Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported the following:
On Monday General Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell tweeted out that the law firm Covington and Burling that mis-represented General Michael Flynn is resisting turning over all documents and specifically those of Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff discussing the Flynn case.
It should be noted that Michael Chertoff is considered to be the co-author of the Patriot Act. Also, who helped General Flynn in deciding which law firm to hire? The article reminds us of the conflicts of interest the law firm had in representing General Flynn:
President Obama’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder, left a corrupt life in public office and returned to the law firm Covington. While at Covington, lawyers from his firm represented General Mike Flynn and requested dirt on President Trump while withholding important information from General Flynn. It needs to be asked. Was Eric Holder involved?
After working for President Obama for six years, Attorney General Eric Holder returned to the law firm where he had previously worked, Covington, where he became a partner in 2015.
The article continues:
Covington had numerous conflicts of interest related to their biggest case ever, representing General Michael Flynn in his unjust indictment by the Mueller gang. Flynn’s attorneys at the firm withheld evidence from their client. They asked for dirt on President Trump. They hired individuals that were involved in the criminal Spygate scandal.
There is no way that a partner at Covington like Eric Holder was not aware of the firm representing General Flynn in the biggest case in the US.
This all is so corrupt, it makes you wonder if former corrupt Obama AG Holder was involved.
Thank God that Attorney Sidney Powell was willing to step in (pro bono) and give General Flynn the honest representation that he is entitled to under law.
Leadership flows from the top. If the leaders of our government respect their fellow Americans, that respect filters down to the state and local level. If our federal government is out of control, we can expect our local government to be moving in that direction.
Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial (there is no link–it is subscribers only) entitled, “Disclosure as a Political Weapon,” The article relates the experience of Robin Ferris, a resident of Puyallup, Washington. Ms. Ferris campaigned to recall former Pierce County treasurer Dale Washam. She charged Mr. Washam with mistreatment of employees, abuse of government resources, and other misdeeds. There is a state law that limits the amount voters can donate to a recall campaign to $800. Ms. Ferris hired the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the law on a pro bono basis. The IJ won the case., but that wasn’t the end of the story. The Washington state Public Disclosure Commission threatened to fine Ms. Ferris more than $500,000 for failing to report the pro bono work of the IJ as an in-kind contribution to her recall campaign, stating that the ‘contribution’ should have been listed in the campaign’s public disclosures. The Commission had previously threatened a pro-life group, Family Pac, with similar action after losing a referenda campaign in 2010.
So why should we be concerned about this? Keep in mind the recent Internal Revenue Service scandal regarding conservative groups, and consider that pro bono legal services as political contributions could cost many groups their 501 (c) (3) status. Organizations with the 501(c) (3) status are prohibited from direct engagement with political campaigns. Included in these groups are such politically diverse organizations as the ACLU and the ACLJ. Without these organizations, only wealthy Americans would be able to challenge the actions of the government.
The article concludes:
Democrats and their media allies have made a crusade of more disclosure as a way to discourage political spending by businesses. But as the Institute for Justices’s tax-exempt jeopardy shows, disclosure is a weapon that can be used to silence many groups, including those that fight for civil rights and legal due process. It’s another example of liberals trampling on liberal principles.
Those of us who are conservatives need to remember that we have to guard all of our rights all of the time. It seems that there are those in America who choose winning elections over free speech.