Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Justice for General Flynn: A Seminal Moment in the War Against the Deep State

AP featured image
Article written by Elizabeth Vaughn in "RedState":

Note: Four documents were unsealed tonight. The newly released documents can be viewed here

 https://www.scribd.com/document/459057200/doc-188

(DD is a reference to then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.) Fox News is reporting that there are eleven more documents expected to be unsealed in the next 24-48 hours. It should be noted that Attorney General William Barr compelled their release.

It would not be an exaggeration to call this story a bombshell. This is truly a seminal moment in the war against the deep state. Newly unsealed internal FBI notes taken by the agency’s former assistant director of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, show top bureau officials discussing strategy ahead of their January 24, 2017 interview of General Michael Flynn, the Trump administration’s newly minted National Security Advisor. There was no reason to interview him. He hadn’t committed a crime.

Priestap’s notes say, “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute [Flynn] or get him fired?” Top FBI officials were devising a plan to force him into making a false statement. They intended to catch him in a perjury trap. They hoped to get him to admit he violated the Logan Act.

In order to understand Flynn’s long legal journey over the last three years, one must be aware of the animosity President Obama and his top intelligence officials felt toward him.

Flynn had served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the Obama Administration from July 2012 to August 2014. Throughout his tenure, Flynn found himself strongly and frequently “at odds with the administration’s policies on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, among other things, which put him at odds with the Obama-friendly deep state.” Following his ouster, Flynn’s public remarks deepened the rift. For instance, in November 2015 during an appearance on Fox News, ” Flynn called for an investigation into the ISIS intel-skewing scandal, recommending that it “start right at the top.”

Over the transition period, Flynn, who had already been tapped as Trump’s NSA, held several conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. During one of the calls, Kislyak brought up Obama’s just-announced sanctions. (Although it was perfectly legal for Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, for whatever reason, he chose to lie to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls and President Trump quickly fired him.)
Kislyak had been under US surveillance and Obama intelligence officials had access to recordings and transcriptions of his calls. After listening to the calls, several of Obama’s DOJ officials decided Flynn was in violation of the Logan Act, a law enacted in 1799, which “prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the U.S. in disputes with foreign governments.” (No one has ever been prosecuted under this law.)

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York explains:

The Obama officials also said they were concerned by reports that Flynn, in a conversation with Vice President Mike Pence, had denied discussing sanctions. This, the officials felt, might somehow expose Flynn to Russian blackmail.
So Obama appointees atop the Justice Department sent FBI agents to the White House to interview Flynn, who was ultimately charged with lying in that interview.

Their expressed concern that Flynn might become the target of a Russian blackmail scheme was a lie. This was a set-up.
PJ Media’s Debra Heine explains:

Obama already despised Flynn. But his hate likely turned to fear when his former DIA decided to throw his support behind Donald J. Trump, another boat-rocker who had a real chance of winning. Obama made a point after the 2016 election of advising Trump not to hire Flynn. But Trump didn’t listen.
Next thing Flynn knew, government spies were listening in on his innocuous phone conversations with Kislyak, his name was unmasked by someone in the Obama administration, and the contents of the calls were leaked to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, (which remains the only serious crime to have emerged in the Russia investigation).

This was an ambush of an innocent man, an American citizen, a General who served in the U.S. military for 33 years and the premier law enforcement agency in the United States tried to frame him.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace interviewed James Comey in December 2018. Wallace said, “You look at this White House now and it’s hard to believe two FBI agents wound up in the sit. room. How did that happen?”

Comey replied, “I sent them.” This remark was followed by laughter from the audience.

He told Wallace the FBI had not followed protocol with this interview and said it was not “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

Funny, huh?

This is a moment many of us had almost given up on. The deep state has covered their tracks very well, but they just didn’t count on an attorney general like William Barr who would actually seek justice. He turned the case over to an outside prosecutor for independent review in February. Nor did they count on a strong, determined lawyer like Sidney Powell.

This is the day that the dam burst open and the deep state got swept away.

Here’s to you, General Flynn

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/29/ahead-of-flynn-interview-top-fbi-officials-discussed-how-to-get-him-to-lie-so-we-can-prosecute-him-or-get-him-fired/

Politicians Are Locking Us Down Because Overdoing It Doesn’t Cost Them Anything


Draconian and unsupported restrictions on Americans are not necessarily an exercise in ambition, but vanity: politicians absolutely must look like a leader at all costs.


To limit the spread of the Wuhan virus, many governors and mayors have taken extraordinary action to enforce social distancing and cover people’s mouths everywhere.

Americans are facing heavy fines or even jail time for attending church, taking leisurely drives, visiting their friends, playing at the park, or simply leaving their houses without a mask. In many places, police have been relieved from punishing actual crimes (like theft, selling narcotics, and vandalism) so they can accost and investigate otherwise innocent people driving their cars, riding the bus, or taking a walk.

This is an obvious abuse of power that only reinforces the need to abide by constitutional limits. These political leaders are violating people’s rights, often arbitrarily and on flimsy pretexts, and setting a terrible precedent for future leaders to do the same or worse. If a mayor or governor can unilaterally suspend certain laws and create others for the sake of a cataclysmic health crisis that has yet to materialize, what would stop them from doing the same with any other claimed environmental, economic, or political crisis?

Many misunderstand what motivates people to turn into “little tyrants” like Michigan Gov. Whitmer or Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer. They will assume that such people succumbed to the temptation of power and, like the possessor of the One Ring, became helplessly corrupted by this power.

Feeling the thrill of banning the sale of vegetable seeds and drive-in church services, they cannot help but bully and harass their citizens. After all, the only people who will call them out are Constitution-thumping conservatives who lack credibility, not anyone in the leftist corporate press.

While this power-tripping without accountability certainly plays a role in local and state politicians upending people’s freedoms, it is more likely that they are doing as they think good leaders do. Even if the Constitution explicitly condemns their actions, the culture idolizes the politician who flouts old laws. In their minds, they aren’t dictators taking advantage of collective panic; they are visionaries who understand what is necessary to save lives.

They have good reason to think this way. Historians and Hollywood producers tend to evaluate leaders more on their image than their legacy. David Harsanyi notes that when ranking American presidents, too many historians “offer hagiographic treatments of the near-autocrats and busybodies” and write off those presidents who make the tough decision “not to use their power.”

Because of the restraint of presidents like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, historians often rank both among the most mediocre. By contrast, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, men who, among other things, restricted rights, bungled foreign relations, and enacted terrible economic policies, enjoy high rankings, all because of their activeness and perceived cleverness.

In light of this prevailing attitude, it makes sense that political leaders around the country want to do everything possible and impossible to fight the Wuhan virus. It is not necessarily an exercise in ambition, but vanity: they absolutely must look like a leader at all costs. And those costs are already amounting to thousands of lives, millions of jobs, and trillions of dollars. Added to this is the ongoing trampling of Americans’ rights.

Although he lived more than two millennia ago, Aesop tells a fable that illustrates our situation and offers a possible solution. In the fable, a group of frogs are ruled by King Log, a wooden log sitting in the middle of their pond. Frustrated with King Log’s inaction and lack of eloquence, the frogs pray to Zeus for another king who will do more.

Zeus answers their prayers by sending a crane to the pond. The frogs rejoice at the sight of the crane swooping down upon their pond, but immediately jump away in terror when the crane begins to eat them.

Americans should resist the fate of the frogs and reverse their preference of the despot over the do-nothing. Whether or not the virus proves as destructive as the doomsday models predict, it ultimately depends on individual citizens and private organizations to act responsibly. Great leaders understand this, and do all they can to leave their citizens free to make their own decisions and place as few restrictions as possible.

Great citizens embrace this freedom and act for the greater good of society and themselves. More than any shutdown or new stimulus bill, this will be the only real way to defeat the Wuhan virus and preserve Americans from the even greater scourge of tyranny.

Satellite images of luxury boats further suggest North Korea’s Kim at favoured villa: experts

April 29, 2020
By Josh Smith
SEOUL (Reuters) – Satellite imagery showing recent movements of luxury boats often used by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his entourage near Wonsan provide further indications he has been at the coastal resort, according to experts who monitor the reclusive regime.
Speculation about Kim’s health and location erupted after his unprecedented absence from April 15 celebrations to mark the birthday of his late grandfather and North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung.
On Tuesday, North Korea-monitoring website NK PRO reported commercial satellite imagery showed boats often used by Kim had made movements in patterns that suggested he or his entourage may be in the Wonsan area.
That followed a report last week by a U.S.-based North Korea monitoring project, 38 North, which reported satellite images showed what was believed to be Kim’s personal train was parked at a station reserved for his use at the villa in Wonsan.
Officials in South Korea and the United States say it is plausible Kim may be staying there, possibly to avoid exposure to the new coronavirus, and have expressed scepticism of media reports he had some kind of serious illness.
They caution, however, that Kim’s health and location are closely guarded secrets and reliable information is difficult to obtain in North Korea.

The last time official media in North Korea reported on Kim’s whereabouts was when he presided over a meeting on April 11, but there have been near-daily reports of him sending letters and diplomatic messages.
Kim’s seaside compound in Wonsan, on the country’s east coast, is dotted with guest villas and serviced by a private beach, basketball court, and private train station, according to experts and satellite imagery. An airstrip was bulldozed last year to build a horse riding track, while a boathouse nearby shelters Kim’s Princess 95 luxury yacht, valued at around $7 million in 2013.
“It’s one of his favourite houses,” said Michael Madden, a North Korea leadership expert at the U.S.-based Stimson Center, who has compared Kim’s affinity for Wonsan to U.S. President Donald Trump’s favoured resort, Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Madden said Kim is believed to have about 13 significant compounds around the country, though he appears to only regularly use about half of them.
“All of them are set up to serve as the leader’s headquarters, so they are all equipped for him to run the country,” he said.
Wonsan is one of the larger and better appointed compounds, but it also has a useful location that allows Kim to easily travel to other areas along the coast, or return quickly to Pyongyang in his private train or along a special highway designated for use only by the Kim family or top officials, Madden said.

FAVOURED SPOT
Wonsan also holds symbolic power for the Kim dynasty: It was there Kim Il Sung, who helped found North Korea at the end of Japanese colonial rule in 1945, first landed with Soviet troops to take over the country.
Wonsan is believed by some experts to be Kim Jong Un’s birthplace, partly because he spent his early years at the family’s palace there, although official history has never confirmed where he was born.
The Japanese chef Kenji Fujimoto, who worked for the Kims and visited Wonsan, recounted in his memoirs how a young Kim Jong Un described rollerblading, playing basketball, riding jet skis and playing in the pool at the compound.
Later, photos showed Kim sipping drinks there with American basketball player Dennis Rodman when the star visited North Korea in 2013.
The Wonsan area has also become emblematic of Kim’s strategy for survival based on a combination of economic development, tourism, and nuclear weapons. He is rebuilding the city of 360,000 people and wants to turn it into a billion-dollar tourist hotspot.
In recent months, the project has been repeatedly delayed, undermined in part by international sanctions imposed over the North’s nuclear and missile programmes, which have restricted its ability to seek foreign investment.
Wonsan has also been the scene of some of Kim’s renewed military drills and missile tests, which he resumed amid increasing frustration with a lack of progress in denuclearisation talks with the United States and South Korea.
https://www.oann.com/satellite-images-of-luxury-boats-further-suggest-north-koreas-kim-at-favoured-villa-experts/

Shedding Light on Trump’s ‘Disinfectant’ Comments


Our media was too consumed with discrediting the president to investigate what he was talking about. Here’s the real story.


As a long-time writer and editor covering scientific and medical topics, I look forward to the high-level discussions of epidemiology, serology, therapeutics and virology by top-flight experts during the daily White House coronavirus task force briefings. As I’ve noted previously, it’s unfortunate there are no medical journalists in the White House Briefing Room. Political journalists are ill-equipped to translate concepts like R0 into lay language for their readers and listeners.

No matter, because many of the questions—particularly during the briefing on April 23—leave no doubt of their lack of desire or intention to shed light on the science. They are there to nit-pick and parse each of President Trump’s utterances and to gin up a clickbait controversy.

At this particular task force briefing, Bill Bryan, undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, discussed research on the sensitivity of coronavirus to ultraviolet (UV) light, temperature and humidity [emphasis mine, throughout]:

[On] nonporous surfaces: door handles, stainless steel. … the virus is dying at a much more rapid pace, just from exposure to higher temperatures and just from exposure to humidity.
If you … inject summer—the sunlight into that. You inject UV rays … you inject the sun. The half-life goes from six hours to two minutes. That’s how much of an impact UV rays has [sic] on the virus. …
[I]ncreasing the temperature and humidity of potentially contaminated indoor spaces appears to reduce the stability of the virus. …
We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids, and I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes.

The president and Bryan then discussed potential research based on these findings:

President Trump: So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous—whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light … supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
Bryan: We’ll get to the right folks who could.
President Trump: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, here it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. … But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s—that’s pretty powerful.

Though the wording of this obviously unscripted comment is admittedly tortured, it should be clear to any fair-minded person that what President Trump is getting at is whether the disinfectant properties of UV light could be used inside the body as effectively as sunlight and disinfectants work on surfaces.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl, always on high alert to find a way to twist the meaning of the president’s comments, asked Bryan this question: “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach, and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

You’ll notice Karl disingenuously conflated the disinfectant effect of UV light with surface disinfectants, then made the leap to injecting bleach and other disinfectants into the body, and attributed that dog’s breakfast of a proposition to President Trump.

But the first person to use the word “inject” was Bryan, and he used it three times in the context of adding UV light to synergize the virus-killing properties of heat and humidity. In his question, Karl used the word “inject” to mean a substance administered by needle, but Bryan had used the word to mean “introduce”—as in, “You introduce UV rays and the half-life goes from six hours to two minutes.”

Mirroring Bryan’s terminology, when President Trump used the word “injection,” he was thinking aloud about UV light being introduced internally as a disinfectant to kill coronavirus.

Trump attempted to clarify the deliberately misleading premise of Karl’s question: “It wouldn’t be through injectionWe’re talking about . . . a cleaning, sterilization of an area.” In other words, two different methods of sterilization—one involving light, that could possibly work within the body—and hard surface disinfectants, like bleach.

It didn’t matter. The media ran with the false narrative that President Trump suggested people inject themselves with household disinfectants like bleach—and he never once said the word “bleach,” by the way. The manufacturer of Lysol used the fake news as an opportunity to grab the spotlight by putting out a gratuitous statement urging people not to ingest its products, which prolonged the shelf life of la polémique du jour through the weekend.

But guess what? President Trump’s discussion of medical applications of sunlight or “very powerful light” to kill viruses and other microbes shows he understood the research and its implications far better than the snarky, smarty-pants White House Press Corps.

Is it asking too much for scientifically illiterate political journalists to do a little research before launching an attack? Just a bit of Googling shows that there are various methods to bring light “inside the body,” as President Trump put it:
  • Decades of research suggests that intravenous laser blood irradiation(ILBI) with visible red light at a wavelength of 630–640 nanometers can improve blood flow to the lower extremities, and boost oxygenation of the blood to treat tissue hypoxia. These findings are particularly relevant in coronavirus treatment.
  • Doctors have reported sudden strokes and purplish discolorations on the feet and toes of young adults (“COVID toes”), both of which could be a result of blood clots caused by inflammation triggered by an overreaction of the immune system. New Yorkers, in particular, were shocked to learn that Broadway actor Nick Cordero’s right leg was amputated after coronavirus-related hypercoagulation.
  • Silent hypoxia”—low levels of oxygen in the blood—has also been reported in COVID patients, and can lead to heart and kidney damage, as well as to sepsis-induced multiple organ failure.
  • Transcutaneous laser blood irradiation (irradiation of blood circulating in the superficial capillaries of the skin by exposure to UV light) is a time-tested treatment for sepsis and pneumonia, which are among the complications of COVID.
  • There is also evidence suggesting that transcutaneous laser blood irradiation with visible and infrared (IR) light at a wavelength of 480-3,400 nanometers can suppress production of cytokines that cause inflammation and promote the production of cytokines that have an anti-inflammatory effect. The most serious coronavirus symptoms result from inflammation unleashed by an overreaction of the immune system known as a “cytokine storm.”
  • Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles are partnering with pharmaceutical firm Aytu BioScience to develop and commercialize Healight, an antiviral and antibacterial treatment that administers UVA light at wavelengths from 10-400 nanometers into the upper respiratory tract of an intubated ICU patient via a patent-pending catheter embedded with small LED lights. And Cedars-Sinai and Aytu are in discussions with the FDA to get “Breakthrough Device” designation to treat COVID patients with Healite. A promotional video that shows how Healight works has been “mysteriously” removed from a variety of social media platforms after the coronavirus task force briefing, but you can watch it here.
As for the disinfectant properties of UV light outside the body, Columbia University is researching the effects of lamps that emit low doses of a wavelength of UV light known as “far-UVC” to eradicate airborne pathogens from enclosed spaces without damaging the skin or eyes. Such lamps could reduce the person-to-person spread of coronavirus in an ICU full of COVID patients, an arena packed with sports fans, bars and restaurants, and retail establishments. If this safe, low-cost technology pans out, our post-pandemic “new normal” may not be much different than our “old normal” of going where we want, when we want, and without wearing a mask.

Because of this latest manufactured controversy—repeated as often on Fox News as on CNN—President Trump weighed the possibility of ending or curtailing the coronavirus task force briefings. Thankfully, he appears to have thought the better of it. In the midst of an unprecedented public health and economic crisis, we are fortunate enough to have a president who makes himself available to the media to an unusual degree—for instance, taking questions for up to an hour at each coronavirus task force briefing.

President Trump is also uniquely transparent and allows the public to see him think through issues and challenges on Twitter and in the questions he asks public health experts, scientists, business leaders, and others who join him in roundtable discussions at the White House and at the coronavirus task force briefings.

We all get to become the proverbial “fly on the wall,” privy to at least some of what goes on behind closed doors, and what the president thinks of what goes on behind closed doors.

Journalism is supposed to be the first rough draft of history. Had Jonathan Karl, Jim Acosta, and the rest of the cabal of “gotcha” members of the White House Press Corps brought an end to this administration’s unparalleled degree of access and openness, historians decades hence would have cursed their names.

Politico Effectively Retracts Entire Trump China Article



Politico essentially retracted the entirety of an article published last week reporting that President Donald Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China from a real estate deal brokered with the Trump Organization in 2012.

Politico reported the borrowed funds were scheduled to be paid back by 2022 in the piece headlined, “Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China – and the loan is due soon.”
Trump’s “tens of millons” in debt held by the bank however, is non-existent, and was sold off by the China-owned financial institution shortly after the deal. Even worse, Politico admitted their reporters never reached out to the bank to inquire about the loans.

“Politico received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand, that the bank had sold off, or securitized, its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.” Politico wrote in an editor’s note. “A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization properties.”

Politico had first changed the article headline to “Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China,” before acknowledging that an unresolved discrepancy remained in records with Wells Fargo and the New York Department of Finance identifying the Bank of China as holding interest in the Manhattan building.

“Politico attempted to reach other parties to the refinancing throughout the weekend and Monday,” the editors wrote. “Consequently, the story was updated a second time on Monday evening to take account of the apparent mistake in the public record.”

MSNBC Lies About Trump’s Coronavirus Response



In a blistering attack on President Donald Trump, MSNBC’s Steve Benen accused the White House of ignoring the threat of coronavirus throughout January even though intelligence officials were warning about it. There’s just one problem; it is an absolute lie. Well, there’s another problem actually, it’s a lie that progressive propagandists have convinced millions of Americans is true.

One tell that gives away the false nature of the story is how little of it is actually about the coronavirus response. In fact, most of Benen’s ink is spilled rehashing old complaints about Trump’s reading habits. Only one paragraph addresses the president’s actions in January as the intelligence briefings were pointing to a potential emerging crisis, and that paragraph is nonsense.

“Common sense suggests a president would receive see intelligence briefings like this one and take swift action to prevent a disaster from unfolding in his own country. And yet, the more intelligence officials issued warnings, the more Donald Trump publicly downplayed the threat and took few steps to address the looming crisis,” writes Benen. 

Is it true the president took an optimistic tone during this time? Sure, he has said as much. So did Dr. Anthony Fauci. In January Fauci was asked if the United States might have citywide shutdowns like we were seeing in Wuhan, China. He replied, “There’s no chance in the world that we could do that to Chicago or to New York or to San Francisco, but they’re doing it. So, let’s see what happens.”

We also have a laundry list of Democrats who, throughout January and up to late February, downplayed the threat. In an astounding bit of revisionist history, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now claims that Trump’s January shutdown of travel from China, which Benen does not even mention, didn’t go far enough. What actually happened was that Democrats greeted the move with cries of xenophobia. None of them were saying, “Don’t let American citizens in China back in the country.”

But let’s set aside the whataboutism, after all Pelosi is not the president, even if she also downplayed the virus, ultimately it is the president who needed to act. So lets see what steps the White House, specifically the office of Health and Human Services was taking in January. If Benen is right, we won’t find much.

Last week, The Federalist obtained an HHS timeline that fleshes out all of the events around the coronavirus outbreak: 
January 6: At the request of Secretary Azar, [CDC]Director Redfield sends formal letter to China CDC offering full CDC assistance.

January 6: CDC issues a Level 1 Travel Watch for China.

January 8: CDC distributes an advisory via the Health Alert Network, which communicates to state and local public health partners, alerting healthcare workers and public health partners of the outbreak.

January 9: CDC and FDA begin collaborating on a diagnostic test for the novel coronavirus.

January 10: China shares viral sequence, allowing NIH scientists to begin work on a vaccine that evening.

JANUARY 11: FIRST DEATH REPORTED IN CHINA

JANUARY 13: 41 CASES IN CHINA, FIRST CASE REPORTED OUTSIDE CHINA

January 17: CDC and Customs and Border Protection began enhanced screening of travelers from Wuhan at three airports that receive significant numbers of travelers from that city, expanded in the following week to five airports, covering 75–80 percent of Wuhan travel.

January 21: CDC activates its Emergency Operations Center.

January 21: The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR) begins holding market research calls with industry leading diagnostics companies to gauge their interest in developing diagnostics for the novel coronavirus and to encourage initiating development activities.

January 22:  Secretary Azar signs a memorandum from CDC Director Redfield determining that the novel coronavirus could imminently become an infectious disease emergency, which allows HHS to send a request to the Office of Management and Budget to access $105 million from the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund.    

January 27: CDC and State Department issue Level 3 “postpone or reconsider travel” warnings for all of China.

January 27: FDA begins providing updates about processes for approval and authorization to developers of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other countermeasures for the novel coronavirus.

January 29: The White House announces the establishment of the Coronavirus Task Force, which begins daily meetings.

January 31: At the recommendation of his public health officials, President Trump issues historic restrictions on travel from Hubei and mainland China, effective February 2.

None of this, not one single action or step taken is mentioned in Benen’s ludicrous story. It’s frankly amazing, in an article that is about the White House response to the virus he simply ignores the various major steps taken by the White House in the month of January. This isn’t an oversight, it’s gaslighting. MSNBC knows perfectly well that these actions were taken. They are intentionally lying to their readers.

Was Trump’s tone in January optimistic? Yes. Too optimistic? Maybe. But for most of January the media was ignoring the virus, and congressional Democrats were playing dress up in a pointless impeachment. Who was actually working on the virus? Who was actually getting things done? The Trump administration and they have the receipts. But as is so often the case, the truth is an annoyance to MSNBC, something to be waived away. But armed with truth, the American people will see beyond their absurd and dangerous lies.

Grassley Demands DOJ Release All Exculpatory Information On Michael Flynn



Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is calling on the Justice Department to release all exculpatory information related to the FBI’s handling of its case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

“Simply stated, after years of rampant speculation and publicly reported inconsistencies regarding how the FBI handled the case, it’s time for the public to know the full set off facts relating to Lt. Gen. Flynn, including any and all government misconduct,” Grassley wrote in a letter to DOJ Attorney General William Barr. “In the alternative, I request that you amend the protective order so that Congress can review the information in light of its constitutional oversight prerogatives.”

In February 2017, Grassley requested a copy of a call transcript between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. The FBI wrote a report summarizing the intercepted call, which Grassley requested for as well. Instead of receiving the records, Grassley was briefed by former FBI Director James Comey one month later. Comey told Grassley that FBI agents interviewed Flynn and “saw nothing that led them to believe [Flynn] was lying.”
Grassley surmised the DOJ would not prosecute Flynn for false statements.

In May 2018, Grassley requested documents, call transcripts, and any exculpatory evidence relating to the Flynn case from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Later in the month, the DOJ declined to turn over records to Grassley and admitted they had yet to provide all exculpatory evidence to Flynn.

In his letter to Barr, Grassley pointed out the oddities in Flynn’s case including the overt bias from FBI agent Peter Strzok.

“This is no ordinary criminal case. One of the agents who interviewed Lt. Gen. Flynn, Peter Strzok, was later removed from the Russia investigation after his texts demonstrating animus and bias toward the President were discovered.”

In tandem with the Strzok oddity, former FBI Direct Andrew McCabe, who supervised Flynn, was fired for leaking to the Wall Street Journal and pending a sexual discrimination case.

“Further, the Flynn case was at the center of a political firestorm over the President’s alleged statements about it to Director Comey,” Grassley wrote.

According to Grassley’s letter, Flynn told both the White House Counsel and the Chief of Staff at least twice that FBI agents said he would not be charged.

“The FBI’s conduct is ripe for congressional oversight,” Grassley concluded.
Grassley’s letter comes as new facts in Flynn’s case call into question whether his plea was voluntary.

“The criminal case against Michael Flynn imploded Friday,” wrote Margot Cleveland at The Federliast. “First, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia provided Flynn’s legal team with documents discovered by an outside review of the Flynn prosecution — documents withheld for years. Then, Sidney Powell, the attorney who took over Flynn’s defense nearly a year ago, filed new documents in the case, revealing a secret “lawyers’ understanding” not to prosecute Flynn’s son if the retired lieutenant general pleaded guilty.”

Cleveland concluded the case against Flynn, run by special counsel Robert Mueller, is about to implode. As new details arise, the Judiciary Committee has a right and obligation to oversee the details of Flynn’s case.

Lou Dobbs Interviews Sidney Powell: The Deep State and the Future of General Flynn



Earlier this evening Fox Business News host Lou Dobbs interviewed Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell about the status of the case.  Great Interview:


Former Flynn Counsel Finds 6,800 New Pages of Evidence Not Turned Over – Judge Sullivan is Not Amused


Interesting timing all things considered…. Michael Flynn removed and replaced his prior legal defense counsel, Covington & Burling, after asserting their ineffective and legally conflicted representation. [NOTE: former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a partner at Covington & Burling.]  As a result of Sidney Powell taking over the Flynn defense, his prior counsel was supposed to turn over all client materials and evidence in the case.


After some recent jaw-dropping revelations in the case; which may include evidence highlighting how the FBI participated in framing Michael Flynn; and certainly contains evidence of an unethical prosecutorial agreement with the former defense counsel, to coerce a guilty plea by threatening to arrest Michael Flynn Jr; suddenly today Covington & Burling discover an additional 6,800 pages of evidence they conspicuously omitted.

The timing is very sketchy and Judge Sullivan does not appear amused.  After receiving the supplemental notice of case material transfer (full pdf below) Judge Sullivan issues an order to the Covington law firm to re-re-review all of their case files and file a notice of compliance by Monday May 4th.


Judge Sullivan has been very favorable to the position of the justice department throughout the case, but it appears even he is starting to question all of these “unintentional” miscommunications and material coincidences that paint a very challenging picture for the prosecution to explain.

Here’s the filing from the Covington law firm where they attempt to explain their new discovery and why they failed to present this material over the past ten months.


Oh, whoopsie daisy…. There was a “miscommunication“.


Ms. Sidney Powell’s outlook on this case appears to be gaining momentum.

Lt. General Michael Flynn’s plea was based on: (1) a framing by the FBI; and (2) a threat against Michael Flynn Jr. if his father didn’t sign the plea.

If the reports are accurate it is very likely Judge Sullivan will allow the plea to be removed.  If the documents are as strong as outlined the entire case could be dismissed.


Trump suggests coronavirus aid to states could depend on sanctuary city policies

 Should the U.S. Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities? | Debate Club | US ...
Article by Bob Fredericks in "The New York Post":


President Trump on Tuesday suggested that new federal payments to help states deal with the coronavirus pandemic could depend on whether or not they were home to sanctuary cities.

“If it is COVID related, we can talk about it. We want things including sanctuary city adjustments,” the president said during an event in the East Room of the White House.

“I don’t even think they are popular even by radical left, because people are being protected that shouldn’t be protected and bad things are happening with sanctuary cities,” Trump continued at the event, which also showcased small business owners who’d benefited from the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program.

“It is one of the things we think about. If we are going to do something for states, they will want something having to do with sanctuary cities and other different points that we can discuss a little later on.”

Trump has frequently railed against sanctuary cities, which generally decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and offer services to illegal immigrants.

During the event, which was co-hosted by first daughter Ivanka Trump, several small business owners thanked the president for the Paycheck Protection Program, which helped them retain workers and stay afloat.

Amy Wright, CEO and Founder, Bitty & Beau’s Coffee, a small chain of coffee shops that hires people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, praised the PPP.

“We employ 120 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For most of them, it is their first paying job, which made the decision for us to temporarily close all five of our shops especially difficult,” Wright said.

“But thanks to the Paycheck Protection Program and the incredible team, all 120 employees are back on the payroll today and working from home writing handwritten notes that we include with each online order we ship.”
The PPP was set up through the CARES Act — the bill that was passed in March that sent many Americans direct payments of $1,200.

But the initial $350 billion the bill quickly proved insufficient to meet demand.

Congress agreed to later allocate another $250 billion to the PPP when it passed an additional $484 billion stimulus package last week.

The SBA has also instituted new guidelines for the fund, which require companies to certify with their lenders that the can’t get relief elsewhere, and that recipients of SBA loans over $2 million undergo extra scrutiny.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/coronavirus-aid-may-depend-on-sanctuary-city-policies-trump/

Oh Dear, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie Touches the Third Rail – Reveals DC’s Biggest Secret


With congress saying they will not be returning to work next week, it appears Kentucky representative Thomas Massie has decided to use the opportunity to expose Washington DC’s biggest secret.  Something 99% of American voters do not understand:

Oh dear, he’s telling secrets.  You see, congress doesn’t actually write legislation.  The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s.  Modern legislation is sub-contracted to K-Street.  Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws.  That’s the modern legislative business in DC.

CTH often describes the background DC motives with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.” The process of creating legislation is behind that phrase.  DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame most voter’s reference points.

With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; perhaps it is valuable to provide clarity.


Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.

In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.

Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now.


Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.

Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.

The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.

These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.

In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.

Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.

Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.

Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.

The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.

The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.

“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.

Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.

The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.

Recap: Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are notvoting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.


This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.

The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill”  ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009
“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.

The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.

Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.

Why?

Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.
Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.

President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.

As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system.

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office? The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc. Most of the legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in his first term is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value, that were shelved in years past.

Example: Criminal justice reform did not carry a financial benefit to the legislative bodies, and there was no financial interest funding the politicians to pass the bill. If you look at most of the bills President Trump has signed, with the exception of a few economic bills, they stem from congressional construction many years, even decades, ago.