90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, May 2, 2022

Blogs With Rule 5 Links

The Other McCain has: Rule Five Sunday: Lisa Gerrard

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Visage à trois #214

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #385

Many in the Catholic media tend to cover-up for Pope Francis either by putting the best possible interpretation on his actions or else by failing to report news that might be damaging to his image.

One of the main stories that the Catholic media covers-up is that a debate has arisen among Catholics as to whether or not Francis is really the pope.

Since those who claim that he is not the pope constitute a small minority, the Catholic media has, by-and-large, chosen to avoid the topic. It’s a hot-potato issue and those who get caught on the wrong side of it might pay a heavy price.

To claim that the pope is not the pope is like claiming that the president of the United States is not really the president. One would have to be very sure of his case before going out on that limb. As we have discovered, claiming that the election of Joe Biden was rigged has turned out to be a risky proposition.

Yet one of the reasons that some Catholics believe that Francis is not pope is the claim that his election was rigged. The charge was leveled, by the way, about eight years before anyone thought to make a similar claim about the election of Joe Biden.

According to this version of events, a group of high-ranking liberal prelates who met regularly in Saint Gallen, Switzerland, managed to engineer the election of Jorge Bergoglio by employing various devious tactics. For example, it’s said that they were responsible for manufacturing a scandal around the name of the other chief “contender” for the papacy, Cardinal Angelo Scola. For more on the “St. Gallen Mafia” see here.

Another reason that is often given for the claim that Francis is not pope is that the resignation of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI was not valid. But this is a very complicated topic, the resolution of which depends on one’s interpretation of canon law, and on discerning the intentions of Pope Benedict.

But the whole issue of the validity of the papal election would probably never have been raised except for another problem with Francis—namely, that he seems to many to be a bad pope, a very bad pope.

A “bad pope” can mean that a pope is corrupt and immoral, or it can mean that he holds erroneous beliefs, or it can be a combination of the two. In the case of Francis, the “bad pope” charge usually refers to erroneous beliefs rather than personal immorality (although the fact that Francis surrounds himself with corrupt people has raised suspicions about his character).

Interestingly, the charge of “bad pope” is far less contentious than the charge of “not pope.” In fact, many of those who defend the validity of the Francis papacy are quick to admit that he is indeed a bad pope.

For example, this is the position of Michael Voris, the head of Church Militant—a popular website that has a large following among traditional Catholics.

Church Militant has been highly critical of Francis and has exposed numerous scandals related to him, yet Voris strongly rejects the argument that Francis is not the pope. Like other defenders of Francis’s legitimacy, he points out that Church history reveals many cases of popes who were guilty of simony, or sexual immorality, or of adhering to erroneous belief.

The latter category is the most problematic since it calls into question the doctrine of papal infallibility. But, as Voris and others point out, there’s a difference between holding an erroneous view and teaching it as a doctrine that must be believed by all Catholics.

Thus, personal views expressed by a pope—such as Francis’ off-the-cuff, in-flight remarks to reporters—do not qualify as infallible pronouncements. And some canon law experts say that none of the official documents signed by Francis meet the strict conditions for...

Documents made public last week by the Federal Election Commission reveal that Hillary Clinton campaign payments to Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump were not treated as legal expenses. These newly released documents eviscerate the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign’s attempts to hide behind attorney-client privilege in the special counsel’s criminal case against former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.

Sussmann, who awaits trial in a D.C. federal court later this month on the charge that he made a false statement to former FBI General Counsel James Baker, is currently fighting to keep prosecutors from seeing 38 documents withheld from the grand jury based on claims of attorney-client privilege. In early April, Special Counsel John Durham’s team filed a motion to compel those secreting the documents to provide them to the court to allow the judge to assess, in camera, whether they were properly withheld. In response, Sussmann argued the special counsel had waited too long to force the issue and that his criminal case was the wrong forum to litigate the question.

The day after the former Clinton campaign attorney filed his response opposing in camera review of the material, his “fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmann’s efforts to keep the documents concealed” by seeking to intervene in the case. Last week, the trial court granted the flurry of motions to intervene, authorizing tech executive Rodney Joffe, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign to file briefs opposing disclosure of the documents.

On Wednesday the court will hear oral arguments on the special counsel’s motion and decide whether the 38 documents must be turned over, initially to the court and then eventually to prosecutors. While Durham’s team previously had a strong case that the documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege, a document dump last week by the FEC further strengthens the prosecutor’s position.

A little more than a month ago, news broke that the FEC had fined the DNC and the Clinton campaign more than $100,000 related to those organizations’ reporting of fees paid in 2016. Those fees were paid to Fusion GPS for opposition research but marked on financial disclosures as legal expenses remitted to its law firm, Perkins Coie. Until Thursday, however, the basis for the FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed that the DNC and Clinton campaign had misreported the purpose of those disbursements remained buried in the bureaucracy.

The now-released file about the FEC’s investigation into the DNC and the Clinton campaign contains a bevy of material. It includes, most relevantly, memoranda prepared by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel and approved by the FEC.

The memoranda conclude that probable cause supports a finding that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC misrepresented the purpose of the payments to Fusion GPS. While the political organizations reported the payments to Fusion GPS as “legal services” or “legal and compliance consulting,” the FEC concluded probable cause existed that the expenses instead related to...

Visage à trois #213

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #384

McConnell’s ‘Exhilarating’ Insurrection

When it comes to January 6, there are no coincidences.

A dirty little secret about January 6—one of many—is that Democrats and establishment Republicans, not Trump supporters, wanted to shut down the official proceedings of that day.

Just as the first wave of protesters breached the building shortly after 2 p.m., congressional Republicans were poised to present evidence of rampant voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ten incumbent and four newly-elected Republican senators planned to work with their House colleagues to demand the formation of an audit commission to investigate election “irregularities” in the 2020 election. Absent an audit, the group of senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) pledged to reject the Electoral College results from the disputed states.

The Hail Mary effort was doomed to fail; yet the American people would have heard hours of debate related to provable election fraud over the course of the day.

And no one opposed the effort more than ex-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

During a conference call on December 31, 2020, McConnell urged his Republican Senate colleagues to abandon plans to object to the certification, insisting his vote to certify the 2020 election results would be “the most consequential I have ever cast” in his 36-year Senate career.

From the Senate floor on the afternoon of January 6, McConnell gave a dramatic speech warning of the dire consequences to the country should Republicans succeed in delaying the vote. He downplayed examples of voting fraud and even mocked the fact that Trump-appointed judges rejected election lawsuits.

“The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken,” McConnell insisted. “If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”

Roughly six hours later, McConnell got his way. Cowed by the crowd of largely peaceful Americans allowed into the building by Capitol police, most Republican senators backed off the audit proposal. McConnell, echoing hyperbolic talking points about an “insurrection” seeded earlier in the day by Democratic lawmakers and the news media, gloated. “They tried to disrupt our democracy,” he declared on the Senate floor after Congress reconvened around 8 p.m. “This failed attempt to obstruct Congress, this failed insurrection, only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our Republic.”

Congress officially certified the Electoral College results early the next day.

While he projected a sober tone to the American public, McConnell privately was ecstatic, a new book about the 2020 election reveals. “I feel exhilarated by the fact that this fellow finally, totally discredited himself,” McConnell told New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin late on January 6, 2021 about Trump. Martin is the co-author of This Will Not Pass, of which excerpts were published in the Washington Post this week. Martin in the book recounts his midnight conversation with McConnell.

Trump, McConnell claimed, “put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger,” Martin writes. He then asked the reporter what he had heard about members plotting to invoke the 25th Amendment. Calling Trump a “despicable person,” McConnell reportedly bragged how he “crushed the sons of bitches” on January 6 and promised to do the same to them in the 2022 primaries.

Now, that seems like an oddly celebratory demeanor for someone who just survived an “attack on our democracy” and an alleged attempt to “overthrow” the seat of government power, doesn’t it? And why was McConnell so certain the four-hour disturbance would spell the end for Donald Trump?
Report Ad

Further—and more importantly—why did McConnell’s office fail to protect the Capitol on January 6?

His Sergeant at Arms at the time served on the U.S. Capitol police board, a four-man body that manages security at the sprawling Capitol complex. McConnell appointed Michael Stenger in 2018 to serve in that role; Stenger, in addition to his House counterpart, Paul Irving, rejected multiple requests by the Capitol Police chief for extra help in advance of...