twitter:KerriKupecDOJ twitterde op donderdag 07-05-2020 om 21:19:02STATEMENT: USA Jeff Jensen who reviewed Flynn case.
“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case. I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.” reageer retweet
quote:Obama Defense Official Evelyn Farkas Admitted She Lied On MSNBC About Having Evidence Of Collusion
Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows. Farkas testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on June 26, 2017, as part of the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Lawmakers keyed in on an appearance Farkas made on MSNBC on March 2, 2017, in which she urged intelligence community bureaucrats to disseminate within the government and potentially even leak to media any incriminating information they had about Trump or his aides.
“I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama administration] people who left…[that] it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy,” Farkas said.
Farkas, who served in the Obama administration as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia from 2012 through 2015, also claimed that administration officials appointed by Trump might even destroy evidence of alleged collusion if they “found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians.”
They might “try to compromise those sources and methods,” Farkas alleged in the MSNBC interview. “And we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”
“Not enough was coming out into the open and I knew there was more,” Farkas claimed.
But Farkas sang a different tone under oath when questioned by lawmakers about what she actually “knew” about collusion.
“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”
“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.
“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.
“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.
“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.
“No,” Farkas admitted.
“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.
“Correct,” Farkas responded.
Gowdy didn’t stop there.
“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.
“Correct,” Farkas answered.
“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.
“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.
Farkas, a Democrat, is currently running for Congress in New York’s 17th district.
quote:MOBILE, Ala. – Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions released the following statement early Friday afternoon, in response to recent comments by President Trump:
“I have enormous appreciation for President Trump and all that he has done for our country. I will be voting for him this fall, and working hard to pass his agenda when I return to the Senate next year.
“The specific law for the Department of Justice required that I recuse myself from the Russian collusion investigation. To not recuse myself from that investigation, of which I was a target as a senior campaign official and a witness, would have been breaking the law. I do not and will not break the law. On this matter, I agree with the late Tom Petty’s famous lyric – ‘you can stand me up to the gates of hell, but I won’t back down.’
“I did the right thing for the country and for President Trump. If I, as a target of the investigation, had broken the law by not recusing myself, it would have been a catastrophe for the rule of law and for the President. The Democrats in Congress and the politically motivated bureaucrats all over Washington would have had a field day, alleging a Nixonian cover-up, and the President would not have been fully exonerated.
“Let’s not forget, the notion that we on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia has been proven to be a complete hoax, and the President has been exonerated.
“Finally, I never begged for the job of Attorney General, not 4 times, not 1 time, not ever. The President offered me the job, I took it, I stood up for the truth and performed at the highest levels. Doing the right thing is not weakness, it is strength. My foundation is built on rock, not sand.”
Ik begin te twijfelen over Adam Schiff, eerlijk gezegd. In elk geval is dit schandaal geen Democrat versus Republican. The Washington Free Beacon en Paul Singer hebben initieel Fusion GPS ingehuurd. Die huurde voor deze opdracht Nellie Ohr in. The Billy Bush tape is het werk van never-Trumpers. En er zijn voldoende Democrats die hun partij terug willen hebben en voldoende Republicans die verantwoordelijkheid delen in dit schandaal.quote:
quote:Barack Obama on Michael Flynn
The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.
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.
“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama’s spokeswoman to the Washington Post and other outlets. Mr. Obama added: “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.”
ven discounting for Mr. Obama’s partisan audience, this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.
As for “scot-free,” that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate. We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn’t bring that up.
We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.
Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.
Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.
All of this was moved along politically by leaks to the media about Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian. The U.S. eavesdrops on foreign officials as a routine, but names of innocent Americans on those calls are supposed to be shielded from review to protect their privacy. Yet senior Obama officials have had to acknowledge that they “unmasked” Mr. Flynn’s name and others in their last months in power. Then, what a surprise, news of Mr. Flynn’s call and its contents pop up in the Washington Post. Did someone say “institutional norms”?
All of this raises questions about the role the Obama Justice Department and White House played in targeting Mr. Flynn. We already know the FBI had opened up a counterintelligence probe into Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign officials, yet it had come up with no evidence of collusion.
Donald Trump’s victory increased the chances that this unprecedented spying on a political opponent would be uncovered, which would have been politically embarrassing at the very least. Targeting Mr. Flynn—and flogging the discredited Steele dossier—kept the Russia collusion pot boiling and evolved into the two-year Mueller investigation that turned up no evidence of collusion.
This among other things is what U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr. Maybe that’s why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution.
Geen idee waarover je het hebt en met alle respect vermoed ik dat het onderwerp dat je nu aansnijdt beter en eerder in deze topic thuishoort.quote:Op maandag 11 mei 2020 13:01 schreef ManianMan het volgende:
Hebben jullie ook The family tak bekeken. Deze zouden ervoor gezorgd hebben dat vluchtelingen gingen vluchten naar andere landen. Zeer interessant om ook door te spitten zij zouden diverse wereldleiders aansporen om hun plan uit te voeren. Soort bilderberggroep.
Nee, ik ken dit document niet. Ik heb het vermoeden dat het nep is, omdat naar Christopher Steele wordt verwezen als MI-5, terwijl hij een MI-6 verleden heeft. Het gevaar met zulke aanwijzingen en "juweeltjes" is dat ze vaak gedeeltelijke een kern van waarheid bevatten, maar in zijn geheel fake zijn waardoor hoon en spot belangrijke aanwijzingen begraven. Ik hoop dat ik het een beetje duidelijk laat overkomen wat ik probeer te zeggen.quote:Op dinsdag 12 mei 2020 11:01 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Is het echt?
Project Fulsome zou 'surveiilance' door de Britse geheime diensten van Trump Tower in opdracht van de regerng Obama zijn? Deze operatie zou gestart zijn september 2016, dus nog voor de verkiezingen en is in ieder geval verlengd op 17 november 2016, toen Trump dus al de verkiezingen had gewonnen.
Ik had er ook mijn bedenkingen bij, omdat er duidelijk aan 'The President', Loretta Lynch en Michael Steele wordt gerefereerd en de brief ook nog eens gestuurd is aan Boris Johnson, toen hij nog MP was.quote:Op dinsdag 12 mei 2020 14:47 schreef dellipder het volgende:
[..]
Nee, ik ken dit document niet. Ik heb het vermoeden dat het nep is, omdat naar Christopher Steele wordt verwezen als MI-5, terwijl hij een MI-6 verleden heeft. Het gevaar met zulke aanwijzingen en "juweeltjes" is dat ze vaak gedeeltelijke een kern van waarheid bevatten, maar in zijn geheel fake zijn waardoor hoon en spot belangrijke aanwijzingen begraven. Ik hoop dat ik het een beetje duidelijk laat overkomen wat ik probeer te zeggen.
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |