When a story doesn’t make sense, it typically means there’s something we don’t know. In the seemingly never-ending case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security advisor who was ambushed by James Comey (who as much as admitted it) into an interrogation without a lawyer, Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled so weirdly that it can only mean one thing: THERE’S SOMETHING WE DON’T KNOW.
A key piece is missing.
In breaking news Monday, Judge Sullivan denied Flynn’s motions to compel the production of Brady (exculpatory) evidence from the prosecution. His lawyer, Sidney Powell, had argued that prosecutors and the FBI withheld such evidence. In a 92-page ruling, Judge Sullivan said she’d failed to prove that the FBI withheld a single piece of exculpatory evidence that could exonerate him. Well, how can she until she sees what it is?
Sullivan has scheduled Flynn to appear for sentencing on January 28.
Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017, in a plea agreement negotiated by his previous legal counsel, to lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It was in a meeting set up casually –- at least it was made to appear casual –- over the phone by then-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe at the direction of Jim Comey, who later bragged about it on video before a live audience that laughed and clapped its approval. Flynn was told that the FBI just needed to resolve a few questions about some of his foreign contacts. When Flynn asked if he should have a lawyer there, he was told, essentially, “Nah.” He said to come on by.
This happened in the White House; I imagine an unsuspecting Flynn unpacking boxes in his brand new office. For all the details of what happened to Flynn, I highly recommend Lee Smith’s book THE PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. I wonder if Judge Sullivan has read this book; at the moment, it seems not.
Senator Schumer is mad
Ooh, we’re in trouble now! Sen. Chuck Schumer has once again lowered his glasses all the way to the end of his nose, all the better to look down it at us and lecture us from his moral high ground. This time, not surprisingly, it’s about impeachment.
He’s demanding that Senate Democrats be allowed to subpoena witnesses and introduce new evidence in the inevitable Senate impeachment trial of President Trump (and please disregard the fact that he argued for the exact opposite during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.)
(On a side note, Schumer tried to defuse that by saying, “The facts are much different here. That was about something that President Clinton did not as President, but as a human being, and a failing as a human being. This is about the President’s overreach of power.” This is the usual false spin of Clinton as having been impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for committing perjury in a lawsuit brought by a former state employee who claimed he abused his power over her to sexually harass her. It was an attempt to deny her her rights for which he later lost his law license and had to pay a hefty settlement.)
Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote a chain of tweets untangling the tortured arguments for why the Senate Democrats should be allowed to try to build a new case against Trump after the House Democrats spent weeks under their own kangaroo court rules compiling a 600+ page “case” against him. One of his most salient observations is the contradiction between House Democrats claiming their evidence against Trump is so abundant and overwhelming that nobody could possibly refute it, and Senate Democrats demanding to call in new witnesses and go hunting for new documents to make their case. I suspect they know the House “evidence” is nothing but a pile of third-hand hearsay and biased opinions.
Schmer’s self-serving demands are hardly unexpected, but they are very telling. We now know that, to the Democrats’ way of thinking, in the House, Democrats have the majority, which means they get to make up the rules and do anything they want and the minority Republicans just have to take it. But in the Senate, it’s different: the minority Democrats get to make up the rules and do anything they want, and the majority Republicans just have to take it.
I now understand why Democratic politicians love entitlement programs so much. They’re the most entitled class of people I’ve ever seen.
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
Rudy Giuliani has been taking a drubbing from the media for his dogged pursuit of corruption in Ukraine, which the mainstream media dismiss as “debunked conspiracy theories,” but he is not going away quietly. Quite the reverse. Last night, he gave an interview to Fox News’ Laura Ingraham about what he’s been digging up and it’s being called “explosive.”
I won’t even try to summarize it here, and I can’t vouch for the veracity of what he’s saying. But I know Rudy well enough to know that he’s no Adam Schiff: he doesn’t go on national TV and make accusations about people with nothing to back it up. Just note that he uses the phrases “obstruction of justice” and “enabled Ukrainian collusion,” and he was not talking about President Trump.
Watch the interview at the link and stay tuned because Giuliani claims there’s a lot more coming.
Happy Holiday News: All three stock markets set new records Monday on news of breakthroughs on the North American and China trade deals, with the Dow gaining its 10,000th point since Trump took office. The economy is so hot, even the Washington Post had to admit defeat and officially retract its predictions of a recession. If it’s any consolation to them, I’m sure a severe depression is already hitting the Washington Post editorial room.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you."
- Jeremiah 29:12
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.