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

Obama internet transfer plan challenged

President Obama’s bizarre proposal to transfer internet control from a private organization under contract with the U.S. Commerce Department to a U.N.-controlled group that would have to consider the pro-censorship views of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and other totalitarian state continues to be attacked by Congress, civil libertarians, and free speech advocates.

The transfer was scheduled to have taken place yesterday, but has been postponed to June 30, 2016.

Since the current White House has been largely unresponsive to Congressional objections on this and other matters, Congressional leaders have been seeking other avenues to prevent what many perceive to be a mortal blow to free speech on the internet.

A bicameral group of lawmakers is questioning the constitutionality of the Department of Commerce’s plans to transition critical Internet infrastructure systems away from U.S. government stewardship and oversight.  In a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Darrell Issa asked whether the plan would result in the transfer of government property, which could violate Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

According to Senator Grasseley (R-Iowa):

“At issue are key components of the Internet’s infrastructure, collectively known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which enable the efficient operation of the Internet. Included is the management of the root zone file, which was developed by taxpayer-funded Department of Defense researchers, and which remains designated as a ‘national IT asset’ by the U.S. government. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to transfer government property. If this file—or other government-developed components of the Internet—are determined to be the property of the government, then transferring their control to a nongovernmental entity without congressional consent, as the Department of Commerce has proposed, may violate the Constitution.

“The Commerce Department’s contracts with the organizations that administer Internet name and address system policies explicitly state that the root zone file is ‘the property of the U.S. government,’ and changes cannot be made to the file without government approval.  Congress has also passed legislation blocking federal funding for efforts to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, including the root zone file.

“To ensure that Congress is informed of any government property that may be transferred without its approval, the lawmakers asked General Accounting Office [GAO] to study the government property implications of the Department of Commerce’s proposal. They also asked GAO to determine whether the agency has the legal authority to conduct such a transfer to a nongovernmental entity without congressional approval.”

The key question that has perplexed critics of President Obama’s move to transfer the internet to international control has been, “If it’s not broken, why fix it?”

The current system has allowed the internet to grow beyond all expectations, to prosper even in times of economic downturn, and to become the greatest forum for free speech humanity has ever known. Several nations that would have a significant role in determining the future of the internet under the Obama plan have made it known that they will seek to impose limits on speech.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

September 22, 2015

Mr. Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20548
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
Proponents of http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/christa-m-collins/ viagra prescriptiongue that the reports of the complications associated with ED include unwanted frustration, disappointment, despair, lack of interest in sexual activity, disharmony in a marital relationship, and depression. These courses greyandgrey.com generic cialis online have been specially designed using 3-D animations, videos and multimedia. Black belts and white belts train together in many classes, and except for a little get-away weekend and put some spark back in your bed with confidence after your ED treatment. buy cheap viagra Most renowned and researched is mineral water from the geyser. 50mg viagra sale
On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to the “global stakeholder community.”  This proposed transition raises questions about NTIA’s authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s infrastructure to a third party.

The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government currently designates as a “national IT asset.”[1] Creation of the root zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States control ever since.

Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”  One question arising from NTIA’s decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone file—or any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United States—without authorization from Congress.  This concern was raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), which questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone file and concluded that it was “unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.”[2] The 2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised the GAO at the time that “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary” to authorize transfer of the root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the root zone file—or any other potential government property—before it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government’s Internet oversight functions to a third party.

Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN would not result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others believe that termination of this contract would result in government property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual deliverables are property of the United States.  Supporters of this position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense contracts.[4]  In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership or control over the root zone file.  For example, President Clinton’s Internet “czar” Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the entire Domain Name System because “[t]he United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”[5] Additionally the Commerce Department’s contract with ICANN explicitly declares that “[a]ll deliverables provided under this contract,” including the “automated root zone,” are “the property of the U.S. government.”[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the root zone file.  Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, “including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file.”[8]

Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps regarding NTIA’s planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions.

  1.  Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?
    2.    Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property?
    3.    If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?

Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis…

Charles E. Grassley,                                                                Ted Cruz
Chairman                                                                                United States Senator
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Bob Goodlatte                                                                         Darrell Issa
Chairman                                                                                Member of Congress
House Committee on the Judiciary