VIDEO: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Barack Obama was at the Center of Trump/Flynn Targeting

WATCH: #Obamagate


Tom Fitton w/ The Daily Caller: NEW #SPYGATE DEVELOPMENTS, #COVID19 Cash Lawsuit in CA, & MORE!

Chris Farrell: Obama’s Team Needs to Be Charged with SEDITION over #SpyGate Targeting of Trump/Flynn

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Seattle Police Officer Sacrificed His Job to Speak the Truth on Abuse of Power by Government

Officer Greg Anderson Courageously Speaks The Truth About Lockdown.


Thank you Isaac.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Fall of Obama’s House of Cards

Obama’s top officials. Lying through their teeth.

Obama on CBS, 60 Minutes. January 25, 2017:

“I’m proud of the fact that we are the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”

Pause for cynical laughter.

What Obama officials have said frequently on TV against President Trump, and later under oath with a potential charge of perjury if caught lying, are divided by the proverbial country mile.

Spread the dirt in the media but deny the lies under oath.


James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence:

December 18, 2017, CNN. “Vladimir Putin knows how to handle an asset and that’s what he’s doing with the President (Trump).”
Under oath at the House Intelligence Committee. July 17, 2017:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting or conspiring with the Russians to meddle in the election.”

Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI:

February 17, 2019. Answering CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s question “Do you think that President Trump could be a Russian asset?”
“I think that’s possible.”

Under oath to the House Intelligence Committee questions in December 2017:

“We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

“What is the most damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier. You don’t know if it’s true or not?”
McCabe’s reply, “That’s correct.”

Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the United Nations:

December 11, 2019. Late Show, CBS, laughingly, “I think Putin has received a very high return on his investment (meaning President Trump).”

Samantha Power to House intelligence Committee; “I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came out of the intelligence community.”

But Samantha Power did request the unmasking of 260 American citizens during 2016 toward the end of the Obama Administration.

Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor:

July 2018. This Week, ABC; “He (Trump) has taken a number of steps that Vladimir Putin couldn’t have handled more effectively.”

Susan Rice in front of the House Intelligence Committee, September 8, 2017; “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect.”

But Susan Rice made requests for the unmasking on American citizens, members of the Trump campaign.

John Brennan, CIA Director:

August 17, 2018. NBC. Meet the Press. “I call his (Trump’s) behavior treasonous…to aid and abet the enemy…and I very much stand by that claim.”

Brennan addressed President Trump in a tweet dated March 20, 2019, “The Special Council will soon further complicate your life, putting your political and financial future in jeopardy.”

Brennan on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, March 26, 2019. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was.”

This was the head of Obama’s CIA calling the elected President of the United States a traitor based on information at his fingertips.

Obama’s Attorney-General, Loretta Lynch, in an interesting turn of phrase when pressed at the House Intelligence Hearing, “I don’t recall that being briefed up to me.”

Obama’s Attorney-General couldn’t recall if she had been informed that President Trump had been colluding with Russia!

Interesting statements were made by Evelyn Farkas, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, who told MSNBC in March, 2017, that she “had to get as much intelligence (on Trump) before Obama leaves the Administration before the Trump staff found out how we knew what we knew.”

Farkas left the Obama Administration in 2015. When questioned by Trey Gowdy how she would have known about information in possession of the Obama administration about Trump-Russian collusion if she didn’t work for the US government any more, Farkas admitted, “I didn’t know anything.”

Gowdy pressed further, “You also didn’t know whether or not anyone in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?” Evenly Farkas replied, “I didn’t.”

Here we have a list of Obama top officials feeding the American public an ongoing series of lies but later denying knowledge of any Trump collusion with Russia when put on the spot and under oath where lying to Congress comes with potential prison time.

There is no other way of expressing it. This was a part of a coup attempt to remove a duly elected president and Obama knew what was going on.

It is shown in the August 6, 2016, text message between Peter Strzog and Lisa Page that “The White House is running this.”

This was confirmed in a September 2 reply from Page to Strzok that “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

What they wrote is obvious. In the United States, counter-intelligence always runs through the Commander-in-Chief. This is the person who sits in the Oval Office. In this case, Barrack Hussein Obama.

President Obama was keeping tabs on anti-Trump activities by his counter intelligence and law enforcement elite.

On January 7, 2017, after Donald Trump had been elected president, but before he took office, outgoing President Obama held a meeting in the Oval Office purportedly about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attending that meeting were Vice President Joe Biden, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, and James Comey (head of the FBI). After the meeting, Obama asked that Yates and Comey remain behind. This meeting was to discuss General Michael Flynn, who Obama had fired, and Flynn’s brief conversation with the Russian Ambassador as part of his preparation for his national intelligence role under a Trump presidency.

Whatever happened at that Oval Office meeting, Michael Flynn became a prime target for Comey’s FBI which forced the general to accept a plea bargain with Special Council, Robert Mueller, by pleading guilty to “willfully and knowingly” making “false, fictitious and fraudulent statements.”

Flynn was innocent. He was exonerated of all charges.

Flynn had fallen into an FBI entrapment operation. Recent damning documents clearly show the ones who were willfully and knowingly making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements were top FBI personnel, including James Comey.

They now nervously await the Attorney-General, William Barr, and Special Prosecutor, John Durham, axe to fall. An axe which is likely to incriminate them in criminal behavior.

Trump had picked Flynn to be his National Intelligence Chief and Flynn knew where the bodies of the previous administration were buried.

When Obama met with Trump during the White House transition, the outgoing president told Trump to be wary of two people – North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, and Michael Flynn. That was how nervous Obama was about the general.

He had to be removed or turned against Trump. The plot nearly succeeded.

We now know that the FBI targeted Flynn in an effort to break him and make him turn against President Trump as proven in the shocking revelation of a hand-written instruction to the FBI team to entrap Flynn at a White House meeting.

The note written by Bill Priestap, Obama’s FBI head of counter-intelligence, ordered them to “get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

The note dated January 24, 2017, illustrated the corrupt behavior of Obama’s FBI.

This was the final act of President Obama who had bragged about having the most scandal-free White House in American history.

The question that dare not speak its name concerns President Barrack Hussein Obama.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Don’t expect that question to be asked by the cover-up media, and certainly not by the Democrats in the House and Senate. They are co-conspirators in the tawdry, perhaps criminal, conduct of Obama’s top officials.

The Wall Street Journal, raised the question of Obama’s role in the gross abuse of FBI-DOJ power in their May 11th editorial, after Obama got himself involved by questioning the dropped charges against Flynn. It wrote:

“Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he had ventured into the Michael Flynn case…we wonder what he’s really worried about.”

Aren’t we all?

With the impending reports of the Barr-Durham probe, a probe that carries with it serious criminal implications for some, expect more bombshells to fall that could affect the outcome of the US 2020 election, and also the reputation of Obama’s closest aides.
Perhaps Obama himself.

We are witnessing the fall of the Obama House of Cards.

©All rights reserved.

INFOGRAPHIC: Timeline of FBI’s FISA Abuse in Trump Campaign Investigation

VINDICATED! DOJ Exonerates Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn

“People always find lies more exciting and thrilling than the truth. Lies are like a virus that spreads easily around and contaminates the truth, making it impossible for people to separate actual facts from malicious rumors.”

“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.” –  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from government.” –  Thomas Paine

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.  Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.” –  H.L. Mencken

Three-star General Michael Flynn never lied to anyone, not VP Pence and certainly not the FBI.  The FBI and Department of Justice misused their authority to try to entrap Flynn during an investigation that was utterly without factual merit or legal justification.  The special counsel pursued Flynn relentlessly, even though he had done nothing wrong.  Why? Because he was feared and hated by Obama and his Deep State minions in the DOJ.

Michael Flynn never misrepresented his phone call to VP Pence.  Pence made the mistake of telling the press something he knew nothing about before talking to Mr. Flynn.  The General took one for the team.

Case Dismissed

The Justice Department announced their decision May 7th to dismiss with prejudice (they cannot revisit it) the criminal case against General Flynn just days after exculpatory documents revealed the FBI tried to get him to lie or get him fired after Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed him on January 24, 2017 at the behest of former FBI Director, James Comey. Obama holdover and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates put the scheme in motion by sending the agents to the White House to interview Flynn.  The FBI’s corrupt prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, withdrew from the case the same day it was dismissed.

In February, the New York Times reported that AG Barr had installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. One of those prosecutors was U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen.

The dismissal of the Flynn case was recommended by Jeffrey Jensen, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, who was appointed in January by AG Bill Barr to review the Michael Flynn case. Barr long ago could have dismissed this case, but then he would have had to explain the seditious behavior of the entire DOJ, which is still reportedly being investigated by Attorney John Durham.  He also could have demanded that Christopher Wray release the exculpatory evidence requested by Sidney Powell.  He did neither. Bill Barr is a shrewd political strategist, he is not a lawman, he wants to preserve the institutions of the DOJ and FBI.  President Trump, unlike Barr, has no loyalty whatsoever to the intel machine.

“I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a May 7th statement released by the DOJ. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

The General’s defense team, headed by Sidney Powell, had rightfully argued that officials of the FBI tried to set him up in a 2017 interview.  In a motion to dismiss, the department said it sided with the General’s defense team.

“The Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an ‘absence of any derogatory information,’” said Timothy Shea, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in his May 6th motion to dismiss.  The FBI had “word-for-word” transcripts of the calls, and there was nothing in them “to indicate an inappropriate relationship between Mr. Flynn and a foreign power,” Shea said.

The DOJ needs to ask federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to vacate the general’s guilty plea in the wake of the document release.  All these materials should be made available either to the Senate Judiciary Committee or to whatever members of Congress are able to get them.

“Crossfire Razor”

The intelligence community’s massive abuse of power against the incoming President and his National Security Advisor came right from the top.  President Obama’s dislike of Gen. Flynn was well known, and for that reason Flynn became a target.  The top echelon of the FBI was involved according to text messages between FBI paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

The Comey team forced a meeting with Flynn, ignoring protocols and, in Comey’s own words, took advantage of a new, disorganized Trump administration. They had no legal basis for being in Flynn’s office and confronting him.  The politically motivated FBI is a real threat to our nation and to the rule of law.

It was Peter Strzok who kept the Flynn investigation open when it rightfully should have been closed after he and Joe Pientka stated that Michael Flynn had not lied when they deceptively interviewed him.

A handwritten note by FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, in advance of the January 2017 interview with Flynn resulted in the retired general being charged with lying to federal agents: “What is our goal?” Priestap asked, “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”  Strzok did the bidding of his superiors to strike the first blow to the Trump administration.

Documents show that Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page massively edited the 302 reports to make them seem that Michael Flynn had lied.  Attorney Sidney Powell still does not have the original 302 reports.

We now know that the targeting of General Flynn (dubbed Crossfire Razor) was the beginning of the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” operation against the Trump White House.  Getting rid of General Flynn was the ultimate goal. The Obama holdovers knew that the General would investigate and eliminate the corruption within the intel community.

When Sidney Powell became Flynn’s attorney, she wrote a nine-page letter to Attorney General Barr outlining the entire case and asking for listed Brady/Giglio exculpatory evidence from the FBI, including the original 302 reports from the agents who had interviewed the General.  The requested documents were never forthcoming despite Judge Emmett Sullivan’s February 2018 standing order that they be furnished to defense.

The smug, arrogant and pompous FBI Director Wray was behind the suppression of stunning exculpatory evidence in General Flynn’s case.  The Federalist reported that FBI general counsel Dana Boente was also behind the effort to block the release of the Brady Material.  Boente, along with James Comey and Rod Rosenstein signed off on the flawed FISA warrants.  Quite obviously both Wray and Boente worked together to protect the Deep State swamp within the FBI.

What was most striking and shocking is how many also rejected any claim that the undisclosed evidence, at a minimum, violated Brady, the case requiring the government to turn over exculpatory information.  Mark Zaid, the national security lawyer who was on the Ukraine whistleblower’s legal team, said that the FBI notes showed routine FBI interview tactics. National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss, a partner at Zaid’s firm, said that the FBI’s tactics were “largely consistent” with what’s been going on for the last five decades.

The mainstream media really should go back to 2016 and take another look at James Comey, but doubtful that will ever happen.

Trump Considering Flynn Rehire

Most conservatives see FBI Director Wray as a younger copy of James Comey.  His failure to give Brady materials to Michael Flynn’s defense attorneys was typical of actions similar to disgraced former Director Comey.  Two weeks ago, Ken Matthews was guest hosting for Rush Limbaugh when he brought up the subject of Director Wray.  A caller had mentioned that Wray needed to be replaced and Matthews had a great idea.  He said that President Trump had communicated that he’d indeed “consider” rehiring Michael Flynn if he were exonerated. Now that the DOJ has dropped the case against him, the question about Flynn’s next career move is inescapable.  Matthews mentioned that the best man to clean up the intel agency was none other than three-star General Michael T. Flynn.

This thought has spread like wildfire, and gone viral on twitter.  Additions have included Sidney Powell as the new Attorney General.  With that combination, we’d see the rats scurrying for their holes, retiring to be with their families, and moving out of country.

Of course, that particular scenario may be a pipedream, but it’s one that thrills those of us who love both General Flynn and Sidney Powell.

Conservatives Love Mike

In September of 2018, Phyllis Schlafly’s Gateway-Eagle Council bestowed their very first Major General John K. (Jack) Singlaub Award for Service to America to General Flynn.  Six hundred people were in attendance and about that many conservatives of all ages had their pictures taken with General Mike.  The love for this veteran was so obvious, and I knew it was wonderful for him, his wife Lori, and their son Mike. It buoyed their spirits.

In January of this year, General Singlaub wrote a letter of support for Mike Flynn to AG Barr. It was shortly after this letter, that Bill Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to take a much closer look at the entire FBI and Mueller case against General Flynn.

Maj. Gen. Singlaub, Lt. Gen. Flynn, and Phyllis Schlafly Eagle President, Ed Martin


General Mike Flynn and his wife Lori, and their entire family have been through the crucible, a horribly difficult trial and test.  And yet, never once did a smile fade from the face of General Mike and his beloved wife Lori.  Not once.  They faced this horror after Mike gave 33 years of his life to his beloved America, including five to actual combat, and the rest to Army intelligence, to being charged with the most vile and incomprehensible evil that could come against a true Christian patriot who loves his country.

Do yourself a favor and read his magnificent book, Field of Fight, available on Amazon where Mike describes how to win the global war against radical Islam and its allies.

Never once did the Flynn family’s faith in God waiver.  They walked the walk; they knew God had them in His Hands and all would be well for those who love the Lord, no matter the outcome.

I want to see compensation, ten-fold for what he lost, but that’s my heart for this man and his wonderful family…a huge family of brothers and sisters who love each other unconditionally.  Mike Flynn will hopefully be rewarded here, but if not, in heaven, and that’s where this man stands far above those who accused him.

He has stood tall throughout this ordeal, with his bride and family beside him…and no matter what, he prevails because of his love and trust in the Lord.  Isaiah 43:2  So does his brilliant attorney, Sidney Powell!

When you can, please help!

P.S.  The Covid-19 destruction of America’s economy has destroyed so many businesses, I can’t begin to list the numbers who are suffering, but NewsWithViews is one of them.  The cost of maintaining conservative and truth telling websites is astronomical.  We need your help even if it’s only a few dollars in an envelope…to maintain truth coming to America’s readers.  Please help by donating here, and get your friends to sign up for daily emails…in that way, the advertising helps to keep us out of the red.  Thanks again!

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Justice for General Flynn — and Our Country

We welcome the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss charges against former National Security Adviser, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, an American hero who was victimized by the Obama administration and the Deep State. The targeting of General Flynn was a key part of the Obama/Clinton/Deep State coup against President Trump.

We commend the heroic work of General Flynn’s legal team, led by Sidney Powell, which exposed the criminal conduct by FBI and DOJ officials behind Flynn’s illicit prosecution. This corruption, as we have exposed from the get-go, is the tip of the iceberg. The required next step for justice is the prosecution of the coup cabal who tried to destroy General Flynn and overthrow our president.

To see my interview with Lou Dobbs about this story, click here.

Judicial Watch Filed a Lawsuit for Fauci and WHO Records

In March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a prominent member of the president’s coronavirus task force, praised the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its chairman, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Fauci said: “Tedros is really an outstanding person … I mean, obviously, over the years anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think under his leadership they’ve done very well.”

In April, however, President Trump announced a halt to U.S. funding of WHO. According to the president, the WHO put “political correctness over lifesaving measures.” Additionally, President Trump said: “The WHO failed in this duty, and must be held accountable,” adding that the WHO ignored “credible information” in December 2019 that the virus could be transmitted from human to human.

We want to have a closer look at the Fauci/WHO connection, so we have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation (DNCF) against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for communications and other records of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane with and about WHO concerning the novel coronavirus (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

We sued after HHS failed to respond to our April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

We are requesting communications from January 1, 2020, to April 1, 2020. The DCNF was granted expedited processing of its request.

“This virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people and turned the whole world upside down,” Daily Caller News Foundation Co-Founder and President Neil Patel said. “We know that China and WHO could have done a lot more to prevent or reduce this catastrophe. We therefore have a legitimate and urgent news purpose for seeking these documents regarding U.S. officials’ communications with WHO and demand that the agencies in question stop stalling and start following the law that entitles us to this vital information.”

It is urgent that the NIH follow transparency law during the coronavirus crisis. It is of significant public interest to learn what WHO was telling our top medical officials about the coronavirus that originated in China.

Court Allows Newsom to Give Cash to Illegal Aliens, But It’s Likely Illegal

Several of our left-leaning governors have used the coronavirus emergency to test the boundaries of emergency powers. As we might have expected, California’s governor is even trying to hand out cash to people in the state and country illegally. No law allows him to do this.

So we asked the court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Governor Gavin Newsom and his Director of the California Department of Social Services, Kim Johnson, to restrain them from spending $79.8 million dollars of taxpayers’ money to provide direct cash benefits to unlawfully present aliens (Crest et al. v. Newsom et al. (No. 20STCV16321)).

The court has now issued a bizarre ruling.

Though it found that we were likely to succeed on the merits (that Newsom had no authority under law to spend the money), the court found that there was a public interest in sending tax money to illegal aliens during the coronavirus crisis.

It is astonishing that a court would allow a public official to ignore the law and spend tax money with no legal authority. Simply put, as the court seems to acknowledge, the governor has no independent legal authority to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal aliens. We will appeal the court’s manifest error.

Newsom announced his executive initiative on April 15, 2020. The initiative plans to spend $75 million to provide direct cash payments to illegal aliens and cost an estimated additional $4.8 million to administer. The Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Project plans to provide one-time cash benefits of $500 per adult / $1,000 per household to 150,000 unlawfully present aliens in California.

These benefits are not to be provided to U.S. citizens or legal aliens residing in the state, according to an April 17 fact sheet issued by the California Department of Social Services, the “Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Fact Sheet,” which reiterates that only unlawfully present aliens are eligible for direct assistance.

Our lawsuit argued that the California State Legislature has not enacted any law that affirmatively provides that unlawfully present aliens are eligible for the $75 million of cash public benefits announced by Newsom.

Well, it is California.

Feds Give $23 Million to ‘Community Organizations’ in Virus Fight

The Obama Administration discovered that it could fund its favorite leftist organizations through all manner of community programs, and the swamp creatures embedded in the DC bureaucracies are at it again. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

Dealing with a devastated economy and the worst unemployment crisis in history, the U.S. government is quietly spending $23 million on “culturally and linguistically diverse” COVID-19 outreach and education in racial and ethnic minority and disadvantaged communities. The goal is to develop a national and statewide network of public and community-based organizations that will help mitigate the virus’s disproportionate impact among that demographic, according to one of the recently published grant announcements. A separate allocation will revive an Obama-era program that gave leftist groups tens of millions of dollars to help poor, minority and indigenous communities attain “environmental justice.” Under that project the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will reopen the State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreement Program (SEJCA) to help “underserved communities” and “vulnerable populations” deal with COVID-19.
The biggest chunk of money, $22 million, will come from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which just launched a National Infrastructure for Mitigating the Impact of COVID-19 within Racial and Ethnic Minority Communities. The agency’s Office of Minority Health (OMH) will dole out the cash to “community-based organizations” that are considered “trusted and usual information sources for racial and ethnic minority, rural and disadvantaged communities.” The organizations, most likely leftist groups, will use the taxpayer dollars to “disseminate effective response, recovery and resilience strategies and ensure service linkages for racial and ethnic minority, rural and disadvantaged communities hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.” This includes identifying areas with minority and disadvantaged people at substantially greater risk of contracting the virus and adverse outcomes due to prevalence of underlying health conditions such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and COPD/lung disease as well as structural and systemic barriers to physical distancing and challenges to accessing healthcare and social services. The money will flow for up to three years so the community groups can document and distribute “lessons learned” and other findings.
Here is why HHS, whose mission is to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans, is dedicating tens of millions of dollars to this new venture: “Emerging data suggests racial and ethnic minority populations are experiencing disproportionate impact and worse health outcomes from COVID-19,” according to the grant document. “Past public health crises, like the H1N1 pandemic and Zika epidemic, have demonstrated and amplified the vulnerability of these populations. Specifically, when combined with a greater baseline prevalence of underlying health conditions, a public health crisis like COVID-19 further exacerbates the higher morbidity and mortality for racial and ethnic minority communities. Due to lack of resources and limited capacity to provide healthcare and social services, rural communities are also vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes in the immediate and long term.”
The EPA will dedicate $1 million to the coronavirus minority cause by bringing back Obama’s wasteful environmental justice initiative that filled the coffers of numerous leftist groups, including those that help illegal immigrants. Under the new project, nonprofits will work with underserved communities to understand, promote and integrate approaches to provide meaningful and measurable improvements to public health. The agency identifies underserved community as those with “environmental justice concerns and/or vulnerable populations, including minority, low income, rural, tribal, indigenous, and homeless populations.” In a document attached to the grant announcement, the EPA goes into tremendous detail about its new initiative to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban and rural low-income and minority communities.
Examples of eligible projects related to COVID-19 include the development of outreach programs to educate underserved and vulnerable populations about EPA-approved disinfectants and how to properly use them as well as managing trash removal within communities; “Healthy Homes” campaigns to share information about in-home environmental and health hazards that may increase vulnerability due to extended periods indoors resulting from local stay-at-home orders; other activities that educate, raise public knowledge and awareness toward achieving behavioral changes that improve health or prevent environmental pollution. To encourage participation the government will offer childcare, free disinfectants, translation services and material in “appropriate literacy levels for the impacted communities with environmental justice concerns.”

We will be cleaning up after the Obama Administration for years.

Virus Drug Controversy: Was Trump Right?

The legacy media seems unable to give President Trump any credit whatsoever even if the research done by his team could be of benefit to the public. The president and his team have been studying the coronavirus and looking for solutions. But it is doubtful the press will ever be able to convey this in an evenhanded manner.

Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, looks at one example of this in his Investigative Bulletin.

Controversy continues to rage over President Trump’s advocacy of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HC) to combat the coronavirus. As we reported last month, Trump critics were shocked, shocked that the president would dare to venture a medical opinion, but based on anecdotal evidence from around the globe, it appeared to us that the president had placed a bold winning bet on HC.
The blowback was fierce. The White House for a time fell silent on HC. On Sunday, Trump jumped back into the fray with a defense of the drug and an attack on his critics at a Fox News Town Hall event.
Response to the Judicial Watch article was swift, particularly after Trump retweeted journalist Paul Sperry’s tweet about the story. We received a lot of email. Many of the comments can’t be repeated in this family-friendly venue. Others were enlightening.
“I’ve been tracking HC treatment and outcomes all over the world,” writes a data analyst. “Long story short, HC-treated patients have a case fatality rate of 0.5% (5 out of 1000) whereas the worldwide rate is 6.9% (69 out of 1000). In other words, current evidence suggests you’re more than 12 times more likely to die if you are diagnosed with COVID 19 and you don’t get HC treatment.”
“I am a Florida physician prescribing HC to patients,” another reader writes. “I do hope it is a winning bet. My take is it helps early and should be used with zinc. Shortened illness. Less lung problems.” Hospitalized patients getting HC should be on heart monitors, this physician warns, a nod to concerns about possible dangerous side effects.
Another reader directed us to an AP story about a Veterans Administration study that showed no benefit and increased deaths from HC. The VA quickly pushed back on the story. VA Secretary Robert Wilkie sent a letter to veterans’ organizations saying the VA study had led to “misinformation” about treatments at VA hospitals. Wilkie said HC was only given to patients at “highest risk” and noted that the Food and Drug Administration had approved HC for emergency use. (The FDA also issued a later warning that HC could lead to dangerous heart rhythm issues.)
In Turkey, the government has thrown HC at everyone with the virus—more than 117,000 cases. 3000 have died, but that’s lower than the global death rate, Turkish officials say. The “relatively low death toll is thanks to treatment protocols in the country, which involve two existing drugs—the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine touted by President Trump, and Japanese antiviral favipiravir,” CBS News reports.
“Doctors prescribe hydroxychloroquine to everyone who is tested positive for coronavirus,” a Turkish medical official told CBS. “Hospitalized patients may be given favipiravir as well if they encounter breathing problems.” The drug combination seemed to “delay or eliminate the need for intensive care for patients.”
The Turkish effort is not a clinical trial. It’s life in medical wartime. Closer to home, that also appears to be the case at the Yale New Haven Health hospital system, reports the website Medscape. The site is behind a paywall but Yahoo, reporting on the findings, noted that physicians at Yale were prescribing HC “because it had shown potential for success.” Other hospitals also continue to give HC to virus patients, the Yahoo report notes. That’s what Judicial Watch is hearing from front line medical personnel in New York as well.
The bottom line? HC is not without risks, but at hospitals and clinics across the country, it’s life in wartime and increasingly it appears that physicians and medical administrators are deciding that to save lives, HC is a gamble worth taking.
Trump’s bold bet is still looking like a winner.

It’s always a shame when the media seems willing to make health care a political football.

Until next week …

©All rights reserved.

Judicial overreach — Are the chickens coming home to roost?

There is a growing sense that the aura of infallibility accorded the Supreme Court, that forms the basis of its almost limitless power, so assiduously (some might say insidiously) cultivated by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, is beginning to dim.

In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded… as political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court. As a result, the court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda...– Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Harvard University Press, 2004.

I admit that I have used this citation from Hirschl’s book to introduce several previous articles on Israel’s legal establishment. However, I have little qualms in reusing it here—a s it has lost of none of its past pertinence. If anything, quite the opposite is true.

Testing the limits of judicial overreach?

Last week (March 3 -9) was a momentous—indeed tumultuous—week, with potentially far-reaching ramifications for Israel’s law enforcement establishment in general, and the judiciary, in particular.

On Sunday and Monday (March 3 & 4), a panel of 11 Supreme Court justices convened for a televised broadcast to rule on petitions to disqualify indicted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from being assigned the task of constituting the next government coalition, and to invalidate the Likud/Blue &White agreement as to the future mode of functioning of that joint coalition.

Indeed, although overall, it was conducted in a general atmosphere of restrained respectability, the hearing exuded a discernible aura heralding that perceptible changes in the long-existing societal power structure in Israel, were in the air.

Thus, commenting on the televised proceedings, the vehemently Bibiphobic journalist, Anshel Pfeffer, of the far-Left daily, Haaretz, wrote: “…the judicial bonhomie could barely hide the fact that the justices knew they are fighting for their very legitimacy…”

True, on Wednesday night (May 6), all 11 justices ruled—unanimously—that Netanyahu was in fact eligible to form the next government and, apart from some perfunctory remarks of displeasure on several clauses in the coalition agreement, they elected to refrain from any robust initiatives to mandate far-reaching changes in it. However, despite this, hardly any seasoned observer of the machinations of Israeli politics could fail to detect a palpable sense of growing recognition that the decades of judicial overreach were testing the limits of public patience—and judicial intrusion into the realm of politics is being perceived as increasingly unacceptable. But more on that later.

Subverting the democratic process

Thus, for example, despite the Supreme Court restraint, Gadi Taub, a senior lecturer at Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s School of Public Policy, found that the fact that the court even agreed to discuss the appeal was “outrageous,” “mind-boggling” and an “amazing feat of audacity.”

Thus, according to Taub, “In agreeing to adjudicate this issue in the first place, the court is behaving as if it feels it needs to protect democracy from citizens”.He pointed out: “There is no judiciary in any proper democracy as powerful as Israel’s Supreme Court,”, remarking acerbically that: “In its own opinion, there is no limit to its power; there is nothing it does not believe is judicable, and it has the last word on everything.”

Taub observed that Menachem Mautner, former dean of Tel Aviv University’s left leaning law faculty, wrote in his book, Law and the Culture of Israel, that, as the Left has regularly failed to win at the ballot since 1977, it has decided to exploit the Supreme Court to advance its worldview. Thus, in Taub’s view, the leftist approach has been to subvert the democratic process “by moving political power from elected to appointed institutions—from the parliament to the court.”

The law as a political weapon

Accordingly, the belief that the law is being used (or rather, abused) as a weapon to advance a political doctrine that has failed to win support at the polls, has taken root across diverse segments of Israeli society—as has the view that the Supreme Court has been complicit in helping minority constituencies impose their view on wider portions of the electorate (see Hirschl above).

For in the eyes of the layman—on whose trust the judiciary’s legitimacy is crucially dependent—the Supreme Court has not only regularly prevented the elected government from implementing the policy it was elected to implement, but at times, has coerced the government to implement policies it was elected to ensure were not implemented.

This disconnect between the perspectives of the Supreme Court justices and wide swathes of the general public has led to a precipitous fall in the credibility of the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Citing an ongoing study of the credibility of Israel’s judicial system conducted by Haifa University, YNetnews’s Einav Schiff echoed a virtually identical diagnosis to that of Hirschl’s.

Thus, in a piece entitled The Supreme Court is losing the people’s trust, he wrote: “The view of the court as an ivory tower, home to self-appointed gods, is becoming more and more common, and this is reflected in different confidence indexes. Last May, for example, the Rule of Law Index by Prof. Arie Ratner of Haifa University found that 49 percent of Jewish Israeli citizens have confidence in the Supreme Court. In 2000, that rate stood at 80 percent. This isn’t a slip or a drop, it’s a collapse.”

The law as the last refuge of the unscrupulous?

It was in April 1775 that Samuel Johnson (1709 -1784), the celebrated English writer, articulated his well-known dictum, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” His biographer, James Boswell (1740-1795), explained that by “patriotism, Johnson did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many…have made a cloak for self-interest.’

In Israel, against the backdrop of the turmoil over the functioning of the Supreme Court, one might well be tempted to formulate a parallel dictum. Thus, not patriotism, but the law, is last refuge of the unscrupulous–where any failed politician, unable to defeat his rivals at the polls, can—draped in “a cloak of self-interest” and driven not by a genuine love of the law, but by a desire to circumvent the will of the voters—enlist the courts to help unseat them. Or, in the previously cited words of Taub, “by moving political power from elected to appointed institutions—from the parliament to the court.”

Of course, none of this would have been possible unless the Supreme Court has not been amenable—indeed, eager—to facilitate such a power shift.

This was particularly true for the period when Prof. Aharon Barak was President of the Supreme Court—from 1995 to 2006.

The Supreme Court as an “alternate government”

One of Israel’s most prominent legal scholars, and Israel Prize laureate for Law, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, who also served as an MK for the far Left Meretz faction and held several ministerial portfolios on its behalf, characterized, in vivid terms, the judicial metamorphosis Barak introduced. He wrote: “ Barak was a revolutionary…who persuaded his colleagues to follow him and undertake an extraordinary judicial policy. According to this policy, the courts can adjudicate any administrative or legislative act…”

Rubinstein continued: “Thus, a situation arose whereby the Supreme Court could convene and decide on every conceivable issue. In addition, the unreasonableness of an administrative measure became grounds for judicial intervention. This was a total revolution in the judicial thinking which characterized the Supreme Court of previous generations, and this has given it the reputation of the most activist court in the world…”

In fact, in Rubinstein’s view: “In practice, in many respects the Supreme Court under Barak become an alternate government.”

In his book, The Purse and the Sword: The Trials of Israel’s Legal Revolution,  Prof. Daniel Friedmann, former dean of Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Law and Justice Minister under Ehud Olmert, sets out a biting critique of Barak’s judicial doctrine. In it, he cites, approvingly, a caustic condemnation (p.333) by the well-know, (self-professed) Left-of Center journalist Ben-Dror Yemini : “It is doubtful whether anyone is more guilty of the decline in the Supreme Court’s position than Chief Justice Barak… According to all the polls, there is no other man who has caused such an ongoing, dramatic decline in public confidence [in the court]…Anyone looking for examples can find them in his megalomaniac declarations that “all is justiciable…”

“A world record for judicial hubris”?

Echoing this sentiment, in his decidedly disapproving review of Barak’s book The Judge in a Democracy, which, significantly, he entitled Enlightened Despot, former U.S. Court of Appeals judge and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Richard A. Posner writes: I have my differences with Robert Bork, but when he remarked.. that Barak establishes a world record for judicial hubris, he came very near the truth.

Widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States, and one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century, Posner asserts: “What Barak created out of whole cloth was a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices…”

According to Posner “ One is reminded of Napoleon’s taking the crown out of the pope’s hands and putting it on his own head. He [Barak]takes for granted that judges have inherent authority to override statutes. Such an approach can accurately be described as usurpative.”

Others have expressed similar concern as to the excess power of the Supreme Court and its growing intrusion into the realms of other branches of government. Commenting on a March 2010 injunction prohibiting any government dealing with plans for changes in Israel’s zoning laws, Prof. Yoav Dotan, former dean at the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, wrote: “This is the first time in the history of Israel’s judicial branch that an injunction bars the government from dealing with a matter on its agenda…This decision overturns the existing order ..Not only has the Supreme Court never issued such a decision , but the decision itself constitutes an historic precedent in judicial activism in general. It is doubtful whether a court in any country ever dared to order its government what can and cannot be on its agenda…”

Less and less reason to vote

In his book, Coercing Virtue, the prominent jurist, Robert H. Bork, a former US Court of Appeals judge, who taught constitutional law at Yale Law School and served as Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General of the United States, strongly criticizes judicial activism both in the US and Israel. Indeed, it is Israel that he sees as the county most afflicted by the phenomenon of judicial overreach.

Accordingly, Bork laments: “There would seem to be less and less reason for the Israeli people to bother electing an legislature and executive; the attorney general, with the backing of the Supreme Court can decide almost everything for them…”(p.120).

Indeed today, certainly by any criterion of layman common sense, Israeli Supreme Court violates some laws and invent others merely to impose its own ‏world view on the elected policy makers. It acts as if it is bound neither by the existence of written law nor by the absence of written law.

It overcomes both by brandishing the legalistic Excalibur of “proportionality” and “reasonableness”, criteria which only the knights (or high priests) of the Supreme Court are deemed qualified to determine.

Ignoring existing laws; Invoking nonexistent laws?

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has regularly ridden rough shod over the decisions of the Knesset Central Election Committee to bar dominantly anti-Zionist parties and their candidates from participating in parliamentary elections—flagrantly ignoring that both the parties and numerous candidates thereof, are in stark violation of Clause 7A of the Basic Law: The Knesset. This explicitly states that “if the objects or actions of [a] list or   of [a] person, expressly or by implication, includenegation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state” and/or “support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel”, they will be precluded from participation in elections.

Yet despite the fact that the deeds, declaration and documents of these anti-Zionist entities and individuals comprise undisguised and undeniable (indeed, undenied) negation of the Jewish nature of Israel and support for armed struggle by Israel’s enemies against it , the Supreme Court has consistently (and incomprehensibly) ruled in favor of their participation.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld the preclusion of any anti-Zionist list or individual–despite their glaring violations of the law

By contrast, the Court has frequently instated injunctions prohibiting Jewish (typically Right-wing) candidates based on the Court’s interpretation of their “objects and actions” as constituting “incitement to racism”—despite the defendants denying that this was their intent.

Indeed, in many ways, the very fact that the Supreme Court, with a complement of 11 justices, agreed to hear the petition against Netanyahu being assigned the formation of the next government, despite it being totally devoid of any legal foundation, is in itself an manifestation of its tendency to ascribe itself powers it does not have.

Ignoring laws; Inventing laws (cont.)

After all, Basic Law: The Government determines unequivocally that the Prime Minister may remain in office until a final verdict (i.e. after all appeals have been exhausted) has been handed down, or by a complicated process, involving a vote of 61 MKs (Clause 18(a)-(d))—neither of which apply in Netanyahu’s case; and that the President will assign the task of forming a government on an MK, who has the backing of at least 61 MKs (Clause 10 )—which does apply in Netanyahu’s case.

Indeed, had the Supreme Court not sensed that winds of change were sweeping through Israel society, it might well have handed down a very different verdict.

Indeed, this is vividly reflected by the words of retired Justice Eliyahu Matza, in a recent interview: “In this ruling, the Supreme Court has missed an opportunity—which perhaps will not reoccur—to lay a moral foundation for the institutions of government in Israel…[I would] have certainly ruled in favor of the petitions—and not just me. I am convinced that several of my retired colleagues who, served on the Supreme Court in the past would have also endorsed the petition”.

Ironically, it was the late-Chief Justice Moshe Landau, President the Supreme Court in the pre-Barak era, who cautioned against precisely what Matza suggested—ruling on values rather than law. After all, by substituting their values for the law, the Supreme Court justices are conducting themselves in precisely the manner of which Hirschl cautions in the opening excerpt.

“…the treacherous swamp of opinions & beliefs

Landau warned: “The [High] Court is getting into waters that are too deep. Into a treacherous swamp of political opinions and beliefs. And this is dangerous both for the country and for the Court. It is dangerous for the country because it exacerbates social rifts. And it is dangerous for the Court because the Court is losing the principle foundation on which it must base its standing: The belief in its neutrality of the judicial system in public disputes.”

He added: “..when the Court represents a certain opinion, no matter how progressive, it enrages a significant section of the public…However, I must say that the Court contributes to creating this situation in that it inserts itself into areas where it has no place. It takes upon itself to decide on matters…which should be decided in the Knesset

It is thus difficult not to sense a creeping suspicion that the Supreme Court’s ruling was motivated less by a desire to preserve the law and more by a desire to preserve itself—as Alex Traiman argues.

Indeed, after decades of judicial overreach, there is finally a growing sense that the aura of infallibility accorded the Supreme Court, which forms the basis of its almost limitless power, so assiduously—some might say insidiously—cultivated by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, is beginning to dim.

Perhaps, then, the pigeons have at long last, come home to roost—or are just beginning to.

©All rights reserved.

ARIZONA: Muslim Students Threaten to Kill Prof for Suggesting Islam is Violent

My latest at PJ Media:

This will teach those Islamophobes that Islam is a religion of peace: a professor is facing death threats for suggesting otherwise. Nicholas Damask, Ph.D., has taught political science at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona for 24 years. But now he is facing a barrage of threats, and his family, including his 9-year-old grandson and 85-year-old parents, is in hiding, while College officials are demanding that he apologize – all for the crime of speaking the truth about the motivating ideology behind the threat of Islamic jihad worldwide.

Damask, who has an MA in International Relations from American University in Washington, DC, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Cincinnati, says he is “to my knowledge, the only tenured political science faculty currently teaching in Arizona to write a doctoral dissertation on terrorism.” He has taught Scottsdale Community College’s World Politics for each of the 24 years he has worked at the school.

Professor Damask’s troubles began during the current Spring semester, when a student took exception to three quiz questions. The questions were:

  • Who do terrorists strive to emulate? A. Mohammed
  • Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law? A. The Medina verses [i.e., the portion of the Qur’an traditionally understood as having been revealed later in Muhammad’s prophetic career]
  • Terrorism is _______ in Islam. A. justified within the context of jihad.

Damask explained: “All quiz questions on each of my quizzes, including the ones in question here, are carefully sourced to the reading material. On this quiz, questions were sourced to the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the sira (biography) of Mohammed, and other reputable source material.” And indeed, the three questions reflect basic facts that are readily established by reference to Islamic texts and teachings and numerous statements of terrorists themselves.

Despite this, the student emailed Damask to complain that he was “offended” by these questions, as they were “in distaste of Islam.” Damask recounted: “Until this point, notably, the student had expressed no reservations about the course material and indeed he said he enjoyed the course.”

Damask sent two lengthy emails to the student responding to his complaints, but to no avail. A social media campaign began against Damask on the College’s Instagram account. Damask notes: “An unrelated school post about a school contest was hijacked, with supporters of the student posting angry, threatening, inflammatory and derogatory messages about the quiz, the school, and myself.”

At this point, College officials should have defended Professor Damask and the principle of free inquiry, but that would require a sane academic environment. Scottsdale Community College officials, Damask said, “stepped in to assert on a new Instagram post that the student was correct and that I was wrong – with no due process and actually no complaint even being filed – and that he would receive full credit for all the quiz questions related to Islam and terrorism.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.


Grateful “refugees” threaten the German boat crew that “rescued” them in the Mediterranean

France: Muslim migrant screaming “Allahu akbar” goes on stabbing spree, injures four people

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, president of Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, celebrates Ramadan at home

European Union official says EU may fund “Palestinian” supporters of jihad terror groups

Pakistan Human Rights Commission: Hindus and Christians “have been complaining of forced conversions”

Iran launches cyber attack against Israel’s water authority, through American servers

The Islamic Republic of Iran is Pulling Out of Syria

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ilhan Omar Calls DOJ Dropping Flynn Case ‘White Privilege’

Somali-born Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar disgustingly — and yet predictably — reacted to news that the Department of Justice is dropping its case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on Thursday by labeling it “white privilege at work.”

Where was Flynn’s white privilege when he was targeted, framed, investigated, fired, coerced into pleading guilty, and had his reputation smeared by Obama-administration Deep State operatives? The only “privilege” Flynn has benefited from by having his case dropped is called “justice.”

On the contrary, Omar has benefited from her Muslim privilege. She has been the center of controversy for a history of anti-Semitic statements, for her open support for sharia law, for alleged immigration fraud, and for her statements whitewashing Islamic terrorism and condemning America.

And yet the race-mongering Omar remains in office, and benefits from the Muslim privilege of dismissing her critics as “Islamophobic.”

Ilhan Omar

37 Known Connections

On March 7, 2019, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke praised Omar for her repeated expressions of disdain for Israel and the Jewish people. “By Defiance to Z.O.G. [Zionist Occupation Government]” he tweeted, “Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!”

In March 2019 in Los Angeles, Omar was the keynote speaker at a Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) benefit event titled “Advancing Justice, Empowering Valley Muslims.” Sharing the stage with Omar was CAIR-Florida executive director Hassan Shibly, who rejects the notion that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. At the same event, Omar said: “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people [the 9/11 terrorists] did something, and that all of us [Muslim civilians] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” (In fact, CAIR was founded in 1994, not 2001.)

To learn more about Omar, click on her profile link here.

©All rights reserved.

Justice Department Drops Case Against Michael Flynn

The Justice Department announced Thursday that it has dropped its controversial case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a little over a week after the release of embarrassing documents showing FBI bias undermined the prosecution’s case.

The documents that surfaced last week included notes of a discussion among top FBI officials about whether the goal in investigating Flynn was to “get him to lie” so that he could be  fired or prosecuted.

Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during the Russia investigation about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States before President Donald Trump took office in January.

The Justice Department’s announcement came in a court filing saying that prosecutors were dropping the case against Flynn “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.”

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Flynn, 61, a retired Army lieutenant general who specialized in intelligence operations, had filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Before the Justice Department dropped the matter entirely, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan was set to rule on whether to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea.

Trump, asked about the news Thursday during an Oval Office photo opportunity with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, lashed out at media organizations that didn’t look deeper into the FBI allegations against Flynn and the wider Russia investigation.

“You saw it today, more documents came out saying there was absolutely no collusion with Russia,” Trump told reporters.

“It was fake news, they’re all fake news,” he added.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, lasting almost two years, found no conspiracy between anyone in the Trump campaign with Russion government actors who engaged in hacking and social media ads.

Flynn resigned Feb. 13, 2017, on his 23rd day as national security adviser, saying that he inadvertently misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about his talks with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump took office.

Misleading Pence was not a crime, but lying to FBI agents would be. It never was clear that Flynn did lie to FBI agents, however.

Supporters say Flynn pleaded guilty because the FBI threatened to bring charges against his son under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for not registering as a foreign agent in his work with Turkey.

Flynn reportedly amassed $4.6 million in legal bills. The first $3.5 million went to his initial law firm, Covington & Burling. He later switched lawyers, hiring former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell.

Trump has talked about the possibility of pardoning Flynn, but after the documents were unsealed last week, he said he likely wouldn’t need to.

The documents show handwritten notes from a conversation among three FBI officials at the time—Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap.

The notes show they hoped to get Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act,” a 1799 law that never has been used in a prosecution and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the federal government when interacting with foreign officials.

One of Priestap’s notes reads: “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Another note says of Flynn and the Justice Department, the FBI’s parent agency: “If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide.”

The notes show some indecision among Comey and his deputies, but seem to concede that prompting someone to lie could be “playing games.”

“Protect our institution by not playing games” and “If we’re seen playing games, WH will be furious,” the notes say, with WH referring to the White House.

More documents released Thursday show that on Jan. 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office recorded in a memo that it was closing the investigation of Flynn because a review “did not yield any information” to justify continuing to probe whether the incoming national security adviser was working inappropriately with the Russian government.

However, then-FBI agent Peter Strzok texted an FBI colleague to say: “Hey if you haven’t closed RAZOR don’t do so yet.”

The FBI’s code name for the Flynn case was Crossfire Razor. Americans learned Strzok’s name in 2018 when text messages surfaced in which he disparaged Trump as a presidential candidate in 2016 while investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of state.

Trump spoke passionately about media bias against him and his administration Thursday when asked in the Oval Office about the Justice Department’s decision to drop the Flynn case.

“They’re not journalists. They’re thieves. All of those journalists that we see with the Pulitzer Prize should be forced to give those Pulitzer Prizes back because they were all wrong,” Trump said.

“You saw it today, more documents came out saying there was absolutely no collusion with Russia. Pulitzer Prizes should all be returned because, you know what, they were given out falsely. It was fake news, they’re all fake news.”


Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Michael Flynn Finally Seems to Be Getting the Justice He Deserves

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: NRA Endorses ‘Big Dan’ Rodimer for US Congress

LAS VEGAS/PRNewswire/ — Nevada Congressional candidate “Big Dan” Rodimer is proud to announce that he has received the official endorsement of the National Rifle Association in his run for the 3rd District. The NRA officially gave Rodimer an AQ rating, the highest rating possible for a candidate who has not previously held office.

In response to the endorsement, Rodimer stated, “I am very honored and proud to have the endorsement of the National Rifle Association in my run for Congress. The NRA is America’s longest-serving civil rights organization, with tens of thousands of members right here in Nevada and in the 3rd Congressional District. The NRA knows that I will fight to defend our 2nd Amendment Rights against gun-grabbers like Dan Schwartz and Susie Lee. Thank you to the NRA and all of their members here in Nevada.”

The NRA endorsement comes as a major boost to the Rodimer campaign since his primary opponent, former Nevada Treasurer Dan Schwartz, has openly spoken out in favor of Bloomberg-style, anti-2nd Amendment proposals, including a ban on alleged “assault rifles” in Nevada.

Big Dan Rodimer has made it clear time and again that he is the pro-2nd Amendment candidate in the race for Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District. Rodimer has often described gun rights as “human rights” and proudly possesses a CCW permit.

Since announcing his campaign for Congress last year, Rodimer has received endorsements from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, the Nevada Right to Life and National Right to Life organizations, former Nevada Attorney General and current Nevada Trump Campaign Co-Chairman Adam Laxalt and highly successful Las Vegas businessman and reality TV star from the hit show “Pawn Stars”, Rick Harrison, among many others.

In February, Rodimer was placed on National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) Young Guns “Contender” status, the highest-ranking status of any congressional candidate in Nevada, signifying continued strength and momentum of his campaign, and opening the door for continued support from across the country. Every other Republican candidate in Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District has either refused to fill out the NRA survey or received an “F” rating.

You can learn more about Big Dan Rodimer click here. For regular updates on the campaign of Big Dan Rodimer for Congress, you can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Judicial Watch Sues on Behalf of Daily Caller News Foundation for Dr. Fauci and WHO Communications!

Washington, DC – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for communications and other records of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane with and about the World Health Organization (WHO) concerning the novel coronavirus (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

The suit was filed after HHS failed to respond to an April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

The time period for the request is January 1, 2020 to April 1, 2020.

Additionally, the DCNF requested and was granted expedited processing of its request.

In March 2020, Fauci praised the work of the WHO and their chairman, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saying: “Tedros is really an outstanding person … I mean, obviously, over the years anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think under his leadership they’ve done very well.”

In April, President Trump announced a halt to funding the World Health Organization. According to the president, the WHO put “political correctness over lifesaving measures.” Additionally, President Trump said: “The WHO failed in this duty, and must be held accountable,” adding that the WHO ignored “credible information” in December 2019 that the virus could be transmitted from human to human.

Daily Caller News Foundation Co-Founder and President Neil Patel said: “This virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people and turned the whole world upside down. We know that China and WHO could have done a lot more to prevent or reduce this catastrophe. We therefore have a legitimate and urgent news purpose for seeking these documents regarding U.S. officials’ communications with WHO and demand that the agencies in question stop stalling and start following the law that entitles us to this vital information.”

“It is urgent that the NIH follow transparency law during the coronavirus crisis,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is of significant public interest to learn what WHO was telling our top medical officials about the coronavirus that originated in China.”


Protests Turn Nasty: Demonstrators Call For Fauci, Bill Gates To Be Jailed, Compare Them To Nazis

What Did The WHO Tell Fauci While It Took China’s Coronavirus Lies at Face Value?

Watchdog group sues for Fauci, World Health Organization communications Source: The Washington Times

FOIA lawsuit seeks access to documents regarding China and WHO Source: Washington Examiner

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The End of ‘Believe All Women’

Editor’s note: The media’s double standard when it comes to sexual assault allegations is once again in the spotlight. Until very recently, there had been little media attention paid to an accusation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden. (Biden denies he assaulted Tara Reade, a former aide to Biden.) Just last year, the media similarly was largely quiet about an allegation of sexual assault against another liberal politician, Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

But it’s not just the media. In stark contrast to the “believe all women” mantra heard ad nauseam when Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced allegations of sexual assault, liberal icons are now stepping up in support of Biden, effectively admitting they don’t “believe all women.”

So we’re republishing this article from 2019 that looked at the hypocrisy of the left on this topic of sexual assault.

Feminists haven’t been this silent since the Bill Clinton years.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Vanessa Tyson came forward Wednesday to accuse Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her during the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, saying in a statement that “What began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault.”

Tyson, now a politics professor at Scripps College in California, says she had accompanied Fairfax to his hotel room.

“His hand was holding down my neck, and he was much stronger than me,” she recalls, and he forced her to perform a sexual act.

“I cannot believe, given my obvious state of distress, that Mr. Fairfax thought this forced sexual act was consensual,” Tyson, 42, writes in the statement released by her law firm, Katz, Marshall & Banks, the same firm that represented Christine Blasey Ford amid her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation process.

Fairfax, 39, denies any sexual assault occurred—and has hired the same law firm Kavanaugh used, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz.

So far, there’s been an eerie silence.

No sexual assault survivors have confronted lawmakers in elevators. No protesters have waited for lawmakers at airports, and, while filming, tried to talk to them about sexual assault. No women have donned the Pilgrim-esque “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes meant to show lack of sexual autonomy and appeared in the Virginia State Capitol. No protests have occurred, and on social media, there’s a notable absence of cries to “believe all women.”

Apparently, if you accuse a Democrat, “believe all women” doesn’t apply.

Of course, Tyson, who calls herself “a proud Democrat,” just released her statement. And one Democrat freshman congresswoman, Rep. Jennifer Wexton of Virginia, has said she believes her.

But even if the “believe all women” crowd does eventually end up supporting Tyson, the pause is telling—because it reveals that the left never really believed in believing all women.

Because if it did, it wouldn’t need time to weigh Tyson’s accusations vs. Fairfax’s denials. (Or more cynically, time to weigh whether believing Tyson is worth the cost of pushing out the pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood-endorsed Fairfax.)

Like many Americans, I was troubled when Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. I was glad to see the Senate Judiciary Committee took Ford’s allegations seriously, investigated them, and ultimately gave Ford a hearing with questioning on the Republican side done by an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor. I was likewise glad the Senate Judiciary Committee researched two further claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

It’s absolutely true that when a woman makes a sexual assault allegation, she should be taken seriously, particularly given that she has put her own name and reputation on the line—as well as come forward knowing that she’ll likely face significant political vitriol from supporters of her alleged attacker.

And I would hope that partisans on both sides would do their best to wait for the evidence, and not base their sentiments on whether the alleged attacker is one of their guys or not.

But “take seriously” is a very different standard from “believe all women.”

“Believe all women” reduces every woman to some kind of inane idiot, unable to lie even if she wanted to. It assumes no woman has ever gotten confused or been mistaken about the exact circumstances surrounding a trauma.

And it’s also certainly not a standard the left applied before Christine Blasey Ford, as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and others can attest.

Unfortunately, by politicizing the issue of sexual assault, the left has distracted us from the real work that needs to be done.

What can the U.S. do to help ensure any woman who experiences sexual assault is best equipped to get justice against her perpetrator? Can police officers be better trained to help a traumatized woman when she comes to make a report? Are these cases being prosecuted in the best way, consistently?

Are there steps we as a culture can take to help ensure women aren’t put in vulnerable positions? Given the role of hotel rooms in some of the #MeToo scenarios and now allegedly in the Fairfax case as well, can we make it completely socially and professionally inappropriate for any man to ask a female colleague to come up to a hotel room, no matter the pretext? (Of course, no woman who does go up to a hotel room is in any way to blame for her assault—the only person to blame in any sexual assault is the attacker.)

Do we try to put women on a more equal footing with men by encouraging women who are interested to carry a firearm?

Kimberly Corban, who says she was sexually assaulted while in college, now advocates guns as a way for women to protect themselves. “After [the attack], I started taking my Second Amendment rights very seriously because I knew that that was going to be the only equalizer and the one thing I could train and do for myself,” Corban told The Daily Signal in 2016.

“Believe all women” never made sense as a standard. But the left’s inconsistent application of it makes clear that it’s not women liberals care about, it’s the right to abortion.


Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal PodcastSend an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden to 14-yo Girl: You’re well-endowed

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Somali National Stabs to Death 7-year-old in UK Park

Emily Jones a seven year old little British girl is dead, murdered in March by a Somali national while she played in a neighborhood park.

Please read my post today at Refugee Resettlement Watch!  And, then send Katie Hopkins’ letter to Emily’s parents to everyone you know.

Dedicated to Emily Jones, Age 7

Dear Mrs Jones,

I am sitting in my kitchen in my dressing gown, waiting for my little world to wake up. And I am thinking of you, as I often do. Worrying for you, worrying about you.

You don’t know me, of course. I am just a mum like any other, sitting here looking down at my dressing gown, reminded that it could probably do with a wash, listening for little footsteps padding down the hall stairs. Sat waiting for my sleepy little boy who will come and snuggle in for reassurance at the start of another day.

I think of you listening out for those little padding feet, knowing they will never come. Waiting for the soft face to appear from behind the kitchen door, looking at you like you are the answer to everything. Except now all those questions can never be asked.

It is over a month since your daughter was killed. You know, I am never sure under this infernal lockdown whether time stands still or is passing at breakneck speed. Days have lost all meaning for the rest of us; I feel sick thinking what they now mean for you.

Most people will avoid talking to you about Emily’s death because it is too terrible. The things we know are too shocking to mention in front of a grieving mum.

That your child was a happy little thing playing on her scooter in the park with her family on Mothering Sunday when she was stabbed to death, her life ended in one blow by a Somali woman, a stranger to you and to this land.

If these words are too brutal for the grieving, how is it possible these things can happen to the living, on an otherwise normal day?

Instead we tiptoe around the truth, soften our language. We do not talk of murder or of killing. We softly whisper that Emily was ‘taken from you’, like a reclaimed gift or prize, regretfully removed from your arms by gentle hands.

We are not supposed to talk, either, about the Somali killer who hides behind her color and her mental health.

She became invisible that day, like a magic act disappearing in front of our eyes, the media willfully acting as this Somali Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The attackers identity erased to protect her kind from consequence, shielded from justice by her mental health. While you, stripped naked by this country, a mother without her child, have no protection at all.

So I speak the truth of Emily’s death deliberately to you, straight from my worrying heart to yours.

I wonder where everyone else is? How easy it is to allow Emily’s death to go unnoticed in a world where common sense has been lost to the corona virus, and the only people others have concern for is themselves. They live like islands these people, only concerned for the things that touch their shores. They have been such good citizens, drinking the Corona-Kool-Aid fed to them by the government and the media, dutifully living in fear. They see this virus as a threat to all the things they can be bothered to care about: their health, their family, their job, their home.

Never questioning  the bigger stuff, never wondering what sort of country we are becoming outside of the nucleus of their own home. Never looking up long enough to see the disintegration of this country to those who wish us harm.

I watch people wiping, disinfecting, masking, flinching, distancing themselves from nice looking couples with dogs. No amount of hand-sanitiser will save them from the state of this country and the people we have let in.

Such effort to protect themselves from an invisible enemy; such effort to ignore the visible enemy in front of their faces. Those cowering from the virus show no fear of the monsters walking among us in plain sight, given a fast pass by those who say diversity is our strength.

I speak plainly about the killing of little Emily to you, Mrs Jones, because I still want the story of your little girl to be heard. Emily’s story is not about monsters, visible or invisible, or some wretched Somali woman with a knife.

It is this picture of your little girl, smart, happy and with fun behind her eyes. Her hair all shiny and clean, her little plaits put together perfectly for her school photo. You even took the time to make sure she had identical hair ties, searching around the back of the sofa or in the funny little pot of hairbands we all have, to chase down a matching pair.

Little plaits are tricky to make work — like braiding slippery silk with a mind of its own, all atop a head that giggles and laughs and wants to race to the next thing.

We see her clean white shirt and her uniform all tidy, knowing that behind it lies a mountain of washing and scrubbing at stubborn ink marks that will not come away. It is the mothering of everyday: nagging for the toothbrush to be used or a face to be washed, searching for the lost tie just before you are supposed to head out the door.

This is a picture of a mother’s love for her child. And no one can take that away.

I don’t know how far the journey to the surface is for you, or how long it will be before the crushing thing pushing down on your chest will let you breathe, but as you struggle please know you are not forgotten. We are not all obsessed with self-preservation, caring only for our own. What use being safe in our houses if our country is not?

I fear we need little Emily to remind us. Britain will beat this virus, but it has failed your family. Our enforced loneliness will end, I know yours never will.

Respectfully yours,

Katie Hopkins

Emily’s story is already being forgotten, don’t let that happen!

Over a thousand of you subscribe to ‘Frauds and Crooks’ and I will be able to tell how many of you even bother to click on the link and read that RRW post!


Southern Poverty Law Center Rolling in Millions Held in Offshore Bank Accounts

Many ‘New American’ Medical Researchers Blocked from Receiving Federal Grants

Made in America? No Better Time than Now to Investigate!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Parental Consent Laws for Underage Girls Seeking Abortion Help Fight Against Human Trafficking

It is welcome news that Florida is now set to become the sixth state to require both parental consent and notice before minor girls can get an abortion. A bill mandating this has passed both houses of the state Legislature, and Gov. Ron DeSantis has promised to sign it.

Ensuring that a child’s parents are involved before any medical or surgical procedure is performed on a minor patient makes sense in any state.

In Florida, though, it makes extra sense. Florida is home to a huge immigrant population, many of them undocumented and vulnerable, and special care should be taken to protect these vulnerable girls.

Surprisingly, abortion is often excluded under existing commonsense parental consent laws, even though it is an invasive surgical procedure with significant potential for harmful complications.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

In Florida, for instance, it is illegal to tattoo a child under 16, and parental consent is required for minors between 16 and 18. Anyone with a child in school knows how delicately and diffidently school administrators handle any medical intervention, even the administration of Tylenol for cramps.

Surgeons would lose their licenses if they performed a tonsillectomy on a child without informing the parents or guardians or seeking their consent.

In fact, from an ethical standpoint, children are deemed unable to consent to medical treatment since they may be unable to grasp complicated medical facts because of their age and inexperience.

Yet, the abortion lobby insists that minor girls should be allowed to access abortion without any parental oversight because such oversight could be a “threat to young women’s safety.”

But protecting girls from abusive or neglectful parents can be done with judicial waivers (included in the Florida bill) and without stripping good parents of their ability to protect their daughters from abusive boyfriends or older men who may be raping them and then coercing them to abort.

Sexual predators are happy when their victim has an abortion without the knowledge or involvement of her mother and father. It lets them keep abusing the child undetected.

Taking parents out of the picture doesn’t just leave girls to the mercy of bad men, it takes away parental counsel, guidance, and support. Parents who don’t know their child has had an abortion are unable to ensure their daughter will receive adequate follow-up care. In the absence of proper treatment, a minor complication can quickly become life-threatening.

All of these good reasons for requiring parental consent are even more important in Florida.

In my hometown of Miami, more than 50% of the population is immigrant. Many are undocumented. Far too many are vulnerable people whose lack of English and, sometimes, work papers consigns them to dangerous neighborhoods where their children live in close proximity to gang activity, prostitution, and human trafficking rings.

Sadly, after labor trafficking, “domestic minor sex trafficking,” constitutes “the … most prevalent and under-reported and under-prosecuted human trafficking offense in Florida,” according to a Florida State University study.

Given the prevalence of sexual abuse of girls here, it is simply unconscionable that Florida parents would not be informed if their minor daughter is pregnant and seeking an abortion.

Existing law requires abortion facilities and providers to alert the authorities if they suspect a young girl seeking an abortion is being abused by an older man or being trafficked as a prostitute, but abortion providers are in the business—the big business—of performing abortions and certainly cannot be counted on to report this.

One undercover sting video of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood showed a clinic manager telling a man posing as a pimp that when he brings his 14- or 15-year-old “girls” in for abortions they should lie or play stupid about their age. She is seen coaching the “pimp” on how to manage his underage prostitutes, some of whom, he says, do not speak English.

A girl’s natural protectors and defenders are her mother and father. A law that puts Florida parents back in that crucial role will be an important bulwark against the abuse of minor girls. It also will help ensure young women undergoing the tragedy of an abortion will receive the appropriate medical care should something go wrong.

The only losers when this commonsense, reality-based requirement becomes state law will be the sexual predators and greedy abortion providers who put profits over people.


Grazie Pozo Christie

Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie is a policy advisor for The Catholic Association. Twitter: @GChristiemd.

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Tainted Gov: Flynn Case Exposes FBI

As far as liberal set-ups go, it certainly followed the formula: a phone call, the Russians, a high-ranking government official’s son, lying prosecutors, even some of the same politically-motivated FBI agents. But the case against General Michael Flynn had another familiar storyline in the Left’s war against Donald Trump — a lack of evidence. Based on the bombshell evidence today — a damning picture of FBI corruption, coercion, and entrapment — it seems General Flynn’s only real crime was ending up in an administration the Democrats wanted to destroy.He was on the job for less than a month. The three-star Army general had only been working as President Trump’s national security advisor for a few weeks when news broke of his resignation. Later, we learned that he’d pled guilty to misleading the FBI about a call he had with a Russian ambassador. But even then, folks said, it didn’t add up. A lot of people — former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy the loudest among them — cried foul. Why would Flynn lie to the FBI about a call he knew they were listening to? And if there was “no evidence of wrongdoing” in that conversation (as even the Washington Post reported), why was he subject to an investigation in the first place?

“Flynn is not a foreign agent,” McCarthy insisted at the time. “There was no need to ‘grill’ him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording. And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did ‘officials’ make sure the press found out about it?”

Now, more than three years later — after Flynn lost his job, his house, and his reputation — we know exactly why. As part of his court battle to have his guilty plea withdrawn, the general’s legal team has explosive new evidence showing that the FBI was intentionally trying to frame the general for perjury. In a shocking series of handwritten notes from his FBI interview, written after a meeting with top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe, agents planned to set Flynn up. “What is our goal?” one of the notes read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” “If we’re seen as playing games, the [White House],” another writes, “will be furious.” Of course, it will come as no surprise that one of the agents in on this set-up was none other than Trump-hating Peter Strzok, who got his tips on how to handle the interview from Lisa Page.

“I did not lie to them,” Flynn has insisted since his January suit to clear his name. So why plead guilty? Because, it turns out, dirty prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him that if he didn’t, they would charge his son with a felony for a paperwork oversight at DOJ. When Flynn finally agreed, they kept the deal a secret — which, as McCarthy points out, is illegal. “Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge.” If it had been, he points out, “it would have illustrated the hardball that Mueller and his band of activist Democratic prosecutors were playing in an effort to nail President Trump.”

But ethics, as Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, is finding out, isn’t exactly a hallmark of the FBI. She’s uncovered piles of evidence of misconduct — including missing or “edited” reports about Flynn and the details of his interviewed (which offered fewer protections than an actual criminal proceeding). But then, this is an agency that’s used subversive tactics to undermine Donald Trump and the democratic process since before he was even elected. They’ve abused their authority for years, openly (and secretly) plotting against this administration, ignoring a “Mount Olympus of evidence” against the last one, and now, using KGB-type tactics to ensnare an American hero. Who can even be surprised? The only thing that should shock America is that there continues to be no justice or accountability for how this agency operates — which, to this point, includes subverting its own leaders from inside the walls of government!

This didn’t start when Donald Trump arrived on the scene. The last four years of political prejudice has been staggering, to be sure, but any trust Americans had in the nation’s top law enforcement agency was misplaced long before that. Our country deserves better. General Flynn and President Trump deserve better. But the FBI’s treatment here is business as usual. And that, some argue, is the scandal. It must stop.

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


States Scan Barr Code on Civil Rights

Idaho’s Political Hot Potato: Girls’ Sports

Metaxas Sounds off on Election, Trump Critics

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.