Thursday, May 7, 2020

Are Russia Collusion Hoax Holdouts Still Operating Within the FBI?


What is it like inside the seventh floor of the FBI’s Hoover fortress while revelations of constitutional abuses lash the walls like a never-ending hurricane season of the FBI’s own making?


Newly released documents have refocused attention on the FBI’s abuses in the Flynn prosecution. The FBI’s dirty tricks in the Flynn prosecution are almost too numerous to inventory (although I attempt to do so here). Does FBI Director Christopher Wray fret over the increasing perception that the FBI has become a rogue police force unbound by constitutional checks and balances? Is he feverishly working behind the scenes to root out perpetrators of spying abuses that targeted opponents based upon politics and other non-law enforcement purposes?

A new interview with former journalist Carl Bernstein signals that there remains a Russia collusion hoax rearguard within the FBI in spite of the resignations, firings, and departures of Crossfire Hurricane figures, including Peter StrzokLisa PageBill PreistrapJames BakerJames Comey, and Kevin Kleinsmith.

Bernstein, who famously wrote truth to power, has now reversed his role—protecting the powerful from the truth. In his interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” Bernstein dismissed the significance of newly-revealed documents evidencing FBI abuses of power:

I’ve talked to top officials in the FBI and they say, “No, what’s clear from the notes, as well as what happened is that Flynn lied to the White House chief of staff, to the vice president of the United States. He still worked for a foreign power, Turkey, going up to the point when he was the national security advisor. He lied, and lied, and lied.” And what the notes show is standard operating procedure of a discussion about how to interview a witness. . . . We need to be putting people like, say, Preet Bharara on air, on 60 Minutes, on our [CNN’s] air, people who have great experience who know what that interview was about.

Bernstein parrots a shallow defense of the FBI treatment of Flynn meant only to reassure the willingly deceived. As noted by National Review, the Flynn investigation would have closed before the interview but for Peter Strzok’s politically motivated intervention to keep the sham going. The whole purpose of the Flynn interview was to gin up a crime where none existed.

That assessment—that there was no crime—is critical to whether Flynn’s “lies” obstructed a legitimate FBI function. Creating crimes is not a legitimate FBI function. Flynn was not colluding with the Russians. Thus, evidence hidden by the Flynn prosecutors that shows the FBI wasn’t really investigating a crime clearly meets the definition of “exculpatory.”
Flynn had a conversation with the Russian ambassador about post-election sanctions the Obama Administration implemented in the waning months of its tenure. The work Flynn did for Turkey was similar to thousands of other consulting arrangements former military and intelligence officials enter into all the time. Neither formed a basis for the prosecution.

As for Flynn’s “lies,” this assessment depends on a comparison between Flynn’s statement to the FBI which was not recorded and was repeatedly edited without his knowledge or consent. It also depends on a recording of his conversation with the Russian ambassador which has been kept secret from the defense team.

As noted by Fox News, the FBI issued this deceptive response to the unfolding scandal, “Under Director Wray’s leadership, the FBI has fully cooperated and been transparent with the review being conducted by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, just as it has been with U.S. Attorney John Durham and was with Inspector General Michael Horowitz.” Conservative Treehouse points out this response admits by omission that the FBI did not provide these documents to Flynn’s defense team, in defiance of the judge’s 2018 order.

Preet Bharara, the former prosecutor Bernstein suggested to help repair the FBI’s public image, is a virulently anti-Trump former New York prosecutor who now takes money from CNN to criticize Trump for a living. He wants a Department of Justice independent of the constitutional authority of an elected president. Bernstein suggests his name to advise CNN on how it can deflect embarrassment in light of the embarrassing revelations. Because promoting the public image of the FBI is what independent journalists always do.

Who are these “top officials in the FBI” with whom Bernstein spoke? It would be interesting to know because it would provide a convenient list of swamp creatures who have contempt for the constitutional authority of the president and conventional notions of rule of law.

If Bernstein is telling the truth about his sources, plural, then somebody within the FBI is using the imprimatur of his/her/their official position to continue a public relations campaign to counter the president’s demands for accountability. My guess is it’s Dana Boente and perhaps Director Christopher Wray himself.

You may recall that Boente, who currently serves as the FBI general counsel, has real skin in the game. His name appears 81 times in the Justice Department’s inspector general report exposing the Carter Page FISA warrant fraud. On page 72, that report notes, “Boente’s handwritten notes of the meetings focused on the Flynn investigation and potential criminal violations of the Logan Act.” Boente has a reason to foot-drag accountability for the Russia collusion hoax because he signed one or more of the renewal applications.

Long before the Russia collusion hoax, the FBI squandered its legitimacy by framing and smearing innocent people: Richard JewellDr. Steven J. Hatfill, Senator Ted Stevens (whom the FBI helped unseat from the Senate), thousands of defendants falsely convicted based on the pseudoscience of “hair comparison,” Raymond Jennings based upon an FBI profiler’s hunch, and a multi-decade FBI coverup of Boston-area men framed to protect an FBI informant.

Was the Flynn prosecution the activity of a few rogue agents infected with political bias? Or was it part of a greater culture? Bernstein’s, “nothing to see here,” interview indicates the latter. The many FBI abuses revealed in the aftermath of the Russia collusion hoax are just business as usual, standard operating procedures. We know about the Trump-related abuses because the president fought back. How many of the FBI’s victims went quietly into the night as Flynn almost did?

About Those Swastikas and Nooses at the Michigan Lockdown Protest...




 Article by Tyler O'Neil in "PJMedia":

On Sunday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.) condemned the anti-lockdown protesters at the State Capitol in Lansing as depicting “some of the worst racism and awful parts of our history in this country.” She specifically mentioned that “there were swastikas and Confederate flags and nooses and people with assault rifles.” She repeated “the Confederate flags and nooses, the swastikas.” So, were there Confederate flags, swastikas, and nooses at the protests last Thursday? If there were, were they racist?

Whitmer is correct that these symbols emerged during the protest, but it is highly debatable whether any of them were racist.

Tom Bevan, founder and president of RealClearPolitics, shared one of the swastika posters at the rally. The swastika features on a poster reading “Heil Witmer,” comparing Gov. Whitmer to a Nazi.

Gretchen Whitmer said the protests in Lansing "depicted some of the worst racism” in U.S. history, featuring Confederate flags," "nooses" and swastikas. I've combed through a bunch of photos, have yet to see a Confederate flag or a noose. But I did find one swastika:
 View image on Twitter

This is gross and rather disgusting hyperbole, to be sure. Whitmer has attempted to override the Michigan legislature in order to extend her tyrannical lockdowns, but she is nothing like Adolf Hitler. Michiganders can — and arguably should — protest Whitmer’s abuses without resorting to this kind of ridiculous demonizing rhetoric.

Yet when Whitmer mentioned swastikas, she suggested that the protesters carrying the swastikas were racist — neo-Nazis. Instead, they were protesting the governor, comparing her to a Nazi.
Radio host Casey Hendrickson shared another picture of a swastika at the protest. Again, the protester was comparing Whitmer to Hitler, not advocating for Nazism.

Guys, I've been combing through photos of the Michigan protests to find evidence of Gov. Whitmer's claims that protesters carried swastikas to depict the worst kinds of racism. Alas, I've found proof she wasn't lying about seeing swastikas.
Glad we cleared that up.
 View image on Twitter
As for nooses, they did make an appearance or two, but there was no reason to assume any racist intent behind them. The Detroit News‘s Craig Mauger shared an image of a sign reading, “Tyrants Get the Rope.”

Matt Schmucker of The State News took a photo of a noose in front of the State Capitol. PJ Media asked Schmucker if he could provide more context for the photo.
 View image on Twitter

Hey Matt, can you add more context to this photo? The noose is horrific, but your picture only shows it was hanging somewhere. Is there any clear connection to the protest?

“It was in the back of someone’s truck as they drove circles around the Capitol with a bunch of other traffic from the protest,” Schmucker told PJ Media. He also said the truck had a sign about Jeffrey Epstein, likely suggesting the notorious sex criminal did not kill himself.

America has a tragic history of lynchings — black men heinously murdered by white mobs, often organized by the Ku Klux Klan. For this reason, nooses can symbolize racism, but there is no reason to suggest that was the case here. Instead, it seems far more likely that this truck driver meant to send the same message as the sign above — “tyrants get the rope.”
 View image on Twitter
This may constitute a threat against Whitmer, and such signs certainly are ugly, but they are not racist. Whitmer is white, after all.

As for Confederate flags, they seemed few and far between. Bevan said he could not find any, but State Senator Mallory McMorrow shared one photo on Twitter, showing a Confederate flag next to flags proclaiming the importance of freedom. She also shared one more swastika sign — which attempted to blend the swastika with a donkey to symbolize the Democratic Party, making the same insinuation that Democrats are Nazis.



"protesters with rifles sat above us, as the Speaker said “there’s nothing more American," the President tweeted, “these are very good people” with no acknowledgment, condemnation of swastikas, Confederate flags, noose, misogyny or threats of violence."


While the Confederacy did secede from the Union in order to expand the institution of slavery into the territories, the Confederate flag today represents Southern pride and an attack against tyranny. As a proud graduate of Hillsdale College, a school in Michigan that sent its men off to fight for the Union, I would prefer that Southerners and Americans, in general, would swap out the Confederate flag for a flag more reminiscent of rebellion for a noble cause, like the “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden Flag or the “Come and Take It” flag from the Battle of Gonzalez.

However, the Confederate flag is not necessarily a racist symbol.

All that said, it is troubling to see so much anger verging on hatred directed toward Gov. Whitmer. As a Christian, I try hard to love and pray for my enemies, and I would encourage my fellows to do the same. Signs comparing Whitmer to Hitler and other signs calling her a “b*tch” are ugly and do more harm than good to a political cause. Americans should protest civilly and reject this kind of ugliness.

However, Whitmer’s decision to frame a protest against her as “racist” is malicious and deceptive. These Michiganders are angry at their governor forcing businesses to close, mandating that gardening aisles in “essential” businesses be shut down, and decreeing that people cannot travel to another residence they own. While these restrictions may be well-intended, they represent gross overreach — and at least one study has suggested that the anxieties such lockdowns inflame will cost more lives than the lockdowns themselves could possibly save.

Whitmer’s lockdown may be as much about power as it is about safety. But, seriously, that doesn’t make her anything like Hitler.


“We have to listen to the epidemiologist and health experts and displays like the one we saw at our capitol is not representative of who we are.” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer reacts to protesters descending on her state’s capitol, including some who were armed.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/05/07/about-those-swastikas-and-nooses-at-the-michigan-lockdown-protest-n388776

Breaking: Shelley Luther Released After Order of Texas Supreme Court, Breaks Down in Tears of Gratitude

 AP featured image
Article written by Nick Arama in "RedState":

Here’s the latest on the case of Dallas salon owner Shelley Luther.

People have been enraged by Judge Eric Moye sending Luther to jail for a week for refusing to “apologize” and admit that she was “selfish” for disregarding a cease and desist order and opening up her salon to provide for her family and for the families of her employees. Luther stood strong on her principles saying that she would not say that. “Judge, I would like to say that I have much respect for this court and laws and that I have never been in this position before and it’s not someplace that I want to be. But I have to disagree with you, sir, when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids — is not selfish. I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon.”

They locked her up despite the fact that the Dallas DA was refusing to lock up people who stole under $750 “out of necessity” and releasing criminals from jail because of the virus. So they were putting her in jail and putting her at more risk of the virus.

But the Texas Supreme Court has now ordered her release after Governor Greg Abbott and the Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke out against the jailing and Abbott ordered retroactively that no one should be jailed for violating lockdown orders.

Throwing Texans in jail whose biz's shut down through no fault of their own is wrong.
I am eliminating jail for violating an order, retroactive to April 2, superseding local orders.
Criminals shouldn’t be released to prevent COVID-19 just to put business owners in their place.

NEW: The Texas Supreme Court orders the release of Dallas salon owner Shelley Luther after she was sentenced to 7 days in jail for conducting business.
The Dallas County Jail has received a court order to release who is serving a 7 day sentence. It comes after a Texas Supreme Court ruling. The hair salon owner has defied emergency orders for non essential businesses to close. Her release will be in 2-4 hrs

Supporters of gathering outside Dallas County Jail where the hair salon owner is going through the process of being released early from her 7 day sentence after the Texas Supreme Court and state leaders intervened in her case

Here she is thanking the crowd and everyone else upon her release. 

Shelley Luther just walked out jail and broke down in tears:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1258473245709385728

It also looks like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made good on his offer to pay her fine.

And it looks like the Lt Gov of Texas @DanPatrick is the $7000 donor to the Luther gofundme campaign, which equals the amount of the fine she was hit with. Bravo!

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/05/07/breaking-shelley-luther-to-be-released-by-order-of-texas-supreme-court/ 

Progressives Doubted American Exceptionalism Long Before Trump



In June of 2012, “The Newsroom” written by Aaron Sorkin, the creator of “The West Wing” aired on HBO. In a famous scene, Jeff Daniels, playing the lead character, is asked by a student at a panel discussion why America is the greatest country on Earth. At one point during the rambling monologue he turns to his interlocutor and says:

“And yeah, you… sorority girl. Just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there’s some things you should know. One of them is: there’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world.”

Throughout his presidency but especially in recent weeks during the coronavirus pandemic, progressives have decried that America is losing its standing in the world. But did they ever really think America deserved much standing? Did they even think that a planet led by American power was a good thing? If so, the last 20 years do not provide many examples.

To be sure, the left flaunted the popularity of Barack Obama around the globe, but it’s easy to be popular when you spend most of your time apologizing and offering to pay for everything. Trump may be less popular in foreign lands because he left the Paris Accord and the Iran Deal, but neither of those were examples of American leadership. In fact both are rather strong examples of the United States “leading from behind.”

In a rather terrified and hysterical article by Anne Applebaum in the Atlantic, she bemoans that China is winning the messaging war and snatching global power from America. She writes:

…when Trump seeks to lead the world against China, who will follow? Italy might refuse outright. The European Union could demur. America’s close friends in Asia might feel nervous, and delay making decisions. Africans who are furious about racism in China—African students have been the focus of heavy discrimination in the city of Guangzhou—might well do a quick calculation and seek good relations with both sides.

First of all this is an awful lot of maybes, but there’s something much more important going on. It turns out that this deep worry that we are incapable of global leadership is nothing new to Applebaum. In 2013, five years into the Obama administration she wrote this in the Washington Post about a potential Cold War with Russia and China. “We are intellectually, economically and militarily unprepared to contemplate Great Power conflict, let alone engage in the hard work of renewing alliances and sharpening strategy.”

So this really isn’t about Donald Trump. And speaking of Donald Trump, his actions towards China have been considerably more aggressive than his predecessor. He angered the communists by scrapping the Trans Pacific Partnership, imposed harsh tariffs on China, and eventually brought them into phase one of a new trade deal more beneficial to the United States.

For progressives, American leadership rarely ever really means American leadership, it means writing the United Nations a blank check and hoping for the best. It means footing the bill and protecting the world while handing decision-making over to unelected international bodies. That’s not leadership, its capitulation. It is exactly the policy that both Trump voters in America and Brexit voters in the United Kingdom rejected.

If you look at the American political landscape the far left think capitalism, hence America itself is inherently bad. More moderate Democrats have for decades sought to diminish American power in favor of global cooperation. The only cohort of Trump loathers who might have some claim to prior belief in American exceptionalism are the “conservative” Never Trumpers. But they have long since chosen to hand power to American apologists because Orange Man Bad.

The best thing to do when those on the left bemoan the demise of American global leadership under Trump is to remind them that they never actually wanted American leadership anyway. If they did, they would have supported moving our embassy to Jerusalem, or unilaterally attacking Iran in response to their aggression, or cutting funding to a World Health Organization that has proved itself to be a sock puppet for the Chinese Communist Party.

The Left is not upset because Trump has diminished American power across the globe; they are upset because he has had the courage to assert it.

Despite Polling, Cell Phone Data Shows Americans Are Going Out Again


According polls, Americans overwhelmingly support lockdown measures, but according to their cell phones, 

they are starting to venture out.


Over the past two weeks, a slew of polling has come out showing that Americans overwhelmingly support the coronavirus lockdown measures throughout much of the country. A recent poll in Massachusetts had 85 percent supporting the extension of restrictions through May 18. Nationally, according to a Forbes poll in late April, 87 percent of Americans favor continuing the lockdown. But cell phone tracking data is telling a different story.

Apple looked at changes in routing requests on its phones and found that beginning in mid-March their users’ mobility began dropping, hitting a nadir of -60 percent of the baseline in April. By May 4, that number had jumped up to -20 percent of the baseline. That’s a 40 percent increase in travel.
A University of Maryland cell tracking study found that between April 24 and May 1, there was a 17 percent drop in people staying home and an 18 percent jump in people taking “non-essential” trips.

So what explains this disconnect between what Americans say they want and what they are actually doing? Why are Americans supportive of government efforts to keep them sealed off at home when they are not obeying the orders? There are several specific reasons this might be the case, but what it really boils down to is human nature.

First of all, the media has presented the argument between staying in lockdown and reopening the country as a moral choice. Those who wish to end the restrictions are presented as cynical and uncaring, and those who support them as willing to make sacrifices to save lives. Given this, it’s not strange that in polling the vast majority claim what they view to be the moral position.

In a 2015 poll, Gallup found that only 6 percent of Americans approve of adultery. Yet the number of Americans who sexually stray in their relationships is well north of that. When asked about the rightness or wrongness of cheating, the answer is overwhelmingly that it is wrong, but when faced with the opportunity, often something different happens.

Speaking of adultery, the rather ironic news broke this week that Neil Fergusson, the scoldiest of the U.K. government scolds insisting that Brits not leave their homes, had his married girlfriend over to his place on two occasions during the strict lockdown. He has since resigned. It is possible Ferguson believed everything he said about the lockdown orders, but as humans are wont to err, he just wasn’t quite able to live up to the standard he set.

Through the Ferguson lens, the gap between polling and cell phone data becomes less contradictory than it might seem at first glance. Essentially, while Americans think that people as a whole should be restricted by stay-at-home orders, as individuals they seem to think they can venture out into the world responsibly.

This is not simply a case of selfishness, but one in which people know what measures they will take to compensate for risk, but do not know what measures others may take. So it makes sense that Americans would apply a different set of rules to themselves than they would to society at large.

What has been clear for weeks and argued several times here at The Federalist is that the American people, not the government, will decide when the lockdown is over. As photos and videos across the country have shown over the past week or so, the government is not capable of enforcing a stay-at-home order for 350 million Americans. When they decide to go out, they are going to go out.

Well, the data show that many, and a fast-growing number, have to decided they are going out. This fact more than anything else explains why more than half of the states in the country have eased restrictions even as much as the media derides the decision as tantamount to murder. The governors of these states are reacting to the will of the people as expressed in their actions, not in their statements to a pollster.

The dam of stay-at-home orders is springing leaks all over the country, and governments have nowhere near enough fingers to plug up all the holes. Americans have decided that we are moving into a new phase of the coronavirus crisis, an awakening, if you will: front doors and car doors and doors to businesses are opening, and the American people are going through them.

Happy hippo swims in tourist-free seaside resort

A video of a hippopotamus swimming alone last month in crystal-clear waters off the coast of Ponta do Ouro in southern Mozambique is going viral in the southern African nation.
Hippos do not usually swim in the sea, preferring to stick to rivers or lakes.
The one captured swimming in the tourist resort on 21 April appears to be enjoying a dip thanks to the coronavirus pandemic.
Holidaymakers have had to cancel their plans because of restrictions to stop the spread of the virus.
It is believed the frolicking hippo had crossed over from Kosi Bay, made up of four lakes, in South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province, to southern Mozambique.

This nursing home disaster is on you, Gov. Cuomo



Two weeks ago, Gov. ­Andrew Cuomo was first asked about his policy that forced nursing homes to admit ­patients infected with the coronavirus.

“That’s a good question, I don’t know,” the governor answered, turning to an aide.

On Tuesday, Cuomo was asked about a report from the Associated Press that his team had added more than 1,700 deaths to the count of those who died in nursing homes, bringing the total to at least 4,813.

“I don’t know the details, frankly,” the governor answered, turning to an aide.
Sgt. Schultz reporting for duty!

Cuomo is legendary for micromanaging and has been praised for his detailed daily briefings during the pandemic. He has closed schools, religious services and businesses because each human life is “priceless.”

So with known nursing home deaths representing 25 percent of all deaths in the state, it beggars belief that the governor didn’t know anything about his office’s fatal policy two weeks ago or the new death totals now.

The only way either could be true is through an extreme case of plausible deniability. Thus, if there’s no proof he knew, he can’t be held responsible, right? Which was the whole point of the Sgt. Schultz defense.

That was a sitcom. This is life and death.

And if you are the governor of the state that is the national epicenter of the deadly outbreak, you don’t have the luxury of not knowing, or pretending not to know, about the horrendous carnage in nursing homes and rehabilitation centers. And if your policies contributed to that carnage, the decent thing to do is to own your mistakes and fix them.

In fact, Cuomo does claim to know something about nursing homes and COVID-19 patients. He says the former can refuse to take the latter.

“The nursing home has to make the decision,” he said Tuesday. “If they don’t think they can take care of someone, all they have to do is say no.”

In this case, he “knows” something that’s simply not true, according to nursing home executives. The March 25 order that forced infected patients on them allows for no exceptions and has not been changed.

The killer fifth paragraph still reads: “No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to ­admission or readmission.”

Owners and managers said Tuesday they are not aware of any loosening of the policy. They also say that hospitals still are referring infected patients to them on a near-daily basis and they are expected to take them if they have an empty bed.

To them, the March 25 order was a death sentence. Some facilities say they had no deaths or even positive patients before that date, but many of both since, including among staff members.

Recall, too, the experience of Donny Tuchman, CEO of Brooklyn’s Cobble Hill Health Center. On April 24, when his facility already had lost 55 patients, he showed reporters email exchanges with the Department of Health where he got no help when he asked for relief. Even his ­request to have some of the ­COVID-19 patients sent to the Javits Center or the Navy ship Comfort, both of which were well below capacity, was rejected.

As the Post front-page headline said the next day, “THEY KNEW,” meaning the state could no longer pretend it had no idea of the chaos it inflicted on nursing homes.

Cuomo, in response, has constructed an evolving litany of self-defenses, once coldly asserting it was “not our job” to help the homes get protective equipment for their staffs, even as other officials said the equipment was being provided. His office claimed the state policy mirrored federal policy, which, as the AP noted in its report, isn’t true. The feds never mandated that nursing homes be forced to accept COVID-19 patients.

On other days, Cuomo threatened to remove the facilities’ licenses and warned them against committing perjury in their death reports.

Flexing his power to punish them, he launched, with the state attorney general, an investigation of the facilities.

For the owners and staffs, the threats were a warning to be silent and the investigation is a bid to pin the blame for thousands of deaths on them.

Two other things Cuomo said Tuesday also bear remembering. First, he allowed that “we did some very harsh things” to nursing homes that “frankly, I wasn’t comfortable with.” He then cited the order barring visitors for the last two months.

It was indeed harsh, especially for the families who never saw their loved ones again before the virus killed them. By the same token, those families want to know why in the world the state would bar them from nursing homes but simultaneously impose infected patients on the same facilities.

Finally, on Tuesday, after an aide tried to explain the differences between “confirmed” and “probable” death counts, the governor interjected that “I would take all the numbers now with a grain of salt.”

So never mind?

Rosenstein Scope Memo For Mueller Peddled Steele Dossier, Logan Act Conspiracy Theories


A newly declassified memorandum from Rod Rosenstein shows that the former deputy attorney general used bogus claims from discredited Clinton campaign operative Christopher Steele to justify Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign.


Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo authorizing Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation was riddled with conspiracy theories lifted straight from the bogus dossier of Christopher Steele, a newly released, less redacted version of the memo shows. The memo, portions of which were declassified on April 30, 2020, specifically targeted former Trump campaign affiliates Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and one individual whose identity is redacted.

The Aug. 2, 2017 scope memo, which was provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Senate Judiciary Committee following requests from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., cited Steele dossier collusion conspiracy theories about Manafort and Page.

Rosenstein ordered Mueller to investigate allegations that Page “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election[.]” The same language was used to justify the targeting of Manafort.

Rosenstein’s memo also peddled discredited legal theories about the Logan Act, a 1799 law criminalizing political speech by American citizens that has never been successfully prosecuted, to justify investigations of former White House National Security Adviser (NSA) Michael Flynn. The scope memo directed Mueller to investigate allegations that Flynn “committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian officials during the period of the Trump transition.”

The Mueller probe, after nearly two years and tens of millions of dollars, unearthed no evidence of collusion by any Trump campaign officials. However, a sprawling investigation by the DOJ Office of Inspector General found that Rosenstein’s DOJ fabricated evidence and falsified documents to justify an illegal federal spy warrant against Page. A Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) lawyer, reported to be Kevin Clinesmith, allegedly altered documents from a U.S. intelligence agency to erase evidence that Page had for years worked on behalf of the U.S. government to help investigate Russian agents who were attempting to damage the U.S. and compromise national security.

The OIG investigation also revealed that Rosenstein’s DOJ repeatedly lied to federal courts and used bogus claims from Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, to secure wiretaps against Page, who has never been formally charged with any wrongdoing. Rosenstein personally signed at least one of the false Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, spy warrants against Page.

In his memo to Mueller, Rosenstein also peddled allegations that Papadopoulos was a secret, unregistered foreign agent of Israel. While Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to charges of lying to federal investigators, he was never formally charged with operating as an unregistered foreign agent of Israel or any other country.

The new declassifications of portions of Rosenstein’s memo affirm charges from Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that Rosenstein used the Steele dossier to justify and direct Mueller’s special counsel probe.

“[I]t’s clear that false allegations from the Steele dossier played a major role not only in the FISA warrant application on Page, but in the appointment of the Special Counsel as well,” Nunes said in a statement after a lengthy report detailing Mueller’s investigation was released in 2019. Until now, those facts had been hidden behind redactions in the Rosenstein document.

Flynn, the former NSA, was eventually coerced into pleading guilty to making false statements to FBI agents. New documents released by the DOJ in that case, though, show that the FBI repeatedly abused its power during its investigation of Flynn and that one of Mueller’s top prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, may have lied in federal court about the FBI’s basis for the interview in which Flynn allegedly lied. Newly released handwritten documents from Bill Priestap, the former top FBI counterintelligence official, showed that a primary goal of the FBI in investigating Flynn in the first place was “to get him fired.” Other FBI documents, released last week by the DOJ, show that the original FBI investigation of Flynn found no evidence of collusion and that the investigation was only kept open at the demand of fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok.

Flynn is currently in the process of trying to withdraw his guilty plea, citing government abuse and corruption. The judge in the case has not yet ruled in Flynn’s motion to withdraw his plea or his motion to dismiss charges.

Pompeo Debunks Narrative That Trump Administration Made Conflicting Statements On Wuhan Virus Origin



During a weekly press briefing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called out a CBS News reporter for promulgating a false narrative that Trump officials made contradictory statements on the origins of the coronavirus. In his statements to reporters, Pompeo urged the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to provide transparency to the world regarding the origin of the coronavirus outbreak.

A CBS News reporter claims Pompeo, among other Trump officials, have made contradictory statements about the origins of the virus. Pompeo has stated repeatedly that transparency from the CCP is required in order to solve the global pandemic and understand the true origins of the virus.

“You said in multiple interviews on May 1st, April 30th, and other days some version of ‘we don’t know if the virus came from inside the lab in Wuhan.’ And then, on Sunday, you said there’s enormous evidence the virus came from inside the lab,” the CBS News reporter said.

“Those statements are both true. They’re entirely consistent,” Pompeo said.

“Why are you highlighting one and not the other?” the reporter asked.

“I’ve now answered this question, I think it’s the 13th time. Happy to try to answer it again. I’m not sure what it is about the grammar that you can’t get,” Pompeo said. “We don’t have certainty, and there is significant evidence that this came from the laboratory. Those statements can both be true.”



Pompeo concluded the conference by calling on Beijing to actively participate in resolving questions about the origins of the global pandemic, beginning with more transparency from the CCP.

“The most important piece here is that the American people remain at risk. The American people remain at risk because we do not know – to your point, we don’t have certainty about whether it began in the lab or whether it began someplace else. There’s an easy way to find out the answer to that: transparency, openness, the kinds of things that nations do when they really want to be part of solving a global pandemic, when they really want to participate in the things that keep human beings safe and get economies going back again,” Pompeo said. “We’ll continue to work on that, we’ll continue to get more certainty, and I hope – I hope we get an answer. Where did patient zero begin? Where precisely did this start?”

Mainstream media outlets routinely work to undermine legitimate claims of the Trump administration and its allies. When Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., suggested the Wuhan virus may have originated in a Wuhan lab, the New York Times blamed him for peddling conspiracy theories. In actuality, Cotton merely believes it’s ridiculous to discount the Wuhan lab theory because the CCP refuses to reveal the virus’s origins.

While media outlets desperately aim to blame the Trump administration and allies for misleading Americans about coronavirus, Pompeo highlights the real culprit of disinformation and deception amid the coronavirus pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party.

Eerie Emptiness Of ERs Worries Doctors: Where Are The Heart Attacks And Strokes?

 
Article written by Will Stone and Elly Yu in "Health News/NPR":

The patient described it as the "worst headache of her life."

She didn't go to the hospital though. Instead, the Washington state resident waited almost a week.

When Dr. Abhineet Chowdhary finally saw her, he discovered she had a brain bleed that had gone untreated.

The neurosurgeon did his best, but it was too late.

"As a result, she had multiple other strokes and ended up passing away," says Chowdhary, director of the Overlake Neuroscience Institute in Bellevue, Wash. "This is something that most of the time we're able to prevent."

Chowdhary says the patient, a stroke survivor in her mid-50s, had told him she was frightened of the hospital.

She was afraid of the coronavirus.

The fallout from such fear has concerned U.S. doctors for weeks while they have tracked a worrying trend: As the pandemic took hold, the number of patients showing up at hospitals with serious cardiovascular emergencies such as strokes and heart attacks has shrunk dramatically.

Across the U.S., doctors call the drop-off staggering, unlike anything they've seen. And they worry a new wave of patients is headed their way — people who have delayed care and will be sicker and more injured when they finally arrive in emergency rooms.

It has alarmed certain medical groups such as the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. The latter is running ads to urge people to call 911 when they're having symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.

"Where are all these patients?"

Across the country, ER volumes are down about 40% to 50%, says Dr. William Jaquis, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

"I haven't seen anything like it, ever," he says. "We anticipated, actually, higher volumes."

But doctors say once-busy emergency rooms have slowed to an eerie calm.

"It was very scary, because it was so quiet," says Dr. David Tashman, medical director of the ER at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital in Glendale, Calif., about the early days of the outbreak.

"We normally see 100 patients a day, and then you know, overnight, we were down to 30 or 40."

Some of that decrease in normal patient volume was deliberate.

As hospitals prepared for a surge of COVID-19 patients, officials advised people to avoid emergency rooms if at all possible. Tashman says he wasn't surprised to see fewer trauma patients, because the roads were emptier. But soon he and other ER physicians noticed that even truly urgent cases were not coming in.

"We know the number of heart attacks isn't going to go down in a pandemic. It really shouldn't," Tashman says.

Dr. Larry Stock, an ER doctor at Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster, Calif., wondered the same thing.

"I mean, we've all been scratching our heads — where are all these patients?" Stock says. "They're at home, and we're starting to get ... the tip of the iceberg of this phenomenon."

One study collected data from nine hospitals across the country, focusing on a crucial procedure used to reopen a blocked cardiac artery after a heart attack. The hospitals performed 38% fewer of those procedures in March, compared with previous months.

At Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Dr. Malveeka Sharma has tracked a 60% decline in stroke admissions in the first half of April compared with the previous year.

Nationally, 911 call volumes for strokes and heart attacks declined in March through early April, according to data collected by ESO, a software company used by emergency medical service agencies.

In Connecticut, Dr. Kevin Sheth noticed a similar trend at Yale New Haven Hospital.

Sheth started calling other stroke doctors, trying to understand what was happening.

"The numbers had dramatically plummeted almost everywhere," says Sheth, chief of the division of neurocritical care and emergency neurology at Yale School of Medicine. "This is a big deal from a public health perspective."

Sheth says clinical stroke centers have seen an "unprecedented" drop in stroke patients being treated, with decreases ranging from 50% to 70%.

In April, the American Heart and American Stroke associations put out emergency guidance to ensure health care providers keep stroke teams active and ready to treat patients during the pandemic.

Sheth says he worries it could be challenging to care for all the patients who eventually show up at hospitals in even worse shape after delaying care.

"When those stroke numbers come back, we could have serious capacity issues," he says. "We were already bursting at the seams."

"People are in this fear mode," says Dr. John Harold, a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and board president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Heart Association.

Harold says the full public health consequences of people avoiding the hospital aren't yet clear.

"The big question is, are these people dying at home?" he asks.

Patients fearful of going to the hospital 

Patients who are already at higher risk of experiencing medical emergencies describe a mix of fear and confusion about how to get safe and adequate care.

In March, Dustin Domzalski ran out of the medication used to treat his epilepsy.

The 35-year-old from Bellingham, Wash., had trouble reaching his doctor, whom he would normally see in person, to get a refill.

Within a few days of not taking the medication, he had a major seizure while in the shower. His caregiver called an ambulance, which took him to the ER.

"I woke up and asked where I was and what happened," Domzalski says. "The guy in the next room to me was coughing and doing all kinds of stuff."

The experience was so unnerving that Domzalski now plans to avoid the hospital, if at all possible.

"I am not going to the hospital unless I have a seizure and injure myself," he says. "I'd rather stay here than potentially have problems from the virus."

Miami resident Stayc Simpson recalls a frightening ordeal when she went to the ER in mid-March.

Simpson, who's a cancer survivor with heart failure, woke up with a pounding heart rate that she worried could be a heart attack.

At the hospital, she was screened for the coronavirus and was soon moved to a unit for suspected cases because she had a cough, even though that is also a symptom of heart failure.

"When the reality hit that I was in the COVID unit, I thought, if I didn't have it before, then I probably will now," Simpson says.

She spent a day there, wracked with anxiety. Six days later, back at home, she learned she had tested negative for the virus.

Simpson knows the hospitals have made many changes since the early days of the pandemic, but the thought of calling 911 still scares her.

"I have seen news reports that tell me it's safer now. ... I don't know if I have full confidence in that right now," she says. "The risk of COVID is terrifying."

In Los Angeles, Jacqueline Alikhaani, 60, has the same fear. She has diabetes and a rare form of heart disease, and she suffered a stroke several years ago.

A few weeks ago she started experiencing chest pains. She says that before the pandemic, she wouldn't hesitate to go to her local ER.

"That's just not something I feel very comfortable with right now," she says. "It's a tough call, tough decisions."

Dangerous risks of postponing care

Some physicians are already glimpsing the consequences of patients putting off care.

"I've never seen the number of delays that I have in the last month or so," says Dr. Andrea Austin, an ER physician in downtown Los Angeles.

She's treating more serious cases because patients are waiting. "That's really one of the tragedies of COVID-19," Austin says. "They're staying at home and trying to diagnose themselves or really playing down their symptoms."

Chowdhary, the neurosurgeon from Bellevue, Wash., says some of his stroke patients have already seen life-altering consequences.

One older man noticed weakness on the left side of his body but avoided the hospital for four days.

"Now, at that point, we couldn't do anything to reverse the stroke," Chowdhary says. "That weakness is permanent."

Because of the stroke damage, the patient could no longer take care of his wife, who has cognitive issues. Eventually, the couple had to leave their home and move into a nursing home.

Jennifer Kurtz, stroke program coordinator at Overlake in Bellevue, says some patients who delayed care are now grappling with the physical and emotional toll.

"They feel so much guilt and regret that they didn't come to the hospital earlier," she says.

One caregiver confessed to Kurtz that she didn't bring her husband to the hospital when she first noticed symptoms of a stroke.

"She can't even tell her daughter [that] ... because she is so ashamed," Kurtz says.

Doctors plead "don't delay" 

Patients must navigate the sometimes-conflicting messages from public officials as well as disruptions to their routine medical care.

Beginning in March, warnings about a coming flood of COVID-19 patients circulated around the country as public health departments studied predictive models and braced for the worst. Stories emerged of health care workers falling ill and begging for more personal protective equipment such as masks, gowns and gloves.

Meanwhile, hospitals started canceling elective procedures, and physicians halted in-person office visits.

The surge of COVID-19 patients in hot spots such as New York City and New Orleans led to "the sense of an overstretched health care system without capacity," says Dr. Biykem Bozkurt, president of the Heart Failure Society of America and a cardiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

"This may have created a false sentiment that routine care is to be deferred or that there is no capacity for non-COVID patients — this is not the case," Bozkurt says. "We would like our patients to seek care, not wait."

Hospitals are also trying to reassure patients that they are taking precautions to keep patients safe. Many have set up protocols for admitting suspected COVID-19 patients such as separate screening areas inside the ER and dedicated areas of the hospital for coronavirus inpatients.

Tashman, the emergency physician at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, is pleading with patients to come in for help immediately for heart attack and stroke symptoms: "Don't delay. You're not bothering us. You're not imposing on us."

"We're not incredibly busy with everything else at the moment," he says.

With stay-at-home orders in effect in parts of the country, physicians are trying to strike a balance in their messaging: They still want patients to avoid hospitals yet not hesitate to go if there are signs of an emergency.

"The message has to be slightly more nuanced for people to get it right, so they don't get hurt by just listening to one message, which is stay home," says Stock, the emergency physician in Lancaster, Calif. "We need to make people feel ... that [emergency rooms] are safe, clean places for them to come."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/06/850454989/eerie-emptiness-of-ers-worries-doctors-where-are-the-heart-attacks-and-strokes