It’s Wednesday, May 13th, 2020…but before we begin, there’s so much happening and so many exceptional commentaries for your consideration, we’re going heavy today on the headlines and less on the content behind them.
So without further ado, here’s a somewhat different edition of The Gouge!
First, if you didn’t catch Tucker’s Monday segment on what is rapidly blossoming into Obamagate, it’s must-see TV featured at our Video of the Day, accessible through link #2 immediately above.
For more on the subject of the conspiracy concocted at the highest level(s) of the Executive Branch, NRO’s Kyle Smith suggests you…
Put it this way: Knowing of Obama’s interest in these matters, is it plausible that the FBI acted as it did without his approval? If the media were one-tenth as interested in Obama scandals as they are in those relating to Trump, it would be shouting from the rooftops that the real Russia-collusion scandal was the effort to gin up a fake scandal to either damage Trump politically or take him out. As it is, most of the media’s response to the Flynn-Obama debacle has been boredom, shrugging and whataboutism: As Brian Stelter groused on CNN, right-wingers are “treating the Michael Flynn story like it’s a bigger deal than the deaths of 2,000 Americans a day.” You’d think someone who works at a 24/7 media company would understand that more than one story can be hugely important.“
In a related item courtesy of George Lawlor, writing at his personal blog, Jonathan Turley, an actual Constitutional scholar, highlights yet another in an unending series of lies as…
“Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
…While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.
The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence. As I discussed in a column this morning in the Hill newspaper, the new material shows that Obama was following the investigation of Flynn who he previously dismissed from a high-level position and personally intervened with President Donald Trump to seek to block his appointment as National Security Adviser.Obama reportedly discussed the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. For a person concerned with precedent, that was also a curious focus. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to successfully convicted a single person since the early days of the Republic. Now that is dubious precedent.“
Not to mention a former President of highly dubious honor and honesty.
Many sources recount Obama’s legal brilliance; after all, wasn’t he a lecturer in constitutional law? But if he’s such a brilliant non-practicing-Clarence-Darrow-turned-Jonathan-Turley, how can he be so ignorant of the law?!? Or is he just a liar?
Occam’s Razor suggests the latter, so WE’RE going with that!
Make no mistake about it: this goes all the way to the Oval Office. Comey & Co. didn’t dream up the Russia-collusion conspiracy on their own. Obama knew everything he’d inflicted upon America could be easily undone by The Donald, as almost all of what he’d enacted was via Executive Orders. So Trump had to go.
Furthermore, as Kyle Smith alludes above, not only did Obama bear Flynn a serious grudge, but more importantly, as Andy McCarthy detailed in the May 4th edition of The Gouge, Flynn was the only member of the incoming Administration experienced enough to recognize what Obama’s FBI, DOJ and national intelligence operatives were up to, so Flynn had to go.
And if you’re curious what we mean by Obama’s operatives, we again suggest you view our Video of the Day, a snippet of which is offered below:
But the numerous memes and cartoons suggesting an impending reckoning aside…
…said reckoning is totally dependent upon a Trump second term…which is why the Deep State is pulling out all the stops. If The Donald doesn’t win reelection, Barr only has until the morning of January 20, 2021 to wrap this up…and that assumes the unwavering support of a number of utterly undependable Republicans.
In the meantime, our advice to anyone and everyone who conspired to unseat a duly-elected President of the United States…
Particularly if your last name is Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Lynch, Obama…or Biden!
And for those unfamiliar with what we’re up against, consider these two incredibly disparate search results for “Obama lies” from Bing…
…and Google:
Hint: Google’s first result for “Obama lies” is five fabricated lies told about Barry.
Since we’re on the subject of wolves in sheep’s clothing, Townhall.com‘s Beth Baumann reports…
“Since the Wuhan coronavirus became a pandemic, we have learned more and more about China’s incestuous relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO). When Taiwan attempted to blow the whistle on the virus that was raging on in China, the WHO turned their back and acted as though nothing was going on. In late January, the WHO parrotted the Chinese Communist Party’s talking points, particularly that the Wuhan coronavirus was not transmitted from human-to-human. And the WHO knew they were wrong for ignoring Taiwan, which is why Bruce Alyward, the senior advisor to Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, hung up a Skype call with a reporter when asked about that very warning.
When President Donald Trump wanted to halt flights from China to the United States, the WHO advised against it. Of course, we’ve learned since then that it was the single best decision the president made during this crisis.
But now, it’s looking like the relationship between the Chinese regime and the WHO goes much further than we once anticipated. President Xi Jinping personally asked Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to delay publishing vital information about the Wuhan coronavirus, the Daily Caller reported.Specifically, Xi wanted the WHO to not tell the world that the coronavirus was transmitted from person-to-person, the BND, German’s Federal Intelligence Service, concluded.
…If what the intelligence agencies around the world believe is in fact true, China prevented the world from having four to six weeks to prepare for the spread of the virus. Leaders in each country could have done more to protect their citizens, and there would have been a greater likelihood the virus would be contained to China, if not Wuhan.“
You’ll forgive us if we say, particularly in view of the carnage the ChiComs continue to inflict on the planet, to HELL with the WHO, to HELL with the One-China Principle and to HELL with Beijing, along with anyone who supports their rogue regime.
Speaking of rogue regimes, writing at his Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty recommends…
“…On March 30, the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living issued updated guidelines, based upon CDC findings, declaring that, “unless a person is tested for COVID-19 and negative before admitting them to your building, you should assume the person has COVID-19 regardless of their having or not having symptoms…We strongly urge [long-term-care] facilities to begin now creating separate wings, units or floors by moving current residents to handle admissions from the hospital and keep current resident separate, if possible.” This was typed out inbright red fontfor emphasis.
On March 20, the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine issued a statement declaring, “nursing homes should not be forced by local hospitals or officials to accept new admissions who demonstrate clinical evidence or a positive test for active COVID-19, unless they are considered non-infectious based on current CDC guidelines.” The California Association of Long Term Care Medicine issued a similar resolution. Dr. Michael Wasserman, the head of the group, told NPR, “If you push folks out of the hospitals to make space and you push them into nursing homes a couple weeks later, for every one of those you send to the nursing home, you may get 20 back in the hospital.”
All of these health associations and institutions grasped how dangerous it would be to have recovering but still potentially contagious patients in the same buildings as larger groups of elderly people who need care.
As noted late Friday, the state governments of New York and New Jersey enacted regulations that required nursing and assisted living homes to readmit residents who had been treated for coronavirus, whether or not they were fully recovered, in an effort to reduce the use of hospital beds. The New Jersey Department of Health explicitly prohibited the facilities from requiring patients to be tested for the virus before admission or readmission.
Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo reversed that policy. This policy has been in place since March 25, so for the past six weeks and four days, nursing and long-term care homes in New York state have not been able to say, “we won’t let that patient in, because we fear that patient could expose our other residents to the virus.”
…Can anyone think of any potential danger from giving a nursing home a greater financial incentive to accept coronavirus patients?
These decisions are so spectacularly wrongheaded, so epically foolish, that those responsible deserve to be remembered forever. Think about how much ink has been spilled, telling us what a great job is being done by Cuomo, Whitmer, New Jersey governor Phil Murphy, California governor Gavin Newsom, and Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf, and how lucky those states’ residents are to have such visionary and indefatigable leaders…”
Moving on, also writing at Townhall.com, Scott Morefield opines on…
“…Obviously, loitering at a construction zone isn’t worthy of being shot or even confronted by weapon-wielding citizens, but it’s also hardly racist to be suspicious of a stranger in one’s neighborhood poking around where they aren’t supposed to be. Add Arbery’s own 2013 indictment for allegedly bringing a weapon to a high school basketball game and a 2018 arrest for shoplifting to the mix, and the caricature of ‘just a jogger’ is called into question.
…Candace Owens nailed what the topic of discussion should be centered around right now in an America less hyper-focused on racial politics: “The national debate SHOULD have been about the legitimacy of citizen’s arrests in light of a tragic outcome,” she wrote. “Instead, we went with BLACKS ARE LITERALLY BEING HUNTED WHEN THEY STEP OUT OF THEIR HOMES FOR NO REASON. Race-baiting ALWAYS leaves us looking emotional & foolish.”
No matter how you slice it, a man is dead who should be alive right now. But ironically, decades-removed from an era when alleged black offenders would rarely get a fair trial, the McMichaels’ chances, no matter what the facts turn out to be, of any outcome short of life without parole or even the death penalty in this highly politicized and racially charged case is next to nil.“
Not to beat a dead horse, but check out the recently-released security video, then you tell us…
…when Arbery enters into view, does he look like he’s jogging? We cannot emphasize enough, this in no way constitutes a defense of the McMichaels; we will NEVER suggest Arbery’s actions reasonably warranted an armed confrontation, let alone his death. We’re only pointing out the “just a jogger” narrative might well be akin to the deliberate misrepresentation of Michael Brown as a “gentle giant”…or Trayvon Martin at the age of 13. As well as stating for the record Arbery’s death is in no shape or form akin to the deliberate, race-based lynchings of Emmett Till and James Byrd.
That any of its representatives would give special weight to the opinion of a professional basketball player who likely never earned his high school diploma tells you all you need to know about the MSM.
All of which is the topic of the latest offering from Dennis Prager writing at Townhall.com, as he explains why…
“Three years ago, I wrote a column explaining left-right differences on 35 different subjects. Any one or two of them would make for a major political/cultural divide. Thirty-five make the divide unbridgeable.
As the thesis itself is not really debatable, what is more difficult to explain are the roots of this divide.
I believe it is commitment to truth. (EDITOR’S NOTE: See Jonathan Turley’s blog entry, second from the top above.)
Since I began studying the left as a graduate student of communism at the Russian Institute of the Columbia School of International Affairs, of one thing I was certain: Truth is not a left-wing value. It is a liberal value, and it is a conservative value, but truth has never been a left-wing value. From Lenin to today’s left, lying, especially about opponents, is morally acceptable as long as it serves the left’s goals of defeating opponents and attaining more power.
Once you realize this, the divide becomes explicable…”
“NBC News’ Chuck Todd aired adeceptively edited clip of Attorney General Bill Barrdiscussing the Michael Flynn case during his “Meet the Press” broadcast on Sunday, prompting the network to concede the mistake hours later — but there is still no word on whether Todd will apologize on-air.
Asked by CBS News’ Catherine Herridge how history would judge the DOJ’s decision to move to dismiss the Flynn case, Barr initially responded, laughing: “Well, history is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.”
After the brief clip aired, Todd remarked that he was “struck by the cynicism of the answer — it’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this was a political job.”
In the full clip, which the NBC show did not air, Barr immediately went on to state explicitly that, in fact, he felt the Flynn decision upheld the rule of law…”
But as we detailed in the Monday Gouge, the segment Todd “deceptively edited” was itselfa deliberate hoax, having already been deceptively edited by CBS, as well as disingenuously introduced by Norah O’Donnell.
In other words, in the best tradition of Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, lies…upon bigger lies…upon even BIGGER lies.
For more on the subject of Progressive disingenuousness masquerading as common sense, NRO‘s Jack Crowe highlights how…
“…During an April 16 conference call, District Judge Robert Chatigny chastised the ADF attorneys for referring to the male athletes seeking to compete in the women’s division as “males,” according to a transcript of the call obtained by National Review:
What I’m saying is you must refer to them as “transgender females” rather than as “males.” Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as “males,” period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it’s needlessly provocative. I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females.That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events.This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events. So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?…”
Sieg heil, mein Führer! Judge Robert ShitforBrains…sorry, Freudian slip…Chatigny…would do well to watch Judgement at Nuremberg, where the inevitable result of his peculiar brand of judicial activism is already detailed. After all, why shouldn’t the presiding judge be able to predetermine not only the facts of the trial, but the plaintiff’s case?!?
At the risk of earning the ire of The Nutmeg State’s contemporary equivalent of Roland Freisler, we’re forced to borrow a phrase from 300:
And we’ve Progressives to thank for such insanity.
Which brings us, inappropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this from Balls Cotton…
…Fielding Cocke…
…Shannon…
…and two from Speed Mach:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today one Jayhawker’s rather curious request for combat:
“A Kansas man who sought legal permission in Iowa to engage in a sword fight with his ex-wife is not insane but merely angry over their child custody arrangement, according to a psychological evaluation.
David Ostrom, of Paola, Kansas, asked in a Jan. 3 court filing to be allowed to fight his former wife, Bridgette Ostrom, of Harlan, Iowa, and her attorney, Matthew Hudson, so that he can “rend their souls” from their bodies. The Ostroms have been embroiled in disputes over custody and visitation issues, and property tax payments.
An Iowa judge responded by temporarily suspending David Ostrom’s child visitation and ordering the evaluation. It found he is not troubled, but has “adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features,” Ostrom told the Des Moines Register.
“It essentially says I’m not crazy, I just don’t like being denied access to my children,” he said…”
Seriously, something tells us Dave having access to any children isn’t a particularly good idea.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.