RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 US ELECTION & SPIN-OFF INVESTIGATIONS

[BlueTiki]

I do believe he's holding Mockers to a higher standard than the President of the United States. How 'bout that shit.

Who is holding Mockers to a higher standard than the President of the United States?  And what standard is that?  Fact versus opinion?

Barr dropped the charges against Flynn and the shit hit the fan.  Why?

Is it because it is because of Barr's "repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest.”?

Or is it because it is “extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented”—was completely unwarranted, and the Justice Department’s justification “does not hold up to scrutiny.”?

These were statements from former Justice alums (2,000 of them) in an open letter calling for Barr's resignation.

President Obama also chimed in stating “And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk . . . when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

To be clear, Flynn was not convicted of perjury. Obama is incorrect.

However, since Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI UNDER OATH IN OPEN COURT and now claims what he said he did isn't true, that sounds like a possible future charge of perjury, to me.

"Extraordinarily rare . . . if not unprecedented". "No precedent anyone can find . . . ".

How about Eric Holder?  And coincidentally, Eric Holder with Judge Emmet Sullivan?  Obama's AG, Eric Holder and Flynn trial judge, Emmet Sullivan.

This was the Senator Stevens case.  Like Flynn's new assertions of innocence, it, too, involved Brady material.

Holder overturned Stevens' conviction and stopped any additional prosecution . . . Stevens was convicted while always maintaining his innocence.

So . . . here is a perfect example of precedent by an acting Attorney General, believing a defendant's Brady rights were violated, to vacate a conviction and cease future prosecution.

Rule of Law at risk or applying the Rule of Law as interpreted by an Attorney General?

There was a precedent.  To deny this is a lie.  Was it a deliberate lie, hyperbole or a gaff?  Who knows?

And now, Barr can defend his decision, based on evidence and precedent (including but not limited to Brady) and defend his position . . . in court.

That, to me, is the Rule of Law.