President Trump Speaks In Michigan

6 Ways The Obama Administration Railroaded The Rule Of Law To Destroy Michael Flynn

The fact that the Obama administration targeted Flynn isn’t just a crime against him, but a crime against our constitutional system.

Krystina Skurk reporting for The Federalist

In prosecuting Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Obama administration holdovers used the appointment of a special counsel to weaponize the legal system. After finding no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the 2016 election, Robert Mueller’s team had to justify continuing their investigation by going after Flynn for a crime even James Comey’s FBI didn’t believe he committed.

1. Unmasking and Leaking

The decision to prosecute Flynn was not the first nor the last affront to due process or the rule of law Flynn suffered at the hands of the Obama administration. Recently released documents from Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell reveal there were 49 requests to unmask Flynn’s name in just two months, meaning attempts to reveal his identity in intercepted communications, particularly those between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

These requests came from officials such as Joe Biden, Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and UN Ambassador Samantha Power. Power alone submitted 300 requests to unmask American citizens in less than a year. These new facts vindicate the claims of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., from three years ago that there was wide-scale unmasking of Trump officials by the Obama administration.

Almost every report from mainstream media sources states that unmasking is commonplace. “Nothing to see here,” they say. Yet looking at unmasking from a constitutional perspective paints a different picture.

It is illegal to spy on an American citizen without a warrant. To do so is a breach of that citizen’s right to due process and of protections against undue search and seizure. So when an American citizen’s phone conversation with a foreign national is inadvertently recorded, the law dictates the American’s name be masked. While unmasking is at times necessary, it should be done with the utmost of caution.

Flynn’s constitutional rights were obviously not considered in the Obama administration’s frenzied search for a crime. The Obama administration was intent that Flynn not be Trump’s national security adviser. They advised the Trump transition team not to hire Flynn, but were ignored.

The fact that the Obama administration targeted Flynn isn’t just a crime against him, but a crime against our constitutional system. The Obama administration had no right to try to handicap Trump’s foreign policy or to ensure that a corrupt investigation into a presidential candidate continue as a clandestine investigation into a sitting president.

To make matters worse, not only was Flynn’s name unmasked, but the contents of his call with Kislyak were leaked to the press. While unmasking isn’t a crime, leaking certainly is, and can carry a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison. Leaks were commonly used as a political weapon during the early days of the Trump administration. Three leaks were made to the Washington Post from this call alone. To date, no one has answered for these crimes.

2. The Sham Crossfire Razor Investigation

The FBI’s reasons for opening a sub-investigation into Flynn called Crossfire Razor are ridiculous. The first reason given was Flynn’s service as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

The campaign was already being investigated in the umbrella case known as Crossfire Hurricane. This investigation was predicated on an uncorroborated dossier paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. In Comey’s FBI, any type of association with Trump was reason enough to release the full force of the bureau’s investigative powers — just ask Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

Another reason Flynn was targeted was because of a trip he took to Russia in 2015. After the trip, stories came out about Flynn’s meeting with various Russian state actors as well as an alleged affair with Svetlana Lokhova, a supposed Russian spy.

Just a few problems with this story: Lokhova is not a Russian spy, and she has sued the Wall Street Journal for publishing this claim, not the likely move of an actual spy. She and Flynn also both deny having an affair and assert they only met once at a Cambridge dinner. Further, newly released documents confirm that Stefan Halper was the FBI’s confidential human source that peddled this false information, the same Stefan Halper who spied on Papadopoulos, Page, and Sam Clovis.

Additionally, Flynn very well may have met Russian state actors, as it was his job. What most accounts leave out is that after his trip, he gave a full report to the Defense Intelligence Agency and had cleared the trip with the Pentagon.

One reason using the 2015 Russia trip to investigate Flynn is ridiculous is that in April 2016, the Obama administration had renewed Flynn’s top secret/sensitive compartmented information clearance, meaning he passed extensive background checks and a polygraph test. One of the newly released documents is a case-closed memo, written Jan. 4. An FBI agent wrote that they found “no derogatory” evidence that Flynn committed a crime or posed a national security threat. However, agent Peter Strzok rescinded the memo, saying the seventh floor (FBI leadership) was now involved.

3. The FBI Interview

Flynn was further victimized when the FBI ambushed him. In an unprecedented and underhanded move, Comey sent two FBI agents to the White House to interview Flynn about his phone call with Kislyak. In so doing, Comey bypassed the normal procedure of going through the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel’s office.

Not only did Comey not go through the DOJ, he defied the wishes of Sally Yates, a former deputy attorney general. She and others had expressed concerns about interviewing Flynn without proper procedures. She was ignored. As Comey now infamously said in a televised interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace: “I sent them. Something I would not have ordinarily done with a more organized administration.”

Newly released documents reveal some of the behind-the-scenes conversations taking place among FBI agents about the interview, including discussions about its purpose. Was it to find out the truth, or get Flynn to lie so he would be fired or prosecuted?

Also discussed was how to trick Flynn into not realizing he was at an official FBI interview, how to get around the legal requirement to inform Flynn that lying to the FBI was a crime, and how to get him not to bring a lawyer. To schedule the meeting, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe called Flynn and asked whether some FBI agents could meet with him, telling Flynn “it was no big deal” and it would be easier if he could just meet with the agents alone.

Normal interview procedures were not followed. Flynn wasn’t shown a transcript of his call and instead was asked to recall from memory a conversation he had weeks prior.

Flynn didn’t deny talking about sanctions. He said he didn’t know and that it was possible he and Kislyak had talked about sanctions, although he didn’t think so. Flynn would have been stupid to lie, as he admitted to McCabe in the phone call that set up the interview that he was sure the FBI had a recording of the call. “You listen to everything they say,” Flynn told McCabe.

In their motion to dismiss, the DOJ has decided that even if Flynn did lie, since there was no legitimate investigation going on, it was not material to the case and was therefore not a violation of law.

There are, however, major doubts that he lied in the first place. Strzok and Joe Pientka, the two agents who interviewed Flynn, left the meeting believing that though he hadn’t gotten the particulars of his call correct, he displayed no behavior that indicated he was lying. Pientka had even attended a briefing with Flynn prior to the interview to get an understanding of his baseline demeanor to compare with the interview to follow.

According to Yates, the FBI wasn’t even sure what kind of investigation they were operating. They seemed to morph between describing it as a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. In the end, it wasn’t an investigation at all, but a setup, a perjury trap.

A perjury trap occurs when the facts are known to the prosecutors or investigators and the only purpose of the interview is to catch the subject in a false statement. Then-Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap wrote in a note that he was afraid the FBI was “playing games” with the interview to get Flynn to lie so they could either prosecute him or get him fired.

He conveyed his concerns to McCabe and Comey, but was ignored. A handwritten note by Priestap reads, “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

4. Misuse of the Logan Act

The Logan Act was used as the pretense for the FBI’s interview of Flynn as well as for Yates’ campaign to get Flynn fired. As Mark Hemingway quips, the fact that the Logan Act is still on the books is an “accident of history.”

The law is considered by almost all legal experts to be unconstitutional. Passed in 1799, it has been used to prosecute only two cases, neither successfully, and last in 1852. The law makes it illegal for a private citizen to speak with a foreign government about policy in a way that contradicts the current administration’s policy.

Applying this law to Flynn’s phone call with Kislyak is problematic for several reasons. First, this antiquated law is an obvious infringement on the First Amendment right to free speech. The only reason the law hasn’t been struck down is because it hasn’t been prosecuted since the creation of the DOJ.

Second, the Logan Act is violated all the time and often far more publicly than Flynn’s phone call. Dennis Rodman and John Kerry are just a couple of the famous perpetrators, yet there has never been talk of prosecuting them.

In reality, the Logan Act was a mere pretense. Obama, the FBI, and the DOJ all knew it wasn’t going to be used to prosecute Flynn. They simply used the Logan Act as a tool to get Flynn fired. McCabe testified that he was told a prosecution under the Logan Act was a long shot. In a DOJ memo, Mary McCord, assistant attorney general at the time, said a Logan Act prosecution seemed like a stretch.

5. Flynn’s Prosecution and Guilty Plea

Flynn was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly and willfully” make a false statement of “a material fact” to a federal official.

More evidence has come out to indicate that Flynn’s plea was coerced. It turns out the prosecution threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations unless Flynn senior pleaded guilty. Even worse, the prosecution sought to keep this deal off the books so they would not have to reveal it when using Flynn to testify against his business partner. This is a violation of Giglio disclosures and demonstrates the prosecution’s disregard for the rule of law.

Further, the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s defense team. They withheld the emails, texts, and handwritten notes of FBI agents that demonstrated Flynn was being set up and that there was no underlying investigation. They also withheld texts between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that prove they significantly edited the original 302 document.

Both Nunes and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, requested materials on Flynn’s case and other related matters more than two years ago, but were told such records did not exist.

6. Judge Sullivan Taking the Law into His Own Hands

In an unprecedented move, Judge Emmet Sullivan has put the motion to dismiss charges against Flynn on hold. He will allow friends of the court to argue against the dismissal.

Sullivan’s moves act against two controlling precedents, according to Mark Chenoweth, executive director of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Just one week ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for similar tactics.

As Margot Cleveland argues, the Constitution makes clear that it is not the judiciary’s role to second-guess prosecutorial decisions. Based on mandatory precedent from the D.C. Circuit Court in United States v. Fokker, the prosecutorial role lies squarely within the executive branch.

This move by Sullivan is like a bad sequel. Flynn has suffered unjustly enough: first at the hands of the Obama administration, then at the hands of overzealous prosecutors, and now at the hands of an activist judge. It is time to let the man move on with his life.

Rice’s Email Proves FBI Had No Legitimate Reason To Question Flynn

The recently declassified paragraph in Susan Rice’s email confirms the FBI had no valid investigative purpose for questioning Flynn on January 24, 2017.

Prof Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

Yesterday’s release of Susan Rice’s inauguration-day email to herself provided further evidence of former President Barack Obama’s participation in the FBI’s targeting of Michael Flynn. The recently declassified paragraph in Rice’s email, however, proves significant for another reason: It confirms the FBI had no valid investigative purpose for questioning Flynn on January 24, 2017.

In February 2018, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham announced that as part of their efforts to conduct oversight of the FBI and DOJ they had discovered “a partially unclassified email sent by President Obama’s former National Security Advisor (NSA) Susan Rice to herself on January 20, 2017—President Trump’s inauguration day.”

At the time, the Republican senators noted that in her email Rice “purport[ed] to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before, on January 5, 2017,” and then quoted the unclassified portions of the document:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

The next paragraph was redacted, but Rice then concluded by writing, “The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.”

On Tuesday, the previously redacted paragraph was declassified, and buried behind the blackout were details of the Obama administration’s focus on Flynn:

Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding ‘by the book’ as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied ‘potentially.’ He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’

This paragraph reveals several significant details. First, Comey distinguished between law enforcement and national security, and was not proceeding “by the book” related to the latter. Second, Obama knew of Comey’s intent and condoned the withholding of information from the incoming administration.

Now, thanks to the additional declassification, we know the purported concerns about Flynn were specific: Comey told President Obama he was concerned about the level of communication with Kislyak and raised the possibility that Flynn might pass classified information to Kislyak.

Of course, it would be entirely normal and appropriate for Flynn to speak with the Russian ambassador as part of the Trump transition team, and there is no reason to believe Flynn would share classified information with Kislyak. In fact, we know from the FBI’s closing memorandum on Flynn that a thorough investigation had revealed no derogatory information.

But Comey cautioned Obama otherwise. Why? And why did Rice belatedly document this conversation?

Possibility one: Comey, and in turn Rice and Obama, truly believed Flynn was compromised and might hand classified information to the Russians. But if that was the case, it was inexcusable for Comey not to brief President-elect Trump on that fear. And it was inexcusable for then-President Obama not to direct Comey to provide that briefing.

The second possibility is that no one suspected Flynn of being a Russian agent, but the FBI needed a pretext to continue to investigate Flynn so it could justify withholding details of the broader Crossfire Hurricane investigation from Flynn and thereby Trump. Either possibility is a huge political scandal that runs right through Comey to Obama.

However, there is a second significance to the details released yesterday, namely the declassified paragraph, when read together with other recently released documents, confirms that when FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka questioned Flynn on January 24, 2017, the FBI had no valid investigative purpose.

It was during that January 24, 2017 questioning of Flynn that the retired general purportedly lied to Strzok and Pientka about his conversations with Kislyak. In late 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, but later sought to withdraw his guilty plea.

While that motion was pending, U.S. Attorney General William Barr ordered an independent review of the Flynn prosecution. That review, conducted by Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, revealed the lead prosecuting attorney—a hold-over from the special counsel’s office—Brandon Van Grack, had withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s attorneys. That evidence included a January 4, 2017, FBI memorandum closing the investigation into Flynn and a series of text messages showing Strzok short-circuited the case closing by orders from above.

Also uncovered were handwritten notes discussing the FBI’s planned January 24, 2017 interview of Flynn, and scribbles questioning the motive: Was it to get the truth? Or was it to get Flynn to lie to get him prosecuted or fired?

That evidence, and Jensen’s independent investigation, led the DOJ to conclude that the January 24, 2017 interview “was not conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore, even if Flynn made false statements, they were not material.” Based on this conclusion, the D.C. U.S. attorney filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.

Rather than toss out the criminal charge, however, presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a biased former judge as an amicus curiae to argue against dismissal. Yesterday, Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition (called a petition for a writ of mandamus) with the D.C. Circuit Court, asking the appellate court to direct Sullivan—or a newly assigned judge—to dismiss the charge.

Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, pundits have been debating the propriety of the motion to dismiss. Those condemning Barr’s decision to drop the charge against Flynn have argued that the FBI’s ongoing Russia collusion investigation provided FBI agents a proper predicate to question Flynn. While the FBI may have intended to close the investigation into Flynn on January 4, 2017, critics argue, the discovery of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak raised new questions related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, justifying the questioning of Flynn.

Rice’s email spoils that talking point, because she lays out Comey’s supposed counterintelligence concern: that Flynn may be passing classified information to Russia. But between January 5, 2017, when Comey told Obama about his misgivings, and January 24, 2017, when the FBI questioned Flynn, the FBI must have ruled out that possibility.

How do we know? Because the handwritten notes discussing the purpose of the interview were silent on that possibility. Bill Priestap, the former FBI counterintelligence head, after asking if the FBI’s goal was “truth” or “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired,” spoke of “getting” Flynn “to admit [his] wrongdoing.” And the only wrongdoing suggested was the Logan Act—an antiquated and most assuredly unconstitutional law that no one even pretends would serve as the basis for a legitimate investigation.

So, contrary to the left’s current talking points, the discovery of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak did not provide a basis to question Flynn on January 24, 2017, because the FBI had already ruled out any connection between those conversations and the Russia collusion investigation. And there was no other proper investigative purpose to questioning Flynn. That is why the government sought to dismiss the charge against Flynn.

Whether, and when, the government will be able to do so, remains unclear. But we should know more later today on the schedule the D.C. Circuit sets for resolving Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

For Liberal Elites, Ignorance...

by J.T. Young for AmericanSpectator

For Liberal Elite, Ignorance is Strategy

Liberal elites hope to ignore their way to Trump’s defeat. By ignoring President Trump’s successes and Joe Biden’s failures, they maintain a picture of reality that conforms to their worldview. Yet simply ascribing this to hypocrisy misses the liberal elite’s scope and intent. Beyond hypocrisy, it is strategy.

The current example of the liberal elite ignoring Trump’s positives is the continuing implosion of their Russian collusion case. The recent revelation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s entrapment is but the latest unraveling thread.

The liberal elite just ignore their unwanted facts. If it does not exist, it cannot contradict.

For three years, the liberal elite used every opportunity to insist Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Now, as evidence mounts that Trump and his campaign were actually victims, not perpetrators, of collusion, the liberal elite see nothing.

The currently prevailing example of liberal elites turning a blind eye to Biden’s negatives is Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against the Democrats’ presumptive nominee.

When such an allegation was leveled against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the liberal elite wrapped themselves in #MeToo and #BelieveWomen. Then, accusation was evidence. Now, when even more substantive accusations arise against Biden, accusation is invisible. Once more, liberal elites are blind.

The liberal elite’s same slanted pairings could be repeatedly recounted. We have become so accustomed that we immediately relegate them to hypocrisy, double standards, bias. Yet, regardless of differing labels, the outcome never changes: Conservatives and Trump get the short stick, while liberals and Biden draw the long.

So, the liberal elite ignored Trump’s role in the economy when it was good. Now wracked by coronavirus, every effort is made to ignore the resulting closures; instead, they indict Trump’s preparations for the unprecedented. They similarly ignore his accomplishments — his delivered promise on a renegotiated USMCA trade deal, successes in the war against terrorism, and reduced illegal immigration. All would be headlines for Biden, but they are not newsworthy for Trump.

Equally, they have ignored Biden’s 36-year Senate record, many elements of which would alienate his much needed Left support. They skip his horrible campaign performances and his resulting seclusion from the public in hopes of avoiding more. And they ignore his son Hunter’s business and personal life. All of these would be front-page news if they were Trump’s problems, but they are no news at all for Biden.

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Ignoring the facts that contradict your opinion, however, is the next best thing to having your own facts. This is precisely the strategy the liberal elite comprehensively and consistently pursue.

It is tempting to write off as basic hypocrisy the liberal elite’s practice of ignoring the facts that are positive for Trump and those that are negative for Biden. Of course, it is hypocrisy, but it is also much more. One can be a hypocrite inadvertently, intermittently arriving unconsciously at hypocrisy.

Simply affixing “hypocrisy” to the liberal elite’s arrival at their destination is to miss the depth and purpose of their journey, and to ignore its malicious intent. The liberal elite are quite conscious of their selective ignorance, its purpose, and outcome. By so doing, they avoid the cognitive dissonance that would occur from encountering a fact that fundamentally contradicts their prejudices.

The liberal elite just ignore their unwanted facts. If it does not exist, it cannot contradict.

Omission is their mission. As uncomfortable facts accumulate, however, it gets harder to ignore them all. A cloth’s single hole can be hidden, but the greater the number, the harder the job. Eventually it becomes impossible when there are more holes than cloth. Thus, it has become for the liberal elite, who now must construct their reality out of whole cloth.

J. T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department. He served as a congressional staffer from 1987 through 2000.

Forced Quarantine Camps ... More Marxism from the Left

Source: WND.com

Written order shows state falsely claiming 'isolation camps' are 'voluntary'

By WND News Services
Published May 20, 2020 at 8:37pm

A Washington state lawmaker is alerting citizens to "isolation camps" set up in his state and others to house people who become infected with COVID-19, warning that contrary to the conventional narrative, they are not voluntary.

State Republican Rep. Matt Shea of the Spokane area in eastern Washington, explained in a video interview with The New American magazine that the camps are part of Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee's policy of contract tracing, which has been implemented by many states.

He explained that the tracers visit people who may have been infected and advise them they can isolate at a center to protect other members of their household.

While the infected person may be asked to volunteer, the government makes it clear that people can be forcibly quarantined, Shea pointed out.

Read the rest: HERE

Don't Forget to Recommend and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

The #ObamaGate Criminals Are Sh_hole People

by Undercover Huber via Threadreader

Somebody faked that the Crossfire Hurricane team had a FISA on Paul Manafort & "leaked" this to CNN

And the culprits may have been the Special Counsel's Office, trying to influence D.C's Chief Judge into allowing the SCO to pierce Manafort's Attorney/Client privilege

THREAD

Over two and a half years ago, on Sep 18, 2017, CNN ran this "bombshell” article alleging that the FBI team investigating Russian "Collusion" had a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort:

"Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman“

:

Before looking in detail at the extraordinary claims in CNN's article, let’s just clarify that the core of the story - that the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team sought and obtained an FISA warrant on Manafort - isn’t just wrong, or false. It's totally fake. 100% made up. 

Here is DOJ IG Horowitz emphatically stating in his report that not only did the FBI's Crossfire team not seek a FISA on Manafort, they never even “seriously considered” FISA surveillance of Manafort. (Horowitz repeated that no FISA existed at all under oath to Congress too) 

CNN itself acknowledged this when the IG report was released, appending an "editors note” in Dec 9, 2019, saying it “contradicts” their Sep 18, 2017 story, without offering any explanation or trying to defend it 

Let's look at the rest of the claims in this CNN story, before speculating who would give this fake information to CNN, and why

CNN “learned” the FISA also included a *physical* search “of a storage facility belonging to Manafort”

(Note: it is already known that the search of this storage facility was briefed to the Associated Press by the SCO's Andrew Weissmann):

The FISA "snooping” included a time when Manafort was “known to talk to President Donald Trump”, and "sparked” concern that “Manafort had encouraged the Russians” to help the Trump campaign, and that the SCO had copies of these "communications” 

And CNN's "sources" also claimed there was a "gap" in the FISA due to it being stopped and restarted. When was the "gap"? Oh, in June 2016, during the Trump Tower meeting. Maybe that's when the Collusion must have happened, in this "crucial" period when nobody was listening…! 

Unmentioned by CNN is that SCO already knew this public narrative on Trump Tower (leaked in July 2017, 3 months beforehand) was false, based on their own interview of the translator at the meeting. And that Manafort had done literally zero at the meeting:

So whoever "leaked" this story to CNN is crafting this (fake) narrative:

—Manafort had a FISA (meaning there's probable cause he's an agent of a foreign power)

—There was a gap in the FISA, and maybe that's where the "Collusion" was really happening, maybe even with Trump

A recap of the Manafort case and two key court hearings may show motive for why someone would want to make up such an elaborate fake FISA story to bolster the Collusion narrative, and leak it to CNN, timed to land on Sep 18 2017

July 26, 2017: The SCO carried out a dawn raid on Manafort's house. 

Aug 2, 2017: Rod Rosenstein writes his first "scope" memo, authorizing the SCO to investigate Manafort for potential "Collusion" with Russia, and for "payments he received from the Ukrainian government"

FYI - it's worth noting at this point that the "Collusion" allegations were based on the Steele dossier, leaked to the media. And the "payments" allegation was substantially based on the fake "black ledger" of "cash payments" to Manafort, also leaked. )

Aug 18, 2017: The SCO issued a subpoena to Manafort's lawyer to testify against him to the Grand Jury. Manafort's lawyer refused, and the Special Counsel filed a motion to compel the Attorney to testify as a witness. 

The Chief Judge in D.C. overseeing the case (Beryl Howell) then held a hearing on Sep 19, 2017 (and two others on Sep 20 & 26). courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

IMPORTANT: Those Sep 19/20/26 hearings weren't reported anywhere at the time and only became "public" 6 weeks later in the court filing linked above (See 'Exhibit A'). You still can't find almost any stories on them at all, anywhere in the media. Google for yourself and see. 

And these hearings were crucial to the SCO’s case: they needed Manafort’s own lawyer to testify against him, to ensure they could get the charges about FARA violations to stick.

Sep 18, 2017: one day before those court hearings, this CNN story exploded all over the media. The takeaway - Manafort was considered such a Russian "Collusion" threat, that the FBI even got a FISA warrant, and the SCO has copies of the communications obtained under the FISA!

Oct 2, 2017: Judge Howell ruled against Manafort (in a non-public sealed opinion), ultimately piercing Attorney/Client privilege and forcing his lawyer to testify against him about the preparation of those FARA filings. Big win for the SCO 

The Grand Jury testimony of Manafort's lawyer sought by the SCO helped secure Manafort's indictment on Oct 27, which was made public on Oct 31, 2017 following his arrest

Now it's admittedly speculative that the CNN story influenced Judge Howell, but the introduction to her order justifying forcing the lawyers testimony looks ridiculous in retrospect drawn right from the CNN narrative: a case of "national importance" about Manafort's "Collusion”! 

Despite Judge Howell's solemn tone about "national importance" and "Collusion" involving Manafort, in reality, Manafort eventually stood trial for crimes like tax evasion, bank fraud and false FARA filings, committed long before he was ever associated with the Trump campaign

And prior to Manafort's trial, the SCO even admitted in response to Brady motions to his trial lawyers that the US government had *no surveillance intercepts* of Manafort AT ALL. Zip
(CNN didn’t report this, or update/retract their original story either)
https://t.co/1wlWwBXa7x

Then the SCO asserted that "Collusion" wouldn't even be mentioned at Manafort's trial. Instead, we got stories about his expensive Ostrich jacket. Clearly a matter of grave "national importance” 🙄 washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-…

But there is a bigger picture about why someone would go to the elaborate lengths of faking a FISA story in the national media, helping force Manafort's lawyer to flip on him. Because this wasn't the real aim...

...it was to set a tone or "rep" to get to @realDonaldTrump himself

Just a couple of months after Manafort's lawyer was turned against him, @GenFlynn own attorneys Covington & Burling would cite this aggressive "Manafort treatment" in their own interviews with the SCO, likely fearing they'd get the same if they didn't get Flynn to plead guilty 

Covington and Burling no doubt feared being dragged in front of Grand Jury, leaked about in the media, and asked to explain their FARA filing preparations as Manafort’s attorney had been, especially as legal assistance with FARA is a big part of their business. So they caved.

In addition, something not known at the time of the CNN leaks, is that Trump's own personal attorney Michael Cohen was also under investigation by the SCO. So that’s Manafort’s attorney, Flynn's attorneys and Trump’s attorney all in the SCO’s crosshairs

In fact, the SCO had sought search warrants on Cohen's personal devices/comms as early as *July 18, 2017*. Guess who from? Yep, the same Chief Judge Beryl Howell in D.C. This was kept under seal for nearly two years. But of course the SCO knew and planned all of this at the time 

The NYT: made this exact point about "setting a tone" *the day before* the CNN Manafort leak, only a couple of days before the Manafort attorney hearing, via Collusion friendly reporters

Just in case nobody got the message the SCO was putting out, these were reported side by side in The Atlantic , strongly suggesting that both the Sep 18, 2017 NYT and Sep 19, 2017 CNN stories were likely coordinated leaks of information from the SCO itself 

And just in case the D.C Chief Judge reads Lawfare (lets be honest, she probably does), you can always rely on Comey's homey's over there to get punked or boost SCO fakery, in this case saying that thanks to the CNN story "Lordy, there appear to be tapes". 

Ultimately, the purpose of these fake stories and this coordinated leaking campaign was so the Special Counsel could establish an aggressive "rep" on the street

*We can even get your lawyers to talk. Maybe we've even heard what you've said to them already on a FISA (wink wink)*

This troubling pattern makes it clear that the SCO's goal was to go after even the lawyers defending Trump's team, Manafort, Flynn and Trump himself

Maybe this aggressive approach would be justified had there been any "Collusion", or an actual threat to national security, but we now know that the SCO knew they had nothing *at the time* they were doing this

All these leaks should be re-evaluated with that key fact in mind

CONCLUSION

The media were willing participants in SCO intimidation. And while CNN did append an editors note over two years later, they've done nothing to expose the "sources" of this fake FISA, who likely are former members of the Special Counsel's Office

/ENDS

Caroline County family finds nearly $1M in cash in middle of road

Jon Burkett reporting for WTVR

Caroline County family finds nearly $1M in cash in middle of road

By: Jon Burkett
Posted at 11:57 PM, May 18, 2020 and last updated 7:42 AM, May 19, 2020

CAROLINE COUNTY, Va. -- A Caroline County family discovered nearly one million dollars in cash after running over bags filled with bills while on a Saturday afternoon drive.

Emily Schantz said that she was driving in the car with her family when she noticed the car in front of them swerving around an object in the road.

The object, which turned out to be a bag, was hit by the Schantz family car.

The family, out for a Saturday afternoon drive, thought that someone had left trash in the middle of Broad Street.

The family put the bag, and another bag spotted 15 feet away, in their pick-up truck.

What they did not know was that they were driving around with close to a million dollars in cold hard cash.

"Inside of the bag, there were plastic baggies and they were addressed with something that said ‘cash vault,’" Schantz said.

The Schantzes called Caroline deputies upon making the discovery.

"They came back to Caroline, and found out they'd been riding around with almost a million dollars in the truck," said Maj. Scott Moser.

Deputies are investigating, but believe the mail bags belonged to the postal service and that the money was meant for a bank.

But how they ended up on the side of the road remains a mystery.

Moser paid the family a visit Monday.

"For someone so honest and willing to give that almost a million dollars back, it's exceptional on their part,” said Moser. “Their two sons were there, so I put the lights on for them, but we are proud and they represented this county well by being so honest."

"Do the right thing and return it,” Emily Schantz said. “Because it didn't belong to us."

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Americans Have Rediscovered...

J.D. Tucille for Reason Magazine

Americans Have Rediscovered 

Self-Reliance

The lockdowns are prompting Americans to relearn skills and revive almost-forgotten habits.

5.20.2020

(RAPHAEL BLOCH/SIPA/Newscom) 

When state and local governments first issued pandemic lockdown orders as part of their efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19—or to stop it in its tracks, depending on the particular finger-wagging official—pundits debated whether supposedly individualistic Americans would knuckle under. As it turns out, many people initially obeyed, but a lot of us quickly got fed up as restrictions killed jobs and smothered social interactions. If anything, pandemic restrictions fed oxygen to the embers of the individualist, anti-authoritarian tradition. Likewise, the lockdowns have fueled old habits of self-reliance, prompting Americans to relearn skills and revive almost-forgotten habits in ways that, for better or worse, may shape the future.

Cooking at home was the first skill to gain new life in a nation that had become increasingly accustomed to take-out, fast food, and sit-down restaurant meals.

"Until recently, learning how to cook, or learning how to cook better, as an adult was considered an aspirational skill akin to learning how to ski—could be nice, might be fun, but would be daunting and could come with potentially expensive start-up costs," the Washington Post noted in March.

With restaurants closed and budgets squeezed during the pandemic, people found their options limited to the products of often-neglected kitchens. They turned to blogs, YouTube videos, and tutorials of all kinds to learn how to prepare their own meals.

In response, restaurant suppliers "started breaking apart industrial-size packages of bread, paper products and other staples to sell directly to consumers," the Los Angeles Times reported—although pandemic concerns and intrusive red tape hampered the transition.

That meant supermarket shelves were a little bare as suppliers struggled to meet demand and develop new distribution networks, so Americans took new interest in their gardens. "We sold more seeds in March than at any other time in our 144-year history," announced George Ball, chairman of The Burpee Company. And yes, those are "mostly vegetable seeds and plants such as tomatoes, peppers, and beans," according to House Beautiful.

Canning supplies and online lessons in food preservation also took off, as people realized they have to use or store anything they grow. (For the record, you can sun-dry tomatoes almost by accident in Arizona.)

While they were at home with time on their hands, people also dusted off old baking recipes and start cranking out bread and cakes in quantities that would have made grandma proud. "Americans have baked all the flour away," Amanda Mull commented at The Atlantic.

They also baked all the yeast away—and learned how to make sourdough starter as a substitute.

Of course, if you're going to have bread, you should also have it in its liquid form. And demand did rise for homebrewing supplies, too. "Northern Brewer, a major supplier of homebrewing and wine-making equipment in America, says business has shot up by 40% to 50%," according to AP.

Demand also soared for face masks—either by choice or because their use is mandated by some governments and businesses. And since finding face masks for purchase can be like questing for the Holy Grail, people polished up their sewing skills, with the impact on supplies that you'd expect.

"Sewing machines are one of the top 20 items in demand during this pandemic," Singer apologetically tells customers wondering about their delayed orders. "We were not prepared for the number of orders that we have received and we know that we are not serving you, our customer, to your expectations."

While they wait for those sewing machines to arrive, Americans are repairing gutters and building shelving units. Confinement at home with time but little money on our hands has "made us all very handy," says The New York Times. "For many homeowners across the country, the coronavirus-imposed quarantine has presented an opportunity to head over to the local hardware store and launch a few D.I.Y. projects around the house."

By preference and by necessity, people are rediscovering that they can do many things for themselves that they'd grown accustomed to outsourcing. They've acquired or honed skills that they may have never before thought they'd need, but are required in a world where conveniences disappeared overnight and creatively making-do is—as for past generations—how you live from day to day.

Whether Americans want to continue doing for themselves after the lockdowns ease and life returns to some form of normal depends on how much they enjoy the experience; many will pick a life of convenience if that's back on the menu. But harsh reality may dictate an extension of the DIY experiment for some time to come.

"The mean perceived probability of losing one's job in the next 12 months increased 2.4 percentage points to 20.9% in April," the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported last week. Voluntary social distancing efforts and mandatory lockdown orders alike have taken a brutal toll on the economy. Tens of millions of Americans are out of work—the official April unemployment rate was 14.7 percent, with worse to come.

Uncertain about the future, Americans are holding on to money rather than spending. The personal savings rate is now 13.1 percent, the highest level since 1981.

Worried about the future and stashing cash as a hedge against risk, many—not all, but certainly a good number—of Americans will continue cooking, baking, brewing, gardening, and repairing. They'll do so if only because it provides them what they want at lower cost than paying others to do it for them. They'll do it, too, because, having acquired the requisite skills, they no longer have to wait on somebody else's availability or permission. They can make or build what they want—within limits, of course, but much broader ones than before—without depending on the pleasure of others.

And when the pandemic and lockdown restrictions finally pass, something important will be left behind. Remaining in the wake of the crisis will be hard-learned skills and the confidence and sense of self-reliance for using them. We might wish these lessons had come more easily, but learn them we did, and they will help shape the world to come.