Posted on 06/25/2020 4:12:03 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
Major Obamqgate developments? No, no they are not. We have been fooled again.
From the column:
Assuming John Durham and William Barr are really planning to execute some real justice related to Obamagate, those notes will make it very hard for them to continue to pretend that Biden and Obama themselves are above scrutiny. Once his case has been fully dismissed and he is able to speak freely, we can expect Flynn to make doing that even harder still.
So, how are they not?
No one of any importance will be charged with a crime. Barr and Durham are simply running out the clock.
I just went to CNN’s website and looked at it in painstaking detail. NOT ONE WORD on the Flynn case!
This, after breathless reporting for months on this and rumors about it. I hate the irruption enemedia.
The Bagpipeblower needs to be asked under oath when he first knew about the Strzok notes and what they said.
bkmk
BFL
Why wouldn't an appeal to the Supreme Court put a stop to this?
This is why the Democrats are so fanatically--in fact hysterically--determined to stop President Trump and his re-election at ANY AND ALL costs--even the destruction of the USA.
From their point of view: They must. They have to choice. Their own destruction--figuratively, but perhaps literally--is at stake.
Catch-22 With Brady Exculpatory Evidence--- Powell notes that the prosecution refused to provide Flynn with the Brady material before he accepted the plea deal because he was not a defendant until he was formally charged. But then they claimed they didn’t need to provide him with the material after he had accepted the plea deal — since the guilty plea erased the obligation. It was a catch-22 that defeats the purpose of the Brady requirement.
Powell charges FBI lawyer Lisa Page with altering the FD-302 write-up of Flynn’s interview. Peter Strzok, an FBI agent at the time and Page’s extramarital lover, drafted an FD-302. He texted Page about making some changes to the write-up. Page had not been involved in the interview. The change in wording moved Flynn from a target to a subject. This FD-302 originally said Flynn could not remember if he had spoken to Russians about their voting at the UN. It was revised to say Flynn said he did not talk to the Russians about that.
This contradicted what Vice President Pence had just said on TV, that Flynn had not discussed sanctions with Russians. He was forced to resign.
Changing the words regarding a person under investigation can have a profound influence on the outcome. Strzok changed former FBI Director James Comey’s drafting of “gross negligence” in regards to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to “extreme carelessness.” This took her out of the criminal statute regarding mishandling of classified information, and allowed her to avoid prosecution.... (Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
Obama cannot be gone after without exposing that both parties conspired to violate the Constitution.
Obama is not a natural born citizen.
They will protect Obama at all costs.
Here's the nutcases they've become ---- fearing lack of power.
Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election
National Review ^ | 11/20/2019 | David Harsanyi / FR Posted on 11/20/2019, 7:47:46 AM by simpson96
Nancy Pelosi just stated that ‘it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump’s fate.’ @FoxNews In other words, she thinks I’m going to win and doesn’t want to take a chance on letting the voters decide. Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system. Wow, she’s CRAZY!” tweeted Donald Trump today.
Well, not exactly. Trump’s tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi’s position, not the speaker’s statement verbatim. Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, was immediately able to jump all over the president’s clumsy wording and act as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue. It wasn’t.
In her Dear Colleague letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Nancy Pelosi wrote this: “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.” Is he?
If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a “dangerous” notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in the Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.
What Pelosi has done is even more cynical. She’s arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump — and, I assume, remove him from office — then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.
Though most liberals have long declared the 2016 contest contaminated, as far as we know, absolutely nothing — not even the most successful foreign efforts in “interference” or “meddling” — damaged the integrity of the election results. Notwithstanding the belief of over 60 percent of Democrats, precipitated by breathless and often misleading media coverage, not one vote was altered by Putin, nor was a single person’s free will purloined by a Russian Twitter bot or Facebook ad.
And, contra Pelosi’s implication, whatever you make of Trump’s request from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s shady son, not one voter will be restricted from casting a ballot for whomever they please in 2020. In truth, voters will know more about the inner workings of Trump’s presidency than they have about any other administration in memory. Maybe they care, maybe they don’t, but that’s not up to Pelosi. Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them. Post-2016 calls for increased control over speech on the Internet, for instance, pose a far greater danger to American freedoms than anything our enemies at the Kremlin could cook up. And if the contention is that the only truly legitimate election is one that is free of any attempts to mislead voters, as seems to be the case, then we might as well close up shop. Because the presence of unregulated political rhetoric is a feature of a free and open society. We will never be able to, nor should we aspire to, limit discourse. It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this habit of injecting doubt into the electoral process is nothing new. For the past 20 years (at least), Democrats have shown a destructive inability to accept the fact that a bunch of voters simply disagree with them. If it’s not “dark money” boring into their souls, it’s gerrymandering, special interests, confusing ballots, voter suppression, crafty Ruskies or the Electoral College. Democrats can’t lose on the merits. Someone, somewhere, has fooled the Proles into making bad decisions.
All that said, it is Pelosi’s constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reasons she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent. No, it isn’t a “coup,” but it’s certainly not a constitutional imperative, either. It’s a political choice.
In the end, the presidency happens to be one of the things we do decide via elections. That will almost surely be the case when it comes Trump, and Pelosi knows it. And when Trump isn’t removed by the Senate, and if the results don’t go the way Pelosi hopes, she’s preemptively given Democrats a reason to question the legitimacy of yet another election.
Here's the nutcases they've become ---- fearing lack of power.
Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election
National Review ^ | 11/20/2019 | David Harsanyi / FR Posted on 11/20/2019, 7:47:46 AM by simpson96
Nancy Pelosi just stated that ‘it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump’s fate.’ @FoxNews In other words, she thinks I’m going to win and doesn’t want to take a chance on letting the voters decide. Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system. Wow, she’s CRAZY!” tweeted Donald Trump today.
Well, not exactly. Trump’s tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi’s position, not the speaker’s statement verbatim. Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, was immediately able to jump all over the president’s clumsy wording and act as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue. It wasn’t.
In her Dear Colleague letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Nancy Pelosi wrote this: “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.” Is he?
If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a “dangerous” notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in the Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.
What Pelosi has done is even more cynical. She’s arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump — and, I assume, remove him from office — then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.
Though most liberals have long declared the 2016 contest contaminated, as far as we know, absolutely nothing — not even the most successful foreign efforts in “interference” or “meddling” — damaged the integrity of the election results. Notwithstanding the belief of over 60 percent of Democrats, precipitated by breathless and often misleading media coverage, not one vote was altered by Putin, nor was a single person’s free will purloined by a Russian Twitter bot or Facebook ad.
And, contra Pelosi’s implication, whatever you make of Trump’s request from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s shady son, not one voter will be restricted from casting a ballot for whomever they please in 2020. In truth, voters will know more about the inner workings of Trump’s presidency than they have about any other administration in memory. Maybe they care, maybe they don’t, but that’s not up to Pelosi. Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them. Post-2016 calls for increased control over speech on the Internet, for instance, pose a far greater danger to American freedoms than anything our enemies at the Kremlin could cook up. And if the contention is that the only truly legitimate election is one that is free of any attempts to mislead voters, as seems to be the case, then we might as well close up shop. Because the presence of unregulated political rhetoric is a feature of a free and open society. We will never be able to, nor should we aspire to, limit discourse. It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this habit of injecting doubt into the electoral process is nothing new. For the past 20 years (at least), Democrats have shown a destructive inability to accept the fact that a bunch of voters simply disagree with them. If it’s not “dark money” boring into their souls, it’s gerrymandering, special interests, confusing ballots, voter suppression, crafty Ruskies or the Electoral College. Democrats can’t lose on the merits. Someone, somewhere, has fooled the Proles into making bad decisions.
All that said, it is Pelosi’s constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reasons she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent. No, it isn’t a “coup,” but it’s certainly not a constitutional imperative, either. It’s a political choice.
In the end, the presidency happens to be one of the things we do decide via elections. That will almost surely be the case when it comes Trump, and Pelosi knows it. And when Trump isn’t removed by the Senate, and if the results don’t go the way Pelosi hopes, she’s preemptively given Democrats a reason to question the legitimacy of yet another election.
According to the never-fail Tinker Bell poll taken in Fantasyland on Gay Day at Disney, Biden leads Mr. Trump by enormous margins
with black and Hispanics, and women and young people. Biden has even drawn even with Mr. Trump among male voters, whites and people
in middle age and older — groups that have typically been the backbones of Republican electoral success, including Mr. Trump’s in 2016.
Respondents were said to be most impressed with Biden’s answer on the cold war question:
BIDEN: “Stop the cold war future that we’re talking about. We’re talking about a peaceful cold war. What are we talking about?”
(complete answer online at Breitbart)
Yep, that there Bidenism clinched it....heck, with leadership like that, Democraps better get ready for a major power grab.
Having a hard time controlling his pedo hands, too.
After Trump, SYDNEY POWELL FOR PRESIDENT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.