RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/20/all-eyes-on-judge-in-michael-flynn-case-after-weeks-of-shocking-developments/

After a flurry of court filings and blockbuster developments last month, the Michael Flynn criminal case has been dormant for nearly three weeks. The parties and the public now await word from presiding Judge Emmett Sullivan on the pending motion to compel and motion for sanctions filed by Sidney Powell, the lead attorney who took over Flynn’s case shortly after the special counsel team disbanded.

Powell’s motion seeks to force federal prosecutors to provide Flynn an array of documents withheld from his attorneys and to sanction government lawyers for their failure to provide relevant evidence to the defense team in a timely manner. When and how Judge Sullivan will rule is unclear.

A Flurry of October Surprises

In late October, Judge Sullivan issued a short order canceling a hearing on Flynn’s motions previously scheduled for November 5, 2019, prompting predictions that the long-time federal judge had already made up his mind. This development also triggered a panicked filing by the government complaining that Flynn’s lawyers had raised new issues in their reply brief and cautioning the court not to rule without hearing more from the prosecutors. Sullivan okayed a response by the government and a final rebuttal by Flynn’s attorneys, but added a terse endnote that no more briefing would be had on the issue.

Then, mere days after the final briefing came in, federal prosecutors found themselves forced to admit that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pietka, and those taken by Pietka had been written by Strozk.

This embarrassing mea culpa surely added strength to Powell’s plea for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if federal prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?

Foreshadowing a Motion to Dismiss

While the currently pending motion concerns only the question of access to evidence and sanctions for the never-provided, or the late-provision of, evidence, Powell’s briefing foreshadows the filing of a motion to dismiss the indictment. In her briefing, Powell teases several factual and legal theories supportive of such a motion.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/20/pence-perry-pompeo-all-reject-sondlands-claims-during-impeachment-testimony/

Vice President Mike Pence, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo each categorically denied EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s claims that the three White House officials were aware of Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in a quid pro quo for military aid.

During testimony delivered to the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday on day four of the Democrats’ latest round of partisan impeachment hearings, Sondland said he informed each, Pence, Perry, and Pompeo that the ambassador raised concerns about the president withholding aid to Ukraine as part of a quid pro quo to investigate the Biden family, the central issue at the heart of the Democratic impeachment inquiry.

“I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in [US military aid to Ukraine] had become tied to the issue of investigations,” Sondland told lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The vice president’s office however, denied the conversation ever took place.

“The vice president never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based on potential investigations,” said Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short in a statement.

“Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting in Poland,” Short pointed out.

Energy Secretary Perry also pushed back on Sondland’s assertion that he too, was informed of an apparent quid pro quo being put in place by Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondlands-testimony-frees-team-trump-to-adopt-the-best-defense-the-truth/

Wednesday’s impeachment testimony by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland underscored the folly of the main defense strategy adopted by President Trump and his supporters against Democratic allegations that he traded military aid for dirt on the Bidens.

That strategy has been to categorically deny any quid pro quo. Yet contrary to other witnesses’ versions of events, Sondland clearly and explicitly acknowledges that there was a quid pro quo.

Specifically, Sondland testified that he knows Trump was stalling on a promised White House visit for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sondland came to realize Trump was also withholding $400 million in defense aid. That was the quid.

The quo sought by the president was Kiev’s announcement that it would conduct investigations of Ukraine’s meddling in the 2016 election and of Burisma — a Ukrainian energy company that was lavishly compensating Joe Biden’s son Hunter. While serving as Team Obama’s point man on Ukraine policy, then-veep Joe Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

Sondland later admitted that he presumed the quid pro quo. Even so, the president’s defenders shouldn’t fight the notion that there was a quid pro quo. Virtually all foreign relations involve quid pro quo, a Latin phrase that just means “this for that” — and doesn’t necessarily imply corrupt ends. Plus, discourse between foreign powers typically involves pressure. The domestic criminal-law concept of “extortion” has no application in foreign relations, where countries squeeze each other, and worse, to force accommodations.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/20/morning-greatness-lt-col-polly-prissypants-speaks-his-truth/

There’s a Democrat debate tonight, if that’s your kink.

Tuesday’s episode of ImpeachmentTV: the longest day

On yesterday’s marathon episode of ImpeachmentTV, we were introduced to prissy little princess Lt. Col. Vindman on the NSC and a Bushie State Department bureaucrat assigned to the Veep’s office. Vindman’s performance was particularly noteworthy.

Vindman testified that he was upset and thought Trump’s July call with the new Ukrainian president was “wrong” so he went outside his chain of command to the NSC lawyers like a little snitch. He also made it clear he was butt-hurt that the president, who he has never spoken to directly, did not follow Vindman’s idea of proper protocol with his INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS talking points.

Vindman sassed Rep. Devin Nunes for not using his proper title of “Lt. Col.” We also learned that Princess Vindman was offered the position of Ukrainian Defense Minister three times by the Ukrainians. Three times. Let me suggest that people don’t extend offers like that unless you have an “open for business” sign flashing.Very peculiar. Vindman kept insisting the president was making demands on President Zelensky even though the transcript call does not show demands, this entire show trial is simply a narrative battle. If there were demands made, why didn’t anything materialize? Finally, we learned that Vindman approached and offered unsolicited advice to the Ukrainians, telling them not to get involved in domestic U.S. politics and he did so long before the “controversial” July call. Now would he do that? What was he worried about?

Additional witnesses included former Ukrainian envoy Kurt Volker and NSC Advisor Tim Morrison. All four of yesterday’s witnesses admitted under oath they knew of or saw no crimes, no bribery, no extortion or no quid pro quo. Why are we here again?

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

President Trump is an anomaly – an oak that has not broken. Whether one is a fan or a critic of the President, one has to admit that no previous President has been subjected to such pressure by those who simply hate the man, not for his policy choices, but for his character. Yet, to borrow a word from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, he is “antifragile;”[1] he grows stronger under pressure.

Admittedly, there are times when it is difficult, even for one who finds the Left’s tactics offensively offensive, to defend the man – his spontaneous Tweets and his derogatory comments about those who oppose him. But then I think of the heinous treatment he has received by a far-left media and politicians who have abandoned all senses of decency and respect, and I recognize that it is not Mr. Trump who is in the wrong. And I think of the task he has given himself – the draining of Washington’s swamp, a swamp filled with administrators, lobbyists, journalists and elected officials, all members of the “deep state” whose life blood depends on a secretive and expanding bureaucracy. And I remember Senator Chuck Schumer’s warning to him against taking on the intelligence establishment. He did, and he has reaped the whirlwind of their fury. Yet his continued resilience is critical to the continuance of our democratic Republic.

He is called a demagogue, a populist, an authoritarian, a man able to rally people but undeserving of the office and unable to govern. He is compared to Hitler and Stalin. TV and movie celebrities have called for his assassination. Yet, he does not break. Not only is he resilient, but his energy, despite his age, is boundless. Like Abraham Lincoln’s inspired choice of Ulysses Grant, “he fights.”

Despite these constant attacks, consider his accomplishments – think of tax reform, which lowered corporate taxes and lowered personal income taxes, but raised them for the wealthy in high-taxed states, like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut. Consider the originalist judges he has appointed, including two to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has taken on the over-regulated state. In his first twenty-two months in office, he issued 65% fewer “significant” regulations (those with costs that consume $100 million annually) than did President Obama at the same point and 51% fewer than did President George W. Bush. And he exceeded his goal of rescinding two regulations for every new one introduced.