Lawyers File Amicus Brief in Support of Michael Flynn


A group of lawyers have filed an amicus brief with Judge Sullivan in support of the Government’s motion to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn. Here’s their brief and a list of their names.

I’ve had the privilege of working with a couple of these lawyers on First Amendment related issues.

BREAKING: Chicago Politician Suspected of Corruption


Rumors are circulating that a Chicago politician may have been involved in corrupt activities aimed at preventing the election of a political rival and at the entrapment of a member of that rival’s staff in a false criminal charge.

While the Chicago politician has not commented directly on the matter, a leaked version of a telephone call quotes him as being concerned for the rule of law.

Stay tuned for more as this story develops.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I must confess that I’ve been bogged down in my Real World work life and haven’t paid much attention to The Dread Deadbeat Protector Kimberlin’s protectorelections dot org website of late. While I wasn’t looking, the site posted an article with original content (everything for the past year or so has been ripped off from other websites). The new article is dated 5 February, 2020, and it tries to spin the problems with the Democrats reporting app for the Iowa Caucus as a Russian hack.

Without evidence, the article proposes the following similarities between the Iowa debacle and an alleged Russian attack on an election in Ukraine:

  1. Malware and/or denial of services attack to delay and distort election results;

  2. Interference of election result transmission to central tabulators;

  3. Chaos that undermined vote counting and confidence in election results;

  4. Propaganda effort to blame delay on those who oppose pro-Russian candidate; (sic)

BTW, the authority cited for the alleged attack in Ukraine is empr dot media, an English-language Ukrainian “news” website hosted on the same server as breitbartunmasked dot com and greencasamaryland dot org. In 2017, Kimberlin changed the corporate name of Velvet Revoution US to Protect Our Elections/EMPR Inc.

Of course, Protect Our Elections takes the position that the Russians favor Bernie in the Democratic primaries because they favor Trump in the fall.

In the case of Iowa, Russia wants chaos and wants to use that chaos to divide the Democrats.  Of all the major candidates, Russia wants Bernie Sanders to be the nominee against Trump so the false narrative being spun by Russia and Trump is that Joe Biden and the DNC caused this Iowa meltdown in order to deprive Sanders of his win there.  Clearly, in the case of the Iowa cyber catastrophe, the real beneficiaries are Russia, Trump and Sanders.  Although election officials are feverishly trying to spin the failure on a bad app rather than Russia, Americans need to understand that when Russia benefits from something, it likely has a hand in it.

And that’s supposed to make sense? Let me get this straight—Democratic party officials are trying to hide hacking by the Russians in the Iowa primary in order to help Russia and Trump in November.

Uh, huh.

If Kimberlin expects that kind of crackpot theory to generate more donations to Protect Our Elections, he should probably fix the PayPal link.

Bernie Bros and Bernie Bots


The Washington Post reports that Senator Bernie Sanders has received a briefing from intelligence officials claiming that the Russians are acting to interfere in the Democrats’ primaries in support of Sanders. My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has posted his thoughts on the matter, and they’re worth reading.

Yesterday, I pointed out that the 2016 Russian Collusion Hoax never make sense. Why would the FSB or GRU or other Russian organization work to support an American presidential candidate who was promising to take effective actions against Russia’s interests? Russia supporting Trump over Clinton made no sense.

Recycling Russian collusion, this time supporting Sanders, may be a act of desperation by the Democrat establishment, but at least it makes sense.

Sanders claims to be a socialist, but based on his record, it’s probably more accurate to view him as a communist. If one of America’s adversaries were looking to support a politician who would weaken our economy, our military, and our standing in the world, who in the 2020 field of candidates fits the bill better than Sanders? While many Russians are too young to remember the USSR, the country’s leadership does. They saw (and many participated in) they way communism ruined Russia. They are no longer communists because they’ve seen communism fail, but they still think as Marxists, so they view the world in terms of a zero-sum power struggle. The logic of that worldview would lead them to favor candidates such as Corbyn in the UK and Sanders here.

And it is all about power.

The Russian nomenklatura have maintained power by allowing a quasi-Fascist alliance between government and oligarchs to evolve. Similarly, the Deep State has developed alliances throughout the West which are threatened from the Right by Trump and the Left by Sanders. In 2016, the Democrat establishment was successful in suppressing Sanders’ candidacy, but they failed to defeat Trump. Four years later, they’ve failed in their efforts to nullify that election. As one prominent Democrat observed, elections have consequences, and one of the consequences of 2016 is that the Deplorables learned they can push back against the elites and win. The ongoing struggle for command of the Democratic Party will be interesting to watch.

I’m ready for my second cup of coffee this morning. I think I’ll put a bag of popcorn in the microwave as a mid morning snack.

Gabbard v. Clinton


Folks, I have quite a bit of experience being a defendant in vexatious nuisance lawsuits alleging defamation (four LOLsuits each from Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt). Of course, I won all those suits. Seven were dismissed for various reasons. One went to trial, and my codefendants and I won when the judge stopped the trial after Kimberlin rested case because the plaintiff hadn’t shown that we had made any false statements about him and granted a directed verdict in our favor. I tend to have a bias in favor of defendants in defamation suits, but in this case … not so much.

IANAL, but my initial sense of Tulsi Gabbard’s suit against Hillary Clinton alleging defamation is that it’s interesting.

The complaint specifically quotes Clinton’s allegedly false and defamatory remarks, citing when and how they were published. As I understand it, the complaint claims that falsely stating that an Army National Guard officer is the asset of foreign power is defamatory per se because if that were true, the officer would be unfit for his or her professional duties as a soldier. Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the Hawaii National Guard. She’s also a member of the House Armed Services Committee, an assignment that requires access to classified defense information. Being a Russian asset should be similarly disqualifying in that professional role.

Congresswoman Gabbard’s case appears to be much stronger than anything her colleagues are presenting to the Senate. But being based on actual facts tends to make a case stronger. I don’t know how far her suit will go in court, but I’m ordering more popcorn.

Buyer’s Remorse


The Russian Collusion Hoax had failed. The Mueller Report was a nothing burger. So the left wing of the House Democrats sold Nancy Pelosi a bill of goods that finally led to her allowing the Impeachment Hoax to go forward. And then it dawned on the Speaker that it would be Cocaine Mitch who would take charge of the action when the Impeachment reached the Senate.

Now, it may be that she had thought that 2019/202 would be like 1974 and that a group of Republican senators would go to the President and tell him to resign rather than face a trial. But 2020 isn’t 1974. In 1974 there was an underlying crime and a cover up of that crime. In 2020, there’s merely whining about Orange Man Bad. Indeed, it appears that there was significant criminal activity that tainted the 2016 election, but the President was among the victims of those crimes. In 2020, the Republicans in the Senate seem prepared to give the President an opportunity to present his defense, and the President seems to look forward to vindication rather than removal from office.

Hence, the Speaker’s problem. If the case goes forward to the Senate, more of the Truth about who did what is likely to come to light, and that is not likely to be beneficial to Pelosi, her allies, or Democrats as a whole. No wonder she’s having trouble articulating her talking points.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

 

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Well, finally!

The Dread Deadbeat Protector Kimberlin has gotten around to something “new” at ptotectourelections dot org. It’s a repost ripoff of an article from Politico that tries to tie some buggy election software used in North Carolina during the 2016 election with Russian hackers.

The Gentle Reader may remember that The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se/Protector Kimberlin testified under oath in October, 2016, that he and his band of top-notch hackers were working with the DoJ to secure the 2016 elections. He mentioned hacking by the Russians.

If the Politico story is correct, it shows an example of TDPK’s failure to fully protect our election that year. OTOH, Hillary Clinton managed to get 78.9% of the vote in Durham County, so maybe TDPK doesn’t care.

Oh, look! TDPK has added a PayPal donate button to the site, but it turns out that it’s another example of his lack of attention to detail—it’s connected to a PayPal account that’s been closed. The NationBuilder link still takes you to a page that falsely claims that POE has 502(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization used to have 501(c)(4) status, but that was revoked by the IRS several months ago.

#Loser

Past His Sell By Date?


Mueller: “Could you repeat the question?”

* * * * *

Robert Mueller: “I’m not familiar … with that”

Chabot: “It’s not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS”

* * * * *

Mueller: “I’d have to check the statute.”

Sensenbrenner: “I just read it to you.”

* * * * *

Mueller: “I can’t go into that.”

Jordan: “Yes you can, because you wrote about it.”

* * * * *

Mueller: “I’m not going to get into that.”

* * * * *

Mueller: “It’s still outside my purview.”

* * * * *

Mueller: “I don’t agree with your characterizations.”

Jordan: “I’m reading from your report.”