Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Obama’s staged “leak” rallies the troops and gives them their talking points

    Obama’s staged “leak” rallies the troops and gives them their talking points

    Obama does not seem to have confidence that Biden can make the case against Trump, so Obama staged the leak of a “private” call denouncing Trump and Barr.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-s3ANu4eMs#action=share

    Within moments of the recent Russiagate documents release and the DOJ recommendation not to pursue the case against Michael Flynn, the left and MSM chorused nearly the same thing almost in unison: this is a travesty of justice!

    And they weren’t talking about the wretched excesses of the state apparatus regarding the framing of Flynn, they were talking about the Barr DOJ and its suggestion regarding Flynn. James Comey’s tweet was a good example of this:

    All that was left was for Obama to get into the act, which he promptly did via the “leak” of a “private” phone call between Obama and some unnamed people who had worked in his administration. In an article written by none other than Michael Isikoff, who had his own role in Russiagate as one of the first to write about the infamous Steele dossier, Obama’s call conveys the ex-president’s opinions about the recent DOJ actions regarding the Flynn prosecution.

    And guess what? It’s all about the violation of the “rule of law” – not the egregious and audacious violations committed by Obama’s own minions, of course, but the decision by the DOJ to cease pursuing any of the dubious ginned-up charges.

    Obama had this to say:

    Former President Barack Obama, talking privately to ex-members of his administration, said Friday that the “rule of law is at risk” in the wake of what he called an unprecedented move by the Justice Department to drop charges against former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn…

    “The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said in a web talk with members of the Obama Alumni Association.

    “And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

    Perjury? A first-year law student ordinarily learns the definition of perjury, and knows the difference between supposedly lying to the FBI – in a matter in which there is no evidence of any crime, and the target is not allowed to have a lawyer or be read his rights or even informed he’s being interrogated as a target – and perjury. Obama almost certainly knows the difference, too, so why did he use the word? Perhaps he believes it makes a good talking point because it sounds really bad.

    But as Jonathan Turley writes:

    The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First, the exhaustive search may have been hampered by the fact that Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with a single count of false statements to a federal investigator under 18 U.S.C. 1001…

    Second, there is ample precedent for this motion even though…such dismissals are rare. There is a specific rule created for this purpose. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) states the government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint “with leave of the court.” Moreover, such dismissals are tied to other rules mandating such action when there is evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or fundamental questions about the underlying case from the view of the prosecutors…

    Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959)…

    Fourth, there are cases where the Department has moved to dismiss cases on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or other grounds touching on due process, ethical requirements or other concerns. One that comes to mind is United States v. Stevens where President Obama’s own Attorney General, Eric Holder, asked the same judge in the Flynn case to dismiss that case. That was just roughly ten years ago. As with Flynn, there was an allegation of withheld evidence by prosecutors.

    If Turley was Obama’s law professor and Obama his student, Obama would probably be getting a solid “F.” But Obama is no longer in school; he’s now the mostly-respected ex-president, speaking regretfully of all the sad things that have been happening under Trump’s watch, and lamenting the abandonment of the Obama-type “rule of law.”

    What really is without precedent – at least in the U.S., although not in certain countries usually referred to as “banana republics – is the way in which the Obama administration used the DOJ and the FBI and the entire state apparatus to spy on and destroy an incoming president of the opposing party. Watergate was a tea party compared to this.

    And indeed, as Obama pointed out (and he should know) “when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

    Here’s an audio of that “leaked” “private” call:

    The last passage on the tape is fascinating, too. Obama says:

    So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency that I do. Whenever I campaign, I’ve always said, ‘Ah, this is the most important election.’ Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like it’s the most important election. This one — I’m not on the ballot — but I am pretty darn invested. We got to make this [a Democratic victory] happen.

    “Pretty darn invested” – well, that’s certainly an understatement. He’s “pretty darn invested” indeed; seeking not just to protect his legacy, to be able to tell President Joe Biden what to do, to have Biden choose as aides and cabinet members the old Obama crew and implement the old Obama agenda (only carrying it further than Obama ever had time for), but also to protect himself from further revelations at the hands of Barr and Trump. If Biden is elected, all of the remaining investigations into Obama’s role will be dropped like a radioactive potato.

    [Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     3
    BierceAmbrose | May 10, 2020 at 10:52 pm

    I’m so old, I remember when there would be endless push-back, n tinfoil hat projections to the mere notion that this Obama event was crafted, or even staged, to be leaked.

    The long march apparatcheks are a bit behind times aren’t they?

    Their machinacions and manipulations are common knowledge any more. The opposition (vs “resistance”) media is an established thing. Eveyr body know’s where to get “the other side” even if they think it’s nonsense. Makes it hard to deny that there is another side.

    Meanwhile, in the wake of Gropy Joe’s staffer comming front, yet another visible D peels off, in public. Someone who was inside the club, finds out the cool kids really do go after folks outside, and it’s neither fair, nor fun.

    The One has to try to control the story, because there’s too much yet to emerge, still. Sadly for him Ben Rhodes’ orchestrated echo chamber doesn’t work so well. The Prez is the story, and he’s not any more. If people weren’t on to the con, Not A Scholar there said it out loud.

    Whether The Stupid Party can execute to use these unforced, and forced, errors, remains to be seen.


       
       0 
       
       1
      BierceAmbrose in reply to BierceAmbrose. | May 10, 2020 at 11:08 pm

      What remains to come out?

      One analysis of why Flynn was a target causually mentioned that he’d know the operational details of trans-shipping Gadaffi’s weapons out of Lybia to arm Syrian Insurgents.

      Back in the day it was full-on tinfoil hat to say: “That consulate in Lybia and everything else that happened there was about clandestined CIA arms-running to Syrian insurgents.” These days it’s referred to like common knowledge. And Flynn would know where the travel vouchers and reciepts are.


         
         0 
         
         2
        BierceAmbrose in reply to BierceAmbrose. | May 10, 2020 at 11:13 pm

        And Flynn would know where the expense reports are.

        Thoise people should be fired for stupidity, not sedition.

        It’s the 21st century. You don’t conduct your conspiracy on an electronic platform. You especially don’t conduct your conspiracy on somebody else’s electronic platform, especially you employers.

        For bogs’ sale. they work in law enforcement, n counterintelligence. They work finding the breadcrumbs to follow: calls, emails, payments, etc. Don’t leave your own breadcrumbs. For bogs’ sake, you don’t even write any of that down, ever. What, they weren’t posting updates to their Facebook status … or we just haven’t found them yet.


     
     0 
     
     1
    aNanyMouse | May 10, 2020 at 11:15 pm

    Bierce, my guesses are:
    FBI files on Seth Rich;
    D.S. espionage on Bernie;
    D.S. espionage on pro-Israel leaders, as per Lee Smith.
    (All Jews; funny that.)


     
     0 
     
     2
    gwsjr425 | May 11, 2020 at 8:28 am

    The “leaked” audio shows just what a farce obama’s claimed oratory skills were. He can barely get three words out without having to stop and think of which words he wants to say next.


     
     0 
     
     0
    DanJ1 | May 11, 2020 at 9:08 am

    I think I remember back when Hillary conceded to BO that there was talk of BO putting Slick Willy’s team back together. The one exception was Sid Vicious. Somebody with a better memory could confirm this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Obama/Hillary endorsements didn’t come with the same strings. It would explain why they waited so long to make the obvious choice.


     
     0 
     
     1
    getsome | May 12, 2020 at 4:10 pm

    Its going to be fun watching this white boy waddel away like a beaten dog with his tail between his legs come November 4th with his ‘scandel free’ legacy in tatters. The only question for 2021 will be Gitmo or Levenworth?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend