I’m glad. I would have been even more glad if Judge Sullivan had done right by Flynn and dismissed the charges against him, and if Trump was set on the path to his second term and therefore didn’t need to do this. Unfortunately, though, this needed to be done because a Biden administration was almost certainly going to continue the unjust persecution of Flynn. That’s what Sullivan’s stalling was all about, and the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed him do it, which is a disgrace.

Here’s the story:

Just moments ago, President Trump announced that he’d granted a full pardon to retired General Michael Flynn…

This puts a final end to a four-year persecution of a man who has devoted his life to the service of his nation and whose innovations in the use of intelligence operational planning saved untold U.S. lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Here’s Trump’s tweet:

It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon. Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2020

I am being completely serious when I add that I think Trump might do well to consider giving Flynn’s son a blanket prospective pardon, too, even though he’s not been indicted or tried for anything. I would not put it past the Democrats to go after his son as was originally threatened, now that Flynn himself is out of their reach.

[NOTE: I expect the Democrats to try to indict Trump for something, but it will probably be at the state level in NY, and he can only issue pardons for federal offenses.]

The post Trump pardons Flynn appeared first on The New Neo.

If Biden and the left win next Tuesday, as the polls predict, there won’t be any need for a civil war on the part of the left. But here’s what’s planned if there’s a Trump victory (which is automatically defined as “stealing the election”):

ShutDown D.C. anticipates that 10,000 protesters from a motley assortment of affinity groups will converge at Black Lives Matter Plaza to engage in “civil resistance” if President Trump tries to “steal the election.” A “Flying Bike Squad” is “coming together as a rapid response team,” according to organizers. If it’s anything like the skateboard squads and soup can squads who’ve used everyday items as weapons to beat Trump supporters, look for more blood to spill in the name of “peaceful protest.” Mass disruptions are planned at train stations and airports, on highways and in residential neighborhoods for at least the first full week after Election Day.

“We’ll keep it going until Trump concedes,” ShutDown D.C. threatens in its outline of a “No More Business As Usual” blockade across the country. “We could be in the streets throughout the fall and into the winter — maybe as lots of rolling waves of action or possibly as a few major tsunamis! In other parts of the country, as vote counts conclude, our focus will turn from protecting the vote counts to themselves being ungovernable.”

Here’s what has me especially concerned: The “deep state” Trump-haters are openly gearing up to do everything they can from inside the federal government to assist the resistance. ShutDown D.C. is conducting online training this week with public employees in the nation’s capital to undermine election integrity and the day-to-day work of the Trump administration. A protest guide lists the following subversive federal worker groups as key partners: Takoma Park Mobilization, Alt National Park Service, Alt Ed, AltFDA, Alternative NOAA, Alt U.S. Forest Service, AltEPA and BadHombreLands National Park Service.

What to make of this? As I already stated, they don’t seem to be planning much of anything if Biden wins – which is very telling, actually. And I don’t doubt that if Trump manages to pull out a win, this sort of disruption is what they intend. I’m not the least bit naive about the goals of this crew, which is to tear down the entire structure of the US and replace it with some leftist/anarchist/racialist chaos and horror. They have already done plenty of damage.

But I also wonder if they are exaggerating about the number of demonstrators and insider government forces they have who will actually go through with this. I also wonder what the plans of the Trump administration are, because they certainly must have them. The leftists feel they’re in a win/win situation, anyway, because if Trump were to clamp down hard and demonstrators were to get hurt, that would be used to scream “tyrant” at Trump.

A real tyrant, of course, would simply fire on the demonstrators and/or imprison them all and throw away the key. I doubt that sort of thing will ever happen, and the demonstrators probably would agree. They count on the consequences for their actions being relatively mild.

We also know that Trump-hating government employees have already done a lot to harm Trump, and should assume that they would have no hesitation to continue the practice, since virtually no one has been punished. Note this article published in Vanity Fair in February of 2017, twelve days after Trump’s inauguration:

One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports.

That Vanity Fair article is entitled “An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement is Growing Within the U.S. Government.” Another excerpt, to give you the flavor of it:

When asked how the opposition emerging at this stage compares to past administrations, Tom Malinow­ski, who served as Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, sarcastically told the Post, “Is it unusual?… There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

Again, remember the date, and understand that Trump had done virtually nothing at that point. And yet people – one of them in this case being a former Obama administration official going on the record – had no hesitation saying that “the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States” feels that Trump is “a threat to U.S. national security.” He doesn’t feel he needs to illustrate why they might feel this; apparently, it’s self-evident why the entire national security bureaucracy feels threatened (and of course it’s ironic that, as time has gone on, Trump has greatly increased our security rather than the opposite).

So, was it their jobs that were actually threatened? Specifically, were they afraid of a shake-up by General Flynn?

I contend that the latter was a big motive for their fear. Flynn had been sworn in as National Security Advisor on January 22. He has been described many times as intending to streamline and improve the security bureaus, and was also very much hated by the Obama administration that had fired him. The bureaus went to work on Flynn, and we know the rest – forced to resign by February 13, twelve days after the Vanity Fair piece was published. And for the next four years these bureaucracies have been dedicated to the attempt to destroy Trump.

So why wouldn’t it all continue in escalated form for a second term, if Trump gets one? And avoiding this is actually one of the suggestions that has been explicit in the Biden campaign, the basic message being: vote for our team and get rid of Trump and all the turmoil will stop.

The post Is this how the new civil war begins? appeared first on The New Neo.

The post Flynn case update: Sullivan’s corruption appeared first on The New Neo.

The Federalist details how one FBI agent who later was assigned to the Mueller team has testified about enormous and systemic (that word is appropriate here) misuse of the system to get Trump and his associates:

Barnett painted a picture of a Special Counsel that was run the opposite of the way a typical FBI investigation would be. “Typically investigators push for legal process and have to explain the need for the request to the attorneys. Barnett said the SCO attorneys were pushing for legal process and just wanted investigators to sign affidavits they prepared,” he said, according to the report. He said every request was “green-lighted” and that seasoned FBI agents were viewed as a “speed bump” to the attorneys leading the investigations.

The situation was so extreme that Barnett and others joked about how it was like a game, which they referred to as Collusion Clue. “In the hypothetical game, investigators are able to choose any character conducting any activity, in any location, and pair this individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion,” Barnett said, according to the report of his interview.

Please read the whole thing.

Much more on Barnett here:

…Barnett is identified as the original Case Agent on the “Crossfire Razor” investigation, the foreign counterintelligence investigation of General Michael Flynn…

…Working with his supervisor, the Case Agent makes operational decisions about what investigative techniques to use, and how to exploit information that is developed by those efforts. The Case Agent assigns “leads” to other squad agents — investigative tasks to be performed as part of developing as much information as possible about the target.

The first thing to understand is that William Barnett appears to be a highly experienced agent…

The second thing to understand is that he’s a “brick agent.” He is not in FBI management. He is not a supervisor. He is a working case agent who goes out into the field and gathers information…

Barnett did not “Open” Crossfire Razor investigation and he was never clear what the people who did open it wanted the investigation to look at or do. It was never clear to him what the purpose was for opening Razor.

Barnett didn’t get anywhere with the investigation and was about to close it when he was instructed not to do so and told to look into a Logan Act violation for the Kislyak phone call. He found no reason to charge Flynn under that act, and then:

After the January 24 interview of Gen. Flynn [the one that tried to entrap Flynn and then charge he lied], the Razor investigation became “top-down” — meaning all the instructions on Razor were coming from high FBI management without the Case Agent being involved. He was not invited to meetings or asked for input.

Barnett believes he was purposely “cut out” of the January 24 interview. Normally, a Case Agent and a supervisor would conduct such an interview. Barnett was not told the interview was planned. He only found out about the interview the day after it had taken place.

After that, Barnett asked to be taken off the case because he suspected it would be investigated by an IG.

There’s a lot more at the link. But the whole thing makes me wonder why Barnett didn’t become a whistleblower way back then. I said I wonder, but I think I know the answer: fear.

In a separate but related topic, there’s Brennan’s role in suppressing evidence that Putin and Russia actually favored Hillary Clinton’s election.

The post More and more and more on Russiagate and on the pursuit of Flynn appeared first on The New Neo.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling en banc (full court), has ruled against Michael Flynn’s attempt to force District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the government’s motion to dismiss criminal charges.

In the Opinion (pdf.) the Court held, among other things, that it was premature to force Sullivan to rule a particular way…

Here, Petitioner and the Government have an adequate alternate means of relief with respect to both the Rule 48(a) motion and the appointment of amicus: the District Court could grant the motion, reject amicus’s arguments, and dismiss the case. At oral argument, the District Judge’s Attorney effectively represented that all these things may happen…

This was easily predictable because of the Democrat-appointed makeup of the court. It also represents – at least, in my quick appraisal, not having read the full document – a kind of kicking the can down the road, and a pretense that this entire episode has been business-as-usual.

It has not.

I’ve already felt so much outrage about this case that this ruling is more or less an anticlimax, in my opinion. But I don’t see the fight as over. It will be interesting to see what Judge Sullivan does next, now that the ball – I mean, the harpoon – is back in his court (boat).

[NOTE: And yes, I know that the Pequod was a ship and not a boat. But in the last chapter of Moby Dick, Captain Ahab was in a smaller boat, and it was from there that he launched his final harpoon.

I saw the movie “Moby Dick” in a movie theater on a large screen when I was a very young child, too young to understand much of anything about the movie except that it frightened me. I spent a significant amount of time there with my eyes closed, so I’m not sure whether I ever saw this scene – which doesn’t track precisely to the novel but is close enough. It’s special effects are still impressive considering it was made in 1956:

When I grew up I read Moby Dick many times. I understand it better now than I understood the movie all those years ago, but I can’t say I totally understand it. I think those who profess to do so are fooling themselves. At the heart of the book lies a mystery bigger than the whale, and it’s the mystery of life and the existence of good and evil, and the human heart.]

The post In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals allows Judge “Ahab” Sullivan to have another go at General “Moby” Flynn appeared first on The New Neo.

I think the court will grant the hearing, and I think there’s a good chance – because of the political makeup of the court, which is heavy with Democrats – that they will side with Sullivan. That’s a travesty of justice, but we see a great deal of that these days, don’t we?

I hope I’m wrong. I’d like to feel a little less cynicism.

Well, here’s news of the oral arguments in front of the en banc court:

The post The en banc hearing didn’t go well for Flynn – or for the judicial system appeared first on The New Neo.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the prior order of a panel directing Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. Sullivan requested the full Circuit court consider the case (“en banc”).

The Court’s focus on “whether there are ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief’ desired” seems to be a clear sign that Sullivan’s argument that the panel order was premature, and that he should have been allowed to rule on the government’s motion to dismiss, is viewed as a problem by many if not most of the appeals court judges.

There are certain times I hate to be right, and this is one of them. On July 10 I wrote, in a post entitled “Judge ‘Ahab’ Sullivan keeps aiming his harpoon at General ‘Moby Dick’ Flynn”:

It is no surprise that Judge Sullivan filed for a full en banc hearing by the DC Circuit Court on the Flynn case rather than comply with the order of the three-judge panel to get off Flynn’s back.

No, no surprise at all. In several previous posts, I’ve compared Sullivan to Captain Ahab, and yesterday’s announcement is further indication that the analogy is pretty apropos. That doesn’t mean that Sullivan is acting on his own; I believe there are plenty of leftists/Democrats supporting him and guiding him in this noble endeavor. His crew, as it were: “To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

My prediction now? I think the court will grant the hearing, and I think there’s a good chance – because of the political makeup of the court, which is heavy with Democrats – that they will side with Sullivan. That’s a travesty of justice, but we see a great deal of that these days, don’t we?

I hope I’m wrong. I’d like to feel a little less cynicism.

As it is, I doubt I could feel more cynicism about the way this case has gone.

The post In further proof of the transformation of the federal judiciary into a political animal (not that we needed further proof), the Flynn/Sullivan case will be heard en banc appeared first on The New Neo.

No, no surprise at all. In several previous posts, I’ve compared Sullivan to Captain Ahab, and yesterday’s announcement is further indication that the analogy is pretty apropos. That doesn’t mean that Sullivan is acting on his own; I believe there are plenty of leftists/Democrats supporting him and guiding him in this noble endeavor. His crew, as it were: “To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

My prediction now? I think the court will grant the hearing, and I think there’s a good chance – because of the political makeup of the court, which is heavy with Democrats – that they will side with Sullivan. That’s a travesty of justice, but we see a great deal of that these days, don’t we?

I hope I’m wrong. I’d like to feel a little less cynicism. But as I wrote here Wednesday:

If the ruling went against Flynn, such a decision would be an especially egregious case of going against the settled law in order to effect a political end. But the temptation to do it would be great, in order to continue to stick it to Flynn, silence him, and continue the “narrative” that it’s Barr’s actions that have been politically motivated.

And, since most of America is unaware of the details of the case and how Flynn was mistreated and framed, it would probably work. I hope the judges show more integrity than that. But recent trends make it a very real question as to whether they will.

[NOTE: If Trump loses the election in November, once he leaves office and becomes a private citizen I believe that the Democrats will continue and even step up their lawfare efforts against him, thus continuing to transition us to full banana republic.]

[ADDENDUM: Please see this for more information about procedures in the Sullivan/Flynn case.]

The post Judge “Ahab” Sullivan keeps aiming his harpoon at General “Moby Dick” Flynn appeared first on The New Neo.

However, apparently there is a time limit of 14 days on when Sullivan or another judge could ask the DC Circuit Court to hear the case en banc. The information in that link, however, applies to civil cases of the more ordinary sort and doesn’t mention mandamus cases, so I don’t know if the same rule applies and I don’t know how the 14 days are counted. But it seems as though such a request would have to be made within the next couple of days, if there is indeed a 14-day limit.

Or I suppose Sullivan could petition SCOTUS to hear the case. He’d have more time to do that – I think. I can’t seem to find much discussion of this right now, and these sorts of rules and procedures are not something I know anything about.

Could Sullivan just stonewall it indefinitely? Perhaps. The only information I’ve been able to find about a time frame for how long Sullivan is given to act to dismiss is in this thread, and I don’t know whether it’s correct. Some people there cite three weeks, meaning if Sullivan does nothing, the case is dismissed on July 15.

Anyone have any official information on this?

The post Paging Judge Sullivan appeared first on The New Neo.

As I wrote yesterday, the Flynn framing was their “insurance policy.”

The post Sidney Powell talks about the framing of Flynn appeared first on The New Neo.