The Second Cold War Has Begun

Article by Jeff Lukens in  "Red State":

The People’s Republic of China hides its motives in a cloak of mystery. However, their contempt and disregard of others in the  Coronavirus pandemic has now torn away the shroud and made their ugly intentions clear. China has signaled its defiance to the international order and its willingness to overturn it. They are implementing a strategy to supplant the United States as the world’s dominant power, and to do so by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the PRC. 

Throughout the First Cold War, it was up to the United States to stand up for vulnerable nations and help those being set upon by the Soviet Union’s brutal force. Now that the Second Cold War is upon us, it is time to do it again against the tyranny of the People’s Republic of China. 

Following World War II, the US was transformed into a world superpower. World leadership had been thrust upon us in a way we could not avoid. It came to the US not only because of his preeminent military and economic power but because of the generous way we had employed that power in the world of desperate need and threat of Communist expansion. These principles remained true throughout the First Cold War. Today, no major issue of global peace or stability can be resolved without involvement by the United States.

For more than 40 years, the US has played a benevolent role in helping the Chinese government build a booming economy and taking its place on the world stage. We believed that China’s rise would bring us cooperation, diplomacy, and free trade. In the past year, however, it has become clear that China’s goal is to replace America as the dominant global power. By mid-century, their GDP may surpass that of the US, and hence gaining a commanding position.

Unlike Americans, whose time horizon rarely extends beyond the next election, China plays the long game. The Chinese are willing to wait out difficulties as long as trends are moving their way. They seek victory through incremental moves designed to gradually improve their strength, by both legal and lawless means, until it grows into an overwhelming advantage. They wish to avoid a hot war by winning it without firing a shot.

Over the years, American consumption of Chinese products has grown to the point we are now financing their entire annual defense budget with just a few months of what Americans contribute to their trade balance. They sell us inexpensive merchandise to finance their military buildup while viewing us as their principal foe. And then they cyber-hack our submarine and fighter plane designs and reproduce them at a fraction of the cost to oppose us.

As the Chinese economy modernized, we had hoped that political liberalization would follow. We had hoped economic integration in the world would moderate the Chinese Communist Party’s autocratic government into a democracy focused on internal development and peaceful economic competition, but that has not happened. China is a significant trading partner, but the country is not our friend or anyone else’s.

The lack of transparency about the Coronavirus crisis with China is a prime example of the differences between the two national visions. All civilized nations deserve full transparency to resolve a calamity of this sort. This is the way we operate. On the other hand, China operates in secrecy, guarding their reputation and power against the rest of the world while causing a horrendous worldwide pandemic. 

The US bases its foreign policy on alliances with other like-minded democracies. China, on the other hand, has no natural allies. They are a power unto themselves and any partners they may have comply with them only by threats and intimidation. 

For example, China is undertaking the Belt and Road Initiative to spread its influence and power, which involves dozens of countries in Asia and the Middle East. China provides assistance and loans and workforce to construct public works programs in these nations, many of them distressed Third World countries. It involves projects like roads, airports, railroads, pipelines, electrical facilities, hospitals, and so on. If the loans go into default, which is likely,  China then takes control of those finished projects. The country then becomes owned and dominated by China from that point onward. This program also enables China to establish military and diplomatic bases in these nations. 

We have been naïve to believe we can hasten democratic reform in China by opening our markets to them. It may never happen. We must be prepared to enter into a new Cold War with China in the same ways as we did with the Soviet Union. We need to recognize that China is not our friend and prepare accordingly. We must grow our military and improve our intelligence and counterintelligence operations. We need to strengthen our alliance with Pacific Rim nations and demand that China begin democratic reform. China’s ruthless rise to dominance is a clear danger to America and free people around the globe. 

For America to succeed in the Second Cold War, business and government agencies’ data and intellectual property need to be stringently protected. Tariffs and even boycotts of Chinese goods, and a costly American arms buildup will be necessary. It will be a heavy lift. Hardest of all will be the need for a long-term bipartisan effort that lasts through the end of the Century.

As nations around the globe see the two superpowers square off, many will undoubtedly be forced to pick one or the other with which to align. So which way would nations in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific Rim choose? American style freedom and human rights, or cheap merchandise and intimidation from a thuggish PRC? The answer to that choice will go far in determining the state of the world for generations to come. 

A whole generation of US government officials and China experts have gotten China completely wrong. For decades, the US policy toward China was grounded in wishful thinking. We must approach China as it is, and not as we might wish it to be. Getting our China policy right is the most significant US national security challenge of the 21st Century. We must approach the Second Cold War with all the determination and commitment that we approached the first one.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/coolhand/2020/05/23/842793/ 

Ignoring Warnings, Mich. AG Sued to RAISE Lake Level Ahead of Dam Break—to Protect Mussels

 
 Article by David Forsmark in "PJMedia":

In her ongoing audition to be Joe Biden’s veep pick, Michigan Governess Gretchen Whitmer all but convicted a private dam owner for the disastrous floods that struck the middle of the state last Wednesday.

However, it wasn’t the dam company that was trying to save a few clams—it was Whitmer’s radical attorney general, Dana Nessel.

Nessel was suing the dam company to raise the lake level three feet in order to save mussels—both endangered and common—and in their response, the dam company cited safety as a reason for not doing so.

But to Dana Nessel, who is also suing to keep Michigan’s chilly Upper Peninsula from having a reliable source of propane, citing an imaginary concern over a pipeline across the Straits of Mackinac, people come second. A distant second.

As Michigan-based Bridge Magazine reports:

For decades, federal regulators demanded changes to the design of the Edenville Dam to make it more likely to withstand heavy rains and avoid flooding.
So when Michigan regulators assumed oversight of the dam in late 2018 after its owners lost their federal license to generate energy, they took action.
To protect mussels.
Three weeks before the 96-year-old dam failed this week amid heavy rains and caused the worst flood in Midland history, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued its owner, alleging it illegally lowered Wixom Lake in 2018 and 2019, killing “thousands if not millions, of freshwater mussels.”
“Defendants wrongfully exerted dominion over the freshwater mussels and caused their death which denies and is inconsistent with the state’s right to them,” state lawyers wrote in an April lawsuit.

“Exerted dominion”? Who are they suing, Adam? Eve? Wrong Eden, Dana.

Well, now they might need to enlist Noah.

The genesis of this dispute is complex, going back to the 1920s when private utilities were more common and the dams along the four manmade lakes in the Tittabawassee River were used as a primary power-generation source for the community.  Friends with property there tell me there has been plenty of tension between the dam owner and residents since at least the 1990s.

But there is no denying certain basic facts—and another example of the priorities of environmentalists when it comes to human life.

Again from Bridge Magazine’s excellent report:

The dam’s owner, Boyce Hydro Power LLC, claims Michigan pressured it to raise lake levels before the flood and the company took steps to lower them because “mis-operation could pose a significant risk to the Village of Sanford, Northwood University, the City of Midland, and other downstream areas,” according to a lawsuit last month.

Of course, none of this made the Governess’s press conference, in which she solely damned the owners. At her briefing near a school where evacuated residents were sheltering, she declared she would take “every legal recourse we have” to “hold people responsible.”

The dam owners were singled out; her Attorney General was not.

And not letting this crisis go to waste, the governor, known for having perhaps the least respect for private property of any in the country, added this agenda item: “We can talk about the merits of whether or not private companies should own critical infrastructure or not — I don’t think that they should — but that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

This is not the first time that Attorney General Dana Nessel’s priorities—and propriety—have come into question.  At the height of Michigan’s COVID-19 lockdown, she treated the state to this insightful tweet:

Dana Nessel ✔ @dananessel

Am I the only one who regrets not totally liquidating my 401K and investing the whole thing into the business that manufactures Real Dolls?

 Maybe Dana just needs to learn when to clam up.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-forsmark/2020/05/22/ignoring-warnings-mich-ag-sued-to-raise-lake-level-ahead-of-dam-break-to-protect-mussels-n418055 

Appeals Court Order In Michael Flynn Case Bodes Well For Him, Poorly For Judge Sullivan

The Department of Justice should weigh in and soon because this case is no longer just about Flynn. It is about separation of powers, the executive branch — and now, unfortunately, about Judge Sullivan.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his legal team, led by attorney Sidney Powell, received promising news Thursday from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a rare move, a three-judge panel ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan, the presiding judge in the long-running criminal case against Flynn, to respond to Powell’s petition for a writ of mandamus. In that petition, Powell asked the appellate court to order Sullivan to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn. While Thursday’s order does not guarantee Flynn a win, the signs are hopeful.

To understand why requires some lawsplaining, so let’s start with the background and then move to the procedural niceties in play.

On Jan. 24, 2017, just days after Donald Trump’s inauguration as our country’s 45th president, FBI agents Peter Strzok (since fired) and Joe Pientka questioned then-National Security Adviser Flynn, about Flynn’s December 2016 telephone conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. More than 10 months later, after the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel and under threats from Mueller’s team to target his son, Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to making false statements to the FBI agents in violation of Section 1001.

Following his guilty plea, Flynn cooperated extensively with the special counsel’s office. With his cooperation nearly complete, the government informed the presiding judge, Sullivan, that the case was ready to proceed to sentencing. On Dec. 18, 2018, Flynn appeared with his attorneys from the law firm Covington and Burling for sentencing.

Although the government had recommended a sentence of no prison time for Flynn, Sullivan berated Flynn and questioned whether Flynn might have even committed treason. After Sullivan suggested Flynn might see jail time if sentencing proceeded, Flynn acceded to the longtime judge’s suggestion that sentencing wait until his cooperation with the government was complete.

With Powell, the Flynn Case Took a Turn

But then in June 2019, mere weeks after the closing of the special counsel’s office and resignation of Mueller, Flynn fired his Covington and Burling lawyers and hired Powell. After requesting and receiving some delays to familiarize herself with the case file, Powell began shaking things. She filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, claiming the government had withheld material exculpatory evidence.

The lead federal prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, a holdover from the special counsel’s office, assured the court that all material exculpatory evidence had already been provided to the defense counsel. Sullivan agreed and denied Powell’s motion to compel.

Powell would later file several additional motions, including a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn based on prosecutorial misconduct. Powell also filed two separate motions for “leave of court,” or permission from the judge for Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea.

Throughout her various motions, Powell exposed several problematic or suspicious circumstances concerning the investigation and prosecution of Flynn. For instance, Powell highlighted how the government had failed to provide the original FBI 302 interview summary. She also exposed several significant changes made to latter iterations of the 302 interview summaries, calling into question the accuracy of the summary form.

The public would later learn that Attorney General William Barr apparently shared some of Powell’s concerns because he appointed an outside U.S. attorney, Missouri-based Jeff Jensen, to conduct a review of the Flynn investigation.

In late April 2020, Powell began seeing the fruits of that investigation, when Jensen turned over documents previously withheld from Flynn’s legal team. Soon after, the public learned of these details when Powell filed the documents with the court, as supplements to her motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

Among the material provided to Powell was an FBI closing memorandum, documenting the FBI’s Jan. 4, 2017 decision to close its investigation into Flynn for potential Russia collusion. But text messages provided to Powell revealed that the “7th Floor,” which referred to FBI leadership, had put the brakes on closing the investigation.

A second set of documents Powell received included handwritten notes by then-FBI Director Andrew McCabe and the former assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Bill Priestap. Priestap’s handwritten notes proved devastating to those investigating Flynn. “What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote.

Then in a shocking development one week later, on May 7, 2020, federal prosecutor Van Grack withdrew from the case, and the U.S. attorney filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn. In its motion to dismiss, the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office explained that Jensen’s review had uncovered new evidence and that the Department of Justice no longer believed that Flynn’s Jan. 24, 2017 statements to the FBI agents — even if they were false — were material. The purportedly false statements were not material under Section 1001, the government explained, because there was no valid investigative purpose for questioning Flynn about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Judge Sullivan Kicked Off a Courtroom Circus

Sullivan did nothing for five days. But on May 12, 2020, he did the inexplicable: He entered an order stating that “at the appropriate time, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs.”

An amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, brief is prepared by a third party to assist the court in ruling, but while procedures exist for such briefs in civil cases, there is no analog in the criminal trial court context. However, that didn’t stop Sullivan from inviting outside parties to wade into the swamp, and it didn’t stop him from appointing, the next day, former federal Judge John Gleeson “as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.”

A few days later, Sullivan made clear he intended to move quickly with these outside briefs. He directed Gleeson to file a brief by June 10, 2020, and other attorneys to seek permission to file a brief by the same date. He directed the federal government and Flynn to respond by June 17, 2020, with further deadlines for follow-up responses. Sullivan set July 16, 2020, for oral arguments.

Sullivan had just opened the doors of his courtroom to a circus. Powell quickly sought to pull the tent down on the sideshow by filing on Tuesday an “emergency petition for a writ of mandamus,” with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A writ of mandamus is merely jargon for a court order that directs a lower court to act as required by law. It is not an appeal, but rather a separate proceeding which challenges a judge’s conduct.

To obtain a writ of mandamus, a party must “petition” or request a higher court to grant the writ or order. It is an “extraordinary remedy,” and is rarely granted. It is appropriate, however, when the petitioner: 1) has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; 2) “show[s] that his right to the writ is ‘clear and indisputable’”; and then 3) “the court ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”

Thursday, the D.C. Circuit, which is the federal appellate court with authority over the D.C. District Court and thus Sullivan, issued an order directing Sullivan to, “within ten days,” “file a response addressing [Flynn’s] request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss filed on May 7, 2020.” The order then cited the appellate court’s recent decision in United States v. Fokker Services, which as we will see shortly proves suggestive. “The government is invited to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period,” the order concluded.

Things Are Looking Up for Flynn

The D.C. Circuit’s order proves promising to Flynn for several reasons. First, mandamus is considered an extraordinary remedy and as such is rarely granted. Accordingly, in most cases, the appellate court will perfunctorily deny the petition. But in Flynn’s case, not only was the petition not rejected outright, but instead, with Powell’s petition pending only two days, the federal appellate court ordered Sullivan to respond on an expeditious basis.

That the court ordered Sullivan to file a response to the petition for mandamus is highly unusual and telling, and that the court directed him to submit his response in 10 days shows the court is serious. The fact that the 10-day timeframe expires before the due date Sullivan set for the amicus to file briefs in the Flynn case suggests the appellate court wants to put the brakes on those proceedings.

The citation in the D.C. Circuit’s order to the Fokker case also broadcasts the court’s concern that Sullivan improperly disregarded that circuit precedent. (District courts must follow the precedent of the appellate court within whose boundaries it falls, so for the D.C. District Court, the precedent from the D.C. Circuit constitutes “circuit precedent.”)

As I explained last week, the Fokker precedent demands the district court grant the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn, because in Fokker, the court held that “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”

The Fokker case proves intriguing for another reason, which adds insight into Thursday’s order. In Fokker, like the Flynn case, both the government and the respective criminal defendants agreed on the issue and disagreed with the trial court’s conduct. Yet in Fokker, the court did not order the district court to respond, or even invite a response from the trial court.

Instead, in Fokker, the D.C. Circuit appointed an outside attorney to act as an amicus curiae, to defend the trial court’s decision.

Circuit rules allow for either, stating that “the court of appeals may invite or order the trial-court judge to address the petition or may invite an amicus curiae to do so.”

The three-judge panel that issued yesterday’s order, however, didn’t want to hear from an amicus — they wanted to hear from Sullivan. Further, under the rules, the court could have merely “invited” Sullivan’s response, but instead they demanded it. That seems suggestive.

It is also suggestive that while the court demanded Sullivan respond to the petition for mandamus, it did not order the government to respond, but instead invited the Department of Justice to file a brief in its discretion. The court apparently sees no necessity in hearing additional arguments from the government.

While Fokker seems dispositive, and Thursday’s order seems to suggest the writing is on the wall, one can never fully predict how judges will rule. That is especially true when politics are in play.

Which Judges Will Decide the Case?

So, of course, the first questions that folks following the Flynn case asked were who are the judges that will decide the case and who appointed them.

The lawyer who tweets under the moniker John Huber answered that question and more soon after the order broke. The three-judge panel consists of Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Neomi Rao. Henderson was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H.W. Bush, but President Ronald Reagan had first appointed her to the federal bench at the district court level.

Rao was also a Republican appointee, with Trump nominating her to replace Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit. Wilkins, on the other hand, was an Obama appointee.

When it comes to politics, predictions are difficult. In this case, the D.C. Circuit has more to consider than merely the “right answer,” because Sullivan’s decision is directly at odds with the court’s decision in Fokker.

Powell agrees, telling me that Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss the charge is “in violation of clear precedent from the circuit and Supreme Court.”

“Obviously, the D.C. Circuit is taking our petition for writ of mandamus very seriously, as the court should,” Powell added.

Powell further considers the fact that the judges ordered Sullivan to respond directly — with no amicus — to be “significant.” “The handwriting is on the wall,” she told me. Powell also expects the Department of Justice to weigh in soon. After all, Powell noted, “it is the department’s motion we are defending along with the power of the executive branch.”

Powell is correct: The Department of Justice should weigh in and soon because this case is no longer just about Flynn. It is about separation of powers and the executive branch.

Unfortunately, it is also now about Judge Sullivan.

The Old Guard honors fallen service members with flags-in ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:35 AM PT — Saturday, May 23, 2020

A group of soldiers is honoring the men and women who have lost their lives in service to America. The Old Guard participated in Flags-in Day this week ahead of Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, as they’ve done for more than 50 years.

Although the cemetery is closed to the general public this year, the Old Guard showed to place over 228,000 flags at the headstones of fallen service members.

“I think it’s especially meaningful with how the cemetery is closed to visitors right now, we still come out and we still place the flags. It’s not about the show, it’s not about the cemetery looking great. It’s about recognizing and honoring service, the sacrifice, of each person here within the cemetery.” – Chaplain Joseph Mason, 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment

 The Old Guard, or the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, was set up as the official ceremonial unit for the Army in 1948.

https://www.oann.com/the-old-guard-honors-fallen-service-members-with-flags-in-ceremony-in-arlington-national-cemetery/

Eisenhower Warned About...

by Barry Brownstein for Intellectual Takeout

Eisenhower Warned About Scientific Elites Like Dr. Fauci

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address is famous for his prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Eisenhower’s warning is often repeated but has gone mostly ignored, as has another observation from the same speech. Warning that scientists dependent on government contracts and grants might cripple scientific breakthroughs, Eisenhower said “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Eisenhower put his warning in context: “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.”

“In the same fashion,” Eisenhower continued, “the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

“Scientific research and discovery” should be held in “respect” Eisenhower said. Yet he foresaw, “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

Today, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is hailed as one of the world’s great leaders and “America’s doctor.” Fauci has headed the NIAID for 36 years. He controls a budget of almost $6 billion dedicated to fighting infectious diseases. He is one of the “scientific-technological elite” that Eisenhower warned against.

We don’t have to attribute nefarious motives to Dr. Fauci to object to central planning by scientific-technological elites.

In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell writes, “Government funding has… promoted the idea that a theory can be regarded as true if it enjoys enough support.” Bethell adds,

"Consensus discourages dissent, however. It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong. Committees at the National Institutes of Health that decide which projects shall be funded are inevitably run by scientists who are at peace with the dominant theory."

It would be naïve to think Dr. Fauci is eager to fund approaches to COVID-19 other than his preferred vaccine solution.

Some endorse Fauci’s approach. Why not let him use his decades of accumulated wisdom to cut to the chase and save the day? Testing competing theories seems wasteful.

However, scientific breakthroughs occur when competing theories are tested. Bethell explains, “Just as a competitive market system forces innovation into private enterprise, so the competition of theories drives science to investigate new approaches.”

Socialists like Bernie Sanders, who don’t understand how competition drives innovation, argue too many brands of deodorants are wasteful. Similarly, some might believe studying non-vaccine solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic is wasteful. President Trump wants a vaccine by the end of the year. Dr. Fauci is a vaccine advocate, and so some might say let us not muddy the waters with other voices slowing down our efforts.

If you share such a mindset, you might cheer for “Operation Warp Speed.” Pause to take in Bethell’s caution: “When any single source of funding dominates, science will almost certainly become the handmaiden of politics.”

In his book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, Steven Johnson describes “a paradoxical truth about innovation: good ideas are more likely to emerge in environments that contain a certain amount of noise and error.”

Johnson echoes Eisenhower’s wisdom: “When you don't have to ask for permission, innovation thrives.”

Research shows the most innovative entrepreneurs reached for ideas beyond their narrow field of expertise. Johnson reports, innovative entrepreneurs “borrow or co-opt new ideas from these external environments and put them to use in a new context.”

Like Eisenhower, Johnson observes, “Governments and other non-market institutions have long suffered from the innovation malaise of top-heavy bureaucracies.”

Johnson adds, “The more the government thinks of itself as an open platform instead of a centralized bureaucracy, the better it will be for all of us, citizens and activists and entrepreneurs alike.”

Today, we are a long way from the “open platform” Eisenhower, Bethell, and Johnson advocate.

At the close of his farewell address, Eisenhower imagined a time when “all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”

Politicians and the scientific-technological elites may pretend otherwise, but today policy is being made based on imperfect science.

For there to be a scientific breakthrough in an uncertain environment, “respect” for dissenting voices is essential. A lack of respect for dissenting voices goes with “top-heavy bureaucracies” led by the “scientific-technological elite.”

Many people see these “elites” as heroes. Looking through Eisenhower’s lens, because they are blocking science from evolving, they are dangerous to the nation’s health.

--

[Image Credit: Flickr-The White House, public domain]

Trey Gowdy Discusses FBI Investigation and The Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts He Has Read

On the topic of the FBI capture and use of the December 29, 2016, Flynn-Kislyak phone call…  First we had a hunch; then it became a suspicion… that evolved into a likelihood… that has now become a strong probability.

The capture of the December 29th phone call, which generated the raw “CR cuts“, was an FBI summary, modified for a specific interpretation.  Much like the missing 302 there is now a very strong probability the FBI ‘CR cuts’ do not represent the actual call content.

In this short interview segment Trey Gowdy alludes to one issue, and speaks directly to another.  First, the only reason the FBI opened the internal INSD review is because the information previously hidden has become public.  Second, the Flynn-Kislyak calls that Trey Gowdy has reviewed were “boring” nothing-burgers.  WATCH:

SELECTIVE CAPTURE – Did you note the part where the FBI told Gowdy some of the Flynn phone calls were “not captured”?  Wouldn’t it be a very convenient framework if the FBI was going to summarize one of those non-captured calls into a “CR cut.”  

FBI: “Oh, sorry, we don’t have the actual transcript, but we do have a summary of what we interpreted that call content to be.”  Huh, funny that.

Lastly, does anyone else find it odd that now is Trey Gowdy admitting that he viewed the Flynn-Kislyak phone call transcripts.  I wonder why he waited to say that….

‘A Year’s Worth of Suicide Attempts in...

Tobias Hoonhout for National Review

‘A Year’s Worth of Suicide Attempts in the Last Four Weeks’: 

California Doctor Calls for End to Lockdown

May 22, 2020

(Pixabay)

The doctor in charge of a Bay Area, Calif. trauma center said the state should end its lockdown orders after an “unprecedented” spike in suicide attempts amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” Dr. Mike deBoisblanc, head of trauma at John Muir Medical Center, told local station ABC7. “I mean, we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.” He added that he thinks “it’s time” to end the state shutdown.

“I think, originally, this was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients,” he explained. “We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”

Trauma nurse Kacey Hansen, who has worked at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for over three decades, said she had “never seen” so many attempts, most being young adults. “I have never seen so much intentional injury . . . it’s upsetting.”

John Muir Health said in a statement that while “there are a number of opinions on this topic, including within our medical staff,” the organization supports the state’s shelter-in-place order.

California governor Gavin Newsom is currently putting his state through a phased reopening, with counties in the Bay Area moving slower than other parts of the state. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice warned Newsom in a letter that his state’s banning of in-person worship “facially discriminates against religious exercise.”

Former AAG Matt Whitaker Discusses Flynn Case and New FBI Internal Investigation

Former Acting AG Matt Whitaker appears with Liz MacDonald to discuss the latest revelations in the Flynn case; the ongoing declassification of documents by DNI Ric Grenell; and the announcement of a new internal FBI investigation.  WATCH:

The CDC Is Still...

by Peter Suderman for Reason Magazine

The CDC Is Still 

Botching the Coronavirus Testing Process

The disease control agency is a poster child for bureaucratic incompetence.

5.22.2020

(Shealah Craighead/Education Depa/ZUMA Press/Newscom ) 

Over and over again, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have bungled the response to COVID-19. The agency is supposed to stand at the forefront of the federal government's defense against pandemics, but in the effort to track, identify, and slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, it has repeatedly proven that it's not up to the task. 

The agency publishes statistics purporting to show the number of Americans tested, and the number of positive and negative results. In theory, this should provide a clear snapshot of both the spread of the virus and the number of people who have been tested. 

Yet as The Atlantic reported yesterday, the agency has been conflating the results of two very different tests: viral tests, which determine if an individual is sick right now, and antibody tests, which are designed to reveal whether an individual has ever been exposed to the pathogen. This makes it impossible to determine the true spread of the virus at any given moment. As The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal and Robinson Meyer write, combining the results of these two tests without providing a breakdown of how many fall into which category is, "at best, a debilitating mistake." 

It isn't the first such error the CDC has made. At nearly every stage of the crisis, the agency has botched the job in small and large ways that continue to cripple our response. The agency is a poster child for bureaucratic incompetence.

Early in February, the agency misreported the results from mislabeled test samples taken from a group of individuals who were being quarantined at a San Diego military base after being evacuated from Wuhan, China, where the virus originated. The CDC initially informed the group that, following testing, everyone was negative for the virus. But after the mislabeling was discovered, it turned out that one woman had tested positive—and had been released from the hospital to return to quarantine on the base. The mixup was blamed on a miscommunication with the hospital. 

A far more consequential error also occurred in February, when the agency botched the development of the first batch of test kits that states were supposed to use to begin the testing process. The CDC had already declined to use a German test backed by the World Health Organization, preferring to create its own, as is typical for the agency. This cost several weeks during the time when the virus was just beginning to spread in the U.S. And when the CDC did send out test kits to states, the majority of those kits delivered faulty results. Crucial elements of the test kits were "terribly designed," a scientist who studies viruses told Vice. Only when the testing process was turned over to the private sector was it put back on track. 

In developing the faulty kits, the CDC had made basic scientific mistakes. Eventually, an agency spokesperson admitted that the agency "did not manufacture its test consistent with its own protocol." The errors were simple and avoidable, and they have consistently left independent experts aghast. "The incompetence has really exceeded what anyone would expect with the C.D.C.," one Harvard epidemiologist told The New York Times in March. "This is not a difficult problem to solve in the world of viruses."

And in doing so, they cost the country the one thing it did not have to spare in the crisis: time. A virus spreads like a fire. Quickly stamp out the initial sparks, and it won't grow. Let a spark turn into a larger blaze, and it becomes far more difficult to manage. But you can't stamp out the sparks if you can't see them. Without functioning test kits, the country could not determine COVID-19's spread, could not see who was infected and where, and could not respond appropriately. 

Months later, as reporting snafus make clear, the CDC is still making easily avoidable mistakes. And they are still costing us time we do not have. 

The CDC is not alone in its errors. Several states have been blending their test results as well, rendering it difficult to determine the local impact of the virus. But the CDC's role as the officially designated first line of defense makes the agency's failure far more significant. Without clear, reliable, and accurate reporting from the CDC, it becomes nearly impossible to take stock of the pandemic's damage. 

The virus has upended American life in ways that make it unusually difficult to predict the future. But thanks to the CDC, we have a problem that is even worse: No only do we not know what is going to happen, but we don't know what is happening. 

From the outset, the CDC has contributed to the already considerable uncertainty and instability of the moment, failing at the most basic and essential tasks it has been charged with carrying out. Its many failures are a reminder that centralized systems with a single point of failure tend to heighten risks in moments of crisis. And it's a stark warning to all those who see the crisis as an argument for giving federal authorities more power in crises like this: That means giving more authority and more responsibility to agencies like the CDC, with all the lethal consequences that could result.

Wray Reversal – FBI Launches Internal Investigation Surrounding FBI Conduct in Flynn Case

This is not a surprising development; though with breaking news it is prudent to pause before assigning motives.  At first review it appears the FBI cannot hold back the sunlight.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has announced his launching of an internal investigation based on details surfacing from the Michael Flynn case. “FBI Director Christopher Wray today ordered the Bureau’s Inspection Division [INSD] to conduct an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation” the bureau said in the statement:

(screen grab from Catherine Herridge)

This is an interesting development considering this same FBI Director previously claimed the office of inspector general found no intentional wrongdoing by people within the FBI; and Wray further asserted there was “no evidence of political bias” after each of three OIG investigations completed in 2018 and 2019.

If the OIG did not find FBI wrongdoing, then what changed?  Why is FBI Director Chris Wray now launching an internal investigation?  The answer appears to be an outsider’s investigation via Missouri U.S. Attorney, Jeff Jensen.

Second part of statement below:

The inspection division (INSD) previously reviewed FBI conduct and reported to Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  The resulting IG findings of FBI conduct was carefully worded and disingenuous at best, but it was embraced by FBI Director Wray.

Now the outsider review by US Attorney Jeff Jensen; combined with the simultaneous declassification of documents by DNI Ric Grenell; appears to be highlighting a lot more internal FBI corruption.  Hence this unavoidable shift in tone from Wray.

This announcement today comes as Ric Grenell is working to declassify the transcript(s) of the Flynn-Kislyak call, with some rather interesting comments.  More soon…

Should We Prepare to Discover The FBI Never Officially Used The Kislyak-Flynn Transcript?

You may have recently noticed that Susan Rice has called for the release of the transcript of the conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak:

(Source and Full Statement)

However, what many people do not realize is the motive for Susan Rice to call for the release of this transcript.  This aspect of the intercepted communication is very interesting.

First, there is nothing damaging in the content of the Flynn-Kislyak call.  We know there is nothing damaging in the transcript because the call was made on December 29, 2016; and the FBI investigators who intercepted the call reviewed the call content; and five days later on January 4, 2017, the same Washington DC field office of the FBI wanted to close the investigation of Michael Flynn having “found no derogatory information.”

If there had been something damaging within the call to either the incoming Trump administration, or Michael Flynn himself, the FBI would not be saying they have found nothing derogatory and they were closing the Flynn investigation five days after the call.

Additionally, we also know there was nothing damaging or inappropriate within the call because Robert Mueller’s investigators outlined the content:

Flynn requesting that “Russia not escalate the situation” or get into a “tit for tat” is not inappropriate, impolite, undermining of Obama foreign policy, or violating any norm of diplomatic political standards during a presidential transition.  Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn simply said don’t “escalate” beyond standard reciprocity.

So the “transcript” of a call that was already reviewed by FBI investigative monitors -who found no issue- and reviewed by the special counsel -who found nothing of issue-  isn’t going to all of a sudden present damaging optics for the Trump administration three years later.  [I put “transcript” in quotation marks for a reason; I will explain below.]

The bottom line is any transcript released today, if there is one, is a nothing-burger.

So why is Susan Rice advocating for the release of the transcript?

Here’s where things get interesting…

Remember, the objective of Susan Rice and her lawyer, former White House counsel and Obama ‘fixer’ Kathryn Ruemmler, is to protect President Obama and the former administration.   Obama, Rice and Ruemmler know the transcript angle is a nothing-burger; however, the transcript does one thing very clearly…. It puts the burden of consequence for the use of the transcript squarely on former FBI Director James Comey.

I suspect, very heavily, Susan Rice is requesting release of full transcript because she knows it was non-existent to the Obama White House.  That fact puts more distance between Obama and Comey; and that paints the FBI operation against Flynn as rogue. The distance here was/is ongoing goal.

This gets a little nuanced; but the REAL story is in the weeds.

In early January 2017 DNI James Clapper was asked by the White House to find out why the Russians were not escalating the issue over sanctions by reacting with more ferocity to the action of President Obama.  As James Comey testified, the intelligence community was tasked to “review all intelligence for an answer.”

FBI Director Comey reviewed the content of the Kislyak-Flynn interception and briefed DNI James Clapper on the “Flynn cuts.”  The “cuts” are essentially raw intelligence summaries of the intercept.

DNI Clapper requested “copies” (plural) of the intercepted raw intelligence summaries known as “CR cuts” (Flynn is Crossfire Razor “CR”); and using the copies of the intercept summaries DNI Clapper briefed President Obama on January 4, 2017, thereby answering the question about why the Russian’s were not reacting more severely.

However, the outcome of DNI Clapper briefing President Obama, with what Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described as “a summary document” that wasn’t an official “intelligence product”, was the White House now being officially informed of an open FBI investigation against incoming NSA Michael Flynn.  The White House was now infected with knowledge of the investigation…. and that could be a potential problem later on.

The knowledge of an investigation into the incoming administration; and the document trail created by Clapper/Comey; created a need for President Obama to have the pull-aside meeting with FBI Director James Comey the next day, January 5, 2017.

The purpose of the meeting was to create distance from an explosive & political issue.  The outgoing administration needed distance from James Comey.  Everything written in Susan Rice’s memo about the meeting is specifically worded to create that distance.

Susan Rice writes: “The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective”, adding three times that President Obama instructed Comey to handle everything “by the book.”   In essence the way Susan Rice framed the conversation was to place James Comey as specifically responsible for anything that happens.

Now, FBI Director James Comey isn’t stupid, and he would have immediately picked up on how he was being positioned outside the protective wire and completely on his own.  Being a very political FBI Director, Comey would know exactly what the purpose of these specific words and instructions from the President implied.

Rice’s memo, written with the advice of White House counsel, is specifically worded to create distance.  You might say the White House was leaving Comey holding the proverbial bag; and setting him up to be the ‘fall guy‘ if things went sideways.

This is the point where we need to put ourselves in Comey’s very political shoes.  Comey knows the purpose of that meeting.  Comey also knows essentially Obama is saying he didn’t authorize an investigation of Flynn and Obama is not going to protect Comey.

So what exactly was Comey tasked to do on behalf of the White House?

The only thing (provable) the FBI was specifically tasked to do was find out the reason for Russia’s behavior or lack thereof.  That’s it.  Comey carried authority to produce the intercepted “tech cuts”; and as an outcome of the task share them with DNI Clapper. But that’s the end of the White House/DNI tasking authority to the FBI against Flynn.

Director Comey was not tasked, authorized or requested to produce a transcript of the intercepted phone call; and he was not tasked to do anything else with it.  From the perspective of Obama, Comey’s task was complete January 5th, anything more is on him.

The lack of investigative authority toward Flynn is a key point to consider as we look at the internal FBI debate.  Remember, the day before the Obama/Comey conversation the FBI investigators had already determined there was “no derogatory information” and they were going to close the investigation.  Additionally, there was nothing of issue within the Flynn-Kislyak call content itself.

Anything, including legal risk from an abuse of power, after that January 5th meeting was now completely on Director Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s shoulders.

With that in mind, the debate with FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and the January 23/24, 2017, meetings where Priestap is taking notes of conversations with Comey and McCabe, take on a new and narrow focus.

As Priestap took notes about his original concerns: “what is our goal?”

The FBI small group (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Page, Priestap, Strzok, Pientka) together with the DOJ small group (Yates, McCord, Guahar, Moffa) had proposed a wild theory about accusing Flynn of Logan Act violations.  Somehow, despite their own investigators saying there was nothing derogatory, the group was determined to eliminate Flynn.

The crew was leaking to the media for support; but even with the severe echo chamber Bill Priestap had reservations writing in his notes during their meeting “I believe we should rethink this.”

The FBI team led mostly by Comey, McCabe, Page and Strzok never even told the main justice crew about the decision to interview Flynn until after it was over, according to Deputy AG Sally Yates.

The FBI wasn’t tasked by anyone else to interview Flynn four days after the inauguration.  The content of the Flynn-Kislyak call was fine according to the DC FBI investigators; and the controversy was generated by their own ‘small group’ media leaks and narrative engineering.   So ultimately what was the authority to interview Flynn?

According to the outside review by Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen there wasn’t any legal reason or justified authority to conduct the interview.  Hence, Jensen recommended to AG Bill Barr that the DOJ just drop the case; and they did.

The only FBI “pre-authorized” evidence was the gathering of the tech summary or “cuts” from the intercept.  There was no task or authorization to generate a transcript or do anything further.  James Comey would know that, and he would definitely know from the earlier conversation with President Obama that he was all alone.

With that in mind, do you think Comey would assemble an actual transcript for use in the Flynn interview that Main Justice was never informed was going to happen?  Or, would it be safer to stick with the “CR Cuts” and summaries that FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Agent Pientka saw, reviewed and knew about?

In the aftermath of the interview; and amid six months where nothing was done as a result of the interview; and amid all of the subsequent congressional requests for the transcript with no results; and amid all of the special counsel indictment filings against Flynn; and amid all of the legal proceedings against Flynn where the transcripts were requested (defense) and later ordered (judge) over two years; and not produced by prosecutor (Van Grack et al) there is zero evidence the Flynn-Kislyak transcript(s) even exist.

The reality is: there is 100 percent evidence the Flynn transcripts were never used in any proceedings, including legal proceedings; and zero percent evidence they even exist.

When we consider there is nothing derogatory within the Flynn-Kislyak conversation; and the only Flynn issue is how the FBI framed the content of answers to questions about a transcript the FBI has never admitted to exist, or presented to prove their case…Well, is it possible all of the efforts against Flynn were constructed from the use of “tech cuts” or “CR cuts” or summaries of the intercept?

That possibility is only real because the transcripts have never been identified.

The FBI, the DOJ, the special counsel, and the specific prosecutors have never stated they ever held an official transcript beyond the evidence of the call summaries identified above.

Could it be the DOJ bluffed Flynn into a guilty plea with: (1) threats against Mike Flynn Jr, (2) a fabricated 302 written/edited/shaped AFTER the interview, and (3) a non-existent transcript?   

We know 1 and 2 did happen… should we prepare for 3?

DNI Ric Grenell Declassifying Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries….it wasn’t our product”

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell announced today he is in the process of declassifying the transcripts of the calls between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Within a twitter response by Grenell, part of the riddle behind the transcripts gets a little more clarity: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

The implication here is the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) did not generate one of the transcripts; that evolved into an FBI equity, and was later used in their case against Lt. General Michael Flynn. The December 29, 2016, intercept was not exclusive to the U.S. intelligence apparatus, and the call summary became proprietary to the FBI; the agency exploiting the underlying content.

This makes sense and explains how the FBI was able to manipulate the framework of the call and keep the remaining U.S. intelligence system away from their internal plan.

There was more than one phone call and conversation between Flynn and Kislyak.  Some immediately after the election and in/around mid-December 2016.  Reports of those contacts and communications WERE in the U.S. IC network and those reports led to unmasking requests.  However, the specific December 29th communication was not an exclusive intercept of the U.S. intelligence community and therefore easier for the FBI to shape.

When Susan Rice, and now all of the downstream politicians, are requesting the release of the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, those specific demands do not encompass the Dec.29th call; and it appears from the political narrative being assembled, the democrats do not necessarily expect DNI Grenell to be able to release the transcript of that specific call.

Example:

DNI Ric Grenell is signaling that he intends to release all the call transcripts not just the ones obtained by U.S. intelligence intercepts.

The “CR cuts” are summaries of the intercepted communication and therefore subject to being manipulated or shaped by the FBI official doing the summary.  The call summary is subject to interpretation and shaping much like a 302 report would be.  However, Grenell doesn’t just want to release the FBI summary, he wants to release the full transcript.

This approach by Grenell seems to confirm what we have been assembling about the transcripts, the “CR cuts”, and how the FBI used them.

There are intercepted communications between Flynn-Kislyak that were part of the ongoing FBI investigation of Flynn and monitoring of Russian interests.  Those intercepts became reports, and within those reports Flynn was masked; and later unmasked by political operatives.

However, the specific December 29, 2016, call while Flynn was in the Dominican Republic was a third party intelligence intercept; transferred to the FBI exclusively as part of their counterintelligence operation.  That 12/29/16 intercept generated proprietary FBI “CR cuts” or summaries of that intercepted communication specific to the FBI investigation.  That call content remained outside the larger intelligence community.  Hence Grenell saying: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

But Grenell is working to bring that specific FBI equity (call transcript) into the IC and release it -in total- along with all other transcripts that were already within the control of the IC; thus Grenell gives an honest presentation of the totality of the contact, not just the parts that have been manipulated and shaped by officials in their targeting of Flynn.

Combine what Grenell is doing along with the announcement by FBI Director Chris Wray today, to review FBI action in the Flynn investigation, and a more fulsome picture emerges.

As many have long suspected the FBI shaped the December 29, 2016, call content; the FBI biased interpretation of what took place on that call; specifically to target Flynn.  They were able to do this, in part, because they exclusively held the evidence they were shaping.

With U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen now reviewing the background evidence, and with DNI Ric Grenell declassifying and releasing the underlying documents, the truth is being pushed to the surface….