Ruth's Report: General Michael Flynn

General Michael Flynn was railroaded and persecuted by our government. On top of everything else, they threatened his son with prosecution to force the general to enter a guilty plea. Now that there is finally some justice for Mr. Flynn, some have tried to over turn the Department of Justice's decision.

Not everyone is willing to play dumb. J. Edward Moreno (THE HILL) reports:

More than two dozen former prosecutors, judges and active trial lawyers filed a brief backing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to dismiss the case against President Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The bipartisan group of former government attorneys are asking U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan for them to formally file an amicus brief on the case. The group includes former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
“The issue presented in this case is whether the court has discretion to deny a motion to dismiss to which the defendant consents, as Gen. Flynn has done here. The answer is no,” the attorneys wrote.
Attorney General William Barr requested that the Justice Department drop the charges against Flynn of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia shortly before Trump took office.
The attorneys argue that Sullivan does not have the legal right to override the decision from the prosecutor — in this case the DOJ — to dismiss a case they are prosecuting.

It is time to stop persecuting General Flynn and time to demand that people be held accountable.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, May 28, 2020. Joe Biden remains disgusting, Tara Reade's allegations of assault stand and Michelle Goldberg offers new lies and new attacks on Tara.

Joe Biden wants to be the president of the United States. He doesn't want to do anything for the American people -- no Medicare For All, nothing to meet the needs of the people -- so I guess he just wants the title. He could put it next to his name right beside War Monger (he destroyed Iraq -- and we're just talking about his 2002 vote) and rapist.

Yeah, Tara Reade's not going away. He is spearheading a trashing of Tara's name using his friends in the corporate media. The goal was to make Tara toxic so people would walk away from her -- as I noted in a snapshot last week, the campaign was sure they had won this.

They haven't won. And they won't win. This is now Joe's legacy forever more. He can be elected president and he can even serve two terms. Doesn't matter. He's a rapist. And for every whore who stands with him now, there will be ten in a decade calling him out. That's how it works and that's what the campaign never understood and never cared to understand.

I was accused this morning by a member of Biden's senior staff of being behind an editorial. I'm not behind it. I had nothing to do with it. I love the editorial, it's wonderful. But it was written by the editorial board of THE GEORGETOWN VOICE:

In early March, Tara Reade accused former vice-president and likely Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in the spring of 1993, when she worked as a staff assistant in his Senate office. Two months after Reade first made the allegation, and one month after she filed a criminal complaint against Biden on April 10, a consensus seems to have been reached by Democratic politicians: do not ask more questions, do not press further, and do not elevate Reade’s voice. This contradicts the heart of the fight against sexual assault and is the exact opposite of how women who come forward should be treated. Whether or not Biden is guilty, Reade deserves to be heard.
A slew of staunch supporters of the #MeToo movement, including Democratic politicians Stacy Abrams and Kirsten Gillibrand, have quickly voiced their continued support for Biden, tacitly stating they believe his denial. Media investigations continually fail to mention all available evidence, and often seem predisposed to find the allegations not to be credible, urging their audience to come to a certain conclusion. In all this, Reade has been left behind and has not been given even a semblance of the investigation her accusation merits.
The response to Reade, like every response to women who accuse powerful men of sexual assault or harassment, tells survivors in this country how society will treat them. Reade’s accusations have garnered disbelief, disdain, and nonchalance. There is almost a consensus that women will only be fiercely defended when it is politically convenient, as can be seen in the different responses to Reade’s accusations of Biden and Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Reade, who has received little support from the media and prominent Democratic officials, deserves to have her claims investigated and taken with the utmost seriousness.
Reade first made her allegation in a podcast on March 25. It took over two weeks for major outlets, including the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to write articles on the allegations. In contrast, the Intercept reported on Ford’s allegations before her initial letter detailing the allegations to Sen. Dianne Feinstein was made public, and CNN, the New Yorker, and the Post all published stories within four days on the revelation. Meanwhile, Reade was discredited on social media, with a tacit understanding by much of the public that the lack of articles was a direct reflection of the accuracy of Reade’s claims. In recent days, articles about other aspects of Reade’s life have been used to create doubt of the veracity of her claims.
The stories that were then released often took a dismissive or critical tone, and focused on Biden’s response rather than the allegations themselves. A particularly egregious “investigation” by the New York Times asserted the Times had found no corroboration of her claims and “no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,” effectively making a judgment on the veracity of Reade’s claims for readers. In the days after the article was released, multiple pieces of evidence that supported Reade’s claim and had been overlooked by the Times came to light.

We cannot expect reporters to examine claims of sexual assault to the extent of a criminal investigation. We should, however, expect them to be honest about when they fall short, and to allow their readers to make their own judgments. We can expect them to treat women who come forward with far more dignity and respect than Reade has been afforded, and we can expect them to report on women’s claims regardless of the political party of the accused.

It's a brilliant editorial, please read it in full.

I said here last week and over the phone to my friend with the campaign that they were wrong to think that they picked the right time re: campus life to attack Tara.

I said they were wrong.

That wasn't because I was calling students and saying, "Write about Tara!"

I said they were wrong because I've been speaking to college and high school groups (as well as women's groups, veterans groups and labor groups) since February 2003. That's why I knew in September of 2016 that Hillary was going to lose. She didn't have the enthusiasm needed among voters.

The young are the future. They're not middle aged whores who will vote for just anyone. They're not middle aged whores who looked the other way as James Carville, Gene Lyons, Bob Somerby and so many others smeared and attacked women who spoke of harassment and assault carried out by Bill Clinton.

They are 'woke' -- which really just means that they have heightened awareness. They have that especially when contrasted with the beaten down and overly used whores who are middle aged and elderly. They'll look the other way. They'll say, "I believe Tara but I'm voting for Joe." Because that's what whores do, they settle.

They should be insisting the DNC get another nominee. It could be Bernie Sanders, it could be Andrew Cuomo, it could be Gavin Newsom, it could be . . . I'd vote for any of them. I don't want a rapist who voted for the Iraq War and then went on to destroy that country as vice president (including by overturning the votes of the Iraqi people in 2010 in order to give thug Nouri al-Maliki a second term that the people of Iraq did not want him to have -- a term that led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq). I'm not asking for perfection as this point just someone who isn't a rapist now going senile.

People have seen what Joe's done to Tara. The corporate press has done everything they can to keep Joe's hands clean but he's the one feeding the press the smears and he's the one who okayed the whole operation. History will not judge Joe or his supporters well.

More to the point, it will be seen as 'goes to pattern' after Bill Clinton. That'll be the face of the DNC in a decade? That's what they're willing to risk to save a candidate who can't even speak coherently and utters something offensive every time he does speak -- not to mention at least one lie in every interview.

It's as though the DNC's real goal is to re-elect Donald Trump.

Marisa Ozbat Tweets:

There are no inconsistencies in her story corroborated by court docs from the 90’s, 5+ witnesses, interns. She elaborated, let’s not act like we have amnesia on victim shame and self blame. These sad rape culture op-Ed’s are just that.

Does anyone not grasp rape culture? Or do they just pretend not to? If someone's confused, actually confused, Anthony Zenkus (COMMON DREAMS) explains:

Rape culture holds victims to a higher standard than it does abusers. Rape culture allows us to turn a victim’s life upside down, looking at every tweet, post, public or private statement, for any inconsistencies, even when it has nothing to do with the crime perpetrated against them. Especially when it has nothing to do with that crime. Rape culture does this while making sure we’re never allowed to ask the same things of the alleged perpetrator. We don’t turn their lives upside down. We ask them for a denial, they give it, and then we move on. Nancy Pelosi, in a recent CNN interview, said she was done talking about the Tara Reade allegations. Case closed. Nothing to see here. Move along. Rape culture.
In the case of Tara Reade, Joe Biden’s documented history of public lying is never looked at. His fantastic and completely false claim of being arrested in South Africa while visiting Nelson Mandela goes unmentioned by politicians and the media. His years of lies about having been involved in the civil rights movement go unnoticed. We’re not allowed to talk about why he had to drop out of a presidential race because he plagiarized and then lied about it multiple times on the campaign trail. We only seem to have permission to deconstruct his victim, Tara Reade. We question the timing of her disclosure. We say she changed her story. We look for inconsistencies in her claims about filing a complaint after she was sexually harassed while working for then Senator Biden. We share hit pieces on social media which paint her as a “manipulative, deceitful user” because she may have been late on her rent and owed people money. We attempt to look into every nook and cranny of her life, and while doing so, make sure we keep the spotlight off of the man accused of victimizing her. It’s hot under those lights, best we keep them turned on the victim.
In rape culture, we say the alleged perpetrator is a “good man”. That’s what we’re saying about Biden now. He passed the Violence Against Women Act. He was Obama’s VP. Sure, he gets a little handsy sometimes, but he doesn’t mean anything by it. He didn’t mean to offend or harm women when he sniffed their hair, planted long kisses on their heads while touching their waists from behind, touched their thighs or caressed them – all without their consent. Joe Biden is Joe Biden. Move along.

Senator Dianne Feinstein waded into the world of rape culture and victim blaming when she said of Tara Reade, “Where has she been all of these years?”. Questioning the timing of a victim’s disclosure is the epitome of rape culture. It’s what defense attorneys who represent men accused of sexual assault do. All the time. It’s an uninformed and ignorant way of looking at rape. It’s understandable when it comes from the mouths of lawyers defending rapists, like when it was uttered by Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers – that’s their job. It is completely unacceptable when it comes from a leading Democrat like Feinstein. The Democrats were supposed to be the party of #MeToo. They were supposed to be the party that didn’t defend men credibly accuse of rape. They were supposed to be the opposite of the Republicans, who defended Trump and Kavanaugh. They were supposed to be, but when it comes to rape and sexual assault, they are not.

Lara Tweets:

When I saw how the Democrats handled Tara Reade, that was my last straw. Will never be a part of a party who dismisses a survivor and encourages rape culture. I thought me too was real but it was a political weapon where survivors are used as pawns. All this opened my eyes.

The whores of the corporate media can't stop whoring. Remember Joe Biden's sniffing of women, his unwanted touching and kissing? Michelle Goldberg reduces it to "kind of touching people inappropriately" on THE NEW YORK TIMES' podcast. What a whore. It's cute how Michelle, the first to attack Tara at THE NEW YORK TIMES, is pretending she was ever fair to Tara. What a whore. She is the argument for non-partisans to be hired as columnists. Whores got whore and no one does that better than Michelle Goldberg. We see you and we see your lies. Joe, she insists, needed the benefit of the doubt. But she presents allegations against Tara as fact.

Not just allegations, mind you. She presents a Tara hater's stated feelings as fact. I don't give two s**ts what some attorney thinks Tara was trying to do and, more to the point, no court gives two s**ts about the feelings of attorney. Michelle is a dirty whore and always will be.

Michelle doesn't ever note that the allegation of assault is false. She's not that much of whore -- not that much. The allegation stands. And it's cute how THE NEW YORK TIMES wants to muddy the water -- which includes bringing up Joe Biden's tax returns.

Joe Biden has an awful history. That includes Iraq. And it goes beyond his 2002 vote for war. He brags non-stop that Barack Obama put him over Iraq. Barack ran on the promise that he would remove all US troops from Iraq. After two terms, his presidency was over and US troops were still in Iraq.

Why?

ISIS is the reason given.

Let's yet again note the August 2015 broadcast of Kevin Sylvester's THIS SUNDAY EDITION (CBC) which featured Emma Sky discussing Iraq:

Emma Sky: And that [2010] national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election. They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence. To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election. And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats. And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism. And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

Kevin Sylvester: People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

Emma Sky: Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus. And Maliki refused to accept the results. He just said, "It is not right." He wanted a recount. He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained. And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat. And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do? So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days. And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

Kevin Sylvester: Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around. What happened?

Emma Sky: Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there. He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

Kevin Sylvester: Chris Hill.

Emma Sky: And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man. Maliki's our friend. Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.' So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation. And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki. People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election." So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him. So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya. They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement. So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki. And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.' But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him. And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011. So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

Kevin Sylvester: Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention? Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something. This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq. How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration? Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.] How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?

Emma Sky: Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010. And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq. She did appoint the ambassador but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself. You know, he understands identity more than many people. He understands multiple identities and how identities can change. He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British. That's how things are." So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war. For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics. And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals. He was determined he was never going to lose an election again. So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process. He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.] He didn't pay them. He subverted the judiciary. And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!" And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki." And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better.

Emma Sky wrote about her experiences in Iraq in the book THE UNRAVELING: HIGH HOPES AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN IRAQ. Here's Emma's bio:

Emma Sky is director of Yale's Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Program and a Senior Fellow at the Jackson Institute, where she teaches Middle East politics. She is the author of the highly acclaimed The Unravelling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq (2015) and In a Time of Monsters: Travelling in a Middle East in Revolt (2019). Sky served as advisor to the Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq from 2007-2010; as advisor to the Commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2006; as advisor to the US Security Co-ordinator for the Middle East Peace Process in 2005; and as Governorate Co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003-2004. Prior to that, Sky worked in the Palestinian territories for a decade, managing projects to develop Palestinian institutions; and to promote co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, Emma has provided technical assistance on poverty elimination, human rights, justice public administration reform, security sector reform, and conflict resolution in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Sky has published numerous articles including in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Politico, Atlantic, Slate, Survival, Center for a New American Security, US Institute of Peace, the Guardian, and the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. Sky was educated at Oxford (UK), Alexandria (Egypt), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) and Liverpool (UK). Sky is an Officer of the British Empire.

As Joe has repeatedly claimed credit for Iraq and also lied about it, is there a reason the corporate media can't find Emma Sky?

Oh, that's right, they hide or attack anyone who won't join hands and sing along to "Oh Come Let Us Adore Joe."

ISIS rose in Iraq because of Nouri al-Maliki's second term. Joe Biden made that second term possible.

MIDDLE EAST MONITOR ONLINE reports that Iraqi Brigadier General Yahya Rasoul is insisting that ISIS "has already been vanquished, no longer poses a threat to Iraq." Unfortunately, reality slaps Rasoul in the face. ISIS has never been vanquished.

Monday, ALMASDAR NEWS reported, "The Iraqi security forces announced on Monday that an Iraqi military plane was hit by terrorist forces in the Al-Rutbah Desert during an operation to destroy Islamic State" Iraqi security forces said a member of ISIS had "14.5 mm mono weapon and fired at one of the planes, lightly wounding the plane." Doesn't sound like it's been vanquished or that it no longer poses as a threat. Monday night, David Rose (THE AUSTRALIAN) reported:

Islamic State has waged its deadliest terrorism campaign in Iraq for nearly two years, raising fears jihadists are staging a resurgence.

In the past month, since the start of Ramadan, Islamic State (also known as ISIS) has claimed responsibility for more than 260 attacks across Iraq, allegedly killing or wounding 426 people.

The attacks form part of the group’s self-proclaimed “battle of attrition” campaign, which also has inspired violence by Islamic State branches in Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Niger, Congo and Mozambique in recent weeks.

Yesterday, Persecution: International Christian Concern issued the following:

Since Ramadan’s beginning last month, the Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for over 260 attacks across Iraq, which resulted in the death or injury of 426 people. Over the last few weeks, attacks in Syria and Egypt also increased. Fears are rising that jihadist sleeper cells view the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to weaken others, capitalizing on the disruption the disease has already caused.
The attacks in Iraq are primarily along the perimeter of governorates’ borders, not necessarily in Nineveh where most Christians lived before their displacement. However, the increase in attacks still brings fear to Christians. They are trying to rebuild their lives following displacement from ISIS.
More broadly, Christians throughout the Middle East still face a serious threat as they live out their faith. A resurgence in ISIS attacks means less freedom and more fear for those who follow Christ. Especially amidst the devastation of the coronavirus, many Christians experience difficult and sometimes life-threatening circumstances every day.

For interviews, please contact Olivia Miller, Communications Coordinator: press@persecution.org.

But by all means, let's pretend that ISIS is no longer a threat and vanquished because some minor little military spokesperson in Iraq said so.

Hassan al-Obeidi (DIYARUNA) reports:

In mid-May, a lengthy video produced by the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) began to circulate on extremist social media accounts.

The 50-minute video, titled "Strike Their Necks", contained a compilation of clips that show various attacks ISIS elements carried out in the preceding weeks.

It showed dozens of ISIS elements pledging allegiance to the group's new leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Qurashi, and threatening to launch what they described as "continuous attacks" inside Iraq.

It also showed the execution of unarmed tribesmen in northern and western Iraq, labeling them as "infidels" for providing assistance to Iraqi forces during the liberation operations that took place in 2016 and 2017.

There were scenes of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) detonating, sniper operations and armed attacks against Iraqi security forces, and of civilians being beheaded under various pretexts.

Also shown was the burning of wheat fields and orchards in northern and western Iraq, the bombing of electricity pylons and the shooting of livestock.

The video showed about 30 masked ISIS elements, standing with a man whose accent indicates he is an Iraqi, as he threatened to launch new terror attacks in what he referred to as "Wilayat al-Iraq".

The video provides some insights, Iraqi security expert Fuad Ali told Diyaruna.

It shows ISIS continues to pose a threat, he said.

Imagine that.

The following site updated: