Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday, "It's outrageous" the way Gen. Michael Flynn was treated by the FBI.
Grassley spoke on the day the Justice Department dropped the criminal case against Flynn, who was President Trump's first National Security Adviser.
Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, but recently disclosed evidence shows the FBI went to Flynn's office four days after Trump's inauguration, hoping to trap Flynn in a lie. This happened after the FBI said it was prepared to close its counterintelligence case against Flynn because it had found no wrongdoing.
"First of all, he was entrapped," Grassley told Fox News's Brett Baier Thursday evening. "Entrapment is unconstitutional. It's a violation of your due process.
"Secondly, this thing would not be exposed if it hadn't been for (Attorney General William) Barr taking the bull by the horns and knowing something was wrong and going in and knowing where things were wrong, how to straighten it out.
"We haven't heard the end of Bill Barr's good work, because everything that's going on with the Durham investigation is another example of still other shoes to drop."
Baier asked Grassley if he thinks there are more "shoes to drop...that will shock Americans?"
"Not in regard to Flynn's part of it," Grassley said, "but in regard to Russiagate and in regard to FBI influence and malpractice and also in regard to a lot of FISA things, yes, I think there's more shoes to drop and I think there will be prosecutions."
The Justice Department's request to drop Flynn's case must be approved by a federal court in Washington.
read more here: https://cnsnews.com/article/washington/susan-jones/grassley-i-think-theres-more-shoes-drop-and-i-think-there-will-be
Replies
Are you arguing that the federal government had no right to take away slaves, human beings created by God, from their owners? Do you believe that if the government could do so, do you believe that under the 5th Amendment the owners should have been compensated?
By the way, under Constitutional Law, the Proclamation Declaration couldn't be enforced in the States of the Union not in rebellion. However, as the CSA declared itself a separate and hostile nation, it was a diffenet matter.
Yes Jeff,
Prior to becoming enslaved, they had been forced from their "Homeland" and resettled into Upper Egypt, where they flourished and grew. So much so that it became worrisome to the Egyptians who moved and enslaved them. When researching History, do so using Documents closest to the Time of occurrence. Then there are variations depending on which base Orthodoxy is being used. As advanced as we feel we are and as knowledgeable as we believe ourselves to be, we actually know so very little of ourselves.
Lynn Bryant DeSpain
the Children of Israel was slave to Egyptian when Joseph was in Egypt because Joseph was the son of Jacob and Jacob name was change to Israel.
Exactly
Hey Jeff, Slavery did not begin in Egypt. It began shortly after mankind developed agricultural, which led into organised communities to protect the "Harvest" from being stolen from others who had "Bad Harvests." If your community won, all was well. However, if it lost, the " survivors " became slaves on their former lands to grow continue the growing of crops for the Victors. Slavery has always been a "Prize" of War.
During our own Civil War, the beginning of our Industrial Revolution, the bulk of Northern Families lived in Cities, in Tennements, up to three families to a room, one bathroom to a floor, no heat, 14-16 hour days 6-7 days a week, for pennies a day. No medicine. No food. No clothes, education, but "Legal Slavery" , under worse conditions, as the "Owners" have no "Vested Interest" , and therefore the care and responsibility of the workforce matters little with a standing army of replacements.
Remember also in the Bible, the Tribes is Israel also had Slaves, before the Escape to Upper Egypt.
Lynn Bryant DeSpain
Hey! Lynn go read your Bible it is found in the book of Exodus, yes it is with the Children of Israel who was in slave with the Egyptians.
So Col., if it cost too much it is just fine to ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Certainly not. The entire cost of that bloody War was so much more. And you are assuming the Federal Government having to purchase all of the Property, while it was only the Property of those wanting to go to the New States that was in Question!
This is not an argument for or against Slavery, as we all agree it is abhorrent. However the "Truth" comes home in those Congressional Words I related to. One example was a Senator from the South addressing the Issue of Slavery in the mid 1800's saying to the effect, " I have heard your words of the mistreatment of the Negro in the South. Get I have witnessed the same Yet to here in the North, that once escaped, is found in your allies, is offered no work, no food, no shelter, clothes, nor medicine. In the South the Negro has these things because he has value. If he were to be set "Free" what guarantee do you have that he would have them then?I
No Sir, lack off funds or costs of Freedom is never an excuse for doing the wrong thing.
Lynn Bryant DeSpain
Slavery is here to stay until Jesus Christ come back.
Anyone who on their own accord decided to move to a non-slave state north of the Mason Dixon line had to forfiet their slaves... that was a personal choice, made knowing the costs and conditions for moving... it was the Southern slave owners choice as such any claims for reimbursement for the loss of their property was ludicrous... a self-inflicted loss.
Next, the North's failure to buy and free all the slaves in the South was no moral failure... instead of purchasing them with gold they did so with blood... lots of blood and mayham ... destruction of infrastructure and personal property. It took over 100yrs for the South's economy to fully recover from the Civil War.
It should also be noted that it was illegal to import Slaves in every State of the Union after 1808... After the north's emancipation of all their slaves, the country no longer engaged in the human trafficking of slaves. Thus, it was with little controversy that the ban on importing slaves was approved on March 2, 1807, with a congressional vote of 113 to 5 in favor of ending the United States' legal trafficking in slaves from the African coast.
The choice to retain slaves knowing that Slavery was on its way out should have alerted the South to the eventual showdown between the moral repugnance of slavery and the Amerian ethic and dream... that all men are created equal in the eyes of their Creator and that no man should suffer under the yoke of slavery... no reparations or reimbursement should have been paid... as the cost for such abuses of God's will must be born by those violating His Law... not those innocent of such conduct. The fact is that no man is the property of another ... even under the color of law and therefore their assumed owner is not entitled to any reimbursement for the loss of such unlawful and morally repugnant contract.
The Southerner soon understood just how expensive it was to own another human... they would have been much better off to have freed them and offered them jobs as tenant farmers on their plantations.
Very true. The South went to the SCOTUS to overrule that in the Dredd Scott case and won. They then demanded that all western lands acquired by the union be slave states or open to local chioce.
But as you point out, the Mason-dixon Line and other agreements caused the South to believe secession was the only way to save their "socialist"economy.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 9 Next