QUICK FACTS: Politics, News, Economy, Religion, History…for busy people!

Posts Tagged ‘Justice’

Comey: “I Sent FBI to Flynn, Broke Protocol and Got Away with It” (Video)

Posted by FactReal on December 17, 2018

Video shows ex-FBI Director Comey explaining how he:
* Kept Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting
* Violated protocols and policies which are always in place regardless if the administration is new or not.
* Took advantage of fledgling Trump Administration

REPORT: Ex-FBI Director Comey Explains How He Took Advantage of Fledgling Trump Administration:
“Former FBI Director James Comey, speaking to an appreciative audience in New York on Sunday [12/9/2018], told NBC’s Nicole Wallace that he sent two FBI agents to visit then-National Security Adviser Mike Flynn at the White House on January 24, 2017, because he figured he could get away with it,” reported CNS News.


* Comey proudly stated he broke the rules…because he could:


WALLACE: “You look at this White House now, and it’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State room. How did that happen?”

COMEY: “I sent them.” [Audience celebrated.]

COMEY: “Something we’ve — I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration.

* Did Flynn think the FBI agents were there as colleagues/co-workers and not as investigators (where he was the target), and thus, Flynn wasn’t exact in his recollection of his phone conversations weeks prior?
On the video, Comey acknowledged they didn’t tell Flynn the reason for the FBI visit:


WALLACE: “What did he [Flynn] think they were coming over there for?”

COMEY: “I don’t think he knew. I know we didn’t tell him.”

* They wanted Flynn unguarded, so they made him think this was a normal chat between pals:


COMEY: “And I thought, it’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.”

“And so we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we’re sending a couple of guys over. Hope you’ll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room at the White House Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to.”

Mueller’s court documents (attachment B, page 4 of 6), show they decided not to tell Flynn it was an investigation:

Before the interview, McCabe, [redacted] and others decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.

* Flynn was unguarded, jocular and did not lie, according to FBI agents who talked to Flynn
Mueller’s court documents (attachment B, page 4 of 6), show the FBI agents who talked to Flynn on January 24, 2017, found that Flynn was:

relaxed and jocular…unguarded and clearly saw FBI agents as allies…talked about various subjects, including hotels…the President’s knack for interior design….Flynn was so talkative… [FBI agents] Strzok and [redacted] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying…The agents left Flynn in a collegial, positive way.

* Video above shows the audience celebrating Comey’s remarks about violating protocols and rules.
“Those same liberals applauding him wildly would presumably be appalled if a police detective proudly described how he prevented a criminal suspect from speaking to a lawyer simply because he could,” points out Jonathan Turley [see below].

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote a great critique of Comey’s admission on TheHill.com: ‘No glory in James Comey getting away with his abuse of FBI power‘ (12/15/2018)

[Emphasis added]

“I probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it.” Those words this week from former FBI Director James Comey could well be chiseled in marble as his epitaph. He was explaining another violation of bureau policy during his tenure

What was shocking was not that Comey violated protocols or policies again but the reaction of the audience to his admission. In describing how he set up a critical meeting with Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump, the audience was audibly thrilled by his cleverness in keeping Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting. […]

… Now Comey has again admitted to violating rules and protocols, by setting up Flynn. […]

What was Comey’s justification? Because he could. He refers to the “process” of other administrations. That process, however, was still in place and did not change. Moreover, he noted that he thought he could get away with it because this was “early” in the administration. That is not principle. >It is opportunism. He was supposed to work through the Justice Department and not simply follow the rules only if he might be caught breaking them. […]

… There was nothing noble in Comey seeking to reduce the chance that Flynn might have legal counsel. Those same liberals applauding him wildly would presumably be appalled if a police detective proudly described how he prevented a criminal suspect from speaking to a lawyer simply because he could. […]

Comey seemed to delight the audience by taking credit for keeping Flynn in the dark about the FBI interview. When Wallace asked what Flynn thought the FBI agents wanted, Comey replied, “I don’t think he knew. I know we didn’t tell him.” Actually, Comey didn’t tell anyone. Not the White House counsel, not the acting attorney general, not the Justice Department. He “just sent a couple of guys over” to the White House because he could “get away with it.”

Place: 92nd Street Y (cultural center) on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, NY
Date: Sunday, December 9, 2018
Host: NBC’s Nicole Wallace
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xqGu66D6VU
or https://www.facebook.com/92ndstreetY/videos/2196969490544212/

WALLACE: “You look at this White House now, and it’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State room. How did that happen?”

COMEY: “I sent them.” [Audience celebrated.]

COMEY: “Something we’ve — I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration.”

“The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years.” [Audience applauded.]

“And in both those administrations there was process. And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there’d be discussions and approvals and it would be there. And I thought, it’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.”

“And so we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we’re sending a couple of guys over. Hope you’ll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room at the White House Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to.”

WALLACE: “What did he think they were coming over there for?”

COMEY: “I don’t think he knew. I know we didn’t tell him.”

Posted in Law, Left, Media, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by FactReal on July 20, 2010

Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thinks so. He voted today to support Obama’s leftist nominee Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court because “President Obama won [the 2008 elections].”

Graham joined 12 Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee and voted to move up Kagan’s nomination for full Senate vote. The rest of the Republicans voted against: Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma).
The Committee’s roll call vote: 13-6. [1]

Graham on his vote for Kagan:

“I’m going to vote for her and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I’m very pro-life. I’m going to vote for her because I believe the last election had consequences…” [2] (Video minute 14:53)

Graham used the same excuse when he voted for leftist then-Justice-nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

“I voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court…Judge Sotomayor is definitely a more liberal judge than a Republican president would have nominated, but elections have consequences.” [3]

Thus, following Senator Graham’s stupid logic, all Americans must blindly submit to Democrats for the next 2.5 years since they won the 2008 elections. Did Democrats submit to Bush and the Republicans? No!

RINOs are blind: They cannot see that Obama and the Democrats are destroying America!! These are not normal times.

Why No On Kagan
The Case Against Kagan
KAGAN VS. BABIES: Kagan pushed medical groups to support partial-birth abortion
KAGAN VS. THE MILITARY: Her intellectually dishonest opposition to our armed forces during a time of war shows bad judgment
–> Iraq Vet Slams Kagan’s Treatment of Military at Harvard (video)
–> As dean, Elena Kagan aggressively tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard

1. ^ Roll call vote (7/20/2010):
2. ^ Transcript – Graham on Kagan (7/20/2010):
3. ^ Transcript- Graham on Sotomayor (07/28/2009):

Posted in Law, Rinos | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by FactReal on July 14, 2009

Updated by FactReal on July 16, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was born in New York from Puerto Rican parents. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth, so Sotomayor is not the typical Hispanic immigrant but that hasn’t stopped her from exploiting her “Latinismo” & Americans’ white guilt to advance her career.
She is a Judge at the Court of Appeals, but there are many instances were she has chosen to ignore the law.
1) ACTIVIST JUDGE: (making law from the bench instead of interpreting it)
“Court of Appeals is where policy is made”
said Sotomayor at Duke University Law School in 2005
Here is a judge who chooses to ignore the Separation of Powers: *U.S. Courts is where law is interpreted. *All legislative Powers belong to Congress
Judicial Activism (judges making law) is damaging to USA: It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.
Unconstitutionality: Sotomayor’s assertion is against the 200 years of American legal tradition that states that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law and not make policy/law.
An honest moment: For a moment she allows us to see what she really thinks. But when she remembers that she is being videotaped, she tries to fix it, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.” Then she patronizes, “I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m—you know.” Why leftist love to hide that they are leftist? Because they know that Americans reject marxism.
2) RACIST: (Yes, a Latina can be a racist too)
She was published by the
marxist Berkeley La Raza Law Journal

‘El pueblo unido jamás será vencido’
(The people united will never be defeated) reads La Raza’s website heading. It is the title of a marxist song
which became a repeated marxist slogan.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
said Sotomayor in her 2001 speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice” at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law for the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture

She gave multiple “Wise Latina” speeches (see below)

*Could a white American say that white men make better decisions than black women?
*Americans must free themselves from the white guilt which is still being exploited by people like Sonia Sotomayor to advance their career & destroy USA.
*Americans must stopped the leftists’ racial imputation with facts: The racism came from the Democrat Party
*Leftists love identity politics. Democrat Sen. Durbin accused white male judges of being racists

She gave multiple “Wise Latina” speeches: (Hat tip: VerumSerum)
– October 2003 speech at Seton Hall University
– In 2002, her speech was published by the marxist Berkeley La Raza Law Journal [13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002)] a symposium issue entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
-In April 1999 before the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York
-On 3 other occasions in 1999 & 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law
-In 1994 in Puerto Rico

Racial & Sexual differences make some better? Judge Sotomayor seems to think that inherent racial and sexual differences are not simply quirks of genetics, but make some better than others.
-She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the “different perspectives” of “men and women of color” are due to “basic differences in logic in reasoning” due to “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”
-She is not talking about experience. She is saying that being Latina makes you better equipped to make “better decisions” than a white men.
A judge’s personal experiences are license to impose her preferences thru judicial power? “It is one thing to recognize that judges, as people, are fallible and imperfect… It is quite another to suggest that such neutrality and objectivity is not even an ideal to which judges should aspire…” What would happen to Americans if all judges follow her belief that “some perspectives are “better” — more authentic, more fair, more progressive” and decide to “abandon any pretense of trying to apply the law in a neutral fashion?”
Impartiality is a disservice? In the same 2001 speech cited above, Sotomayor wondered “whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” Does Sotomayor believe that following the judges’ oath of office is a disservice to society? Does she believe that she is doing a disservice to the law if she impartially discharges her duties in a completely impartial manner?

A) Member of radical organization La Raza (“the Race”):
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the National Council Of La Raza (NCLR)
-La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
-A radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”
-La Raza supports the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
10 things about ‘La Raza’ (The Race)
B) Served on the board of LatinoJustice PRLDEF
One of the racial grievance groups that helped to sink the judicial nomination of Honduran-born Miguel Estrada in 2003. Why did they oppose Estrada? He was not a lefty.
-This group receives funding from marxist George Soros’s Open Society Institute and from Carnegie Corporation of New York ($1,025,000 since 2000), Ford Foundation ($2,280,000 since 2001), Rockefeller Foundation ($1,275,000 since 2000), and JPMorganChase Foundation ($70,000 since 2001).
-It’s agenda is identity politics: it pushes for enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants’ rights, and illegal immigrants’ rights.
-LatinoJustice PRLDEF was known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
C) Member of the discriminatory women’s club, Belizean Grove
-The openly expressed purpose of this organization is to create a female elite
-Sotomayor chose to make the preposterous argument that the Belizean Grove isn’t a women’s club. It’s just that no men have ever applied for membership, you see. White clubs used to explain the absence of black members the same way.
-It’s discrimination against ordinary women who aren’t successful, or powerful or connected, who haven’t risen through the meritocracy.
-How could a Judge (who throughout her career & college days wanted equality) belong to a club that discriminates men and non-elite women?
-Ok to discriminate white Americans? “A corporation’s minority recruitment program or a university’s minority scholarships are considered admirable, while similar programs reserved for white people would be regarded as horrific.”
4) FAVORS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: (No “empathy” for whites)
In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano: Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters & one hispanic who passed an exam for promotions in the fire department but were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough.
No empathy to non-blacks: Although Obama wanted a judge with “empathy,” Judge Sotomayor did not show empathy to the white & hispanic firefighters. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion – but then was denied, simply because he is white.
No reference to constitutional claim: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.”
She was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes: Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes (on Page 9).
Court’s shenanigans: People were dismayed by the court’s “apparent shenanigans,” which were motivated by a desire to avoid Supreme Court review of the case. Whatever the motive, the actions of the original panel, the failure to handle an issue of this significance in a published opinion in particular, are highly questionable.
The Supreme Court reversed her decision on the Ricci case in a 5-4 decision

“I am the perfect affirmative action baby” gleefully said Sotomayor
“My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues
at Princeton or Yale”
She was accepted to Princeton and Yale despite her lackluster test performance compared to other applicants.

Sotomayor benefited herself from preferential treatment & exploited her “latinism”
Although she was born in New York with Puerto Ricans parents (who are U.S. citizens by birth). So, she does not fit exactly the migrant profile, but that did not stop her from exploiting it:

As a student, she played a role in the hiring of a dean at Princeton & imposed her ANTI-WHITE views

  • Letter to the Editor: Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton, The Daily Princetonian, 5/10/1974
  • Letter to the Editor: Criticizing the process of selecting a ‘minority dean,’ The Daily Princetonian, 9/12/1974
    -A high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts.
    -Sotomayor’s record shows “she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court,” said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network
    She has been reversed/scolded in the majority of her cases before SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US):
    * Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) – SCOTUS reversed the ruling Sotomayor’s panel on a 5-4 vote.
    * Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) – SCOTUS reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision. * * Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) – reversed 8-0 (unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling)
    * Correctional Services Corp.v. Malesko, 299 F.3d 374 (2001) – reversed 5-4.
    * Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) – reversed 7-2.
    * Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) – upheld but unanimously rejected her reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
    * Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) affirmed on a 5-4 vote.
    Before the SCOTUS reversal in the Ricci v. DeStephano, Sotomayor had been reversed 60% by high court

    No Empathy for business
    Of the seven of the cases in which her decisions have been reversed or rejected by the Supreme Court (out of the eight total that the Supreme Court has reviewed), six concern business law…those cases suggests that Sotomayor harbors antipathy for businesses.

    She would not qualify as a Juror.
    The standard instruction to juror states:

    You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.

    8) She will be lying if she takes the oath:
    According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    9) More
    -Does she favor international law over U.S. law?
    -Her views on abortion
    -Her views on gun rights
  • Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789

  • Sotomayor’s documents submitted to the Senate

  • The Judicial Oath vs Sonia Sotomayor

  • Sotomayor’s Self-Contradictions
  • Sotomayor made disturbing statements about the role of judges as policymakers
  • Obama Picks Sonia Sotomayor for Court
  • Sotomayor Doesn’t Live Up to Obama’s Word, or here
  • NYT: Sonia Sotomayor Has a ‘Compelling Life Story’ — Clarence Thomas Didn’t?
  • Ed Meese on Sotomayor
  • Sotomayor’s and Obama’s Identity Politics Leave Blind Justice at Risk: Can Sotomayor keep her biases in check?
    For the Constitution’s sake, we’d better find out
  • Sotomayor: States Can Deny 2nd Amdmt
  • Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court senorita: A case of unapologetic racism
  • Senators must contest Sotomayer’s view that empathy, ethnicity can overrule law
  • Circumnavigating the Rule of Law
  • Don’t Forget Sotomayor’s “Inherent Physiological or Cultural Differences”
  • Would Sotomayor overturn Roe?
  • A Tale of Two Kids from the Projects
  • Cue the laugh track: Sotomayor ‘saved’ baseball
  • Would all parties receive fair treatment from Justice Sotomayor?
  • What If Sotomayor Were White?
  • Sonia Souter Left
  • Sonia Sotomayor Taney
  • MarkLevinShow.com
  • Flashback: Sotomayor Ruled Against Teen Blogger in ‘D-Bag Case’
  • Obama’s Ideas for a Radical Court
  • Sotomayor-matters

  • Posted in Law, Left, Puerto Rico | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »