Showing posts with label Michael Flynn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Flynn. Show all posts

December 30, 2020

Wendy Bell Chats With A Traitor (Who's Also A QAnon Quack)

Yesterday at Wendy Bell Radio, Wendy had a hearty fawning chat with the recently pardoned Michael Flynn.

In case you took a marijuana and missed the news, Michael Flynn was recently pardoned for this offenses:

The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

Further, he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.

Accepting the pardon does not mean he didn't commit the crime, just that he can't be charged/convicted for it. Furthermore, The Supreme Court has established:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

He's also a QAnon Quack

Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn called into a QAnon conspiracy theory podcast on Friday, but said that he could only speak for a few minutes. He had a surprising reason to cut the call short, he explained. He was avoiding assassins and had to stay on the move.

This is who Wendy Bell fawned over:

I want to thank you for your service to America. You know, I think we watched, for years we watched, what you and your family went through, really. I think we all endured such unfairness with you. (3:15)

He pled guilty, twice. He's guilty, Wendy.

A few minutes later (at about 8:52), they get into the coup when Wendy asks "What's going to happen on January 6?" and Flynn answers:

Well I think that if everybody follows the truth and seeks the truth then what I believe could happen, one of the outcomes that could happen, is the states that are in contention (and those are the quote unquote the swing states), five maybe six of them, that those states may be they may be put to the side so their electoral college votes that come in they could be put to the side.

Because of the non-existent voter fraud, because of the legal actions of those "five maybe six" of the swing states (Pennsylvania, included) those electoral votes should be set aside to make sure Donald Trump has another term.

That's the QAnon felon's prediction (hope?)

That's Wendy Bell guest yesterday.


December 20, 2020

Is This Sedition Or Treason Or What??

Teh Crazie appears again at the top. This was tweeted yesterday:

BTW, not one of those statements is true. Be that as it may, connect teh crazie above with this from CNN:

President Donald Trump convened a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, including lawyer Sidney Powell and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter said, describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump's aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn's more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.

Flynn had suggested earlier this week that Trump could invoke martial law as part of his efforts to overturn the election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden -- an idea that arose again during the meeting in the Oval Office, one of the people said. It wasn't clear whether Trump endorsed the idea, but others in the room forcefully pushed back and shot it down.

Donald Trump discussed in the Oval Office using military force to overturn the election he lost.

The election is over. The Constitutional process leading up to Joe Biden's inauguration is underway. Any attempt to thwart this process is by definition unconstitutional.

How do we know the process is under way? 

From the Congressional Research Service:  

November 4-December 14, 2020: Counting Popular Votes and Filing Certificates of Ascertainment Following election day, the states are to count and certify popular vote results according to their respective statutory and procedural requirements.When the states have completed their vote counts and ascertained the official results, the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. §6) requires the state governors to prepare, “as soon as practicable,” documents known as Certificates of Ascertainment of the vote. The certificates must list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received in the popular election results, also the names of all losing candidates for elector, and the number of votes they received. Certificates of Ascertainment, which are often signed by state governors, must carry the seal of the state. One copy is forwarded to the Archivist of the United States (the Archivist), while six duplicates of the Certificate of Ascertainment must be provided to the electors by December 14, the date on which they meet.

And:

December 14, 2020: Electors Vote in Their States
Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set (3 U.S.C. §7) as the date on which the electors meet and vote. In 2020, the meeting is on December 14. Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist; and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11).

All this has been done. Biden's 306 and Trump's 232 electoral votes have been cast and the results certified by each state and the District of Columbia. It's over.

All that's left is this:

January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results
Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m.in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results(3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President.If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which “shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.”
Go back and look at what Felon Flynn suggested (and Donald Trump discussed). How does this not fit into this definition of "Seditious Conspiracy":
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 This can not be set aside after the inauguration. This must be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.

October 14, 2020

Hey, Remember That "Unmasking" Scandal, Congressman Reschenthaler?

Looks like there's nothing there. 

The Washington Post:

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

And:

Kerri Kupec, the Justice Department’s top spokeswoman, had first revealed Bash’s review in May, after Republican senators made public a declassified list of U.S. officials, including former vice president Joe Biden, who made requests that would ultimately reveal the name of Trump adviser Michael Flynn in intelligence documents in late 2016 and early 2017.

Perhaps someone should ask Congressman Reschenthaler about this. I mean, he did have some very strong words when the list was made public

Reschenthaler called it a "setup"  that "went all the way to the top of Obama-Biden White House."

Congressman Reschenthaler owes his constituents an explanation (and perhaps an apology) for this smear.

And no, a "No comment" is not acceptable.