Displaying posts published in

November 2019

Reconstructing Justice – Flynn Defense Submits Outstanding Sur-Surreply to Counter Prosecution….

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/04/reconstructing-justice-flynn-defense-submits-outstanding-sur-surreply-to-counter-prosecution/

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)

Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.

What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public.  This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.

The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence.  Page One:

Flynn’s defense calls out the ridiculous.  The prosecution argues it had no obligation to tell the target about any material favorable to the defense while the prosecution was piling-on pressure to generate a plea agreement.   Then, once the plea was coerced, the prosecution claims they have no obligation to provide Brady material because the target signed a plea.

Debra Heine: Retired Army Officer Remembers Lt. Col. Vindman as Partisan Democrat Who Ridiculed America

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/retired-army-officer-remembers-lt-col-vindman-as-partisan-democrat-who-ridiculed-america/

A retired Army officer who worked with Democrat “star witness” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims Vindman “really talked up” President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in front of Russian military officers.

In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”

Hickman’s former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has since gone on the record to corroborate his story.

Hickman, 52, says he’s a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.

The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers “uncomfortable.” For example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans “rednecks”—a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a big laugh at America’s expense.

Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the House Intelligence Committee and testified that he’d had “concerns” about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman’s testimony rested on his negative opinions of the call, rather than any new facts about the call.

So Vindman was ridiculing ‘rednecks’ and sneering about American exceptionalism to Russian officers? By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/so_vindman_was_ridiculing_rednecks_and_sneering_about_american_exceptionalism_to_russian_officers.html

Alexander Vindman, the vaunted National Security Council aide who recently gave Congress his haughty opinion about President Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine, wasn’t the simon-pure official just concerned about national security that he portrayed himself as earlier.

Turns out he’s quite a partisan piece of work.

Over at American Greatness, Debra Heine found the tweets of one of Vindman’s military superiors, a retired lieutenant colonel who had no choice but to verbally reprimand him.

A retired Army officer who worked with Democrat “star witness” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims Vindman “really talked up” President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in front of Russian military officers.

In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”

His series of tweets, soon after Vindman offered his anti-Trump impeachment testimony to Rep. Adam Schiff’s panel, were confirmed and corroborated.  The story Heine put together from the tweets ran like this:

He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of (sic) uncomfortable.

He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service]employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed.

Real Talk: Impeachment Is Going Poorly For Democrats And The Media Mollie Hemingway

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/05/real-talk-impeachment-is-going-poorly-for-democrats-and-the-media/

Inside of newsrooms, broadcast studios, and Twitter, impeachment is going according to plan. Outside of those bubbles, it’s not.

Impeachment is going so poorly for the media and other Democrats that “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd was forced to broadcast false information to support it.

A graphic was posted on Sunday’s show that purported to identify how many people in the president’s party voted in support of an impeachment inquiry in the cases of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. It accurately noted that 31 Democrats voted in favor of impeachment proceedings for Clinton. But it inaccurately claimed that a single Republican had voted in favor of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment rules last week.

There are multiple problems with this graphic. For one thing, zero Republicans voted with House Democrats last week. Zero point zero. Zilch. Nada. None. For another, Todd’s team is hiding the bipartisan nature of the opposition to the vote last week. Not only did not a single Republican vote with Democrats, two Democrats voted with Republicans in opposition.

Todd knows that no Republicans voted for impeachment, despite the graphic he put up on national television. In fact, he said during the show, “I have one with an asterisk here. I don’t know what you do with Justin Amash. It’s not a zero. At the same time, he’s not a Republican anymore.”

I know what you do with that, Chuck. You don’t lie and call him a Republican. Todd himself gave Amash national media attention for leaving the Republican Party in dramatic fashion, interviewing him two weeks prior. In the first six seconds of the interview, he noted twice that Amash was not a Republican.

The Trump Doctrine: Deterrence without Intervention? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-deterrence-without-intervention/

The president bets that a booming economy, a beefed-up military, and U.S. energy dominance will deter enemies without the need for preemptive invasions.

D onald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought to overturn 75 years of bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy, especially as it applied to the Middle East.

From 1946 to 1989, the Cold War logic was to use both surrogates and U.S. expeditionary forces to stop the spread of Communist insurrections and coups — without confronting the nuclear-armed USSR directly unless it became a matter of perceived Western survival, as it did with the Berlin airlift and the Cuban missile crises.

That logic led to major conflicts like Vietnam and Korea, limited wars in the Middle East and Balkans, interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, and occasional nation-building in conquered lands. Tens of thousands of Americans died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the Soviet Union and most of its satellites vanished. “We won the Cold War” was more or less true.

Such preemptory American interventions still continued over the next 30 years of the post–Cold War “new world order.” Now the threat was not Russian nukes but confronting new enemies such as radical Islam and a rogue’s gallery of petty but troublesome nuts, freaks, and dictators — Granada’s Hudson Austin, an unhinged Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, Hezbollah’s terrorists in Lebanon, Nicaraguan Communist Daniel Ortega, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, the gang leader Mohamed Aidid of Somalia, the former Serbian thug Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, arch terrorist Osama bin Laden, the macabre al-Qaeda and ISIS, and on and on.

These put-downs, some successful and some not so much, were apparently viewed by the post–Cold War establishment as our versions of the late Roman Republic and Empire policies of mowing the lawn, with an occasional weeding out of regional nationalists and insurrectionists like Jugurtha, Mithridates, Vercingetorix, Ariovistus, Boudicca, and the like. The theory was that occasionally knocking flat a charismatic brute discouraged all others like him from trying to emulate his revolt and upend the international order. Having one or two legions always on the move often meant that most others could stay in their barracks. And it kept the peace, or so the U.S., like Rome, more or less believed.

But the problem with American policy after the Cold War and the end of the Soviet nuclear threat was that the U.S. was not really comfortable as an imperial global watchdog, we no longer had a near monopoly on the world economy that subsidized these expensive interventions, and many of these thugs did not necessarily pose a direct threat to American interests — perhaps ISIS, an oil-rich Middle East dictator, and radical Islamists excepted. What started as a quick, successful take-out of a monster sometimes ended up as a long-drawn out “occupation” in which all U.S. assets of firepower, mobility, and air support were nullified in the dismal street fighting of a Fallujah or a Mogadishu.

ABC’s Excuse for Failing to Report on Jeffrey Epstein Makes Absolutely No Sense By David Harsanyi

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abcs-excuse-for-failing-to-report-on-jeffrey-epstein-makes-absolutely-no-sense/

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, a group that has often infiltrated news organizations to uncover liberal bias, has released an explosive “hot mic” video of Good Morning America co-host Amy Robach venting about ABC’s decision to spike a story about Jeffrey Epstein’s nefarious activities three years ago.

“I had this interview with [Epstein victim] Virginia Roberts,” Robach is seen saying in the video, “we would not put it on the air. The [British royal] Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”

Robach now claims, through a network statement, that she was caught “in a private moment” of frustration over the lack of progress on a story. “I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because I could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations.”

Sorry, but Robach’s response to the firestorm doesn’t square with her initial comments, in which she states that “Roberts had pictures, she had everything . . . it was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton, we had everything.”

“Everything” sure sounds like sufficient corroborating evidence. Even if employing the most scrupulous journalistic standards, a giant news organization wouldn’t need three years to substantiate — or dismiss — a story with pictures, dates and a credible witness.

We certainly know that ABC didn’t need “everything” — or much of anything, for that matter – when it was running scores of pieces online and on television, highlighting every risible accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Nigel Farage Goes Nuclear on Labour: ‘North London Intellectuals’ By Michael van der Galien

https://pjmedia.com/trending/nigel-farage-goes-nuclear-on-labour-north-london-intellectuals/

Right after it became clear that British voters would go back to the polls in December, The Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage offered a deal to Tory-leader Boris Johnson. If, he said, the PM would agree to toss out his agreement with the EU and opt for a No-Deal Brexit, TBP would not send any candidates to stand in Conservative strongholds. If, on the other hand, Johnson refused such a deal, it’d be war. Johnson turned down the offer, but — thankfully — Farage seems to take aim mostly at Labour, the socialist party that supposedly supported Brexit, but voted against it every single time it was put up for a vote.

At a campaign rally in Bolsover today, Farage launched into Labour time and again. The party, he said, is dominated by North London “intellectuals” who care little if anything for the common people — let alone for their opinions. Christopher Hope, who works for The Daily Telegraph newspaper, explains:

Farage confirmed Hope’s explanation by adding on Twitter that “the gloves are off in this campaign and we are going after Corbyn’s Labour.”

This is an important development because although Boris Johnson has been let down by his own party several times, it’s clear that he is getting rid of all Remain-stooges. The Conservative Party MPs who will end up in the House of Commons after the elections will be pro-Brexit. All of them. Those who aren’t will be pushed out by Johnson, who knows he’ll have a better shot at getting this thing done with a smaller Tory party that can join forces with The Brexit Party, than with a Tory party that forms a small majority by itself… but with 10 to 20 percent of those Tory MPs being Remainers.

Envoy testimony reflects mixed picture on ‘quid pro quo,’ concerns over Giuliani role By Adam Shaw, Brooke Singman | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-envoy-trump-ukraine-transcripts

Former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, according to transcripts released Tuesday, pushed back on the claim that President Trump sought to withhold a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until Kiev committed to investigate allegations concerning the 2016 election — while also denying that Trump was seeking “dirt” on former Vice President Joe Biden.

The deposition transcripts, though, also reflect officials’ concerns about the involvement of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in seeking politically related investigations out of Ukraine. Further, they offer varying accounts of whether a quid pro quo of some kind — involving either a meeting or the release of U.S. military aid — may have been presented.

One of the most significant revelations from Tuesday’s release is that E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement — a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place.

Other sections presented a muddier picture. In the transcript of his closed-door deposition last month with lawmakers conducting the impeachment probe, Volker was asked if Trump withheld or delayed a meeting with Zelensky absent a pledge to probe concerns Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Democrats’ High-Risk Gamble on Impeachment Charles Lipson

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/05/the_democrats_high-risk_g

The Democrats’ activist base considers Donald Trump fundamentally unfit to hold office. Their impeachment drive is really about this damning judgment, not about any specific act such as withholding Ukrainian aid or wanting to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. They say Trump is erratic, narcissistic, self-serving, and unforgivably gauche. He cozies up to dictators and would like to become one himself. Every day, he tramples the presidency’s historic norms. Surely the voters who put him there made a catastrophic error, or, rather, the antiquated Electoral College did. In short, Trump is not just a bad president — the worst in modern history — he is an illegitimate and dangerous one, at home and abroad.

Their harsh view is no masquerade. It is sincere, deeply held, and shared by most elected Democrats. Many, perhaps most, career civil servants agree and consider the president only nominally their boss. That’s why they consider it their constitutional duty to hold him in check. That’s why former heads of the CIA openly praised the “Deep State,” why former FBI Director James Comey wanted his agents to monitor the president in the White House itself. If that means targeting Trump and his key aides for disguised FBI interviews or leaking classified phone calls, so be it. The fight over the Deep State is partly about this profound distrust of Trump (and his distrust of them) and partly about the president’s rising opposition to a century of progressive legislation, executive orders, and court decisions, which grant extensive power to government bureaucrats.

This revulsion is the backdrop to the Democrats’ impeachment effort and the earlier appointment of a special counsel. The crucial point is this: Democrats see the actions they have investigated for three years less as specific crimes and more as steadily accumulating evidence of Trump’s unfitness for office and his repeated violation of his oath, as they understand it. “Democrats of all stripes look at Donald Trump’s business and personal history and see a man who serially does not follow laws and therefore should not be president,” said one well-informed Democrat. For his party, “Ukraine is a big deal because it confirms this view.”

Ruthie Blum Turning Rabbi Firer’s blessings into a feminist curse

https://www.jns.org/opinion/turning-rabbi-firers-blessings-into-a-feminist-curse/

A nationwide argument erupted in Israel over the limits of religious freedom and practice in the public sphere, particularly when involving state-funded or municipal venues.

Leave it to Israelis to create and engage in a heated controversy where it need not exist.

The brouhaha surrounding a benefit concert whose proceeds were earmarked for the health-care NGO, Ezra Lemarpe—founded and directed by genius medical autodidact Rabbi Avraham Elimelech Firer—is a perfect example.

The concert, a tribute to the 50-year career of Israeli singer Shlomo Artzi ahead of his 70th birthday, was supposed to take place on Nov. 20. It was canceled on Monday by Firer, who was fed up and clearly hurt by the commotion that his religious beliefs were causing.

The carry-on began when it emerged that certain female singers would be on the program, along with the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra and other prominent performers. But the rabbi is a haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jew who adheres to the modesty directive that men may not hear women singing, as their voices can be seductive.