We are the drain the swamp people

We’re thinking Flynn’s first set of lawyers were roommates with this guy

Re: the FBI/Flynn Matter (our opinions)

1) Exactly who were General Flynn’s original lawyers? Some would like to know. They must be, a), the WORST, most incompetent lawyers in the history of ‘jurisprudence’, or, b), they are the most dishonest, unconscionable, dishonorable attorneys, ever; if the latter, their law schools should either apologize or revoke their diplomas, and get into another line of education work. To think those schools could still be “educating” lawyers is frightening to contemplate! (Robt. Kelner, Univ of Virginia Law school; Stephen Anthony, Columbia Law School). And we think they owe General Flynn a refund!

2) If you are Democrat (one who votes for Democratic Party candidates), you are one of two things: a) either the most gullible, misinformed, politically ignorant person, proof of which is that you would actually vote to elect people like Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Dick (both a name and a title) Durbin a Schumer or a Pelosi, etc, or, b) you are an incredibly persistent, unbelievably arrogant, self-identified ‘intellectually superior’ individual, proof of which is the same as for the willfully ignorant, most gullible, misinformed people formerly described.

dlh

Maybe read these articles first in order to generate the proper disgust with the Politico article of last year (set forth below)

BREAKING: DOJ Dropping Case Against Michael Flynn After Revelation of FBI Entrapment Plot  

In Dealing with Flynn, Comey’s FBI Acted Like the KGB  

————————–

Michael Flynn fires legal team with sentencing looming on federal charges
By Politico,  06/06/2019    (Bold our emphasis)

“But the move also comes amid a yawning disconnect between the approach adopted by the well-respected legal team Flynn has used since the start of the Russia probe and the combative rhetoric from many of his friends and family members, who have accused Mueller’s team of deception and argued that Flynn was tricked into pleading guilty. Some have urged Flynn to seek to withdraw his plea.”
—————-
Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn has fired his legal team as he awaits sentencing for lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian official, according to a new filing Thursday from his longtime attorneys.

The lawyers, Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony, offered no explanation for their abrupt dismissal in a two-page motion delivered to the federal judge who will mete out Flynn’s punishment stemming from his 2017 guilty plea to special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors.

In their filing, the attorneys said Flynn had notified them that “he is terminating Covington & Burling LLP as his counsel and has already retained new counsel for this matter.”

They did not identify Flynn’s new legal team and declined comment when asked by POLITICO about who now represents the former senior Trump aide, who landed in legal trouble after lying about the subject of conversations he had with high-ranking Russian officials during the 2016 transition.

Flynn’s decision to change attorneys at this late stage is unusual and has triggered speculation in legal and political circles that he’s considering backing out of his plea deal with the government in a play for a presidential pardon. Sometimes defendants switch attorneys for mundane reasons such as financial issues, and Flynn’s allies have complained that the case has essentially bankrupted him.

But the move also comes amid a yawning disconnect between the approach adopted by the well-respected legal team Flynn has used since the start of the Russia probe and the combative rhetoric from many of his friends and family members, who have accused Mueller’s team of deception and argued that Flynn was tricked into pleading guilty. Some have urged Flynn to seek to withdraw his plea.

Jack Posobiec, a pro-Trump provocateur who has joined forces with the Flynn family in calling for the retired Army lieutenant general’s exoneration and pardon, wrote Thursday on Twitter that he was told the new Flynn lawyer is “very high profile and appears on TV regularly.” The post added to the speculation over several familiar faces from the Russia probe, including Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and the husband-wife duo of Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, informal Trump advisers who nearly joined the president’s legal team last spring.

In a text message to POLITICO, Giuliani said he was not Flynn’s new lawyer. Dershowitz replied that he’s not representing Flynn. DiGenova in an email wrote, “We are not at liberty to discuss.”

Legal experts say the plea deal that Kelner and Anthony cut with Mueller’s team more than a year ago was a generous one, making it possible that Flynn would receive only probation. Trying to back out of the deal now could open Flynn to a variety of charges, including criminal liability related to unregistered lobbying work he did in 2016 on behalf of a foreign client allegedly acting as a front for Turkey.

Flynn’s ex-business partner and the alleged middleman were indicted in the case, but Flynn escaped charges, apparently due to his plea deal. In a joint status report in March, attorneys for Flynn and Mueller told U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that Flynn could testify in the mid-July trial against his former partner, Bijan Rafiekian.

0

0

The Quad City Times’ published a hatchet job yesterday. That is not unusual nor that it would be aimed at Bobby Schilling, but we were a little taken aback that Barb Ickes the author would fulminate so recklessly on behalf of a candidate in a Republican primary with so little understanding of what makes conservatives tick, or make a serious effort at due diligence on her own. You know, as a factor in credibility. And we were surprised at the vituperation of a journalist over a busy conservative candidate not getting back to her on her schedule when she has a big glaring liberal hatchet-woman demeanor pasted across her face.

OK we were not really surprised about anything that generated her writting.  But we have some Wuhan induced work reduction free time to devote to responding to a couple of the claims Ickes makes.

The title of the Barb Ickes/QC Times hit piece is   When all else fails, Bobby Schilling makes stuff up   After we finished it we had some ideas for a more accurate title:

When Barb Ickes has an axe to grind, she grinds it

Given an opportunity for snob appeal, Barb Ickes goes for it

If the whole truth be told, look elsewhere than Barb Ickes

Barb Ickes reporting on a Republican primary is cluelessness in action

Titles that were a little more cumbersome included:

When the QC Times opines in a vacuum, they rely on the vacuity of Barb Ickes

When Barb Ickes should feel an obligation to independently uncover the truth, she fails

If your waiting for the Barb Ickes hatchet job on MMM – that’s the back-up plan if MMM wins the primary

Much of the Ickes’ article is petty criticism about Bobby Schilling in an effort to serve liberals in trying to dismantle Schillings blue-collar appeal. Schilling’s son Terry “owns” Ickes for her snobbery in an effective Twitter series.

In our view, when not incontrovertible, Schillings criticisms of Miller-Meeks are reasonable extrapolations of statements made by her. It is the legitimate give and take of politics. With Ickes in making demands for discovery from Schilling on matters that are common knowledge in conservative circles, it is an effort to jam up the candidate and “I’ll get back to you” is about all they deserve.

Barb Ickes has been around long enough to know the reputation of the person she wanted documentation about — Maggie Tinsman. But “long enough” does not translate to Ickes  being a serious observer of conservative politics. Nor as to Miller-Meeks if Miller-Meeks is so oblivious to Tinsman’s history as one of the grand dame apologists and promoters of the “right” to dismember unborn members of the human family for any reason.

Because of our experience with the issue we  respond to the parts of Ickes article focused on the Maggie Tinsman matter and challenging Schilling’s criticisms of Miller-Meeks for fairly recent and troubling statements where she describes her own position regarding abortion legislation.  Interestingly it sounded a lot like Maggie Tinsman.

Hearing or reading the transcript of Miller-Meeks stated position to the Ottumwa League of Women Voters less than two years ago one can easily defend describing Miller-Meeks position as pro-choice because that is how she described her own position.  If it was a slip of the tongue, further verbiage in her response would be expected to be out of sync with the pro-choice mantra.  They were not.  Viewing the video and knowing the audience she addressed, does any conservative not believe she was hedging in order to garner support from the politically liberal women who involve themselves with that group and its goals?

If she is so pro-life why was is she not as straight forward as her primary opponent (video and transcript below)?

One can properly question Miller-Meeks sincerity on the abortion related votes she has taken given that the implications of her comments indicate she is OK with voting for pro-life legislation on the hopes it will be struck down by courts or otherwise fail because she really resents having anything come between a woman and her doctor (again, roll tape and transcript). At no point does Miller-Meeks make a distinction about elective destruction of the unborn baby and a doctors practice of medicine. Maybe Miller-Meeks did not take the Hypocratic Oath. It may not have been part of her investiture as a physician. She is free to take it now.

Her comments can easily be construed as an attempt to wring her hands, appeal to the liberal League of Women voters attendees, to say I am one of you but I have to move this stuff along hoping for the better judgement of courts.

Miller-Meeks’ campaign says she misspoke but the full transcript hardly puts conservatives at ease. Miller-Meeks can clear up any confusion by responding to a well constructed survey to elicit a clear commitment and real insight into her position on abortion and the right to life of the unborn. We have more comments in conjunction with the video and transcript set forth below.

Barb Ickes challenged Schilling to produce evidence that it was common knowledge among pro-lifers that the notorious Planned Parenthood abortion syndicate water-carrier Maggie Tinsman, who supports Miller-Meeks, was part of the cabal to foster an abortion chamber in this area.  Speaking as one who was part of the opposition, and as a conservative Republican,  Schilling is correct it was our common knowledge that Tinsman supported the clinic — and for clear and sufficient reason. It was based on newspaper articles, documents, Tinsman’s associations and support network and direct observation.

That Ickes is unaware of Tinsman’s notoriety in conservative and right-to-life circles is incredible for someone engaged in political reporting in this area. Ickes chose to rely on parroting Tinsman’s denial as sufficient to undermine Schilling, disregarding the political predisposition of Tinsman, the Miller-Meeks campaign desire to do so and we daresay Ickes own desire to undermine Schilling.

Curiously, in eliciting a response from Tinsman, Ickes did not report if she asked Tinsman whether or not she was content or pleased with Planned Parenthood siting an abortion clinic in Davenport or Bettendorf.  Nor, as revealed to us anyway, did Ickes ask Tinsman if she supported, had memberships in, received endorsements and contributions from or contributed to groups which were part of directly or indirectly the Planned Parenthood syndicate’s efforts or a PR campaign in support of their efforts. It is possible to have a good idea of someone by the memberships they maintain.

Here are a couple excerpts with citations from articles and contemporaneous reports relative to the evidence of Tinsman’s direct or indirect support for organizations engaged in bringing (and operating) an abortion clinic eventually cited in Bettendorf. A scan of the full text of the articles used will be made available on our page bar regarding the IA 2nd CD race on our Page Bar above.

Des Moines Register / AP 5/23/96.  (excerpt)

Republican U.S. Senate contender Rep. Steve Grubbs of Davenport Wednesday said primary rival Sen. Maggie kinsmen of Bettendorf helped recruit a new clinic offering abortions to the Quad-Cities.

Grubbs said Tinsman was a member of a group called the Quad Cities Coalition for Choice, which worked with Planned Parenthood in announcing plans for the new clinic. the proposed clinic has been t the center of controversy.

Tinsmen said she belonged to that group but that she was unaware it had worked with Planned Parenthood A scan of the full text of the article will be made available on our page bar regarding the 2nd District race

V’PAC note – why would an organization named Quad Cities Coalition for Choice not support siting an abortion clinic in the “unserved” Quad Cities and what of Tinsman’s claimed obliviousness given the high profile reporting of the matter long before a location was announced? And we would ask Barb Ickes: “if you can’t believe Steve Grubbs about Maggie Tinsman,  whose firm is a consultant to Miller-Meeks, who can you believe?”

Dispatch-Argus 7/23/95 John Kanthak, staff writer: (excerpts)

Both the Emma Goldman Clinic and Planned Parenthood are negotiating to buy property for clinics they will open in the Quad-Cities this year (1995)

When the newly created Genesis Medical Center announced it would discontinue St. Luke’s policy of providing elective abortions, members of the Quad-Cities Coalition for Choice contacted the Emma Goldman Clinic and other abortion providers and asked them to open a Quad-Cities branch clinic . . . Coalition members included Iowa state senator (sic) Maggie Tinsman, the YWCA, Business and Professional Women, B’nai B’rith Women and the Doris and Victor Day Foundation.

Emma’s Journal, March 1996

Emma Goldman Clinic Challenges Davenport City Council

. . . The pro-choice community in the Quad Cities responded to the actions of the council by forming the Quad City Coalition for Choice. the coalition included representatives of staff and advisory boards from Planned parenthood and Emma Goldman Clinic, members of the Quad City Progressive Clergy, iowa Civil liberties Union members, and other interested individuals.

V’PAC note: The Emma Goldman newsletter excerpt above speaks to the intention of the coalition to oppose restrictions on, and pave the way for, uninhibited clinic operation in Davenport. Tinsman was a member of the coalition.

Tinsman in her personal or political capacities has received succor from one or more entities attached to, and given succor to, Planned Parenthood which operated an abortion facility in Bettendorf until the end of 2017. This was before and during the presence of the clinic. Tinsman attended the grand opening of the clinic, no doubt smiling and applauding at their presence. Her gifts to Planned Parenthood over the years helped sustain the operations of all its clinics. Her political support was rewarded with some of the largest contributions from Planned Parenthoods Freedom Fund.  (see scans of campaign reports)

The response to the Ottumwa League of Women Voters by Miller-Meeks

Mariannette Miller-Meeks answered a question about abortion legislation posed by the moderator at a Ottumwa, Iowa League of Women Voters forum on 31 May, 2018. That is not very long ago but long after her several runs for congress in which one would think she could get her story straight and not have to rely on charitable interpretations of her comments (which we have imparted in the past) or claims of “misspoke”. A transcript of her remarks and that of her then opponent is set forth below. We make use of the Google/YouTube transcription feature which required only minor clerical interpretations.

It should be noted that the introductory text visible onscreen at the start of the video may be in error as the current Iowa Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the Heartbeat legislation matter referred to. The writing may have been an extrapolation from the Court’s interpretation of the Iowa Constitution generated by a previous matter regarding a 72-hour waiting period prior to an elective abortion.

There may have been a sea change in the Court since then as only one of the justices who voted to somehow find a right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution remains on the court in the 22 months since the decision was handed down. The Cady Court finding would flabbergast the framers of the Iowa constitution who empowered subsequent legislatures who banned abortion, and who subsequent to Roe V Wade, regulated it for decades subject to court review. In all that time those courts never went so far as to even suggest that Iowa’s constitution enshrined abortion on demand. But we digress.

Here is the video (wait 35 seconds to load). Transcript and our commentary follows.

The question first went to Daniel Cesar, Mariannette Miller-Meeks opponent in the 2018 primary for the Iowa State Senate (District 41).  Mr Cesar, “a Catholic,” is clear and definitive in his response in support of the right to life of the unborn.

Question to both candidates by moderator: “would you consider rescinding the fetal heartbeat law that was passed in the previous legislative session.  Daniel take this first”

You know as a Catholic and as a Christian I believe life begins at conception no exceptions now I think the fetal heartbeat bill was flawed I think on several points but I have to say I would have voted for it

~~ If just you said it is knocked down and not making it ~~ I’d come right back and say life begins at conception. Oh is it protected then Roe V Wade says not, it’s only protected when it’s viable inside the womb.

I first brought this off when I was in the mock legislature Ohio in May 2nd
1970 and a baby is not part of the mother’s body it’s a separate individual
and the baby has just as much right to live as a mother and so I’d have to say let’s think about how we can work this through let’s come together and protect life and let’s go forward and let’s find a way that we can help those involved but we have to have our sense of balance and that’s protect life.

(End Daniel Cesar)

Mariannette Miller-Meeks in her response to the same question refers to herself as “pro-choice” (transcript and video link below). Her congressional campaign people are now saying she “misspoke”. On its own even as a slip, her utterance is troubling stated by someone in tune with the right to life realizing the signal the term sends to voters. In the right context it might have been a clever segue if she went on to say she is pro-choice on a lot of matters ( right-to-life conservatives properly are) but the right to life is so fundamental that it must be enshrined with the rarest of exceptions.  Miller-Meeks did not.

Moderator: Thank you.  Marionette

Begin Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Paragraphing is arbitrary here, that and the dashes-— indicates interpreted pause.

I think which was mentioned earlier that this is probably something that’s going to be challenged by the Iowa Supreme Court and will go forward whether it or not it will be upheld —- we’ll know in the near future — and will it be a costly endeavor — yes it will but sometimes when it comes to issues that are extremely challenging that are controversial and that creates tremendous animosity on both sides it is best that that be challenged be brought up legislatively have the people decide and then if it’s challenged in the court system I think that offers resolution to people on both sides of the issue.

It’s difficult as a woman to to face this issue I’m also Catholic I am pro-choice but very sensitive issue and when roe v wade was decided and even since that time we have not done a favor to women there are women who have had abortions who regret that they’ve had abortions and don’t know where to seek solace or help our support and there are women who are caught in an untenable situation that they’re looking for guidance and a resolution to their situation and the best thing for they and their family to do.

Ultimately as a doctor and a health care provider I think these are decisions that are best left to providers to doctors and to patients I don’t want the government in my health care decisions and I think that that’s why it’s a good thing to bring it up and to be challenged but it is a very personal issue when I talk to people I can tell you women may support it or not support it but they don’t think that abortion should be used as birth control we need to continue to educate we need to make sure that young women are have available resources both for birth control and the educational wherewithal to be able to prevent pregnancy.

Moderator: Time. Thank you.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indeed the full text is troubling coming so recently from a person claiming to be pro-life. Bobby Schilling was astute in pointing out the full text is hardly exculpatory to a slip of the tongue.

As the transcript of Miller-Meeks response goes on, compounding what she terms a slip, is that she seems to be saying in part that she is comfortable with having contentious legislation be passed and then having the courts decide the issue. That is troubling on many levels to conservatives.

Miller-Meeks goes on to say “as a doctor and a health care provider I think these are decisions that are best left to providers to doctors and to patients I don’t want the government in my health care decisions and I think that that’s why it’s a good thing to bring it up and to be challenged but it is a very personal issue”

Maggie Tinsman would be happy with that response and has said as much herself

Other than believers in doctors as gods, what instinctual believer that each unborn child is a child of God, that parents are stewards, formulates a response that way? Miller-Meeks response is riddled with “pro-choice” formulations of the issue including their clichés. She also uses the sometimes dodge, sometimes shield “I am Catholic” as if that has any legislative implication given the gamut of “Catholic” legislators on so many issues. Some of the most ardent abortion promoters claim that title and Miller-Meeks must know better. What is clear to us is that Miller-Meeks will be “high maintenance” on the issue.

As regards Barb Ickes employer the Quad City Times

In a masthead editorial some years ago the paper objects to any bounds to abortion then in the context of proposed bans on partial birth abortion known in pro-abortion newspaper circles as “intact dilation and extraction procedures”. It is a nicely obfuscatory phrase for proponents of baby-killing. The terminology unwrapped is as follows:  “intact”(with reference to the baby . . . “dilation” (expanding the birth canal prematurely in order to partially remove the intact baby) and “extraction” . . . crushing the babies skull and removing pieces as necessary. There is not an abortion they will not defend.

That is where that newspaper is coming from. Even Maggie Tinsman did not go that far although we suspect it was more a political vote than anything. The truth Ms Ickes is that Bobby Schilling made nothing up, but the QC Times covered up.

We would advise Mariannette Miller Meeks if she is desirous of conservative pro-life support to do the right thing and admit that Schillings characterization was not unreasonable and, if she has changed her mind and can now speak clearly on the issue, to do so and fill out a definitive survey on the matter from pro-life activists.  She ought to reject the shoddy journalism in the Ickes article because Ickes shaved the transcript when she could have revealed the entire text (the QCT buys ink by the barrel) as a service in truth to readers.

Of course that won’t happen. We highlighted a gross distortion hit-piece at the hands of Miller-Meeks in an earlier post. You can expect more from her and her handlers. Posts relevant to the 2nd District race can be found on our Page Bar above.  Additional documentary information can be accessed there as well.

0

0

• Regarding the COVID-19 disaster: It is past time to move on — the shutdowns should not have happened to the extent they did, producing  a foreseeable economic disaster
• Incorporate what has been learned, proper focus, prepare accordingly, but never take this route again
• Trump is moving to Make America Great Again

Here are links to four commentaries with some excerpts that reflect many of our thoughts.

In spite of  our general disdain for Bill Maher as the saying goes “even a broke clock . . .”  He does remind us with the cheap shot at the end why he is so often detestable, but here he is largely right.  Thanks to BA for sending it.

From the intro: In his editorial New Rule, Bill argues that people should fight the coronavirus by strengthening their immune systems, rather than by sanitizing the universe. 

From the commentaries to this on YouTube:

“Reported to the censors for ‘rational thinking.'”

“This is the same guy who said we needed a recession. And they are not trying to stop immigration. They are trying to stop illegal immigration.”

By Mike Ford at RedState (excerpts)

Opinion: Continuing The Shutdown Is Downright Immoral

Sometimes it takes me a while to figure stuff out. At the very beginning of the current morass we are mired in, even as a conservative, I was willing to give the Executives at all levels, Federal, State and Local a little bit of wiggle room. After all, this China Virus thing was a bit different and I wasn’t the one sitting in the “Buck Stops Here” seat. I voted for my President and I voted (secondarily) for my Governor (who replaced the guy I actually voted for…long story). I’m not of the mind to second guess them for most of their decisions early on in this debacle.

Of late, I have come to a much less sanguine conclusion. I say this as an ardent Trump supporter. This lockdown is fundamentally immoral and has been from almost the very beginning.
. . .
What is amoral, nay outright immoral, is arbitrarily deciding to deprive a certain class of American citizens of their fundamental right to feed their families. What could be more immoral than restricting the movements of American citizens who have committed no crime. Compounding said immorality, we did this based on little to no evidence that they posed any real danger to anyone but an extremely small segment of society. That segment could have been easily protected without trampling on civil rights of the rest of our citizenry. This is the first time that I know of, that we effectively quarantined American citizens whom we had no idea whether or not they were carriers of some disease.

We have driven and continue to drive the engine of our standard of living, small businesses into bankruptcy and placing most of their employees into penury. What is really sad, is that the people least able to weather such an economic storm are the ones most affected. People in more highly paid occupations, tend to be in jobs not as affected by social distancing measures as those at lower pay rates, who work in service industry jobs requiring in person contact with other people. They are truly suffering. A paltry $1,200.00 check will do little to pay the rent and put food on the table, much less restore the dignity that having meaningful work and paying your way through life affords.

The folks who can least afford this paycheck interruption or worse, permanent loss of the jobs they formerly occupied, are the very ones who have been put out of work by this overreaction and disregard for American rights. By doing this, we have created two classes, haves and have nots, all by government fiat. Some of this might have been justifiable early on. Not so anymore. At this point, what every state Governor but one is doing, is flat out wrong—it’s immoral and needs to stop. Now.

From a post at DK Facebook site:

Sad how easily most people gave up their liberty because they are clueless of this. I understand the fear that was spewed by “experts”, government officials and the media (sorry for the redundancy). That being said common sense, logic and reality was clearly showing they were all guessing. Since NONE of the “models they used were not remotely accurate people should have a healthy skepticism on anything these three entities I listed above say

From a Washington Times report:

Trump calls reopenings a ‘beginning,’ vows to rebuild ‘greatest’ economy to ‘do it again’ 

President Trump opened a new phase of his election year crisis leadership on Tuesday, traveling to the battleground state of Arizona and vowing to rebuild an economy devastated by the coronavirus in the six months left before he faces voters’ judgment.

“We’re going to build the greatest economy in the world again,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “I did it once. We’re going to do it again, and that’s what we’re starting. I view these last couple of days as the beginning.”

On his first trip outside the Washington region in more than a month, Mr. Trump visited a Honeywell International plant in Phoenix, where repurposed employees were manufacturing N95 masks for health care workers and others on the front line of the COVID-19 pandemic. He thanked Honeywell employees for being part of “an incredible industrial mobilization” to fight the disease.

“Our country wants to open. The governors — it’s in their hands, but our country wants to open,” he said. “The people of our country should think of themselves as warriors. Our country has to open.”

The president, confronting an unemployment rate that is likely to climb to nearly 20%, said the nation must take necessary risks to allow more Americans to go back to work.

“I’m not saying anything is perfect,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “Will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open, and we have to get it open soon.”

Ah those public health officials

0

0

THE POMPOUS PONTIFF SAYS CORONAVIRUS VACCINE MUST BE SHARED WORLDWIDE; Seems to suggest one country, in particular, may not…

Pope Francis says a lot as the day is long. Much of it about things he knows little of.

Even more of what he says tends to be in praise of the leftist/socialist/communist approach to governance.

In his latest pronouncement, Francis reveals his predilection for the latter and his propensity for the other.

“Francis said it was also important to “guarantee universal access to essential technologies that allow each infected person, in every part of the world, to receive the necessary medical treatment.”

The report noted, in connection with the Pope’s remarks that: “World leaders pledged in April to accelerate work on tests, drugs and vaccines against COVID-19 and to share them around the globe, but the United States did not take part in the launch of the World Health Organization (WHO) initiative”.

“U.S. President Donald Trump has said the WHO was slow to react to the outbreak and was being “China-centric”, and as a consequence has announced a suspension of funding.”

———

We believe that most people of good will (including us), if an effective vaccine against the Coronavirus is developed, would think it should be shared worldwide. Most of the people in totalitarian nations are innocent of the horrors their governments visit upon them and on the world. Among the worst certainly North Korea and Communist China would rank in the top tier. Most socialist or communist governed nations would be among the most repressive and oppressive.

Latin American nations, like Pope Francis’s native country, Argentina, have experienced fascism, oppression, and all the other horrors an authoritarian government can inflict on its people.

It is not a stretch to think that, if any nations were willing to withhold from the world a cure or an immunity for a devastating pandemic, it would be one of those, led by authoritarian despots.

So when the Pontiff exhorts the global community on the necessity for sharing life saving immunizations that it’s likely only advanced countries would be assumed to be capable of producing, it seems fair to ask if he is suggesting that there may be an advanced country which would not be willing (?).

Of course, it being Pope Francis, it seems clear that he is snidely suggesting that it is the United States which would not be willing to share for the sake of humanity. And it would be the leader of that country, President Donald Trump, who would be the one individual responsible for such crass immorality.

In April the World Health Organization (WHO) announced an initiative that “world leaders pledged to ‘accelerate work’ on drugs and vaccines against COVID-19 and to share them around the globe'”.

It was also, just in recent weeks, that President Trump, blaming, with strong evidence, the World Health Organization for colluding with communist China to conceal from the world the origin of COVID-19 and the dimensions of the threat it imposed on the entire world.

As a consequence of WHO’s role in spreading the pandemic, Trump announced that the U.S. would “suspend funding for the organization” and did not participate in the WHO “initiative”.

TRUMP’S ACTION IN SUSPENDING FUNDING FOR ‘WHO’ IS NOT THE SAME AS ANNOUNCING THAT, IF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS WERE FIRST TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE COVID-1099 VACCINE, IT WOULD NOT SHARE IT WITH THE WORLD!

As an American, and with maximum respect for this nation’s values and full confidence that President Trump shares those values, I am confident that this country would act on behalf of global humanity, and would indeed participate in “International scientific cooperation”, and share life saving discoveries it is likey to be the first to make…AS IT HAS ALWAYS DONE!

Trump and America do not need Pope Francis to prod us to do the right and moral thing.

Where is Francis by the way, as it has become clear that Communist China, driven by its repressive ideology, has been the callous and soulless perpetrator of this awesome ‘crime against humanity”!

THE HOLY FATHER, IS ALWAYS EAGER TO LECTURE THE WORLD ON THE ‘EVILS’ OF CAPITALISM AND THE ‘SINS’ OF THE UNITED STATES.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO CHINA’S “ACCIDENTAL” RELEASING OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS ON THE WORLD… AND THEN ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP ITS ROLE… WITH “WHO’S” HELP… FRANCIS HAS BEEN ‘QUIET AS A MOUSE’!      dlh

Pope Says Coronavirus Vaccine Must Be Shared With The World  (excerpt)

“Francis said it was also important to “guarantee universal access to essential technologies that allow each infected person, in every part of the world, to receive the necessary medical treatment.”

“World leaders pledged in April to accelerate work on tests, drugs and vaccines against COVID-19 and to share them around the globe, but the United States did not take part in the launch of the World Health Organization (WHO) initiative.

“U.S. President Donald Trump has said the WHO was slow to react to the outbreak and was being “China-centric”, and as a consequence has announced a suspension of funding.”
——–

0

0

To what end, GW, to what end

You gotta like Trump, his honesty and willingness to “tell it like it is…”   dlh

Bush in retirement not the great communicator, more the great equivocator and “platitudner”  R Mall

Trump: Where Was Bush’s Desire for ‘Non-Partisanship’ during the Impeachment fiasco?

A call by former President George W. Bush for humanity to jettison partisanship amid the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has drawn a sharp rebuke from President Donald Trump.

Bush published a video message on Saturday urging unity and togetherness amid the coronavirus’ outbreak, which received 4.4 million views on Twitter as of Sunday morning.

Bush’s plea amounted to a call for people to ignore partisanship to protect the most vulnerable and to assist those who have become unemployed. He based his plaintive call on the observation we are all God’s children and therefore equal of merit and support.

“[L]et us remember how small our differences are in the face of this shared threat,” Bush said. “In the final analysis we are not partisan combatants, we are human beings equally vulnerable and equally wonderful in the sight of God. We rise or fall together, and we are determined to rise.”

The president’s response was straight to the point, outlining Bush’s absence when Trump was being excoriated during his impeachment proceedings.

“Oh bye the way, I appreciate the message from former President Bush, but where was he during Impeachment calling for putting partisanship aside. @foxandfriends He was nowhere to be found in speaking up against the greatest Hoax in American history!” Trump tweeted.

Comment – R Mall

I would like to ask a few questions of G W Bush:  Who really needs temporizing  —  people who support big government power grabs or those who oppose it?  Who is most likely to listen to your utterances — Republicans or Democrats and who needs your platitudes  more?  Which philosophy has had the more balanced approach and why can you not say so? With references to your timing as to when to address the nation, why are you always so compelled to equivocate regarding motivations of Democrats or assume good will, but not as regards Trump supporters and his policies? Do we need platitudes or sound policy? Or, is one policy or philosophy as good as another?  If I support grabbing national power subverting liberties in the name of saving lives, is that meritorious when the end result can be so devastating? Need to now where you are coming from . . .  if it is a neutral corner when so much is at stake then I am not interested.

0

0

So what exactly did you mean by: “Red sky at night, sailors delight. Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.”

In light of this stuff, I would be concerned about talking even about the weather with an FBI agent, that’s how much these characters have sullied its reputation.

Mike Pence Now Thinks Flynn Was Railroaded

We think the haste in which the Trump Admin acted in firing Flynn vividly illustrates its naivete that Comey exploited in “sending a couple agents over to interview the general:      dlh

“Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.”

“Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.” 

PENCE INCLINED MORE THAN EVER TO BELIEVE FLYNN DID NOT INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD

Following disclosures of key documents last week, it’s become patently obvious that President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, retired three-star general Michael Flynn, was set up by Obama-era operatives.

His resultant ‘guilty plea’ for ‘lying’ to the FBI, then, is looking more and more like it was coerced.

Prior to being charged by Robert Mueller’s partisan hack prosecutors, however, you may recall that Flynn was forced out of the White House in 2017, barely a month in to the new administration, ostensibly for “lying” to Vice President Mike Pence about a conversation involving then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

On Thursday, however, following this week’s disclosures of handwritten notes from FBI agents sent by fired Director James Comey to entrap Flynn, the vice president noted he is “inclined more than ever” to believe Flynn never intended to mislead him about his conversations with the Russian diplomat, the Washington Examiner reported.

The site noted further:

He made the comments after the FBI records released on Thursday have been touted by Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, as exculpatory evidence heretofore concealed from the defense team. They show that now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and others in the FBI’s leadership stopped the bureau from closing its investigation into Flynn in early January 2017 after investigators had uncovered “no derogatory information” on him. Emails from later that month show Strzok, along with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others, sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn.

“I think Gen. Michael Flynn is a patriotic American who served with great distinction in the armed forces of the United States. And I’m deeply troubled by the revelations of what appear to have been investigative abuse by officials in the Justice Department — and we are going to continue to look into that very carefully. But my respect for Gen. Flynn personally, for his service to the country, is undiminished,” Pence told reporters.

“And I’m inclined more than ever to believe that what he communicated to me back during the transition leading to our inauguration was unintentional and that he was not attempting to misrepresent facts,” the vice president added.

He noted further that he believes there was “investigative prosecutorial abuse that is coming to light” and “people need to be held to account,” but said a pardon would be a decision for President Trump to make.

Flynn is fighting to have his guilty plea thrown out. He entered his plea in December 2017 after claiming to have lied to investigators about discussing Russian sanctions and a UN resolution on Israel.

The FBI intercepted Flynn’s communications with Kislyak as part of the bureau’s normal electronic surveillance of a Russian diplomat inside the United States.

But the allegation that Flynn did something wrong never made any sense. First, there are no legal issues involved with incoming administration officials having discussions for foreign officials, and that is especially true of an incoming national security adviser.

Secondly, Flynn is a career military intelligence official. As an Army lieutenant general, he was in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, so he would have known that American intelligence monitors the communications of foreign officials on U.S. soil.

More noteworthy is the fact that Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was leaked in the first place — which is a felony, since it is classified. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported on the conversation Jan. 12, 2017, following Flynn’s December conversation with the Russian; where did Ignatius get his information from?

U.S. Attorney John Durham, appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of “Spygate,” is also looking into the leak.

In any event, the revelations this week seem to constitute exculpatory evidence on Flynn’s behalf, and the vice president appears to think so as well.

So does the president. Trump said Thursday he “would certainly consider” bringing Flynn back into his administration in some role, though he did not elaborate.

/////

0

0

• 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.  . . .

0

0

With the Big Gov/W.H.O. editors at  YouTube, we will see how long this stays up.  Thanks to KK for the heads-up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjtDH__Px4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Vsq-IxclZMAkE7bKzZ7WEcZwUi5nvQtlXKjEuWWRNMHJir-BAI_gznOQ

0

0

• You know,  like the one he is overseeing to sincerely prevent any future FISA abuses

Is it necessary to say any more about Chris Wray than we already have?

Trump should not have appointed him; Trump should not have kept him in the job as soon as it became obvious that Wray had no intention of cooperating in the investigation of the FBI.

Nobody, including Rod Rosenstein stonewalled requests for documents supporting the wrongdoing by various members of the FBI’s recent past leadership than Christopher Wray.

We won’t rehash our observations on Mr. Wray here; they can be found in previous Veritasapac posts but there is this:         dlh

Rep.Jim Jordan Asks Why Didn’t Chris Wray Tell Us; Flynn’s Attorney Has An Answer  (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)

(CNSNews.com) – The FBI investigation into Donald Trump and his associates, including Gen. Michael Flynn, “was worse than we thought,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Fox News’s Martha MacCallum Thursday night.

Newly released documents show the FBI was ready to close its investigation of Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, after finding nothing “derogatory,” but FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok urged against it: “Hey, don’t close RAZOR,” Strzok wrote.

A few weeks later, Strzok was in Gen. Michael Flynn’s White House office — sent there by FBI Director James Comey — surreptitiously investigating Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Jordan on Thursday credited Flynn’s most recent attorney Sidney Powell and Attorney General Bill Barr with prying the newly disclosed documents out of the FBI:

“Why didn’t (current FBI Director) Chris Wray tell us?” Jordan asked. “He’s been there two-and-a-half years. He was brought in to clean up this mess.”  . . .

“A few hours later, Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News’s Sean Hannity that FBI Director Chris Wray used to be Andrew Weissmann’s supervisor, when “Weissmann was at the Department of Justice, running roughshod over the rights of everyone in Houston,” as Powell put it.”

0

0

JOHN BOLTON BOOK RELEASE DELAYED UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE

– We’re not sure that Politico is all that upset about this delay.

A delay as impactful as a predator throwing a hedgehog into the briar patch

Maybe we’re in the minority in our opinion because we have to speculate based on what we’ve gleaned from public reports from a wide variety of sources, past events, and the application of just a bit of wisdom and common sense.

Of course the ‘majority’ opinion endures many of the same limitations that we do, with the possible exception, one way or the other, of the greater wisdom they like to claim.

First of all, seems we’ve already heard a lot about the “John Bolton book”…most of it how devastating its ‘revelations’ will be to Donald Trump personally, to his administration, and to his reelection probabilities. ( The New York Times, back during the impeachment fever, reported that Trump told Bolton he wanted to continue withholding U.S. government aid from Ukraine until officials publicly pledged to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. )

If, indeed, this so-called “tell-all” book has as its primary motivation to ‘dirty up’ President Trump ahead of the November election, John Bolton will have revealed himself to be not at all the honorable, bright, competent patriot that I and others have thought him to be. If, by revealing moments of private conversation Trump may have had with his staff, Cabinet, or other subordinates, or other bits of what the regular person would consider ‘gossip’ or comments made in a pique or reflecting on ‘whatifs’, or any remarks a person might have with intimates and never necessarily intended for further thought or action or meant for public dissemination, Bolton hopes to make a buck, he is just another sleazy, disreputable ‘Beltway denizen’.

Let us hope that is not the case.

But, this may indeed be what the mainstream media thinks the book is.

And thus, the closer to October (the optimum time for pre-election “surprises”), the release of the book, the better they like it, including the Politico.

The very same may be the case of the National Security Council, and whoever is ‘vetting’ the book. This is not to suggest that the person named in the article (Ellen Knight) is the faithless culprit, but rather a “Deep Stater” within that agency.

At any rate, all will be revealed on “June 23” or before.

dlh

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dan Lipton at  Politico:  Bolton Book Delay   (excerpt)

0

0