How blatant must the evidence be? Never enough for some, it seems.

Monica Showalter: Trump is right about the huge potential for ballot fraud in Michigan’s election – “To hear the mainstream media tell it, President Trump is somehow paranoid at Michigan’s latest gambit to mail absentee voting applications to all registered voters in the state.

“Notice in the story how the reporter takes pains to state that these mail-in ballot applications will go to ‘qualified’ voters, as if Trump were somehow against that. Fact: They will go to any name on the voter rolls, and the problem Trump is bringing up is that the voter roll list is absolutely filthy, loaded with names of people who have moved away, leaving golden opportunities for Democrats to stop over at those mailboxes and pick up the unopened mail.

The report correctly notes that Trump said ‘ballots’ rather than ‘ballot applications,’ but that too is red herring. … The report said nothing about the flimsy checking mechanism or the unmanaged voter roll list.

There also was the Media-Matters-like “Trump claimed, without evidence…”

Bonchie: Chris Wallace Tries to Play Gotcha With Oklahoma Governor Over Phased Re-Opening – “The media’s war on these governors is not helping anyone. It’s leaving millions in a destitute, dangerous state and that has real consequences, whether anyone wants to face them or not.

Matt Margolis: Why Has Barack Obama’s Unprecedented War with Inspectors General Been Forgotten? – “While it’s true that we should make sure these IGs were removed for legitimate reasons, I am perplexed as to why Democrats failed to take issue when Barack Obama went on a firing spree against inspectors general early in his first term, a clear sign he sought to avoid accountability from independent watchdogs that weren’t in his pocket.

“In August 2014, 47 of 73 inspectors general wrote an open letter to Congress informing them that the Obama administration was obstructing investigations by not giving them full access to the information they need to investigate properly. Such a letter was unprecedented, and this systemic corruption and obstruction of inspectors general would have been considered an impeachable defense for almost any other president.

Obstruction of justice was integral to the entire operation of the Obama administration. The Trump administration, by comparison, has barely been given room to breathe because it’s been constantly under the microscope of a special counsel investigation, an impeachment inquiry, and a media that spent eight years ignoring endless scandals under Barack Obama.

Andrea Widburg: Judge Sullivan does the equivalent of pasting ‘I’m guilty’ on his forehead – “When asked to explain himself to an appellate court, he should be able to sit down for a quiet hour or two and write out a document that includes his views about the facts and the law in Flynn’s case. … But that’s not what Sullivan did.”

“it is the judge’s responsibility to make sure that the government isn’t toying with the defendant by dismissing a losing case while intending to refile in the hopes of drawing a more amenable judge or jury. Absent that problem, the judge’s only job is to rubber-stamp the dismissal.

Judge Sullivan refused to use that rubber stamp. He also declined to act as Flynn’s last defense against an overreaching prosecution.

Instead, Sullivan did something strange. He asked a retired judge, one who had published in the Washington Post an article hostile to the motion to dismiss, to file a brief with the court opposing the motion. Then, although he had consistently (and properly) denied third parties the right to file advisory briefs with the court, Sullivan invited such submissions to help oppose the motion to dismiss.

Sullivan hired Beth Wilkinson, a very high-profile Washington D.C. attorney to represent him before the appellate court. From a legal standpoint, this is beyond strange.

Sullivan is worried that the appellate court will look at his conduct, rather than his legal reasoning.

You name it, and people thought it – and rightly so because for a judge to hire a lawyer under these circumstances practically screams out that there’s something wrong here.

How blatant must the evidence be?

Comments are closed.