joe. We heard this kind of MALARKEY last election.

NO one was going to see Joe before the Virus...and they sure as hell aren't going to when or if he starts having rallies. He had LESS than Hillary even. And we all know many of her votes were done through cheating.

[stylin19a]

The last part of Rice's email always troubled me.

"The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would."

They didn't have a few weeks...they had less than 15 days.
The transition and intel sharing should have been done way before 01/20/2017.
They should have already been doing it by 01/05/2017 if you think about it.

I know 01/13/2017 was dedicated to transitioning pandemic stuff.

I haven't tracked down dates for any other transitioning

[STARLIT]

Techno Fog

It's bad enough that Judge Sullivan is refusing to dismiss the case against Flynn.

It's even worse that his decision was influenced by a WaPo opinion column written by David O'Neil.

O'Neil is the lawyer for Sally Yates - who witnessed/participated in the effort to oust Flynn.

Of course, the Washington Post fails to inform its readers that David O'Neil represents Sally Yates.

Sure seems like he's helping advance his client's interests.

Perhaps WaPo Editorial Page Editor @hiattf can explain the omission?

To summarize the circus:

Gleeson and O'Neil are in the same firm.

O'Neil represents Yates - who faces serious allegations of misconduct w/r/t Flynn.

Gleeson gets appointed amicus.

COMMENTS

This Amici nonsense is going to be dispatched forthwith I believe because it is one thing for Sullivan to make a fool of himself, but it's another thing all together when he makes a fool out of the court.

I’m thinking Sullivan will get a talking to by other judges and will say he was just joking about it and dismiss the case.

And will then retire in a few months.The Deep State protecting their own... That's okay, they can all hang together.

Hillary predicted it.

Is judge Sullivan “untouchable” cuz he has immunity? What power does the judicial system have to remove him from the case-who/what committee has the authority to remove him from the case given this obvious “conflict of interest” “bias”?

sullivan can be censured or removed by higher courts

How is this legal when the SC ruled against amicus briefs? I don't understand how Judge Sullivan can keep a case open if there's no law broken and no prosecutor.

he's special

And who is at the same lawfirm with Yates? Rod Rosenstein. What a coincidence!

[STARLIT]

Sounds like you've been busy. Good work.

[stylin19a]

[STARLIT]

Jonathan Turley

...The order gives the parties until June 1st to file. If the Court were to take the case, the material likely to remain enjoined until after the election. The House may have undermined its case with a type of perpetual impeachment claim in its briefing.

...The order gives the parties until June 1st to file. If the Court were to take the case, the material likely to remain enjoined until after the election. The House may have undermined its case with a type of perpetual impeachment claim in its briefing. https://t.co/qi7UwUBDmr— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 20, 2020

The House specified its continuing impeachment inquiry:

“The Committee’s investigation continues today and has further developed in light of recent events. For example, the Committee is investigating the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the RogerStone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the SpecialCounsel. See Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 8, 2020),https://perma.cc/799D-2PNY.

The Committee has announced its intention to hold a hearing with the Attorney General—who has failed to appear before the Committee at any point on any topic during his tenure—on these issues as soon as possible.”

The inclusion of the Stone and Flynn cases blurs the line between what is an oversight and an impeachment interest. It is hard to see a credible impeachment claim arising out of either case. The Stone case involves a change in a sentencing recommendation while Flynn involves a motion to dismiss the case entirely. However, both cases garnered criticism long before the actions of the Justice Department and fall squarely within the area of prosecutorial discretion. While the House has strong claims to evidence sought by committees, its claim of a perpetual impeachment are forced and artificial. It also raises the uncomfortable prospect for the Court of a claim of impeachment authority to trump executive privileges and challenges. The position of the House seems to be that we are able to claim the ultimate level of deference in such demands simply because we say that we have seeking a possible impeachment. This concern is magnified by the position of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in long refusing an impeachment vote, that she could unilaterally trigger such powers in a simple press conference. I have previously criticized the House for its slipshod and abbreviated impeachmentprocess. That record could become more relevant in this litigation where justices may generally support the right of the House to such evidence but remain skeptical of the fluid use of impeachment to justify such demands.

NIKK..part of the article.

[STARLIT]

Thanks Stylin.