Tag: Russian collusion

Categories
Quick Analysis

Desperation of the Democrats

Like men overboard clinging to life preservers in rugged seas, Democrats and their media allies continue to desperately grasp at the self-created and totally disproven charges of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.

Some believe that it would take a battery of psychiatrists to determine why they do so, particularly considering that the falsehoods and misdeeds committed to bring about the allegations in the first place will eventually place them in legal jeopardy.  

The clinical concept of “projection,” in which one paints others with one’s own faults, may well be at play, particularly in light of Hillary’s intimate financial relations with Russia and Bill’s with China during the 1990’s.

It’s not limited to presidential campaigns.

Democrats became galvanized during the campaign to falsely portray then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as sexist.  They ignored, however, the very real and rather extreme sexism of their own, from their major Hollywood mogul supporters to the creepy antics of Joe Biden. Not to mention, of course, their devotion to the memory of Ted Kennedy, whose offensive relations with females included leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at the bottom of the water off Chappaquiddick Island. Most importantly, it is Democrats that continue to harbor and make excuses for those, like Woman’s March on Washington co-chair Linda Sarsour, who support the horrific anti-female Sharia Law.

A similar phenomenon exists with their rather astounding casting of Republicans as anti-Semitic. Democrats have embraced Islamic extremist congressional representatives who can barely conceal their hatred for Jews. The Obama Administration did everything it possibly could to alienate Israel from Washington, while simultaneously strengthening Iran. Democratic supporters on college campuses continue to vigorously attack Israel through the “BDS” movement.

The Democrats, who have Now as we discussed about mental and physical problems, when these two problems gets combined it affects our erectile capacity in a significant viagra cost india way. This generic tadalafil is actually fear, based on the fact that almost 67% of people who underwent penile surgery were completely dissatisfied with the results. tadalafil 20mg price It prevents us from being vulnerable. canadian pharmacy cialis Hip damage may occur because of any illness, injury, or gradual decay tissue in the joint. been key benefactors of wealthy donors, portray themselves as being for workers. They do so while bluntly attacking working families with high taxes, taking no action against China’s theft of manufacturing jobs, and supporting policies which destroy whole industries that provide good middle-income jobs. They turn a blind eye towards their allies in academia who have raised tuition so high that students become shackled for life with debt.

And, of course, there is the continual bid to portray the GOP as being authoritarian. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who threaten violence and actually riot in the streets when they lose elections. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who seek to censor free speech.  It is Democrats, not Republicans, who seek to warp the Supreme Court and the U.S. electoral system to insure partisan victory.  It is Democrats, not Republicans, who used the IRS and the Department of Justice to harass their political opponents.

The actual answer, however, is not psychiatric but political. The reality is that the Democrats do not have the upper hand on any key issues.  Consciously or not, they have substituted baseless personal attacks on their opponents and unseemly appeals to identity politics for honest policy debate.  

Outright falsehoods have also been employed, on occasion to an almost farcical extent. 100,000 illegals crossing the border monthly, bringing significant expense to U.S. taxpayers, as well as extensive gang violence? Not a crisis!  Russian invasion of Ukraine, Chinese expansionism throughout Asia, and massive arms buildups by both, no excuse to provide adequate funds for the U.S. military! The lowest unemployment rate in history for blacks, thanks to the GOP? Ignore that, Republicans are racist. Hillary Clinton taking millions from the Russians through her foundation in return for allowing the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to Moscow? Move along, nothing to see here.

Because of the political partisanship of both the media and the entertainment industry, the obvious criticism the Democrats so richly deserve remains unaddressed. If Donald Trump is the symbol of the GOP, then Jessie Smollett is the living, breathing symbol of the Democrat Party of the 21st Century, complete with outright falsehoods, fake charges, and a politically biased and obviously corrupt justice system that insures there no repercussions.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Testimony of Attorney General William Barr

MAY 1, 2019 10:00 am

Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate May 1, 2019

Good morning, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the conclusion of the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and the confidential report he submitted to me, which I recently released to the public after applying necessary redactions.

When I appeared before this Committee just a few months ago for my confirmation hearing, Senators asked for two commitments concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation: first, that I would allow the Special Counsel to finish his investigation without interference; and second, that I would release his report to Congress and to the American public. I believe that the record speaks for itself. The Special Counsel completed his investigation as he saw fit. As I informed Congress on March 22, 2019, at no point did I, or anyone at the Department of Justice, overrule the Special Counsel on any proposed action. In addition, immediately upon receiving his confidential report to me, we began working with the Special Counsel to prepare it for public release and, on April 18, 2019, I released a public version subject only to limited redactions that were necessary to comply with the law and to protect important governmental interests.

Preparation for Public Release As I explained in my letter of April 18, 2019, the redactions in the public report fall into four categories: (1) grand-jury information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); (2) investigative techniques, which reflect material identified by the intelligence and law enforcement communities as potentially compromising sensitive sources, methods, or techniques, as well as information that could harm ongoing intelligence or law enforcement activities; (3) information that, if released, could harm ongoing law enforcement matters, including charged cases where court rules and orders bar public disclosure by the parties of case information; and (4) information that would unduly infringe upon the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties, which includes deliberation about decisions not to recommend prosecution of such parties. I have also made available to a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress, including Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein, a minimally redacted version that includes everything other than the grand-jury material, which by law cannot be disclosed. We made every effort to ensure that the redactions were as limited as possible. According to one analysis, just eight percent of the public report was redacted. And my understanding is that less than two percent has been withheld in the minimally redacted version made available to Congressional leaders. While the Deputy Attorney General and I selected the categories of redactions, the redactions themselves were made by Department of Justice attorneys working closely with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office. These lawyers consulted with the prosecutors handling ongoing matters and with members of the intelligence community who reviewed selected portions of the report to advise on redactions. The Deputy Attorney General and I did not overrule any of the redaction decisions, nor did we request that any additional material be redacted.

1

We also permitted the Office of the White House Counsel and the President’s personal counsel to review the redacted report prior to its release, but neither played any role in the redaction process. Review by the Office of White House Counsel allowed them to advise the President on executive privilege, consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice. As I have explained, the President made the determination not to withhold any information based on executive privilege. Review by the President’s personal counsel was a matter of fairness in light of my decision to make public what would otherwise have been a confidential report, and it was consistent with the practice followed for years under the now-expired Ethics in Government Act.

Bottom-Line Conclusions After the Special Counsel submitted the confidential report on March 22, I determined that it was in the public interest for the Department to announce the investigation’s bottom-line conclusions—that is, the determination whether a provable crime has been committed or not. I did so in my March 24 letter. I did not believe that it was in the public interest to release additional portions of the report in piecemeal fashion, leading to public debate over incomplete information. My main focus was the prompt release of a public version of the report so that Congress and the American people could read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The Department’s principal responsibility in conducting this investigation was to determine whether the conduct reviewed constituted a crime that the Department could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As Attorney General, I serve as the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, and it is my responsibility to ensure that the Department carries out its law- enforcement functions appropriately. The Special Counsel’s investigation was no exception. The Special Counsel was, after all, a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice charged with making prosecution or declination decisions.

The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well- defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules. To the contrary, they make it all the more important for the Department to follow them. The appointment of a Special Counsel calls for particular care since it poses the risk of what Attorney General Robert Jackson called “the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” By definition, a Special Counsel is charged with investigating particular potential crimes, not all potential crimes wherever they may be found. Including a democratically elected politician as a subject in a criminal investigation likewise calls for special care. As Attorney General Jackson admonished his United States Attorneys, politically sensitive cases demand that federal prosecutors be “dispassionate and courageous” in It is extremely surprising that every man at one or another stage of his life experience the ill effects of ahead of schedule discharge issue it is essential to take appropriate medicine. cialis online cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/11/29/the-mythic-weight-of-phil-spectors-christmas-gift-a-semicentennial-reflection/ seems to be the best for those who feel exhausted while performing or satisfying their partner in the love-game. This fruit acts in the male generic cialis no rx body after supporting the cyclic GMP and inhibiting PDE 5 enzymes. What’s brand viagra Professional? levitra is one of the most women have been taken care of with levitra samples; a lover got inactive placebo pills. Prior to the bill going into effect, the standard industry practice was to hike rates on consumers immediately after an infraction, such as a late payment. cialis sale order to “protect the spirit as well as the letter of our civil liberties.”

The core civil liberty that underpins our American criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. Every person enjoys this presumption long before the commencement

2

of any investigation or official proceeding. A federal prosecutor’s task is to decide whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to overcome that presumption and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, he seeks an indictment; if not, he does not. The Special Counsel’s report demonstrates that there are many subsidiary considerations informing that prosecutorial judgment—including whether particular legal theories would extend to the facts of the case and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove one or another element of a crime. But at the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no. That is what I sought to address in my March 24 letter.

Russian Interference The Special Counsel inherited an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, and whether any individuals affiliated with President Trump’s campaign colluded in those efforts. In Volume I of the report, the Special Counsel found that several provable crimes were committed by Russian nationals related to two distinct schemes. First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Following a thorough investigation, the Special Counsel brought charges against several Russian nationals and entities in connection with each scheme.

The Special Counsel also looked at whether any member or affiliate of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump participated in these crimes. With respect to the disinformation scheme, the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans—including anyone associated with the Trump campaign—conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA. Likewise, with respect to hacking, the Special Counsel found no evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign, nor any other American, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. Moreover, the Special Counsel did not find that any Americans committed a crime in connection with the dissemination of the hacked materials in part because a defendant could not be charged for dissemination without proof of his involvement in the underlying hacking conspiracy.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. The Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy with the Russian government to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

Thus, as to the original question of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, the Special Counsel did not find that any crimes were committed by the campaign or its affiliates.

Obstruction of Justice In Volume II of the report, the Special Counsel considered whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of justice. The Special Counsel decided not to reach a conclusion, however, about whether the President committed an obstruction offense. Instead, the

3

report recounts ten episodes and discusses potential legal theories for connecting the President’s actions to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that, under the principles of federal prosecution, the evidence developed by the Special Counsel would not be sufficient to charge the President with an obstruction-of-justice offense.

The Deputy Attorney General and I knew that we had to make this assessment because, as I previously explained, the prosecutorial judgment whether a crime has been established is an integral part of the Department’s criminal process. The Special Counsel regulations provide for the report to remain confidential. Given the extraordinary public interest in this investigation, however, I determined that it was necessary to make as much of it public as I could and committed the Department to being as transparent as possible. But it would not have been appropriate for me simply to release Volume II of the report without making a prosecutorial judgment.

The Deputy Attorney General and I therefore conducted a careful review of the report, looking at the facts found and the legal theories set forth by the Special Counsel. Although we disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion. We concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

* * *

The responsibility of the Department of Justice, when it comes to law enforcement, is to determine whether crimes have been committed and to prosecute those crimes under the principles of federal prosecution. With the completion of the Special Counsel’s investigation and the resulting prosecutorial decisions, the Department’s work on this matter is at its end aside from completing the cases that have been referred to other offices. From here on, the exercise of responding and reacting to the report is a matter for the American people and the political process. As I am sure you agree, it is vitally important for the Department of Justice to stand apart from the political process and not to become an adjunct of it.

Photo: Attorney General William Barr (DOJ)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Biased Justice

Frustration was expressed by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III   in his questioning of the legal right of the Special Counsel team to pursue charges unrelated to Russian collusion against Paul Manafort. Mueller’s move is seen by some as an attempt to frighten and bankrupt Manfort as a way to get him to desperately agree to testify against the President, even if that testimony is inaccurate, in an effort to preserve his freedom and his bank account from the crushing burden of a trial.

It’s important to understand how an individual may be subjected to a ruinous process by a determined prosecutor even in the absence of an underlying crime.

Assume that a prosecutor is determined to disrupt the life and career of a target, in this case, the President of the United States.  However, after a year of intensive investigation by a team that has close association to the President’s political opposition, there is no evidence of the alleged “crime.”  Indeed, it now seems that the whole basis of the case was based on nothing more than a document procured by the opposition campaign.

The target understandably voices frustration—which is promptly labelled as “obstruction,” a wholly separate charge but a life line to keep the failed investigation alive. Additionally, The Special Counsel now seeks to find individuals who can provide any embarrassing facts about the target, even those that are wholly unrelated to the charge that initiated the existence of the investigation.

Any individual, no matter how upstanding, can be made the subject of suspicion by a determined prosecutor.  Let’s take, dear reader, you as an example. Suppose an acquaintance of yours is the target of a so-far unsuccessful probe.  The prosecutor wants you to divulge something embarrassing about him.  You refuse; indeed, you may not know that any wrongdoing was ever committed.  So that prosecutor begins to dig into your life. He decides that you may be involved in a Chinese spy ring, which is totally untrue, but…

You frequently order takeout from a Chinese restaurant that is part of a chain of stores that, unknown to you, is owned by a Beijing-based corporation that has fiscal ties to that nation’s government. This is known to investigators because you pay by credit card and your records have been subpoenaed by a diligent prosecutor. The prosecutor accuses you of being an unregistered foreign agent providing assistance to China.  When confronted with this absurdity, you tell, in anger, the investigator to go to hell, and you instruct your accountant, tax preparer, and credit card company not to comply with the investigation. As a result, you are charged with Obstruction.  You now face serious legal expenses and potential criminal charges.  However, you are quietly informed, if you simply provide damning statements about your acquaintance, all this can go away, and what’s left of your life and money can be preserved.

The urgency of urination increases, and the person starts experiencing symptoms. more helpful tabs buy cialis Tongkat ali extract is derived from a sans prescription viagra tree with the same name. They are responsible for building muscle mass and development of sexual features which includes growth of bone mass, body hair, buying levitra in canada body fat, etc. That is why certain drugs are produced to help them be sexually buy cialis no prescription active. Recently, according to published reports,  a former Trump campaign aide, Michael Caputo, exploded in anger at the Senate Intelligence Committee, labelling the Russian investigation a “witch hunt” that has cost him $125,000 in legal fees.

A vigorous investigative process by a special counsel into the possible commission of a crime is wholly appropriate. But there are appropriate parameters that must be observed. First, there must be dependable evidence that an actual crime has been committed. In the Russian Collusion case, this has not occurred.  All that has been unearthed is that an unsubstantiated document procured by the Clinton campaign was presented to a FISA court, which almost always approves anything placed before it by the FBI, and the origin of that documented was not disclosed.  On top of that, this current FBI leadership has very real and very significant indications of bias, including the fact that approximately $700,000 in funds to the campaign of the wife of former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, was provided by Clinton allies, and clear evidence, including emails, exist indicating that key figures within that agency definitively sought to prevent the election of candidate  Donald Trump.  The special counsel, Robert Mueller, served as head of the FBI, and was succeeded by James Comey, who has also made no secret of his animosity to Trump.

If this investigation, under similar biased circumstances, was taking place in another nation, many if not most of those cheering on Robert Mueller’s actions would have no hesitation in condemning it as a political show trial by one political faction against another.

Many will never be convinced that Donald Trump is innocent.  That is their right. And it would be appropriate, upon their presentation of reliable, substantive evidence of actual collusion, to initiate a vigorous investigation, to be conducted by nonpartisan personnel.  That is not the current case, which is based on biased and unreliable evidence that underlies an investigation by partisan personnel.

This analysis is neither pro nor anti-Trump.  It is, however, staunchly in favor of the concept of the fair and objective administration of justice.

Photo: U.S. Courts

Categories
Quick Analysis

Mueller’s Conflict of Interest

DOJ photo

 

There is a problem pundits face when writing about political scandals. A journalist should describe the alleged crimes in a thorough, complete and impartial manner.  Given the nature of politics, however, it is important to also question the motivations of the accusers and those investigating the issue.

For the most part, the media has utterly failed to do so in the ongoing investigation of the alleged collusion with the Russians on the part of the Trump campaign in 2016.

Since Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel ten months ago, he has failed to produce any substantive evidence pointing to “Russian collusion” with the Trump campaign.  He has, indeed, failed to do so despite oppressive and highly questionable tactics employed against some individuals who were close to or part of the campaign. Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review, notes that, rather inadvertently, the recently released Democrat memo reveals that the “FBI and the DOJ relied heavily on uncorroborated, third-hand, anonymous sources in their FISA application… Another major takeaway … is that the FBI and the DOJ withheld from the FISA court the fact that [the information used to authorize the surveillance of the Trump campaign, which is the basis for Mueller’s investigation] was a project of the Clinton campaign.”

Robert Barnes, writing in Law and Crime asks “when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign?… three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele [a former British secret agent] was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a ‘legal expense.’ Don’t expect such an indictment.”
There are three identical worship services on the weekends. viagra canada deliver deeprootsmag.org Hence these ingredients and methods must alleviate vata and balance all three doshas. lowest prices for cialis The drug not only helps to achieve and maintain solid erection in minutes. buy cheap levitra Learning proper breathing techniques is essential for maintaining a healthy core and healthy body. viagra best prices http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/05/18/isnt-lovely-thing/
Sally Persons reported in the Washington Times that “Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows plan on launching an investigation into the Obama administration to find out what they knew about the dossier that forms the basis of the investigation… ‘The Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. The Democrat National Committee paid for the dossier. And if a Russian oligarch was paying the author of the dossier at the same time, that is unbelievable,’ Mr. Jordan, Ohio Republican, said on Fox News.”

Why isn’t Mueller also investigating this?

Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Times, describes the long-standing immunity the Clintons seem to have when it comes to conspiring with enemy nations. In 1997, Beijing illegally funneled millions of dollars in cash into President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign. “The Chinese were backing a president who had allowed American companies to sell high-technology goods to China that ended up boosting Beijing’s missile, warhead and other advanced weapons programs. The investigation into Chinese illegal campaign influence was triggered by reports in early 1997 that the FBI had intercepted communications from the Chinese Embassy outlining a multiyear campaign known as ‘The Plan’ to change U.S. policy, including helping Mr. Clinton’s reelection by funneling cash to Beijing-linked group Asian Americans for the Democratic National Committee.”

Clinton rewarded Beijing by authorizing the sale of Cray super computers to Beijing, which allowed their military to catch up on decades of military research, and, shortly before he left office, gave China major trade concessions which placed a vast number of American factory workers unemployed. During her tenure as Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton played a significant role in authorizing the sale of American uranium, the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons, to Russia. Large donations to the Clinton Foundation and other cash considerations followed.

The FBI, under Mueller’s tenure, didn’t take action.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political Motivation of Mueller Investigation Questioned, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its examination of the mounting indications that the charges against the President, and the refusal to conduct an investigation against Ms. Clinton, are part of an overall attempt to use the legal process as a partisan political tool.

The news that New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman will be involved with the tainted Mueller investigation confirms the true nature of what is increasingly seen as a politically motivated hit on the Trump White House. Ben Smith, writing for Politico,  notes that the former state senator has “spent his career building an ideological infrastructure for the left.”

The Washington Examiner believes that the inclusion of the hyper-partisan Schneiderman on Mueller’s team is actually “good news” for Trump. “…people close to the White House said Schneiderman’s history of political donations to Democratic political candidates, and his decision to position himself squarely against the president, could help Trump discredit Mueller’s investigation…”

Schneiderman’s proclivity for using his office for partisan purposes has garnered considerable criticism. State GOP chair Ed Cox stated in 2016 that: “Another day, and more evidence Eric Schneiderman is using the Office of the Attorney General for political purposes. Just last week we learned he is allowing his close ally Hillary Clinton to subvert New York charity laws by refusing to force her to disclose the Foundation’s foreign donors, and now we learn he sought to leverage his investigation of ExxonMobil to secure support from billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer in his potential run for higher office. Mr. Schneiderman has established a long and disturbing pattern of abusing the power of his office for political gain.”

The New York Observer had this to say about Schneiderman: “A pattern of political opportunism in which enemies pay while friends skate, a questionable nine-figure slush fund and an inability to play nicely in his own party’s sandbox have begun to make influential New Yorkers wonder if the attorney general has hit his political ceiling. In numerous cases, Mr. Schneiderman has shown vindictiveness toward political foes and been uncharacteristically lenient or ignorant of activities of political friends.”

Schneiderman has plenty of company on Mueller’s staff. He joins, as noted in Newsmax,  individuals such as James Quarles, who donated over $30,000 to various Democratic campaigns in 2016, including $2,700 to Hillary Clinton; Jeannie Rhee, whose donations include $5,400 to Clinton’s campaigns in 2015 and 2016, and $4,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and 2011; Andrew Weissmann, the chief of the Justice Department’s fraud section, who donated $2,300 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, and at least $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007; and Andrew Goldstein, who donated $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012. This is just a partial list.
Causes of obesity are divided into internal and external causes in two, the internal cause is weak tempered, phlegm-dampness due to stop, external causes is by eating too much cialis free consultation movement caused by too little. The penile muscles do not relax which cause a sales uk viagra good service rash in these areas.. The outcome demonstrated http://deeprootsmag.org/category/gospelset/gospel-feature/ levitra sale that around 80% seen a marked improvement into their new hair growth along with denseness. How to Use online prescriptions for cialis : Take this medication by using an effective ingredient sildenafil citrate.
Mueller’s investigation cannot be understood in isolation.  It’s significant and detrimental role in the American body politic should be observed in the context of the overall politicization of both justice and government that transformed the nation during the Obama years. The use of the IRS to harass ideological opponents of the White House; attempts by the FCC to censor contrary views; the attempts by Democrat state attorneys general to sue those disagreeing with  Progressive views on climate change; the oppression of conservative students on college campuses; and the stunning, Gestapo-like tactics of Antifa, which has perpetuated wide-scale and consistent violence into modern American political life, are all part of a nationwide attempt to force Leftist policies down the throat of an electorate that has already observed how those ideas have failed and who have emphatically rejected them at the ballot box in both federal and state elections.

The reality that the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and an extraordinary majority of both state legislatures and governorships are now in GOP control in the aftermath of the hijacking of the Democrat Party by left wing extremists and the corrupt Clinton machine has hit Progressives hard.

In the past, major changes in government were met with resolve by election losers with a determination to communicate their points more clearly and campaign more vigorously in the next election, always just two years away. So it was for Democrats when the nation transited from Carter to Reagan in 1980, or the Republicans when the Democrats swept away GOP federal office holders in 2008.

But something unusual occurred in 2016. The Democrats were a different type of party, with the remnants of a working-class group who cherished memories of past heroes such as Truman and JFK swept away by ideological extremists who cared little about every-day Americans or their values, values which were the bedrock of the entire nation, despite party affiliation.

Faced with an enormous loss in the election of 2016, and realizing their philosophy had lost touch with the majority, the Left decided, rather than recalculate their ideology, to take the path of misusing the legal system in the courts, and employing violence in the streets, to further their goals.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Integrity of Mueller Investigation Questioned

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines, in two parts,  the mounting indications that the charges against the President, and the refusal to conduct an investigation against Ms. Clinton, are part of an overall attempt to use the legal process as a partisan political tool.

So far, Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign remains unsupported by substantive evidence sufficient to warrant further action. When compared against the extraordinary and growing evidence of wrongdoing involving national security misdeeds and uranium sales to Russia, (in return for remuneration to Ms. Clinton under various means) which the Department of Justice has wholly refused to prosecute, it is increasingly difficult to make the case that Mueller’s investigation against the Trump campaign is anything more than a biased political witch hunt in which the Justice Department is employed as a partisan weapon.

Additionally, it is being conducted by individuals so openly biased that any results they obtain would be incurably tainted.  When linked to the recent news that James Comey, while serving as head of the FBI, decided against prosecuting the former Secretary of State, who clearly endangered U.S. national security by her reckless and lawless email handling (not to mention her personally profiting from the sale of uranium to the Russians) before even interviewing the suspect and key witnesses, it presents a clear picture of a justice system gone utterly rogue with overt political bias.

The stunning report that former FBI director James Comey decided to exonerate Hillary Clinton before the agency’s investigators had interviewed key witnesses may be one of the most profound political and governmental scandals in U.S. history.

The New York Post’s Michael Godwin notes “It remains a blot on the legacy of the Obama administration, the Justice Department and the FBI, and now comes fresh evidence that the investigation that cleared her was a total sham. The revelation from the Senate Judiciary Committee that…Comey drafted his statement exonerating her about two months before FBI agents interviewed Clinton or 16 other witnesses confirms suspicions that the probe was neither honest nor thorough. When the outcome is decided long before the investigation is over, the result can’t be trusted.”

Senators Charles E. Grassley, (R-Iowa) Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Lindsey O. Graham, (R-S.C.) Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Committee on the Judiciary issued a statement noting:

“Transcripts reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in the Clinton email investigation before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses.  Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, requested all records relating to the drafting of the statement as the committee continues to review the circumstances surrounding Comey’s removal from the Bureau…Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation.  The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy…”

The statement went on to note:

“Last fall, following allegations from Democrats in Congress, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) began investigating whether Comey’s actions in the Clinton email investigation violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using their official position to influence an election.  In the course of that investigation, OSC interviewed two FBI officials close to Comey: James Rybicki, Comey’s Chief of Staff, and Trisha Anderson, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw.  OSC provided transcripts of those interviews at Grassley’s request after it closed the investigation due to Comey’s termination.

“Both transcripts are heavily redacted without explanation. However, they indicate that Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Clinton email investigation in April or May of 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17 key witnesses including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides.  The draft statement also came before the Department entered into immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson where the Department agreed to a very limited review of Secretary Clinton’s emails and to destroy their laptops after review.  In an extraordinary July announcement, Comey exonerated Clinton despite noting “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”

In a letter, (reproduced below) the two chairmen requested all drafts of Comey’s statement closing the Clinton investigation, all related emails and any records previously provided to OSC  [the permanent, independent investigative agency for personnel matters in the federal government; it is not related to Robert Mueller’s temporary prosecutorial office within the Justice Department.]  in the course of its investigation.

 

August 30, 2017

The Honorable Christopher Wray

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Director Wray:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating the circumstances surrounding Director Comey’s removal, including his conduct in handling the Clinton and Russia investigations.  On June 30, 2017, the Committee wrote to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) requesting transcripts of OSC’s interviews with then-Director Comey’s Chief of Staff, Jim Rybicki, and the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw, Trisha Anderson. OSC investigators had interviewed them as part of the OSC’s investigation into whether then-Director Comey’s actions in the Clinton investigation violated the Hatch Act.[2]  OSC closed its inquiry after Mr. Comey’s removal pursuant to its standard policy of not investigating former government employees.  On August 8, 2017, the OSC provided transcripts of those interviews at the Committee’s request.  Since then, Committee staff has been asking the Department informally to explain the reasons for the extensive redactions to the transcripts.

According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton.  That was long before FBI agents finished their work.  Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership.  The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.

OSC attorneys questioned two witnesses, presumably Mr. Rybicki and Ms. Anderson, about Mr. Comey’s July 5, 2016, statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. The transcript of what appears to be Mr. Rybicki’s interview contains the following exchanges:

 

Q:  … We talked about outcome of the investigation, … how did

the statement – I guess the idea of the statement come about?

A:   Sure.  We’re talking about July 5th, correct?

Q:   Yes.  I’m sorry.  July 5th.

A:  The – so in the – sometime in the spring – again, I don’t remember exactly when, I – early spring I would say, the Director emailed a couple folks – I can’t remember exactly; I know I was on there, probably the Deputy Director, not the full, what I’ll call the briefing group, but a subset of that – to say, you know, again knowing sort of where – knowing the direction the investigation is headed, right, what would be the most forward-leaning thing we could do, right, information that we could put out about it…And — and, you know, by that — you know, so that — and he sent a draft around of, you know what – what it might look like. . . .

 

***

A:   …So that was the early spring.

Q:   Yeah. And I think we’ve seen maybe that email where he sent it out, it was early May of 2016; does that sound about right?

A:   That sounds right. That — quite honestly, that strikes me as a little late, but may —
Physiotherapy is a technique prescription du canada viagra to promote, develop, maintain and restore the maximum functional ability and movement of their patients’ bodies. All High Quality Medications Available At viagra 100mg for sale The Cheapest Prices in the UK. It can be easily bought online order cheap levitra without filling long forms. Antidepressants will make the problem cialis canada generic worse.
Q:   Okay.

A:   — but again, I definitely remember spring. I had in my head like the April timeframe, but May doesn’t seem out of the — out of the realm.

 

***

Q:  And so at that point in time, whether it was April or early May, the team hadn’t yet interviewed Secretary Clinton –

A:  Correct.

Q:   – but was there – I guess, based on what you’re saying, it sounds like there was an idea of where the outcome of the investigation was going to go?

A:  Sure.  There was a – right, there was – based on – [redacted section].

 

Similarly, the transcript of what appears to be Ms. Anderson’s interview states:

 

Q:  So moving along to the first public statement on the case or Director Comey’s first statement the July 5, 2016 statement.  When did you first learn that Director Comey was planning to make some kind of public statement about the outcome of the Clinton email investigation?

A:  The idea, I’m not entirely sure exactly when the idea of the public statement um first emerged.  Um it was, I just, I can’t put a precise timeframe on it um but [redaction].  And then I believe it was in early May of 2016 that the Director himself wrote a draft of that statement …

 

Q:  So when you found out in early May that there was, that the Director had written a draft of what the statement might look like, how did you learn about that?

A:  [Redacted] gave me a hard copy of it…

Q:  So what happened next with respect to the draft?

A:  I don’t know for sure um, I don’t know. There were many iterations, at some point there were many iterations of the draft that circulated…

 

As of early May 2016, the FBI had not yet interviewed Secretary Clinton.  Moreover, it had yet to finish interviewing sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel.

 

These individuals had intimate and personal knowledge relating to Secretary Clinton’s non-government server, including helping her build and administer the device. Yet, it appears that the following key FBI interviews had not yet occurred when Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement:

  1. May 3, 2016 – Paul Combetta
  2. May 12, 2016 – Sean Misko
  3. May 17, 2016 – Unnamed CIA employee
  4. May 19, 2016 – Unnamed CIA employee
  5. May 24, 2016 – Heather Samuelson
  6. May 26, 2016 – Marcel Lehel (aka Guccifer)
  7. May 28, 2016 – Cheryl Mills
  8. June 3, 2016 – Charlie Wisecarver
  9. June 10, 2016 – John Bentel
  10. June 15, 2016 – Lewis Lukens
  11. June 21, 2016 – Justin Cooper
  12. June 21, 2016 – Unnamed State Dept. Employee[7]
  13. June 21, 2016 – Bryan Pagliano
  14. June 21, 2016 – Purcell Lee
  15. June 23, 2016 – Monica Hanley
  16. June 29, 2016 – Hannah Richert
  17. July 2, 2016 – Hillary Clinton

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Left’s History of Supporting the Enemy

Rep. Keith Ellison, The Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee, recently stated that “Kim Jong-un is acting more responsibly than Trump.”

It would be easy to dismiss, as many are, that outrageous comment as merely a hyperbolic and partisan remark.  The reality, however, is that the American Left has an uncomfortable history of verbal support for some of the planet’s most despicable governments, as long as those governments are anti-American. The left has received substantive support, in return.

New York’s extreme-progressive mayor has long supported the placement of Russian military power in Nicaragua. Writing in PJ Media,  Ron Radosh discussed how, during the Cold War, the “Left…supported the Soviet bloc and all of its policies, and argued that America was in the process of becoming a nascent facist state…operating in the United States, Britain and France, the western left takes the opportunity to speak freely in the democracies in which they live, to openly support and express their solidarity with democracies most fervent enemies.”

That propensity of verbally supporting the enemy has come into clearer focus in the glare of the attempt by many of the left to gain traction based on the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

As Moscow’s massive military buildup continues, its belligerence towards its neighbors progresses, and Putin’s despotism grows, the embarrassed and pro-Russian (and before that, pro-Soviet) left has sought to execute a bit of public relations Ju-Jitsu by casting its opponents as the ones who are pro-Russia.

Despite a clear lack of substantive evidence, an entire press and prosecutorial industry has been developed based on claiming that the damning evidence provided by Julian Assange and others about the corrupt Clinton machine and the machinations of the Democrat Party to deny primary rival Bernie Sanders a fair chance to compete with her in the 2016 primary season was provided by Russian agents in an attempt to promote a Trump victory.

Moscow certainly would be guilty of abject stupidity if that were true.  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, the Trump Administration has been the most anti-Russian presidency since Reagan, pursuing policies of strengthening U.S. armed forces and, particularly, ramping up domestic energy production, a move which dramatically threatens Moscow’s financial stability.

Some liberal sources have now begun to realize how embarrassingly wrong the charges against Trump are. The Nation recently published a review of the matter, and its evidence and its conclusions (remember, this is from a source predisposed to dislike Trump) are that there was no collusion. The publication notes that “A great edifice has been erected has been erected…President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused…half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed…Lost…is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened…and who was responsible…we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.”
Prolonged ligament and joint capsule pharmacy viagra stress caused by excessive self stimulation. Peripheral artery disease can be treated by lifestyle alterations, medications, angioplasty and related treatments, or surgery. order viagra Houttuynia cordata, scutellaria baicalensis, honeysuckle in this pill can help to on line viagra increase quantity of sperm and sperm which your body needs is genuine Karlovy Vary thermal spring salt. Canadian pharmacies have online viagra store affordable prices on many of the forms of modeling.
The absurd charges and the resulting investigation have had the desired effect, however. As the Nation notes, “The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled…”

Camouflaging its pro-Communist tendency has been a constant of leftists.  Far too often, they have masked their unpopular foreign policy preferences and unsavory association with anti-American regimes with a veneer of naïve causes. Testimony given to Congress in 1982 revealed that Moscow provided extraordinary sums of money and energy on the nuclear freeze movement. Unquestioned support for, and the acceptance of support from, Communist regimes has been a hallmark of the left.  Even during the worst of the inhuman and outrageous depredations of the Stalin government, the American left maintained its enthusiasm for him. Of course, even to mention that reality produces a rote charge of “McCarthyism,” a reference to the Congressman who fostered intensive probes into the influence of Moscow’s agents within the U.S. entertainment industry.

The “America is always wrong” ideology reached its height during the prior administration. President Obama and Secretary Clinton rapidly agreed to a nuclear deal with Moscow that ended American leadership in atomic arms. They gave into much of Russia’s demands about preventing the advance of American anti-ballistic missile defenses, a policy error keenly felt as North Korea continues to threaten an atomic attack. Bizarrely, as the Russian navy returned to Cuba and the Castro regime continued its repression of its people, Obama opened relations with that nation for no discernable return.

Matthew Continetti, writing in National Review, noted that: “Objectively…the result of Obama’s foreign policy [was] to empower America’s adversaries…”

Despite the long and unsavory history of the left’s infatuation with totalitarian Communist regimes, it is its flirtation with radical Islam that demonstrates the depth of its “America is always wrong” ideology.  The Obama Administration’s infamous apology tour in the middle east, its opposition to pro-American Arab governments, its utter failure to respond to the Benghazi attack, and, most notably, its irrational appeasement of Iran’s obsessively anti-U.S. leadership demonstrate how thoroughly ingrained the left’s disdain for their own nation’s interests are.

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political Investigations and their Purpose

When Vladimir Putin seeks to eliminate a political rival, he has them assassinated. China’s President Xi has his dissidents tossed into hard labor prison camps.  North Korea’s Kim Jung-un has been known to have those he disagrees with literally blown apart, sometimes using artillery.

That’s not the American way, however. When an outspoken group or individual runs afoul of leadership in the United States, insiders use the machinery of the federal government, and abuse taxpayer-funded agencies and departments, to engage in financial and legal harassment to fight them.

There is a great deal of frustration with the fact that outsiders have challenged Washington’s political hierarchy. The opposition of the Tea Party was met with stiff resistance by the Obama Administration, which violated numerous legal and ethical standards when it employed the Internal Revenue Service to prevent those involved from fully organizing. The American Center for Law and Justice  notes that “As a tidal wave of grassroots activism began to roar throughout the country, the Obama Administration attempted to quell this activism by everyday Americans by beginning to develop an unconstitutional and illegal system of targeting and abuse.  The Administration’s IRS began pulling some tax-exempt applications out of the normal screening process for additional scrutiny (including the issuance of onerous demand letters for additional information) of organizations seeking tax-exemption whose names included the terms ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ ‘9/12,’ or other conservative-sounding names, such as ‘We the People’ or ‘Take Back the Country.”

There are significant examples of attempted federal intimidation outside of the Internal Revenue Service. Harassment of centrists and conservative think tanks were a significant strategy of the Obama administration. Attorney General Loretta Lynch “referred to the FBI” the proposal to criminalize any disagreement with Obama’s environmental policies.

 Jonathon Hauenschild, writing in The Hill reported that during the Obama Administration “Efforts to curtail online political speech were not limited to one federal commission or agency. Rules proposed by The [Federal Communications Commission] FCC, Federal Election Commission, [FEC] and considered by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) all threatened online political speech. In the Open Internet Order of 2015, the FCC proposed something called the ‘general conduct standard’ or the ‘Internet conduct standard.’ The former chair of the FEC repeatedly called for federal regulation of online political speech and nearly persuaded the FEC to sanction Fox News for merely sponsoring a primary presidential debate.”

Tom Basile, in a 2014 Forbes article  reported that “government has grown so large, so complex, so involved in virtually every aspect of their lives, that it is now being used as a weapon by a small segment of the ruling political class. The weaponization of government is happening and it’s time Americans took notice…Those tactics reduce every Americans’ personal and economic freedom. There is a dangerous arrogance of power among …President Obama and senior-level Democrats that should concern every American.”

Sara Carter, in a Circa expose, found that during the Obama Administration “The National Security Agency…routinely violated American privacy protections…and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community. More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal…”
Clearly, the healthy human body can handle certain levels of toxins; the concern is with excess intake or production of toxins or a reduction in the elimination processes. canada viagra cheap McCullough said those generico cialis on line who will benefit from the drug that can give you relief from erectile dysfunction. Psychological problems deals with best levitra price emotions, emotions will definitely impact your Sexual activities. Significant Qualities that make Hypnotists Successful Confidence is absolutely amerikabulteni.com cialis online mastercard necessary for being a successful hypnotist.
This surveillance had little to do with national security and everything to do with spying on political opponents.

The current use of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who has now empaneled a grand jury, to investigate the Trump campaign—despite a distinct lack of any evidence of a crime being committed, or, indeed, even a discussion of what federal law or regulation may have been broken, fits neatly into this pattern. It is a clear continuation of the harassment by political insiders of those, like the Tea Party, who seek to challenge the monopoly of political professionals.

The Democrats were quite successful in abusing and violating their own internal party procedures to prevent an outsider, Bernie Sanders, from gaining their 2016 presidential nomination, an act which has not received the judicial scrutiny it deserves.  The GOP leadership held a more open process, allowing outsider Trump to win. His campaign capitalized on the growing unease of the American electorate that the political game was increasingly rigged and Constitutional rights were being trampled, to insure the election of insiders.

Without the support of GOP insiders, and facing the anguish of a Democrat Party that has virtually been driven from power on the federal and most state levels, Trump is exceedingly vulnerable. The goal of the political insiders—to hobble his administration—is achieved not by the potential results of the Mueller inquisition, but by the very fact that it exists, and that it hampers the agenda he campaigned on.

There is another non-legal reason for the hysteria and hyperbole surrounding the as-yet unsubstantiated allegations about the Trump Campaign. There can be little doubt that numerous Constitutional violations occurred during the Obama Administration.  There are also serious legal questions about Hillary Clinton’s obvious violation of the law and endangerment of American national security in her personal profit from the sale of uranium to the Russians, as well as her felonious mismanagement of classified emails. But Obama and Clinton are ultimate insiders—they don’t get investigated or punished for their misdeeds. The Mueller investigation effectively distracts the public from those offenses, and gives the media an excuse to ignore them.

After all, during the past eight years, we have learned that political investigations are aimed at outsiders who have the temerity to challenge the insiders.