Paul Sperry likens her to a “blackmailer.”
[I]n late December or early January, someone working under Obama’s own national security adviser, Susan Rice, unmasked routine NSA intercepts of the Russian ambassador. Was it to spy on Flynn, Rice’s replacement?Just days after the inauguration, moreover, Yates used those same NSA transcripts to try to get Flynn fired, by warning the White House that he was “vulnerable” to Russian extortion.
Despite her warnings, Flynn remained in his position for 18 more days…. He was only forced to resign after somebody from the Obama administration illegally leaked the intercepts to the Washington Post and created a political embarrassment for President Trump.
Unlike the Obama officials who disclosed highly classified information, Flynn committed no crime.
Though he misinformed Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of his conversation with the Russian ambassador (the two did, in fact, discuss the sanctions Obama belatedly and conveniently slapped on Russia after the election), he did not make false statements to the FBI. And Flynn made no promises that the sanctions would be removed. The FBI declined to press charges.
Yates knew what the FBI knew when she raced over to the White House on Jan. 26 to warn Trump’s general counsel that Flynn was “compromised.” She also knew that the Obama administration had just weeks earlier renewed Flynn’s national security clearance at the highest levels. And that the intelligence community had “no evidence,” as Obama’s intelligence czar just reconfirmed, that Flynn “colluded” with Moscow.
Still, Yates insisted Flynn posed a threat to the government. Why? Because, she said, he failed to truthfully brief the vice president.
The implication was that unless Trump fired Flynn, he’d pay a price. So it was Yates, in a sense, who was blackmailing Trump.
“Why does it matter to the Justice Department if one White House official lies to another White House official?” White House Counsel Don McGahn reasonably asked Yates, when she rushed into his office with her hair on fire.
But that made no sense, as any “leverage” for blackmail ceases to be leverage when it is known by the people you’d tell it to — as was now the case here.
And that of course wasn’t Yates’ only action against Flynn – she also tried to get him prosecuted under you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me non-law the LOGAN ACT.
And who sent the FBI to investigate this dubious charge of Flynn violating the arcane and never-enforced Logan Act? None other than Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Yates famously joined the resistance to President Trump weeks after the inauguration by refusing to enforce the president’s Executive Order on extreme vetting for foreign nationals coming from certain countries known to engage in terror activities.
Note that when the FBI concluded Flynn hadn’t lied, the DOJ rushed to come up with a new theory why he was guilty of something anyway: And the pretext they chose was the LOGAN ACT.
The other theory they pushed was Yates’ he-could-be-blackmailed-by-information-our-pals-are-already-leaking-to-the-press theory.
Trump had already been tried and convicted of the high crime and misdemeanor of defeating Hillary in a legitimate election. We are still in the penalty phase of that super-secret investigation and trial with the conspirators trying to get their desired penalty, removal from office.
I’m sure Sally is proud of and duly rewarded for her service to the State.
Do you really think it’s a hoax? Today:
Mueller indicts 13 Russians for interfering in US election
Maybe some in the Trump circle will find the word “unwitting” to be a reason for encouragement. Given all the indications of pervasive cluelessness, “unwitting” might not be that hard to believe. Though more is undoubtedly coming.
Gates close to plea deal with Mueller in Russia probe: report
Bannon met with Mueller over two days after refusing to answer questions from House panel on Russia probe
Bannon apparently considers Mueller’s investigation a more serious personal threat than the Congressional committee. He’s probably not playing the White House’s 25 Preapproved Questions game with Mueller.
@Greg: Read up on it Mueller is indicting Russians for using the internet bwahahaha
@Greg: http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/16/mueller-indicts-13-russians/
Aw… dang. Sorry for you loss, Greg.
Hmmm… 2014. Who was President then?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/robert-mueller-indicts-13-russian-nationals-for-meddling-in-2016-election/article/2649310
In other words, once Hillary was being shown to be the clear winner, they went to work to weaken her. Gosh, it almost makes you wish your biased polls had shown a more honest picture of Trump’s chances, doesn’t it? Well, “When first you practice to deceive….”
Well, it’s not exactly the same as the common Obama defense that he was simply too ignorant to have known about this scandal or that.
It’s kind of all evaporating before your very eyes, isn’t it? Plus, as you have accused, it doesn’t appear Trump has been “doing nothing”. This qualifies as something. Also, how does it feel to have been in league with the Russians to help denigrate and weaken our political system?
@kitt, #3:
The small stuff at the beginning matters. The Gambino crime family’s lawyers would undoubtedly recognize Mueller’s methodology. It’s how he worked up through the chain of command and nailed the bosses. (Not that the Russians in question have been indicted for small stuff. A number of them came here and established false identities to orchestrate a sophisticated cyber attack. This is potentially very serious stuff.)
If Mueller ever finds grounds for subpoenaing Trump’s tax records, it’ll be all over. If not, it will be a long haul.
@Greg:
Yeah, “if ever”. Maybe sometime in 2020 perhaps? If he had any reason at all, he could get them now. Fact is, he doesn’t and he admitted as much in his announcements today.
Unlike with Obama and Hillary, the Trump people cooperate instead of stonewall or withhold and destroy evidence. Eventually, the facts in the Hillary and Obama corruption scandals have surfaced but, though witnesses are cooperative, you have NOTHING on Trump. Rosenstein just tied the knot in it.
seems to me that Obama had many women he could get with wink to do his will even fefe Comy
@Bill… Deplorable Me: It looks like Mueller and the DOJ is letting all of those Democrats off the hook by labeling them “unwitting accomplices”. This would include most of the media, Congressional Democrats, never Trumpers and people like Greg. It would be interesting to go back and find all of Greg’s comments that referenced the Russian information. He is still doing it by using the Steel paper. Now isn’t that deliberate colluding with the Russians? Isn’t colluding with a known enemy treason? Did DOJ just let many colluders off the hook by labeling them as “unwitting accomplices”?
@Randy:
only God can cant change the spots on a leopard
cant change the spots on a leopard
@Randy:
The majority of Democrats we have today are unwitting accomplices; aka “useful idiots”. As they say, if you want to know what they are up to, look at what they are accusing others of. In this case, collusion and helping the Russians. THEY have rendered PRICELESS aid and comfort to the enemy by their unfounded accusations against everything legal and proper in the 2016 election.