Who is Saying This?

For John, BLUF:  We need to be careful of the sources of ideas.  The idea is the thing, but we should also judge the source.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

We have run federal agencies. Here’s what the civil service needs.

Here is the sub-headline:

Career civil servants must be able to speak truth to power.  But they must also be held accountable.

From The Washington Post, by Mike Hayden, James Loy, J. Michael “Mike” McConnell, John Negroponte and Sean O’Keefe, 18 June 2024 at 6:15 a.m. EDT.

Here is the quick background on the Opinion Piece Authors:

Mike Hayden was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009 and of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005. James Loy was deputy secretary of Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005 and commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard from 1998 to 2002. J. Michael “Mike” McConnell was director of national intelligence from 2007 to 2009 and of the NSA from 1992 to 1996. John Negroponte was deputy secretary of state from 2007 to 2009 and director of national intelligence from 2005 to 2007. Sean O’Keefe was NASA administrator from 2001 to 2005 and secretary of the Navy from 1992 to 1993.

Here is the lede plus three:

Frustrated by what he saw as an entrenched bureaucracy resistant to his policies, Donald Trump as president attempted to remove most of the protections afforded federal civil servants so he could replace them with policy proponents and loyalists. Although his efforts were promptly rescinded by newly elected President Biden, Trump has announced that he would try again if reelected.

We think there is some merit in both points of view. However, as members of a bipartisan group of former national and homeland security, diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement officials who have served both Democratic and Republican presidents, we think there is a “third way” that preserves all that is right with our civil service but also addresses what almost everyone agrees is wrong with it.

Our experience has shown us that career civil servants are a priceless resource who must be preserved and protected from partisan political influence. Their ability to “speak truth to power” (including to officials like us) without fear of losing their jobs was and is critical — so using political ideology as a litmus test in their appointment or retention, no matter how well-intentioned that might be, presents a dangerous risk to our national security.

However, these employees must also be held accountable for doing their jobs well. As a practical matter, the few bad actors among them are overprotected under the existing system. It is just too hard to ensure that they can be terminated when they fail to meet reasonable standards of performance or conduct — for example, for refusing a direct, lawful order.

Did anyone notice the name at the head of the author list?  Mike Hayden.  There was a time, in the 80s, when I thought he was the epitome of the competent professional.♠  In fact, when my wife and I took a short story writing class at UMass Lowell from Author David Daniels, I used young Mike Hayden as the model for the hero of one of my stories.  Then he became one of the infamous 51, who, at the urging of now Secretary of State Antony Blinken, signed a letter that shaded the truth to influence the 2020 Election.  [DA Alvin Bragg, where are you, or are you just another political hack?]♥ 

In full disclosure, my Father, my two Brothers and my three Children have all been part of the Civill Service.  I am proud of the work each of them has done.  On the other hand, I know who Ms Darleen Druyun is.  Sharp as a tack, bossy and corrupt.  She is the bad side of the Civil Service.  Most are not like that.  Most are people trying to do their job and do it well.  So, we should read the article and consider the points made, but we should keep in mind that at least one of the authors acted to subvert a Presidental Election in 2020.♦ 

We should also keep in mind that one of Former President Trump's complaints against the Permanent Civil Service was the willingness of senior appointees to use their positons and powers to frustrate the reforms he was trying to implement.♣  It should be part of the Civil Service ethos tthat the President was elected by the People to bring, in some cases, change to government.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  He worked for Brigadier General Leonard H. Perroots, a consumate profession, then serving as the Chief of Intelligence for US Air Forces in Europe.
♥  Whispers to readers, "Political Hack."
♦  The Laptop from Hell.
♣  This is someties known as the Deep State.  The Deep State is believed to have epic powers.  British Prime Minister Liz Truss believes she was forced from office by the British Deep State.  I saw the Turkish Deep State approve a new Prime Minister, when the Chief of the Turkish General Staff payed a courtsey call on Ms Tansu Çiller, giving a nod of approval for her appontment as Prime Minister.

Justice, Not Revenge

For John, BLUF:  Did not NYC DA Alvin Bragg set a precedent by indicting someone for trying to cover up potentially harmful ihnformatoin during a Federal Election?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Do the Plotters of the ‘51 Intel Experts’ Coup Deserve Prison?

From American Thinker, by Author Jack Cashill, 17 June 2024.

Here is the lede plus nine:

People of a certain age will remember the name “Donald Segretti.” In the 1972 re-election campaign of President Richard Nixon, this youthful campaign aide made the phrase “dirty tricks” part of the American political lexicon. Segretti’s mischief included sending embarrassing letters under the names of Nixon’s political rivals. Although his dirty tricks had little or no effect on the election’s outcome, Segretti served four and a half months in prison.

With Segretti’s four and a half months as a baseline, the 51-plus dirty tricksters who conspired successfully to get Joe Biden elected president in 2020 would seem to deserve no less. Confident to a fault about the Democrat control of the media, 51 intel officials signed on to the most flagrant disinformation campaign in anyone’s memory. “I think there needs to be an investigation into every single one of them,” said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), and that investigation deserves a special counsel.

More deserving of prison time than the 51 were the Biden apparatchiks who set the plot in motion. On October 14, 2020, when they saw the New York Post headline “Smoking-Gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad,” they were ready to roll. They had known since December 2019 that this story might drop. That was when Mac Isaac alerted the FBI to a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned at his computer repair shop in Delaware.

Fearing that the story might break at any time, operatives within the FBI reached out to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms well before the 2020 election and warned them of a potential Russian pre-election “hack and dump” operation. If done with ill intent, these operatives deserve prison time as well.

On the day the Post story broke, representatives from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force met with Facebook execs. As would later be confirmed at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, the FBI knew that the laptop was, in fact, Hunter Biden’s.

Facebook founder — and future un-indicted co-conspirator — Mark Zuckerberg did not need to have his arm twisted. He and his wife, Priscilla Chan, had already invested $300 million, in CNN’s words, toward “enhancing access to voting in the United States.” CNN failed to add that the Zuckerbucks enhanced access almost exclusively in Democrat districts.

With a little prodding from the FBI, Facebook promptly “deamplified” the Post story, dramatically reducing its circulation. On the same day the story broke, the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force also leaned on Twitter. The Twitter people needed little persuasion — some 98 percent of their political donations went to Democrats. They were all in for Biden, and Twitter blocked not only the Post story, but also the Post itself.

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, former disgraced FBI general counsel-turned Twitter exec James Baker was asked about his role in silencing the Post. To virtually every salient question regarding the laptop, Baker pleaded — in vintage Watergate fashion — memory loss.

“You were entrusted with the highest level of power at Twitter, but when you were faced with the New York Post story, instead of allowing people to judge the information for themselves, you rushed to find a reason why the American people shouldn’t see it,” said committee chair James Comer. “You did this because you were terrified of Joe Biden not winning the election in 2020.

A May 10, 2023 report by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government filled in the details. The plot was hatched on October 17, 2020, when Biden campaign adviser — now secretary of state — Antony Blinken contacted Michael Morell. Morell had served as acting director of the CIA under Obama. At Blinken’s request, Morell began assembling the draft of a statement that would dismiss this epic October surprise as more of the same old Russian disinformation. At the very least, Blinken should resign immediately.

I admit that I am surprised that Citizens are not outraged over this informstion suppression effort.  At this point there should be no doubt that the 51 Intel Leaders who signed the letter suggesting the Laptop From Hell was Russisn Disinformstion did it to influence the election.  And one can understand their concern.  President Trump's first National Security Advisor, Retired Army Liueutenant General Michael Flynn, wanted to shake up the Intelligence Community, to make it more effective.

While the term Deep State has been used to describe the bureaucratic interactionsz in the Federal Government, I am suspect of it as an actuality.  Who is pulling those different gruops together to create a Deep State?  In Turkey there was such an organization, the Turkish General Staff (TGS).  However, the current President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, put a stop to the practice.  Was that an improvement?

My personal view is that one Alvin Bragging event is suffficient.  I would be happy to see one of the 51 come forward, under immunity, and say that what they did was wrong.  I don't think they have to cop to swinging the election.  That is for the Voters to decide, in their hearts.♠

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And, I guess, the pollsters.

Biden the Healer

For John, BLUF:  President Joeseph R Biden, a cranky old man, was not in a position to bind up our wounds following the election of 2020 and the demonstrations and riots that ensued.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The saddest, loneliest Althouse blog tag: "Biden the healer."

From Althouse Blog, by Professor Ann Althouse, 4 May 2024, 11:06 AM.

Here is the lede plus one:

I created this tag on November 8, 2020, and I don't create a new tag unless I think there will be a good number of other posts that will support that tag. I imagined Biden stepping up to the role of healer.  I went back today, looking for "Biden the healer" in my archive, because I've been thinking how much better Biden might be doing — and, more importantly, how much better this country might be doing — if Biden had followed the path of healing — of bringing us together.  But Biden was and is a divider.  Maybe January 6th was too much of a temptation, such great raw material for tearing us apart.  He could have said — like Lincoln — "with malice toward none, with charity for all" and forgiven everyone involved and called upon all of us — on his side and the other side — to "bind up the nation's wounds."  But he didn't do it.  And now it's too late.

Here's my November 8, 2020 post.  Read it and weep.

And weep I do.

I take the point about binding up the wounds.  However, having decided that 6 January was an insurrection, the Democrats faced a choice.  They could continue to pursue the miscreants or they could work to bind up the wounds.  After all, they won the election and were thus in charge.

Binding up the wouonds of 2020 would require forgiving those who were still crying that the election was stolen.  And, maintaining pressure would be useful in the elections of 2022 and 2024.  The die was cast.

But, even if the Democrsts had, collectively, decided to go for binding up the wounds, was President Joseph Biden the leader to do it>  It would seem to me that his temperment is such that he would find that difficult,  He does not seem to handle disagreement well.  And hasn't gotten better with age.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutorial Misconduct

For John, BLUF:  The Department of Justice is working hard to convict Presidential Candidate Donsald J Trump of somesthing.  Maybe too hard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump

Here is the sub-headline:

The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant.  If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.

From The Federalist, by Former Federal Prosecutor Will Scharf, 5 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer.  It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.

Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office.  Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors.  According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.

If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump.  Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.

Presidential Candidate Donald J Trump has a lot of flaws.  I am reading about some of them in Commander in Cheat, a 2020 book mailed to me by my buddy, Juan.  However, it is up to the Voters to decide if Mr Trump's flaws are greater than those of his opponent.  In 2016 they said no.  In 2020 they said yes.

Comparing candidates is the job of the Voters  It is not the job of the US Department of Justice.  We went through that with Saint James Comey, who took it upon himself to save the nation and the world.  We, the Voters, do not need that kind of help.  If Mr Trump broke some law, fine, go after him.  However, let us have no DOJ intervention to "save" the nation (or President Joe Biden).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Free and Frolicking Press

For John, BLUF:  The Press has played an active role in our politics since before the Revolution.&This article suggests that freedom could be certailed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Keeping Speech Robust and Free

Here is the sub-headline:

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan set a vital standard in libel law. Could the clash between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems dismantle it—and at what cost?

From The New York Review of Books, by Jeffrey Toobin, 20 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

The libel lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, over the network’s coverage of claims that the company had rigged the 2020 election, was settled this spring, but the case may soon become an artifact of a vanished era. In pretrial skirmishing, the two sides agreed on this much: the law of libel is governed by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. In the last legal arguments before the jury was to be seated, Rodney A. Smolla, one of the lawyers for Dominion, called Sullivan “the landmark decision that is the genesis for all of our modern First Amendment principles involving defamation law.” Erin E. Murphy, a lawyer for Fox, likewise said that the principle governing the case “starts in Sullivan.” But the emboldened conservative majority on the Supreme Court, having dispatched Roe v. Wade to the dustbin of overruled precedents, may now target Sullivan for the same treatment. Such a change would have fundamental consequences for both those who speak and those who are spoken about.

It’s a fitting time, then, to take a fresh look at Sullivan—how it came about and what it means today. In Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan, Samantha Barbas, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law, tells the improbable story of the advertisement that gave rise to the case and the decision that Justice William J. Brennan ultimately wrote. It’s a tale that has been told before—notably in books by Anthony Lewis and Aimee Edmondson—but Barbas has a distinctive and relevant argument.

Like the earlier authors, Barbas makes the reasonable claim that Sullivan represented a straightforward battle between good and evil. It was, she writes, “one of a string of libel lawsuits brought by Southern segregationist officials against Northern media outlets…to prevent them from reporting on the civil rights movement.” By ruling for the Times, the Supreme Court “freed the press to cover the civil rights movement” and, not incidentally, likely saved the newspaper from being bankrupted by the damages it would have been ordered to pay in this and similar libel cases. But Barbas’s endorsement of the Sullivan decision is more nuanced than those of Lewis and Edmondson, and more reflective of the current moment. She appreciates the need for libel lawsuits at a time when “damaging falsehoods can spread online with a click, and reputations [can be] destroyed instantly.” But she recognizes that the protections of Sullivan are needed as much, or more, by individuals as by media companies. The story of Sullivan, and of the precedent’s possible demise, reveals as much about our own times as it does the 1960s.

This article was good for bringing me up to speed on Sullivan, which I learned was about an advertisement in The New York Times, and about the fight to end Jim Crow in the South.

I see the Author's point that the US Supreme Court could reconsider Sullivan  The Court could divide over the issue, and perhaps along the lines described, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voting to overturn and make libel suits against media outlets easier.  The author thought they might be joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

However, I think a reversal of Sullivan would be a disaster.  I worry that it could result in us knowing less about our politics and our world.  The Author is totally dismissive of the allegations against Dominion over election fraud.  I, on the other hand, thought that was an issue worthy of some investigation, along with the exclusion of poll watchers in Philadelphia and Atlanta (as seen on TV).

I hope we don't see a reversal of Sullivan.

Regards  —  Cliff

Misdirection

For John, BLUF:  This is about the Hunter Biden Laptop and efforts to minimize its importance during the 2020 Presidential Election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hunter Biden investigation:  Ex-CIA chief says Blinken ‘triggered’ letter to discredit laptop

From The Washington Examiner, by Justice Department Reporter Jerry Dunleavy, 20 April 2023, 09:13 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

A former top CIA official who helped write and sign the infamous October 2020 Hunter Biden laptop letter baselessly claiming Russian involvement has testified a phone call with now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken “triggered” its creation.

Mike Morell, a former acting CIA director under President Barack Obama, said in a recent transcribed interview with congressional investigators that, before his Oct. 17 phone call with Blinken, he had no intention to write the Oct. 19 Hunter Biden laptop letter.  He testified “yes” and “absolutely” when asked if the call with Blinken, who was then a top adviser for Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, was what “triggered that intent in you.”

Morell also testified that one of the two reasons he helped put the letter together was to help Joe Biden defeat former President Donald Trump.

These revelations came in a letter obtained by the Washington Examiner that was sent to Blinken on Thursday by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

It is disturbing to think that senior members of our US Intelligence Community would concoct and sign a joint letter that implied that Russia was behind the Hunter Biden Laptop story, without the modicum of intestigation that would have revealed that it really was a thing.

This does raise a question about the FBI, and it's Trump appointed Director, Mr Christopher Wray.  Why were they silent on this, given that they had been holding the subject laptop for over a year?  Was it that they were trying to help to help Candidate Biden, as they had helped Candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016?  Or is it that Mr Wray was an Institutionalist and President Trump was an anti-Institutionalist and Mr Wray went with the Institution, just like FBI members Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

There is an indication of election interference here.  Not proven in court, but still, strong indications.

If proven, it doesn't get the Election back for Mr Trump.  The Electoral College has given us our President.  It is up to the voters to render a verdict in 2024.  That doesn't mean the small fry can't be charged and tried for election shenanigans.  But, the election outcome will not be reversed.

This does not leave our Secretary of State, Mr Anthony Blinken, in a good light.

Hat tip to the Dan Bongino.

Regards  —  Cliff

Bad Legislation

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats seem to still be concerned by the possibility President Trump might run again in 2024.  They are prepared to go to strange extremes to prevent such a thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

H.R.9578 - To provide that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to again hold the office of President of the United States or to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.

Thiss bill has been introduceed by Repreentative David N. Cicilline, Demoocrat of Rhode Island.  It is based upoon Representative Cicilline's understanding of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states:

‘‘No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’’.

I found this little jewel in Conservative Review, in an article titled:  "House Democrats Introduce Legislation That Would Bar Trump From The Presidency". This Bill has picked up 40 co-sponsors, includiing Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Masssachusetts Disterict 2.  The good news is that our Representative, Ms Lori Trahan, has not signed onto this legislation.♠

This proposed legislation, based on a Post-Civil War Amendment to the Constitution (14th Amwndweent), seems deficient to me.  It is an attempt to bar Former president Trump from serving as President again.  Or serving in any other office.

The problem is, President Trump has not yet been convicted of any crimes under the 14th Amendment.  Almost two years after the 6 January 2021 riot on Capitol Hill he has not yet even been indicted for any crime.  As an aside, if it was an insurrection on the part of President Trump isn't it the height of incompetence that the legal institutions have not yet done anything to bring him to "justice"?  Are we looking at one more self-indictment on the part of the Biden-Harris Administration?

Then there is the American voter.  While the media is moving to minimize the importance of the Twitter suppression of the original New York Post article on the Hunter Biden Laptop, the American People are giving it credibility..  Breitbart told us on 12 December of this year:  "Poll: 71% Say Accurate Reporting of Hunter’s Laptop Could Have Altered 2020 Election".  That is could vs would, but it is still an indication that the voting public is not to be toyed with for perverse political gain.

I think the US House of Representatives needs to let this piece of legislation die with the end of the 117th Congress.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I did take the time to Call Representative Trahan's Lowell Office and say that I thought this was a bad piece of legislation.

2020 Election Campaign Reexmined

For John, BLUF:  It is not possible to go back and say what would have happened if information had come to light before an election, but it should make us careful to ensure such information manipulation is reduced in the future, which falls on the Press and other media.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kash Patel wants to know about the role of Wray and Barr in the FBI and DOJ liaison with Twitter

From The New Neo, by Herself, 14 December 2022.

Mr Kash Patel asks sojme questions. Here is the lede, a tweet:

The Dirty Truth (Josh)
@AKA_RealDirty

#KashPatel: The only way there would be this level of engagement from the FBI/DOJ with Twitter is if Bill Barr and Christopher Wray personally authorized it. If @elonmusk doesn’t release, everything subpoenas need to go out because nothing is ever deleted at the FBI.

Further down she writes:

I would guess that Wray and Barr would say the briefings were to warn about “Russian disinformation” that might affect the 2020 election. But weekly face-to-face meetings? Seems like a lot more must have discussed than that.

What are the legal ramifications of what happened between Twitter and the government actors, whomever they were? Philip Hamburger writes about it in the WSJ (I can’t read the whole thing because of the paywall, but Instapundit has a hefty excerpt):

Cooperation between government officials and private parties to suppress speech could be considered a criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights. The current administration won’t entertain such a theory, but a future one might.

The fundmentl question for the Voters is if the 2020 Election was perverted by forces inside our Federal Government.

As far back as August of this year The New York Post headlined:  "79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election".

And, one wonders how the political science professors in academia are looking at this?  Are their Progrewsive views at war with any insights that President Trump would have won if a cabal had not suppressed the truth about the Hunter Biden Laptop?  I don't believe the likes of Speaker Nsncy Pelosi give a fig for clean and fair process, but it could come back to bite them if other parties adopt the same approach to elections.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

What is it With Maricopa County?

For John, BLUF:  No, I am not denying that Joseph Robinette Biden is President, duely elected in 2020.  But, I am saying we need to avoid even the appearance of fraud in our elections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How Maricopa County defeated election disinformation — for now

Here is the sub-headline:

From NPR, by Reporter Kirk Siegler, 11 November 2022, 11:37 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus three:

Maricopa County Chairman Bill Gates is the first to tell you he's in a bizarre position.

The longtime Republican activist, who once even served as the Arizona state GOP's own election lawyer, is now the target of violent threats and other intimidation by far right extremists.

"This isn't about partisan politics. It's not about conservative versus liberal.  This is about truth versus lies," Gates told NPR.

He's incredulous that he is being attacked by members of his own party, "given my background, all the Republican clubs that I started up, the things that I did to make sure that there wasn't fraud going on in elections on behalf of the Republican Party."

I guess that is one spin on the story, but it misses the elephant in the rooom—the inability of Maricopa zcounty to get the ballots counted.  And, apparently, of Arizona Law to work toward getting the bsllots counted,  Even third woorld countries do a better job at counting than Maricopa County  Worse, the constant adding of ballots offers the opportunity for individuals to introduce new, fraudulent, ballots.

I am not alone in thinking something is wrong with the inability of Maricopa County to get their ballots counted.  Blogger Ssrah Hoyt referenced an item from Legal Insurrecction.  The New Neo, who is from Massachusetts, links to the same article.

Taking days and days to get the results of an election is both undemocrtic and unAmerican,  Arizona, and other places, like Nevada, can, and should, do better.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Media and The Big Lie

For John, BLUF:  The "Big Lie" about the 2020 Election is a concoctioon of the media and the Democrat machine.  It is a disappointment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Big Lie about 'The Big Lie'

From American Thinker, by Reporter William Sullivan, 4 November 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

With only a few days left until the 2022 midterms, Newsweek laments a new poll by Redfield and Wilton Strategies showing that 40 percent of Americans still believe that the 2020 presidential election was "rigged or stolen."

This is presented as a shocking revelation about the number of Americans who still buy into the "Big Lie," despite its "being proven false," according to the article.

Newsweek buries this particular poll's more interesting observations.  For example, only 36 percent of respondents disagree that the 2020 election was rigged or stolen.  Of that group, more than one in three find it "understandable" that others might believe that the election was rigged or stolen. Another 15 percent of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, and 8 percent signified that they "didn't know."

One way to characterize these data is the manner in which Newsweek does, which is to suggest that a horrifying 40 percent of Americans believe in what a bipartisan mainstream media blitz has promoted as "the Big Lie" for nearly two years.

A far more accurate way to characterize these data, though, is to recognize that there are more Americans confident that the election was rigged than there are Americans who are confident that it was all on the up and up.

Using the Newsweek data, only 25% are shocked that folks question the election.  Well, 25% plus President Biden.  That the media does not recognize this is a disappointment, and it is dangerous to our Democracy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hunter Biden's Laptop

For John, BLUF:  I admire Reporter Glenn Greenwald for his integrity.  Here he is talkiing about Mr Hunter Biden's laptop and how it was reported to the American Public.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Glenn Greenwald will never stop talking about this and doesn't care if it's annoying.

From The Althouse Blogspot, by Law Professor Ann Althoouse, 15 October 2022, 6:43 AM.

In a nutshell:

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

---

I'll never stop talking about this and don't care if it's annoying.

This is a huge journalistic scandal:  almost every major news outlet ratified an outright lie to manipulate the 2020 election and - to this day - not one of them, not one, has apologized, explained or retracted.

In a Presidential Debase Candidate Biden cited a letter signed by 51 people connected to US Intelligence, which said that The New york Post story on Mr Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop computer had all the hallmarks of a classic Russian disinformation campaign.  As Former Central Intelligence Agency officer David Priess told Fox News Anchor Brett Baier, the letter didn't ssy it was a Russian disinformation campaign, just that it had the hallmarks.  President Biden claimed, during the debate, that the letter said it was Russian disinformstion.  Today even The New York Times and The Washington Post admit the laptop story is true.  Thus the letter, apparently not crafted carefully enough, was used to confuse the American Voter.  This poor crafting was not corrected after the debate.

Would it have made a difference in the outcome of the election?  Perhaps, but that is water under the bridge.  The thing to try and get right today is reporting that is not biased for one candidte or the other.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Crimes were Committed

For John, BLUF:  We, as humans, have been breaking the rules since Eve spoke to that Serpent.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Texas Woman Pleads Guilty to 26 Counts of Voter Fraud in ‘Vote-Harvesting’ Operation

From Epoch Times, by Reporter Gary Bai, 20 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

A Texas woman on June 16 pleaded guilty to 26 counts of voter fraud committed during a local water board election in 2018.

Monica Mendez, 36, of Port Lavaca ran a “vote-harvesting operation on behalf of a subsidized housing corporation in order to influence the outcome of a utility board election,” the Texas Attorney General’s (AG) office said in a statement on Friday.  The election in question was the 2018 Victoria County Water Control and Improvement District 1 Election in Bloomington, Texas.

Mendez pleaded guilty to 26 felony counts of voter fraud, including three counts of illegal voting, eight counts of election fraud, seven counts of assisting a voter to submit a ballot by mail, and eight counts of unlawful possession of a mail ballot, the office said.

Victoria County District Judge Eli Garza sentenced Mendez to five years of deferred adjudication probation.

My point in posting this?  Yes, Virginia, there is Voter Fraud.

I expct that during the COVID Pandemic of 2020, with State Legislatures passing laws to provide accommodatoins and Courts ruling so as to provide accommodations, some Voter fraud did creap in, not withstnading the Democrats, in a Trumpian manner, declaring the 2020 Election was perfect.

That is not to say that President Biden didn't win the Electoral College.  He did win the Electoral College.  He is our president.  Thznk you un-enrolled voters.

Regards  —  Cliff

Free Julian Assange

For John, BLUF:  We should not be using the long arm of Government Police Powers to intimidate folks who hold opposing views.  The ACLU and the Democratic Party used to know this.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Glenn Greenwald asks why Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying this and AOC, Bernie, and their ilk are not.

From Althouse, by Law Professor Ann Althouse, 18 June 2022.

Here is the Twitter Message set:

Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
Leave aside whatever views you have of MTG.  Just put them in a corner for a second.  OK, have we done that?

Now: think about the indisputable fact that not AOC, Bernie or a single Squad member could or would say most of what is in this thread, let alone in this tone, and ask why:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸
@RepMTG
If we really care about the 1st Amendment then we should care about Julian Assange.

Freedom of Press is the protection of the ability to expose the truth and publish it.

This should always be protected and this freedom should always be handled with the most respect.

There are two points here.  The first is that it should be an embarrassment to Liberals in the Democratic Paarty tht no one is speaking out for Mr Julian Assange.

The second point is that the First Amendment needs to be protecteed, and that includes the right of publications to be wrong.  Disinformation, Ms Nina Jankowitz not withstanding, is not outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Otherwise, we would have The New York Times taken down for using the term "Trump Big Lie" to describe the outcome of the 2020 Elections...Oh, wait, that is the other side view.  I believe that in the case of the November 2022 Elections we will see some backlash to the labling of "opinions" as disinformation.♠

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I believe Mr Trump was incorrect regarding the 2020 Presidential Election.  However I believe those who label his views "The Big Lie" are giving us a "Trumpian-like" view that the Election was perfect and nothing was wrong.  That is blatant dis-, mis- and mal-information.  This is not up for Government policiing.

Using a Common Language

For John, BLUF:  What is the House Select Committee on 6 January investigating?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Understanding the 6 January Capitol Hill Imbroglio

From a blog by Ann Althouse, by Professor Ann Althouse, 30 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

"As one of the nation’s leading proponents of the insurrection hoax, Liz Cheney has pushed a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative.  Look at the so-called word insurrection, January 6 – what a lot of crap."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to begin/Former president intensifies attacks on Liz Cheney at Wyoming rally and endorses her Republican primary challenger in midterm elections" (The Guardian).

I believe what he was calling a hoax was the "insurrection" characterization.  That's why he said "the so-called word insurrection."  Now, that's a bit inarticulate.  Obviously, "insurrection" is really a word.  The point is that entry into the Capitol doesn't fit the definition of an "insurrection," which isn't a surprising assertion.  Trump gets back at his accusers by calling the "insurrection" characterization "a grotesquely false, fabricated, hysterical partisan narrative."

Has anyone on the Cheney side ever explained how it could be possible to think that overrunning the building could overthrow the government?  I wish people on both sides would use accurate language, but of course, they won't.

Here is one of the 86 Comments:

If it was an insurrection it was one of the worst in recorded history.  I have heard nothing about plans to seize communications centers.  There seemed to have been no plan for sustaining an occupation of the Capitol Building.  The number of armed participants seemed small.  Yes, we need more of a Wikipedia definition of insurrection than a Dictionary version.  On the other hand, the Post-6 January judicial process seems slow, ineffective, vindictive and avoiding of any deep dive.

Pretty much sums up my views.  However, one wonders if what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are thinking is Coup?

In summation, I see the 6 Jsnuary hearings as being a political ploy by a coalition of Democrats and Anti-Trump Republicans, to try to smear all Republicans in anticipation of the November Elections.  I don't think it will work.&nsp; On the other hand, I don't think it will hurt Democrats in the Mid-Term Elections any more than will inflation of fuel and food prices.

In the mean time, individuals continue to misremember what happened.  For example, President Biden recently said that two Capitol Police were killed by the "Occupiers".  Didn't happen. Yet no discussion of the killing of Ashli Babbitt.

For the re4cord, I believe ethat Candidate Joe Biden received the necessary Electoral College votes to be President of the United States.  At the same time, I believe there were irregularities in voting in various states.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Corruption in 2020 Election

For John, BLUF:  Two key points.  The Electoral College elected Joseph Biden President and there is no changing that fact.  Further, no matter how many pundits disgrace themselves by denying it, there were pockets of corruption in the 2020 elections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Explosive Pennsylvania Testimony Explains How Leftist Money Infiltrated Election Offices In 2020

Here is the sub-headline:

This evidence should be enough for the Pennsylvania legislature to recognize there is a real problem when private money and private actors collaborate with election officials.

From The Federalist, by Columnist Msrgot Cleveland, 8 pril 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Democrat governor’s office in Pennsylvania colluded with left-wing activists to secure millions of dollars in private money to run get-out-the-vote efforts in blue counties in the swing state in 2020, new, explosive testimony revealed.  The Pennsylvania legislature heard this testimony, backed up by email evidence, on Tuesday during the first public hearing on two new bills seeking to block private grants.

Tuesday’s public hearing began with statements by the respective primary sponsors of the bills that seek to ban dark money from elections, with Sen. Lisa Baker speaking in support of Senate Bill 982 and Rep. Eric Nelson encouraging passage of House Bill 2044.  Pennsylvania investigative journalist Todd Shepherd then testified at length on the results of his extensive probe into the insertion of private funds into the 2020 election.

With a series of PowerPoint slides, Shepherd revealed to lawmakers that beginning in July 2020, consultants working for leftist organizations coordinated with local election officials and Democrat Gov.Tom Wolf’s office to lobby five blue counties to apply for these private grants.  While the grants originated with the nominally non-partisan Center for Tech and Civic Life—an organization that Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s private foundation later infused with some $350 million in cash—emails reveal that a main consultant involved in targeting select counties, Marc Solomon, worked for the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, or the CSME.

Get out the vote efforts are good.  but they have to be fairly done.  To use state level governmental [political] power to steer money to benefit one or another party is ethically, and per the article, legally wrong.

Thus, what was done in Pennsylvania was wrong.  Learning about it doesn't change the outcome of 2020.  It is what it is.  That said, what we know today should influence what is done at the local, state and Federal levels in 2024.  To deny this is to show oneself to be, at best, corrupt, and at worse fascist in conduct.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Weapons of Mass Destruction

For John, BLUF:  They aren't guilty until the Jury says so, and the Jury represents the Common Man—us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No convictions for defendants in Michigan Gov. Whitmer kidnapping trial

Here is the sub-headline:

Anti-government militia members were charged with hatching a plot against the state's Democratic leader, angry over restrictions she ordered in the early days of the pandemic.

from NBC Newa, by Reporters David K. Li and Mohammed Syed, 8 April 2022, 2:32 PM EDT.

Here is the lede plus †hree

A federal jury failed to convict four men accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whom they despised for the restrictions she ordered early in the pandemic.

The panel in Grand Rapids considered charges against Daniel Harris, 24, Adam Fox, 38, Barry Croft Jr., 46, and Brandon Caserta, 33, all charged with conspiracy.

All but Caserta are also charged with knowingly conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction against persons or property, in an alleged plot to slow responding police.

Croft and Harris were also charged with possession of an unregistered destructive device.  Harris was charged with possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle that wasn't registered to him.

I want to first deal with the term "weapons of mass destruction".  In my mind the use or the term in this court case, while conforming to current US Law, erases an important line; a line that is between normal ways of killing people and destroying property and the use of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons, which are expected to create thousand of casualities, and, iin the case of nuclear weapons, blocks of destruction.  See, for example, this Wikipediaa article.

As for the jury, I expect they did their duty in sorting through the facts,  It appears to me that the involvement of the FBI was too heavy in the plotting, thus giving plausability to a defense argument that the defendents were trapped.  Further, this seems to be an action at a time when emotions were high and this "conspiracy" may have just been blown out of proportion.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Free and Fair Elections

For John, BLUF:  President Biden seems to think that the Republican Party, which fought for 100 years for the rights of Black People to vote, has turned into the Democratic Party of the Old South.  He is sadly, and damagingly mistaken.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden Says 2022 Election “Could Easily Be Illegitimate”

Here is the sub-headline:

“Oh, yeah, I think it could easily be illegitimate … The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in proportion to not being able to get these reforms passed.”

From Legal Insurrection, by Professor William A. Jacobson, 19 January 2022, 07:00pm.

Here is the lede plus two:

oe Biden is setting the stage for Democrats to claim 2022 wins by Republicans would be illegitimate, based on the false claims of voting suppression that even CNN said were lies, CNN Skewers Biden’s Voter Suppression Lies. Yes, CNN.

Democrats are using fearmongering about “the end of democracy” in order to try to nationalize election controls away from states and local governments to lower election integrity. Unless Democrats can bust the filibuster — and that looks like it’s not going to happen because Manchin and Sinema are holding firm — then the voting bill is dead. (That vote may happen tonight.)

Democrats are expecting to lose bigly in the 2022 elections, so of course, Biden preemptively is suggesting the 2022 elections may not be legitimate. That’s just how Biden framed it at his press conference today:

I admit I am a bit confused.  Is the Presidenet saying that the election two years ago may have been illegitimate?  I know Democrats questioned the 2016 Presidential Election.  At Least Ms Hillary Clinton stated that.

Or is it that certain states have been doing evil things, rolling back COVID Pandemic exceptions to our commonly accepted voting practices.  Since Politics is a negotiation, I would be happy to offer up some options in exchange for Voter ID and signatures on Mail-in Ballots.  Is there a deal to be had?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trusting the Election

For John, BLUF:  There has been controversey about the 2020 election, from President Donald Trump saying it was stolen to Democrats saying it was perfectly clean.  I expect the truth is less absolute.  I also expect the average voter thinks there were some problems, and thinks it is rubbish to deny it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

More believe in cheating in 2020 election, hit ‘Zuckerbucks’

From The Washington Examiner, "Secrets" Column, by Columnist Paul Bedard, 23 December 2021, 10:46 AM.

Here is the lede plus two:

Angered by growing reports that Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg steered vote-generating donations to pro-Biden counties, more voters believe that cheating occurred in the 2020 elections.

Shoving aside repeated liberal media dismissals of cheating claims, those who believe it occurred increased from 56% in October to 59% in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll previewed for Secrets.

Asked “How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?” just 36% said unlikely. What’s more, the largest group, at 40%, said that cheating was “very likely.”

To dispose of the background question, I believe that President Biden won sufficient Electoral Votes to become President of the United States.  Or, in an old expression, "Close Enough for Government Work."

At the same time I believe there was hanky-panky, as in Phildelphia and Atlanta.♠  Enough to swing the election?  I am doubtful.

I expect that, in reality, the average voter believes there is a certain level of corruption in voting.  When they are told the voting is totally clean they become doubtul of that claim to purity.  That is what happened in the 2020 November Election. The People reverted to that old Groucho Marks line:  "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"  The more the Media and the Democratic Party doubled down on the cleanness of the election, the more the average Citizens began to doubt.♥

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  My concern is the way "Poll Watchers" were excluded from the vote counting process.  Why exclude the Poll Watchers?  It could be the vote counters were just irritated with the Poll Watchers.  However, that is petty and looks like the existence of petty dictatorships in some locations, something that brings to mind Tammeny Hall.
♥  I think we see the same thing with regard to COVID-19.  The Federal Government made pronouncements early on that did not pan out.  Rather than acknowleding the early mistakes, "scientists" just changed the story.  However, the average Citizen became a little dubious, and some became very dubious.  This argues for being open and honest and trusting the citizens to understand that things evolve as new information becomes available,

Michael Flynn Pushes Back

For John, BLUF:  And why shouldn't he, after the way he has been treated by the DC Establiahment?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Morning Briefing:  Michael Flynn vs. Granny Boxwine—Make Extra Popcorn

From PJ Media, by Columnist Stephen Cruiser, 22 December 2021, 2:39 AM ET.

Here are three key paragraphs:

It’s been a slog watching Granny Boxwine preside over her revenge-porn January 6 kangaroo trial. Some of the higher-profile people she’s harassed have pushed back a little, which has just made her want to play the strongarm game even more. The whole thing was getting a little stale. Enter one Michael Thomas Flynn. Flynn introduced a little spice into the proceedings on Tuesday by filing a restraining order against Nancy Pelosi, which Robert [Spencer] wrote about:

No, she isn’t stalking him, but it is almost as bad: Gen. Michael Flynn, who knows a thing or two about witch hunts, is taking action to stop the latest one.  Naming all the members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as defendants, he has filed a complaint intended to stop a subpoena from that committee.  At the same time, according to the Western Journal, Flynn “filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction specifically” against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Smirnoff).  It is always refreshing, and far too rare, to see someone fighting back against this latter-day American version of the Stalinist show trials.

Remember: Flynn served as Trump’s National Security Adviser for less than a month before he resigned under a cloud in Feb. 2017, having become a central focus of the Russian collusion hoax. He wasn’t serving in the Trump administration in any capacity on Jan. 6, 2020, and had not done so for nearly three years.  But that didn’t stop the rabid partisans of the Jan. 6 committee from trying to rope him into something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

Yes, it looks like a fishing expedition.

Then there is this, from Rasmussen, on the 22nd.

Most Voters Think Capitol Riot Committee Is ‘Partisan’

While Democratic voters strongly support the House Select Committee’s investigation of the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, most Republicans and independents believe the committee has become a partisan weapon.

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports finds that 59% of Likely U.S. voters believe the congressional investigation of the riot at the Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump is important, including 43% who say it is Very Important.  Thirty-nine percent (39%) don’t think the investigation is important, including 21% who say it is Not At All Important.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I would think that part of the proble3m for the House Select Committee on 6 January is that the term "insurrection" has been used in a fairly indiscriminate way.  Only one person was shot and killed in the incident, and that ws a rioter, who was deliberately shot by a Capitol Policeman.♠  At this point there doesn't appear to have been a plan to take over the Governent.  This was not Oliver Cromwell replacing the king.  This was not the Long Parliament, which was a precident to the American Revolution.  This was a bunch of rambuctious Citizens, tired of being lied to by politicians and media that the November election was "perfect".  What might have caused it not to happen might have been a little humility, which was, unfortunately, in short supply on the Democratic side, and the Republican.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Fortunately, for the shooter the victim was Caucasian and he is Black.  I expect there would have been quite a hue and cry had it been otherwise.

Bad Turn of Events

For John, BLUF:  This is a bad turn of events.  When the people lose faith, they become less supportive of the incumbent government.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden 2020 win ‘tainted,’ 56% say it was a cheater’s paradise

From The Washington Examiner, by Columnists Paul Bedard, 11 October 2021, 01:07 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

A growing number of likely voters believe that cheating tainted President Joe Biden’s 2020 win over former President Donald Trump, and even more feel that a key Democratic election reform scheme will increase fraud.

In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 56% of respondents said, "It’s likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 41% who say it’s ‘very likely.’”

To get the caveat out of the way, yes, Candidate Joe Biden won the electotal collage and thus is our President.  No doubt.

However, If the People are beginning to lose faith in the 2020 Election, how much faith will they have in other aspects of the Federal Government.  For example, will they trust the Federal Government with regard to COVID-19?  I think this is a problem.  I don't think the bien pensant grasp this problem.  The 2022 Midterm elections will prove if this is true.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff