Advertisement

Most of the media is focused on various aspects of the continuing saga of the Wuhan Coronavirus, but I think they intentionally tried to ignore the biggest political story of the year and in my lifetime. With the release of long-sought after federal documents related to the Russia collusion story, we now know with certainty what many of us suspected. At the highest levels of government-not only the FBI Director, the CIA Director, the Attorney General, the National Security Advisor, but the Vice President, the chief of staff of the President, and most likely President Obama himself, there was a concentrated, coordinated attempt to prevent the election of Donald Trump and after his election and even after his swearing in to stage what amounted to a coup d’etat against the elected President of the United States. It turns out, it wasn’t the Russians we needed to be worried about meddling in our elections—it was the highest-ranking law enforcement and intelligence officials in our land. Not foot soldiers carried away with sophomoric ambition, but those placed in leadership positions of authority to direct the full power of the United States against their President, and frankly, to strip you the voter of the integrity of your vote and destroy the entire electoral system.

I don’t say these things lightly. We now know that the decision to expose and to frame decorated Lt. General Michael Flynn, a 33 year veteran of combat was known by Vice President Biden, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, and numerous others who knew that the clandestine efforts to entrap Flynn and destroy Donald Trump were more than unethical, but flagrantly illegal.

It was current Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell who did what should have been done 3 years ago—he declassified the documents and made them public. On the very day they were released, Joe Biden denied knowing about them on Good Morning America, but when pressed, pretended he didn’t understand the question, and admitted that he did in fact know about the efforts to “unmask” General Flynn. Now granted, given Joe Biden’s penchant for speaking in a way that sounds like chopped word salad, maybe he didn’t understand the question, but he sure did as Vice President.

Here’s what we now can say with certainly. James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and others lied to Congress under oath. Congressman Adam Schiff of California, who said repeatedly that he had 100% solid evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia, was 100% lying about it. How do we know? Because not even during the $35 million Mueller witch hunt was a shred of such evidence found, and if Schiff had such, he would have produced it to the media he adores so much-or would have brought it up during the sham impeachment process. He never did, because he never HAD any evidence. Equally disgusting is that the media played right along and never demanded to see his evidence. They just repeated his outrageous lies, and ignored the truth when it slapped them in the face.

Your country has been turned upside down by being shut down over a deadly virus. But we can recover from a disease with discoveries of vaccines and cures. What we can’t recover from is having dirty rotten scoundrels elevated to the highest levels of our government, placed in positions of trust who then use your tax money to stage an attempted coup, and then to put forth a full-scale coverup by a calculated and cynical campaign of lies, misinformation, and destruction of the lives of patriots not to mention showing their contempt for the Constitution. I think the taxpayers ought to fund one more get together of those who did this. A reunion of sorts. Let’s gather them at Gitmo and give them years to reflect on their betrayal of trust and treason to their country. Yes, those are strong words. But I choose them deliberately. The damage to our great Republic is severe. And those who did it should be held accountable. And it needs to happen NOW!

Some hope for justice

May 16, 2020

Since I want you to take some time off from the news and enjoy your weekend (particularly if you’re in a state or city where you still have the Constitutional right to leave your house and/or enjoy your weekend), I’m not going to get into the ongoing Michael Flynn case or the media’s spinning like an out-of-control merry-go-round to try to convince us that illegal unmasking of incoming White House officials is no big deal, that the illegality we’ve actually seen evidence of is just a wacky conspiracy theory, and that there’s nothing to see here, so just go back to watching MSNBC.

However…if you’d like a little reassurance that justice will at long last be served, here’s some hope from Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker. He recounts and links to more in-depth analysis by retired Naval intelligence officer J.E. Dyer, who knows how the intelligence agencies operate from the inside. She believes that the recent Flynn developments, with the dropping of charges and the unmasking of the unmaskers, is just the “camel’s nose under the tent,” a small hint of a very large scandal/prosecution that’s coming, and that federal prosecutor John Durham is building a case that he’s keeping under tight security, involving massive, long-standing abuse of the national security apparatus by the Obama White House. She believes we will discover it stretches back well before the Flynn targeting and the Trump Russian Collusion scam.

For those frustrated that anyone will ever be held to account, Lifson urges patience. He calls Dyer’s analysis “the most heartening news of the day.” Let’s hope so. We’ll know the reckoning is getting close when the media’s whistling past the graveyard becomes louder than a Led Zeppelin concert.

On a related subject, here’s a sneak peek at “Above the Law,” an upcoming book by former Trump acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. He asserts that the growing abuse of power scandal that’s becoming known as “Obamagate” was orchestrated by his successor, Eric Holder.

Whitaker writes that Holder advocated for a “government full of Jim Comeys: government officials determining on their own what the Constitution demands, deciding which laws to prosecute and which to ignore, selectively releasing information to the media about Americans under investigation, and held accountable neither to the chief executive nor to voters.” He says that Holder built a team to stay on after he and Obama were gone, to shut down the Hillary Clinton email investigation and gin up the Trump “Russian collusion” witch hunt. Not a surprise, but it's interesting to hear it coming straight from Holder's successor.

From reader Lindsay K:

Following this case some, I kept feeling like Judge Sullivan was exercising some caution after Sidney Powell took over the case. He was a central figure in her book, LICENSE TO LIE, I believe. And so I felt he was exercising caution to not be accused of bias.

But after [he made] a poor judgment call in December regarding this case because he was misled by the prosecution, I can't begin to understand why he would open himself up to this same group of thugs and bullies. So now, my working theory is, since Obama is implicated, there is some awful pressure on him and he's caving. I can't see why else someone would dismiss sound reason for some unconstitutional, unprecedented ploy otherwise.

From the Gov:

Thanks for writing, Lindsay. You bring up a couple of very interesting points. First, it’s true that Sidney Powell made Judge Sullivan sort of the “judicial hero” (her words) in the book LICENSE TO LIE. (Bet she won't be doing that again!) So perhaps he overcompensated for the reason you state. WAY overcompensated.

Your second point, as to how baffling his behavior is now –- he seems to be acting not only as judge but as prosecuting attorney –- does, naturally, cause observers to develop “working theories” as you have. Why is he so desperate, increasingly so, to drag out the case that he ignores the law, precedent and exculpatory evidence and, incredibly, has to bring in "outside groups" and even another judge to help him justify the unjustifiable?

I think you’ve hit on something when you say the pressure on Judge Sullivan, especially now that Obama is implicated, must be awful. As Chuck Schumer has said, the intel community has “six ways from Sunday” to get back at you. That power, presumably, could just as easily be applied to a U.S. District Court judge as to anyone else, say, a former national security adviser being openly railroaded in federal court. That’s not to say that this is what happened, but it’s what COULD happen.

There are various crafty ways to apply pressure through direct or implied threats (or rewards) –-- I’m sure we can all think of some of them. The fact that we are even entertaining the possibility of this kind of intimidation shows how far the reputation of the FBI has fallen. Obama’s intel community seems capable of just about anything these days. What we know is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

As I’ve said many times, when something absolutely defies all logic and common sense, it means there’s something about it we don’t know. That seems to be the case here. It's the "x" in the equation. We may never know what it is, but something is likely going on behind the scenes that, if we knew it, would cause the puzzling Judge Sullivan scenario to make perfect sense.

Yesterday, I posted a letter from a reader theorizing that the judge in the Michael Flynn case, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, might be behaving so strangely in his courtroom because he’s under intense pressure from powerful people, especially now that Obama seems to be implicated. You can read his letter and my answer here.

Also yesterday, Margot Cleveland wrote about Judge Sullivan, in an outstanding piece called “Michael Flynn judge is destroying a man’s reputation: his own.” Cleveland has written some magnificent analyses of “Spygate” and the Flynn case, and this one is no exception.

She first briefly outlines what was done to Flynn to trap him and coerce his guilty plea, which all my readers surely know. Let’s cut to the chase: the point at which U.S. attorney Jeff Jensen has completed his independent examination of the case and the DOJ files a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the case against Flynn. (“With prejudice” means the case cannot be taken up again.) The motion highlights the various problems with the case, which we’ve also gone through. Indeed, there was no legitimate reason for the FBI even to interview Flynn in the first place, as they already knew what he and Kislyak had talked about and he had already been investigated and cleared.

"Surely Sullivan saw the truth now!” Cleveland writes of the motion to drop the case. “Powell had been right all along. The Flynn case was the Stevens case –- the public corruption case against then-Sen. Ted Stevens that Sullivan presided over in 2008.” And Cleveland is right; the two cases really are similar, in that after Sen. Stevens was convicted by a jury on charges of corruption, new prosecutors handling the appeal discovered the original prosecutors had withheld evidence supporting Stevens’ claim of innocence.

When federal prosecutors in the Stevens case informed the court of this, the attorney general moved to dismiss the charges against Stevens with prejudice, which Judge Sullivan –- in that case –- DID. I guess the one huge difference in these cases that immediately stands out to me is that the attorney general in the Stevens case was Obama appointee Eric Holder, and the one in the Flynn case is Trump appointee William Barr. It’s possible that Sullivan is not being pressured at all but simply has it in for President Trump and his attorney general. That would explain the inconsistency. The “x” in the equation may just be that Sullivan is a partisan hack; no intimidation necessary.

Incidentally, Judge Sullivan didn’t just dismiss the Stevens case when Eric Holder said to. He went on a 14-minute tirade, chastising the prosecution for their mishandling of the case. He scolded, he fumed, he ranted. “In nearly 25 years on the bench,” he raved, “I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.” For when you have time (it's quite long), here’s the dramatic and detailed contemporaneous account.

Judge Sullivan had for months warned prosecutors in the Stevens case about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. After the conviction and the revelation that “Brady” evidence had still been withheld, he executed Holder’s recommendation to dismiss charges and went even further, to order an inquiry into the prosecutors’ handling of the case, a rare move.

At the time, Jonathan Turley described Judge Sullivan as “smart and courteous and even-keeled. To get Judge Sullivan that irate, it takes monumental misconduct.” All right then, why did Judge Sullivan NOT treat prosecutors in the Flynn case the same way, when their misconduct has been egregious as well? And why DID he save his verbal abuse for Flynn himself, telling him he sold out his country, accusing him of things for which he hadn’t been charged and even suggesting that he was a traitor? That's not "even-keeled"; it's outrageously biased.

In the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan is not only siding with the prosecution but even, in effect, becoming a prosecutor all by himself. To that end, he has called for “outside groups” to submit “friend of the court” briefs to oppose the attorney general’s motion to drop the case. He has even enlisted retired Judge John Gleeson to write one himself, no doubt after he saw on Monday the WASHINGTON POST op-ed Gleeson had co-authored, “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.” At least it shouldn’t take Sullivan long to get it; Gleeson could just hand him a copy of the op-ed he’s already written and say, “Here, use this.”

"With this later order,” Cleveland writes, “Sullivan has destroyed any possible semblance of impartiality --- and his reputation.” Though Gleeson defended him by painting Barr’s decision to drop the case as politically motivated, Cleveland says that, given the misconduct in this case, it’s not the decision but Sullivan's response to it that obviously was.

"The Sullivan who presided over the Stevens case would care about that [the coercion of Flynn and the secret “side agreement” not to prosecute Flynn’s son],” Cleveland says. “But politics and pride have destroyed that man. The long-respected jurist is now a shriveled shadow of the defender of liberty and the rights of the accused. In trying to destroy Flynn, Sullivan has instead destroyed himself.”

Whew. Cleveland has another new piece at THE FEDERALIST on what the Justice Department’s response needs to be to Judge Sullivan’s actions. “To preserve the rule of law,” she writes, “and our constitutional separation of powers, the Department of Justice has no choice now but to seek a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court ordering the criminal charge against Flynn dismissed and reassigning the case to another judge.”

Cleveland describes a writ of mandamus as a procedural machination that allows a party to seek to force a lower court to act as required by law. It’s considered an extraordinary remedy, but she thinks it's appropriate, “as the Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled.” Cleveland believes that even though Judge Sullivan hasn’t yet ruled on Barr’s motion to dismiss, “his mere attempt to usurp the executive branch’s authority must be addressed.” The case must go to a different judge because Judge Sullivan, with his clear bias, “has crossed the threshold of fairness.”

(NOTE: According to Mark Levin, the legal remedy for this situation is called a "writ of prohibition," to be filed with the D.C. Circuit Court, prohibiting the lower court from acting "because it lacks jurisdiction." You lawyers can fight this one out; just use something.)

Here’s one more piece of spectacular reading to send you into the weekend. Flynn attorney Sidney Powell, who says she’s “disappointed and saddened” that the same rules don’t apply to Flynn as did to Ted Stevens, has written an open letter to President Obama in which she reacts to his (deliberately) leaked call in which he said “there is no precedent...for someone who is charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that...our basic understanding of the rule of law is at risk.”

Where to start, right? Powell's response is great. She shows Obama's observation to be “entirely false,” schools him in Law 101, shows the legal precedent for guilty pleas being vacated, and points him to further reading: WHY INNOCENT PEOPLE PLEAD GUILTY, by federal judge Jed Rakoff, a Clinton appointee. This is a magnificent smack-down.