Daretoreadit.com - Raw Truth News

Law and Legal Matters

Manafort sues Mueller, Rosenstein, and Department of Justice

By from net, Posted in Law and Legal Matters

Breaking: Manafort sues Mueller, Rosenstein, and Department of Justice --- The lawsuit.......

[link to apps.npr.org (secure)]


The suit alleges that Mueller has strayed beyond the scope of the investigation he was authorized to pursue, and argues that the charges filed against Manafort have nothing to do with the 2016 presidential election that spurred Mueller's appointment.

"The actions of DOJ and Mr. Rosenstein in issuing the Appointment Order, and Mr. Mueller's actions pursuant to the authority the Order granted him, were arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law," the suit reads.

[link to www.cnbc.com (secure)]


Lisa Haven report -- New batch of WEINER laptop emails / files released for FOIA

By from net, Posted in Law and Legal Matters





DEVELOPING --- Comey testimony about FBI interview with FLYNN, conflicts with Mueller indictment

By from net, Posted in Law and Legal Matters

Harris / Perino report: -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSMnWbqB6Bg

MORE -- Tucker reports


MORE -- Rush reports


SPECIAL REPORT -- Robert Parry explains how actually UNLAWFUL and crazy the Mueller team antagonism of Flynn seems to be so far. ALSO-- the "collusion" discovered in the investigation is the Trump team COLLUDING with Israel, to undermine Obama regime mideast policy:


Surfacing details about the FLYNN "matter" actually reveal treason by Jared Kushner, who had tasked Flynn with trying to have Russia overturn a UN action... and was doing this on behalf of a foreign-adversary nation (Israel)

Friday's news - includes a report that Mr. Kushner was the one who directed Mr. Flynn to contact Russia - which info helps cement Mr. Kushner's reputation as a callow and arrogant freelancer, authorized by the president to act way over his head, and possibly impairing some of the most delicate and important issues of foreign policy.

Mr. Flynn asked Russia to intervene at the United Nations on behalf of Israel.IN PLEADING GUILTY Mr. Flynn is admitting that last Dec. 22, he asked Mr. Kislyak to delay or defeat a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its settlement policy, which the Obama administration had decided to let pass. The possible involvement or knowledge of Israel in the case will be one of many questions that congressional investigators will pursue. As part of Flynn's plea negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, is not expected to be charged.


MEANWHILE -- Sloppy reporting by ABC's Brian Ross -- got the Flynn story WRONG, and Ross/ABC had to retract






Mr. Flynn's plea raises a chance that he may give testimony which could lead to a (very lame but) potential-- obstruction of justice charge against POTUS Trump. The basis for the possible obstruction charge would be POTUS verbally coaxing then F.B.I. director, James Comey, to see if he can 'see fit' to have cause -to stop harassing Flynn.

Such a charge, per Department of Justice policy, would not be brought in the criminal courts but would rather form the basis of a report to Congress. If Mr. Mueller brings that charge, it will be on the strength of Mr. Flynn's testimony.



On April 30, 2014, Flynn announced his Military retirement effective later that year, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position. He was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency. In a private e-mail that was leaked online, Colin Powell said that he had heard in the DIA (apparently from later DIA director Vincent R. Stewart) that Flynn got fired because he was "abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc."

According to what Flynn had stated in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking that the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe that he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration's public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.[35] Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that "Flynn confirmed [to Hersh] that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings ... about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad." Flynn recounted that his agency was producing intelligence reports indicating that radical Islamists were the main force in the Syrian insurgency and "that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria". According to Flynn, these reports "got enormous pushback from the Obama administration," who he felt "did not want to hear the truth".


Sooooo what is this whole Mueller-Manafort-Flynn thing all about? Ask Mossad, CFR and CIA; they are clearly organizing and promoting all sides of this bizarre distraction circus.



Hi... Sharing this next LINK with you because reading it may be useful as "backgroudner" input to have.... as the Flynn controversy moves forward.

(ARCHIVES Feb 2017)


Schmidle writes in classic NEW YORKER style which is sort of a refined/intellectual/third-person version of the Hunter Thompson 'dramatic narrative'. Its a very seductive style of writing and yet in Schmidle's case, it frosts over several inaccurate assertions, interpretations, characterizations (For example? Well in ideological antagonism he's wont to label BREITBART "far right". BREITBART now outdraws WaPo online so in sheer volume of readership it has carved its way into the mainstream, and obviously must mirror the views many many millions. Tagging it as "far right" is a conveniently dismissive and patronizing term... Which doesn't mean much except to nastily imply "bunch a loonies". It reflects a bad trend in media -to keep calling BREITBART and Bannon "far right"/"alt right" because such name calling resists seeing changes in the political landscape. What is "far right"? Skinheads? What is 'alt right" Milo? Are BREITBART reporters and their reading public MOSTLY skinheads or radical gay provocateurs? Uh no. So by labeling BREITBART-Bannon-Flynn with the broadstroke echo chamber "FAR RIGHT"/"alt right", Schmidle reveals he is subliminally promoting a viewpoint which strongly resists seeing changes in the political landscape for what they are. Changes. One doesn't have to like BREITBART to acknowledge it is now is the 3rd most-trafficked American news site. Gets more viewers than WaPo. I myself am not a fan of Breitbart, but I recognize its prominence. If one is in media you gotta deal with it. Gotta look at it. Can't just call it dirty names. Calling BREITBART "far right" is like calling Doritos a "radical non-conforming snack of extremist spice content". Be that as some may see it, Doritos (like Breitbart) is -by volume of consumption-... a mainstream commodity today. You don't gotta like either -but you gotta face facts.....

Also, Schmidle in the article promotes this idea FLYNN was possibly vulnerable to blackmail efforts by Russia. REALLY? Over what? That he had asked them to quell a UN resolution? NOT LIKELY. A) Because they didn't do as asked.... and B) Flynn and the Russian Ambassador were long acquainted and such convo between them would not have been considered by either to be dramatic convo. Just simply candid convo. It would only be dramatic convo for news-naive US citizens who don't realize how fever pitched the UN debate over Palestine is. Russia knows DC is joined at the hip with Israel. Informed Americans know the same. What's to blackmail Flynn about? Really nothing.... so its a falsely promoted idea, that Sally Yates advanced

Schmidle also writes in this FEB '17 article - "Last Wednesday, at a midday press conference, Trump, who Spicer said earlier had lost trust in Flynn, now praised him ('a fine person'), blamed the media for his ouster ('The press should be ashamed of themselves'), and attributed Flynn's resignation not to potentially criminal contacts with the Russian Ambassador but to "illegal" leaks."

Well the whole idea Flynn's convos with Moscow's ambassador PER SE amounted to "criminal contacts" is just silly. He was doing transition team outreach to say hello. HOWEVER what he ~requested~ of the Ambassador- THAT was way out of line. He asked for Russia to vote a certain way on a UN resolution. ON AN ISSUE wherein US interests were not at stake. That was attempting to conduct foreign policy in essential contraction to the Obama regime's actions on the same matter. THAT would be prosecutable under the Logan Act. But instead of making such a logical move Mueller made the illogical move indict Flynn for lying to the FBI. Why? Some think Mueller did so POSSIBLY to build a (flimsy) "obstruction" case regarding the Flynn matter... against Trump. Conspicuously Mueller has gone way off the reservation.. far afield from the original concept of investigating possible election fraud. And this is what all in the know said from the get-go... is the danger of installing ANY special prosecutor on ANY case in DC. The danger of them exercising wildly- their latitude to "investigate anything". [Think back on how far Ken Starr's team drifted off original task.]



THE OTHER thing Flynn asked of Russia as a favor was to moderate any response/reaction impulses for a while in the wake of NEW SANCTIONS imposed by Obama on Russia. That was certainly a sane request but ALSO out of line in letter of the law.

Schmidle also writes: "Russian officials deny any improper contact with Flynn or anyone else in Trump's circle. The predominant view in the state media and among Russian analysts is that the Flynn affair, coupled with the American intelligence report on the hack of the Democratic National Committee, is likely to limit Trump's ability to make some of the major changes in U.S.-Russia policy that he was hinting at throughout the campaign."

His article was written in FEB, but since then its been soundly and redundantly outed by top level intel analysts that RUSSIA did NOT hack DNC emails. CrowdStrike intentionally leaked them and imprinted a false signature to make it APPEAR Russian hackers had visited. WHY did CrowdStrike leak DNC's emails? To flood the news media and public mind with so much "leaked" email content, it obfuscated the seriousness of corruption evident in Hillary's leaked emails... It was a desperate DNC move of trying to save HRC's presidential bid. But it backfired and blew up into a whole other mess.


Anyway, regarding Schmidle I'm just sounding a BIAS ALERT... Don't take all that Schmidle says at face value. Realize some of it is ideologically "positioned" political viewpoint, but nevertheless the article up above DOES provide a rather fascinating amount of backgroud and personality material ....on Flynn.

The more you read about Flynn though, the less comprehensible his story becomes. It bears so many ironic contradictions, one (who is well informed) -wonders if Flynn is just grossly ignorant on a host of crucial issues and topics, or is simply playing a role to confuse the public- and is a deep cover intel community assert, cast in some devious play to acutely confuse the living heck out of the public. If he has all the experience credited to him, and rose thru the ranks to military/intel heights, he MUST have known his phone calls were all tapped, and he would logically NOT go to an FBI interview with no accompanying lawyer. So why such illogical behavior? .... And -he must know that certain topics of Pentagon & CIA propaganda are just that. Propaganda. But this writer Schmidle credits Flynn with speaking of such topics as REAL at face value. Which as I say means Flynn is either self blinding, shallow in homework (unlikely), an easily duped dunce (unlikely).... OR... he is some deep cover Intel asset ROLE PLAYER enacting for them a complex CONFUSE THE PUBLIC psyop regarding Mideast affairs (possible).

Flynn certainly SHOULD know the inside truth about Benghazi, the so called Bin Laden "raid" and 9/11, and if he doesn't by now he's an idiot. So why does he behave as if he were a naive and call for useless "deep studies" into them which will never render the raw truth anyway? Makes no sense.

As for the article writer Schmidle, a glance at his resume tells you immediately is a "managed" propaganda agent embedded in MSM "(mainstream media") to help support and promulgate certain false official stories and lies about certain events and World Affairs memes. He's not a genuine "independent" journalist. He's think-tank trained and promotes a certain world view subtly in writings. A view which props up hackneyed establishment (and largely fallacious) memes. But like I say, he has dug up a lotta info on Flynn here -and for editors the article can be (if taken with a grain of salt) ...useful backgrounder input.



The whole FLYNN story as it intersects into the Trump campaign/regime is a bizarre Arabesque of confusion. And one does not even have the slightest comprehension of its strangeness until one realizes what we are witnessing with this story, is some complex and nascent war between factions in the Military Industrial Complex / CFR / CIA and Pentagon. What we are seeing in the media is just the surfacing circus of this covert power struggle for ... priorities in the Mideast sector of US foreign policy.

The only ONE THING that's very clear now is ... THE ESTABLISHMENT in Washington - overall - does not want to hear Flynn's warnings and preaching on the Syria issue. They have an ideological conviction which stubbornly resists hearing about its own root flaws and inaccuracies. So Flynn is demonized (in part) because he's not down with DC's Syria meme. That's the only ONE THING that's clear now. Everything else is a stew of random fuzzy clues-- from which even Sherlock H would be hesitant to YET.... draw conclusions.

URBAN LAW DEFIANCE again upheld - Judge AGAIN Blocks Trump Sanctuary Cities Order

By from net, Posted in Law and Legal Matters

A federal judge on Monday issued what he calls a permanent blocking against President Donald Trump's executive order to withold funding from cities that defy immigration law.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick used the argument that the WH 'cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress'. Orrick's ruling came in lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara. Bizarrely, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the ruling was "a victory for the American people and the rule of law" -- an obvious absurdity becuse the gist of the ruling was that it supports cities acting in defiance of federal immigration law. The WH will appeal the ruling, as you might expect.

Show More