Saying you "Schooled" someone does Not make it so. But, being a Parrot and merely repeating the they feed You, you have No Idea what I'm getting at.
Yeah, the Fake New PARROTS around here have No Idea this stuff is going down due to their Fake News Sources imposing a BLACKOUT on Real News such as this. PHYSICAL Voter Intimidation is being imposed on Trump Supporters and the Fake News endlessly goes on-and-on about Repub's attempting to suppress the vote via polling laws. This same Fake News BLACKOUT is gonna occur when the Durham/Barr CRIMINAL Investigation hammer comes down. The only point at which Fake News will be Forced to cover Durham/Barr will be when bodies Currently on their Fake News Payroll start getting thrown into the Slammer.
What we see above displays where the HATERS are at. The Fake News Media has NO to feed 'em, so we get Pure Babble. Revealing and Sad at the same time.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/27/hjc-should-ask-bill-barr-why-it-would-do-irreparable-harm-if-he-had-to-explain-his-actions-in-the-flynn-case/HJC SHOULD ASK BILL BARR WHY IT WOULD DO IRREPARABLE HARM IF HE HAD TO EXPLAIN HIS ACTIONS IN THE FLYNN CASEJuly 27, 2020 - by emptywheelUnless he comes up with some new excuse, tomorrow Billy Barr will finally show up for an oversight hearing in the House Judiciary Committee......One thing that should be included, however, is the letter that Sidney Powell sent Barr and Jeffrey Rosen in June 2019 and Bill Barr’s actions to deliver on her demands in the subsequent year, actions that DOJ itself admits would do irreparable harm if DOJ had to explain.The letter was effectively a road map of demands, many of them based off hoaxes, almost all of them unrelated to Flynn’s prosecution or false. It later became the Brady demand that Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected in a meticulous opinion last December. In it, Powell demanded that DOJ conduct a review of the prosecution and then dismiss the prosecution.QuoteAt the end of this internal review, we believe there will be ample justification for the Department to follow the precedent of the Ted Stevens case and move to dismiss the prosecution in the interest of justice — whether it be we ink a simple joint motion or sua sponte by the Department.NYT wrote about this letter in June,https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/us/politics/michael-flynn-sidney-powell.htmlcalling it “little noticed” but predictably not crediting me, who did noticed it and wrote about it repeatedly.HJC should raise this letter with Billy Barr for several reasons. First, little in the letter turned out to be true. Indeed, DOJ has asserted in court filings https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/06/17/mike-flynn-prosecutor-jocelyn-ballantine-tries-to-square-dojs-crooked-circle/that even where documents Powell asked for existed, none of it was Brady material (and in fact, in spite of Timothy Shea’s claim that these materials were new, that was false, meaning DOJ has no justification for flip-flopping on its call for prison time for Flynn from earlier this year). Powell should have gotten none of it, and yet Barr invented an unprecedented process to give it to her and then use it to self-sabotage the case.More importantly, the way in which Barr has rolled out the release of these documents has served, in part, to hide the shoddiness of Timothy Shea’s motion to dismiss...........Rather, they amount to a concerted cover-up of the White House role in this sanction discussion. That’s a topic that a sentencing memorandum approved by top people in Bill Barr’s DOJ argued was significant and material, because a concerted effort to undermine sanctions on Russia, “could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”QuoteThe defendant’s false statements to the FBI were significant. When it interviewed the defendant, the FBI did not know the totality of what had occurred between the defendant and the Russians. Any effort to undermine the recently imposed sanctions, which were enacted to punish the Russian government for interfering in the 2016 election, could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia.The concerted effort to hide the extensive coordination on sanctions — involving at least Flynn, McFarland, and Bannon — was designed hide whether the Trump response to Obama’s sanctions amounted to the kind of quid pro quo Mueller was appointed to investigate. A question on sanctions relief is the single one that Trump totally blew off in his responses to Mueller.Quotehttps://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/22/two-exceptions-to-trumps-do-not-recall-responses-non-answers-on-an-assange-pardon-and-sanctions-relief/TWO EXCEPTIONS TO TRUMP’S “DO NOT RECALL” RESPONSES: A LIMITED ANSWER ON AN ASSANGE PARDON AND A NON-ANSWER ON SANCTIONS RELIEFApril 22, 2019 - by emptywheelDOJ wants to claim that Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak were totally normal. But not only are they still hiding at least one of them, but they were utterly material to the Mueller investigation.But then there’s the final reason why HJC should question Barr about the letter from Sidney Powell that he apparently delivered on a year after she demanded: DOJ itself admitted that explaining DOJ’s actions here would do irreparable harm.QuoteThe more interesting argument came from Wall. He argued, repeatedly, that DOJ will be irreparably harmed if Sullivan is permitted to hold a hearing on DOJ’s motion to dismiss. In particular, he seemed horrified that Sullivan might require sworn declarations of affidavits.As Beth Wilkinson, arguing for Sullivan, mentioned, neither Sullivan nor Amicus John Gleeson has called for such a thing. Both are simply moving towards a hearing scheduled for July 16. Wilkinson also noted that District courts hold such hearings all the time. (And they predictably will have to in another case where DOJ has moved to end a prosecution recently, in which — unlike this case — there appears to have been prosecutorial misconduct, Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, which I’ll return to).Wall is literally arguing that DOJ will be permanently damaged if it has to show up and answer for its actions in this case (in particular, to explain why the prosecutors in this case didn’t sign the motion to dismiss).That Wall argued so forcibly as to the injury that DOJ would suffer if it had to show up and defend its motion to dismiss is all the crazier given that they didn’t file the petition. The only harm that matters here procedurally is any harm to Flynn, not DOJ, and Powell really made no such case.Indeed, that’s the reason why the DC Circuit granted mandamus in the Flynn case — not because of any injury that Flynn might face from having Sullivan scrutinize the case, but because having to answer for what Barr did here would — simply having to show up to the kind of hearing that DOJ shows up to every day and answer questions under oath — would do grave damage to DOJ.....
At the end of this internal review, we believe there will be ample justification for the Department to follow the precedent of the Ted Stevens case and move to dismiss the prosecution in the interest of justice — whether it be we ink a simple joint motion or sua sponte by the Department.
The defendant’s false statements to the FBI were significant. When it interviewed the defendant, the FBI did not know the totality of what had occurred between the defendant and the Russians. Any effort to undermine the recently imposed sanctions, which were enacted to punish the Russian government for interfering in the 2016 election, could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/22/two-exceptions-to-trumps-do-not-recall-responses-non-answers-on-an-assange-pardon-and-sanctions-relief/TWO EXCEPTIONS TO TRUMP’S “DO NOT RECALL” RESPONSES: A LIMITED ANSWER ON AN ASSANGE PARDON AND A NON-ANSWER ON SANCTIONS RELIEFApril 22, 2019 - by emptywheel
The more interesting argument came from Wall. He argued, repeatedly, that DOJ will be irreparably harmed if Sullivan is permitted to hold a hearing on DOJ’s motion to dismiss. In particular, he seemed horrified that Sullivan might require sworn declarations of affidavits.As Beth Wilkinson, arguing for Sullivan, mentioned, neither Sullivan nor Amicus John Gleeson has called for such a thing. Both are simply moving towards a hearing scheduled for July 16. Wilkinson also noted that District courts hold such hearings all the time. (And they predictably will have to in another case where DOJ has moved to end a prosecution recently, in which — unlike this case — there appears to have been prosecutorial misconduct, Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, which I’ll return to).Wall is literally arguing that DOJ will be permanently damaged if it has to show up and answer for its actions in this case (in particular, to explain why the prosecutors in this case didn’t sign the motion to dismiss).That Wall argued so forcibly as to the injury that DOJ would suffer if it had to show up and defend its motion to dismiss is all the crazier given that they didn’t file the petition. The only harm that matters here procedurally is any harm to Flynn, not DOJ, and Powell really made no such case.
Racist Biden ramping up his selection of a VP. What's this tell you as to the "internals"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/The FixIn 1927, Donald Trump’s father was arrested after a Klan riot in Queens....When news of the old report surfaced last year, Donald Trump vehemently denied his father's arrest. "He was never arrested. He has nothing to do with this. This never happened. This is nonsense and it never happened," he said to the Daily Mail. "This never happened. Never took place. He was never arrested, never convicted, never even charged. It's a completely false, ridiculous story. He was never there! It never happened. Never took place.".....Quotehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/Fact CheckerAnalysisThe ‘very fine people’ at Charlottesville: Who were they?Claim: “I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general.”Claimed by: Donald TrumpFact check by Washington Post: Four Pinocchios
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/08/very-fine-people-charlottesville-who-were-they-2/Fact CheckerAnalysisThe ‘very fine people’ at Charlottesville: Who were they?Claim: “I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general.”Claimed by: Donald TrumpFact check by Washington Post: Four Pinocchios
.....Cops swarm all over Mr. Floyd, literally kneel the life out of him, as he begs to breathe, and finally, for his momma, and Trump moves to protect and defend cops who shoot blacks out of any reasonable proportion to their percent of the U.S. population.READ, AND THEN, WATCH !:Quotehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-black-americans-killed-police-so-are-white-people/...Washington — In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, President Trump said the killing of George Floyd was "terrible" but appeared to bristle when asked why Black Americans are "still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country.""So are White people. So are White people. What a terrible question to ask. So are White people," Mr. Trump told CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge at the White House. "More White people, by the way. More White people."...//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5sSj4ihXUw0:10 / 0:19Asked why Black Americans are killed by police, Trump responds, "So are White people"59,572 views•Jul 14, 2020https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/protests-spread-over-police-shootings-police-promised-reforms-every-year-they-still-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2020/06/08/5c204f0c-a67c-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.htmlBy Mark Berman, John Sullivan, Julie Tate and Jennifer JenkinsJune 8, 2020 at 8:44 a.m. EDTInvestigationsProtests spread over police shootings. Police promised reforms. Every year, they still shoot and kill nearly 1,000 people.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-black-americans-killed-police-so-are-white-people/...Washington — In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, President Trump said the killing of George Floyd was "terrible" but appeared to bristle when asked why Black Americans are "still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country.""So are White people. So are White people. What a terrible question to ask. So are White people," Mr. Trump told CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge at the White House. "More White people, by the way. More White people."...
Biden already has enough electoral votes to win. The only vile racist is Donald Trump. Gaslighting and projecting is all you can do. That's why you're losing in a landslide.
