Under the Banner Sacrificial Lamb
During the lockdown to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the definition of “essential” took on a rather broad interpretation. Now I’m not saying I disagree with places like liquor stores, Home Depot, Dunkin’ Donuts, or McDonalds being open. It’s just to define them as “essential” is a stretch. It begs the question, what would happen if they were closed? How many people would die because they couldn’t buy a bag of nails, a case of Bud Light, a Big Mac, or a donut.
Well, a donut maybe.
What is clear is the people forced to work these jobs—often minimum wage workers with few options, no union protection, and likely without robust medical coverage—have borne the brunt of exposure, but that’s about to change.
With the relaxation of restrictions, all those people forced to stay home, wait in lengthy lines at the Starbucks drive up, or hire strangers to do their shopping, once again may venture out. Some, bristling under the restrictions and enamored with this having all been a conspiracy to deny them access to getting their nails done—see conspiracy theories below—will serve a dual purpose.
First, they may bring some life back into the economy, which would be a good thing. And, more important, they will serve as guinea pigs to see if the virus starts another spike. Now we all hope this is not the case, and we can all once again venture out, but the sacrificial lamb does a service to others.
If somebody has to check out before we can get a handle on this thing, so be it. We’ll host a nice memorial someday and maybe declare a holiday next year. National Remember Those Who Ventured Out Early Day.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Under the Banner Conspiracy Cases
While there are many astounding ravings of pure lunacy out there, my favorite claims are that Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates have a “patent” on the coronavirus COVID-19. This is interesting because there are no patents listed for any virus in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Search it yourself, https://www.uspto.gov/.
This makes perfect sense. Why would anyone, if they were so inclined to create a virus that kills people, enter it into a searchable database?
And if it’s the deep state hiding it for them, why would they need a patent?
Another aspect of this is someone intentionally released the virus so Gates, et al., can profit from the vaccine. Something they also have a patent on that is, coincidentally, also missing from the US Patent Office database.
The problem is the virus seems to target the most vulnerable (see Sacrificial Lambs above) who are the very people most likely to support those who see Gates as a political ally. Doesn’t make much sense for the liberal left-wing to back the release of a virus that kills the very people who support them.
I must search the patent office again and see if someone has a patent on a Republican Virus. Perhaps that’s on the horizon.
And now the most troubling.
Under the Banner The Fix is In
The Justice Department, at the direction of Attorney General William Barr, moved to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Justice Department said they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Here’s the words right from the motion.
“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. Moreover, we do not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_4.pdf
The government said it cannot prove a case where the defendant offered a plea of guilty and then cooperated with the Mueller investigation? Then, because of some poorly worded memos and emails made during an investigation—material produced during every investigation and not subject to normal inclusion in the final product — the Justice Department saw a way to let Flynn off the hook.
A rather intriguing example of dialectical ingenuity.
Every investigator, operating under the premise of indications of criminal activity, looks to craft an approach to build a case. That the agents were trying to find a way to get him to lie about his meetings with the Russians was such an approach.
Thwarting it would have been easy. Don’t lie. Flynn chose to lie about it. If it wasn’t criminal, why lie. If you didn’t commit a crime, why plead guilty?
They argued, “The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”
I’ve seen many a case where the fix was in and this has got to be a top ten contender. Materiality apparently is a vague concept within the Barr Justice Department.
The cries of outrage when a smart defense attorney gets a case dismissed on a “technicality”—otherwise known as the law—are long and loud. But here they have fallen silent because the government found the technicality? Such a strange twist.
The burden in on the government to prove a case, and rightfully so. In this matter the government shirked the burden for political reasons. And if the government can refuse to bear the burden when it suits them politically, they can zealously bring it to bear on another case when it suits them.
Remember, Flynn pled guilty twice to these charges and then cooperated with the Mueller investigation. The man was a three-star General and an intelligent, educated man. Why would anyone plead guilty if they did nothing wrong? Why would someone agree to cooperate with the government unless they had information about criminal activity? Why lie to FBI agents about a meeting with the Russians?
Flynn could have made the same arguments at trial, but he wanted a guarantee. A pardon from the President would have been a cleaner way to “fix” the problem, instead they sullied the entire system.
I’ll wait and see if any indictments arise from the Durham review of the FBI investigation. Durham is a man of integrity and I assume if he seeks indictments, they are necessary and justified. If so, the government should prosecute them with vigor.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume some FBI agents are indicted and let’s imagine there is a new administration with a new head of the Justice Department this January. What’s stopping the same politically driven approach to pursuing Justice from finding some weasel-worded way to dismiss those indictments? The problem would persist Ad infinitum.
You can’t “lock her up” without evidence. Nor should you seek to “dismiss with prejudice” a criminal case where there is clear evidence. A guilty plea entered before a Federal Court with the advice of counsel is such evidence. Two separate guilty pleas are a slam dunk.
Under British Law there is a charge for perverting the course of justice. This case begs for such a charge. Unlike most criminal matters, this charge would apply to those now running the Department of Justice.
Don’t believe there is a two-tier system of justice in America? Don’t think politics and personal connections permeate the system? Look no further than this case and the case in Georgia involving the killing of Mr. Arbery.
This is the new America. This is the America of Donald Trump. Where conspiracy theories trump science and rationality, people cannot bear any burden that interrupts them for even the briefest of moments despite the risk they may pose to others, and we apply justice with fluid standards depending on the politics of those in charge.
Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like to write a piece to be posted on my blog, please send me a message.
Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
And for all my books to add to your memories of great reads…https://www.amazon.com/Joe-Broadmeadow/e/B00OWPE9GU