OBAMA: When asked if she believes that Flynn was the victim of a plot that went all the way up to Barack Obama, Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, said, “Absolutely.”
Now that there’s evidence of his collusion out in plain sight, Obama has been trying to spin Flynn’s dismissal as “unprecedented.”
He’s wrong on half a dozen counts, as Jonathan Turley explained in a series of tweets.
“President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying ‘There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.’ It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury.
“Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional.
“Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort.
“Finally, there is precedent. There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a).
“There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals.”
AND, for the icing on the cake:
“The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including [the case against former Republican Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens].
That [dismissal] was requested by President Obama’s own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors.
It was done before the same judge, Judge [Emmet] Sullivan. How is that for precedent?”
Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2020 editorial: “Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.”
BLAGOJEVICH: Former Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich says he knew the playbook the FBI was running against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — because they used it on him first.
“In my long and unhappy experience, I saw how they use trickery and deceit as legal tools. They lie and they cheat; they manipulate and minimize evidence; they hide and cover up exculpatory evidence – evidence that proves innocence. And to this day, in my case, they are still covering up tape recordings they made because those tapes show innocence,” Blagojevich told the Daily Caller.
“This cannot be a Democratic or Republican issue. It is far too important. What these corrupt prosecutors and FBI agents are doing threatens the fundamental rights of the American people to choose their own leaders through free elections,” he concluded.
Blagojevich was convicted in 2011 on corruption charges and had served eight years of his 14-year sentence when Trump commuted his sentence in February.
WITNESS TAMPERING: This appears to be another case of “whatever Democrats accuse us of doing is what they’re doing.”
Michael Caputo is a Republican political strategist, and media consultant who was investigated by the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. He was cleared of any wrong doing.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA-15) is a Democrat politician and failed presidential candidate. On more than one occasion, Swalwell accused Donald Trump of witness tampering.
Yet here is evidence he attempted to intimidate Caputo, who was a witness in two ongoing investigations.
METACOGNITION: The ability to think about your thinking, specifically to consider and evaluate the possibility that you might be wrong – A study from the University College London suggests that people who hold extreme beliefs are bad at metacognition.
The study removed partisanship from the study by just having people answer a simple question with an easy answer. That is, which of these pictures has more dots. Then they asked the people to judge how confident they were that they had given the right answer. Then they compared the confidence level of the people who got the wrong answer with those individuals’ partisan beliefs.
What they found was that people who had extreme partisan beliefs of any kind were highly confident that their wrong answer was the right answer. It’s not currently known whether radical beliefs help shape this lack of metacognition or if a lack of metacognition helps shape radical beliefs.
This reinforces my belief that talking to people like this is a waste of time, unless someone else might be listening in. I’ve seen this happen IRL. For example, there have been two occasions when I was approached by two evangelists from one of the local anti-Catholic denominations.
I told them I was Catholic and immediately got one of the usual arguments for which Catholics have had answers for centuries. I responded as kindly as I could and noticed one of the two really listened, making “Hmm” and “I never thought of it that way” faces … while the other one just launched back into the same rant he’d started with.
LINGUISTICS: One of the largest linguistics studies ever conducted showed children are proficient at learning a second language up until the age of 18, but that it is best to start by age 10 if you want to achieve the grammatical fluency of a native speaker.