>>8994671 (lb)

>https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/michael-flynn-jr-donald-trump/index.html  

just following up a bit on this theory anon posted lb:

Did Michael Flynn Jr. just reveal something very, very important about the Russia investigation?

April 23, 2018

(CNN)On Monday morning, Michael Flynn Jr., the son of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, tweeted something very, well … interesting.

"American Patriot @GenFlynn did not lie to Pence (or anyone else in the admin) about his perfectly legal and appropriate conversations w Russian AMB Kislyak in Dec 2016," Flynn Jr. tweeted. "Why would a highly decorated military intel officer lie about something legal? Been a MSM lie from day 1."

American Patriot @GenFlynn did not lie to Pence (or anyone else in the admin) about his perfectly legal and appropriate conversations w Russian AMB Kislyak in Dec 2016.

Why would a highly decorated military intel officer lie about something legal?

Been a MSM lie from day 1

— 🇺🇸MFLYNNJR🇺🇸 (@mflynnJR) April 23, 2018

So just to be clear, what Flynn Jr. is alleging is that his dad never lied to Vice President Mike Pence (or anyone else!) about his interactions with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

That runs directly counter to Pence's version of events. Pence said Flynn did not tell the truth when the two talked about interactions with Kisylak. "I was disappointed to learn that … the facts that had been conveyed to me by Gen. Flynn were inaccurate," Pence said a week after Flynn's firing.

That tweet also contradicts the explanation offered by Trump for firing Flynn in the first place.

"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI," Trump said via Twitter in December 2017. "He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" (It was later revealed that Trump attorney John Dowd wrote the actual tweet.)

And it complicates and seemingly contradicts the fact that Flynn himself pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about the nature and depth of his interactions with Kislyak during the presidential transition process.

"I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right," Flynn said in a statement after his December 2017 plea. "My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflects a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions."

So…

Flynn Jr. is now saying his father never lied to Pence about his interactions with Kisylak. Which, if he is telling the truth, would mean:

Pence, who has said he had no knowledge of the conversations Flynn was having with Kisylak and other Russian officials, actually did know.

Trump's reason for firing Flynn doesn't hold water since the former national security adviser didn't lie to Pence.

Flynn chose to lie to the FBI about his dealings with the Russians during the transition but told the truth to the incoming vice president about those same interactions.

It's that third point that makes Flynn Jr.'s tweet about his father's veracity questionable. Why would Flynn tell Pence the truth but then lie to the FBI? The former might be a fireable offense but the latter is a crime. What would make him purposely do that?

Then there is the fact that Flynn Jr. has a past history of just saying stuff. One example: He was removed from the Trump transition team after he sent a series of tweets fomenting the so-called "Pizzagate" conspiracy.

Add it all up and the most likely scenario here is that Flynn Jr. was just talking on Twitter without any real evidence to back up his claims about his dad.

But man oh man, if Flynn is willing to say under oath that he in fact never did lie to Pence, then the vice president would have some explaining to do.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/michael-flynn-jr-donald-trump/index.html

>>8995824

>www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11

My Body, My Choice

>>8995824

>>8995824

>www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11

197 U.S. 11 (25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643)

HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 70.

Argued: December 6, 1904.

Decided: February 20, 1905.

opinion, Harlan [HTML]

This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.

The Revised Laws of that commonwealth, chap. 75, § 137, provide that 'the board of health of a city or town, if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit $5.'

An exception is made in favor of 'children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician, that they are unfit subjects for vaccination.' § 139.

Proceeding under the above statutes, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 27th day of February, 1902, adopted the following regulation: 'Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and still continues to increase; and whereas, it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated; and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that all the inhabitants habitants of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1st, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.'

Subsequently, the board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician to enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the board at its special meeting of February 27th.

The above regulations being in force, the plaintiff in error, Jacobson, was proceeded against by a criminal complaint in one of the inferior courts of Massachusetts. The complaint charged that on the 17th day of July, 1902, the board of health of Cambridge, being of the opinion that it was necessary for the public health and safety, required the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof who had not been successfully vaccinated since the 1st day of March, 1897, and provided them with the means of free vaccination; and that the defendant, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refused and neglected to comply with such requirement.

The defendant, having been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The government put in evidence the above regulations adopted by the board of health, and made proof tending to show that its chairman informed the defendant that, by refusing to be vaccinated, he would incur the penalty provided by the statute, and would be prosecuted therefor; that he offered to vaccinate the defendant without expense to him; and that the offer was declined, and defendant refused to be vaccinated.

The prosecution having introduced no other evidence, the defendant made numerous offers of proof. But the trial court ruled that each and all of the facts offered to be proved by the defendant were immaterial, and excluded all proof of them.

The defendant, standing upon his offers of proof, and introducing no evidence, asked numerous instructions to the jury, among which were the following:

That § 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, and tended to subvert and defeat the purposes of the Constitution as declared in its preamble;

That the section referred to was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and especially of the clauses of that amendment providing that no state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; and

That said section was opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.