2 August 2020 #PardonFlynnNow Analysis Mark Wauck Makes The Case Earlier today, a critically important analysis was released. You're going to want to read Mark's case in his own voice. My comments simply respond to some of his. meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/08/bill-b…
2) We've been hearing for a long time now that the reason the Obama Administration had to hunt Flynn down like prey, was because he knows where all the bodies are buried. I never gave that argument much credence, until Mark's analysis today. He terms it differently, though.
3) "Where the bodies are buried" sounds like salacious information, but not much more to me. Mark's term is far more potent. He flips it from what Flynn knows, to what the Obama people do NOT want Flynn to tell. And then, he gives it this name: Obstruction of Justice.
4) My own analysis has focused on the political reasons Flynn is so dangerous to them. I really never looked at it through a legal lenz. But of course, when you're a criminal, or more, the head of a criminal enterprise, the last guy you want free is the one who knows your crimes.
5) The subtext I read in Mark's analysis is the wink and nod culture where the Swamp always protects its own. This always emanates from the Oval Office down, and outward to all of the DC Swamp. But what if you have a POTUS dedicated to draining the Swamp?
6) And what if his National Security Adviser is the top information man in the world, and has the real dossiers on all the dirty players from the previous administration, all the way to include top dog? That combination is a nuclear threat to Swamp creature criminals.
7) No need to go over the same ground, covered by so many outstanding analysts. But, I say again, you really do want to read Mark's excellent layout of the basic case. The Obama team had to come down on Flynn by any and every means possible. He is an existential threat to them.
8) There is, however, a single key area where I have to differ with Mark, and greatly. He makes the same mistake everyone seems to make. He has bought, hook, line, and sinker, the bait that a pardon requires a confession of guilt, and takes the pardoned player off the field.
9) I'll go quick, but obviously, a review is required. First, the practice of a confession is STRICTLY required ONLY by the DOJ's Office of Pardons, and is ONLY a policy, NOT law. My own speculation is they get their guidelines from the Catholic Rite of Contrition.
10) Second, yes, the Constitution, in its tiny wording on the power of pardon, does indeed assume guilt. This, however, is merely an oversight and in NO WAY prohibits or excludes a pardon of innocence.
11) Third, we know that what the Constitution does NOT prohibit is reserved. Thus, that POTUS may perform a pardon of innocence is impossible to argue. He absolutely, 100% can.
12) Fourth, we're told it will look bad, as if Flynn really did do something wrong. This is completely salacious for two reasons. 1) The other side will say what they will, no matter what. 2) Those saying this are NOT considering the practical process, or its meaning.
13) The practical process is NOTHING OTHER than a standard Executive Order, signed in the Oval Office. In it, the President would state clearly and emphatically, his reason for pardon was the certain innocence of the victim, due to egregious government misconduct. That's it.
14) Fifth, and last, what all those who argue against this pardon completely miss is the reality of rank, raw, disgusting corruption of the courts. Mark's article does an excellent job explaining that, if at a fairly high level.
15) The as-yet NOT defrocked Sullivan's corruption is no longer in question. Nor can there be any doubt as to the corrupt leaning of the Appellate Court. It should NEVER have accepted the case, Sullivan has patently NO standing. Yet, here they are. This is corruption.
16) But, shouldn't this be taken all the way to SCOTUS? No, it shouldn't. It should be dismissed right now. Anything other is an ongoing travesty of injustice. Consider the following quote from the VIth Amendment...
17) "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." When the DOJ - the prosecutor - has already dropped your case, yet here we are these years later, who's arguing this is speedy? Let alone fair?
18) Okay, I guess there is a sixth. The pardon is, in fact, the optimum, best possible way to correct a corrupted court system. Establishing the principle of a pardon of innocence empowers the Executive to correct the corrupt Judiciary, where no other entity can possibly do so.
19) While Mark and I disagree over those aspects of a pardon, we 100% agree over the underlying basis of the case. I have, as I stated, typically looked through a political window where he looks as Obstruction of Justice, and the need to silence Flynn, legally.
20) I'm deeply grateful for his work, and again, cannot too strongly urge you to read his full case in his own words. We owe this to Flynn, and to America.
Thread ends at #20.
Comments