The Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts have been released. They exonerate Michael Flynn and indict everyone else in the Obama Administration. perhaps even Obama himself, who conspired against Flynn. On January 4, 2017, the FBI agent overseeing the Crossfire Razor investigation of Michael Flynn drafted, but did not file, a memorandum .
The only pieces of the Flynn puzzle missing now are the original 302 report of the FBI’s January 24 interview of Flynn, as well as the multiple edits. The 302 report, originally written by Agent Joe Pientka, was subsequently edited by Peter Strzok and then edited again by Lisa Page before being sent to Andrew McCabe for approval. None of that should have happened, and all suggest actionable fraud. Everything about this case reeks of criminality by the people entrusted to faithfully execute our laws. There has to be just punishment for this.
I once heard a remark I find telling: “You know how we all feel about lawyers. And you know how we all feel about politicians. Remember a judge is basically a lawyer who knows a politician.”
This remark was made by a judge.
[NOTE: Trying to write about the Flynn case and Judge Sullivan is like swallowing an elephant whole and trying to digest it. Maybe several elephants. And I need to do it prior to June 1, when Sullivan (and/or his lawyer ?) is supposed to answer to the court on the writ of mandamus.
A reminder: here’s Part I. Here’s Part II. Here’s a post that deals with Flynn’s original lawyers’ conflict of interest as well as the FARA issues in the case. Also, see this for more background. And in particular see this as well as this about the “secret side deal” in which both the prosecutor and Flynn’s original attorneys illegally kept the deal about protecting Flynn’s son secret, so that they wouldn’t have to reveal it later in subsequent trials in which Flynn testified for the state against others who’d been accused. A huge outrage, and only revealed in late April, in documents Flynn’s defense lawyers suddenly “found” after the Jensen investigation probably motivated them a bit more strongly to turn them over voluntarily.
When New York Times correspondent Nikole Hannah-Jones won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for an article she published about blacks and the ideal of America, her own newspaper reported, “The essay was published on Aug. 14, and the magazine issue gained public attention immediately, with copies selling out and educators around the country teaching The 1619 Project.” That the Pulitzer was for “commentary” rather than history, national reporting, or some other more empirically anchored category generated some amusement in competing newsrooms.
Most American of all? Or, both for better and for worse, just as American as anybody else? If there’s a bottom line to the story of The 1619 Project, it’s that in its lack of care with history, conflicted attitude toward capitalism, and embrace of celebrity and of identity politics, the venture seems less about perfecting America than about embodying some of its more exasperating and less constructive contemporary ailments.
(Scott Johnson) In his American Greatness column “The doctrine of media untruth,” Victor Davis Hanson lays down a highly useful rule of opposites: As a general rule, when the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN begin to parrot a narrative, the truth often is found in simply believing just the opposite.
Source: Hanson’s rule of opposites
The video shows an Asian woman running through a subway station in Chinatown before being ambushed by a young black man who begins punching and kicking her. Now Senate Democrats have cited the incident in Senate Resolution 580 which condemns the terms “Wuhan Virus” and “Chinese Virus”, that correctly describe the origin of the pandemic, as likely to lead to “Asian Americans being harassed, assaulted, and scapegoated.” While the resolution is clearly aimed at President Trump, who has insisted on describing the virus as the “Chinese Virus”, and at conservatives who have resisted the WHO’s efforts to obscure the origins of the outbreak in the People’s Republic of China, a survey of the anti-Asian attacks, including those cited by Democrats, tells a different story.
New study on Coronavirus patients describing outcomes and risk factors . This is a very positive study despite the subdued language. My understanding is that this is part of standard recommended treatment in South Korea now.
Lots of confounding variables…
Americans have been debating the effectiveness of COVID-19 lockdowns for months now. To what extent did broad business closure and stay-at-home orders—as opposed to narrower interventions and voluntary precautions—reduce virus transmission, thereby avoiding hospital crises, buying time to develop testing and tracing capacity, and preventing deaths that otherwise would have occurred?
From Andrew C. McCarthy : Well, the mystery is solved, at least if you can believe what the usual sieves — those courageously anonymous “former U.S. officials” — have told their notetakers at the Washington Post. As I surmised in last weekend’s column, Michael Flynn was not “unmasked” in connection with his controversial phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
You don’t have to understand the the science of sourdough yeasts and bacteria to bake great sourdough bread, but it sure can help.
The comments include a link to Donna Currie’s “no waste” technique for making sourdough starter.
News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies. The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”
Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all. No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.”Real Clear Politics
I’ve been publicly debunking the “fine people” hoax since 2017. The press created the hoax by consistently and intentionally omitting the second half of President Trump’s comments about Charlottesville. If you only see or hear the first half of what the president said, it looks exactly like the president is calling neo-Nazis “fine people.” But in the second part of Trump’s comments, he clarified, “You had people in that group who were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of the park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
In other words, the president believed there were non-racists in attendance who support keeping historical monuments. To remove all doubt, the President continued with “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?”
Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter if the President’s assumption about the attendees was accurate or not. He clearly stated his assumption that some people were there for the monument protest, which he contrasted to the racists who were there to march and chant racist stuff. The New York Times interviewed a member of the non-marchers who said they did not stand with the racists. They cared about guns and free speech. See for yourself, here and more background on that group here.
Last week I chatted at length with one of the Charlottesville protest attendees. He hates racism, loves free speech, and wasn’t “marching with” anyone. He reports that there was chaos from the start, with lots of people all over the venue doing lots of different things. And there was no way to know what all of the people in normal street clothes were thinking by attending. He was there because he figured it would be a diverse group, from Antifa to neo-Nazis, with plenty of normal non-racists in between. Bolstering his argument is his Jewish heritage. He didn’t think he was attending a neo-Nazi event. He learned that from the press.The “Fine People” hoax funnel