Monday, November 30, 2020

Trump’s Michael Flynn Pardon Is Only The Beginning Of The Justice This Nation Deserves

Although in pleading guilty Flynn stated he knew his Jan. 24, 2019, statements to FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka about his conversation with the Russian ambassador were false, in moving to withdraw his guilty plea, Flynn maintained his innocence and professed that he "Did not lie to them" and "Believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time." An uninformed public is likely to discount such a recantation, especially when the press continues to push the "Flynn twice pleaded guilty" narrative and ignores the since-revealed details explaining why Flynn would plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.

As Flynn tells it, the week before he pleaded guilty, his attorneys at the time, Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony, told Flynn that if he did not plead guilty his son, Michael G. Flynn, "Could or would face indictment." Also, on Nov. 30, 2017-the day before he pleaded guilty-Flynn's former lawyers assured him that if he "Accepted the plea, [his] son Michael would be left in peace." Flynn's former attorneys later again reminded him of the threat to his son shortly before he appeared for the first time before Judge Sullivan.

In a heated exchange between Powell and the lead prosecutor on the Flynn Case, Brandon Van Grack, Powell "Informed Van Grack that Flynn would not testify that he had knowingly filed false Foreign Agent Registration Act statements in the government's criminal case against Flynn's former business partner, prosecutors added Flynn Jr. as a last-minute witness in that criminal case." But after adding Flynn Jr. to the witness list, the prosecutors never called him to testify, "Suggesting it was a scare tactic to get Dad back in line." 2.

Flynn's Guilty Plea Was Invalid The media and left-leaning pundits who continue to rely on Flynn's guilty plea as a basis to brand the retired general a criminal are not only ignoring the wrongful threats made to Flynn to extract that plea, but also failing to report that Flynn filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, which, given the facts of the case, should have been granted.

Trump's pardon of Flynn followed Judge Sullivan's improper refusal to dismiss the charge against Flynn, but if the media is going to rely on the fact that Flynn entered a guilty plea to condemn the man, they owe the public the full facts, including that Flynn filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on his actual innocence of the charges.

A text message from Strzok to Page further confirms the purpose of the interview was to elicit a statement from Flynn that was false-even if Flynn did not intentionally lie to the agents.

" The internal communications previously withheld from Flynn's legal team, including new text messages released in late September 2020, reveal just how ridiculous-and pretextual-the supposed investigation into Flynn was.

These documents establish that on Jan. 4, 2017, the FBI transmitted documentation to close the Crossfire Razor investigation into Flynn because he "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger Crossfire Hurricane umbrella case.

Several text messages indicating that as early as November 8, 2016-the same day as the 2016 presidential election-the Flynn investigation was to be closed but was later re-opened in early January of 2017.

" The text messages also indicated "the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory information.

"[T]he decision to NSL finances for Razor bought him time," one agent texted, two weeks after the initial closing documents on Flynn went through. 

Mr. President: Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Election Gate

President Donald Trump said he is considering appointing a special prosecutor to probe former intelligence officials and investigators involved in surveilling his 2016 campaign as well as the Nov. 3 election.

The focus: the allegation that President Richard Nixon's campaign - if not Nixon himself - was involved in an attempt to steal the 1972 presidential election by sending in burglars to bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and setting up a "Dirty tricks" operation that would "Screw up" the campaigns of various Democratic candidates for president.

Among the actions listed were "Unlawful early processing of absentee ballots," allegations of corrupted voting system companies operating as tools of foreign governments, deliberately and unlawfully keeping legitimate election observers from doing their jobs, voting while dead, state officials unlawfully overriding the authority of state legislatures, and a complete disregard for the Fourteenth Amendment.

The headline is a reference to a Politico story that does indeed reveal that 79% of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was in fact stolen.

Which is to say, almost 79 percent of Trump's almost 74 million voters believe they were deliberately, willfully robbed of an honest election.

In other words, if a Special Prosecutor was needed to investigate Watergate, which Democrats of the day said was an unlawful attempt to steal the 1972 election and then cover up the attempt? Then there is, based on the evidence thus far uncovered and detailed in the Trump campaign lawsuits, more than enough evidence for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate ElectionGate.

If a President Biden objects? Then he, like President Nixon, can fire the Special Prosecutor. 

Justices take dim view of Trump effort to cut illegal immigrants from census count

Supreme Court justices expressed incredulity Monday at President Trump's attempt to exclude illegal immigrants from the census count used to apportion seats in Congress, reacting with disbelief to the government's claims that it still doesn't even know if it will be able to do what the president asked.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called the case "Quite frustrating," while Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Mr. Trump's approach has never been tried before.

"A lot of the historical evidence and the longstanding practice cuts against your position," she told Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who argued the case for the Justice Department.

TOP STORIES Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell asks judge to order Georgia to 'de-certify' Biden victory Dominion software manipulated votes - 289K in Michigan, 96K in Georgia, lawsuits claim Biden suffers fractures to foot after injury while playing with dog At issue is Mr. Trump's memo issued over the summer ordering the Census Bureau to produce two counts out of the 2020 tally.

Mr. Wall on Monday tamped down expectations, saying it's not clear the Census Bureau will be able to identify very many of those migrants.

The census is supposed to count inhabitants, but the justices said that concept has some gray areas.

Several justices said with all the unknowns Mr. Wall laid out, it might make sense to wait until early next year, when the president delivers his number to Congress, before ruling on the matter. 

Even a Large Number of Democrats Believe Biden Stole the Election

A majority of Republicans are pretty convinced that the election was stolen by the Democrats.

According to Rasmussen, 30 percent of Democrats believe that it's "Very likely" that their own party won the election through illegitimate means.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly believe the election was stolen with 75 percent, and Independent voters believe it was stolen at 39 percent.

It's likely that the number of Democrats who are suspicious that the election was stolen is even higher but will refuse to admit it due to the fact that, for one, this stolen election means their party is now back in the White House and, secondly, that one of the worst enemies the Democrat party has ever faced has been ousted.

Whether you believe the election was stolen or not, one thing that can't be denied is that this is one of the most confusing and disorganized elections in the history of the United States and that this level of confusion warrants investigations.

A free and fair election is a key to having a free country, and if people are capable of stealing the election then this nation isn't really free.

Even if it doesn't change the results of the election, finding where foul play was used is important, and if even a large number of Democrats are willing to admit that this election is likely fraudulent, then perhaps these investigations should be taken a little more seriously. 

Expert Cites Evidence Suggesting Roughly 100k Trump Votes Have Vanished From Dominion Count

Trying to keep all of these different voting SNAFU's straight isn't easy but the voters still deserve answers anyway.

Even harder to come up with is an explanation for why the vote number for one of the candidates might DROP during counting.

Vote tabulation data in various battleground states contain "Anomalies" with massive swings toward Joe Biden that suggest missing ballots for President Trump, according to data expert Justin Hart, who helped raise millions of dollars for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.

Trump has retweeted charts from Hart questioning vote tabulations, including retweeting Hart's calculation showing that Trump would have had to lose votes in Pennsylvania if the real-time, individual, timed stamped entries from The New York Times were accurate.

Hart said his analysis was used in a Pennsylvania legislative hearing Wednesday with numerous witnesses alleging voter fraud and voter irregularities.

"This chart: the 25 data dumps where Trump LOST votes from the Dominion feeds. 97,676 votes LOST! And Biden GAINED 160K+ votes!".

While the Times released percentage changes and did not release raw vote numbers, Hart said his analysis of Pennsylvania was based on the percentage change that would have had to have occurred to have that level of swing toward Biden and away from Trump, which would yield votes lost for the president if the tally was accurate. 

#KrakenOnSteroids: Sidney Powell Claims Massive Voter Fraud in Virginia, Warns 'See You Soon'

Pro-Trump advocate and attorney for General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, appeared to fire a warning shot via Twitter this morning, telling voters and officials in the Commonwealth of Virginia that "The Kraken on steroids team will see you soon." "Yes, Virginia, you experienced serious election fraud against multiple conservative candidates," Powell wrote in a Sunday morning Tweet, before urging the cheated candidates to "Stay strong."

Yes, #Virginia, You experienced serious #ElectionFraud against multiple conservative candidates.

In the Tweet, Powell linked back to a report from the American Thinker that, using detailed analysis, alleges "Hanky panky" that flat-out stole the state from President Trump in the early morning hours of November 4th. According to the Thinker's article, as Trump votes rolled in in shocking numbers, election officials in Virginia - whose state-level government is now solidly under Democrat control - created, out of thin air, about 479,337 votes for Joe Biden, all the while 'losing' Trump votes, handing Virginia's 13 Electoral College votes over to the Biden-Harris ticket.

As I've previously reported for National File, in Virginia's 7th Congressional District, with roughly 85% of the vote tallied, President Trump and Republican challenger for Congress Nick Freitas each led their respective races by healthy margins, before the miraculous discovery of nearly 15,000 votes stored on a thumb drive.

After the miracle votes were counted, Democrat incumbent Abigail Spanberger edged out Freitas and claimed victory, thanks to over 70% of the drive-stored votes breaking for Democrats.

Several other reports have drawn Virginia's election results into question, including a November 15th report from The Gateway Pundit alleging that "There are multiple reasons why the Virginia results in the 2020 Presidential election should be questioned." 

National Association of Realtors Imposes Cancel Culture on 1.4 Million People

The National Association of Realtors claims to have 1.4 million members.

As the NAR claims, a realtor's "Speech and conduct reflect on the REALTOR® organization whether said publicly on a business social media profile, or privately on a personal one."

Article 10-5 immediately transformed 1.4 million people into subordinates at the mercy of NAR brass who have the authority to determine what political or religious views they can hold.

Worse still, the NAR's insistence that, "Disparaging a particular protected class is evidence of one's inability to treat them equally" is a troubling argument that would bar traditional Christians and Jews from membership in the National Association of Realtors.

Article 10-5 claims to be fighting discrimination, but is actually licensing discrimination against 200 million Americans, a much larger class than the ones the NAR claims to be protecting.

In some states, not being a member of the NAR makes being a real estate agent all but impossible.

If there's no room for conservatives in the NAR, there should be no room for the NAR in conservative states. 

Sharyl Attkisson: The 'public unraveling' of the N.Y. Times explained

There's no more exemplary sign of the death-of-the-news-as-we-once-knew-it than the public unraveling of the New York Times, once perhaps of the most well-respected news organizations on the planet.

I can't help but think that the angst-filled newsroom at the New York Times might not have to expend so much effort dodging flak if management had allowed the paper's public editor to do her job.

The public editor was the internal ombudsman assigned "To help keep the Times and its coverage honest in an increasingly commercialized and politicized news environment." This was the person assigned to address major public criticism and, to some degree, inoculate the newsroom from having to get mired so deeply in controversies over its coverage.

The position of public editor at the Times was first created after the Jayson Blair scandal.

In May 2017, Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., suddenly eliminated the job of public editor.

Does the New York Times have any credibility as a truthful news source?

Then New York Times employees pen a letter to Times management demanding the newspaper publish a refutation of Cotton's position.