Judge Sullivan Has Gone Too Far

It appears that Judge Sullivan has gone too far in his efforts to destroy General Flynn

In the early 1920s Soviet Intelligence created an organization named The Trust.  The purpose of the Trust was to lure anti-Communists to the Soviet Union where they would be arrested and executed.  Deception has been turned into a science by the Deep State.  Washington D.C. is filled with politicians, bureaucrats and pundits who are outraged by corruption and vow to get to the bottom of each scandal but ultimately accomplish nothing.  Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a perfect example of a Deep State operative who has been able to conceal his Deep State allegiance.  George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley claims, “Judge Sullivan is one of the most liked judges on the bench.  He is smart and courteous and even-keeled.”  Perhaps it is time for professor Turley to reevaluate his opinion of the judge.

In April 2009 while presiding over the Ted Stevens case Judge Sullivan scolded the prosecution team: “In nearly 25 years on the bench I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”  He ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors’ handling of the case.  Stanley M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group, P.C. claimed, "This judge’s tolerance was pushed to the limit, and prosecutors are not going to just go on their merry way." When prosecutors failed to produce evidence Sullivan demanded he stated, “It strikes me that this was probably intentional. I find it unbelievable that this was just an error.”  Later when the prosecution failed to produce the documents he stated, “That was a court order. That wasn’t a request.  I didn’t ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts….Isn’t the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?”   He even claimed prosecutors were providing false evidence: “It’s very troubling that the government would utilize records that the government knows were false.”  The government knowingly submitted false accounting records to bolster their case.

Like the Flynn case the Steven case was plagued by FBI corruption.  The lead FBI agent in Stevens trial was Mary Beth Kepner.  Kepner didn't document all of her interviews so she made them up following the judge's order.  She backdated two of her 302s by more than two years, making it appear that they had been prepared the day after the interview.  She denied under oath that she had done this.  Later when it became impossible to maintain her lie she remarked, "You know, unfortunately, you know, I was disorganized with this, you know, I was overwhelmed and, you know, I lost materials that had, you know, I lost notes, I lost 302s."  

What was to outcome of all this malfeasance: obstruction of justice, utilizing records that the government knew were false, backdated 302s, and perjury?  Two of the lower members of the prosecution team were suspended without pay: Joseph W. Bottini for 40 days and James A. Goeke for 15 days. Nicolas Marsh who believed he was going to be the scapegoat in the case committed suicide. The supervisors were exonerated.  Kepner was still working for the FBI until at least 2014 when she was reportedly “severely disciplined.”  Her partner, Chad Joy, who had informed on her was driven from the FBI.  The conviction of Senator Stevens handed the democrats a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate which they used to pass Obamacare.  According to Roll Call, “relying on false records and fueled by testimony from a richly rewarded ‘cooperating’ witness… government prosecutors convinced jurors to find him (Stevens) guilty just eight days before the general election which he lost by less than 2 percent of the vote.”  In April 2009 Judge Sullivan dismissed Stevens’ conviction.

Judge Sullivan faced some of the same behavior in the Flynn case.  Obstruction of justice, perjury, and missing and altered documents.  He does not appear to be disturbed about missing documents.  He explained about the “lost” FD-302, "[T]hings happen and documents are lost.  I mean, it just happens.”  However this 302 is crucial.  It would have revealed that Flynn was not lying.

Although the original 302 is reportedly “lost” there are likely numerous copies of it on the internet.  It is simply a matter of locating them. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page spent over two weeks editing it on the internet.  Strozk told Page “I made your edits, and sent them to Joe (likely Joe Pientka the author). I also emailed you an updated 302 . . . hopefully it doesn’t need much more editing." Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell wrote, "Page and Strzok massaged the 302 until McCabe approved it, and it was filed as final on February 15, 2017."  Ordinarily an FBI agent is allowed a maximum of five days to prepare such a report.  

General Flynn was facing zealous team of prosecutors, a judge who at one point called him a treator and even his own defense council.  Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack made a deal with Flynn's original attorneys at Covington and Burling.  If Flynn would plead guilty to making a false statement the DOJ would not go after his son.  Van Grack filed an official plea agreement with the court in which he swore that every deal reached between the prosecution and the defense was contained in writing within that document.  Prosecutors are bound by law to disclose all deals and Van Grack lied to the court. Flynn's attorneys hid these documents from Flynn and the court repeatedly.

This probably all could have been avoided if General Flynn had used the Kepner defense.  He might have been let off with a slap on the wrist.  Of course he would have had to modify it slightly: "You know, unfortunately, you know, I was disorganized with this, you know, I was overwhelmed and, you know, I lost materials that had, you know, I lost notes, I lost 302s."  He would just have had to leave out the part of the 302s.  Like, you know.  That's just how professional FBI agents speak.

FBI Director Wray Finally Orders Internal Review of Flynn Investigation

Christopher Wray has ordered an investigation of the Flynn case in an effort to limit damage to the Bureau.

An anonymous source that has proved reliable in the past has revealed that the internal review ordered by FBI Director Christopher Wray is actually completed.  The announcement of the investigation was a mere formality.  In this election year it is merely a matter of waiting for the most propitious time to release it.  The report concludes that there were no illegal acts by FBI agents.

Much of the criticism of the FBI is the result of taking items out of context.  Critics who charge FBI agents with committing perjury are mistaken.  Several examples were found where agents showed a certain lack of candor.  They occasionally misspoke or misremembered or were not completely forthcoming.  It is clear that they should have been more clear in their wording on occasion.

Many of the documents requested by critics were either lost or unavailable.  One agent who had irresponsibly brought his Irish Terrier to work found that the dog had consumed several very important documents.  They were irretrievable.  Others were mistakenly destroyed by the cleaning crew.  A new training program has been initiated and the members of the cleaning crew have been properly chastised.

We must question the motives of those who would destroy the U.S. intelligence community.  Their tendency to believe conspiracy theories calls their mental health into question.  Frankly their McCarthyism marks them as deplorables clinging to their guns and bibles.  These critics should be concerned about their wellbeing.  As Senator Schumer said, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”  

Much of this conflict revolves around semantic exercises.  FBI and media gurus are experts in this field.  Using the term "grossly negligent" instead of "extremely careless" can mean the difference between violating a statute and mild criticism.  Christopher Wray has stonewalled every effort by Congress to obtain records.  He has revealed himself as a member of the Deep State.  Wray ordered the Bureau’s Inspection Division to conduct an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation.  He would not have done this unless he was confident that they would minimize any damage done. He is not about to abandon the Deep State.

It is instructive to read the words of a Chinese philosopher 2,400 years ago. Confucius said, "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate. If morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray. If justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything."  

Pride cometh before a Fall

Pride cometh before a Fall

The Deep State media have no idea how badly they have discredited themselves.  Donald Trump's press conferences are working according to his plan.  

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein initiated a new trend in journalism: showing scribblers could take down a president. They have had many imitators.  Who would not like to go down in history as the next Woodward or Bernstein?  Jim Acosta has also instituted a new trend in journalism: confrontational rudeness.  The press corp apparently sees this as a successful technique.  Sorry Quenosabe.  It is not.  This is an excellent example of Donald Trump playing the press like a fine Stradivarius.  There is no danger that revealing Trump's strategy will alert the press.  If you point out to a madman that his behavior is irrational he does not respond, "Thank you very much I did not realize that I was acting strange.  I will try to act more conventional in the future."  In their colossal arrogance they are convinced that they are so much smarter than the president.  He beats them consistently yet they do not revise their assessment.  Their is something pathological about that behavior.

During an April press conference Olivia Nuzzi from New York Magazine asked, “If an American president loses more Americans over the course of six weeks than died in the entirety of the Vietnam War, does he deserve to be re-elected?”  She claimed, "It wasn’t a gotcha question, it wasn’t designed to provoke."  Remarks like that only damage an individual's credibility.  Of course it was meant to provoke.  This sounds a lot like a CNN producer who claimed the network's journalists were not rooting against the president in November.  "It's not a matter what his political beliefs or his ideological beliefs are. I don't think I have ever run into anybody who says they literally hate Donald Trump the man. Nobody I know is openly rooting for him to lose."

CBS News' Paula Reid's exchange with the President in April was so filled with interruptions that it would be difficult describe.  She did not show any respect for the President.  Her interruptions would have been disrespectful in any exchange with an adult.  The May 12 press conference is another example of confrontational media.  President Trump mentioned that the United States were doing better than other nations.  Weijia Jiang from CBS News asked him, "Why is this a global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we’re still seeing more cases every day?"  Trump's response was, "maybe that’s a question you should ask China."  Trump then requested a question from another reporter.  Jiang interrupted asking, "Sir, why are you saying that to me specifically?"  Trump responded, "I’m not saying it specifically to anybody. I’m saying it to anybody that would ask a nasty question like that."  Jiang responded, "That’s not a nasty question."  The President attempted to receive another question when CNN's Kaitlan Collins interjected, "I have two questions."  The President indicated he was calling on another reporter.  Collins would not give up saying, "But you pointed to me. I have two questions, Mr. President."  Trump persisted, "Next, next please."  Collins still would not surrender saying, "But you called on me."  Trump's response was, "I did and you didn’t respond and now I’m calling on the young lady in the back, please."  Collins explained, "I just wanted to let my colleague finish, but can I ask you a question."  At this point the President had had enough and announced, "Okay, ladies and gentlemen thank you very much, appreciate it."  Still Collins would not give up saying, "But you called on me." 

CNN's analysis of the press conference was naturally critical.  Oliver Darcy claimed,
"Trump acts like he wants the US press to be more like China's."  CNN's Wolf Blitzer said, "A very ugly, ugly ending to that one-hour appearance by the President in the Rose Garden."  Darcy pointed out that, "some critics said Trump's remarks toward Jiang were racist.  Other critics suggested the exchange was laced with sexism."  He neglected to point out that other critics did not take their medications that morning and were just simply confused.  A thorough search for "other critics" could result in some thoroughly bizarre claims.

Nuzzi alleged, "The President's unprofessionalism is always revealed most clearly when he is interacting with female reporters."  Is it possible that Nuzzi had Peter Alexander in mind when she made that comment?  Peter appeared to criticize the President for being too optimistic: "Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope, and misrepresenting the preparedness right now."  Next he appears to be critical of the President for not giving a positive message: "What do you say Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?"  He claimed he was giving the President “softball” questions.  Later on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell he claimed, “I was trying to provide the president an opportunity to reassure the millions of Americans, … to provide a positive or uplifting message.” That is an "uplifting message" not a "false sense of hope."  The President tore into him and his response was to appear to be clutching his pearls with a doe eyed look on his face.  This body language may gain sympathy for a pre-teen girl but it is not impressive on a 44 year old man.