Flynn proves: yes, it’s a Soft Coup

Posted on by

I have said and written since January of 2017 — three long years — that what we are witnessing in the United States of America is a Soft Coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and a sitting president.

I was writing and saying that, again, years before it became “cool” to do so. Because I had insight to laws violated and, well, I also have at my disposal a grasp of history, facts, logic, rationality, proportion, tradition, context, intent and common sense.

And because those things — power, mighty applications of power, propaganda and weight — can be applied to one president by whom the forces of the Deep State disagree, well, it can thusly be easily applied to another president of a different party by similarly-arrayed forces.

But that’s immaterial with the LDAMM: Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots.

With a number of caveats, of course, including the American Media Maggot factor. Because the AMM will never side with Republicans or Conservatives, not unless and until the AMM are totally eradicated and reinvented. Which may, in time, occur. We certainly know they are moribund.

The AMM hate to be called Fake News, except they continue to go out of their way to prove, each and every week, that they are indeed Fake News.

NBC admits Chuck Todd’s ‘Meet the Press’ deceptively edited Barr remarks on Flynn

by Greg Re, 5-11-20

NBC News’ Chuck Todd aired a deceptively edited clip of Attorney General Bill Barr discussing the Michael Flynn case during his “Meet the Press” broadcast on Sunday, prompting the network to concede the mistake hours later — but there is still no word on whether Todd will apologize on-air.

Asked by CBS News’ Catherine Herridge how history would judge the DOJ’s decision to move to dismiss the Flynn case, Barr initially responded, laughing: “Well, history is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.”

After the brief clip aired, Todd remarked that he was “struck by the cynicism of the answer — it’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this was a political job.”

In the full clip, which the NBC show did not air, Barr immediately went on to state explicitly that, in fact, he felt the Flynn decision upheld the rule of law.

“I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law,” Barr said. “It upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

Here’s how the full cut went, with Catherine Herridge.

That was NBC’s American Media Maggot hit job on William Barr — because he had the guts to do his job.

This all stemmed, of course, when the Department of Justice decided to drop charges against General Michael Flynn on May   .

But even before that, documents were unsealed on April 30th, indicating the collusion really occurred with the FBI regarding General Flynn.

Gregg Jarrett: FBI’s actions in Michael Flynn case should send a chill down your spine

by Julia Musto

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Thursday that explosive new internal FBI documents unsealed Wednesday evening in the government’s case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn are the most “outrageous” and “unethical” actions by government officials that he has seen in 40 years of practicing law.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends” with hosts Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade, Jarrett explained the findings.

“You know, I thought this is the most outrageous, unethical, dishonest, and corrupt act I have ever seen. And, I have been a lawyer for 40 years. I have never seen such misbehavior by government officials,” he remarked.

You can read the documents here.

Rep Jim Jordan told us what he thought the released documents indicated.

And then former Rep Trey Gowdy weighed in on same.

But what did fired former FBI Director Jimmy “The Leak” Comey say, in 2019, about why he sent FBI agents to the White House? Jimmy reveals: it was a purposeful Perjury Trap. And he did it because he could. He thinks it’s amusing.

Never before have I seen such a sanctimonious, hypocritical, entitled, arrogant, self-serving, preening, alleged law enforcement officer in my life. He is right is better, more sacrosanct and devout than you will ever be.

From RedState.com:

New Docs Tie Obama in to Effort Against Flynn, Biden Also in Room

by Nick Arama, 5-7-20

You can make the judgment call here, but this does not look good for former President Barack Obama.

According to the newly released documents from the Department of Justice, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates learned about the effort against Gen. Michael Flynn from Obama himself.

From Townhall:

“Yates first learned of the December 2016 calls between [LTG Michael] Flynn and [Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey] Kislyak on January 5, 2017, while in the Oval Office. Yates, along with then FBI-Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, were at the White House to brief members of the Obama Administration on the classified Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities in Recent U.S Elections. President Obama was joined by his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and others from the National Security Council,” the document states.

“After the briefing, Obama dismissed the group but asked Yates and Comey to stay behind. Obama started by saying he had ‘learned of the information about Flynn’ and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions. Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information. At that point, Yates had no idea what the President was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can’t recall if he specified there was an ‘investigation,’” it continues.

But how can you discover information if you fail — as the American Media Maggots have purposely failed to do — to even ask the basic question:

And even after all this time, has anyone asked Obama or Biden: what did you know and when did you know it?

John Solomon — an excellent journalist — writes at Just The News:

Schiff releases transcripts undercutting Dem claims of Russia collusion proof

by John Solomon, 5-7-20

FBI officials admit they knew Papadopoulos had little contact with Russians but opened probe anyways. DNC-connected lawyer reveals CIA contact.

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released thousands of pages of declassified interview transcripts from the Russia investigation that show that more than a year into the probe senior FBI and intelligence officials could offer no specific proof of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Moscow and instead offered rambling explanations of why the probe had persisted.

The testimony of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe typified the testimony that was given back in 2017 to the committee, then under the leadership of Rep. Devin Nunes.

McCabe admitted at one point that while the FBI opened up the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation based on a tip from Australia that George Papadopoulos may have been told Russia possessed emails of Hillary Clinton, the bureau suspected the former Trump campaign adviser had little or no contact with Moscow.

You can see for yourself. Go here for Russia Investigation Transcripts and Documents.

So agents pivoted instead to another adviser, Carter Page, who had been the focus of Christopher Steele’s now-discredited dossier, he explained.

“Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had — that was interacting with the Russians,” McCabe answered when asked by lawmakers why a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant request in October 2016 focused only on Page and not the man the FBI originally predicated the Trump investigation upon.

It was one of the few extraordinary admissions from McCabe: The FBI opened up an entire counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign on a figure agents did not believe was having contact with Moscow.

But wait; it’s all a Nothing Burger that Schiff had to cover up. Schiff said this:

In releasing the transcripts Thursday, the current Democratic House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff claimed they provided proof of nefarious connections between Russians and Trump associates. “The transcripts released today richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election,” he alleged.

But this was actually in the documents.

JAMES CLAPPER:

In fact, witnesses were repeatedly pressed to offer specific evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and could offer none, saying it was either too preliminary or they did not have any. 

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence.

“But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence,” he added  

LORETTA LYNCH:

Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified that by the time she left office on Jan. 20, 2017 with the case more than six months old, she was unaware of any direct evidence of collusion.

“I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me, and it’s just my recollection at this point is not,” she said. She added that what officials had was mostly fears Russia might be working with Trump.

“Certainly the information that was given in [redacted] was concerning to me and indicated that there was a goal to have coordinated activity,” she said. 

SALLY YATES:

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who worked for both Obama and Trump, also acknowledged there had been no determination of any conspiracy to collude before she was fired. Her winding answer was typical of many of the witnesses.

“I think you need to learn — if you want to get to the bottom line answer of was there collusion, conspiracy or coordination — if I got the three Cs right — then you also need to learn about who had contact, because you can’t get to that collusion — the other — the three Cs there, until you figure out who’s having contact with who,” she said.

Pressed to be more specific, Yates conceded there was no finding. “I don’t believe anybody had reached a conclusion yet as to whether there was a nefarious alliance … with the Russians. We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

MARY McCORD:

Mary McCord, the former assistant attorney general for national security, also testified that by the time she left the department a year into the probe there was no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to hack DNC or Clinton campaign officials.

“I can’t recall if there was information, any information or evidence at the time I left about conspiring to take part in the actual intrusion,” she said.

ANDREW McCABE:

“What is the most damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that you now know is true?” McCabe was asked during his December 2017 interview.

“Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

BEN RHODES:

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Rhodes said he did not.

“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,” Rhodes told investigators.

Pressed again on the topic, he continued, “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

SAMANTHA POWER:

Samantha Power, former US ambassador to the United Nations, has publicly accused Trump of catering to Russian President Vladimir Putin to compensate him for interfering in the 2016 election.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year.

But when speaking under oath to House investigators, she sang a different tune.

Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

SUSAN RICE:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice told ABC’s “This Week” in July 2018 that questioning if President Trump was compromised by the Russians was “legitimate” because Putin was benefitting by the commander in chief’s policy decisions.

“What his motivations are I think is a legitimate question … the policies that this president has pursued globally have served Vladimir Putin’s interests,” she said at the time.

Less than a year earlier, however, Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

“I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

The American Media Maggots also did their jobs on behalf of Russia — as you knew they would.

From TheFederalist.com:

Obama, Biden Oval Office Meeting On January 5 Was Key To Entire Anti-Trump Operation

by Mollie Hemingway, 5-8-20

Susan Rice’s bizarre Inauguration Day email about that meeting helps explain the campaign of leaks, lies, and obstruction that followed.

Information released in the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case it brought against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote in an unusual email to herself about the meeting that was also attended by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden.

Remember that convoluted email?

A clearer picture is emerging of the drastic steps that were taken to accomplish Obama’s goal in the following weeks and months. Shortly thereafter, high-level operatives began intensely leaking selective information supporting a supposed Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, the incoming National Security Advisor was ambushed, and the incoming Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from oversight of investigations of President Trump. At each major point in the operation, explosive media leaks were a key strategy in the operation to take down Trump.

Not only was information on Russia not fully shared with the incoming Trump team, as Obama directs, the leaks and ambushes made the transition chaotic, scared quality individuals away from working in the administration, made effective governance almost impossible, and materially damaged national security. When Comey was finally fired on May 9, in part for his duplicitousness regarding his handling of the Russia collusion theory, he orchestrated the launch of a Special Counsel probe that continued his efforts for another two years. That probe ended with Mueller finding no evidence of any American colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, much less Trump or anyone connected to him.

Read the rest of the article. It goes step-by-step in a clear timeline delineating everything.

Listen now to Adam Schiff. Psychologists term this kind of thing “projection.”

One of the biggest questions, of course, is this: who will fold first? Who will try to cut a deal with the DOJ first? Because whoever makes that decision will get the cushion deal and the rest will be out in the cold.

Here is Obama’s former DNI, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, throwing Barack Hussein Obama under the bus. Do you enjoy hot kitchens much, JC?

You know; the same James Clapper who lied before Congress in 2013.

The case against General Flynn was dropped by the Department of Justice on Thursday of last week. Here is Politico’s take — and please note the biased stance.

DOJ drops criminal case against Michael Flynn

by Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, 5-7-20

The move comes after the president and his allies stepped up their assault on the legal case against the former national security adviser.

The Justice Department has abandoned its prosecution of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, throwing in the towel on one of the most prominent cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The move represents a remarkable reversal two and half years after Flynn initially pleaded guilty to the FBI about his dealings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. In that time, the case has taken a number of dramatic turns: Flynn went from the precipice of being sentenced in 2018, to abruptly switching legal teams in 2019, to trying to withdraw his guilty plea in 2020. Flynn’s attempt to take back his plea led Attorney General William Barr in January to assign a federal prosecutor to review the case.

It was that review that led to the move on Thursday to dismiss the case altogether. Department officials, including Barr, concluded in light of recently disclosed evidence that the FBI’s questioning of Flynn just four days after Trump’s inauguration lacked a proper investigative basis. Flynn admitted in front of two federal judges that he intentionally lied during that interview about his dealings with the Russian ambassador, but the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general formally retreated from those admissions in January.

“A review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never ‘material’ to any FBI investigation,” read the motion filed Thursday seeking to dismiss the criminal prosecution.

This was a Mark I, Model I “Perjury Trap” plain and simple, because I’ve seen them, I’ve worked them. Director Comey admitted to it, plainly and clearly. It was a fishing expedition.

For what? Russia “collusion”? You want to talk about Machiavellian? How’s this for convoluted? The famed Susan Rice “cover your ass” email at the end of the Obama regime.

Try to follow. The Obama Regime and Susan Rice believed General Flynn had to be Putin’s Poodle because he was — correctly, as certainly is confirmed now — emphasizing the threat and danger China is to the United States, whilst also indicating that Russia was — and is — the world stage “has been.”

Thusly proving that General Flynn was a Russian stooge and required targeting.

But mostly because Flynn was a clear threat. For one, he planned to revamp pretty much all seventeen intelligence agencies and, to them, that was a true existential threat. Jobs could be lost! Power could be lost! Control could be lost!

The bastard’s gotta go, the Obama Administration agreed.

For a moment, let’s go back to 2017 and the truthful Marie Harf, Obama devotee extraordinaire.

Let’s also go back to 2018 for this article from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Memo: FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences

by Byron York, 12-11-18

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Can anyone say “Perjury Trap” again? Hands? Bueller?

Chief conspirator himself, Barack Hussein Obama, had to weigh in on the DOJ dropping the Flynn investigation. Ever notice how Obama isn’t the so-called incredibly brilliant orator when a TelePrompter isn’t around?

Why does Barack Hussein Obama care? His presidential ship has sailed. That’s yesterday’s news. Unless he somehow fears that orange really is the new blue.

And speaking of Obama, why doesn’t he want to let us see his archives? I thought — no, wait, I know — Obama said his was going to be the most transparent presidential administration in the history of history.

Obama Sends Private Letter to National Archives Claiming ‘Confidentiality’ To Not Release Biden-Ukraine Docs

by Gregg Jarrett, 5-10-20

What exactly is Obama concerned with in regard to the “confidentiality interests that all presidents have sought to protect?”

Former President Barack Obama has inserted himself into the Russia, Ukraine fiasco; arguably this was not the first time. While Democrats have been denying and protecting their guilt in creating and advancing the Russia Hoax, there is evidence that suggests President Obama likely was aware of the probe. Fox News has obtained a letter from the office of former President Barack Obama to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which manages presidential records.

Why would Obama, four years after leaving office, suddenly get involved? The letter to the National Archives was privately sent in March. Arguably they did not want Fox News to obtain a copy. Nonetheless, the letter bashes Senate Republicans and their investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. Hunter, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, joined the Ukraine company during the Obama administration. Very intriguing.

Obama’s letter to the NARA is a response to Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson having requested the Obama administration records on Ukraine-related meetings, placed on November 21, 2019. Obama’s letter claims the senators’ inquiry is an effort “to shift the blame for Russian interference in the 2016 election to Ukraine.”

In retrospect, it appear the Obama Administration was in fact one of the most opaque administrations.

So depending upon the prevailing political prairie winds, the Leftists and American Media Maggots will always align with, alternately — whenever it suits their purposes of working against President Trump in any fashion — Russia, China, or the loving Nazi George Soros.

While we’re here, let’s remind ourselves of what was said between Hillary Clinton and James Comey in 2016.

And let’s review how I knew James Comey was lying back in 2016, and couldn’t be trusted or believed from that point forward. As I wrote in early 2017:

It is crystal clear from the evidence released by the FBI after the first investigation that the former Secretary of State used a private email server to transmit national security information rather than safeguard such information, as required by law, and that she subsequently made statements contrary to the facts as we continue to learn.

Second, the real actor in this Theater of the Absurd is the Justice Department’s decision to commence an investigation that was a sham from the very beginning. After all, it was the Justice Department that failed to convene a grand jury, issue search warrants for computers, place witnesses under oath and appoint a special prosecutor who could operate free from conflicts of interest. Hey, just like Robert Mueller, right?

Then FBI Director James Comey “cleared” Hillary Clinton of all wrongdoing on July 5th of last year.

Comey admits that Clinton lied.  But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).

You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough.  But you should not lie to the FBI.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours.  And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded.  Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.

But James Comey outed himself to Jason Chaffetz:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision.  He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”

That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.

Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation.

“[AG Lynch] said…she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made…” –NYTimes July 1, 2016

Of course she would. The fix was in. And Comey was predestined to take whatever fall occurred, not her. After all, he is white and male; she is black and female.

Here, Maria Bartiromo speaks with Devin Nunes about the situation.

Now we’re discovering that, of course, Barack Hussein Obama knew what was going on with Flynn — but Joe Biden knew as well. From FoxNews.com:

Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show

by Gregg Re, 5-7-20

President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.

Obama personally had warned the Trump administration against hiring Flynn, and made clear he was “not a fan,” according to multiple officials. Obama had fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014; Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating lslamic extremism.

Obama knew what was going on. So did Joe Biden. No one can possibly think that Barack Hussein Obama was either a stupid or an uninformed individual in the Oval Office. And particularly when dealing with issues of these importance.

So it’s official: we have a name. ObamaGate. Jesse Watters talks about same.

And listen how the LDAMM, the Leftists, Demorats by way of the American Media Maggot Brian Stelter, want it both ways. Flynn is just a smoke screen for avoiding Wuhan-19 deaths, which is essentially an overblown flu targeting the elderly while — in the meantime — the nation spent almost four straight years being put through the wringer of the constant whining and keening of little officious pricks like George Costanza on CNN.

General Flynn’s lawyer weighs in, from the New York Post:

Flynn’s lawyer accuses Obama of framing the ex-national security adviser

by Mark Moore, 5-10-20

The lead attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Sunday accused former President Barack Obama, other top administration officials and the FBI of setting up her client.

Sidney Powell on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” cited the revelation in recently released-documents that FBI agents didn’t tell Fynn he was under investigation or that lying to them would be a federal crime.

“These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that he was even the person being investigated,” she said.

“So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him up and frame him.”

“The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting that day with President Obama,” Powell said.

And finally, when you’ve lost New York media, you know things aren’t going well for you. This, just today, from the New York Post:

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal

by The Post Editorial Board

RussiaGate is now a complete dead letter — but ObamaGate is taking its place. Just how far did the then-president go to cripple his successor?

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.

Yet on Jan. 5, 2017, Obama told top officials who’d be staying on in the new administration to keep the crucial facts from Team Trump.

And there you have it. ObamaGate.

Sadly, Comey’s FBI played along — sandbagging Flynn with the “friendly” interview that later became the pretext for the bogus charges dropped last week, as well as triggering the White House chaos that led to his ouster. This when the FBI had already gone over the general with a fine-tooth comb, and concluded that, no, he’d done nothing like collude with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Comey himself gave Trump an intentionally misleading briefing on the Steele dossier. That was followed by leaks that suggested the dossier was the tip of an iceberg, rather than a pack of innuendo that hadn’t at all checked out under FBI scrutiny.

Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction; the Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate. Innocents like Flynn were bankrupted along the way.

Say this about Obama: He knows how to play dirty.

Everyone, up to and including Barack Hussein Obama, in this treasonous chain, should be prosecuted criminally and civilly.

Criminally, under 18 USC 242.

Civilly, under 42 USC 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

And finally: the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine should prevail. Everyone caught, sentenced or affected by the illegal FISA warrant should be set free, to include Manafort and all others.

I have said and written since January of 2017 — three long years — that what we are witnessing in the United States of America is a Soft Coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and a sitting president.

Heads should roll.

And this can never happen again.

BZ

 

 

 Share
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

2 thoughts on “Flynn proves: yes, it’s a Soft Coup”

  1. Well done! An excellent collection of the media ‘comments’ and the thing I find interesting is that suddenly Clapper, Brennan, et al are conspicuously absent from the MSM.

Comments are closed.