« Is Mike Garcia's election an omen? | Main | RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 14 MAY 2020 by Patrick Armstrong »

14 May 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



I agree hindsight is 20/20.

However, what hindsight provides is a vignette into real time decision making and the character and judgment of those making decisions.

The firing of Flynn is an important data point. Trump can still order declassification. All he’ll need to do is sit down with Devin Nunes and get a list of initial docs. He can order a document audit. The bureaucracy can stall or say they’re lost, then he can act to replace them with those that can get it done. It didn’t take Ric Grennell too long once he decided to produce the list of unmaskers. The point is that Trump is POTUS. He should act as one instead of acting like a helpless bystander on Twitter. Those who are not driven solely by a partisan lens, are open to be persuaded. They are the ones that can help sway any close election.

David Habakkuk


I am still trying to think a lot of this through.

But it does seem to me that, as you suggest, in looking at what a range of figures have done, prominent among them Trump and William Barr, one needs to take into account the difficulties of the position in which they have found themselves.

This is not an argument for coming to conclusions.

It is perfectly possible that Barr actively does not want to see the conspiracy exposed. Indeed, he may at heart be a ‘swamp’ creature, who wants to protect the ‘swamp’, as some have suggested: although I much doubt that things are as simple as that.

The point is simply that, in a very confused situation, the available evidence leaves a range of possibilities open, and it is sensible to avoid a ‘rush to judgement.’

That said, although again I am trying to think this through, I do not think it is necessarily the case that ‘calls for declassification of already disappeared evidence’ would necessarily be ‘futile.’

If ‘evidence’ of a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution has been ‘disappeared’, then it would seem to me that this having been done is a clear and unambiguous crime.

So, establishing precisely who had ‘disappeared’ the ‘evidence’, and when, in what precise circumstances, and using this material to expose them to serious interrogation, might make serious progress in understanding what has happened much easier.

Moreover, by putting the focus on the deliberate suppression of ‘evidence’, it might be possible to put those who have committed what is patently a crime, colluded with it, and covered up for it, on the ‘back foot.’

If ‘declassification’ revealed glaring gaps in the documentary record, it might be an extremely effective means of doing this.

However, there may still be good arguments against a general ‘declassification’, and particularly against doing it prematurely.

Years ago, a commenter on this blog used the handle ‘still working it out.’

It was a good name, I thought.

Keith Harbaugh

TTG, have you read the "Declaration of Michael T. Flynn", in particular its paragraph 34?
Do you think this is not germane?
(See my post linked to above for some other relevant paragraphs,)


Precisely David.

IMO, declassification has many virtues not the least being transparency in the inner workings of the vast national security bureaucracy which I believe is a huge threat to the liberty and well being of citizens.

It prevents Barr from waving a shiny object while sweeping under the rug the more material elements like the transnational links that you wrote about on another thread. It also enables to learn the how and who are responsible for the disappearance of critical documents and communications. It provides insight into the machinations of this bureaucracy as well as opens up new avenues for deeper investigation.

Trump has an excellent starting point with Devin Nunes to identify the initial set of docs to declassify. That will then lead to a trail of other docs and docs that are missing or altered and the people handling them. Nunes was on TV recently that the unmasking goes well beyond Flynn for example.

Considering that both the Republicans and Democrats have thwarted his presidency right from the campaign trail, leads to the baffling question of why he hasn’t used the authority of his office to expose those who used the powers of the national security apparatus to bring him down? What is he afraid of? And if he is afraid why does he want another term?

I understand most of what we read and see in the media is through a pro and anti Trump lens. I’m agnostic about him. I didn’t vote for him but neither did I vote for Hillary. It doesn’t have to be one or the other in my book. Having said that it is not a pro-Trump position to want to get to the bottom of how brazen the national security apparatus has become to even directly interfere in a presidential election while framing a major political party candidate. In fact it is this very act that requires a full and complete accounting of how this transnational apparatus actually operates to insure they’re rooted out of the body politic. We are already in an Orwellian state and before we dig further into it we need to find the will to extricate ourselves.

Update: the left and the media perfectly fine with warrantless searches, unconstitutional unmasking of Americans, and shredding the 4th amdment, all because they were done to incoming @realDonaldTrump admin so 🤷🏻‍♂️


The point that’s missing in this tweet above is this is not just a left-right thing or a partisan thing. Both sides and ideologies want to use the power of the state to entrench their power and persecute their political enemies. It is a small minority today that wants to preserve a constitutional republic of limited government.

McConnell was able to “enhance” the Patriot Act to enable warantless surveillance of the online activities of any American by the FBI because the lefts darling Bernie Sanders chose to abstain.

Barbara Ann


The McConnell amendment to the renewed Patriot act is a abomination. Who's concept of "liberty" does not include the right to freedom of thought and privacy around internet searches and browsing history? What business is it of the feds to have unfettered access to this information on all US citizens? We may as well start referring to them as the Stasi. Sens. Ron Wyden and Steve Daines can hold their heads up high in having proposed the amendment which would have protected these rights. Sanders and those who voted against it make me truly sick.

I was hoping SST would cover this critical issue of the erosion of personal liberties in a dedicated post. One day soon I expect this grossly unconstitutional act will be tested in the courts. Until then I will continue to access the internet exclusively through Tor. You want my browsing history? Come and take it.


Barbara Ann

Because of my background I assume that all my communications are monitored. What is Tor?

Barbara Ann


Tor is a system of computers maintained by volunteers running the Tor software (which is open source). It is used to bounce network requests around a number of random such computers (3 by default) such that the 'exit' node obfuscates the originating computer's IP address. The Tor project team also maintain a Browser (which may be downloaded for free by anyone at https://torproject.org) which is preconfigured to connect to the network.

The original aim of the project was to provide a tool to protect political dissidents & such from being tracked via their web activity & identified in countries which have an interest in such things. Of course such technology is dual use and Tor is also used by nefarious folk to connect to the Dark Web to buy drugs, child porn & so on. Sadly this use has tarnished the image of the technology as a whole such that some sites block Tor.

Snowden's leaked material include an assessment by the USIC that Tor is (at least was) effective. I have used it for a number of years simply to keep my IP address private. TTG, with his background can probably tell you much more about it, which doubtless includes its use by his erstwhile cyber adversaries.


Barbara Ann

This is a classic example that what we have are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Both are authoritarians.

Yet just look at the ferocious debate even on SST about one side or the other. Even the progressive darling Sanders when it comes down to it is an authoritarian.

Under what authority are governors and mayors determining who is deemed “essential” and who is not? It seems these orders are all arbitrary and could violate equal protection. Is executive order sufficient to suspend the constitution? How come none of these orders are being challenged on grounds of discrimination?

As I noted in another post, we are already deep in an Orwellian state. I fear for my grandchildren and their children. The American experiment in a constitutional republic with a constrained government is over. The government has unrestrained powers and can operate completely in the dark now. It is not some external force but us who acquiesced to this erosion of liberty as we as a society became more and more fearful. This lockdown exemplifies it best.

Barbara Ann


I share your sense of dread for future generations, but I am not ready to pronounce the American experiment over just yet. There are many young people who see where this is all leading and simply discussing such matters here is a constructive act.

Keith Harbaugh

Powell/Flynn submit a Writ of Mandamus:

Keith Harbaugh

Sorry, should have added a link to the petition itself:

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad