The Hillary Gambit

Updated,

4.29.19:

11:30 am :

Sundance needs to explain a bit better than this.   If his conclusion is correct, then no doubt that a reasonable person would agree.  But you aren't dealing with reasonable people, and this is rather complex stuff.  You have to study this carefully to understand it.

Not saying that the doesn't proof doesn't exist.  But you would need a Bugliosi type prosecutor to make the case.  Even then, you might only get a hung jury in a place like DC.

For example, he is saying that the FBI altered the "302" so that they could trap Flynn.  He also said that they wiretapped Flynn, so that they knew what he said, and could match what he said in the meeting with the Russian and what they would ask him in the interview.  In other words, they were entrapping him.

If you could prove that, you have something.

Keep in mind that this post is about Sally Yates, who brought up the Flynn case.  Flynn was said to have not been lying by the FBI agents at the time of the interview.  They did something to make it look like he was lying, in other words.  This is so that they could pry a guilty plea out of him, and then they used his son as leverage.

8:00 am:

I wanted to mesh together the Last Refuge link below with what I wrote previously on the subject of the Hatch Act.

The abuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes could well be a violation of the Hatch Act.  However, if there is to be any accountability for this abuse, it would have to be provable.  Even if you did have a provable case, the criminal justice is set up to favor the defendant.   Consequently, it would be hard to prosecute a Democrat in a Democrat-dominated governmental jurisdiction, such as DC.  But the opposition, meaning the GOP, would be in a very biased and hostile environment in DC.  If a government controlled by the Democrats wanted to spy on the opposition party, the GOP Presidential candidate in 2016, how could they be held accountable in a hostile environment like DC?  The best chance would be the Hatch Act, but it won't be easy.  DC is very, very Democrat.

The link below is about Sally Yates, who could up to her eyeballs in the abuse of the criminal justice system for political goals of stopping the election of Trump, or destroying his Presidency if elected.   It is a very lengthy post, and I didn't follow all of it.  This re-post of the Hillary Gambit is going to be linked up with two prior posts about the Hatch Act, and how the two mesh together.  Having not read all of the linked post below, I don't know how it meshes, but it would have to mesh closely in order to have any chance of success in DC of a prosecution.  Under the Constitution, a defendant has a right to trial in the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have taken place, which would mean DC.

Sally Yates -vs- Michael Flynn... https://t.co/33tGuhNbaq via @thelastrefuge2

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 29, 2019

8.28.18:

Think of an ongoing struggle as a chess match.  Apply it to the current state of US politics, and what do you come up with?  In my opinion, a gambit has been played.  A gambit in chess sacrifices a valuable piece in exchange for positional advantage.  The position obtained needs to result in a quick win, or it could also result in a quick loss.  Such a situation faces the country in the current political situation.  The winner may win it all, or lose it all.

The Democrats seem to be "all in" on this impeachment gambit.  It was started by none other than Hillary herself when she commissioned the Steele dossier.  The dossier is, according to Mr. Integrity James Comey, "salacious and unverified".  But Mr. Integrity signed off on it, which resulted in the phonied up FISA surveillance warrant.  The warrant was then leveraged into Special Counsel when Comey was fired.  Comey illegally leaked his discussions with Trump, which he claims to have been pressured into going easy on Flynn.  As for Flynn, he was charged with making false statements even though not everyone thought he was lying.  In other words, a railroad job has been in the works.  A frame up from the get go.

As for Felonia von Pantsuit, she was a student of Alinsky.  These tactics being employed against the POTUS are pure Alinsky.  One of Alinsky's tactics is to make you live up to your own standards.  Thus, by donning the "rule of law" mantle, the Alinsky- guided prosecution is making the so-called conservatives live up to their law and order pretensions.  This freezes them.  They cannot fight back.  This is a pure Alinsky - like tactic to freeze your opponent, and then isolate him.  Make them the bad guys.  Criminalize them for no other reason than opposing them.  The so-called conservatives will play their part in this kabuki theater of failure.  They won't defend themselves.  But they could.

As for the prosecution, it is a violation of the Hatch Act.   The Hatch Act prohibits using the color of the law for political purposes.  The record is well established now that there is a conspiracy within the previous administration to cause Trump to lose the election of 2016, or to have an "insurance policy" in case he won.  This insurance policy is a violation of the Hatch Act.  It continues to this day in anticipation of the results of the Mueller investigation, which will result in impeachment.  There are Democrats on the record who say that Trump does not have to violate the law in order to impeach.  Mueller's investigation will give the fig leaf that would allow them to pretend that Trump is guilty of something, so he could be removed and replaced legally.  The so-called conservatives are playing along with this theater of the absurd.

But it isn't legal.  That is what makes it a gambit.  A gambit can backfire if it is not successful in gaining the advantage sought.  In order for it to backfire, there would have to be failures on the road to impeachment.  The "jury is out" on that one.  The closing arguments may be made in court and out on the campaign trail.

Therefore, it is not "rule of law", but politics.  That is the bottom line.  In order to win, the argument must be made, and it must persuade the audience.  The audience for this political theater is the public.  Who wins?  You decide.  If that isn't political, nothing is.