Justice Department releases 2017 memo which shows the FBI did not think Michael Flynn intentionally lied
Just yesterday we learned that the judge in the Michael Flynn case is still refusing to drop the charges against him because he is hoping beyond hope that somebody will come forward with evidence that can be used against him.
Well, somebody did come forward last might but the only problem for Judge Sullivan is it was the Department of Justice and the evidence was a memo from 2017 which showed the FBI did not believe Michael Flynn intentionally lied to the rogue agency. Here is more:
The Justice Department this week provided Michael Flynn’s lawyers with a long-rumored government memo which shows that FBI officials did not believe that the former national security adviser intentionally lied in a White House interview at the center of his legal battle.
The memo, dated Jan. 30, 2017, and published Friday, also said that FBI investigators did not believe that Flynn was working as an agent of Russia.
The memo said that the FBI briefed the Justice Department’s national security division and office of the deputy attorney general on Jan. 25, 2017, a day after the Flynn interview.
“FBI advised that based on this interview, they did not believe General Flynn was acting as an agent of Russia,” the draft memo said.
According to the memo, Strzok and Pientka did not believe that Flynn believed he was lying during the White House interview.
“FBI also advised that although they recognized the statements were inconsistent with the FISA collection, they believed that Flynn believed what he was telling them,” the memo said.
“FBI advised that they believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true,” it continues. “FBI recognized the discrepancy between the statements and the actual calls, but determined that Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia.”
I am not sure why it took so long for this draft memo to be released and why this case was allowed to linger on so long but this is the exculpatory evidence we have been hearing about for so long and it does explain why his sentencing was delayed time and time again.
Michael Flynn was bankrupted while trying to defend himself and when the FBI threatened to go after his family he finally realized he could not fight City Hall any longer so he plead guilty to spare his family. It is time for Judge Sullivan to give up and drop the charges.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Judge refuses to dismiss Michael Flynn case
Despite the fact the Justice Department dismissed the charges against Michael Flynn his strange saga continues. The Justice Department dismissed the charges back in the middle of May but Judge Emmet Sullivan decided to keep the case alive in the hopes that somebody, anybody, would step forward with some information they could use against Michael Flynn.
Last month the DC Court of Appeals ordered Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case but now the rogue justice has decided the DC Court of Appeals was wrong to order him to do so and he is still refusing to drop the case. Here is more:
Washington, D.C. federal District Judge Emmett Sullivan is refusing to dismiss the criminal case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, and is now arguing that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it ordered him to do so last month in a 2-1 ruling.
Sullivan, through his attorney Beth Wilkinson, filed a petition on Thursday for a so-called “en banc” review by the entire D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the three-judge panel was improperly trying to force the district court “to grant a motion [to dismiss] it had not yet resolved … in reliance on arguments never presented to the district court.”
If this is what the court system can do to a former high ranking military person with personal and professional ties to two Presidents think about what the court system could do to you or I if it decided to use us to make an example of or a political point against us…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Back in 2017 Donald Trump expanded a rule allowing employers an exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate for religious or moral reasons. This has been fought in the courts since it was announced back in 2017 and today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the exemption. Here is more:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that employers with religious or moral objections do not have to help provide insurance coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling seeks to end a longstanding battle by the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups that wanted no role in providing birth control coverage. It upholds a Trump administration policy allowing for both religious and moral exemptions.
“For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother,” Thomas said. “But for the past seven years, they – like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision – have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
And this was a 7-2 decision with three of the courts liberal justices–John Roberts, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer–siding with the four conservatives to hand Donald Trump this victory.
However, while Elena Kagan agreed that Donald Trump has the authority to do this she said his reasoning might not have been sound and stated the case should again be referred back to the lower cases to adjudicate the reasoning.
Kagan argued in a separate opinion that the administration may not have used “reasoned decision-making” and may have swept too broadly in granting moral as well as religious exemptions. She left those questions for lower courts to resolve.
She gave them the game plan to move forward with, I am sure we have not heard the end of this yet.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Andrew Cuomo investigates himself and finds his nursing home policy was not responsible for COVID-19 deaths
Andrew Cuomo has come under fire for his nursing home directive which forced nursing homes to take in patients regardless of their COVID-19 status. This policy led to 4,500 COVID patients being admitted into nursing homes and even Democrats in the state of New York were calling for an investigation into this policy which has led to 6,000 death so far, with the number still climbing.
Democrats did not get the independent investigation they were calling for but you will be happy to know that Andrew Cuomo has looked into the matter and has found that his policy is not responsible for the deaths. Here is more:
In a self-examination of one of the most controversial public health policy decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic in New York, the Cuomo administration says its policy requiring nursing homes to admit coronavirus positive patients was not a “significant factor” in the thousands of deaths seen at the facilities across the state.
The 33-page review released Monday by the state Health Department instead blamed Covid-19-positive staff and visitors who unknowingly infected the vulnerable population of nursing home patients, at least more than 6,000 of whom died in numbers that are not yet complete.
Critics dismissed the report as an exercise to distract and to deflect blame away from a decision in early spring by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that bolstered the nursing home census statewide at an especially dangerous time during the pandemic in New York. Some renewed calls for an independent probe.
So he is actually blaming the nurses for infecting the patients, he is blaming the people who we have been calling the true heroes all these months?! As far as the visitors go, I thought visitors were not allowed in nursing homes during this pandemic? At least that is the way it was in Massachusetts and here in New Hampshire. So if Andrew Cuomo did not stop visitors from going into the nursing homes he is responsible if that is why the virus spread through the nursing homes.
It is just downright silly to think he let 4,500 people with COVID-19 into the nursing homes with the most vulnerable people and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the outbreak of the virus in the nursing homes, and in fact it was the nurses’ fault, but that is what he would have us believe.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Hunter Biden still has stake in Chinese company
I know it has been awhile but you may remember several months ago, when Joe Biden was being scrutinized for influence peddling and Hunter Biden was coming under fire for being the beneficiary of said peddling, that the former Vice President promised none of his family members would be involved in any foreign businesses if he became President.
Although claiming that he and his father had done nothing wrong, in the interest of there being no appearances of impropriety Hunter Biden promised to relinquish his position with BHR Partners.
According to this story it looks as if Hunter Biden finally relinquished his unpaid position on the Board of Directors:
The Chinese private equity firm BHR Partners updated its business records on April 20 to remove Hunter Biden as a member of its board of directors
Hunter Biden’s departure from BHR’s board was submitted to China’s National Credit Information Publicity System (NCIPS) more than six months after he pledged to relinquish his position with the firm “on or by October 31,” according to Qixinbao and Baidu, two independent services that provide registration information on Chinese corporations based on NCIPS filings.
That is good news, however there is this:
he continues to hold a 10% ownership stake in the company through his LLC, Chinese business records show.
The records also show that Hunter Biden continues to hold a 10% equity stake in BHR through his company, Skaneateles LLC, as of Friday, a position he maintains despite a pledge in December from his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, that none of his family members would “be engaged in any foreign business” if he is elected president in November.
So, what it amounts to is this: Hunter Biden, in an obvious effort to make it appear as if he was making good on his father’s promise, relinquished his UNPAID position on the Board of Directors while at the same time holding onto his 10% stake in the billion dollar company. And nobody is supposed to notice this and, above all, nobody is supposed to question this.
Politics is like a magic show, it is all sleight of hand, illusion, it is the art of diversion, of making people look at one hand while the other is hidden behind the veil, and after decades in politics the Biden’s are masterful magicians.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, July 5th open thread: ‘Refuse/Resist’
This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Sepultura and “Refuse/Resist.” Enjoy:
Believe it or not the Democrats still have not given up on the Russia scandal. They have been trying to get their hands on the unredacted Mueller report but today the Supreme Court put the kibosh on that effort for the time being. Here is more:
Grand jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller won’t be released to the Democratic-led House of Representatives at least for now, after the Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Trump administration’s request to take up the case next term.
The move means the documents won’t likely be released before the November election, even if the Democrats win the case.
The court’s move is a victory for the Justice Department, which is seeking to prevent the release of the information, which includes portions of Mueller’s report that were redacted to protect grand jury information and underlying grand jury testimony and exhibits that relate to certain individuals and events.
The Supreme Court is going to take up this case during the fall term so this is not over, however the Democrats were hoping they could get their hands on the unredacted report in time for the 2020 election and that is not going to happen.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
When the house arrest orders were in full effect we saw a few politicians have their Chris Christie the-beaches-are-shut-for-thee-but-not-for-me moments: New Mexico Governor Grisham decided jewelry was essential for her and devised a scheme to purchase some during her State’s shutdown, Governor Whitmer’s husband had a “do you know who I am” moment when wanted to get his boat in the water over Memorial Day weekend during a lock down, and in California Gavin Newsom was seen violating his own social conditioning rules because he needed to shake hands and kiss babies.
And speaking of Gavin Newsom, he liked the totalitarian measures and the thought of a government-dependent citizenry so much that he is in the process of doing it again. The Governor has ordered a new lock down which includes restaurants, wineries, and movie theaters.
You may be thinking to yourself, doesn’t Gavin Newsom own a winery? The answer to that question is yes, but have no fear about Gavin Newsom losing all of that holiday weekend revenue because he made an exemption which will allow his winery to remain open. Here is more:
Wineries, a popular destination on a summer holiday weekend, were forced to close in the affected counties. Californians who’d planned on visiting places like Temecula or Santa Barbara or the Santa Ynez Valley or Fairfield or the Santa Clara Valley to celebrate Independence Day with some local wines face a tough choice: either stay home or find an open winery somewhere like San Diego County or Napa County.
Napa County, where Gov. Gavin Newsom’s business, PlumpJack Wines, operates four wineries – wineries with tasting rooms that are open all weekend long and booked solid.
Well, isn’t that convenient.
Convenient indeed! Apparently the virus cannot cross county lines, how fortunate for Gavin Newsom…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Supreme Court rules in favor of school choice
The Supreme Court has been in the news quite a bit lately and earlier today the highest court in the land handed down another decision. The decision was on school choice and this time liberal Justice John Roberts sided with the four conservative justices on the court. Here is more:
In a huge win for backers of school choice including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with three Montana families who asked the court to declare that excluding religious schools from student aid programs is unconstitutional.
The case, which has drawn intense interest from the Trump administration, could have major implications for the use of public dollars to pay for religious schools. At the White House, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that the ruling removes “one of the biggest obstacles” to better educational opportunities, preventing states from hiding behind rules “motivated by insidious bias against Catholics.”
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue looked at whether the Montana Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution when it struck down a tax-credit scholarship program that allowed students to attend private schools, including religious schools.
Justices held that the application of Montana’s “no-aid provision” discriminated against religious schools and families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the 5-4 decision.
Proponents of school choice said it was a major triumph in the courts. “The weight that this monumental decision carries is immense, as it’s an extraordinary victory for student achievement, parental control, equality in educational opportunities, and First Amendment rights,” said Jeanne Allen, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Education Reform.
Not all agreed with the last statement in the block quote above, notably the teacher unions, but it seems to me as if giving children the chance to attend a better school would be hard to consider a bad thing. However, I do have to admit I have never followed this issue closely so I do not know all the arguments opposed and in favor of school choice.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Louisiana passed legislation several years ago which stated in order for a doctor to perform an abortion he or she had to have admitting rights to a nearby hospital, this law had been challenged in the courts and today the Supreme Court ruled against the law. Here is more:
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that critics said could have forced all but one of the state’s abortion providers to close, granting a major victory for abortion rights supporters and signaling that the more conservative court isn’t ready to overthrow precedent on the divisive issue.
In a 5-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote, the court said the Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals created an unconstitutional undue burden for patients seeking an abortion.
John Roberts claimed he disagreed with the decision however was forced to vote in favor of it due to precedent:
Justice Stephen Breyer, in an opinion joined by rest of the court’s liberal wing, wrote that the Louisiana law would make it “impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and [impose] substantial obstacles on those who could.” Roberts, in a separate concurring opinion, disagreed with the liberal justices’ reasoning but said he was bound by the precedent the court set just four years ago when it rejected a similar law in Texas.
“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” wrote Roberts, who had voted to uphold the Texas restrictions in 2016. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
He seems to have forgotten it was his court which set the precedent in the first place. When can we stop saying John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices and just say the five liberal justices?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 