Jonathan Turley on Mike Flynn: “It Was a Canned Hunt” – “They Put Him in a Cage and Shot Him” (VIDEO)
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Jonathan Turley on Mike Flynn: “It Was a Canned Hunt” – “They Put Him in a Cage and Shot Him” (VIDEO)
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley weighed in on the FBI’s conduct during their interrogation of General Mike Flynn. Turley went on with Martha MacCullum on Friday night following the Special Counsel release of the notes in the summer of 2017 on the interrogation of General Mike Flynn in January 2017.
The original 302 notes from the meeting between former Trump White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with corrupt FBI agent Peter Strzok and mysterious FBI agent Joe Pientka have yet to be found or released.
Flynn was a top target of the Obama Deep State. The FBI did not even notify Flynn he was being interrogated. In fact, earlier this week we found out that Deep State hacks Strzok and Pientka joked with Flynn and Flynn gave them a tour of his area before their discussion.
We also know today, according to Turley, that the FBI agents did not follow up or question Flynn on any of his statements during their discussion.
And according to the original 302 report that has not been released the agents believed Flynn was truthful with them.
This was all a set up. It was a hit on Mike Flynn.
Jonathan Turley: We do know that for some reason they were hunting for Flynn. They say quite clearly, “We intentionally didn’t remind him he’s got to be careful what he says to us. It can be a crime,” which they did with other witnesses. They skipped the protocols and went directly to him circumventing counsel from the White House. And then when he finally did say something that they thought was not accurate they didn’t raise it. They didn’t correct it. So the question is, why would they be hunting for Flynn at this point. That’s what’s not explained in any of these filings.
In his interview earlier this week Turley said Michael Flynn investigation was a “canned hunt” and “they put him in a cage and shot him.”
Andrew Sullivan wrote a piece last week expanding on his previously expressed view that intersectionality and social justice are a substitute religion, one currently undergoing substantial growth or as he calls it “the Great Awokening.”
For many, especially the young, discovering a new meaning in the midst of the fallen world is thrilling. And social-justice ideology does everything a religion should. It offers an account of the whole: that human life and society and any kind of truth must be seen entirely as a function of social power structures, in which various groups have spent all of human existence oppressing other groups. And it provides a set of practices to resist and reverse this interlocking web of oppression — from regulating the workplace and policing the classroom to checking your own sin and even seeking to control language itself. I think of non-PC gaffes as the equivalent of old swear words. Like the puritans who were agape when someone said “goddamn,” the new faithful are scandalized when someone says something “problematic.” Another commonality of the zealot then and now: humorlessness.
And so the young adherents of the Great Awokening exhibit the zeal of the Great Awakening. Like early modern Christians, they punish heresy by banishing sinners from society or coercing them to public demonstrations of shame, and provide an avenue for redemption in the form of a thorough public confession of sin. “Social justice” theory requires the admission of white privilege in ways that are strikingly like the admission of original sin. A Christian is born again; an activist gets woke. To the belief in human progress unfolding through history — itself a remnant of Christian eschatology — it adds the Leninist twist of a cadre of heroes who jump-start the revolution.
But while Sullivan is looking at this phenomenon from the outside, author Conor Barnes is writing about what it was like to be on the inside. Barnes became part of the radical community by the age of 18 and was for a time a true believer. He now considers himself an apostate (for reasons explained below) from a faith designed to make its adherents miserable and isolated. From Quillette:
When I became an anarchist, I was a depressed and anxious teenager, in search of answers. Radicalism explained that these were not manageable issues with biological and lifestyle factors, they were the result of living in capitalist alienation. For, as Kelsey Cham C notes, “This whole world is based on f**king misery” and “In capitalist systems, we’re not meant to feel joy.” Radicalism not only finds that all oppressions intersect, but so does all suffering. The force that causes depression is the same that causes war, domestic abuse, and racism. By accepting this framework, I surrendered to an external locus of control. Personal agency in such a model is laughable. And then, when I became an even less happy and less strong person over the years as an anarchist, I had an explanation on hand.
There is an overdeveloped muscle in radicalism: the critical reflex. It is able to find oppression behind any mundanity. Where does this critical reflex come from? French philosopher Paul Ricœur famously coined the term “school of suspicion” to describe Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud’s drive to uncover repressed meaning in text and society. Today’s radicals have inherited this drive by way of Foucault and other Marxo-Nietzscheans.
As radicals, we lived in what I call a paradigm of suspicion, one of the malignant ideas that emerge as a result of intellectual in-breeding. We inherited familial neuroses and saw insidious oppression and exploitation in all social relationships, stifling our ability to relate to others or ourselves without cynicism. Activists anxiously pore over interactions, looking for ways in which the mundane conceals domination. To see every interaction as containing hidden violence is to become a permanent victim, because if all you are is a nail, everything looks like a hammer.
The paradigm of suspicion leaves the radical exhausted and misanthropic, because any action or statement can be shown with sufficient effort to hide privilege, a microaggression, or unconscious bias.
Barnes says the nature of radical communities tends to attract a lot of genuinely compassionate people who feel the injustices of the world deeply and have a sincere interest in making it a better place. But the radical community they join celebrates illegal and often violent behavior. And intersectionality leads not to a classless society but to the creation of an alternative pecking order, one where the most afflicted are the most revered. That combination, a rejection of social norms combined with a call-out culture based on a pyramid of victimization, can easily be exploited by abusive personalities to dominate and destroy others.
The accountability process is a subcultural institution whereby survivors can make demands of perpetrators and the community must hold them accountable. Radicals are hesitant to report abusers and rapists to the police, for fear of subjecting comrades to the prison system. But turning victims into judge and jury and shared friends into executioners is a recipe for injustice that satisfies no one. And in light of the instant truth-value given to claims of abuse, accountability processes are an oddly perfect weapon for actual abusers. As one writer for the zine the Broken Teapot says, “The past few years I have watched with horror as the language of accountability became an easy front for a new generation of emotional manipulators. It’s been used to perfect a new kind of predatory maverick—the one schooled in the language of sensitivity—using the illusion of accountability as community currency.”
Entanglement with such an individual is what finally broke me from my own dogmatism. Having somebody yell at me that if I didn’t admit to being a white supremacist her friends might beat me up and that I should pay her for her emotional labor, was too much for my ideology to spin. The internal crisis it induced led to gradual disillusion. In the end, however, this was the greatest gift I could ask for.
I’d like to hear more details about the encounter that shook Barnes’ faith. What had he said to prompt such a response? You get the impression that in these communities, where every interaction between individuals is seen as part of a political struggle between identity groups seeking power, anything could be deemed problematic. For the accused, there is no way to argue the point without immediately proving oneself guilty of the privilege they are denying.
Barnes appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show this week to talk about his time in the radical community.
The investigation into the attacks near the West Bank settlements of Ofra and Givat Assaf this past week has revealed that a single terrorist cell is responsible for both incidents.
The investigation revealed that Salah Barghouti was the shooter in the drive-by attack at a bus stop near Ofra on Sunday, while another man drove the getaway car. Barghouti was killed by police while attempting to evade arrest on Wednesday.
It seems that another member of the group arrived on his own to Givat Assaf hours after Barghouthi was killed, killed soldiers Yuval Mor-Yosef and Yossi Cohen, and fled the scene with one of the soldier’s weapons. Another two people were seriously wounded in the Givat Assaf attack.
>> West Bank spirals into violence as Hamas ups efforts to orchestrate attacks | Analysis
In both cases, the shooting was carried out with an automatic weapon. Security forces are checking the possibility that these weapons were also used in other shooting attacks by Palestinians in the Ramallah area in recent months.
The Hamas terrorist cell responsible for the attacks is made up of members of families that are very well known to security services. A senior officer in IDF’s Central Command said, in response to criticism: “We always ask ourselves if we could have discovered the cell earlier.”
The officer denied the interpretation that this represented an intelligence failure on the part of the IDF and Shin Bet security service. “This is not a failure at the level of having information and not taking action. We are examining if we should have known about the cell earlier, and what we can do to reveal similar terror cells in the early stages. We succeed in preventing hundreds of terrorist attacks a year, some at the last moment before the attack. This is the hard, daily work of the forces,” said the senior officer.
The IDF uses advanced technological means and databases of possible suspects for intelligence on cases like these. The security forces realize that these suspects should have been identified in advance because the Hamas cell has been operating in the West Bank for quite some time.
“We don’t today know whether we have arrested all the members of the cell. We are investigating the ones we have arrested to better understand what happened,” said the officer.
The soldiers assigned to the Army’s newest four-star command charged with modernizing the service’s warfighting equipment received their unit patches Friday, a significant step for Army Futures Command as it continues to grow since its founding this summer, a service official said.
The Futures Command patch, unveiled Thursday on the service’s website, features a golden anvil with a background of black and white stripes receding toward a horizon at the top. Officials with the Army’s Institute of Heraldry at Fort Belvoir in Virginia said the patch represented the command’s motto, “Forge the Future,” and invoked former President Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s personal coat of arms, which featured a blue-colored anvil.
Army Futures Command logo. (Army Futures Command/Released)
The patch made its first public appearance Friday at the Army’s Fort Eustis in Virginia where Army leaders gathered to officially rename the Army Capabilities Integration Center to the Army Futures and Concepts Center and transfer it from the command of Training and Doctrine Command to Futures Command.
The unveiling of the patch is a step toward Futures Command’s move toward full operational capability. The command, which is headquartered in Austin, Texas, is expected to be fully operational by next summer, according to the Army.
The patch has been in the works for nearly a year, according to Andrew Wilson, an artist with Institute of Heraldry who worked with Army leaders to design the insignia.
Army Futures Command patch. (Army Futures Command/Released)
The anvil represents “fortitude, determination and perseverance,” according to the Army, while the black, white and gold represent the Army’s colors.
“This is something that is supposed to stand the test of time and just to play a part in it, it’s an honor,” Wilson said in the Army statement.
Wilson said he immediately thought of including an anvil after meeting with Futures Command leaders and discussing the “Forge the Future” motto.
“Taking away from the meeting, I tried to come up with something that would play off of that” motto, said Wilson, who took a blacksmithing class. “The first thing that popped in my head with ‘forge’ was blacksmithing and one of the key features of that is an anvil.”
At Fort Eustis on Friday, Gen. Mike Murray, the chief of Futures Command, sported the new patch and placed the new insignia on the uniforms of soldiers under his command.
Futures Command represents the largest reorganization for the Army since the 1970s, when the service created Forces Command and Training and Doctrine Command after the Vietnam War as it shifted its focus to Cold War operations.
Among its initial objectives, Murray has said, Futures Command will be responsible for replacing its dated, Cold War-era “Big Five” weapons platforms – the M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and the Patriot missile air defense system.
“The goal is to ensure that we provide future soldiers with the capabilities that they need to fight, win and come home safely on a future battlefield,” Murray said Friday. “…This is not about us wearing the uniform today. This is about those who will follow us.”
© 2018 the Stars and Stripes
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
I haven’t done my usual Miss Universe previews this year, mostly due to having been on vacation. But the pageant is worth a last-minute look–the finale will be televised tomorrow–because, as it happens, the Miss Universe pageant represents peak 2018.
The big news story is the presence of Miss Spain, Angela Ponce, the first transgender person to qualify for the competition. Ms. Ponce has undergone the requisite surgery, and her participation is reported everywhere as a heartwarming story of social progress:
Ponce says that she hopes to win in order to “send a message to President Donald Trump.” Because every single thing in the world must be about Donald Trump, apparently.
The second story to emerge from the pageant features Miss USA, Sarah Rose Summers, who, along with Miss Australia and Miss Colombia, is accused of mocking Miss Vietnam and Miss Cambodia for their inability to speak English. This is the video that went viral; it isn’t very edifying, but it also isn’t clear to me that Miss USA was being malicious or intended mockery:
Various observers have called on Miss USA, along with Australia and Colombia, to withdraw from the competition. One critic wrote on Instagram, in exquisite 2018-speak, that “[t]his is basically what normalized xenophobia looks like.” The incident no doubt cost Miss USA, an early betting favorite, whatever chance she had at the crown.
Let’s take a look at some of the favorites. Miss Philippines, Catriona Gray, is at the top of some oddsmakers’ charts:
Miss Canada, Marta Magdalena Stepien, is also drawing betting support. She typifies the new breed of pageant contestant:
Marta Magdalena Stepien is entering her last year of school with a degree in Biomedical Engineering Technology with a 3.96 GPA. She has a strong interest in Genetics and Immunology, and has worked as an Applied Researcher. Marta Magdalena has a 10 year international modeling career under her belt… She is also fluent in Polish and English, as well as conversational French and German.
Valeria Morales, Miss Colombia, is high on some of the charts. I’m a fan:
Miss Brazil, Mayra Dias, is another favorite with the oddsmakers:
I don’t see Miss Puerto Rico, Kiara Ortega, among the favorites, but I don’t know why not:
Miss Great Britain, Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers, sounds interesting:
Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers was raised on a farm on the tiny idyllic British haven called Anguilla. She spent her childhood running barefoot around the farm and reading books in trees. From the age of 5 she wanted to be an Olympic athlete and trained hard enough to make the Commonwealth team as a heptathlete twice. However a knee injury prevented Dee-Ann from pursuing that dream. She reinvented herself focusing on becoming a barrister which she successfully completed this year.
Time for one more: Miss Japan, Yuumi Kato, who must have the strangest personal history of any of this year’s contestants:
Yuumi Kato, 22 years old, was born in Japan and raised in Malaysia. Yuumi has a very unique background and had many challenges growing up with an underprivileged background. She was required to stop formal education at the age of 13 and was sent to a remote island in Malaysia to survive on her own. There, she had to forage for food in the jungle and sea. At the age of 14, she struggled to fit into society without any formal education.
The pageant will be broadcast from Bangkok tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern, on Fox. If you are a betting person, it is not too late to get your wager down. You can bet on the winner, of course, but also on the age or height of the winner. (The over/under on height is 5′ 9″.) And you can bet on whether the host will announce the wrong winner.