Monday, November 2, 2020

Russia/Biden Gate: Blow Wind, Blow Wind

Last night around 10 PM, all the phones in the house went off with an alert from NOAA, that sudden high winds were expected from the north, threatening boaters and other things. They showed up around 10:30, when I had to walk Skye, and deck chairs started sliding around. We lost power about 11 and I went to bed in the dark. We woke up this AM, and all the non-backed up or internet connected clocks were blinking, but were set on the right time! Apparently, the power came back on at 12 midnight, or close enough to have made no difference. What a coincidence! Other then leaves and minor debris in the yard, we suffered no damage.

With that aside, how goes the state of Russiagate? According to Jerry Dunleavy and Dan Chaitin at WaEx, Lindsey Graham says John Durham report coming after election, will be 'shocked' if no indictments. Better late than never, I suppose. But my guess is that trying to convict anyone of the malefactors in a DC court is a waste of time.

And speaking of too late, Leslie MacAdoo Gordon has a long article at Da Fed on Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Must Disqualify Himself From Michael Flynn’s Case. It's been clear now for weeks that Sullivan is stalling in an effort to keep Flynn in jeopardy past a potential Biden win, or at least force Trump to pardon him, rather than being cleared by a legal process. 

Antagonism toward a party’s lawyer is a classic example of bias that warrants disqualification. It is improper for a judge to be influenced in his handling of a case or rulings on it because he dislikes a party’s attorney. A judge must set such irrelevant, personal considerations aside. If he cannot, he must disqualify himself.

During the Sept. 29 hearing, Sullivan obviously treated Powell in a more peremptory and dismissive fashion than he did either government counsel or amicus counsel (former Judge John Gleeson). Sullivan cut off her arguments and explanations but didn’t do so to the other counsel. . . Moreover, during the hearing, Sullivan improperly accused Powell of unethical conduct. He said she acted unethically in writing a letter to Attorney General William Barr asking for a review of Flynn’s case before she had entered her appearance in court as Flynn’s attorney. Sullivan not only confronted Powell about this, but he asked government counsel to comment on whether it was ethical and threatened to file a complaint with attorney disciplinary authorities about it. . . . nothing about Powell’s conduct was wrong. It is not unethical for a defense counsel to ask a senior official to review a case; lawyers do this all the time. It is entirely proper to seek review on the merits by officials empowered to overrule or alter the decisions of subordinate personnel. Powell’s letter is 100 percent ethical behavior.
. . .
The other reason Sullivan must recuse himself is that he has displayed an apparent desire to see that Flynn will still be punished even if the case must now be dismissed. This, too, is inappropriate and demonstrates that Sullivan is not acting impartially.

When Sullivan appointed an amicus to advise him about whether to grant the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, he also directed the amicus to give advice as to whether he should issue a show-cause order to hold Flynn in criminal contempt for perjury because Flynn had disavowed his guilty plea. . . Sullivan again displayed an apparent desire to see Flynn punished during the Sept. 29 hearing. Although DOJ has moved to dismiss the case against Flynn “with prejudice,” meaning Flynn could not be prosecuted again, Sullivan asked whether he can instead dismiss without prejudice, noting that a new administration at DOJ might decide to pursue the case. Similarly, Sullivan inquired into whether Flynn could still be charged for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act — to which Flynn did not plead but which was included as additional “relevant conduct” for purposes of his plea — if he dismisses the current case. 


Speaking of used to living without fear of consequences, from Da Wire, Adam Schiff Calls For Investigation Based On New York Times Article Discredited By Anti-Trump Former FBI Officials

And a great segue from Russiagate to Bidengate, 
At NYPo, Hunter Biden’s Ukraine contact allegedly a ‘fixer’ for shady oligarchs and from TNP, Hunter E-Mails Request ‘Formal Meetings With Dad’ To Secure Billion-Dollar Deals and from John Solomon at JTN, Most Americans have heard of Biden family allegations, more than half believe them. Half of American is willing to elect a crook,

Dr. John at Flopping Aces thinks The Biden laptop is a far bigger issue than you thought. WAY bigger. I dunno, I think it's pretty big. From the Brits at Da Mail, who can be more honest about American politics that most of the American press, National security nightmare of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop containing phone numbers for the Clintons, Secret Service officers and most of the Obama cabinet plus his sex and drug addictions - all secured by the password Hunter02. How original! And as Matt Margolis at PJ Media reminds us, Another Hunter Biden Laptop? Why Yes, There Is! We probably won't get to see it, because it was recovered by DEA and returned to Hunter.  Paul Sperry at RCI, Court Document Shows Joe Biden Listed as a Witness With Son in Fraud Case

To which Biden replies is his best Sgt. Schultz voice, "I know nussing, nussing!" except that Joe Biden: ‘Every Major Outlet, Every Serious Investigator’ Says Hunter Biden Laptop Story ‘Is A Smear. And his definition is that every major outlet or serious investigator is one who supports Democrats. 

'Adam Mill' at AmGreat, Hunter Laptop Story Portends a Dark Winter for Free Speech "If Joe Biden is elected, he will owe the tech companies a favor." But is Biden the kind of politician that stays bought? 
The real scandal is the fact that the legacy media can collude with Big Tech to smother, censor, and even punish people for asking apparently legitimate questions about the evidence.

From the point-of-view of the censors, it’s easy to understand why Facebook might arrogantly believe that it has a social obligation to prevent its platform from being used to spread false information. That seems like a legitimate reason to censor until one considers that the censorship is applied only to one side. While social media censors the New York Post story about Hunter’s laptop, it has no problem spreading the completely baseless claim that the Russians planted the laptop.

Indeed, when the false stories hurt Trump, the censors never censor. Facebook is happy to spread the New York Times story that paraphrases the president’s tax returns in spite of the fact that the accounts cannot be independently verified and the person sharing the tax returns with the Times almost certainly violated federal law in so doing. Likewise for the recent Atlantic article accusing the president of calling military vets “losers and suckers.” It was widely spread on social media in spite of multiple eyewitnesses contradicting the account of unverifiable anonymous sources.

You can add the hoaxes about Trump having a secret connection to the Russian Alfa Bank, Trump’s private attorney Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to pay Russian hackers, Russians co-signing Trump Deutsche Bank loans, Trump instructing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, the New York Times falsely reporting on extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, the entire Jussie Smollett hoax framing Trump supporters for a hate crime, media reports painting Trump supporter Nick Sandmann as a racist, and on and on and on. And let’s not forget how social media platforms aggressively censored doctors offering their assessments of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The real “laptop from hell” scandal is the escalation in censorship and manipulation of the media. Google, Facebook, and Twitter now collude to exercise more control over speech than should be allowed. If Biden is elected, he will owe the tech companies a favor. And if they continue protecting him after the election, then a Biden Justice Department will have the cover of censorship to pursue its political enemies.  

No comments:

Post a Comment