Duty To Warn: Drug-Induced Iatrogenic Disorders – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US And Britain
January 16, 2018
Duty to Warn
Drug-Induced Iatrogenic Disorders – The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US and Britain
Definition of an “iatrogenic” disorder: A disorder inadvertently induced by a health caregiver because of a surgical, medical, drug or vaccine treatment or by a diagnostic procedure.
In last week’s column I wrote that iatrogenic disorders (a doctor-, drug-, vaccine-, surgery- or other medical treatment-caused disorder) were the third leading cause of death in the US. That revelation may have ruffled the feathers of some readers, particularly if they were employed in the medical professions, so I am enlarging on that statement in this week’s column.
In 2000, a commentary article was written by Dr Barbara Stanfield, MD, MPH. It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, July 26, 2000—Vol 284, No. 4).
The article was titled “Is US Health Really the Best in the World? It has been posted at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192908?redirect=true.
• 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery in hospitals
• 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
• 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications in hospitals
Combining these five groups gives us a total of 225,000 in-patient deaths. The 225,000 number does not include out-patient deaths or disabilities. In any case, this number easily constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease and cancer (see the official list for 2015 below).
The CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Report for 2000, said that cancer caused 710,701 US deaths in 2000 and heart disease caused 553,080. For comparison purposes, the CDC’s report said that heart disease caused 606,401 deaths in 2017 and cancer caused 594,707.
Below are the US death statistics for 2015 (apparently the last year that the CDC has published the complete list).
1 Heart Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633,842
2 Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595,930
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases . . . . . . . 155,041
4 Unintentional injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,571
5 Cerebrovascular diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140,323
6 Alzheimer’s disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,561
7 Diabetes mellitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . .79,535
8 Influenza and pneumonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57,062
9 Nephrosis, nephrotic syndrome . . . . . . . . . . . 49,959
10 Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44,193
It is obvious that “Inpatient Iatrogenic Deaths” of 225,000 would easily come in 3rd, if the CDC would ever start collecting such data and publishing it as a separate category. Something fishy is going on, particularly in view of the fact that there have numerous requests that the CDC change its traditional data collection methods.
One also wonders – if more accurate figures were available – if combining in-patient and out-patient iatrogenic deaths together (a rational approach) would cause heart and cancer deaths to drop to # 2 and # 3.
One only has to consider tabulating psychiatric drug-induced suicides and homicides as iatrogenic; or logically regarding deaths from neuroleptic drug-induced diabetes and obesity to be classed as iatrogenic; or regarding the deaths from the aluminum-adjuvanted, vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases that cause so much morbidity and mortality as iatrogenic; or regarding a portion of the SIDS deaths at 2, 4 and 6 month of age, when infants are routinely injected with dangerous, untested-for-safety cocktails of mercury-containing, aluminum-adjuvanted and live virus-containing intramuscular vaccines as iatrogenic.
Or one could add in last year’s 50,000 opioid overdose deaths – most of which were prescribed by health caregivers but which were probably added to the “Accidental Death” category; or adding in the 50,000 heart attack deaths from Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx (also iatrogenic deaths, but included in the “Heart Disease” category); or the premature chemotherapy drug-induced deaths that are invariably included in the “Cancer Death” category.
And the list of potential iatrogenic deaths goes on and on.
A decade after her article was published (in a December 2009 interview), Dr Stanfield re-affirmed the veracity of her earlier data by saying:
“106,000 people die (annually, in US hospitals) as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines…Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of ‘correctly’ prescribed. Therefore, people who die after ‘overuse’ or ‘inappropriate use’ would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 (these numbers do not count out-patients killed by prescription drugs!) and would fall into another or other categories.” – (https://therefusers.com/is-us-health-really-the-best-in-the-world-barbara-starfield-md-mph/)
And then there is the research done by Dr Peter Goetzsche.
Dr Peter Goetzsche
Dr Stanfield’s 2000 and 2009 statistics holds true for the UK and for Europe as well, according to the co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration, Dr Peter Goetzsche. In his powerful 2013 book “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare.”
Dr Goetzsche boldly states that iatrogenic deaths should be listed as # 3 in both Europe and the US. In his 2015 companion book, Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial, Goetzsche makes the same points about psychiatric drug-induced deaths. Below are some quotes from his 2013 book, where he points out the many similarities between Big Pharma and the mob:
“It is scary how many similarities there are between the drug industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money…The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does this industry…
“Otherwise good citizens, when they are part of a corporate group, do things they otherwise wouldn’t do because the group…validate(s) what there’re doing as OK…
“The difference is that all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank. However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen. It’s almost like when soldiers commit war crime atrocities. When you’re in a group, it’s easy to do things you otherwise wouldn’t do.” – An unnamed whistle-blowing ex-vice president for Pfizer’s global marketing department.
“In contrast to the drug industry, doctors don’t harm their patients deliberately. And when they do cause harm, either accidentally, or because of the lack of knowledge, or by negligence, they harm only one patient at a time.”
“In the drug industry, bribery is routine and involves large amounts of money. Almost every type of person who can affect the interests of the industry has been bribed: doctors, hospital administrators, cabinet ministers, health inspectors, customs officers, tax assessors, drug registration officials, factory inspectors, pricing officials and political parties.”
“There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egoistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.” – Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA.
“What makes Big Pharma unique in the US is that it outspends all others in laying down cold hard cash into its lobbying efforts (another word for bribing governments that includes not only US Congress but its US federal regulator, the bought and sold Food and Drug Administration).” – Joachim Hagopian
“(As a drug rep) “it’s my job to figure out what a physician’s price is. For some it’s dinner at the finest restaurants, for others it’s enough convincing data to let them prescribe confidently and for others it’s my attention and friendship…but at the most basic level, everything is for sale and everything is an exchange.” – Retired Drug Sales Rep Shahram Ahari
“Before the approval process, the (Big Pharma-connected) sponsor sets up the clinical trial – the drug selected, and the dose and route of administration of the comparison drug (or placebo). Since the trial is designed to have one outcome, is it surprising that the comparison drug may be hobbled – given in the wrong dose, by the wrong method?
“The sponsor pays those who collect the evidence, doctors, and nurses, so is it surprising that in a dozen ways they influence results? All the results flow in to the sponsor, who analyses the evidence, drops what is inconvenient, and keeps it all secret – even from the trial physicians. The manufacturer deals out to the FDA bits of evidence, and pays the FDA (the judge) to keep it secret. Panels (the jury), usually paid consultant fees by the sponsors, decide on FDA approval, often lobbied for by paid grass-roots patient organizations who pack the court (the trick is called ‘astro-turfing’).
“If the trial, under these conditions, shows the drug works, the sponsors pay sub-contractors to write up the research and impart whatever spin they may; they pay ‘distinguished’ academics to add their names as ‘authors’ to give the enterprise credibility, and often publish in journals dependent on the sponsors for their existence.
“If the drug seems no good or harmful, the trial is buried and everyone is reminded of their confidentiality agreements. Unless the trial is set up in this way, the sponsor will refuse to back the trial, but even if it is set up as they wish, those same sponsors may suddenly walk away from it, leaving patients and their physicians high and dry.”
“We have a system where defendant, developers of evidence, police, judge, jury, and even court reporters are all induced to arrive at one conclusion in favour of the new drug.”
“More than 80 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs are written in the UK every year. Not only are these drugs often entirely unnecessary and ineffective, but they can also turn patients into addicts, cause crippling side-effects – and kill.”
If any reader has any doubt about the veracity of the Stanfield and Goetzsche claims, below are a couple of other courageous researchers that have delved into the issue. In 2016, a group of Johns Hopkins medical school researchers, led by Dr Martin Makary, published supporting information in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ 2016; 353).
In the introduction of the publication, Makary and his co-authors wrote about how flawed is the CDC system of data collection and analysis:
“The annual list of the most common causes of death in the United States, compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), informs public awareness and national research priorities each year. The list is created using death certificates filled out by physicians, funeral directors, medical examiners, and coroners.
“However, a major limitation of the death certificate is that it relies on assigning an International Classification of Disease (ICD) code to the cause of death. As a result, causes of death not associated with an ICD code (including many iatrogenic disorders), such as human and system factors, are not captured.
“…communication breakdowns, diagnostic errors, poor judgment, and inadequate skill can directly result in patient harm and death. We analyzed the scientific literature on medical error to identify its contribution to US deaths in relation to causes listed by the CDC.
Death From Medical Care Itself
“Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome, the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning), or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient. Patient harm from medical error can occur at the individual or system level. The taxonomy of errors is expanding to better categorize preventable factors and events. We focus on preventable lethal events to highlight the scale of potential for improvement.”
Makary’s group published data that supports iatrogenic deaths as the # 3 cause of death.
In a 2016 open letter to the CDC, Makary’s group urged the agency to add medical errors to its annual list of common causes of death.
The letter said, in part:
“We are writing this letter to respectfully ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to change the way it collects our country’s national vital health statistics each year. The list of most common causes of death published is very important – it informs our country’s research and public health priorities each year. The current methodology used to generate the list has what we believe to be a serious limitation. As a result, the list has neglected to identify the third leading cause of death in the U.S. – medical error.”
As a partial defense of over-busy, over-booked, sometimes mentally and physically exhausted health caregivers in the US, another researcher, Dr John James, has published an article in the Journal of Patient Safety. Dr James makes similar claims urging the CDC to evaluate death statistics more logically.
The title of his 2013 article is “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care”. (Journal of Patient Safety: September 2013 – Volume 9 – Issue 3 – p 122–128)
Below are excerpts from that article:
Based on 1984 data developed from reviews of medical records of patients treated in New York hospitals, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that up to 98,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. The basis of this estimate is nearly 3 decades old; herein, an updated estimate is developed from modern studies published from 2008 to 2011.
Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals…the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious (but non-lethal) harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.
The epidemic of patient harm in hospitals must be taken more seriously if it is to be curtailed. Fully engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients’ voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary to accomplish this goal.
“Medical care in the United States is technically complex at the individual provider level, at the system level, and at the national level. The amount of new knowledge generated each year by clinical research that applies directly to patient care can easily overwhelm the individual physician trying to optimize the care of his patients.”
“Because of increased production demands, providers may be expected to give care in suboptimal working conditions, with decreased staff, and a shortage of physicians, which leads to fatigue and burnout. It should be no surprise that preventable adverse events that harm patients are frighteningly common in this highly technical, rapidly changing, and poorly integrated industry. The picture is further complicated by a lack of transparency and limited accountability for errors that harm patients.”
“There are at least 3 time-based categories of preventable adverse events recognized in patients that are or have been hospitalized. The broadest definition encompasses all unexpected and harmful experience that a patient encounters as a result of being in the care of a medical professional or system because high quality, evidence-based medical care was not delivered during hospitalization. The harmful outcomes may be realized immediately, delayed for days or months, or even delayed many years.”
“There was much debate after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report about the accuracy of its estimates. In a sense, it does not matter whether the deaths of 100,000, 200,000 or 400,000 Americans each year are associated with PAEs in hospitals….one must hope that the present, evidence-based estimate of 400,000+ deaths per year will foster an outcry for overdue changes and increased vigilance in medical care to address the problem of harm to patients who come to a hospital seeking only to be healed.”
Dr. Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his forty-year family practice career. He is a contributor to and an endorser of the efforts of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and was a member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.
While running his independent clinic, he published over 400 issues of his Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter, which was emailed to a variety of subscribers. (They have not been archived at any website.) In the early 2000s, Dr Kohls taught a graduate level psychology course at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Itwas titled “The Science and Psychology of the Mind-Body Connection”.
Since his retirement, Dr Kohls has been writing a weekly column (titled “Duty to Warn”) for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota. He offers teaching seminars to the public and to healthcare professionals.
Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; or https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles
NYC Mayor De Blasio tells citizens: We own your bodies, and we can force you to be injected with anything we want
Friday, April 12, 2019 by: Mike Adams
(Natural News) NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that residents do not own their own bodies. The city of New York can demand that all citizens be injected with literally anything the government declares to be a “vaccine,” even when those vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue cells, toxic aluminum metals, inflammatory adjuvants and other dangerous, deadly chemicals.
This is the latest attempt by authorities in New York to obliterate human rights and roll out a medical dictatorship where citizens have zero rights to defend their own bodies against risky medial interventions that are demanded at gunpoint.
PJ Media, which has emerged as one of the best independent media websites covering liberty and individual rights, has published an especially noteworthy article on this issue. Authored by Megan Fox, the story is entitled, “Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges.”
We are republishing it here with full credit to the original author and PJ Media website. This in important read. Share everywhere.
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges
by Megan Fox, PJMedia.com
In an unusual and extreme move, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a state of emergency over a measles outbreak in the Orthodox Jewish community and is demanding forced vaccinations of everyone within four zip codes of the affected areas. Violators face fines up to $1000. This includes babies six months of age, even though the MMR is not recommended for anyone under twelve months of age.
The Children’s Health Defense will be filing a legal challenge to the order, which comes on the heels of a New York Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Rockland County ban on unvaccinated children in public spaces.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is supporting a legal challenge to this dangerous, unprecedented overreach. While the City has unquestionable authority to control disease outbreaks, it may not violate the bedrock principle of prior, free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. This is a fundamental human right. The City may quarantine, isolate, trace contacts and strongly urge vaccination, but it may not impose such a draconian mandate without demonstrating necessity, reasonableness, proportionality, harm avoidance, non-discrimination, due process and equal protection. The Commissioner has failed to do this; the City’s actions violate New York State law.
CHD board member Mary Holland commented, “I am shocked that Mayor de Blasio would resort to such police state techniques to control an outbreak of measles. I don’t believe the City’s actions will withstand legal scrutiny.” CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is confident their legal challenge will prevail.
This case goes beyond a dispute over religious freedom. Thanks to the Merck federal whistleblower litigation, we now know that Merck’s MMR should have never been approved, much less mandated. To get its license Merck allegedly ordered its scientists to falsify efficacy data to fraudulently conceal the fact that the mumps component quickly wanes, triggering dangerous outbreaks in older populations where it can cause sterility in men and women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 150 outbreaks resulting in 9,200 cases of mumps in fully vaccinated adults, dwarfing the recent measles outbreaks. We are confident that no American court will allow government bureaucrats to force American citizens to take risky pharmaceutical products against their will.
Merck is currently defending itself against claims of falsifying data brought by two former employees.
Medical corporation Merck & Co. will decidedly face the music in the ongoing class action and related anti-trust lawsuit involving its mumps vaccine – a product routinely given to babies and children for generations. The issue, which involves allegations of false compliance with FDA standards for vaccines, prompted a False Claims Act lawsuit: United States v. Merck & Co. This case was commenced by two virologists once employed with Merck, alleges a systematic and long-standing commitment by the company to lying about the efficacy of its mumps vaccination, thereby prompting possible exposure to liability under the federal False Claims Act.
Governor Cuomo voiced concerns about the legality of de Blasio’s emergency order to forcibly vaccinate conscientious objectors. “Look, it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said in a radio interview on WAMC. “Do we have the right — does society, government have the right to say ‘you must vaccinate your child because I’m afraid your child is going to infect my child, even if you don’t want it done and even if it violates your religious beliefs?”
Some have asked how de Blasio is planning to determine who is or isn’t vaccinated to enforce his order. According to the mayor, they will be using “disease detectives.” de Blasio explained, “It parallels what a police detective does. If someone has symptoms, they will literally interview them to figure out everywhere they’ve been, everyone they might have come in contact with, and then they go reach out to that whole network to make sure people are vaccinated.” It’s unclear whether “make sure people are vaccinated” means “hold them down and inject them against their will.”
Read more stories on liberty and individual rights at PJmedia.com. Stay informed about vaccine dangers and vaccine industry propaganda by reading Vaccines.news.
“Targeted”: Insider Narrative Shows Flynn “Entrapment” Was Same As “Frame”
The insider narrative explains what happened to General Michael Flynn in detail, and how he was tricked and set-up by Obama administration officials in an entrapment scheme that was the “tip of the spear” against President Trump.
Everything about the pressure used against him and the interview itself scream miscarriage of justice.
General Michael Flynn has gotten a raw deal, many people argue. He pled guilty for ‘lying’ to the FBI, during an interview that was “tantamount” to a frame up, according to an insider narrative that was just filed in federal court.
Mueller’s prosecutors threatened to go after Flynn’s son and his business partner in order to get the cooperation for a ‘guilty’ plea, knowing full well that the case against him was feeble and based on entrapment.
The Washington Times reported on Sidney Powell’s outlining of the events, prior to the sentencing hearing that is scheduled for December:
Sidney Powell wrote this story in a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr in June as she was taking over as defense counsel for the former White House national security adviser.
She immediately accused the government of withholding exculpatory evidence that would show prosecutors violated U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order. Her motions essentially have been attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia election trespassing, though Flynn was convicted of lying to FBI agents on another matter.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon L. Van Grack responded this month with an attack on Ms. Powell’s tactics. He said the government owns no such exculpatory, or “Brady,” material and accused her of advocating “conspiracy theories.”
The drama is set to play out at a hearing next month and sentencing in December. Meantime, Ms. Powell won the judge’s permission to reply to Mr. Van Grack with an extended brief that has been filed but not redacted for public viewing.
In his reply, Mr. Van Grack, a veteran of the Mueller team and thus a Powell target, chose to include an attachment: the June 6 Powell letter to Mr. Barr.
In it, she asked Mr. Barr for an internal case review leading to dismissal. She made seven specific requests, such as removing Mr. Van Grack, who remains in place four months later.
Mr. Mueller’s final report said he failed to establish an election conspiracy between the Kremlin and Trump campaign.
“We believe there will be ample justification for the [Justice] Department to follow the precedent of the Ted Stevens case and move to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn in the interest of justice,” Ms. Powell said.
Judge Sullivan in 2009 threw out the conviction of the former senator from Alaska after discovering the Justice Department had withheld evidence favorable to his defense.
In her letter labeled “confidential,” Ms. Powell made some frank comments about Judge Sullivan, referring to the court hearing that led to a delay in sentencing.
“At the hearing, however, Judge Sullivan launched a tirade, effectively accusing Flynn of working for a foreign power while he was in the White House and committing treason,” Ms. Powell wrote. “Judge Sullivan made clear he intends to send him to prison. Judge Sullivan was completely wrong on the facts of the case, and his rant seems to have come straight from MSNBC comments of the previous night. After a short break in the court proceedings, the Judge returned to the bench and made something of a retraction of his most egregious choice of words. However, severe damage was done. The press ran wild with the treason suggestion unabated for an hour.”
Ms. Powell tried to make the case that the Obama administration targeted Flynn for his running criticisms on the fight against the Islamic State group, the Iran nuclear deal and Hillary Clinton’s handling of Benghazi as secretary of state.
“As more evidence has come to light, it is increasingly apparent that General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes,” she said. “We believe there is specific evidence of that fact. He was the tip of the spear aimed at President Trump.”
Flynn’s downfall was abrupt. He conducted several telephone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition. He urged Russia not to overreact to Obama-imposed sanctions, a response to Moscow’s election interference.
Obama Justice Department officials, briefed on the intercepted calls, began talking up the idea that Flynn violated the never-prosecuted Logan Act of 1799, which forbids private citizens from meddling in foreign affairs.
By the time President Trump took office, the FBI had been investigating his aides for six months to see whether they colluded with the Kremlin. Agent Peter Strzok, who led the probe and expressed a deep dislike of Mr. Trump, went to the White House to interview Flynn. Flynn denied discussing sanctions, setting up his guilty plea to lying.
He pledged to cooperate with the Mueller team. He provided no evidence of a conspiracy despite rampant news media speculation that he had proof against Mr. Trump.
Flynn’s call was leaked to The Washington Post, triggering what would become a battle cry among conservatives: Obama-Clinton loyalists inside a “deep state” were sabotaging the new administration.
Former FBI Director James B. Comey later bragged in public about how he was able to send two agents to the White House without going through the counsel’s office.
“The FBI interview was worse than ‘entrapment,’” Ms. Powell told Mr. Barr. “He was led to believe he was having a casual conversation with friends about a training exercise from a day or two before, when in truth, it was a set-up-tantamount to a ‘frame.’”
Ms. Powell described Flynn’s early back-and-forth in 2017 with the Mueller team.
“The General was forced to sell his home two years ago to fund his legal defense and still needs a legal defense fund,” she said of the 33-year Army officer, who rose to the pinnacle of his military specialty as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
With Flynn under pressure, Mr. Strzok’s biased Trump texts to FBI counsel Lisa Page were about to emerge. Ms. Powell suggested that the Justice Department leaked the news only after it secured Flynn’s guilty plea in December 2017.
“Suddenly, SCO was making extreme threats and placing enormous pressure on General Flynn to enter a guilty plea,” she said. “Sometime after Mueller was notified by the IG of the extremely biased Strzok-Page text messages, Mueller went to [then-Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein to get authority to target Michael Flynn, Jr. Flynn, Jr., who had a 4-month-old baby, was required to produce his phones and computers. Suddenly, General Flynn was threatened with the public arrest, search of his home, the indictment of his son.”
She said Mr. Van Grack and other Mueller prosecutors “sought every means to put the utmost pressure on him to compel a guilty plea to the point of using threats against his son and manipulated the press to hide the truth in the process.”
Mr. Van Grack told Judge Sullivan this month that none of Ms. Powell’s “Brady” requests had anything to do with Flynn’s lying to FBI agents.
“The defendant predicates much of his request on conspiracy theories, demanding that the government engage in a fishing expedition for documents that could offer support for those theories,” he said. “Irrespective of whether such documents exist, a fact that the government does not concede here, the defendant fails to establish that such information is relevant — let alone favorable and material — in this criminal case.”
Ms. Powell told the judge she wants a letter the British Embassy supposedly delivered to the Obama White House questioning the veracity of Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele is the former British intelligence officer who wrote the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Mr. Van Grack responded: “Not relevant. The government is not aware of information that Christopher Steele provided that is relevant to the defendant’s false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI‘) on January 24, 2017, or to his punishment.”
To another Brady request, he said: “Already provided. The government has already provided any information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.”
Flynn has fulfilled his cooperation agreement with the Mueller team.
In the end, his case didn’t touch on Russian election interference and he did not implicate any Trump person or the president. He lied in his Jan. 24, 2017, FBI White House interview. He made false statements on his Foreign Agent Registration Act form with the Justice Department concerning work for the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The prosecution has recommended no jail time.
Flynn’s onetime partner Bijan Kian was convicted on lobbying charges by a jury in July in Alexandria, Virginia. But U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga took the unusual step last month of overturning the verdict, citing insufficient evidence.
Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Claim Lisa Page Altered FBI Interview Record to Frame Him
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page leaves following an interview with lawmakers behind closed doors on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, July 13, 2018.
JOEL B. POLLAK
25 Oct 2019
Lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn reportedly filed a motion on Thursday in which they allege that the Department of Justice manipulated a document to frame their client and is withholding exculpatory evidence.
The apparent “sealed” filing, dated October 24, 2019, was posted to social media on Thursday evening.
US v Flynn; DE 129-2 by Techno Fog on Scribd
The filing by Flynn’s new legal team, which took over the case several weeks ago, argues that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an “ambush-interview” of Flynn in the White House not to discover any evidence of criminal activity, but to coax him into making false statements.
When Flynn’s new lawyer Sidney Powell first made those allegations in September, prosecutors replied that she was indulging in “conspiracy theories” and noted his client had already pleaded guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI in 2017. Flynn has been awaiting sentencing since then, and even told the sentencing judge in 2018 that he would not claim FBI misconduct, despite growing evidence that they had departed from normal practice in interviewing him and had only completed their “302” — the report of their meeting — after he had already been forced to resign from his position in the administration over the allegations.
The new defense filing alleges that the government is refusing to turn over a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence, some of which has begun to emerge in the media — either through leaks or through ongoing inquiries into the origins of the probe into alleged Russia “collusion” with the Trump campaign, later found not to exist.
That evidence, Flynn’s legal team alleges, includes an apparent admission by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page — who resigned after being discovered having an affair with agent Peter Strzok, with whom she shared anti-trump texts — that she had edited the 302 — something that she allegedly told FBI investigators she did not recall, the filing states.
The edits, the filing alleges, were substantive: they included a claim that Flynn said he did not discuss any sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s lawyers allege he merely told the FBI he did not recall, and that the claim he said otherwise was added only after a transcript of his discussion with the ambassador had been leaked to the media.
In a footnote, the filing adds that former FBI general counsel James Baker “is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to [Washington Post reporter David] Ignatius.” It also alleges that former National Intelligence Director James Clapper told Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn.”
The filing emerged hours after reports that the Department of Justice had shifted its investigation of the origins of the Russia probe to become a criminal investigation under the supervision of prosecutor John H. Durham.
Flynn was subject to surveillance — allegedly in response to claims that he might have violated the Logan Act, an archaic and rarely-enforced law barring private citizens from diplomacy — during President-elect Donald Trump’s transition to office. Flynn’s name was then unmasked in the transcript of his telephone conversation with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which was then leaked illegally.
Flynn’s subsequent prosecution for lying to the FBI was key to the “Russia collusion” theory, later found to have no substance after a lengthy investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that took nearly two years to complete.
Critics have alleged that Mueller may have induced Flynn to plead guilty by suggesting that the government had more evidence of “Russia collusion” than it actually did.
This story is developing.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Chaos Continues In Hong Kong; Undercover Cops Pull Guns Amid ‘Aggressive Clearance Operation’
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/29/2019 – 15:30
Violence continued in Hong Kong as anti-government demonstrations entered their 17th week. The police response was described by the Washington Post as “among the most aggressive” since the movement began over a now-withdrawn extradition bill which would have allowed China to forcibly move suspects to the mainland for face trial in communist courts.
Protesters destroyed signs and flags raised in advance of the 70th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, some of which were burned. According to WaPo, “At times, riot police appeared outnumbered. Shoppers at a luxury mall in central Hong Kong looked on as police and protesters engaged in a pitched battle. Protesters crouched, created a phalanx of umbrellas and tossed bricks and bottles toward the officers. Police fired round after round of tear gas.”
The protesters inched forward as rubber bullets shredded their umbrellas. When it appeared the police might be outflanked, officers made a hasty retreat. Protesters seized the moment, rushing toward officers piling into police vans. Demonstrators, cheered by onlookers and fellow marchers, hit the vans with poles and bottles as the vehicles sped away. The road was littered with glass and spent tear-gas canisters clinked across the asphalt as the protesters continued their march. At nightfall in the nearby neighborhood of Wan Chai, residents left their homes and workplaces to jeer at police and pelt their vehicles with bricks and bottles. -Washington Post
Several people were seriously injured, including an Indonesian journalist based in Hong Kong who was hit in the eye by a projectile while live-streaming the event for her publication. ... Street battles broke between protesters and police who struggled to keep the demonstrators at bay with rubber bullets and tear gas. Residents and tourists were caught in the crossfire, clutching their faces and running in fear in several areas, including the neon-lit luxury shopping district of Causeway Bay. -Washington Post
At approximately 5pm, riot police launched an aggressive clearance operation against protesters along Harcourt Road – a frequent location for clashes.
Police pushed young demonstrators to the asphalt road and dragged them away, leaving pools of blood. Hong Kong’s hospital authority said 13 people were admitted to hospitals by 7:30 p.m., including one in serious condition. -Washington Post
Riot police officers fire tear gas to disperse anti-government protesters after a march in Hong Kong. (Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters)
Arrested protesters were lined up against a wall outside a government building before being frisked and taken away.
After one clash, police regrouped and then charged protesters. “Go, go, go,” a commanding officer shouted as dozens of tactical and riot officers sprinted down the street. Officers tackled demonstrators, pinning them to the ground and blocking journalists’ cameras as they made arrests. -Washington Post
Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
Beth Alcazar – 09/24/2019
A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Alabama last month. As reported by the local news, a father and his son were involved in an argument that led to the 70-year-old father shooting his 45-year-old son in the chest in what he claims was self-defense.
Soon afterward, the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action shared the news — along with a comment — on social media. They posted:
’Investigators said James Adams and his son, Alfred Dewayne Adams, were involved in an argument Sunday night. They further stated they believe James told Alfred he was going to bed. Alfred then walked into the bedroom and James shot him in the chest. Some of the neighbors and some other family members can tell us about stuff that was happening through [sic] the years.’ This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law.
“This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law?” That’s quite a statement. And I wanted to post a few questions to Moms Demand Action. First of all, I wanted to ask: If the father truly used a weapon in self-defense, would a “red flag” law have disarmed him … and then spared the life of his violent son? Would the father be dead, then, in this particular situation? Beyond that, do “red flag” laws cover all weapons in the home? What if the suspect had decided to use a knife? Or what about prescription drugs or poisons? Does it cover a person’s bare hands and/or body? Could we confiscate those weapons, as well, whenever we feel there’s “some stuff that was happening through the years?”
And what about the terrible case in which a son killed his father and wounded his mother with a knife? Two months ago, in Arizona, the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office reported that when the older couple returned home, “they noticed their 33-year-old son had consumed a large amount of beer. The parents argued with him over their drinking concern. He threw his phone at them and then went into the kitchen and grabbed two large knives. When he tried to stab his mother, his father intervened and attempted to restrain him while he was still in the kitchen. The son began attacking his dad. As the struggle moved from the kitchen into the living room, the son was able to stab his dad in the chest. The father collapsed to the floor.”
Or there’s this recent horror story from Illinois: A man in a Chicago suburb was arrested by local police after killing his own mother by stabbing her repeatedly with a samurai sword in the chest. Park Ridge Police had removed the murderer’s firearms two times, with the last time being in July 2019. So the suspect didn’t have a gun … but he still had evil intent. And he used whatever weapon he could find.
There’s also the atrocity from Nevada a few weeks ago in which a 36-year-old man bludgeoned a woman to death with a sledgehammer in what Las Vegas police said was a random attack at a laundromat.
I could go on. But I won’t. Perhaps you see the point.
Some Red Flags
Beyond the fear of just anyone pointing out someone else with a gun for no good reason or people wrongly having their firearms taken from them because of mistaken identity or possibly just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are so many red flags about “red flag” laws. Undoubtedly, we’d love to be able to stop crimes and keep bad people from harming or killing others. But this is not the movie Minority Report, in which police can employ some sort of psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Ultimately, we have to ask: Will “red flag” laws actually target violent people … or just people with guns? Because as the above examples (and countless others) show, the problem isn’t the firearms.
About Beth Alcazar
Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.
How many times have we heard about someone running over a bunch of people too. Even the car or truck can be a deadly weapon. If someone is dead set that they are going to kill, for whatever reason, they will find the tool to kill others with!
These gun grabbers want any possible way to take our protection from us. And these same gun grabbers are socialists/communists.
Impeachment can go more ways than one. These politicians that want to do away with the Second Amendment, work for us. When they were sworn in, they swore to honor and uphold the Constitution. Trying to do away with any of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not honoring and upholding the Constitution. Violating one’s Oath of Office is usually grounds for them to be removed.
I say let’s remove their asses!
(Please note, I usually don’t comment on my own posts).