UPDATED: Three Good Reads--Looking To Election 2020

Here's a brief roundup of three articles that--each in slightly different ways--point out ways in which the landscape for Election 2020 is being prepared. It's all, in my view, highly favorable to President Trump.

You'll recall that I keep saying that the Flynn case leads to the heart of Team Mueller. Margot Cleveland has an excellent article at The Federalist that bears this out:

New Flynn Transcripts Confirm Mueller Team Lied To The Court And The Country

Lies to the court? Isn't lying to a court, like, a crime? Yes, it is. And Cleveland didn't choose those words lightly--she means exactly what she's saying in the title. The article is long and detailed, but here's the nub of it--there's an important distinction to be made between expulsion of diplomats and sanctions. Team Mueller deceived first Flynn and then the Court in that regard:

The transcripts released Friday make clear that Flynn’s only request to Kislyak concerned the expulsion of the Russian diplomats and not the sanctions instituted by then-President Obama’s executive order. Yet Mueller’s team charged Flynn with lying to the FBI about his discussion with Kislyak about sanctions.

Mueller’s Team Lied to the Court and the American People

While Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge, he did so having not seen the transcript of his actual conversation with Kislyak. In seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, Flynn said he still doesn’t “remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak.” As Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell told me, his defense team “has been asking for the transcripts and recordings of his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak for almost a year.”

Yet Van Grack, the federal prosecutor who has since been removed from the Flynn case, refused to provide Powell with the transcript. Powell only received access to the details of the call following the recent declassification and release.

We've all read the transcrip by now. There is nothing sensitive in it. 

Further, Powell should not have even needed to ask for the transcript because presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan entered a standing order requiring the special counsel’s office to provide Flynn’s attorneys with all material exculpatory information. Yet Van Grack withheld the transcripts.

Later, when Sullivan directly ordered the government to file “the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including, but not limited to audio recordings of Mr. Flynn’s conversations with Russian officials,” Van Grack refused, telling the court instead that it is not relying on that recording “for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentence.”

I haven't the slightest doubt that Durham is pursuing this line of inquiry. Vigorously. And there will be many more revelations going into the campaign season. The framing of Flynn--who will shortly be ungagged--will become a cause celebre for the GOP base, and even for many other people who incline toward the concept of justice for all. Dems will own this. They will own lying prosecutors and lying FBI agents. It's definitely not a good look.

Next, at Red State:

Kamala Harris Has Joined the Riot Bailout Program and This Only Looks Worse for Democrats

There's lots in this article about Harris' notorious by now hypocrisy. For our purposes, the important part is in one paragraph:

How is it considered a good look to have political leaders — those vying for the highest office — saying that they verbally and financially support people whose actions are criminal in alleged appearance?

This is being done, by all appearances, at the expense of those residents and business owners who have been decimated by the riots. The Democrats are seemingly forsaking those most affected by the violence, and looking to have those who committed the violence upon the communities released and free to exact more of the same. It is more than a blind spot; it is a slap in the face to the victims. And it is fully sanctioned by the Democratic Party. Kamala’s suggestion is to donate to the cause through Act Blue, the fundraising arm of the DNC. So the Democrats fully own now this support of the anarchists torching America.

In other words, the Dems are officially embracing anarchy, just months before the campaign season heats up. We all know that the hardest hit communities are in Blue and swing areas that the Dems desperately need. Is Harris a secret mole in the Dems for Trump?

Finally, also at Red State, we have 

Beast Mode: Trump Just Destroys Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo After Night of ‘Purge’-Like Violence in NY

This is a preview of how Trump will be campaigning in the Fall. And yet the Dems seem not to get it at all. Check out this Trump tweet, which the author rightly characterizes as a Twitter Moab:


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

NYC, CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD. The lowlifes and losers are ripping you apart. Act fast! Don’t make the same horrible and deadly mistake you made with the Nursing Homes!!!

10:10 AM · Jun 2, 2020·

My prediction is that all of this will force the Dems to play defense in states that they should be able to take for granted. This may even include New York. That means resources will be drained from swing states.

ADDENDUM: Another example of problems with New Blogger. I tried to embed the Trump tweet, but it didn't work.

UPDATE: Could anything be more predictable? And yet it's somehow a mystery to the Dems:

71 percent of polled American voters said they support the use of the National Guard to supplement city police forces in addressing “protests and demonstrations” (the poll did not use the word “riots”) in American cities. 

Of these, 42 percent of voters said they “strongly support” use of the National Guard and 29 percent said they “somewhat support” it. 

Only 11 percent “strongly oppose” the measure and 9 percent “somewhat oppose” it. 

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support the use of the National Guard, but a large majority of Democrats (63 percent) either “strongly” or “somewhat” support it as well. 

African-American voters are evenly split on the use of the National Guard.
43 percent of polled African-American voters either “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” use of the National Guard, while 42 percent either “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the measure. 

Hispanic voters support the use of the National Guard. 

54 percent of polled Hispanic voters either “strongly” or “somewhat” support the use of the National Guard, compared to 25 percent who “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose. 

A smaller majority of American voters (58 percent) support the use of the U.S. Military to supplement city police forces. 33 percent said they strongly support the measure and 25 percent somewhat support it, compared to 19 percent who strongly oppose and 11 percent who somewhat oppose.