General Flynn Seeks Immunity: What Does It Mean?

General Flynn Seeks Immunity: What Does It Mean? by John Hinderaker.

The Democratic Party press is salivating at the Wall St. Journal’s report that General Michael Flynn’s lawyers are in discussions with Congressional committees investigating the criminal leaking of alleged information about Flynn by Obama administration holdovers in the intelligence agencies or the White House. The word is that Flynn has offered to testify in return for immunity. Is this a blockbuster story? Likely not.

This is from a statement issued by Flynn’s lawyers at Covington & Burling, one of Washington’s top firms:

General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit. …

Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

Hinderaker again:

I agree with that. If Flynn were paying me for advice, I would tell him to bargain for immunity and then let the Democrats have it with both barrels. Time will tell, but the fact that Flynn wants immunity, in the present crazed environment, tells us nothing about whether he actually has anything to hide.

On Mocking Dying Working Class White People

On Mocking Dying Working Class White People, by Matt Stoller.

I’m just going to cut and paste comments from this story at the Huffington Post on white working class people dying of despair. Keep in mind, the suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse is causing deaths at the level of the AIDS epidemic at its height. This sentiment is common, I just picked comments from one thread on one article.

“Sorry, not sorry. These people are not worthy of any sympathy. They have run around for decades bitching about poor minorities not “working hard enough,” or that their situation is “their own fault.” Well guess what? It’s not so great when it’s you now, is it? Bunch of deplorables, and if they die quicker than the rest of us that just means the country will be better off in the long run.”

“Is it bad news or good news? Middle aged undereducated white Americans are Donald Trump’s base. They brought us this clown and ensuing insanity. It’s bad news they are dying off if you happen to love one of them or are one of them. But, it’s the welcome news of hope that without that demographic dwindling and eventually gone, our chances of another Trump are significantly less. Now that’s good news.”

“maybe they should takt the advice they used to give minorities, take responsibilty and pull up your boot straps,only when it’s your boot straps you find it’s not so easy as a sound byte.”

“Hey as long as those white people keep voting republican they will continue to die off….. How stupid could you be….”

“I for one have little sympathy for these despairing whites. If they can’t compete against people of color when everything has been rigged in their favor, then there’s really no help for them. Trump and his G(r)OPers will do little to elevate their lot. If anything, these poor whites will be hired to dig grave pits and assemble their own coffins.”

“They have every know advantage in America; culturally, environmentally, educationally, etc. There is absolutely no reason that they should be in such despair. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”

“Those numbers ain’t even real. They are made up by the white supremacist power structure to make the over privileged oppressors look like some kind of victim. It’s sick, and disgusting. It’s the same kind of crap they do with crime statistics. They try to make us, POC, the victims of white hate and oppression for centuries. Look like the criminal minded victimizers and the racist white power structure {ie the white population from top to bottom, upper, middle and lower class alike} look like victims.”

Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty “Diversity Statements”

Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty “Diversity Statements”, by George Leef.

One of the worst features of America in the 1940s and 50s was the persistent demand for national loyalty oaths. In those days, people were expected to declare their support for the U.S. and if they didn’t, they could be blackballed, expelled, or otherwise punished.

The ideological fervor for conformity abated for decades, but has recently returned on our college campuses in the form of mandatory “diversity statements” by faculty members and especially prospective faculty members. The difference is that instead of having to pledge adherence to America in its battle with communism, the new pledge is adherence to the “diversity” agenda in its battle against a color-blind, merit-driven academia. …

How it’s used to prevent non-leftists gaining entry to academia:

Traditionally, faculty candidates have been evaluated on the basis of four documents: a cover letter, their curriculum vitae, research statement, and teaching statement. Now, a fifth document is being added — a statement in which the individual expresses his or her commitment to “diversity.” That is, how important it is to the individual, how he or she acts to further diversity, and so on.

This is not merely idle curiosity, of course. The diversity statement has a purpose. That purpose, writes the paper’s author, Professor Bruce Gilley of Portland State University, is to weed out non-leftist scholars.

At many universities, he explains, there is an unspoken ideology that “emphasizes group identity, an assumption of group victimization, and a claim for group based entitlements.” On the other hand, “Classical liberal approaches that emphasize the pluralism of a free society, the universalism of human experience, and the importance of equality before the law have been regarded as invalid.

Obama’s bumbling, grasping, leaking aides are responsible for the Russian fiasco

Obama’s bumbling, grasping, leaking aides are responsible for the Russian fiasco, by George Neumayer.

The incompetence of the Obama administration was only exceeded by its arrogance, a toxic mix that led his aides to spy on the Trump campaign, leak to the press about a “multi-agency” investigation into bogus Trump-Russia ties, then whine about the unwelcome exposure Trump (and now Devin Nunes) drew to their antics.

The only known crimes in this unfolding fiasco are the ones they committed, namely, criminal leaks that they fed to reporters desperate to discredit Trump. It is impossible to overstate the audacity of the Obama aides’ partisan squealing in this matter. It is akin to a group of prisoners demanding that the warden be locked up. …

The New York Times placidly reported all of this activity, which makes its fury at Devin Nunes all the more bogus. He simply ratified what it had already reported. How dare he say disapprovingly what we have already said approvingly! That’s all its bleating about him comes down to. …

What has come out of all this snooping? No evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, as even Obama aides James Clapper and Mike Morrell have conceded. But it is yielding plenty of evidence of criminal collusion between the Obama administration and the media.

Only the chattering class would have the Orwellian gall to shift the scandal from the Obama administration investigating a political opponent and inflicting damage on him through criminal leaks to the Republicans’ exposure of that devious gambit.