~ Featuring ~
Judge's Instructions Raise 
New Questions in Michael Flynn Case 
by Debra J. Saunders 
Fired Trump Aide Nunberg Refuses to 
Comply With Mueller’s “Ridiculous” 
Grand Jury Subpoena 
{ } ~ Robert Mueller and his merry band of inquisitors have been bankrupting and making absurd demands on people since Rod Rosenstein’s final key stroke on his witch hunt creation memo... One of those who they have been harassing, former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg has had enough. He’s not cooperating, he’s not going to comply with a grand jury subpoena. That’s chum in the water for the libtards at MSNBC. Katy Tur was almost hopping into the camera in her desperation to be the one who gets to take Trump down. Nunberg tells the smug anti-Trump propagandist Tur that his decision is based upon the ridiculous nature of the amount and content of information that has been requested. He said, “They wanted every email I had with Roger Stone and with Steve Bannon. Why should I hand them emails from November 1st, 2015?” He said, “I was thinking about this today, I was preparing it. Should I spend 50 hours going over all of my emails with Roger and with Steve Bannon. And then they wanted emails I had with Hope Hicks, with Corey Lewandowski – are you giving me a break? It’s ridiculous.”... This gets my blood to boil, Mueller you are going after the wrong people. You should be after the liar-nObama administration and liar-Hillary if you want answers.
The Deep State Is in Deep Cover-up Mode 
{ } ~ The coup attempt against President Trump is rapidly collapsing... but the deep state is still in cover-up mode. In this article for The Hill, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussed the FBI’s continuing protection of former Director James Comey and Judicial Watch’s efforts to penetrate the truth. As the James Comey saga continues to unfold, the James Comey legend continues to unravel. The more that is learned about Comey’s involvement in the deep state’s illicit targeting of President Trump, the more reason the American people must question both Comey’s motives and his management as director of the FBI, the now-disgraced agency he headed before Trump fired him. Comey left a trail of suspicious activities in his wake.  Comey now looms large over a burgeoning constitutional crisis that could soon overshadow Watergate at its worst. To deepen the crisis even further, it now appears some of Comey’s former FBI and Justice Department colleagues continue to protect him from accountability...
NRA, Loesch Unleash "Time's Up" 
Ad on Guns and Media Bias 
by Brian Lilley 
{ } ~ The NRA and their spokesperson Dana Loesch used the occasion of the Oscars broadcast to launch a "Time's Up"... inspired ad calling out the mainstream media for their anti-gun bias. The ad opens with Loesch against a black backdrop with an hourglass sitting on a table next to her as she says that America is fed up with the lies, the sanctimony, and the fake news before calling out those she says are trying to undermine America's freedom. "So to every lying member of the media, to every Hollywood phony, to the role-model athletes who use their free speech to alter and undermine what our flag represents." Loesch goes on to call out politicians and specific media outlets and personalities including CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Joy-Ann Reid, Morning Joe and Mika...
Farrell – Judicial Watch Suing DOJ For Bruce
And Nellie Ohr Records – Who Will Prosecute? 
{ } ~ Judicial Watch has filed lawsuits against the Department of Justice that will... if they are answered completely and truthfully, surely expose more of the criminal activities of their leadership. Getting them to investigate or ultimately to prosecute any of their own criminals afterwards simply is not happening. It’s an exercise in futility unless a second, legitimate special counsel is appointed. Before he gets into the details of their lawsuit, Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch’s Director of Research and Investigations, is asked about the breaking story of the Sam Nunberg grand jury subpoena and his refusal to comply. David Asman asks if it seems like the subpoena is part of a fishing expedition, as the net they’re throwing out is quite wide. Farrell replies, “It does and it’s literally a laundry list of the who’s who. It’s the wildest dreams of the liar-Hillary Clinton – DNC funded smear campaign that ironically they ended up indirectly paying the Russian Intelligence Service for.”...
Ex-Trump Aide Sam Nunberg Defies Mueller: I Won’t Testify (Subpoenas Are Optional?)
Prager U: Dear Celebrities-No One Cares What You Think 
President Trump Meets With Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
CNN’s Acosta Whines to Huckabee Sanders: ‘That’s the Third Briefing You’ve Not Taken a Question From CNN’
CNN’s Jake Tapper Hits Democrats For Refusing To Condemn Farrakhan, “People Want The Association”
Parkland Shooting Victim’s Dad Leading The Charge On School Safety (Not Gun Control)
US Projected To Be Worlds Largest Oil Producer By 2023
Judge's Instructions Raise 
New Questions in Michael Flynn Case 

by Debra J. Saunders
{ } ~ Behind the front-page indictments issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, there have been quiet movements in the courts on another front.

These developments have led supporters of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to call on President Donald Trump to pardon Flynn, or on Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea for making "materially false statements and omissions" to the FBI in 2017.

The developments are:

--Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn's guilty plea on Dec. 1, took himself off or was taken off the case for undisclosed reasons.

--His replacement is Emmet Sullivan, a crusading federal jurist who in 2009 famously lambasted federal prosecutors who had won a conviction against U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, for repeatedly withholding exculpatory evidence from Stevens' legal team.

Later, newly installed Attorney General scum-Eric Holder asked that all charges against Stevens, who was convicted in October 2008, be dismissed. Stevens' conviction was overturned, but only after the scandal-soiled senator narrowly lost his bid for re-election.

Ever since then, Sullivan has made it a practice to order prosecutors to share information favorable to a defendant with the defense team. As Flynn awaits his sentencing, Sullivan issued one such order in December. He did so again on Feb. 16, with the important instruction -- that if prosecutors aren't sure if favorable evidence is material, they should hand it over to the judge so that he can decide.

Another straw in the haystack: Relying on anonymous sources, the Washington Examiner's Byron York recently reported that former FBI Director James Comey told Capitol Hill lawmakers in March that FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he had lied to them about his December discussions with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. If withheld, that information might have kept Flynn from cutting a deal.

According to York, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates "reportedly believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act," a 218-year-old law that is supposed to keep private citizens from conducting diplomacy on their own. Yates sent two FBI agents to talk to Flynn a second time.

Without a lawyer present, Flynn spoke with the agents on Jan. 24, 2017.

Two days later, Yates warned the White House that Flynn could be in danger of blackmail because he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his December conversations with Kislyak, which the intelligence community had tapped.

Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence.

Trump also fired Yates for refusing to enforce his first travel ban. And he fired Comey in May.

Sullivan's instructions and past history have led sympathizers to wonder if federal prosecutors withheld important evidence from Flynn's legal team.

"Of course, the point is moot now because Flynn has admitted his guilt," former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review in December. "Still, I wonder whether Mueller's team informed Flynn and his counsel, prior to Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI, that the interviewing agents believed he had not lied to the FBI."

Michael Ledeen, a Flynn friend who has written multiple books on national security, said, "I want the whole case thrown out. I do not believe for a minute that he lied to the FBI."

Tom Fitton of the conservative gadfly group Judicial Watch had the same reaction. Mueller's investigation, Fitton charged, is "out of control" -- and as far as Fitton is concerned, Flynn would not lie.

Ledeen thinks Flynn cut the deal with Mueller to protect his family, perhaps to shield his son from prosecution.

Here's the problem, countered Max Bergmann senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. In the plea deal, Flynn admitted he's a liar. "I think if you plead guilty to lying," that's a hard admission to walk back.

Bergmann added that in March, Flynn offered to talk to House and Senate investigators if they granted him immunity from prosecution. "That's not the action of someone who feels like they're innocent," he said.

Trump would agree. During the 2016 campaign, when aides to liar-Hillary Clinton invoked the Fifth Amendment, Trump told an Iowa rally, "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

Then there's the matter of Flynn's failure to register as a foreign agent when he represented repressive Turkey during the 2016 campaign. Bergmann said he believes that Mueller went easy on Flynn by not pressing more serious charges against him. If Flynn takes back his guilty plea, Mueller would be free to throw a heavier book at Flynn.

Will Mueller produce a case that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, as some Democrats contend? Or will a federal judge produce a case for prosecutorial overreach, as some Republicans suggest? Stay tuned.

Views: 9


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service