A lot of media spread a huge lie about President Donald Trump yesterday, will any of them take it back?
Three guesses: not a chance in heck.
The
U.S. Park Police is now confirmed that neither they or any assisting
law enforcement groups with them deployed any tear gas near protesters
in Lafayette Park a short time before President Donald Trump walked
though the area.
Media ran with the false story that Trump had “peaceful protesters” gassed ahead of a “photo op” at St. John’s church.
The Park Police statement said there was no tear gas, just smoke canisters and pepper balls and that “protesters” were far from “peaceful.”
On
Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service
to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At
approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing
projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids.
The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of
Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had
revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found
caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the
street. To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP,
following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker
to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted
patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to
clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative,
continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons,
officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No
tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement
partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence
was installed.
Trump passed through shortly before
7:00 pm on his way to St. John’s Church, often called “the president’s
church” because so many presidents have worshipped there to lend support
after they’d been set on fire on Sunday. He was trying to deliver a
message of order and calm to America in the face of the rioters.
After President Trump told governors today they needed to take back control of the streets the blue state governors are doing little to stop the chaos. The social anarchy crowd now purposefully rules over law and order in the deeply leftist communities. This is by design.
Politically speaking, the merging of Antifa (revolution communists) & Black Lives Matter (sub-text political Islam), has a purposeful agenda unknown to the standard brick thrower.
Suburban white liberals and elitist minded political activists, essentially modern affiliates of the former Bill Ayers Weather Underground, are the organizing entities. Most of the people on the street are oblivious opportunists within the anarchy.
Local authorities in/around the urban danger zones have the primary responsibility to maintain domestic tranquility. Federal intervention to replace local political ineptitude, and lack of desire to confront a crisis of their own creation, is short-sighted.
If local officials and/or state governors are not going to take action; factually they do not want to take action because they are fearful of backlash from their own tribe; then federal assistance doesn’t work.
It is better for President Trump to keep reminding the U.S. electorate how he supports, but will not replace, local officials.
The 2020 Anger Games were predictable.
To that end, President Trump addressed the nation from the Rose Garden.
He reminded everyone that America is a nation of laws.
Then President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Attorney General Bill Barr, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows walked to St John’s church immediately following a speech delivered from the Rose Garden.
The symbolism reflects executive determination and national resilience after the Antifa and Black Lives Matter mobs tried to torch St. John’s the night before.
Police Disperse Protesters with Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets Outside White House as Trump Addresses the Nation
President Donald Trump delivers a statement in the Rose Garden at the White House on the ongoing protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd, June 1, 2020. (Tom Brenner/Reuters)
President Trump promised that he “will fight to protect” the nation in an address from the Rose Garden Monday night as protestors clashed with police less than a mile away amid nationwide protests stemming from the death of George Floyd.
“I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your 2nd Amendment rights,” Trump stated in his address, adding that he was dispatching “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers military personnel” to the nation’s capitol after widespread rioting. “These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror,” he warned.
“I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protestors,” the president stated.
Trump also proposed to invoke the Insurrection Act, a 19th century law that allows him to deploy the military domestically, if governors do not deploy “the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.” Earlier Monday, Trump repeatedly told the nation’s governors to “dominate” the situation. Following his address, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker said on CNN that it would be “illegal” for Trump to deploy troops. While use of the law is rare, then-president George H.W. Bush invoked the law in 1992 to send the military into Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots.
Trump ended his speech by saying he would go “pay respects” to a “very special place,” and then left the White House to walk over and make a visit to the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church — which was burned by rioters on Sunday night.
“Greatest country in the world. And we’re going to keep it safe,” Trump said — while posing for photos with a Bible.
The police chief of Paris defended his forces Tuesday against
accusations of brutality and racism as anger over alleged police
violence mounts in France
Following a string of complaints of alleged heavy handedness, Didier
Lallement wrote a letter sympathising with the "pain" officers must feel
"faced with accusations of violence and racism, repeated endlessly by
social networks and certain activist groups".
The Paris police force "is not violent, nor racist: it acts within the
framework of the right to liberty for all," he insisted in an email to
the city's 27,500 law enforcers.
Lallement refused permission for a rally outside a Paris court later
Tuesday to call for justice for a young black man, Adama Traore, who
died in police custody in 2016.
As thousands across the United States protested the police killing last
week of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, Lallement expressed concern
that the "tone" of the call to rally in Paris could expose a "sensitive
site" to risk
He also cited a nationwide ban on public gatherings of more than 10
people designed to hamper coronavirus spread, according to the Paris
police department.
Organisers have vowed to press ahead with the protest under the banner "Truth for Adama".
Traore, 24 was apprehended in a house where he hid after leading police on a 15-minute chase in 2016.
He lost consciousness in their vehicle and died at a nearby police station.
He was still handcuffed when paramedics arrived.
'Truth for Adama'
One of the three arresting officers told investigators that Traore had
been pinned down with their combined bodyweight after his arrest.
The case sparked violent protests in the Paris suburbs and became a
rallying cry for police brutality in France, which young, black men say
is often targeted at them.
Last Friday, French medical experts exonerated the three police
officers, dismissing a medical report commissioned by the young man's
family that said he had died of asphyxiation.
It was the third official report to clear the officers.
Several French officers have been investigated for brutality against
members of the public at long-running 'yellow vests' anti-government
rallies, and more recent anti-pension reform strikes.
Scores of protesters were maimed by rubber bullets or stun grenades, some losing an eye or a hand.
On January 3 this year, a 42-year-old man suffocated to death after
being pinned face down to the ground during an arrest in Paris.
Last week, a 14-year-old was badly injured in one eye during a police
operation in Bondy, one of Paris's less wealthy northern suburbs,
sparking protests.
Lallement insisted Tuesday that any officer who erred would be appropriately punished.
"But I will not accept that individual actions throw into question the
republican bulwark that we are against delinquency and those who dream
of chaos and anarchy," he wrote.
The police department in a tweet Tuesday also denounced the
"unacceptable, systematic questioning of police intervening in difficult
contexts with hostile crowds." https://www.thelocal.fr/20200602/paris-police-chief-defends-forces-against-racism-claims
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is appalled that “The President is
calling out the American military against American citizens.” It is
despicable that a U.S. governor would make a statement like that as he
watches the biggest city in his state devolve into near anarchy.
Tell me, Governor, how many deaths, injuries, and destroyed buildings will be enough for you?
Times have changed rapidly, haven’t they? It wasn’t too long ago Cuomo was railing about saving “even a single life.”
Cuomo tells CNN:
These
protestors are making a legitimate, inarguable point…This is who we are
and how do we get better? This is a historical problem of racism and
discrimination and inequality and injustice…but rather than deal with
the truth, Mr. Trump wants to create his own truth, that these are bad
people and looters and thugs and they should be put down.
Imagine
that, Governor. A U.S. president sees uncontrollable vandalism, arson,
and looting going on in cities all across America and takes action to
stop it. Cuomo points to the dispersing of “peaceful protestors” ahead
of Trump’s visit to St. John’s church after “peaceful protestors” tried
to burn it down to make his point. He says nothing about the fact that
they’d planned to destroy it. Nor does he mention the violence and
destruction that’s taken place throughout the country over the last
week.
Americans are unanimous in their opinion that what happened
to George Floyd in police custody was an abomination. Frankly, I’m tired
of having to say that. Every conservative has to preface their remarks
about the riots by saying that, so we won’t be seen as racist. To hold
all Americans responsible for the wrongful act of four Minneapolis
police officers is outrageous.
Actually, I misspoke. The left is
only holding Trump supporters responsible for Floyd’s death. Because
liberals are so enlightened and we are so vile and contemptible.
The
only thing that will turn around the left’s thinking is if/when one of
their own is assaulted and/or killed by a rioter. Or their home is
burned to the ground. Recall NBA writer Christopher Palmer encouraging
the rioters to “Burn that sh** down. Burn it all down.” However, when
the riots threatened his home, it was a different story.
"I was shocked at the force they used," says @NYGovCuomo of protesters in Washington, DC being pelted with rubber bullets.
Cuomo calls the President walking to a nearby church and displaying a bible amid the protests "shameful," saying it was simply "a photo opportunity."
The
left is lying to the American people. This isn’t about George Floyd and
everyone knows that. His death was an excuse for them to make yet
another desperate attempt to prevent Trump’s reelection in November.
I shudder to think of what the left will do if Trump wins in November. America will be set on fire.
The ever-logical Professor Victor Davis Hanson joined Fox News’
Tucker Carlson to discuss the riots on Monday night. Hanson says he’s
seen deadly riots and arson before, but he’s never seen a situation
where “the authorities themselves tried to contextualize the violence,
apologize, even approve it. We’ve seen that.”
I am including nearly his full remarks because he so accurately defines the politics behind what is happening in America today.
(Hanson)..."Well, I think we’re waiting for one brave person to step forward and say, ‘no more.’…
This
country was united in their anguish and anger at that policeman [Derek
Chauvin] and there was a liberal mayor and a liberal governor and a
liberal police chief and the wheels of justice were turning fast. So,
there was no reason for the protests to get out of hand, and they did,
and partly it was because they could.
The demonstrators very quickly saw that people would apologize or appease them and they took advantage of it.
People who are poor and in need do not steal Nike sneakers and they do not go into Louis Vuitton to steal $5,000 bags.
And
people who are real revolutionary Antifa don’t worry about an
indictment on their record that will hurt their corporate profile.
Why
did this happen? You could make the argument, well maybe the media went
full Baghdad Bob where flames were in the background while they assured
us that the demonstrations were peaceful or they had to sidestep
looters as they assured us that nobody was breaking the law. That might
be a reason.
It’s 2020. It’s an election year and I think a lot of
the left thought where Robert Mueller, impeachment, COVID, and the
lockdown failed, maybe this disaster would succeed in getting rid of
Donald Trump.
Joe Biden was mired in racial politics before this
happened. I think he thought he could leverage, and the left could, the
African-American vote in certain ways that they found useful.
But
whatever it was, Tucker, it’s deleterious, because when you sum it all
up, what are we left with? We’re left with the idea that chaos is gonna
hurt the President.
I think the independent voter is going to say,
‘all I’m looking for is somebody to stop it. If that’s Donald Trump — I
may not like his tweets but he’s the only thing between me and [more
violence in] Santa Monica.’ I don’t think the left gets that…
And
now we know that these blue-state mayors can’t or won’t keep you either
healthy or and they can’t keep you safe. And the idea that they’re going
to beg for more money when this is over and the rest of America is
going to say good job. Here’s some more trillion [sic] is absolutely
crazy.
And finally, there’s China. We’re in an existential war
with China and they’ve changed their tune lately, watching this. It’s no
longer, ‘Well, maybe we were wrong, let’s work together. It’s ‘What the
hell are you going to do about it. So what. So what if we [inaudible]
the virus. We’re moving on Hong Kong. We’re fighting India. We’re gonna
move on Taiwan and what are you doing? You’re identifying by your tribal
affinity.’
So, really in America, you’ve got one choice. You
either say ‘I am a human and I identify as American and race and gender
are unimportant or I’m a tribalist, and my superficial appearance is
my primary loyalty’ and that’s what this is about. And people are going
to have to choose what kind of country [they want],” concluded Hanson,
“or what kind of country they won’t have.”
Seven top Senators said Sullivan's actions violate the Constitution's clear separation of powers on which branch of government may prosecute American citizens.
The actions of the rogue federal judge in the Michael Flynn criminal case are an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power that represent a “recipe for tyranny,” seven top senators, including the Senate Majority leader, told a federal court on Monday. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted the refusal of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss charges against Flynn. Sens. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Florida), and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) also signed the brief.
Sullivan’s actions violate the Constitution’s clear separation of powers on which branch of government may prosecute American citizens, the senators assert, citing the U.S. Constitution, quotes from Founding Fathers, and longstanding federal court precedent. According to the U.S. Constitution, the Executive Branch that houses the Department of Justice has the exclusive discretion to begin and to end a prosecution while the Judiciary has the power to decide cases or controversies. Just as the Executive cannot direct the Judiciary’s rulings, the Judiciary cannot direct the Executive’s prosecutorial decisions, the senators write.
No less than the former Chief Justice John Marshall described prosecutorial discretion as “‘an indubitable and a Constitutional power’ which permitted [the President] alone to determine . . . when to pursue and when to forego prosecutions,” the senators note, quoting the former chief justice from his time as a congressman. The senators reminded the court that Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that “while the Executive ‘holds the sword of the community,’ the Judiciary ‘can take no active resolution whatever’ because it has ‘neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.'” They quote James Madison in Federalist No. 47 that “[a]lthough individual liberty has ‘nothing to fear from the judiciary alone,’ it has ‘everything to fear’ from the union of the judicial and executive powers—which is a recipe for ‘tyranny.'”
The amicus filed on behalf of the Republican senators provided a stark contrast to efforts from Democrat senators to threaten and intimidate federal judges into doing their bidding on politically sensitive cases. (See, e.g., “Senate Democrats’ unprecedented threat against the Supreme Court,” Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2019)
Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss the charges and instead appoint a shadow prosecutor stunned legal observers. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy described Sullivan’s actions “perverse,” “legally dubious,” and “unjust.”
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley wrote, “The Flynn case is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers. Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own judgment for it.”
Judge Sullivan himself admitted in 2015 that judges were “ill-suited to review prosecutorial decisions.”
Sullivan took over the court’s handling of the Flynn matter in December 2017 after Judge Randolph Contreras recused himself from the case. Since then, Sullivan’s behavior has alarmed Flynn defenders as well as civil libertarians. Sullivan had previously referred to Flynn, a decorated military combat veteran, as a traitor who “sold out his country,” bizarrely accused Flynn’s attorney of plagiarism, and refused amicus briefs to be filed on Flynn’s behalf. Once the Department of Justice moved to dismiss charges due to government abuse and unlawful targeting of Flynn, Sullivan directed a shadow private prosecutor to file as an amicus against Flynn, despite the fact that the motion to dismiss Flynn’s case was supported by all parties to the case.
Although numerous legal luminaries have sought permission to file amicus briefs on Flynn’s behalf following Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss the charges against him, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, Sullivan has thus far refused to allow them to file those arguments.
Many of these outside observers have noted United States v. Fokker Services, a unanimous ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals that found a lower court has “no authority” to deny the Government’s motion to dismiss even if it disagrees with it. The senators’ amicus brief further notes “the Judiciary’s authority is ‘at its most limited’ when reviewing charging decisions, which by their nature involve judgment calls that the courts are ‘not competent to undertake.’”
The results of not failing to uphold the separation of powers, they say, would be disastrous and “entail systemic costs.” If the courts could intrude on this core prosecutorial function, they might also intrude on other prosecutorial decisions such as whether to grant immunity or trigger mandatory minimum sentences.
“[T]he extraordinary sequence of events that would ensue from those actions only underscore the need for immediate appellate intervention. To allow the possibility of such an experiment to proceed below would have grave consequences, which this Court should halt now,” they write.
If the case were allowed to proceed to sentencing, that “would raise the unconstitutional specter of a criminal defendant being sentenced with the judge assuming the dual role as court and prosecutor.”
The federal appeals court ordered the judge to respond to the writ of mandamus petition ordering dismissal of charges by close of business on June 1.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:51 AM PT — Tuesday, June 2, 2020
As civil unrest over the death of George Floyd continues across the
country, thousands of Americans are joining together to clean up the
resulting devastation.
More than 30 U.S. cities have seen protests, rioting and looting in
the wake of the fatal arrest. This has also led to mass destruction of
public buildings and private businesses.
While many residents are looking at the aftermath as collateral
damage of a worthy cause, others are condemning the violence and
vandalism. This includes Boston security guard George Palladino.
“I know they had a good protest yesterday,” he stated. “And stuff
like this definitely hurts and makes that protest look bad, even though
they tried to do something good.”
As recent events have caused division among Americans, many people
like Santa Monica teen Sophie Davison are noting that it’s also bringing
communities together.
“Seeing other people, just community members, donate their time and
be out here and to clean up it is actually really inspiring,” she
stated. “It kind of like shows us that good things can come from bad
things.
However, it’s not just locals who are banding together. Pierre Paul
drove from Illinois to help organize the Minneapolis Target store
cleanup.
“These people are the heart and soul of it, and what’s really important
is that you see people out here with your jobs, you see people out here
who are wearing black lives matter t-shirts, people who are wearing cops
lives matter shirts, but none of that matters because we’re all coming
together for one common good,” he explained.
Although some city officials have organized restoration efforts, the
turnout of volunteers has eclipsed those of hired cleanup crews in most
cases. Denver Mayor Michael Hancock voiced his appreciation and surprise
at the number of locals who showed up to help.
“This morning we were all grateful to wake up and to hear about a
couple hundred volunteers who showed up unsolicited to help clean up our
downtown area and we want to send a very special thank you to everyone
who helped clean up around Civic Centers Park this morning and this
afternoon,” he stated. “We are enormously grateful.”
Likewise, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan conveyed similar sentiments by praising the unity displayed by city residents.
“And what I love to see here is so many people coming downtown to
help,” she said. “To help clean up, to remove graffiti, to reclaim the
city that they love and that’s the spirit we have to be about going
forward.”
As the country remains in a state of upheaval and uncertainty, many
Americans are hoping efforts to rebuild will help heal the growing
division among citizens.
Why Are the Social Distance Shamers Suddenly So Quiet?
What happened to staying at home to keep grandparents safe no matter what?
(Chris Juhn/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
The protesters taking to the streets to demand justice for the killing of George Floyd certainly have a righteous cause. They are, however, breaking just about every rule of social distancing. And many of the most committed voices in support of continuing the aggressive, painful measure to contain the spread of coronavirus suddenly have nothing to say about it.
A month ago, when Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) ended the state's COVID-19 lockdown and allowed gyms, restaurants, nail salons, and other businesses to reopen, many in the mainstream media accused him of wanton disregard for human life. The Atlantic described the state's relaxation of the very strictest social distancing measures as "Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice."
When Florida beaches reopened, it was the same story. CNN highlighted the activism of a local man who had dressed as the grim reaper and was warning sun-bathers that people would die unless they went home. Referencing the stereotype of the Florida man as a reckless and moronic thrill-seeker, The Washington Post wrote that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) was essentially "standing astride the alligator cage, hollering at the rest of the country to check out what's about to happen."
Photos and videos of people gathering in parks in New York City, beaches in California, and public places elsewhere, have generated thunderous denunciation on social media for the past few weeks. Shaming people for failing to socially distance is now common practice for health authorities, government officials, amateur social media sleuths, and of course, many journalists in the mainstream press. (There has also been some welcome pushback.)
It is no accident that the term Karen, a derisive nickname for a type of snitch who summons the authorities to intervene in trivial matters, has suddenly become culturally ubiquitous. Karens are calling out social distancing fails on social media. Karens are on cable news scolding the unmasked. Karens are giving press conferences threatening those who violate stay-at-home orders with arrest.
It's hard to imagine how that can continue.
In their formal statements, a lot of public officials are (correctly) endorsing the protesters' concerns about police violence, and many have condemned the street violence that occurred during the protests.
But what we are not seeing is widespread condemnation of the protesters on what might have been the most obvious point of criticism: They are manifestly violating the social distancing orders. Again, if we are to believe the earlier, dire warnings from public health officials about what would happen if lockdowns were relaxed too quickly, people who fail to practice aggressive social distancing will spread the disease and get others killed. By the logic of lockdown supporters, even the protesters who are practicing strict non-violence have a lot of blood on their hands.
And make no mistake, the protests unfolding all over the country are violating quarantine in any number of ways. Remember that many places are still under stay-at-home orders, and people are only supposed to go outside for essential work or allowable recreation in small numbers. On the plus side, some protesters are thankfully wearing masks, and their activities are unfolding outdoors, which are both factors that work to stop the spread of the virus. But the sheer number of people involved, packed tightly together, often engaging in high-spread activities—like yelling—certainly override much of the benefit. Even Denver protesters, whose comparatively restrained demonstration involved gathering in a public place and lying prone on the ground for eight minutes—the amount of time Floyd's alleged killer had a knee on Floyd's neck—shouted "I can't breathe," the entire time.
Holding police accountable is a very important cause. But the logic of the lockdowns was that they were so necessary to stem the spread of COVID-19 that they should override other pressing concerns. Small business owners were forced to shutter, and many will close permanently, because policymakers ordained that slowing the pandemic was the top priority. Daring to reopen was an "experiment in human sacrifice," a dangerous practice akin to riding an alligator while yelling yeehaw. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has fought to prevent churches from reopening to the public, characteristically said the protesters were "rightfully outraged." He did not scold them to go back inside before they get their grandparents killed.
Media and government experts who fail to consistently call out social distancing violations risk giving the impression that their commitment to zealous enforcement of public health measures wasn't as absolute as they claimed. It turns out they are willing to make exceptions for their preferred causes. Perhaps those who previously went overboard on the social distance shaming should admit this was a mistake. The current silence of the Karens is deafening.
Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell calls-in to FBN with Lou Dobbs to discuss the latest filings in the case against her client. WATCH/LISTEN:
Refutes Arguments Presented by Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan
The DOJ has responded to the DC District Court invitation to file a brief in support of intervention by the appellate court. [pdf available here] In an unusual move the response from the Department of Justice comes directly from the office of the United States Solicitor General, Noel Francisco.
The DOJ points out the Judge has no standing to violate Article II and Article III of the U.S. Constitution in an effort to anoint himself as prosecutor, judge and jury of a criminal case outside of his judicial authority. “The Constitution vests in the Executive Branch the power to decide when—and when not—to prosecute potential crimes,” Francisco argues.
Additionally, rules of criminal procedure “do not authorize a court to stand in the way of a dismissal the defendant does not oppose, and any other reading would violate both Article II and Article III” the DOJ writes.
Says Flynn Can Defend Himself Against Independent Accusations By Court
The hired lawyer for Judge Emmet Sullivan has filed a response to the DC District Court order in the case against Michael Flynn. [pdf available here] The DC district court ordered Sullivan to explain why he would not allow DOJ to drop charges against Flynn; the response by Sullivan’s lawyers says the DOJ position is essentially a moot issue, and Flynn can defend himself against independent accusations by the court.
The premise of Judge Sullivan to act as both prosecutor, judge and jury is ridiculous.
Additionally, Sullivan now claims Flynn must defend himself against claims of unlawful lobbying for Turkey that were never a substantive part of the original DOJ filing before the court.
The underlying premise behind the justification by Sullivan is fraught with twisted language to spin the prosecution. It will be interesting to see how the DOJ response is structured.
Part of the illogical argument within Sullivan’s filing relates to his demand the DOJ explain in detail the background corruption that underpins their change in position.
Example: why did none of the original corrupt prosecutors sign-off on the change in DOJ position?
If there is one positive that might come out of this nonsense it’s that AG Barr may be forced to directly put specific details of corrupt behavior by the Mueller prosecutors in a response. The DOJ has attempted to retreat from the Flynn case without calling out, and directly identifying, corrupt DOJ activity. Perhaps that will change….
A Warning to Rioters and Antifa Members Threatening to Come to the Suburbs
June 1, 2020
FILE – In this June 24, 2016 file photo, an AR-15 is held in Auburn, Ga. (AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane)
This isn’t an internet tough guy post. This isn’t me flexing about my love of the 2nd Amendment and practice thereof. This isn’t about how well I can shoot, or what kind of guns I own.
This is a legitimate warning about what will happen.
Riots are popping up in cities over the murder of George Floyd, completely overshadowing the legitimate protests containing peaceful people making a valid point. Some of these rioters, namely those belonging to the group “Antifa,” have mentioned that they’re going to leave the cities and move their destruction and violence into the suburbs.
I want to be very clear here. I’m not daring anyone to try to come to my home — or anyone else’s for that matter — and begin attempting to break in and steal from me or hurt me and my family. Again, this isn’t that kind of post. I’d rather you not test this. I’d rather no one get hurt. Period.
That said, I want to lay down some logic.
Rioting in the cities may result in some good times. Windows are smashed, businesses are looted. The police don’t have the power to stop all of you and so you may get away with a new pair of Nike’s or a 52″ flatscreen. Maybe you’ll get arrested, maybe not. You and a few others may get violent with someone trying to speak out against the riots and you’ll never see justice for it.
Rioting in a city is, for all intents and purposes, safe for the rioter. Even if you do have a confrontation with police, you’re more than likely going to get a few bumps and bruises. At worst, some blood might be drawn from superficial wounds. The worst that may befall you is if your fellow rioters turn on you for any reason. Then you’ll really face serious injury, though more than likely, you’re just going to riot, loot, destroy, and go home.
The rules change in the suburbs. You’re not robbing a private store and destroying public property anymore. Now you’re in home territory. The house is full of valuable possessions and luxuries, yes, but more than that, this location has family members in it. Wives, children, and even beloved pets.
You’re in a different playing field now. Here the stakes are a lot higher for the victims of rioters, and as such, the stakes will rise for you. You’re no longer just facing an arrest charge or a few bumps and bruises. You’re now playing with your life.
I want anyone in Antifa or rioting groups to know that it was estimated that there were 350 million guns in America…back in 2017. Also, that was the conservative estimate. The number is more likely double that, and with more being added to the count every day.
Events big and small cause gun sales to skyrocket. Former President Obama could just glance at a gun and it’d cause people to purchase one. Recently, gun sales shot up thanks to the pandemic due to the idea that supplies may run out and people would have to defend their homes, families, and possessions.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the person on the other side of the door that you’re about to try to break down is one of those people who purchased a firearm. Every home you try to gain access to is a roll of the dice, and the odds don’t look good for you.
You may be able to get away with throwing rocks at windows, maybe even smash up a few vehicles on the street. You might bust up a few light posts and trash someone’s yard. That you’ll leave a mess and get away safely is probably true, provided you don’t run into an armed homeowner who doesn’t know the gun laws in his state well.
But rest assured, they’ll be watching your every move and the vast majority of people watching you will have a firearm in their hand, ready to use it. The moment you cross the threshold, your life is forfeit. You start trying to set someone’s home on fire, your life is forfeit. You begin attempting to bring harm to residents inside a home, your life is forfeit.
You’re far more likely to die in the suburbs than in the city in this situation. You may think moving the riots into neighborhoods is going to play out the same way. It’s not. You’re at a massive tactical disadvantage. The residents know these streets, the layout of their homes, and the defense capabilities of their residence and themselves.
You don’t. Each home will be different, each resident will have different approaches, and each home may have more than one or two gun wielders inside. The goal isn’t non-violent control of the situation now. It’s not about tear gas and high-pressure hoses now. Now it’s deadly force. You can’t just wash a bullet wound out and keep going. Even if they don’t have guns, they’re not going to stop hitting you with a heavy object or stop stabbing and slashing at you with cutlery until you’ve either been chased out or you stop moving. Understand. The chances of you dying are incredibly high.
Suburbanites have a lot more to lose and are going to be a lot more apt to go to extremes to make sure no harm befalls what they’re protecting. Too much rides on it. In the city, you were the pack of lions seeking whom you may devour. In the burbs, you’re the gazelle.
Astronauts speak from ISS after Crew Dragon launch
This photo provided by NASA shows Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley, far
right, joining the the crew at the International Space Station, after
the SpaceX Dragon capsule pulled up to the station and docked Sunday,
May 31, 2020. The Dragon capsule arrived Sunday morning, hours after a
historic liftoff from Florida. It’s the first time that a privately
built and owned spacecraft has delivered a crew to the orbiting
lab.(NASA via AP)
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:50 AM PT — Tuesday, June 2, 2020
The NASA astronauts who recently arrived at the International Space Station (ISS) in SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule gave their first address from orbit.
Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken spoke with mission control from the ISS on Monday after what they stated was a surprisingly smooth docking. They both reported they were excited to be aboard and have the opportunity to call their families despite being unsure when they would see them again.
“Doug and I have maybe the most uncertainty because it could be relatively short or we could potentially double or triple maybe what was originally expected for us just a few short months ago,” said Behnken. “And so, it’s a little bit strange.”
Although the Crew Dragon is capable of spending 110 days in space, NASA reports the actual length of the mission will be decided by how quickly the next shuttle can get ready for launch.
Meanwhile, the other astronauts aboard the ISS said it was “wonderful” to see old friends aboard a brand new vehicle.
"You see that it's a shared planet with a shared atmosphere. It's our shared place in this universe." — @AstroBehnken on the unique perspective astronauts have of our home planet from the @Space_Station: pic.twitter.com/1n1BEtwdYR
