Why academics hold Thatcher and Trump in such contempt

But if the sentiments of the majority of educators of 2020 and 1990 are similar, what has changed is the level of censoriousness, and the fear among the few dissenters of speaking out against the consensus. Pro-Thatcher academics were perhaps not too popular in the staff room, but didn’t live in fear of losing their jobs. I’m not sure that is true about Trump.

The Spectator

Also:

WHY ELITES TEND LEFT

The Disclosures That Turned the Tide in Michael Flynn’s Case

Long-withheld evidence of innocence revealed the FBI never thought it had a case against former Trump national security adviser.

  1. Case Closure Memo. Weeks before the FBI sought to interview Flynn, the lead FBI agent who had investigated the retired general for five months wrote a memo to close the investigation on Jan. 4, 2017, concluding he had found “no derogatory” evidence that Flynn committed a crime or posed a national security threat. FBI management then ordered the closure to be rescinded and pivoted toward trying lure Flynn into an interview.
  2. Agent’s ‘Get Trump’ Confession. In an extraordinary interview with prosecutors this fall, the FBI agent who led the Flynn case, William Barnett, admitted there was never evidence of wrongdoing by the retired general or Russian collusion by Trump, but the probe was kept open by Special Counsel Robert Mueller because his team was obsessed with punishing the president.  “With respect to Flynn’s [phone call] with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 BARNETT did not believe Flynn was being directed by TRUMP. BARNETT did not believe FLYNN had any additional information to provide SCO. Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to ‘get TRUMP,’” the interview stated.
  3.  Not a Russian agentA Justice Department memo exonerated Flynn of Russia collusion on Jan. 30, 2017, nearly a year before he pled guilty. “The FBI did not believe Flynn was acting as an agent of Russia,” the DOJ memo states.
  4. Playing Games.’ The rush to interview Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing created significant concerns for Assistant FBI Director for Counterintelligence William Priestap, who poignantly questioned whether the bureau was “playing games” with the interview strategy. “What is our goal?,” Priestap wrote in his handwritten notes that suddenly turned up as evidence in spring 2020. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
  5. Infamous Obama White House meeting. Ordinarily, the White House steers clear of any involvement in FBI criminal investigations. But notes and records that turned up earlier this year show the FBI briefed President Obama and Vice Preident Joe Biden on Jan. 5, 2017 on the state of the Flynn case. The president gave an instruction for the FBI to put its best people on continuing the probe while Biden suggested considering using the Logan Act to prosecute Flynn, the memos suggest.
  6. No deception. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, including the now-fired Peter Strzok, did not believe Flynn intended to lie or be deceptive in his interview. “Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview,” a memo from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s team stated
  7. Logan Act threat wasn’t real. DOJ officials immediately did not believe Flynn could realistically be prosecuted under the Logan Act for his conversations with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified he was told such a prosecution was a “long shot,” and former Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord “said that upon learning of Flynn’s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak, a Logan Act prosecution seemed like a stretch to her,” DOJ memos say.
  8. DOJ heartburn. Senior Justice officials expressed concern and alarm at the way the FBI was treating Flynn, including trying to interview him without the normally required notification to the Trump White House. Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates expressed significant concern that White House officials weren’t being advised. “The interview was problematic from Yates’ perspective because, as a matter of protocol and courtesy, the White House Counsel’s Office should have been notified beforehand,” a DOJ memo stated
  9. Disguising a required warning. FBI officials debated whether they could avoid, disguise or slip in the required FBI admonition against lying to agents at the start of Flynn’s interview to keep him off guard. “It would be an easy way to just casually slip that in,” FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted during the discussions
  10. FBI Deception. James Comey bragged in a videotaped interview that he authorized the FBI to try to conduct a Flynn interview without the proper notifications and protocol, hoping to catch Flynn and the new Trump White House off guard. In other words, they didn’t follow procedure or treat Flynn like others when it came to due process. Comey said the tactic was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration
  11. Interview Reports Edited. According to evidence DOJ disclosed to Powell earlier this year, FBI officials subsequently edited the original Flynn interview report. After Strzok and fellow special agent Joe Pientka interviewed the Trump adviser, Pientka wrote the original interview report, known as a 302, then Strzok heavily edited it, so much so that he worried he was “trying not to completely re-write” the memo. Then FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who neither attended the interview nor is an agent, edited it again, according to the DOJ evidence. And then that version of the 302 was never given to the court. Instead, a substitute summary of the interview written months later was presented as official evidence, an act current and former FBI officials told me was extraordinarily unusual.
  12. Flynn’s visit with Putin was approved, not nefarious. In fact, his December 2015 visit to Moscow was cleared by his former employer, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he received a defensive briefing before he went to Russia and debriefed with U.S. intelligence after he returned

Source: The Disclosures That Turned the Tide in Michael Flynn’s Case

The Flynn Persecution Ends–UPDATED — Stately McDaniel Manor

Retired General Michael Flynn was collateral damage in the ongoing coup against president Trump and against the American people. As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, gentle readers, President Trump pardoned General Michael Flynn.  He would gladly have done it long ago, but Flynn and his lawyer, Sydney Powell, wanted to do it the honorable […]

The Flynn Persecution Ends–UPDATED — Stately McDaniel Manor

The Social Media Fact-Check Farce

A study says Twitter’s anti-Trump ‘corrections’ make some people more likely to believe Trump.

In recent years liberals have successfully lobbied social-media companies to police conservative content more and more aggressively. But there’s little evidence that this political interference has reduced the prevalence of misinformation online—and a new study shows how it could make the problem worse.

In the study—by Dino Christenson of Boston University and Sarah Kreps and Douglas Kriner of Cornell—volunteers were shown a May 26 tweet by President Trump attacking mail-in voting and claiming that “Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed.”

Groups of participants were also shown “corrections” to Mr. Trump’s tweet, including Twitter’s “explanatory text labeling the claims ‘unsubstantiated’ according to major media outlets, including CNN and the Washington Post.”

Conservatives did not find mainstream-media assurances convincing. For Republicans who were shown Twitter’s effort to debunk the President, “belief that mail voter fraud occurs was more than 13% higher than in the control.” Or as the authors put it, “corrections increased misperceptions among those predisposed to believe President Trump.”

Source: The Social Media Fact-Check Farce

The Kracken Unleashed

Sydney Powell has filed her complaint alleging voter fraud in Georgia.. https://t.co/ly7R4J1Up0 — peace (@3peacefulheart) November 26, 2020 Sydney Powell has filed her long awaited complaint in Georgia alleging election fraud. You’ll find an unsigned version of the 104-page complaint here , Powell alleges in the complaint that election fraud occurred on behalf of Joe Biden in several different ways, as established by eye-witnesses and by expert statistical analysis, and that certain aspects of the voting system used renders the whole process untrustworthy.

Source: The Kracken Unleashed

Kraken, or Crack-up?

The PDF of the complaint is here. You decide.

There are some comments at Vox Popoli. I take most of what Vox Day writes with enough grains of salt to worry my cardiologist. But he cites some lawyers here

So, here are my few observations as an attorney with decades’ in federal court:

1. In early October, 2020, a federal district judge in this same district (Northern District of Georgia) ruled after several years of litigation that the Dominion software used to monitor this election has substantial issues and it will affect an election. The Plaintiffs were Democrats who filed suit in response to the 2016 election. They sought an order forcing Georgia to use different software. They conducted discovery and hearings over years, including 3 days of expert testimony about how these very voting machines work. The court ultimately denied the request because it was simply too late to change the voting machines since the election at that time was roughly a month away. New cases are supposed to be assigned to judges randomly but I would not be surprised if this case were given to that particular judge since she spent so much time reviewing the litigation and conducting evidentiary hearings. Her findings of fact could be incorporated into this hearing under the legal theory of res judicata.

….

5. One area where plaintiffs do a good job is in pointing out the number of votes affected by the alleged fraud. One reason this is crucial is that Biden’s certified margin of victory in Georgia was only about 12,000 votes. And the complaint does a good job of laying out substantial procedural and constitutional irregularities with roughly 96,000 votes and further problems with additional votes. The problematic votes far outnumber Biden’s margin of victory, which is hugely significant. Put another way, if Biden wins by 500,000 and they claim that there are problems with 100,000 votes, even if those 100,000 votes are gone, Biden still wins. If the problem votes are gone, Biden’s victory may be gone as well. The complaint does a good job of pointing out not just the alleged problems but the number of votes affected by those problems.

6. What now? The plaintiffs are asking for an evidentiary hearing. That would allow them to present evidence in the form of witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits that would support their claim. Because it is a civil case, they only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, they only have to prove that it was more likely than not that there was fraud and that the fraud influenced the election. They do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court may refuse an evidentiary hearing, in which case Plaintiffs would appeal and argue that they should be given hearing. Given the evidence laid out, I expect that the court will at least order an evidentiary hearing that will be conducted on an expedited scale. (it helps that there’s an evidentiary hearing set in Nevada). After the evidentiary hearing, the court can grant their request, which would be to de-certify the election and force a manual re-count/audit overseen by independent auditors to verify each vote. Or the court could deny it. Realistically this case is likely to be appealed, which is one reason that the District (trial) court is likely to hold an evidentiary hearing. Because an appeal is almost certain no matter who wins the case, the judge’s legal decision in this case is likely not nearly as important as the judge’s factual decisions. The judge’s factual decisions will likely be relied upon by appellate judges even if they disagree with the judge’s legal conclusions. If there is an evidentiary hearing, pay careful attention to the judge’s factual findings, especially as described below.

….

…and here:

  1. This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they’ve grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I’ve not even completed reading it, I’m taking it slow.
  2. It’s now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she’s representing here, she’s representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight.  Like with Roger Stone, she’s outside the system. 
  3. This suit is a big reason why General Flynn was pardoned this week. Now, the corrupt Flynn trial judge can’t waste time or resources by demanding Powell file extra briefs or come to court and distract her from this. That great Dem delay tactic has been neutralized; Powell is all in on this. 
  4. Page 9, Paragraph 14. Holy shit. 
  5. For about 7 days now, the SJW defense rhetoric I’ve heard was, in part, “Oh yeah? When they going to prove this in court? Put up or shut up.” Now, after Rudy’s hearings yesterday and Powell’s filing last night, they’ve put up—-they put it on the line. Big time. 
  6. The Democratic party lawyers just shit their pants. Biden did as well, but he does that every morning. Their Thanksgiving is officially ruined; they are all going to be working all holiday weekend to file a response.

Implications of the Flynn Pardon

President Trump’s pardon not only ends any injustice to Flynn, but it restores the proper balance to the separation of powers.

….

Of course, Trump’s critics leapt immediately to the attack. House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) said Flynn had chosen “loyalty to Trump over loyalty to his country” and Trump’s decision was intended to insulate himself from criminal investigation. He called that a “corruption of the Framer’s intent” in giving the president broad pardon powers. “It’s no surprise that Trump would go out just as he came in — crooked to the end,” Schiff said. House Judiciary chairman Jerrold R. Nadler (D., N.Y.) called the pardon “undeserved, unprincipled, and one more stain on President Trump’s rapidly diminishing legacy.”

Source: Implications of the Flynn Pardon

Biden’s plan to create millions of energy jobs might work, but only because renewables are so labor-intensive and only at a very high cost

According to president-elect Joe Biden “If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying [clean energy] jobs in the United States that will grow a stronger, more inclusive middle class enjoyed by communities across the country, not just in cities along the coasts.” Is that possibly true?

Source: Biden’s plan to create millions of energy jobs might work, but only because renewables are so labor-intensive and only at a very high cost