Posted on 05/07/2018 11:53:58 AM PDT by Starman417
This sort of thing is usually relegated to third world countries and Communist states.
Michael Flynn
The loathsome insubordinate Sally Yates cited the Logan Act when she decided to entrap and cripple Michael Flynn for doing nothing more than doing the job he was tasked to do- talk to the Russians during the transition. Using an act for which no one has ever been prosecuted, she sent FBI agents to interrogate Flynn. They reported that they saw no deceit in Flynn, but somehow he ended up being indicted by Robert Mueller for lying to the FBI after reportedly being exonerated by the FBI.
Now the FBI and the DOJ are doing their best to shield the public from knowing the dirty secrets about their abuse of the legal system to take Flynn down.
As we have discussed in connection with Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser against whom the Obama Justice Department obtained FISA surveillance warrants, a CI investigation on an American citizen proceeds on the suspicion that the citizen is an agent of a foreign power whose clandestine activities violate federal criminal law. That is, it appears possible (if not likely) that the Justice Department was operating on the theory that Flynn — a decorated combat veteran and co-author of a 2016 book that brands Russia as an implacable enemy of the United States — was an agent of the Kremlin.John Kerry
John Kerry who testified about things he never saw in Vietnam, is once again acting against the government. He is playing Shadow Secretary of State canoodling with Iran with save obama's wretched Iranian deal. This is a clear cut violation of the Logan Act.
“Fortunately for everybody, the Logan Act [is a] dead letter but if it were in existence, my friend John Kerry would be violating the Logan Act,” Dershowitz told “Fox & Friends.”Will Kerry be visited by FBI agents and later indicted?“He is negotiating, though he is not in the administration, and there are real problems with doing that,” he continued.
Not bloody likely.
Did someone say violation of campaign contribution limits?
Dinesh D'Souza
Long time critic of barack obama was singled out for prosecution and jail time as a dissident:
In 2012, conservative author Dinesh D’Souza produced an anti-Obama documentary, 2016: Obama’s America. The film earned over $33 million at the box office and was the highest-grossing documentary since 1982. The outspoken Christian conservative and bestselling author also released a book that year, Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream. Previously, in 2008, D’Souza gave Obama’s half-brother George $1,000 for a medical emergency when Obama would not respond to George’s pleas for help. George lives in a 6 by 10 foot hut in the slums of Kenya, and told D’Souza, "You're the only guy I know I can call." George then appeared in D’Souza’s documentary, expressing his disappointment that Obama had not responded to his request for help, “he’s supposed to help his family.”Sentence? Eight months in a halfway house, five years probation and a $30,000 fine.It doesn’t appear to be a coincidence that the Obama administration is now targeting D’Souza for minor campaign finance violations. Last week he was criminally indicted. But what does this really mean? There is an old saying that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and as a former prosecutor, I agree.
D’Souza helped raise $785,000 for a friend of his who was running for Congress, Wendy Long. After he and his wife maxed out contributing the legally allowed $5,000 to the campaign, federal authorities claim that he illegally reimbursed straw donors for another $20,000 secretly coming from him. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Now available with more bananas!!
In too many ways we’ve become a Banana Republic without the bananas. At least in a real one, you have the bananas.
These process crimes are BS.
“Lying to the FBI” should never be a crime if there’s no conviction for a real crime. At most, it could come in as a factor in the sentencing for the real crime.
As it is now, anyone would be a fool to speak to the FBI.
All we have is the deadly black tarantula.
If only Flynn had not lied to the VP. Everything else is political and he could have withstood all of it.
Selective justice? YES, it’s 3rd world hellhole stuff AND yes it’s happening here.
Why?
Because ‘the press’ is made up of men and women who have never faced anything tougher than wondering if DaaaDeee would send the money for the eight thousand dollar purse or the hundred grand sail boat.
—
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/06/newsroom-diversity-new-york-times-washington-post-newspapers/
“Graduates of Elite Universities Dominate The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, Study Finds”
from link:
“In its public-facing materials on diversity, the Times writes that it is “driven by a simple but powerful mission: to help readers understand the world. Building a diverse and inclusive workplace is essential to that mission. It enriches our report, because journalists with diverse backgrounds reflect the society we cover...
These folks are totally delusional... and that’s how they ‘miss’ the horrors that are happening.
The McCain-Feingold “Campaign Finance Reform Law” was challenged before SCOTUS and upheld in the 5-4 McConnell vs. FEC decision with Sandra Day O’Connor and, among currently sitting justices, Breyer and Ginsburg in the majority and Justice Thomas in vehement root-and-branch dissent and Justice Kennedy partially dissenting.IMHO Thomas’s dissent is the best opinion of the lot. First, as Scalia famously objected in his famous Morisson v. Olsen dissent referring to Special Counsel legislation, "Campaign Finance Reform” legislation is about power. All such legislation can be expected to help incumbents. So in that sense SCOTUS (indeed, everyone) should be on the lookout for justifications to strike it down.
Second, McCain-Feingold assays to define who is - and who is not - “the press.” But the First Amendment is not a ceiling above our rights but a floor under them. Congress is not authorized to say that anyone is not a member of the press. I can buy and operate a printing press if I wanna. And so can you, without a “by your leave” to Congress or any government official.
Third, the word “press” in the Constitution refers to the technology of choice for enabling someone (in the Founding Era, a printer) to spend his own money (e.g., on ink and paper) to promote his own beliefs and opinions. The fact that newer technologies than the printing press are considered useful alongside, or in principle supplanting, the technology of the printing press was in principle anticipated by the Framers when they declared that
Money is not “speech,” but for First Amendment purposes it is “the press.”
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . ."
Thomas Sowell has noted that “Some truths can only be said posthumously or anonymously.” James Monroe, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton exercised the right to publish anonymously when they wrote “The Federalist Papers,” and clearly they did so under a pseudonym in the hope of best promoting the ratification of the Constitution (which was in fact a close-run thing). Under the Ninth Amendment, if the Framers of the Constitution had a right - in this case, to anonymous promotion of political opinion - so do you and I.
Finally, the history of the FEC is that it is effective only against Republicans such as D'Souza.
“Campaign Finance Reform” legislation should be abolished.
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.