In an interview aired Jan. 17, 2017, President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sharply criticized the incoming president's expressed China policy, while being careful to avoid bringing up Communist human rights abuses or China's geopolitical strategic threat.
Rice lashes Trump on China
http://tiny.cc/7xuyoz
Rice told CBS newsman Charlie Rose that the Obama administration's "whole balance could be upset" if Trump pursued a non-globalist China policy. "We can't afford to play fast and loose" on China, she said, because China was an important trade partner that held a great deal of America's national debt. She made very clear that she favored a soft policy that turned a blind eye to the resurrection of the Chinese police state, while focusing much energy on Russia as an adversary.
Rice may have been unaware that in the world of international realpolitik it is sometimes necessary to choose one's struggles. A tilt toward Russia might in fact have strengthened the strategic position of the United States vis a vis Red China.
It was also evident that Obama administration officials were angry that Flynn, Rice's incoming replacement, had spoken prior to the completion of the presidential transition with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the 35 Russian diplomats expelled by Obama on ground that Russians "meddled" in the presidential election. Apparently Flynn had assured Kislyak that something might be done about that after Trump's inauguration. Some naive people might find such an assurance -- if that's what was meant -- appalling, but this is how diplomacy works. Flynn saw China as the real threat, not Russia, as Rice testified.
Obama officials thought about charging Flynn under the Logan Act, a relic law that has never been successfully used. They may have thought that the Washington Post's liberal columnist, David Ignatius, had generated enough support for such a peculiar move.
Rice testimony
http://tiny.cc/w3uyoz
A memo she wrote on Obama's last day that Obama wanted investigation of Trump done "by the book" contains a redacted paragraph, but she later offered government investigators no evidence of criminal or subversive activity by Trump or his team.
No one seems to wonder why an experienced Washington hand -- someone who had headed the Defense Intelligence Agency -- could have been so naive as to fail to realize that the Russian ambassador's phone calls would have been routinely intercepted by the FBI. But, it may also be asked, how could he fail to recall such conversations?
A possibility is that the general was moving up to a top position in the security area and regarded the FBI people who came to "chat" with him as subordinates, persons who had no need to know what the general was up to. And, if so, there he made an error, not realizing the Democrat-controlled security apparatus's need to remove him so it could continue what it knew was shaky grounds for an investigation of Donald Trump.
It has been reported that penny dreadful spy novelist David Ignatius published transcripts of Flynn's calls with Kislyak in the Washington Post. If so, I have been unable to find such a transcript.
Ignatius, when not cranking out spy thrillers, pens a column for the Washington Post.
In January 2017, Ignatius published a report saying that Flynn had been picked up on a wiretap talking to Kislyak shortly after Obama expelled the Russian diplomats.
Sullivan moved to keep the Flynn case alive by appointing a former federal judge to review friend-of-the-court filings Sullivan is seeking which would favor a Sullivan ruling of contempt of court for perjury.
But, without a live "case or controversy," federal judges cannot exercise jurisdiction, according to the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the Constitution. The provision prevents judges from issuing advisory opinions, or acting on a matter that is not the subject of an ongoing dispute.
Moreover, the new order directly conflicts with Sullivan’s Dec. 20, 2017 order, in which he said, “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.”
Sullivan's maneuver comes as leftists have begun pressuring him to find a way to punish Flynn.
For example, Sullivan has been in communication with a leftist group dubbing itself "Watergate Prosecutors" which is involving itself in the Flynn's criminal case.
Leftist group to work with judge
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6889388-Strike.html
Rice lashes Trump on China
http://tiny.cc/7xuyoz
Rice told CBS newsman Charlie Rose that the Obama administration's "whole balance could be upset" if Trump pursued a non-globalist China policy. "We can't afford to play fast and loose" on China, she said, because China was an important trade partner that held a great deal of America's national debt. She made very clear that she favored a soft policy that turned a blind eye to the resurrection of the Chinese police state, while focusing much energy on Russia as an adversary.
Rice may have been unaware that in the world of international realpolitik it is sometimes necessary to choose one's struggles. A tilt toward Russia might in fact have strengthened the strategic position of the United States vis a vis Red China.
It was also evident that Obama administration officials were angry that Flynn, Rice's incoming replacement, had spoken prior to the completion of the presidential transition with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the 35 Russian diplomats expelled by Obama on ground that Russians "meddled" in the presidential election. Apparently Flynn had assured Kislyak that something might be done about that after Trump's inauguration. Some naive people might find such an assurance -- if that's what was meant -- appalling, but this is how diplomacy works. Flynn saw China as the real threat, not Russia, as Rice testified.
Obama officials thought about charging Flynn under the Logan Act, a relic law that has never been successfully used. They may have thought that the Washington Post's liberal columnist, David Ignatius, had generated enough support for such a peculiar move.
Rice testimony
http://tiny.cc/w3uyoz
RICE: But, frankly, we spent a lot more time talking about China in part because General Flynn's focus was on China as our principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concems about China. And when I elicited - sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he was quite - I started to say dismissive, but that may be an overstatement. He downplayed his assessment of Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining power, they're demographically challenged, they're not really much of a threat, and then I reemphasized the importance of China. I had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians. And so, while I certainly gave him what he - what I thought any incoming National Security Advisor would need, in terms of broad strokes of Russia policy, Ukraine, Syria, all of those things, I didn't go into depth on particularly in the sort of hard national security realm. I figured that he could become briefed on that when he took office.In an interview with ABC News's George Stephanoupolos, Rice said that Trump's foreign policy decisions with regard to Russia were suspicious and that she hoped Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, would get to the bottom of it. But, she offered Stephanoupolis no evidence.
MR. SCHIFF: And during those discussions, did he ever bring up his meetings with or conversations with Ambassador Kislyak?
MS. RICE: He did not.
MR, SCHIFF: And you didn't raise the subject with him...
A memo she wrote on Obama's last day that Obama wanted investigation of Trump done "by the book" contains a redacted paragraph, but she later offered government investigators no evidence of criminal or subversive activity by Trump or his team.
No one seems to wonder why an experienced Washington hand -- someone who had headed the Defense Intelligence Agency -- could have been so naive as to fail to realize that the Russian ambassador's phone calls would have been routinely intercepted by the FBI. But, it may also be asked, how could he fail to recall such conversations?
A possibility is that the general was moving up to a top position in the security area and regarded the FBI people who came to "chat" with him as subordinates, persons who had no need to know what the general was up to. And, if so, there he made an error, not realizing the Democrat-controlled security apparatus's need to remove him so it could continue what it knew was shaky grounds for an investigation of Donald Trump.
It has been reported that penny dreadful spy novelist David Ignatius published transcripts of Flynn's calls with Kislyak in the Washington Post. If so, I have been unable to find such a transcript.
Ignatius, when not cranking out spy thrillers, pens a column for the Washington Post.
In January 2017, Ignatius published a report saying that Flynn had been picked up on a wiretap talking to Kislyak shortly after Obama expelled the Russian diplomats.
According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.Ignatius's mention of the Logan Act is a red herring because surely it was Flynn's job to prepare the Trump administration's policy with Russia. One may disagree with the policy, but "treason" is an inappropriate description.
Sullivan moved to keep the Flynn case alive by appointing a former federal judge to review friend-of-the-court filings Sullivan is seeking which would favor a Sullivan ruling of contempt of court for perjury.
But, without a live "case or controversy," federal judges cannot exercise jurisdiction, according to the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the Constitution. The provision prevents judges from issuing advisory opinions, or acting on a matter that is not the subject of an ongoing dispute.
Moreover, the new order directly conflicts with Sullivan’s Dec. 20, 2017 order, in which he said, “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.”
Sullivan's maneuver comes as leftists have begun pressuring him to find a way to punish Flynn.
For example, Sullivan has been in communication with a leftist group dubbing itself "Watergate Prosecutors" which is involving itself in the Flynn's criminal case.
Leftist group to work with judge
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6889388-Strike.html
No comments:
Post a Comment