Archive for May, 2020

John Wayne: The Hero We Need Now – National Review

Statue outside the John Wayne Birthplace Museum in Winterset, Iowa.(Carol Highsmith/Library of Congress)He survived the crash of 1929 by working from dawn to dusk, always loving America and defending its founding principles.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEAmerica fits into John Waynes filmography, and this does not make America small. It makes John Wayne huge. The coronavirus has brought us back to the Wild West. Lonely lives, deserted streets, looks of distrust, and whiskey for throat disinfection; the scientific community has not made an official statement as yet, but it seems unlikely that anybody would try to deny the benefits of whiskey in the fight against almost everything. John Wayne, who would be 113 years old this month, would not be shocked by social alienation and a life of isolation. They are part of his trademark. Once again, as on 9/11, John Wayne symbolizes everything you need to overcome this crisis and get back on your feet: individual initiative, freedom, old-fashioned values, and patriotism. In other words, everything that someone like Bernie Sanders as the new CEO of the unemployment and poverty home-delivery company, Joe Biden, Inc. cant supply

Like anyone who cherishes freedom, John Wayne was a steadfast anti-Communist. Stalin, the American Communists, and finally Mao Zedong would all try to kill him, an unusual strategy for drawing him to their cause. Its a testament to his heroism that John Wayne survived three attacks, particularly because the only thing the Communists excel at is killing. When Wayne was visiting U.S. troops at the Chu Lai base in Vietnam, in the summer of 1966, and signing autographs for them, a Mao hitman lined him up in his sights and fired several shots. He missed them all. Later, the Duke said he didnt know about the shooting until he saw the soldiers diving for cover. Impossible not to be reminded of his J. B. Books character: I wont be wronged. I wont be insulted. I wont be laid a-hand on. I dont do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

Over the years, Wayne developed an extraordinary nose for detecting Communists. On one occasion, during a shoot in the middle of the Cold War, he asked the film director Edward Dmytryk, Are you a Commie? Dmytryk answered: If the masses of the American people want Communism, I think itd be good for our country. Well, to me, said the Duke, later recalling the exchange, the word masses is not a term generally used in Western countries, and I just knew he was a Commie.

Waynes anti-Communism is no outdated sentiment. The coronavirus crisis is reviving the worst ghosts of Communisms dehumanizing ideology: an overdose of regulations, massive surveillance, the presumption of guilt, venomous state paternalism, and economic aids that, although sometimes necessary, turn millions into passive citizens clinging helplessly to the public treasury. Dont forget that in any crisis there is always some enlightened person saying, Lets give the whole world a salary and end poverty. And then theres always some damned party-pooper-son-of-a-hyena innocently asking, And whos going to pay for that? More often than not, that damned party-pooper-son-of-a-hyena will be yours truly.

Wayne got it right; he drew no distinctions between liberals, socialists, and Communists. What separates Biden from Sanders is little more than a couple of bouts of sniffing a young girls hair and the occasional whoop. But the whole Left is marching toward the same precipice. Look at Venezuelan Chavism, Spanish socialism, European social democracy, or Cuban Communism. They are different degrees of the same project to annihilate individuality and strengthen the state. A brilliant P. J. ORourke wrote years ago (and its still true today), Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

John Wayne abhorred the masses, even his own following. This set him free to be critical, even of his own people. And there lies the difference between conservatives and progressives: individual thought. The conservative tends to value his own thought. The progressive believes in collective thought, ignoring that, in human nature, such a thing simply does not exist. There are global fevers, such as the gold rush or tulip mania; theres widespread blindness, like the one afflicting so many Biden-loving reporters; there can also be a feeling that many people share, such as (in my case) an infatuation with tennis player Maria Sharapova. But there is no such thing as collective thinking.

Now that were looking for a vaccine against the coronavirus, it would be worth remembering that we also need a vaccine against Communism. Without Communism, we would not be searching for a vaccine, blindly, with no information about the origin of the disease. Without Communism, Xi Jinping would not be able to withhold crucial information about this pandemic. Without Communism, it is quite possible that the starving Chinese would never have dared to sink their teeth into a pangolin, but I admit that this is just my own theory; do not look for any scientific basis because I am still working on it, and, for the moment, the pangolin is refusing to cooperate.

In the face of the coronavirus crisis, the antidote comes in the form of a renewed patriotism. It is not a question of just waving a flag in an empty gesture. The patriotism we need is of the sort that the Duke displayed: content-rich Americanism based on old-fashioned values, practiced with vigor and including a heartfelt tribute to those who have died fighting for Americas common legacy. The alternative meaningless flags divested of their values has already been invented and is called Europe. And, sorry for the spoiler: It ends badly.

In one of the many memorable scenes from The Alamo, directed by John Wayne and left to us as his moral testament, Jocko proclaims, in the middle of a discussion about life after death: I believe. I can never find a way to argue down you that dont believe, but I believe in the Lord God Almighty. All-knowing and all-forgiving. I believe that Good shall be triumphant in the end and that evil shall be vanquished. Then Bob adds, Me, too. I figure a mans got to believe in those things. . . . Does he want to believe in the good things about man the real good things, like courage, honesty, and love?

The whole movie is an ode to eternal virtues. In the end, conservatism is conservation. Theres nothing wrong with preserving the good. Wayne tells us we dont have to be ashamed of safeguarding tradition. Always be wary of people who tell you theyve just discovered the next best thing in life: the next best friend, the next best car, the next best destination. Distrust them as if they were teetotalers.

In the final years of his life, Wayne was caricatured as a gross, illiterate cowboy. The Left fears leaders who move millions. The Duke was one of these. But John Waynes biographers have fought to break the stereotype, showing that he was an educated man. He was a great conversationalist who loved to learn from others and an enthusiastic reader with an insatiable curiosity. He was always looking to form his own opinion. And this is another essential characteristic of the conservative. We do not respond well to instructions. We respond to criteria. Our own. And not at random. We form our own opinions, enriched by independent views in conservative outlets such as National Review. Other times, we poke our nose out the window and stare into the street or watch a classic Frank Capra movie.

In these days of crisis, a look back at the crash of 1929 can teach us a lot. That drama hit actors hard. John Waynes reaction was to team up with Nat Levine, producer of Mascot Pictures, and work tirelessly from dawn to well into the night. We worked so hard on those shows that there was no time to think, Wayne said in an interview in the 1970s. A working day was 12 to 20 hours of work. I wasnt hired to act, he recalls, but to survive. I like the anecdote because it shows how John Wayne and the character of The Duke are merged. When necessary, he summoned his courage and walked for hours in solitude through the tedious wilderness of Mascots series.

Another stereotype about Wayne is that he was a doctrinarian. In reality, he was a free man. He believed deeply in the founding principles of America. That led him to write to President Carter, whom he opposed in every way but with whom he had a cordial epistolary relationship, to state his support for Panama in the Canal controversy. (Waynes first wife was a native of Panama.) It is not by chance that in The Alamo he praises the commitment of the Mexican fighters: He felt a reverential respect for his enemies. As a good conservative, he belonged to the Chestertonian line of warriors: The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

One more lesson. Wayne is often found deeply rooted in his world, fighting to uphold its values, to be true to what he believes in, and also to overcome his own hostility. He fights against himself, against his own character and pride. He ends by putting his neck on the line to face evil without hope for any reward. He fights to be a good man in the Wild West, which is plagued by as many bad guys and fools as my Twitter timeline. After a lifetime of spreading those universal values, and struggling to redeem his mistakes, it was no surprise that John Wayne ended up embracing the Catholic faith.

A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to be able to document the details of his baptism for the book God Always Calls a Thousand Times (available only in Spanish at the moment). Inquiring about his conversion, I was happy to discover Father Robert Curtiss note from June 15, 1979, which at the time went unnoticed:

John Wayne was received into the Catholic Church the day before he died. Mr. Wayne was conscious at that time. We will not disclose any additional information, as this is a private matter between the priest and the penitent.

So John Wayne was baptized before he died. But he was already Christian by his acts. And he was already Catholic in his universality.

Today his legacy is more alive than ever. Its that of a good man, at times an amusing scoundrel, often hidden, crouching behind his sense of humor, a common trench for intelligent men. The actor Red Buttons spent four months in Africa with John Wayne during the shooting of Hatari. Buttons said that on one of those African nights, while they were playing cards, a huge leopard came out of the bush and headed toward them. On seeing it approach, Buttons whispered, trembling: Duke, theres a leopard walking toward us. Wayne said, Buttons, see what he wants. That was John Wayne, Buttons said, laughing, recalling the story for The Man Behind The Myth.

On another occasion, film historian Michael Munn recounted, Wayne, in the twilight of his life, surrounded by all his grandchildren, was having lunch at his home with director Don Siegel. They were discussing the new trend of trying to modernize westerns by introducing swear words into the dialogue. Wayne refused to accept this and didnt like Clint Eastwoods doing it. Siegel defended Eastwood. Wayne pushed his point with a string of swear words and curses, to the amazement of Siegel, who said, Duke youre wrong about Clints films; and besides, listen to yourself speak. Wayne laughed and said, But youll never hear me use profanity in a picture.

Maybe thats why Ive had a giant John Wayne poster in my office for decades. I use it to scare away the self-conscious. It also works as an idiot detector. One day while I was interviewing a young editor for a job, to see if we would hire him at the newspaper, the boy pointed at the poster, wrinkled his nose, and exclaimed, That fascist pig violated the rights of the Indians! I couldnt say why, but we didnt hire him in the end. And its a shame. The kid had a great future. As a Cherokee Indian.

Translated by Joel Dalmau

Read the original post:
John Wayne: The Hero We Need Now - National Review

JFK bombshell: How Lee Harvey Oswald might have been TOLD to return to US – Express.co.uk

Oswald is credited with the assassination JFK as the presidential motorcade travelled through Dallas, Texas on Friday 23 November, 1963. The then 24-year-old initially escaped the police.

He was later tracked down to a theatre where he was arrested and taken to Dallas Police Headquarters.

Two days later, on Sunday 25 November, while Oswald was being escorted out of the station, local nightclub owner Jack Ruby fatally shot him.

It was but one bizarre event in a series of questionable happenings in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In 1959, having served with the US Army for a short time, Oswald acquired a hardship discharge based on the need to support his mother.

Entirely randomly, he then took a boat to Europe, first to Finland, moving on to the Soviet Union.

On reaching Moscow, Oswald publicly announced he would provide Russia with US radar secrets.

From this point on, multiple divisions of US intelligence offices kept files on him.

Just two years later, Oswald, rather hastily, decided he wanted to return to the US.

JUST IN:Narcos: Who is Barry Seal? Is Barry Seal a real person?

This was despite having denounced the country and revealing to his brother, Robert, that he intended to never return to America.

He claimed to have fallen out of love with the Soviet Union and its rigid communism not allowing any recreational pastimes.

But, during the 2013 documentary, Killing Oswald, retired Major and author of Oswald and the CIA, John Newman, revealed how Oswald may well have been working with the US government, being called back for duty.

Mr Newman claimed: Oswalds decision to come back home may have not been his decision at all.

DON'T MISS

Kim Jong-un health: North Korean leader exposed in 'red flag' incident [LATEST]CIA secrets: Decisive moment agency began brainwashing exposed [UPDATE]How FBI agent claimed Lee Harvey Oswald was 'one of ours'[ANALYSIS]

If hes actually there on a mission he would have been told its time to come back home.

This whole time, his files were maintained in the counter intelligence area of the CIA.

It was in fact the mole hunting unit.

The story they had no interest in him, they were contacted and did know anything about him, doesnt add up.

Despite the CIAs close monitoring of Oswald, when he returned to the US, he seemingly slipped through their grasp.

On returning in 1961, Oswald was questioned little about his involvement with the Soviet Union or about his claim to revealing radar secrets.

To its proponents, the instance appears to further prove Oswald was a double agent.

Shortly after during the documentary, Professor Joan Mellen, described an event that suggested Oswald was working directly with the US authorities.

She said: When Oswald first arrives in New Orleans, what does he do?

He goes to 544 Camp Street or 531 Lafayette Street depending on which door you go in.

He goes into the office of Guy Banister, former special agent in charge of the FBI field office in Chicago now running a detective agency in New Orleans as a CIA operative of high level.

And, he asked for a job.

One day, the secretary said to Guy Banister look, theres your friend Oswald giving out pro-Castro leaflets downstairs.

And Guy Banister brushed that aside.

He said: Hes one of ours.

Oswald was doing his best to keep up his cover.

The CIA had a plan to blame Castro for the assassination and to make Oswald the agent of Fidel Castro.

See original here:
JFK bombshell: How Lee Harvey Oswald might have been TOLD to return to US - Express.co.uk

Joe Biden’s problem with the truth – Cal Coast News

May 25, 2020

OPINION by T. KEITH GURNEE

I usually like what Stewart Jenkins writes, but his recent piece about Trump as The Denier in Chief was over-the-top pointed. While President Donald Trump is often guilty of acting nonpresidential and exaggerating his accomplishments, hes gotten a lot of things done, including his timely response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The question is: would Stews candidateJoe Gaffeman Bidendo any better? Its hard to believe how Biden has gotten to where he is today. Despite a sputtering campaign, his exaggerating his record, his penchant for plagiarism, his mental misfires, and his propensity for a constant stream of gaffes the latest a televised response to a black correspondent wherein Biden spat out if you dont support me you aint black! Joe somehow finds himself not only as the de facto nominee of the Democratic Party but even holding a comfortable lead over President Trump in national polls.

Having been a Democrat most of my life, todays Democratic Party is unrecognizable from that which attracted me to it during John F. Kennedys presidency. As a No Party Preference voter today, the Democratic Party left me during the Clinton years. Still, when Joe Biden announced his candidacy for president back in 2019, I had hoped that if any Democrat were to be elected to the presidency, please let it be Joe Biden.

Biden seemed the only choice among legitimate contenders that centrist Democrats, Independents, and disaffected Republicans could get behind. As the most experienced candidate, it looked like it was Joes race to lose. But after reflecting upon his past and during this past year, he not only doesnt appear to be up to the task, but it looks like Bidens having a real problem with the truth. Indeed, this may be Bidens Achilles Heel that too few understand and that could prove to be his undoing.

For example, in April 2019, Biden appeared on The View TV show, looked into the eyes of its viewers, and said We didnt have one single whisper of a scandal under the Obama administration, a statement that he repeated two months later. That statement, in and of itself, was an absolute falsehood. Here are but a few of the scandals that occurred during his term as VP under the Obama administration:

1. The Fast and Furious firearms operation/gunrunning sting of Atty. Gen. Eric Holder that flopped in 2010, allowing 1,400 guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, two of which were used to murder a U.S. border agent, only to be followed by a cover-up and stonewalling by the Obama administration.

2. The Obama/Biden administrations failure to act on its proclaimed Syrian Red Line of 2012 when Syria used chemical weapons to kill its own people. That failure directly led to the genesis of ISIS and its murderous activities in beheading Americans and the taking of thousands of innocent civilian lives.

3. The terrorist swap scandal of 2012 when the administration traded five known Islamic terrorists detained in Guantanamo for the deserter Beau Bergdahl, whose desertion led to the deaths of six American soldiers who searched for him.

4. Secretary of State Hilary Clintons Benghazi scandal that resulted in the deaths of four Americans in 2012 followed by another coverup in 2013.

5. The IRS targeting scandal when the IRS was weaponized to harass political groups in 2013, followed by another cover-up.

6. The NSA mass surveillance scandal discovered in 2013 by the leaks of Edwards Snowden.

7. The Russian/Ukrainian invasion scandal of 2014 that the Obama/Biden administration tolerated by sending blankets to the Ukrainians while refusing to send them what they needed to help them resist the Russian invasion and their seizure of Crimea.

8. The Biden Ukrainian scandal that funneled millions of dollars to Joes son Hunter from foreign governments in Ukraine and China while Joe Biden himself openly and successfully urged the Ukraine to fire a high-level official investigating the Bidens connections.

9. The Iran nuclear deal of 2015 which sent millions of U.S. dollars to Iran, which were used to export terrorism by bankrolling Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen while continuing its quest for nuclear weapons.

10. In what could be the biggest scandal of them all, the Obama/Biden administrations FISA abuse scandal of 2016 that weaponized the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department to set up a takedown of an often unpopular but duly elected president. The other shoe has yet to drop on this one.

Then came the Democrats Impeachment disaster earlier this year that Biden openly supported. Showcasing the shamefully poor performances of Adam Schiff, Jerome Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, and Fritz Schumer who put on the weakest of cases, the impeachment trial ended up little more than a popcorn fart. And now comes the revelation that Sen. Biden groped a legislative aide in 1993 who once lived right here in Morro Bay.

Not a trace of scandals Joe? This bundle of snafus under Bidens watch have featured a veritable legacy of scandals. Joe would do better to own up them and apologize for them rather than conveniently forgetting them or sweeping them under the rug.

Today, Biden is still considered as having the best chance to beat Donald Trump. Will democratic and independent voters be willing to overlook the scandals of such a flawed candidate out of their abject hatred of Donald Trump? With Bernie Sanders out of the race, will the Dems lose the enthusiasm of the Progressives who just might stay home instead of voting come election day?

Only time will tell.

See more here:
Joe Biden's problem with the truth - Cal Coast News

Law Firm That Attempted To Overturn 2016 Election Behind 2020 Lawsuits – The Federalist

A nationwide effort by Democrats is underway in at least 16 states to overturn restrictions on mail-in voting and third-party ballot harvesting. States where suits have been filed include the swing states of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

The effort is being backed by the National Redistricting Foundation, a Democratic group headed by the Obama administrations Attorney General Eric Holder. The suits appear to be funded by Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC. A Wall Street Journal headline from April read, Biden Campaign Indicates Priorities USA Is Preferred Super PAC Nod from the presumptive Democratic nominee sends a message to top donors on where to focus contributions.

For example, the Pennsylvania lawsuit, funded by Priorities USA, seeks to mandate mail-in ballots, require the counting of votes received by mail after election day, and strike down Pennsylvania prohibitions on ballot harvesting, meaning the third-party mass collection of absentee and mail-in ballots.

The efforts in other states are similar. Democrat lawsuits in Minnesota take a similar, if less direct, path. A suit filed in Minnesota earlier this year by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee seeks to strike down a law prohibiting ballot harvesting.

Last week, conveniently just after Minnesota Democrats failed to get mail-in voting through the state legislature, another suit was filed by the Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund, the local chapter of D.C.-based political action group Alliance for Retired Americans, a prominent left-wing and union-linked group that supports Democratic causes across the United States. The plaintiffs claim that requiring voters to have a notary public or registered voter witness and sign their absentee ballot is a threat to safety.

Another plaintiff in the same suit is a 24-year-old Yale Law School student, who complains that he cast his Minnesota absentee ballot too late in 2018, which disallowed it from being counted.

Getting rid of Minnesotas rule requiring a witness when casting an absentee ballot and requiring that ballots be received by election day would turn Minnesotas absentee voting system into a de facto mail-in balloting system. Critics allege Minnesotas absentee voting system is already subject to abuse. For example, more than 25,000 Minnesota voters in 2018 had a challenged voter-registration status, meaning something in the states systems flagged them as ineligible to vote. Nevertheless, these voters are allowed to vote absentee and self-certify that they are eligible.

In the 2008 election between former Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Al Franken, D-Minn., election judges controversially rejected about 12,000 absentee ballots, and more than 1,000 ineligible felons were still allowed to cast votes in that election. After Coleman initially won by about 700 votes, a recount declared Franken the winner by a mere 312 votes.

Unfortunately, the corporate media has grossly mischaracterized these lawsuits, couching their aims in humanitarian terms. Minnesotas Star Tribune ran a headline titled Older Minnesota voters file suit to change absentee voting rules. The corporate media has conveniently ignored that Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic to accomplish their longtime goal of overturning much of American election law.

Even more stunning, all 16 lawsuits are being run by Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias. Elias was chief counsel to both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 presidential election, and was one of the key figures in the Russiagate conspiracy to remove President Donald Trump from office.

Elias and another Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, hired the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to try to create ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This led to Fusion GPS paying money to former British spy Christopher Steele, who paid money to anonymous Russian sources via a British national named Edward Baumgartner, who had ties to Russia.

These Russian sources, working with Steele and Fusion GPS, came up with the allegations in the so-called Steele dossier, which circulated throughout the highest levels of the Obama administration during the 2016 election. This occurred despite no part of the dossier being anything close to verified. The intelligence agencies had good reason to doubt the dossiers author, and knew it was politically motivated.

Nevertheless, the Obama administrations intelligence agencies used them to spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team.In one specific instance, Democratic lawyers Elias and Sussmann directly worked to plant now-debunked stories in the media about a server in Trump tower communicating with Russias Alfa Bank. Elias has faced no repercussions to date for his role in the Russiagate matter.

In total, Democrats plan to spend tens of millions of dollars on the lawsuits run by Perkins Coie and Elias. The Trump campaign and Republican groups are planning to spend at least $10-$20 million to counter the Democrats efforts.

Original post:
Law Firm That Attempted To Overturn 2016 Election Behind 2020 Lawsuits - The Federalist

A Case From a Judges Past May Offer a Clue as to How the Michael Flynn Inquiry Will Proceed – The New Yorker

Judge Emmet G. Sullivans appointment of an independent attorney suggests that Michael Flynn is not out of the woods yet.Photograph by Charles Dharapak / AP / Shutterstock

Michael Flynn, President Trumps first national-security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to F.B.I. agents, in December, 2017, in a case brought by the special counsel Robert Mueller. Earlier this month, the Justice Department asked Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who oversaw the case against Flynn, to dismiss it, on the ground that the F.B.I. had no basis to conduct an interrogation of him. What should Sullivan do? What can he do? Can a judge maintain a prosecution that the governmentthe prosecution itselfrefuses to continue? Can this judge deny the governments motion and just proceed to sentence Flynn? The answers are not entirely clear. But there is a clue about what may happen in an especially dramatic chapter from Sullivans past.

Last week, John Gleeson, a retired federal judge, published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, denouncing the Justice Departments attempt to dismiss the case. The record reeks of improper political influence, Gleeson wrote. Government motions to dismiss at this stage are virtually unheard of. He offered the court a suggestion: It can appoint an independent attorney to act as a friend of the court, ensuring a full, adversarial inquiry, as the judge in the Flynn case has done in other situations where the department abdicated its prosecutorial role. Sullivan clearly read the piece, because he promptly appointed Gleeson himself, who is now in private practice, to argue against the dismissal of the case against Flynn.

Gleesons passing reference to Sullivans history in other situations as a foe of prosecutorial misconduct is the clue to what may happen this time. It was a reference to a disgraceful episode in the recent history of the Justice Department: the failed prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska. In brief, Stevens was charged with neglecting to report as gifts certain renovations that had been made on his vacation home in Alaska. He was convicted in a trial before Judge Sullivan in 2008, shortly before he lost a bid for a seventh term in the Senate. During and especially after the trial, it came out that prosecutors had withheld a variety of exculpatory material from Stevenss defense. In light of this, Eric Holder, in one of his first acts as Attorney General, in 2009, dropped the prosecution. Not satisfied with simply ending the case, Sullivan ruled that the interest of justice requires the appointment of a non-government disinterested attorneyin that case, it was Henry F. Schuelke III, a Washington lawyerto investigate the prosecutorial misconduct. While Schuelke was conducting his inquiry, Stevens died in a plane crash, and one of the prosecutors committed suicide. (I wrote about the Stevens prosecution saga here.)

In other words, Sullivan has appointed Gleeson to much the same role as he had named Schuelke, a decade earlier. Of course, there is a major difference between the Stevens and Flynn cases. Stevens was about an excess of prosecutorial zeal, while Flynn is about insufficient effort by the Justice Department: cheating to win versus cheating to lose. Nothing has changed on the merits of the case against Flynn, therefore there is no credible explanation for the motion to dismiss, other than there might be some kind of improper behavior going on here, Sam Buell, a professor at Duke Law School and a former federal prosecutor, told me.

The big question for Gleeson, then, is how he will want to proceed with his investigation. He could simply review the Justice Departments pleadings in the case and conclude, as he did in his op-ed piece, that there is no basis for the governments legal conclusionthat the F.B.I.s interrogation of Flynn was justified, and his guilty plea for lying should stand. At that point, Sullivan would have to decide whether to grant the governments motion and end the case, anyway, or proceed to sentence Flynn. (Sullivan could also seek to charge Flynn with contempt for lying in his courtroom about his interactions with the F.B.I.) It would apparently be without precedent for Sullivan to sentence a defendant even though the government has moved to dismiss the case, but that doesnt necessarily mean it cant happen.

Alternatively, Gleeson could ask to proceed much as Schuelke did, and ask Sullivan for permission to examine witnesses to determine why the Justice Department reversed course. (Schuelke took two years and produced a five-hundred-page report about the misconduct in the Stevens case.) An investigation with witnesses would open the door for Gleeson to examine William Barr, the Attorney General, and others in his chain of command to determine if there was any improper influence in the governments decision. Either way, it looks as if Gleeson will move with considerably more dispatch than Schuelke did. In a letter to Sullivan this week, Gleeson wrote that he will make his first report to the court on June 10th.

In the meantime, on Tuesday afternoon, Flynns lawyers asked the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to order Sullivan to dismiss the case, as the Justice Department requested. In the absence of such an order, which seems unlikely, Gleeson will plow ahead. He said that his submission on June 10th will report any additional factual development I may need before finalizing my argument. This means that he will indicate at that time whether he wants Sullivan to call witnesses before deciding whether to dismiss the case. The judge, for his part, has set a hearing in the case for July 16th, which may turn out to be only the beginning of his inquiry into why the Justice Department tried to drop the case against Flynn.

Read more here:
A Case From a Judges Past May Offer a Clue as to How the Michael Flynn Inquiry Will Proceed - The New Yorker