Don't make the REAL AMERICANS angry

"mf_doofgr: https://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...nning-n2568517

We’re Winning


We’re Winning

Kurt SchlichterKurt Schlichter|Posted: May 11, 2020 12:01 AM


Let’s take a moment to bask in the glow of liberal pain as the wins keep coming and our enemy’s defeats mount. LTG Mike Flynn was freed of the leftist frame-up. That lady in Texas was freed from jail after refusing to kiss the Ted Lieu of an Obama pal by apologizing for the “crime” of wanting to feed her family. And the awesome Ric Grenell freed the transcripts of the House’s garbage Russia hoax investigation, revealing that the CNN talking Schiff-heads who assured you that Trump and Putin were making out in the onion dome of the Kremlin were telling a very different story under oath.

And that was all in just one glorious day.

There’s more to come.

Sure, we have the tattered remnants of the bat biter flu pandemic to deal with, but no one not pre-programed to hate Trump is buying that he and not the ChiCom’s inexplicable desire to munch on pangolins is to blame. The Free States are mostly coming out of this nonsense, having realized that a bug that targets the elderly, subway riders, and the George Conway carb-curious demographic is best handled by having those people chill at home while the rest of us go back to earning a living. We were told that our selfish desire not to go bankrupt was going to kill grandmas across the fruited plain, but like so many expert opinions parroted by the Democrats’ gimp media lately, that was malarkey, and not Grandpa Badfinger’s ironic kind. Remember how happy spring breakers were gonna kill us all? How requiring Wisconsinites to show up to vote was pretty much genocide? How Georgians not cowering on their plantations would swamp Atlanta’s hospitals with wheezing victims of Republican greed? Yeah, no. None of that was a thing. None of that was even remotely a thing.

What was a thing was the New York subways being a festering petri dish of pestilence. And what was another thing was the genius move of requiring that nursing homes take back in sick people. The liberal establishment doesn’t care that Fredo’s Brother was throwing lit matches into a pool of gasoline. It was all Trump’s fault because everything is Trump’s fault, like heat waves, plagues of frogs, and liberal low-T.

So, the red states will get onto recovering – and that’s going to happen with lightning speed – while the blue states will drag it out. Pennsylvania’s and Michigan’s governors are hoping that they can fascist their way to turning those states blue in November, but everyone sees that it isn’t Trump who is shafting the populace. It’s the Dems screwing over their own citizens on orders from Nancy Pelosi (D-Haagan-Daz).

We need to avoid screwing it up. If Donald Trump can resist the usual Republican legislators’ tendency to be stupid, and if he can get them to deny these creeps the fed funds to subsidize endless lockdowns, said lockdowns will end when the governors have to explain to government employee unions that, er, uh, um, all the lockdowns have stopped the flow of tax revenues and, well, there’s no money for inflated union paychecks. Pelosi is scary, but the unions are really scary.

And Trump’s not going to fund his enemies, as much as the GOP dopes will want him to because of reasons and we’re all in this together and bipartisanship and thank you, sir, may I have another. Nor should he give in and let the corporate donors import a bunch of cheap labor from the Third World when we have 15 percent unemployment. To keep winning, all Trump has to do is keep the RINOs from indulging their natural inclination toward losing.

And then there is the election. The polls are all over the place, with lots of them claiming that Trump is doomed in the key states. We’ve seen that before. Others have him gaining approval. The pollsters must hate putting those out. But the election is six months away and though the economy is a mess, it took two months to get made into a mess. We have three times as long to pull out of the mess and get back to the real new normal – Trump prosperity.

Plus, we have a secret weapon: a senile and weird one who lives in a basement in Delaware. Gropey Joe’s popularity depends entirely on his invisibility. The second people start paying attention they are going to notice that compared to him. Mr. Magoo is an incisive and sharp-witted achiever at the top of his game. Oh, and Magoo’s kid isn’t doing billion-dollar deals with the Chinese reds between snorting rails and impregnating pole-dancers. Plus, when Magoo dated Tara Reade he was a perfect gentleman instead of a creepy perv.

Biden is a mess, a freakish, deteriorating mess of garbled thoughts and bizarre verbal tangents, and he can only lurk in the dark making hostage videos for so long. The Dems will absolutely cancel their convention to keep him off stage. That’s a done deal. They’ll say it’s about safety. And they will not let him debate Trump. No way, no how. That would be a slaughter, a hilarious, cringey slaughter. Their excuse will be that to do so would “normalize” Trump, but however they do it, there’s not going to be a Trump-Gropey J cage match.

Don’t worry. They are not going to replace Biden with someone who is at least coherent and can tell you what year it is. It’s not that Biden is so cunning that he can fend off such an initiative. Right now, his focus is on his war of wills with that uppity squirrel who keeps staring at him through the basement window. No, it’s that the puppetmasters behind the intern-diddling Charlie McCarthy of American politics won’t forego their investment. The left tried to leverage him out with Tara Reade, but after some perfunctory equivocation, the libs got real: “Yeah, he probably did it, and no, we don’t care.”


#MeToo became #SoWhat.

The election is gonna be lit, and my money is still on Trump.

And there’s another factor at play that we have not paid a lot of attention to. Experience. Ric Grenell’s brilliant maneuver against that human lollipop Adam Schiff was a great example. When Trump came in, he had no Rolodex of experienced executive branch hands to both protect him and to crush his enemies. We saw how that inexperience hurt him early on as the libs exploited it. Exhibit A is how LTG Flynn trusted the FBI bureaucracy. Think that’s going to happen again? Trump is now surrounded by ruthless and seasoned D.C. operators who know how to play the game. The Dems and their garbage media serfs’ edge early on was that they were up against novices. No more. One need only watch how Kayleigh McEnany imposed her iron discipline upon that pipsqueak reporter then cruised off the podium, leaving him sobbing like the pathetic loser he is, to see that our side is now composed of loyal, focused pros who love to fight.

And that’s why the winning is going to continue.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecked...s-in-his-face/

What Happens at Lawfareblog When Ben Wittes’s Baby Cannon Explodes in His Face


Posted at 7:30 am on May 9, 2020 by Shipwreckedcrew


Lawfareblog, the noted leftwing publication that serves as the unofficial – or maybe official? — press outlet for all favorable James Comey stories, just couldn’t help itself after the DOJ motion to dismiss the case against General Michael Flynn yesterday.

Benjamin Wittes, Lawfareblog founder and well known “Best Friend Forever” of disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey, became famous on Twitter for his “baby cannon” videos which he used to give advance warning of impending developments during the Special Counsel’s Office investigation.


Benjamin Wittes
✔
@benjaminwittes
BOOM!!!https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download …


The Lawfareblog fans just knew at some point one of those cannon shots would land in the Oval Office. Alas, they were disappointed to the end.

Ben’s baby cannon has been largely silent lately. But yesterday’s DOJ motion to dismiss the case against Gen. Flynn pretty much did to Ben’s little cannon the same thing “Band of Brothers’” Easy Company did to the 105 mm howitzers at Brecourt Manor on D-Day.

Undeterred by their ignorance on the subject, or the facts underlying the matter, Ben and his fellow travelers published their version of a “takedown” of the DOJ motion.

Neither Wittes nor Quinta Jurecic, another of the three co-authors on the piece, are attorneys. Needless to say, neither has ever worked for the Department of Justice. Susan Hennessy, the third author credited on the story, was an attorney in government experience, but it was as a member of the Office of General Counsel for the National Security Agency.

They have opted to keep to themselves their bona fides to deconstruct a DOJ filing that lays out misconduct by law enforcement components of DOJ. But they can’t hide the ignorance that was exposed by what they wrote.

Before we get to their expressions of ignorance, let’s take up a more pressing concern – their lies.

I want to jump to the middle of their article, where they gaslight their readers for the purpose of implying sinister motives to the DOJ filing. They wrote:

The government’s argument hinges on the notion that Flynn’s December 2016 phone call with Kislyak—in which Flynn advised the Russian government not to respond to sanctions newly issued by the Obama administration in response to Russian election interference—was, fundamentally, not a matter of concern.

The highlighted portion is a lie. Flynn never did any such thing. Flynn expressly denied to the FBI agents during the interview that he did such a thing. In their report of the Flynn interview, the agents wrote:

“The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak in which the expulsions were discussed, where Flynn might have encouraged Kislyak not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a “tit-for-tat.” FLYNN responded “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t “Don’t do anything.”

So, the Agents asked Flynn if he “encouraged” the Russian Ambassador “not to escalate the situation”. Part of Flynn’s response was that he had not said to the Russian Ambassador “Don’t do anything.”

Is it too much to ask so called “journalists” at Lawfareblog to report basic facts accurately? Was this not a crucial distinction? What purpose was behind the obvious mischaracterization of facts employed by Wittes/Jurecic/Hennessey in their story? Was it a knowing “lie” used by them to paint Gen. Flynn in the worst possible light as part of their screed against the DOJ filing?

Or maybe Flynn’s “denial” was one of his “lies”, and what he really said was what they attribute to him – that he “advised the Russian government to not respond…”

Sorry Ben/Quinta/Susan – the Special Counsel kicked the legs out from under your stool on that more than 2 years ago. In the “Factual Basis” for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea, SCO prosecutor Van Grack wrote the following:

“Immediately after his phone call with the [Presidential Transition Team] official, FLYNN called the Russian ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to U.S. sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”

That’s a factual representation made by the SCO to the Court in an official document meant to be accepted as true.

I could stop there. In a courtroom the most effective cross-examination of a hostile witness goes immediately to a readily provable lie told by that witness, force the witness to admit to the lie, then look knowingly at the jury with a slight shrug of the shoulders to convey the unspoken message of “The other side thinks you should trust this witness to tell you the truth.”

But let’s endeavor on and explore a few other expressions of mere ignorance on the subject matter by the Lawfareblog trio.

First, they call the Covington & Burling attorneys who initially represented Gen. Flynn “first class lawyers.” As a former federal prosecutor for 22 years and now a defense attorney for the past 7 years, I do not fear being contradicted when I say that a defense attorney who allows his client to plead guilty to a §1001 violation without seeing the FBI 302 of the interview where the client is said to have lied, and without seeing the evidence in the possession of the prosecutor which supposedly establishes that his client lied in the interview – that attorney is not a “first class lawyer.” I don’t care what firm he works for, or what his hourly rate is. At worst, he potentially provided ineffective assistance to his client — and at the very least he provided very bad lawyering.

At a change of plea hearing, one question posed by a Judge is directed to the defense attorney. The Judge asks “Are you confident that your client is guilty of the crime to which he is pleading guilty today?” How could the “first class lawyers” representing Gen. Flynn answer that question without having seen the “evidence” from the government proving that to be the case? I’ll tell you how – they based their answer on what the prosecutor told them. That is not “first class lawyering.”

Second, the authors describe the agreement between Gen. Flynn and the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) as a “very generous deal” by which he avoided being prosecuted on more serious charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That may or may not have been true. Whether it was a “generous” deal is irrelevant if Gen. Flynn had not actually committed a crime — no deal is “generous” enough in that circumstance. But if it was true, then the SCO violated written DOJ policy in making that “generous deal.”

Under DOJ regulations, the SCO was bound by all DOJ policies. One such DOJ policy – and this has been policy going back at least to the mid-1990s when I started – is that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. The most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial sentences. That policy is in writing.

So when the SCO offered Gen. Flynn a “generous deal” that contemplated no jail time, and agreed to forego prosecuting him for more serious violations under FARA when they claimed the evidence of his guilt on those more serious crimes was compelling, they violated written DOJ policy in doing so because the §1001 count was not the “most serious, readily provable offense” they could have brought.

What this actually reveals is that the SCO recognized the weak hand it held in threatening to indict Gen. Flynn, but it was so anxious to gain his cooperation against Pres. Trump in late 2017 — after the Carter Page FISA warrant turned up nothing — that they were willing to do anything to make a deal he would take, so long as they gained his cooperation by doing so. Violating written DOJ policy?? Not a problem. Threatening to prosecute family members?? All in pursuit of the greater good because Orange Man Bad.

The Lawfareblog “experts” rail over the fact that not only did DOJ agree Gen. Flynn should be allowed to withdraw his plea, DOJ also took the position “that the entire case should be dismissed with prejudice”, which they correctly understand to mean that it cannot be refiled.

Ummm — the “entire case” consists of a single count charging a violation of §1001 filed in a criminal information. That is the “entire case” that is being dismissed and cannot be refiled. If there are truly other crimes that Gen. Flynn has committed, any other such crimes could still be the subject of a future prosecution.

Next, the Lawfareblog trio turn their focus on the 20-page brief filed by DOJ – labeling it as “not an honest document.” Yet, after claiming it that it presents a “history of the Flynn case” and the government’s own conduct which is “flawed”, they can’t be troubled with offering a factual narrative that contradicts the government filing. I guess we’ll just have to take their word for it.

They note that only acting US Attorney Timothy Shea signed the motion, with no signature of any career prosecutor – including former SCO prosecutor Brandon Van Grack who handled the Flynn prosecution. They surmise that Van Grack’s withdrawal from the case ahead of the filing was some form of protest on his part with respect to the motion.

What they don’t note is that Van Grack withdrew from several other cases at the same time – unrelated to the SCO or Flynn prosecution. That suggests Van Grack is either leaving DOJ, or he is under investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility – possibly for having misled Judge Sullivan on the status of his Brady production in the Flynn case – and is no longer authorized to appear in Court on behalf of DOJ. That happens — it happened exactly like that to a friend of mine who was cited by a judge for exactly that same problem.

But they do make a layman’s error in criticizing DOJ’s legal position that the interview of Gen. Flynn was justified. They write that DOJ was wrong to claim

“there is no reasonable basis to even interview a senior government official when that person has engaged over sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary government that interfered in an election – and who subsequently lied to the Vice President of the United States about the substance of his conversation with an agent of that government. Based on this position, the Justice Department today took an even greater leap: that it is perfectly legal for the official, if interviewed under these circumstances, to lie through his teeth repeatedly to the FBI agents who show up to interview him.”

This passage exposes their ignorance of the policies and procedures of the Department of Justice and FBI that govern the manner and circumstances under which US citizens can be interviewed by agents of the FBI. The first rule is that no interviews are allowed except with regard to properly predicated and open investigations. Agents aren’t allowed to just show up on your doorstep and ask you questions. They can only get there by following well-established rules and procedures by which they establish a legitimate reason to knock on your door

The problem with their analysis – and the latter portion of the article which purports to go through all the suspicious facts about General Flynn that were part of the original basis for opening a counterintelligence investigation of him in August 2016 – is that they ignore the FACT that the FBI had conducted a nearly 5-month long investigation of all those scary facts and concluded …… that Gen. Flynn was NOT a Russian agent.

They can’t understand why DOJ did not want “more” investigation in the form of an interview, yet at the same time, they ignore the fact that the FBI had just done 5 months worth of investigation and came up with …. nada — “no derogatory information” to support the basis for which the counterintelligence investigation was opened in the first instance. The calls with the Russian Ambassador did not change that fact. Because they did not change that fact, the calls were not a basis upon which the counterintelligence investigation could be prolonged in order to conduct further investigative activity.

If there was a legitimate inquiry to be made about whether Gen. Flynn’s calls violated the Logan Act, then the FBI should have opened a properly predicated criminal investigation naming Gen. Flynn as a subject of the investigation, and violation of the Logan Act as the suspected crime. They did not do so. Whether they “could” have done so is irrelevant. The fact is they didn’t. And that is how the procedure is designed to work and that is how it does work. The FBI does not go out interviewing citizens based on a “hunch”.

But, a message came down from “the Seventh Floor” – the offices of Comey and McCabe – to keep open the counterintelligence investigation of Gen. Flynn, so Strzok gave that instruction. But that was improper under FBI procedures — the investigation had already been determined to be unfounded and directed to be closed. Delays in completing the paperwork to close the investigation didn’t change that outcome.

What DOJ said Thursday is that there was nothing in the transcripts of the Flynn calls that justified holding that investigation open so the direction to do that was meaningless. “Open” counterintelligence investigations are not “catch-alls”, where agents just run around doing whatever occurs to them, justifying their actions because there was an “open” investigation. There must be a connection between the purpose for which the investigation was opened, and the investigative activity that was undertaken.

These procedural problems in what was done leading up to the interview of Gen. Flynn had to then be considered against the backdrop of the notes and reports of those involved that exposed the pretextual nature of the reasons that were put forward to justify the interview. All that information together — which had not be provided to the defense — made continuation of the case untenable.

Next, the Lawfareblog crowd faults the DOJ filing for presenting a “tendentious version of events” that portrays Comey as insubordinate to a “hapless” Deputy AG Sally Yates. It says the filing relies “heavily on documents released by US Attorney … Jensen, handpicked by Barr to “review” (scare quotes) the Flynn Prosecution.”

Yep – one of the documents used to portray Sally Yates as “hapless” by Barr’s “handpicked” “reviewer” was a 13-page memorandum of interview – of Sally Yates.

The interview was not conducted by Jensen or that other Barr-appointed thug Durham – it was conducted by members of Mueller’s SCO team.

Yet using Sally Yates’ own words as captured by the Special Counsel, somehow evidences selective use of facts by DOJ. In her own words Sally Yates pretty much states that James Comey refused all efforts at professional persuasion to alter his course, and in the final instance simply disregarded everything he had been told by Main Justice – including by Yates in her capacity as Acting Attorney General – and did what he wanted to do. In her own words, her staff “hit the roof” when they were informed that Comey had sent two agents to interview Gen. Flynn. Her staff had uniformly believed that the Trump White House should have been told about Gen. Flynn’s calls before any investigative action was taken by the FBI.

Bottom line – Lawfareblog’s BFFs of James Comey just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that DOJ Officials from the Obama Administration disagreed with what James Comey and Andy McCabe did.

Finally — on claiming that the DOJ filing condones Gen. Flynn having “lied through his teeth” to the Agents — I would only point out that it is a matter of settled law that not all lies to the FBI are crimes. That was the point of the DOJ filing.

And I conclude by noting that the authors of the Lawfareblog article should be thankful that lying to their readers is also not a crime.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...p/#more-191273

Tennessee Police Arrest Citizen Who Escaped Forced COVID-19 Detention Camp…
Posted on May 9, 2020 by sundance



Comrades, some readers might not be aware the Ministry of COVID compliance has set up quarantine camps, detention facilities in various areas. Formerly free citizens who test positive for COVID-19 are forcibly taken to the quarantine camps and held under guard.

Last week one of the non-compliant captives demanded his freedom; he climbed the fence and escaped detention. After a manhunt in Tennessee the subversive citizen was recaptured, arrested and brought back to the detention facility…. Alarmed yet?

As you can see from this example, the Tennessee Ministry of COVID Compliance cares about the health of its compliant citizens. Authorities empowered by the Ministry will actively hunt down subversive citizens and forcibly detain them in the ongoing effort to build a new society where compliance will always provide the security you seek.

If wrong-thoughts or requests for arbitrary freedom continue to be expressed, it may become necessary for the Ministry to take enhanced enforcement action. Please do not put the Ministry in the position of having to make such decisions. Compliance is in your best interest and re-education facilities are costly to maintain.

Relax comrades, the Ministry is sensitive to your previous rights as we initiate our new, safer, society. The COVID Compliance Ministry appreciates good citizens who voluntarily participate in the rules of our new society. We will continue to reward good citizenship status with enhanced tax credits and social benefits allowing greater access to a safe COVID Compliant Society. A safer society; where the odds will always be in our favor.

A rogue citizen could put a compliant society at risk of infection. They may not just carry biologics they could carry a more alarming virus of wrong-thought against the interests of the state. Rogue citizens would be subversive to our new society.

Social Distancing or House Arrest…. Details, comrades,… details. Originally Posted by Redhot1960

Sorry RH - this One i do not believe. Got any corroborating proof on this One.

No - it smells of fake news.

...What Happens at Lawfareblog When Ben Wittes’s Baby Cannon Explodes in His Face... Originally Posted by Redhot1960

Great Googly-Moogly. Seems like a focused and not angry American, is in the process of weighing in on the matter. Catherine Herridge and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr discuss the matter. There is a particular aspect to Barr's vernacular; It is typically short, sweet, direct, to the point and entirely devoid of flowery machinations or political double-speak. The highlighting is mine in the below article. BTW: The brevity of some answers seemed to throw the interviewer off a fair bit.

One other thing. A potential stock tip actually; you might consider going long on Depends and/or Jergen's Lotion, because I have a funny feeling a whole lot of Obammy acolytes are soiling their undies and feeling a rash developing around their necks after this interview.

Q: Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying?
BARR: Yes. Essentially.

Full Interview Transcript of AG Barr Discussing Dropping the Flynn Case…

As customary CBS only broadcast a small snippet of the interview between CBS reporter Catherine Herridge and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr. The full interview is much longer and much more interesting than the edited narrative broadcast by CBS.

When you read the conversation you will immediately notice why CBS refused to broadcast it, and why the segment that did air was so brutally edited.

Some of the interview answers will provide hope for those who want to see justice delivered. However, there are also cautious answers that should be considered when formulating an opinion of AG Bill Barr’s ongoing intention. Below is the transcript.

Catherine Herridge: Attorney General Barr, thank you for speaking first to CBS News.

Attorney General William Barr: Hi, Catherine.

♦ Q: What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case?

BARR: We dismissed or are moving to dismiss the charges against General Flynn. At any stage during a proceeding, even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea, the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met.

As you recall, in January, General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea, and also alleged misconduct by the government. And at that time, I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney, who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten years as a career prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, from St. Louis, to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case. And he found some additional material. And last week, he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case, which I fully agreed with, as did the U.S. attorney in D.C. So we’ve moved to dismiss the case.

♦ Q: So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department, this all came together really within the last week, based on new evidence?

BARR: Right. Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this. And he reported to me last week.

♦ Q: Does Judge Sullivan have a say?

BARR: Yes. Under the rules, the case can be dismissed with leave of court. Generally, the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants, to make sure the government doesn’t play games by bringing a charge and then dismissing it; bringing another charge, dismissing it. But he does have a say.

♦ Q: But is the Flynn case effectively over today from the Justice Department’s point of view?

BARR: We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned.

♦ Q: And depending on the judge’s decision, could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition?

BARR: Well, no charges like that have been brought. And I’m not gonna speculate about what charges there may be.

♦ Q: All of that said, General Flynn pled guilty to lying to federal investigators during his interview in January of 2017. And Flynn admitted in court, quote, his “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Does the fact remain that General Flynn lied to federal investigators?

BARR: Well to constitute a false statement, you need two things. One, you need a false statement, lie. And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation. And I think on the question of lying, it’s as Comey, Director Comey said just a few months after this episode, he said it was a closed question. And that, while you might make that argument, it was a very closed question.

But it’s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on. They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition. So.

Let me just also say that when he pled, the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on. And that’s information that’s really within the control of the government. The individual party would really not have that information. So as new information just became available that has a bearing on whether there was a legitimate investigation, that requires us, our duty, we think is to dismiss the case.

♦ Q: Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying?

BARR: Yes. Essentially.

They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn.

On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open. So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador.

Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.

And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies. And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, “Don’t escalate.” And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.

♦ Q: What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today?

BARR: Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.

♦ Q: Are the actions you’re taking today bigger than the Flynn case?

Well, I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country. And that’s the way it will be. It doesn’t matter what political party you’re in, or, you know, whether you’re rich or poor. We will follow the same standard for everybody. Was there a crime committed, do we believe a crime was committed? And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And we don’t think either of those standards were applicable here.

♦ Q: Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general?

I don’t know. I let other people judge that. It’s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to do what’s right.

♦ Q: Not what’s easy.

Right.

♦ Q: Was it an easy decision?

BARR: It was an easy decision, yes. I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case, it was an easy decision. You know, one thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates.

Deputy Attorney General Yates, I’ve disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings. They and, you know, Director Comey ran around that.

♦ Q: When the special counsel report was released last year, you were accused by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president’s favor. Are you doing the president’s bidding in General Flynn’s case?

No, I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it.

♦ Q: President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case. He said, “What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.” Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets?

BARR: No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and ’17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn.

And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this.

This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct.

♦ Q: The whole pattern of conduct before?

BARR: And after.

♦ Q: And after?

BARR: Yeah, the election.

♦ Q: After the election? Okay. You talk about the importance of timing in this decision. What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue?

BARR: I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it.

And that when they heard about the phone call, which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there’s no question as to what was discussed. The FBI knew exactly what was discussed. And General Flynn, being the former director of the DIA, said to them, you know, “You listen, you listen to everything. You know, you know what was said.”

So there was no mystery about the call. But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation, which didn’t fly. And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation. And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.

They didn’t warn him, the way we usually would be required by the Department. They bypassed the Justice Department. They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth. These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on.

♦ Q: You know you’re gonna take a lot of incoming, as they say in the military, for this decision. Are you prepared for that?

BARR: Yeah, I’m prepared for that. I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done.

♦ Q: Just to be clear, you said this was your decision.

BARR: Uh-huh.

♦ Q: Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump?

BARR: No.

♦ Q: Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision?

BARR: No. They were aware, because of the schedule, that the Department would be saying something in court. And I said that we’d make up our mind what to do and file, you know, sometime before Monday. File our responses to what was going on in court. But other than that, no.

♦ Q: So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today?

BARR: Yes.

♦ Q: Not earlier?

BARR: No.

♦ Q: No. Okay. A lot of records have come to light. You talk about the records for closing the Flynn case. Were those new records to you? Because–

BARR: Yes.

♦ Q: –of Jensen? Okay. All right. In addition to those records, there are handwritten notes from January 24th, 2017. This was the day of Michael Flynn’s interview. And the writer states, “What is our goal? Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Is that a routine, by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials?

BARR: Well, as many people point out, you know, it’s not unusual. In the course of a bona fide investigation, when you’re doing a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation, that has a basis it’s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie. But here’s what’s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate. And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie.

♦ Q: But that language, does it bother you at all?

BARR: Well, my understanding is, just looking at the documents, the way I interpret them, is there was a disagreement. And that one of the agents, one of the senior agents felt that “Let’s not be game playing here. We have the transcript. Show him the transcripts and find out what you wanna find out.”

Instead of instead of, you know, essentially reading excerpts and saying, “Do you remember saying that?” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him in something that could be called a lie. But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.

♦ Q: Who at the FBI was driving this?

BARR: Well, this particular episode, it looks like the impetus came from the seventh floor.

♦ Q: The seventh floor is Director Comey.

BARR: I believe it’s Director Comey and the deputy’s office.

♦ Q: Based on the evidence that you have seen, did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser?

BARR: Well, as I said, this is a particular episode. And it has some troubling features to it, as we’ve discussed. But I think, you know, that’s a question that really has to wait an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump’s administration.

♦ Q: What are the consequences for these individuals?

BARR: Well, you know, I don’t wanna, you know, we’re in the middle of looking at all of this. John Durham’s investigation, and U.S. Attorney Jensen, I’m gonna ask him to do some more work on different items as well. And I’m gonna wait till all the evidence is, and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is.

But if, you know, if we were to find wrongdoing, in the sense of any criminal act, you know, obviously we would, we would follow through on that. But, again, you know, just because something may even stink to high heaven and be, you know, appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute. And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies to everybody.

♦ Q: It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon. That’s what you’re saying you think happened here?

BARR: I think, yes. I think there was an aspect of that. And I think, for the last several decades, the Department has been used more and more, or the efforts have been made to draw the Department into that. And I think it’s very important that that not happen.

People, you know, we should choose our leaders through the election process. And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic.

♦ Q: Before we move on to some separate questions, many of these records should have been provided to Flynn’s defense team long ago. Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray?

BARR: Well, you know, Chris Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we’ve been running. He cooperated fully with Durham, cooperated fully with Jensen. But, you know, there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don’t consider it the director’s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in each case. So I don’t– I wouldn’t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray.

♦ Q: Does Director Wray have what it takes to make the changes at the FBI?

BARR: Yeah, as I’ve said, you know, he’s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people’s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI. And we work very well together. And I think both of us know that we have to step up. That it’s very important to restore the American people’s confidence.

♦ Q: Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017?

BARR: I think he does.

♦ Q: Newly declassified footnotes in the Horowitz report suggest that the Steele dossier was likely the product of Russian disinformation. And there were multiple warnings to the FBI at that time, yet they continued to use that. How do you explain that?

BARR: I think that’s one of the most troubling aspects of this whole thing. And, in fact, I said it in testimony on the Hill, I can’t remember if it was my confirmation, that I said I was very concerned about the possibility that that dossier and Steele’s activities were used as a vector for the Russians to inject disinformation into the political campaign.

I think that is something that Robert Mueller was responsible for looking at under his charter, which is the potential of Russian influence. But I think it was ignored and there was mounting indications that this could very well have been happening and no one really stopped to look at it.

♦ Q: These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel’s office, and in senior levels of the FBI. So what drove them here?

BARR: Well, I think one of the things you have to guard against, both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator, is that if you get too wedded to a particular outcome and you’re pursuing a particular agenda, you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn’t fit with your preconception. And I think that’s probably the phenomenon we’re looking at here.

♦ Q: You know more about the investigation since Horowitz, since December. Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today?

BARR: You know, I’m not gonna, again, get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything. There’s certainly more information that has come out that, you know, points in that direction. But I haven’t reached a final conclusion.

♦ Q: Before we just move onto to a couple of off-topic questions, the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned, was fired. And that he admitted lying to the FBI. Does the fact remain that he lied?

BARR: Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes. And as I said, the question of lying, you know, it’s something he would know about. On its face, as Director Comey said, it’s not so clear. But the question of materiality is not something he would know about. That’s something that the government knows about. And we have now gotten into it, drilled down, obtained new information. And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime.

♦ Q: Before we leave this topic, is there anything that you would like to add?

BARR: No.

♦ Q: Okay. Just on COVID-19. Some of the news of today. The valet at the White House has tested positive. Have you had any exposure or interaction with this valet?

BARR: I don’t think I have, no.

♦ Q: Do you have a view on whether the president, the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated?

BARR: No, you know, I don’t have a view on that. I don’t know about how close they were physically or what the medical advice is the president gets. But we’re tested pretty regularly when we’re over at the White House to visit.

♦ Q: Every day, every other day?

BARR: It depends how frequently, though at least once a week, but sometimes, you know, if you’ve been around and could have been infected, you can get further testing.

♦ Q: The president said that he’s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it’s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year. What’s your position? Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back?

BARR: Yes. You know, we had an opportunity, all the stakeholders in the administration, to discuss this, and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states.

♦ Q: Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic?

BARR: Well, the case isn’t gonna be argued until October. And the president’s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of preexisting conditions. And there will be coverage of preexisting conditions. And, you know, he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better health care system.

♦ Q: If governors continue to limit the size of gatherings, including religious services, what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take?

BARR: Well, I think initially, you know, at the very beginning of the crisis, before we knew very much — and while, in some places, the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system, you know, the initial limitations may have been defensible. But as time goes by, it’s harder to justify those kinds of blanket restrictions on religious practice.

I think, if people can follow social distancing by leaving space, wearing masks and so forth, there has to be accommodation to religious practice. The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way.

♦ Q: On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 inmates and over 360 Bureau prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19. Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff?

BARR: I think over time, we’ll be testing and perhaps get to that point. You know, we got, right at the beginning, I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines. And we’ve been building up our testing capacity. And we’re doing more and more tests.

And, you know, we’ve been trying to keep our inmates as safe as we can. We let a lot of inmates who are older and don’t pose a threat to the community, we’ve put them on home confinement to get ’em outta the institutions. So we’re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates.

Generally speaking, historically, the infection rates roughly, from what I’ve seen, are comparable inside the institution (SIC) as they are in society at large. And we’ve been able to prevent our prisons from becoming Petri dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in, you know, nursing homes and so forth. It takes a lotta work, and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that.

♦ Q: In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to– to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making?

BARR: Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.

♦ Q: Uh-huh.

BARR: I mean, it’s not gonna be the end of it.

♦ Q: What do you mean, it’s not the end of it?

BARR: Well, I said we’re gonna get to the bottom of what happened.

♦ Q: And later this year, do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham? Or do you expect indictments?

BARR: Well, as you know, I’m not gonna predict the outcome. But I said that we’re certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work. But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the law and should be brought to justice. And that’s what we have our eye on.

♦ Q: And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case?

BARR: I don’t wanna get into particular individuals.

♦ Q: Attorney General William Barr, thank you very much for joining us here at CBS News.

Barr: Thank you.

Sorry RH - this One i do not believe. Got any corroborating proof on this One.

No - it smells of fake news. Originally Posted by oeb11

Maybe overstated significance, but Sundance is typically on-point - IMHO.
You can find links to other accounting of it. here:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thee...e-t105206.html

Such as:
https://www.wsmv.com/news/davidson_c...fcdca5b84.html

https://www.columbiadailyherald.com/...nds-quarantine

Sorry RH - this One i do not believe. Got any corroborating proof on this One.

No - it smells of fake news. Originally Posted by oeb11

not necessarily fake news... it looked like satire due to the way it was written.

38

Sorry RH - this One i do not believe. Got any corroborating proof on this One.

No - it smells of fake news. Originally Posted by oeb11

From the link... https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ne/3098005001/

It's a DANDY!

The "comments" are where it gets good

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/...judy-mikovits/

https://a.co/iKWhgNx get it,read it

...We’re Winning...
And that’s why the winning is going to continue. Originally Posted by Redhot1960

Dunno 'bout you, but I cleared my plate to make room for

The little demons are hard at work cobbling together HR6666. Lots of body text has been added already. Keep your eyes peeled, they won't stop until we pound the wooden stake through their soulless hearts next election in November!

H.R. 6666 - COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act

SEC. 2. COVID–19 testing and contact tracing using mobile health units.

(1) mobile health units; and

(2) as necessary, testing individuals and providing individuals with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.

(b) Permissible uses of funds.—A grant recipient under this section may use the grant funds, in support of the activities described in subsection (a)—

(1) to hire, train, compensate, and pay the expenses of individuals; and

(2) to purchase personal protective equipment and other supplies.

(1) applicants proposing to conduct activities funded under this section in hot spots and medically underserved communities; and

(2) applicants that agree, in hiring individuals to carry out activities funded under this section, to hire residents of the area or community where the activities will primarily occur, with higher priority among applicants described in this paragraph given based on the percentage of individuals to be hired from such area or community.

I've mentioned before that Americans cannot ever take their glare away from how insidious the Demonicrats are and what levels of subterfuge they will go to. There may well be another COVID bill and they are stacking up proposals (bills) to either attach to it or to run stand-alone, like ticks on a hound, plus they are actively trying to modify the ones that have passed already. Any embedded links below source back to https://www.congress.gov/ Pro Tip: Very easy to get stuck in that web site for hours perusing the many links.

Watch for House Bill H.R. 6666 - To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID-19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals' residences, and for other purposes.

No text in the bill yet, but do those underlined pieces make ya go hmmmm? It's still being cobbled together by 44 Demonicrats, from the typical chite-hole states, plus one Republican from New Frick'n Jersey. The main author is Bobby L Bush (D-IL) BTW: He has a raft of bills on that page. Feel free to glance them over. Several of the newer ones are blank as well.

Let's peak in on H.R. 6643 - Supporting State and Local Leaders Act In particular, item:
(a) In general.—Sections 7001(e) and 7003(e) of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act are each amended by striking paragraph (4).

H.R. 6201 - Families First Coronavirus Response Basically, one of the stimulus bills. The 2 paragraphs mentioned above are identical
(4) Certain governmental employers.--This credit shall not apply to the Government of the United States, the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

Is it just me or does it look like a weaselly way of redirecting our tax dollars to partially bail out State governments?

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Nancy Pelosi (D-Haagan-Daz)

LMFAO!