- Noonan’s posturing just isn’t believable any more. Her “sell by” date has long ago expired
Miss Peggy, the biggest phony in the political punditry today, has a column on what a leader is going to have to have to get America through the Covid-19 crisis and back to where we were. dlh
She uses British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as her example:
The Iron Lady and the Coronavirus Age (excerpt)
“What at bottom drove her (Margaret Thatcher)? “If there was one uniting force in everything Mrs. Thatcher did, it was her love for her country.” All truly great political leaders have this love, which involves a heightened vision of their nation. Thatcher’s love was not always requited. “But great loves such as hers go beyond reason, which is why they stir others, as leaders must if they are to achieve anything out of the ordinary.”
“We will all need to achieve much out of the ordinary in the next few years. Leaders, including CEOs and politicians, will have to get us through this thing. Love of country is the only place to start.”
Here are two responses to the column that say what we are thinking, but say it better:
Subscriber
Thatcher was hated by the leftists in her day almost much as Trump now. Peggy would probably be against Thatcher today as much as she hates Trump. Peggy stop pretending you are a woman of the right as it’s not working…
Subscriber
“If there was one uniting force in everything Mrs. Thatcher did, it was her love for her country.” All truly great political leaders have this love, which involves a heightened vision of their nation.
Hillary Clinton: “I’m with her”
Donald Trump: “Make America Great Again”
One candidate loved herself, while one loved his country. Enough said.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the best columnist on the WSJ staff, Kimberley Strassel
A lot in this column to concern America. It succinctly sets forth the dark facts and implications of the corruption in the FBI. I dare say though, that posting it or just the most alarming excerpts will not evoke any comment at all from “patriotic” QC area readers. dlh
The FBI’s Flynn Outrage (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)
New documents shock the conscience and demonstrate the need for accountability.
The newest Federal Bureau of Investigation documents in the case of former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn are stunning in themselves. But the totality of Mr. Flynn’s treatment shocks the conscience. . . .
The latest documents reveal the FBI was officially closing its Flynn case on Jan. 4, 2017. The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team spent 2016 checking “databases” for “derogatory” information on him, running down accusations that he had ties to Russians. They struck out, and the closing document admits Mr. Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate” for investigation. Then, suddenly, also on Jan. 4, FBI agent Peter Strzok sends a text saying: “Hey, if you haven’t closed [the Flynn case], don’t do so yet.” Mr. Strzok explained: “seventh floor involved”—a reference to FBI top brass.
What changed? In late December, Mr. Flynn spoke to Mr. Kislyak. Federal law gives investigators the authority to wiretap foreigners but also requires strict privacy protections for U.S. citizens with whom they speak. The Obama administration superseded those protections and “unmasked” Mr. Flynn in the days following his discussions. They later leaked the classified contents of the call to the press.
The snooping gained them nothing substantive. Mr. Flynn’s conversations were lawful and routine. So Justice Department and FBI officials instead manufactured the absurd theory that Mr. Flynn had violated the Logan Act of 1799, which bars citizens from engaging in unauthorized negotiations in disputes between the U.S. and foreign governments. No one has ever been convicted of violating the act. This week’s handwritten notes show that among the FBI’s hopes in interviewing Mr. Flynn was to “get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act.”
The real goal was to trap him. Remember, the FBI didn’t need to ask Mr. Flynn what he’d said to the Russian ambassador; they had a recording. The only reason for an interview was to coax Mr. Flynn into saying something at odds with that transcript. They worked hard at it. Then-Director James Comey has previously bragged that the FBI went around the White House legal counsel to make sure Mr. Flynn had no lawyer present.
This week’s documents include an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page debating ways for the bureau to get around its standard formal admonition against lying, suggesting agents just “casually slip that in” when talking to Mr. Flynn. A document from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says that he urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview without a lawyer, and that the FBI deliberately dispensed with the admonition altogether.
The abuse then continued under former special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Flynn initially explained that he misremembered what he’d discussed with the Russian, a highly plausible claim. But Mr. Mueller’s lawyers pursued him to near penury and threatened to prosecute his son. He succumbed and agreed to a plea deal.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this week’s documents is what isn’t in them. The FBI expresses no concern that Mr. Flynn was “colluding” with Russia or otherwise threatening national security—supposedly the rationale for the FBI’s intrusive investigation. By this point, it just wanted a scalp, a means to keep its broader narrative rolling.
The FBI exists to investigate crimes, not to create them. Some might add this shameful behavior to the long list of the FBI’s “collusion” malfeasance: the surveillance-court abuse, the Steele dossier, the leaks. But the Flynn case is something different. This isn’t the FBI playing fast and loose with sources or the courts. This is law enforcement abusing its most tyrannical power—to strip citizens of their reputations, their livelihoods and their liberty.
The FBI’s treatment of Mr. Flynn lives up to Americans’ worst fears. Attorney General William Barr was right to order a review of the case. Now someone must be held to account. . . .
