Last month, Judge Emmet Sullivan shocked me and many of my readers with a ruling that tore at the heart of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s defense. The ruling read, in part, “The court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea” because “the record proves otherwise.” This mystifying ruling also denied Flynn attorney Sidney Powell’s request for “Brady” (exculpatory) evidence that she says the prosecutors have long withheld from the defense.
Then, to make things worse, about a week ago the prosecution went back on its original plea agreement with Flynn, which had called for probation, and asked Judge Sullivan to sentence Flynn to up to six months in prison. I guess they thought they had a sympathetic judge, and after his last ruling, one can see why.
That was the final straw for the defense. In breaking news late Tuesday, Flynn’s legal team has finally made it official, filing a motion with the U.S. District Court in Washington DC to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea, citing “the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.” Powell argued that, in light of the prosecution’s reversal, “it would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to move to withdraw his plea now...” In other words, after what government prosecutors have done, she would be an incompetent attorney if she DIDN’T withdraw his plea.
It was back in 2017, during the Mueller special counsel investigation, that Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak concerning sanctions against Russia. As has been well established, Flynn did this not because he had actually tried to mislead investigators --- the investigators themselves reported that he had shown no signs of deception during the interrogation, and Flynn knew those conversations were recorded, anyway --- but because he was financially tapped out after selling his house to pay his lawyers, and also reportedly because FBI officials had threatened to investigate his son if he didn’t go along. It should also be noted that he entered into this agreement on the advice not of his current legal team but of his original attorneys, who were later fired. They probably thought that since prosecutors weren’t asking for a prison sentence at the time, it was the best their client could do.
"An act of terrorism"
By Mike Huckabee
In yet another sign that the Obama era is blessedly over, Attorney General Bill Barr announced that last month’s deadly shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station has been officially ruled “an act of terrorism” that was “motivated by jihadist ideology,” and not “workplace violence.”
Also, 21 members of the Saudi Royal Air Force and Royal Navy enrolled in flight training in Pensacola were found to have “derogatory information” in their possession, such as jihadist or anti-American content. Also, 15 of them had had some kind of contact with child pornography. All 21 have been removed from the school and were sent back to Saudi Arabia on Monday.
This marks a welcome return to the concepts of common sense, national security and self-preservation. Now, let’s complete that needed transformation by allowing trained military people to carry weapons on base, so our servicemen and women will no longer be “gun-free zone” sitting ducks.
Also worth noting in Barr’s statement: the FBI recovered two Apple iPhones from the shooter and obtained a warrant to access them, but hasn’t been able to without the passwords and “so far, Apple has not given us any substantive assistance.” I’m a pretty big hawk on personal privacy, but when the FBI has a warrant and is investigating a mass shooting and trying to prevent more, I have to question Apple’s priorities in protecting the “privacy rights” of a dead, mass-murdering jihadi terrorist.
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
In hopes of quelling the angry street protests following the “accidental” missile downing of a passenger airliner that was at first falsely blamed on mechanical failure, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani announced that those responsible have been arrested and that anyone involved in the “painful and unforgivable” mishap “should be punished.”
In a televised speech, Rouhani declared, "The judiciary should form a special court with a ranking judge and dozens of experts. This is not an ordinary case. The entire world will be watching this court.”
To translate that into English: Iranian leaders hope to distract from their failures and save their own necks by putting on a televised show trial, complete with bogus “expert” witnesses, to help railroad a scapegoat. So if House Democrats still want to show support for Iran, maybe they could give Rouhani some advice on how to conduct one of those.
(This might be a good place to insert this story, about Nancy Pelosi downplaying the pro-freedom protests in Iran, I assume because freeing all those Iranians from Islamist violence and oppression might be seen as a boost for Trump’s reelection. Isn’t it nice to have leaders with clear priorities?)
Incidentally, Iran also arrested about 30 of the anti-government protesters. Anyone willing to lay odds on their trials being televised in front of the entire world?
In 2018, San Diego federal Judge Dana Sabraw blocked the Trump Administration from separating children from parents who were caught crossing the border illegally. The ACLU sued, and we’ve all heard the overheated liberal claims about the monster Trump wanting to tear children from their mothers’ arms. In fact, the policy predates this Administration, and it’s done for the protection of the children, some of whom are known to be used as shields, rented out to help people they’re not related to sneak into the US. The government also has a responsibility to protect children from being housed with adults who might have criminal records.
Monday, in what may come as a crushing blow to the makers of ridiculous leftist memes, Judge Sabraw lifted his own stay on the separations, ruling that the Administration is operating within its authority, that he saw no evidence it was abusing that authority, and he’s uncomfortable second-guessing officials’ decisions and invading the executive branch’s power to secure the border. Let's hope that discomfort becomes contagious among federal judges.
The ACLU lost the case except for a ruling that the Administration has to administer 90-minute DNA tests to determine if the adults are related to the children they’re with. The ACLU is pondering whether to appeal, but the story of most of these decisions so far has been that liberal activist judges in places like California usurp the President’s Constitutional authority, then higher courts overrule them. If the ACLU can’t even convince the federal judge in San Diego, they might want to quit while they’re behind.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"Keep thy heart with all diligence;
for out of it are the issues of life."
- Proverbs 4:23
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.