Two Contrasting Messages For Americans From India

Below is the self explanatory header for an article the UK's Daily Mail, which profiles one of the leaders of the insurrection in Seattle. Kshama Sawant was raised in India, but apparently never noticed inequality and poverty until she came to the US--funny, that. Her message for Americans is: Off With Their Heads! If you have to ask, Whose heads? you're part of the problem.

The firebrand behind Seattle's CHAZ: Councilwoman and socialist Kshama Sawant, 46, who is refusing to let cops into the six-block zone lives in an $800,000 home but has railed against gentrification of Seattle

• Kshama Sawant, 46, has been described as a leader in the creation of Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
• The city councilwoman has urged fellow activists not to allow cops back into the six-block zone set up in the center of the city
• Indian-born Sawant worked as a software engineer before migrating to the US, where she was 'radicalized by the inequality and poverty' that she saw 
• Sawant became the first socialist to be elected to Seattle's City Council in 2013; she recently endorsed Bernie Sanders for President
• However, she has come under fire for railing against gentrification while being married to a Microsoft engineer; she is also reported to live in a $800K home 
• One Seattle Times columnist has compared her to the Queen in Alice In Wonderland, because of her 'off with their heads' political style 

I like this photograph from the Daily Mail of two 'protestors' in Seattle:

By contrast, here's a message for Americans from the pastor of a local parish (local to me) who is also from India. My observation is that the priest is much darker skinned that is Sawant. The priest published these comments in his parish bulletin. He makes the usual PC protestations and obeisances, but also offers this:

Over the last thirty-five years when I have lived in the US, in spite of the color of my skin I have always felt that I belong. Not a single person has made me feel that I was an outsider. I don’t believe anyone treated me differently because I was born in another country. Maybe because I am a priest and I spend my life trying to serve others, I have only received much love and kindness. 

I did not have the feeling of totally belonging when I lived in Europe. Even though I spoke Italian and integrated myself into the Italian culture, I knew I would not be fully accepted. Every time I would come to the US – at least twice a year – as I landed at O’Hare I would say to myself, “I am home.” That was not a feeling I had in Italy. 

I felt sometimes as an outsider even in my native country. My own brothers and sisters have suffered discrimination because of our faith. 

There is more prejudice in India than anywhere else (as far as I know). The system of discrimination and prejudice known as the caste system is enshrined in the holy books of Hinduism. The present nationalist party in power has declared a war against minorities. It has gone so far as to say that Christians and Muslims are not Indians because they follow foreign religions. 

I have told my friends and family back in India that Americans treat everyone well. I firmly believe that the US is the beacon on the hill that welcomes the huddled masses to offer them new avenues for life and prosperity. I feel encouraged by the promises enshrined in our Constitution and the oath of allegiance – “justice and liberty for all.” Over the last several decades, we have made much progress towards equality and justice.

The Truth About George Floyd's Encounter With The Police

I don't publish long excerpts from other sources without good reason. In this case the reason should be obvious--there has so much misinformation, disinformation, and outright falsehoods propagated regarding the conduct of Minneapolis PD officer Derek Chauvin that the interests of getting the truth out require a wide republication of this article (below). What this article demonstrates is that, not only did Chauvin NOT commit murder but that all his actions were taken and were justifiable in the interest of actually saving Floyd's life.

Beyond that important point, the article demonstrates the way in which the police are placed in an impossible position precisely because the citizens who demands that they fulfill such a difficult function also fail to educate themselves regarding the realities of police work. This allows the police to become pawns in the hands of political radicals when a claim of brutality is made because the informed opinion and forthright defense that is required is lacking.

The portions that I have omitted largely have to do with police deparment policy. The author makes most of the points that I have previously tried to make here, but with greater detail. He unfortunately indulges in a bit of the usual attempts to placate the mob, with bows to PC opinion. For that reason I've done some editing.

The anecdotal remarks made at Reddit by EMS personnel are, IMO, particularly revealing.

REVISED: Criminal Trials Or Woke Political Tribunals?

I several times made reference to the remarks of Judge Robert Wilkins--an Obama judge--during the Flynn/Sullivan oral arguments on Friday. While several legal commentators noted the inapposite and racially charged "hypothetical" situation that Wilkins raised at least three times. Here Adam Mills quotes that hypothetical:

Suppose you have a case where…law enforcement officers pleaded guilty to a criminal civil rights violation for using excessive force…and then the government [moves] to dismiss [because] the victim is black. The defendant law enforcement officer is white, and they [the government] did not believe the jury [would] believe the black victim over the white officer…is that proper?

What I want to draw attention to is Wilkin's own--or at least apparently his own--musings on what would be a proper course to follow. As I've already commented several times, I found what he had to say shocking, but I had no transcript. I was sure I had heard Wilkins correctly, but couldn't understand how those remarks or musings could have gone unremarked by sharp legal commentators. And here's the thing that's so shocking about Wilkin's public remarks. I can't imagine that Wilkins came up with these ideas on the spur of the moment. Rather, I suspect that his thoughts reflect Leftist views on how our courts should operate.

Here, again, is Adam Mills quoting Wilkins' suggested way forward in such a case as he presents in his hypothetical--and therefore, we must presume, this is how he would justify Sullivan's refusal to rule on the motion to dismiss:

“If the government can’t make the case go away and the case is in limbo, then while it is in limbo, pressure could be brought to bear on the government to reconsider the decision (to dismiss)”.

To provide a fuller context I provide here a summary from Lawfareblog's Benjamin Wittes (a liberal who must be presumed to be fair to Wilkins) of the extended passage between Wilkins and Walls:

SUPER READ: Is John Bolton Under A Bus, Courtesy Of His Lawyer?

H/T to one of my brothers.

The article in question, i.e., the one I'm recommending that you read, is long, detailed, and steeped in legal niceties. It's also very enjoyable:

Here’s How John Bolton’s Lawyer Just Threw Him Under the Bus 

NEED TO KNOW 

If you can be prosecuted for keeping a classified document in your garage, you can be prosecuted for giving it to your lawyer.

We all know that John Bolton, being John Bolton, wanted to strike at the man who fired him--Donald J. Trump, who just happens to be the POTUS. Bolton's idea was to write a book that would embarrass Trump. According to the author of this article, Kel McClanahan

the executive director of National Security Counselors and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches Law of Secrecy

that scheme may have gone very seriously awry with the publication of an op-ed in the WSJ by Bolton's lawyer. Here's how the article starts out, providing the background:

UPDATED: More Cautious Optimism Re The Flynn Mandamus Petition

This time the cautious optimism comes via John M. Reeves, an appellate lawyer. Reeves held off commenting yesterday, preferring to let the oral argument sink in a bit before offering predictions. He now concludes that "the odds are slightly in favor of mandamus being granted" and that, if the mandamus is not issued Sullivan will be reigned in in some significant way. He also explains--for those like me who weren't sure--how en banc review typically works, and why it probably won't work for Sullivan in this case.

Reeves' twitter thread comes in 24 parts, but I'll leave out the references and limit the excerpts to essentials. I've also expanded abbreviations. IMO, Reeves makes a fairly persuasive case, given how difficult such decisions are. I will add what is a significant reminder up front. Henderson--considered the "swing" vote--has not been afraid in the past to side with President Trump in politically fraught cases:

In February 2020, Henderson joined the opinion of Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith when the majority held that the United States House Committee on the Judiciary could not enforce a subpoena upon President Trump's former White House Counsel, Don McGahn.

I think that supports Reeves' view that Henderson is not a "swing" vote in the sense that she would be open to weakening the Executive Branch. The only "swing" in her view, as Reeves argues, is likely with regard to timing--and her closing question to Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Wall is a clear indication that she understands the key Executive Branch issues in that regard. With that reminder we proceed:

CORRECTED: Barr's DoJ Quietly Acting Against Antifa

Many of you may have noticed a number of news stories recently that involve the Federal government arresting "protestors" who travelled interstate and committed violent acts of various sorts. Professor Jonathan Turley has an article on the subject that's interesting from a number of standpoints: Tacoma Woman Arrested For Arson At Protest After Police Recognize Tattoos.

What Margaret Aislinn Channon, 25, did was travel from Tacoma, WA, to Chicago, IL, to "protest." The particular form her "protest" took while in Chicago--and which drew the attention of the authorities, including federal authorities--was to torch five police cars. She had adopted a rudimentary disguise while engaged in her "protest" but neglected to cover her tattoos:

Those tattoos had been previously described in a missing persons report in TX--like other would be revolutionaries, Channon seems to get around a lot. Turley points out another similar case involving identification via tattoos, which also segues neatly into his legal point:

We recently discussed the “Joker” case in Chicago where Timothy O’Donnell was arrested for arson after his tattoos were identified by police after he burned a police vehicle.  Now, a Tacoma woman, Margaret Aislinn Channon, 25, has been arrested for burning five vehicles in part due to her equally recognizable ink. There is one other similarity.  They are both not only charged with arson, but charged in federal court.  I continue to be uneasy over the broad federal jurisdictional claims underlying charges that traditionally are matters for state and local prosecutors.

The "Joker" was also IDed through tattoo identification.

I have two reasons to take this up.

Grounds For Cautious Optimism After The Oral Arguments?

I want to point to an overall excellent article by shipwreckedcrew, reprising the oral arguments regarding the Flynn/Sullivan mandamus petition: Analysis of Oral Argument In The Circuit Court of Appeal in Flynn Case — Flynn Wins. I won't try to build suspense. Shipwrecked basically says that Henderson--the senior judge on the panel who will write the opinion--is looking for a way to allow a 30 year colleague (Sullivan) to save face. Shipwrecked thinks he knows how she'll do that.

However, the article is more than that. It provides insights into the dynamics among the various players involved, explaining how it all works. He also sheds some light on the central issues. So here are a few excerpts:

The fact that Judges Henderson and Wilkins have both served as district court judges — the trial courts in the federal system — was a significant factor in their attitudes in my  view.  As noted, Judge Wilkins was for four years a colleague of Judge Sullivan on the DC District Court bench.  But given that both Judge Henderson and Judge Sullivan have been part of the DC Circuit as judges for more than 30 years, there is no doubt in my mind that they are close colleagues as well.  Judges of the various circuits get together at various types of professional events on a regular basis.  It is a small “club” that they are all members of, and close personal bonds often attach. It’s famously known that among the Justices who the late Antonin Scalia was closest to was Justice Ginsberg.  The friendships cross all political boundaries. 

Appellate judges go to great lengths to not needlessly embarrass their trial court colleagues in the district courts.  So I think there is little or no chance that this panel will issue any ruling that questions the integrity of Judge Sullivan in what he proposes to do — and what he has done so far.

Shipwrecked then makes an important point--and it's one that's very commonsensical. After all, it's not as if judges don't have pretty developed views on a case when they decide to take it up:

What If Flynn (Only Kinda) Wins?

Shipwreckedcrew makes some good points about the potential for a 2-1 ruling that, while seeming to favor Flynn, ends up opening things up for the assault on Barr and Trump that Sullivan has in mind--we're talking wheels within wheels here:

Will expand on hearing later after I have some time to digest notes, and hopefully a transcript appears quickly.  But I do have an odd thought that I would not have had before the hearing ... the outcome might end up going someplace here beyond this panel. 

And this is not necessarily good for Gen. Flynn.  I think its possible that the Panel rules 2-1 for Flynn, and Judge Henderson writes an opinion that sends the matter back to Judge Sullivan but with some very limiting instructions on what "standard" he can apply... 

And that "standard" dramatically narrows the scope of his intended inquiry.  BUT, by issuing such a "standard", Judge Henderson would create an opportunity for the full court to step in and take the matter en banc to consider whether they all agree on her standard. 

The en banc court, dominated by Dem. appointees, could then create a much more favorable standard to Judge Sullivan's intentions, and allow much broader inquiry into the DOJ decision-making behind making the motion. 

That decision would then be subject to potential appeal to SCOTUS.  I'm not sure they would take it up.  SCOTUS might look at it and think "We need to see how this standard plays out in district courts before we decide whether it is, in fact, a "separation of powers" problem.

Which means that Sullivan would have the ability to conduct the hearing in the manner he wants to conduct it -- and at the end of the day I think he ends up granting the motion to dismiss, but only after conducting the spectacle DOJ is trying to avoid.

However ...

UPDATED: What If Flynn Loses?

Today in the oral arguments Sidney Powell did a masterful job of exposing what's at stake in the Flynn case at this point. She rebutted the idiotic notion that Gleeson and Sullivan will conduct a simple hearing on July 15. No, she said, the resulting inquiry would go on for "six months or more."

What she's, in effect, saying is that Sullivan plans on transforming Gleeson into a judicially appointed Special Prosecutor. Count on it: among other outrages they will make a play to depose even AG Barr and even President Trump. This will continue through the election, with the object being to force Barr and Durham to back down from prosecutions.

Our constitutional order hangs in the balance. Who will step up?

UPDATE: I've been reading up on the oral arguments--Margot Cleveland makes some good observations. The problem, of course (and not her fault), is that it's difficult to make an overall presentation of oral arguments within a few hours of the event. Will Chamberlain has a periscope tv presentation that covers a lot of ground--if you're really into this. He makes the point that, while all three judges seem to agree that Flynn deserves to have the case dismissed, the problem that arises for Henderson in particular seems to be the notion that no ruling on the motion has been made yet.

I guess I can understand that appellate judges would want to hash that issue out, but it's still a bit shocking to me. There doesn't seem to much doubt that Sullivan is gaming the system. All the judges seemed to agree that Sullivan's personally selected "amicus" submitted an "intemperate" brief. If you as an appellate judge didn't bother reading all the other evidence of Sullivan's prejudice (not to say ignorance)--accusing Flynn of "treason" comes to mind--the appointment of Gleeson should be a clue. Gleeson has made no secret of where he wants to go with this "inquiry" into Executive Branch "motives." In face of this clear attempt to game the system, it seems to me that the government's arguments to bring this miscarriage of justice to an end are totally compelling. Add to that the hardships already inflicted on Flynn, and the dithering about waiting for Sullivan to rule becomes, in my opinion, a deeply unserious position that discredits the judiciary in the eyes of the nation.

It all smacks of the judiciary as a tightly knit club that is more concerned with its own status than it is with rule of law in a truly meaningful sense--which should exclude patent attempts to game the system for blatantly politicial purposes. It's not a good look for a branch of government that talks about doing justice. Hopefully Henderson's closing question to Wall is an indication that these issues concern her, as well. Does Henderson get it, that the best way to preserve the rule of law and to see justice done, as well as to preserve the proper roles of each branch of government, is to allow the DoJ to "self correct" (her words) when there is no longer a conflict between government and the accused?

That answer to that question could be crucial to a normal electoral process and even the future of our constitutional order. Allowing the prosecutorial persecution of a disfavored political opponent was bad enough. Allowing a judge to step in and enforce a continuation of that injustice when the prosecution seeks to right the wrong is IMO far more destructive for the long term.

Annex A

There's been a fair amount of comment regarding the soon to be famous "Annex A" to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The ICA, of course, was the brainchild of the Intel Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Released in the first week of January, 2017, it sought to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration before Trump was even inaugurated by claiming that the Intel Community had "high confidence" that Russia had tried to help Trump get elected.

The whole thing was nonsense, of course, and now we're told that there is documentary evidence that IC analysts pushed back against the official conclusions of the ICA. The official conclusion was that the Russians wanted Trump elected, but the analysts apparently put in writing that the evidence that claimed to support that conclusion was actually very weak. Instead, the analysts pointed out, the evidence that the Russians wanted Hillary to win was quite strong. That pushback was suppressed by the IC, but has been dug out by the Barr/Durham investigation. We have never missed an opportunity to stress that the ICA is at the very heart of the Big Picture conspiracy case that Durham is building.

Yesterday, as one of his first official acts as DNI, John Ratcliffe forwarded to Senators Grassley and Johnson a newly declassified version of Annex A. It's quite brief--not even a page and a half. All it is is a summary of the fabrications that Chris Steele ginned up for the Clinton campaign as contractor for the Clinton oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. Steele then also purveyed these falsehoods to the FBI, the Fake News Media, and various politicians and their operatives. As the Horowitz Report was at pains to point out, the FBI was fully aware--from the get go, in July, 2016--of the political provenance of the Steele "dossier," as it came to be known. The fact that this material was, in all essentials, fiction was also known by the FBI when Peter Strzok helped put together the summary of the "dossier" that was appended to the ICA--Annex A.

None of this should be news to regular readers. Bill Barr and John Durham are smart guys, and they've been focused on the ICA all along. The reason is simple. If the ICA was a knowingly fraudulent production that put forth conclusions favored by the IC Triumvirate, but disputed by the analysts themselves, then we have a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to defraud the US Government of the honest services of the Intel Community, because if the ICA had been the product of honest services it would have incorporated the views of the analysts who were fraudulently claimed to have reached the official conclusions. By colluding to falsify the true views of the analysts, the IC Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to defraud the US Government of their honest services. The aim of their conspiracy, of course, was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election.

Community Standards--Some Community, Some Standards!

No comment necessary, I think--but once again it shows the basic indecency and dishonesty of the those who wish to tear down our constitutional order. AG Barr said the other day that it's "clear" that social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are engaging in "censorship." Now to do something about the problem. Declare them public utilities?

Facebook Says Page Celebrating “Dead Cops” Doesn’t Violate its Community Standards

While it bans page critical of ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’.

Facebook has refused to remove a page celebrating “dead cops,” saying that it does not violate their community standards. 

The page is titled The Only Good Cops Are Dead Cops and openly incites violence against police officers. 

However, when it was reported to Facebook moderators, they reviewed the page and said that although it may be “offensive,” it doesn’t violate any specific community standards. 

Meanwhile, another Facebook page set up by concerned parents that was critical of ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ was banned by the social media giant. 

500 Mom Strong was removed for “transphobic language,” including one post that merely stated, “Reminder: Women don’t have to be polite to someone who is making them uncomfortable.” 

However, half a dozen other 500 Mom Strong parody pages set up by LGBT activists were left untouched. 

“When I asked them about the half dozen other fake 500 Mom Strong pages that were put up by drag queens [and] used to parody 500 Mom Strong, I received no answer and the pages are still active,” said founder Anna Hall Bohach.

“There is also a fake profile, created by drag queens, using my name and information that has been reported multiple times by my friends and me that Facebook refuses to remove. I asked the Facebook representative about it and I still have yet to receive an answer,” she added.

UPDATED: The Gleeson Brief Against Flynn

I've been ignoring the brief submitted by disgraced former federal judge and hyper partisan attorney John Gleeson. Gleeson was selected by Sullivan to advise him on how to railroad Michael Flynn, despite DoJ's motion to dismiss the case. It's so absurd that it's not worth wasting time on. However, to give you some idea of why I feel that way, and to counter any Fake News hype you may have encountered, here are some opinions from accomplished lawyers who know nonsense when they see it.

First, shipwreckedcrew:

The brief filed by Judge Gleeson is in excess of 80 pages long.  For me to write a comprehensive take-down of what he has filed would take me at last 12,000 words, and a week to research and write.  That’s what I would do if I was involved in the case and preparing a response.  I can’t do that here. 

Instead I’m going to simply isolate a few areas in the brief that I find worthy of comment, and deal with them in separate articles. 

So, in referring to what’s “worthy of comment” I should begin with my first “hot take” on Twitter this morning when I called the brief “trash” — and then got critical.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline highlights Gleeson's decidedly checkered career as a federal judge. It's perhaps worth reading just to remind yourself how utterly lacking in any ethical sense these people are: WHO IS JOHN GLEESON?

He was a left-wing judge whose attitude towards crime depends on the identity of the alleged criminal.

Who is John Gleeson? He’s a former rogue judge and current accomplice to a judge who, it appears, also wants to go rogue.

Jonathan Turley at Zerohedge takes a similar line re Gleeson's past, although he treats Gleeson's crazy arguments somewhat seriously: "Trumped-Up": Former Judge's Flynn Filing Another Example Of "Irregularity" In The Age Of Rage.