Robert Mueller: One of the Best or One of the Worst Part 2

(Before reading today’s story, please read Part 1 published yesterday, December 17th)

 

Who Remembers Sandy Berger?

Berger was an American political consultant who served as the United States National Security Advisor for President Bill Clinton from March 14, 1997, until January 20, 2001. Before that, he served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration from January 20, 1993, until March 14, 1997.

Here’s what Berger did:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents. In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years. The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals, but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. “In total, during this visit, he removed four documents … Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).” Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, “I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. … While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize.” By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.

Of course, the FBI was involved in the Justice Department investigated the Berger incident. That meant Robert Mueller was tasked to “oversee” that investigation. As aggressive as Mueller can be about pursuing the wrong man, he showed surprising leniency and laxity when it came to the case of Samuel “Sandy” Berger. He was found to have stuffed the documents in his socks and otherwise hidden them. His punishment was that he was allowed to plead guilty in 2005 to a single misdemeanor. He served no jail time but had to give up his security clearance for three years.

The staff of Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., authored a 60-page report about the theft of the documents, in which he said: “The Justice Department was unacceptably incurious about Berger’s Archives visits.”

Then There was Scooter Libby

As lax and lenient as the Department of Justice was with Berger, the opposite was true in other cases. After Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was leaked, a special counsel operation was set up to investigate the leak. Mueller’s deputy Comey pressured John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the case on the grounds he had potential conflicts of interest.

Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend, and godfather to one of his children, to the role of special counsel. Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald all knew the whole time that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. Yet they set things up so Fitzgerald would aggressively investigate the Bush administration for three years, jailed a journalist for not giving up a source, and pursued both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Comey even expanded the investigation’s mandate within weeks of setting up the special counsel. (Sound familiar?) Libby, who was later pardoned by President Trump, was rung up on a process charge in part thanks to prosecutorial abuse by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald encouraged a witness to give false testimony by not providing exonerating evidence to her and Libby’s attorneys. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary have write-ups on the saga.

Election Meddling

In 2016, the FBI kept getting involved in the presidential election. Political considerations rather obviously played a role in Comey showing deference to Clinton in July 2016 in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information. Political considerations also played a role — he says subconsciously — in Comey’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information had been reopened shortly before the election.

It wasn’t the first time the FBI meddled in a U.S. election. In 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted by a federal grand jury following a lengthy investigation by the FBI and found guilty eight days before Election Day. Stevens narrowly lost his re-election bid as a result and died in a plane crash a couple of years later.

The prosecutors in that case repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence that would have yielded a different verdict. The convictions were voided by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, who called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen. Stevens’ attorney complained about FBI abuses and said: ‘To us, while this is a joyful day and we’re happy that Sen. Stevens can resume a normal life without the burden that he’s carried over these last years,’ he said, ‘at age 85, it’s a very sad story too. Because it’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States.”

Israeli Spy Ring

Another black mark on Mueller’s record at the FBI was the pursuit of what the bureau dramatically claimed was an Israeli spy ring operating out of the Pentagon. The news broke in August 2004 that a spy working for Israel was in the Department of Defense.

It turned out that the bureau had gone after a policy analyst who had chatted with American lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Charges were also pursued against two AIPAC employees. Those charges were later dropped and the sentence of the first person was dropped from 13 years to 10 months of house arrest and some community service.

The Washington Post wrote: “The conspiracy case against two former AIPAC lobbyists came to an inglorious end in May when the government dropped all charges after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial maneuvers.”

It was a curious case: First, the lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under an obscure section of the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that had been used only once before — unsuccessfully and never against private citizens for disclosing classified information. Second, they were targets of a bizarre sting in which they were fed false information suggesting that the lives of U.S. and Israeli operatives in Iraq were at risk and that American officials were refusing to take steps to protect them. The accusation was not that they brokered this information to some foreign enemy but that they offered it to everybody they could, hoping, among other things, to get a reporter from The Post to publish it so that it might draw the attention of the right U.S. officials and save U.S. lives. In short, even if the two were guilty as charged, they look more like whistle-blowers than spies.

It turned out the probe was led by David Szady, the same man who notoriously missed Russian spy Robert Hanssen in his midst while he spent years targeting an innocent man named Brian Kelley, an undercover officer at the CIA. For this good work, Mueller named him Assistant Director for Counterintelligence.

The “Weisman” Factor

Many of these examples of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse were done not by Mueller but by underlings. He should have been aware of what they were doing, which means he should take responsibility for the errors. If he wasn’t aware, that’s a very bad sign regarding his competence to supervise his special counsel deputy Andrew Weissman. (We have written previously extensively of Weisman’s long and egregious prosecutorial record)

If Mueller had no effective supervision against the abuses of the above underlings, why would anyone trust him to supervise his good buddy Weissman, whom he picked to run lead on his probe of Trump? Weissman destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Anderson LLP, which once had 85,000 employees. Thanks to prosecutorial abuse, jurors were not told that Arthur Anderson didn’t have criminal intent when it shredded documents. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

Weissman also “creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron,” which sent four executives to jail. Weissman concocted unprecedented charges and did not allow the executives to get bail, causing massive disruption to the families before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed most of Weissman’s case.

Summary

So this is the “guy” put in charge of chasing and finding proof that the current President, his campaign staff and others colluded with Russians to positively influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. There apparently was no collusion, so Mueller morphed the investigation into “Obstruction of Justice.” Apparently, there was no Obstruction found. Now we understand Mueller is looking into Trump business transactions as far back as the 1980s!

Does that sound like a Witch-hunt to you?

Let’s not forget: one could also argue that the above failures, except the Stevens case, were actually James Comey’s responsibility. That’s arguably true as well, but it also shows just how bizarre it is that Mueller was named to investigate a situation in which his friend and partner in prosecutorial abuse is so intimately involved.

I am certain that Americans expect all those in national public office to be honorable, honest, and to serve Americans within the positions for which they were elected or appointed. That includes the President of the United States. If and when there is real injustice, illegalities, and constant efforts to hide things from Americans, we all get an uneasy feeling.

When the Mueller probe was announced, I was skeptical. But my knowledge there are so many things in D.C. I don’t know or understand, I was perfectly willing for Mueller and Company to take a look. But two years later: there’s no there-there. They try to justify the $25 million taxpayers have paid directly to fund the investigation with the indictments that have come from the investigation. But as the light is shined on those indictments, we’ve learned they were either against Russians who were simply charged and will certainly never show up in American court to stand trial, or were not for actions people committed to collude with Russia in any way, but stem from actions taken by Mueller’s team in setting up those being investigated to misstate something — which is technically a lie — and have been charged (or threatened to be charged) for a federal felony!

Does that sound like justice to you?

It may be justice, but every American citizen is promised: “equal justice under the law.” I’m pretty certain General Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and others would tell us their justice was not/is not equal under the law.

If it quacks and waddles, it’s almost always a duck.

And Mueller is quacking!

Play

Robert Mueller: One of the Best or One of the Worst

If you listen to those on Capitol Hill who “know” all things in D.C. better than those of us who are a-political, Robert Mueller is something akin to the Messiah when it comes to law enforcement, investigation, and ferreting out facts of any salacious story with international intrigue. But wait: there’s another side to Robert Mueller.

A year ago here, we analyzed in a multi-part story the Robert Mueller of recent years — primarily his most recent public service in the Bush 43 and Obama FBI’s and some interim private service as well. I doubt you’ll be surprised to learn there is another Robert Mueller: a Robert Mueller who has definite DNA attached to some very significant FBI cases of which a fawning press painted a dramatically different story for the American people than actual details showed. How does stuff like this slip through that politically-driven media agenda? That’s a story for another day, but be certain that it happens every day.

Today we begin another “Rest of the Story” about Robert Mueller. And this series will certainly paint a different version than you’ve heard previously. The difference: this one gives you facts instead of political perspective.

The Mystery of Mueller

Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump’s side.

We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle’s office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked.

Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now brag about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.” Let’s take a closer look at Mueller’s response to understand the context of the investigation — who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The Johns Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed were possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.” Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s writer was atypical in many respects and not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.” The FBI, therefore, concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became “mission-oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a Muslim.

Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit — a “flag-waving” American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did, however, spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.

While Hatfill’s dignity and life were being trampled on by America’s secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic.  He made front-page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest-ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided Ivins was a target.

The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence. 

The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize-winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters.

The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive — so sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented, “This is not your mother’s anthrax” — that was likely produced by a nation state or Al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under “relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo.” He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and they were “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.”

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor. Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Sciences, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were not solid.

A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known, saying, “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation,” and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn’t go after al-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn’t find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert).

Summary

If it was not for the insistence and persistence of Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who lives just a few miles from our Louisiana headquarters, these facts would have gone virtually unnoticed. Gohmert (as should all members of Congress) has become something of a bulldog in getting facts about Mueller and putting those facts in the hands of the Media. But, oddly enough, we have heard very little about Gohmert’s findings when the American public should be outraged to have had any intelligence department head carrying-on in such a brutal and unprofessional way. Certainly, those in government knew all this and told us about it. We just forgot, right!? No. The Mainstream Media all knew about it. But it wasn’t politically correct to publicly hold any establishment member of the government — especially the FBI — to the same standard everyday Americans are held to. So they didn’t.

Now he’s running the Russia collusion investigation.

Think we’re going to continually hear the facts from this one?

Oh, one more thing: we’re not through with Mueller. Part 2 of this story will be here for you tomorrow.

Play

What “Really” Happened to Khashoggi

We are all familiar with the horrific murder of the Saudi journalist  Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. While the fact that an international journalist with significant U.S. ties was brutally murdered, the fact that it happened in a country with which the U.S. has close ties — Turkey — opens Pandora’s box of international anger, hatred, and fear.

Here in the U.S., almost all Americans are outraged that  Khashoggi was killed by Saudi rebels that have apparent close ties to the Saudi government. The incident has put the U.S. government in a quandary: do we as a nation have an obligation to take actions against the Saudi government? Should we take political or other actions against our ally? If so, how serious should they be?

We have stood still, waiting for results of the CIA investigation into the matter is completed and evidence is complete. But American sentiment — especially from those on the left — is to do something significant against the Saudis, and do something significant NOW. But what should that be?

It’s VERY obvious the anti-Trump clan wants the President to take action of some sort immediately. However, it is unclear if their reasoning is to simply inflict pain on the Saudi government for the act of murder conducted in another American ally’s territory — Turkey. Some think those same people clamoring for retribution would be the first to pounce on the President regardless of what action he would choose. In fact, the Saudis when these U.S. sanctions were first mentioned immediately made it clear that if the U.S. took any punitive action against Saudi Arabia,  they would raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel immediately. That would cripple the U.S. So what should we do and when?

Before we get to our recommendation, it is worthy to note that there is another reason for the Khashoggi murder other than the common explanation which is that the Saudi government was committed to ridding the World of the international journalist who spent significant time bashing the Saudis. Let’s look at the “other” explanation.

Conspiracy Theory

The “other” story assumes there really is a “Cabal”  or “International Deep State” in quiet political power behind the scenes. It is comprised of individuals, families, and groups who possess great power throughout the world. Those people (for this other possibility to be real) are assumed to be angry as they watch their power being eroded by a U.S. President who, while firm in dealing with foreign affairs, is being fair with all his foreign counterparts. The relationships between President Trump and other foreign leaders are based on HIS conclusions of their positions, intentions, and actions that occur during HIS tenure in the White House. He has no intention of letting others develop his opinions of other leaders, their countries, or their intentions in foreign affairs.

And for this to play out, this “Cabal” or “Deep State” needed to somehow get Saudi Arabia in the disfavor of the new U.S. President. They hold power over most of the World’s monetary system and resources. However, the Saudis hold the principle power over oil.

Here’s how this Conspiracy Theory looks:

1) Trump had a sit down with the King of Saudi Arabia last year. The King held a Sword Dance to honor President Trump.

2) Then last November, the House of Saud got cleaned up. The Ritz Hotel became a jail. A certain Prince was stripped naked and hung upside down from the ceiling, to let the others know they ain’t messing around.

3) While “Deep State” is an American term, let’s call it “The New World Order” or “Global Cabal” for the International level. Anyway, they lose their inside-men within the Saudi Kingdom, as Mohammed Bin Salman cleans up.

4) The Global Cabal, led by such families as the Rothschild and Payseur families, need to get back at Saudi Arabia. Specifically, they need to take MBS out. They set a trap, and this Khashoggi character becomes a pawn to be sacrificed.

5) Khashoggi dies. MBS (Mohammed Bin Salaam) is blamed. Ideally, this will set a rift between Trump and Saudi Arabia, as Trump will have to give in to pressure and place sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

6) This doesn’t happen. Saudi Arabia flips the Rothschild’s and Paysuers a big Middle-Finger and immediately tanks the price of oil. The price of oil falls immediately after the Khashoggi incident. Currently, it has dropped $20 a barrel and is still falling.

7) This is the last thing the Rothschild’s and Payseur’s expect. They never thought the Saudi king would play economic warfare, and start messing with the Petro-Dollar.

8) The Rothschild’s and Payseur’s are caught short, with the unexpected loss in energy costs. Their losses in other industries are huge, as they were heavily invested in energy, and expecting those stocks and profits to climb.

9) With the Saudi’s crashing oil, a big squeeze is placed on Iran. Trump reinstated sanctions and closed loopholes that were open for years, that allowed Iran to sell oil on the Black Market. What little oil Iran is selling now, is worth a lot less.

10) While Iran is “oil-rich,” they are terribly inefficient at getting it out of the ground. Their cost per barrel is the worst in OPEC. This slashes their profit margin and makes them more susceptible to downturns in the market.

11) The Global Cabal, and/or CIA, isn’t funding Iran terrorism anymore. Obama isn’t sending plane-loads of cash to Iran in the dead of night.

12) All of Iran’s funding for terrorism is being dried up, with sanctions and now cheap oil– accompanied by high costs of drilling and refining.

13) Trump and Saudi Arabia are about to corner Iran.

14) There is Option A: Give up on terrorism, and cut the Rothschild – Payseur strings, or be overthrown by your own people. If there is an uprising in Iran, Trump and America will support it (unlike Obama).

15) Option B: Walk away from the Evil Puppet-Masters, and become a peaceful member of the World Community. First Saudi Arabia, then North Korea, and now Iran.

16) Iran has a choice, either the hard way or the easy way–but business as usual is over.

17) The Cabal (Rothschild-Payseur), never thought Saudi Arabia would be crazy enough to tank the price of oil. They thought the Saudi’s loved money as much as they do.

18) They never thought Trump and the Saudi’s would go on the offense after Khashoggi’s “death.” They thought Trump would play defense, and betray the Saudi King. They were wrong.

19) Trump and the Saudi King are letting the world know they control the Petro-Dollar now and will tank the price of oil as much as it is necessary. The strings have been cut, and we have entered Petro-Dollar warfare with the death of Khashoggi.

Summary

First let’s be clear: we should NOT act at all against the Saudis until all the facts are in. Yes, Turkey completed their investigation and concluded Saudi assassins coordinated and perpetrated the Khashoggi murder in a brutal fashion, even scattering Khashoggi body parts in various parts of the Saudi embassy in Istanbul. Their conclusion contains a certainty that Mohammed Bin Salaam (or “MBS”) at least knew of the killing in advance if not having ordered it.

Secondly: when (if at all) is it our business when a foreign country takes actions it may deem necessary against one of their own citizens. Yes, we do not agree with such a process so egregious, but on what legal basis does the U.S. take any such actions against MBS or Saudi Arabia? The answer is simple: legal action by the U.S. would be required to occur before The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ). The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Even if that was the course chosen for action against Saudi Arabia, facts and evidence of the Khashoggi killing would be necessary. All the World has as evidence so far are the findings of Turkey. Quite honestly, this court is a part of the United Nations. And we know how the U.N. looks at the U.S. I don’t think we would have such standing in such a case. And I’m certain so too would be the ICJ.

Third: Can you imagine how the Left would respond if President Trump went ahead and leveled extreme sanctions against the Saudi government? Their response would be quick — and deadly. Assuming the Saudis would follow-through with their threats of extreme oil price hikes, the U.S. would certainly experience massive cost hikes that would be devastating and even disastrous. Almost everything in the U.S. requires transportation — which means reliance of petroleum products. The costs for these increases would certainly be passed along by companies to consumers: $3 – $5 per gallon gasoline prices.

What should we do? Absolutely nothing beyond what we have already done until ALL the facts are in. If one assumes that the above theory is true, jumping the gun without facts to legitimize any such actions would be foolish and needless. I doubt any international court without hard facts that prove members of the Saudi ruling family had been involved in a murder, taking action prematurely (other than just notifying the Saudis of our investigation and our intentions if they are exposed as being complicit in the killing) would initiate a atrocious and deadly financial crisis the U.S. does not need to bring on itself — at anytime.

Let facts play out. The Saudis certainly have their faults and dirty laundry. Remember: Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi native. Most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi. How stupid would it be for us to — strictly for political purposes — take any action without having all the facts.

But then again, doing so has become almost commonplace in Washington D.C. “Fly by the seat of your pants” seems to be the accepted operating procedure for D.C. politically correct elites. Their motto: “Never let facts get in the way of a juicy story.”

Sadly it seems that D.C. has learned to rely on salaciousness as an effective and allowable tool for fighting with political opponents. That comes in Leftists’ world with this caveat: “No price is too high to levy on people who have gone against Leftist causes.”

It looks like Donald Trump and the Saudi royals have stepped in a PC ant hill. No matter where they choose to stand, they’re still going to sustain a much of ant bites.

Stay tuned: much, much more still to come on the “Khashoggi Story.” It’s going to be fun to see if the “Conspiracy Theory” detailed above will actually play out in the next few months.

If I was pressed to vote I’d have to vote “no” on doing anything Saudi related at this moment.

Think about this: can we with any credibility expect the World to respect us and just simply overlook all the unilateral and unsubstantiated actions the U.S. would take if we act now? Actually, if we DO act before we know factually what happened in Turkey, it would be doing so based totally on emotion and a “gut feeling.” We don’t need to go down that road. We have a house to take back, and we cannot expect that would go down nicely.

“Everyone is Smart, Except Donald Trump”

Friends and followers. This is well worth the read, which is why I am posting it here today. Rabbi Dov Fischer makes good sense. Who is Rabbi Dov Fischer? Rabbi Dov Fischer is an attorney and adjunct professor of law, a Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, congregational rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California, and holds prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He has been Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. His writings have appeared in the Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, and Israel National News. READ ON!

Everyone Is Smart, Except Trump

By Rabbi Dov Fischer

It really is quite simple. Everyone is smart except Donald J. Trump. That’s why they all are billionaires, and all got elected President. Only Trump does not know what he is doing. Only Trump does not know how to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Anderson Cooper knows how to stand up to Putin. The whole crowd at MSNBC does. All the journalists do.

They could not stand up to Matt Lauer at NBC. They could not stand up to Charlie Rose at CBS. They could not stand up to Mark Halperin at NBC Nor up to Leon Wieseltier at the New Republic, nor Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone, nor Michael Oreskes at NPR, at the New York Times, or at the Associated Press. But — oh, wow! — Can they ever stand up to Putin! Only Trump is incapable of negotiating with the Russian tyrant.

Remember the four years when Anderson Cooper was President of the United States? And before that — when the entire Washington Post editorial staff jointly were elected to be President? Remember? Neither do I.

The Seedier Media have never negotiated life and death, not corporate life and death, and not human life and death. They think they know how to negotiate, but they do not know how. They go to a college, are told by peers that they are smart, get some good grades, proceed to a graduate degree in journalism, and get hired as analysts. Now they are experts, ready to take on Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs at age 30.

That is not the road to expertise in tough dealing. The alternate path is that, along the way, maybe you get forced into some street fights. Sometimes the other guy wins, and sometimes you beat the intestines out of him. Then you deal with grown-ups as you mature, and you learn that people can be nasty, often after they smile and speak softly. You get cheated a few times, played. And you learn. Maybe you become an attorney litigating multi-million-dollar case matters. Say what you will about attorneys, but those years — not the years in law school, not the years drafting legal memoranda, but the years of meeting face-to-face and confronting opposing counsel — those years can teach a great deal. They can explain how to transition from sweet, gentle, diplomatic negotiating to tough negotiating. At some point, with enough tough-nosed experience, you figure out Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” yourself.

Trump’s voters get him because not only is he we, but we are he. We were not snowed flaked-for-life by effete professors who themselves had never negotiated tough life-or-death serious deals. Instead, we live in the real world, and we know how that works. Not based on social science theories, not based on “conceptual negotiating models.” But based on the people we have met over life and always will hate. That worst boss we ever had. The coworker who tried to sabotage us. We know the sons of bums whom we survived, the dastardly types who are out there, and we learned from those experiences how to deal with them. We won’t have John Kerry soothe us by having James Taylor sing “You’ve Got a Friend” carols.

The Bushes got us into all kinds of messes. The first one killed the economic miracle that Reagan had fashioned. The second one screwed up the Middle East, where Iraq and Iran beautifully were engaged in killing each other for years, and he got us mired into the middle of the muddle. Clinton was too busy with Monica Lewinsky to protect us from Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights. Hillary gave us Benghazi and more. And Obama and Kerry gave us the Iran Deal, ISIS run amok, America in retreat. All to the daily praise of a media who now attack Trump every minute of every day.
So let us understand a few things:

NEGOTIATING WITH NATO

NATO is our friend. They also rip off America. They have been ripping us off forever. We saved their butts — before there even was a NATO — in World War I. They messed up, and 116,456 Americans had to die to save their butts.

Then they messed up again for the next two decades because West Europeans are effete and so obsessed with their class manners and their rules of savoir-faire and their socialist welfare states and their early retirements that they did not have the character to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. Peace in our time. So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent. So, hey, we love those guys. We love NATO.

Nato Leaders. Who is paying their fair share?

 

And yet they still rip us off. We pay 4% of our gigantic gross domestic product to protect them, and they will not pay a lousy 2% of their GDP towards their own defense. Is there a culture more penny-pinching-cheap-and-stingy than the delicate constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These cheap baseborn prigs will not pay their fare. They are too cheap. They expect America to send boys to die for them in one world war, then another — hundreds of thousands — and then to pay for their NATO defense even a century later. And then they have the temerity to cheat us further in trade

Long before Trump, they set up tariffs against us for so many things If the average American knew how badly Europe has been ripping us off for decades with their duties, no one in this country would buy anything European again. We would say, as a matter of self-respect and personal pride, “I no longer will buy anything but American, no matter what it costs.”

Every American President has complained about the cheating and imbalance — the NATO penny-pinching-cheapness, the tariff and trade imbalances. In more recent years, the various Bushes complained about it. Even Obama complained about it. But they all did it so gently, so diplomatically. They would deliver the sermon, just as the pastor predictably tells the church-goers on Sunday morning that he is against sin, and the Europeans would sit quietly and nod their heads — nodding from sleeping, not from agreeing — and then they would go back out and sin some more. Another four years of America being suckered and snookered. All they had to do was give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize his ninth month in office and let Kerry ride his bike around Paris.

So Trump did what any effective negotiator would do: he took note of past approaches to NATO and their failures, and correctly determined that the only way to get these penny-pinching-cheap baseborn prigs to pay their freight would be to bulldoze right into their faces, stare them right in their glazed eyes with cameras rolling, and tell them point-blank the equivalent of:

The Nations of Nato

“You are the cheapest penny-pinching, miserly, stingy, tight wadded skinflints ever. And it is going to stop on my watch. Whatever it takes from my end, you selfish, curmudgeonly cheap prigs, you are going to pay your fair share. I am not being diplomatic. I am being All-Business: either you start to pay or, wow, are you in for some surprises! And you know what you read in the Fake News: I am crazy! I am out of control! So, lemme see. I know: We will go to a trade war! How do you like that? Maybe we even will pull all our troops out of Europe. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe. Why not? Sounds good. Well, let’s see.”

So Trump stuffed it into their quiche-and-schnitzel ingesting faces. And he convinced them — thanks to America’s Seedier Media who are the real secret to the “Legend That is Trump” — that he just might be crazy enough to go to a trade war and to pull American boys home. They knew that Clinton and Bush x 2 and Kerry and Hillary and Nobel Laureate Obama never would do it. But they also know that Trump just might. And if they think they are going to find comfort and moderating in his new advisers, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, alongside him. Nuh-uh.

So CNN and the Washington Post and all the Seedier Media attacked Trump for days: He is destroying the alliance! He attacks our friends!

Baloney. Obama was the one whom the Left Echo Chamber… Chamber… Chamber — never called out for attacking our friends — Israel, Britain, so many others — while cozying up to Hugo Chavez, bowing to dictators, and dancing the tango for Raul Castro. Trump is just the opposite: He knows who the friends are, and he wants to maintain and strengthen those friendships.

It is no different from a parent telling a 35-year-old son: “I have been supporting you for thirty-five years I put you through college by signing four years and $100,000 PLUS in Loans. You graduated college fifteen years ago. For fifteen years I have been asking you nicely to look for a job and to start contributing. Instead, you sit home all day playing video games, texting your friends on a smartphone I pay for, and picking little fuzz balls out of your navel. So, look, I love you. You are my flesh and blood. But if you are not employed and earning a paycheck — and contributing to the cost of this household — in six months, we are throwing you out of the house.” That boy is NATO. Trump is Dad. And all of us have been signing for the PLUS Loans.

NEGOTIATING WITH PUTIN.

Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy.

Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants. If there arises an opponent, that guy dies. Maybe the opponent gets poked with a poisoned umbrella. Maybe he gets shot on the street. Maybe the opponent is forced to watch Susan Rice interviews telling the world that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video seen by nine derelicts in Berkeley and that Bowe Berghdal served with honor and distinction. But, one way or another, the opponent dies.

Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means: If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the news media just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him.

But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he apparently did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop —or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine.

Tump knows from his advisers what we can do. If he sweet-talks Putin in public — just Putin on the Ritz — then everything that Trump has told Putin privately can be reinforced with action, and he even can wedge concessions because, against that background, Putin knows that no one will believe that he made any concessions. Everyone is set to believe that Putin is getting whatever he wants, that Trump understands nothing. In that setting, Putin can make concessions and still save face.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

That is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia.

THE BOTTOM LINE

At the end of the day, Donald Trump is over seventy years old. He has made many mistakes in his life. He still makes some He is human. But Trump likewise has spent three score and a dozen years learning. He has seen some of his businesses go bankrupt, and he has learned from those experiences to be a billionaire and not let it happen again. No doubt that he has been fooled, outsmarted in years past. And he has learned from life.

Trump is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later.

In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He convinced Canada and Mexico that he would walk out of NAFTA if they didn’t negotiate a new and fair trade agreement (they did), and he has the Europeans convinced he would walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are.

He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the Lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.

What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet.

We will take Trump negotiating with Putin any day.

The Border Wall: Why Dems Say “No!”

I have struggled with this for some time. I remember when many well known Democrats verbally excoriated the fact that illegals were entering the U.S. through our southern border:

Bill Clinton

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

President Obama

But even with leading Democrats on record blasting what seems to have evolved into an “open border” policy during Barack Obama’s Administration, Democrats (and some Republicans) still refuse to demand adherence to American immigration laws. Who can forget the embarrassing surprise video from the Oval Office in which Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  were shocked President Trump invited the media to look-in live at the meeting that was to somehow resolve the differences and get resolution on funding for the border wall? Pelosi and Schumer were ill-prepared for what happened: they were exposed for their hypocrisy regarding the funding of the border wall. Both Pelosi and Schumer had previously supported such a measure to stem the flow of illegals.

But even in the wake of such an embarrassing exposure of their hypocrisy, still, there is NO consensus from Democrats to support what almost all of them previously supported: funding as necessary for a wall, fencing, and other security measures to stop mass illegal migration into the United States. Why is that?

Today we are going to dispel any questions you may have had for the hesitance of any and all from the Left to support a southern border wall.

The Rest of the Story

What could really be going on? What was it that happened to not only alter the opinions of those Dems shown and heard above but to alter their opinions by 180 degrees! Something or some-things dramatically turned them around. What could it be?

Could it be that Democrats in leadership in Congress found they really had hearts — that they cared so deeply for the plights of Central American and Mexican people that they threw their previous political and personal opinions on illegalities of criminals entering the U.S. at the southern border?

Could it be that the Democrat base that cared not for the criminality of those entering the U.S. illegally primarily for work decided it was smart to not only allow but to encourage illegal migrants to sneak into the country to take blue collar jobs away from those Americans who worked in the agriculture, food and beverage, and construction sectors?

Or could there be some other reason or reasons?

I choose the latter.

What could their reasoning be?

Votes

Every educated American voter realizes that political might means control. And that control comes from party support: primarily Republican and Democrat. What does that look like?

Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party registration states are some of the nation’s most populous: California, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.

The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Still, Republican Donald Trump found a route to victory in 2016 that went through the party registration states. He scored a near sweep of those where there were more Republicans than Democrats, winning 11 of the 12, while also taking six of the 19 states where there were more Democrats than Republicans — a group that included the pivotal battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

At this point, it might be wise to pause and ask the question: Why do these numbers matter, either individually or in the aggregate?

Certainly, there are facts that argue that they should be taken with a grain or two of salt. Most party registration states are found in more Democratic terrain: the Northeast (11 states plus the District of Columbia) and the West (10 states), followed by the South (six states) and the Midwest (four states), all of the latter rural states west of the Mississippi River.

To be sure, there are a number of major states that do not register voters by parties, such as Texas, Georgia, Washington, and the keystones of the industrial Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If they did register by party, Texas, Georgia, and Indiana would almost certainly add to the Republican total; the industrial states probably less so.

And there is some sentiment that a voter’s party identification may mean less than it once did, as the number of individuals who register as “Independent” (or “No Party Preference,” “Unaffiliated,” or whatever other voter label the individual states prefer) steadily grows. At the beginning of this century, barely 20% of all voters in party registration states were independents. Nowadays, that total is approaching 30%.

Altogether, there are 10 states with more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. These states are mainly in the Northeast, with a cluster also in the West. By comparison, there are Democratic pluralities of registered voters in 13 states plus the District of Columbia and eight other states with Republicans ahead of both Democrats and independents. In addition, there are six states where there is an independent plurality but Democrats outnumber Republicans, and four states where independents are on top of the registration totals but Republicans outnumber Democrats. That produces the 19 to 12 state registration advantage for the Democrats mentioned earlier.

With the growth in independents, many voters seem to be saying to the two major parties: “a pox on both your houses.”

Yet it also can be argued that registering Democratic or Republican is far more of a statement than it once was. In the current age of sharp-edged partisanship, there is far more than a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties, so registering as a Democrat or Republican is a very intentional act of differentiation.

And that makes the party registration figures worth looking at. A comparison of party registration totals on the eve of the 2016 presidential election with the actual voting in November shows a noticeable correlation between party registration and the state by state election outcomes. Twenty-four of the 31 party registration states were won by the nominee whose party had more registered voters (discounting independents for this particular comparison). That is a 77% correlation rate between party registration advantage and a winning electoral outcome. The percentage goes up to 88% if one removes the South, the one area of the country where party registration is a lagging indicator of the fortunes of the two major parties.

You can obviously see the decline in both Democrat (blue) and Republican (red) registrations with the corresponding increase (green) of Independents.

So?

These facts prove something that has become more and more important: policies, over experience with parties, and adherence to campaign promises.

And each of the above — election by election, state by state, and party by party — show voters are now more than ever abandoning their voting habits proven again and again through generations of American voters and are now more than ever voting based on principles.

Of the 31 party registration states, 24 were carried in the 2016 presidential election by the party with the most registered voters in it. Donald Trump swept 11 of the 12 states with a Republican registration advantage, while Hillary Clinton won 13 of the 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) which had more registered Democrats than Republicans. Four of the Democratic registration states that Trump took were in the South, led by Florida and North Carolina. He also overcame Democratic registration advantages in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to win both. The only state with more registered Republicans than Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 was New Hampshire, where the outcome was very close.

Putting it bluntly: more Democrats abandoned their candidate in the 2016 Presidential race than did Republicans their candidate. Why would voters do that? “Facts and Believability.” Obviously, more voters (based on state by state totals — therefore electoral votes) believed Donald Trump than did Hillary Clinton — enough to tilt the electoral college to the G.O.P.

Tie it Up

We still need to answer the question: Why did Democrats in leadership change their policies on illegal migration?

The answer is simple: political posturing.

Whether justified or not, Democrat Party leadership have weighed all the data listed above, the temperament of their party members, and their tremendous losses over the past decade in Congressional seats, governorships, and state house seats. Adding those to the mass migration AWAY from the Democrat Party by way of movements like “#Walkaway” as documented on Facebook, Democrats have seen the handwriting on the wall. Their conclusion: “The Democrat Party is doomed without a tremendous and immediate influx of new party-line voters.” Their answer: Illegal migrant voter registration.

But if they are not citizens, they cannot vote, right? For federal elections, that is a fact. But who reading this story or listening to this podcast does not believe there were illegals that voted in the 2018 midterms? States like California who have registered illegals to vote in local and state elections operated their 2018 elections just as they have for decades: one voting poll, one set of voting machines, one onsite registration process, and voting for local, state, and federal offices happening simultaneously.

Call me a doubter, but a process structured like that certainly was the perfect spot to “bend the rules.” And we all know most Californians want ALL inhabitants of the state to vote in every election.

No, illegals cannot “legally” vote in federal elections today. But getting them here in some legal fashion is a start — for Democrats. No, it is not certain that illegal migrants would vote Democrat in every instance. But Democrat Party leaders have shown for decades that by “teaching” minorities that they owe the Democrat Party their allegiance AND their votes is a virtual certainty. How do we know that? Take a look at the African American vote.

Democrats have convinced millions of black voters through decades that the Democrat Party is THE party in total support of all things important to the African American community. More importantly, Dems has convinced blacks that Republicans are — on the most part — racists that look at African Americans as unworthy of equal treatment in the U.S. Obviously, facts, in this case, do not matter. Facts show that:

  • Democrats did not fight the Civil War to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party took that action;
  • Democrats did not pass the Amendment to give Blacks the right to vote, Republicans did;
  • Democrats did not pass legislation to allow Blacks to serve in American Armed Forces, Republican Dwight Eisenhower did;
  • Democrats did not take action to integrate public schools, Republicans did.

Summary

Here’s the “Skinny:” The Democrat Party has NO party platform, has NO fundamental principles on which to stand, and NO policies that belong to them exclusively that were used in the 2018 midterm elections, and NONE for the 2020 election. They have NO way to attract new party members.

Their only plan: get a disenfranchised group of migrants into the U.S. that Dems will certainly be able to convince they are obligated to the Democrat Party, which means those migrants will certainly vote for Democrats.

Do I know that for a fact? Facts listed above and the 180-degree departure from their age-old insistence on the perpetuation of the Rule of Law regarding immigration pretty much make that assumption a factual one.

But if you don’t agree, please tell me why they have abandoned the only government fundamental that separates the United States from every other country on Earth.

I’m waiting…….

 

 

Play

Trump’s Campaign Finance Fraud

Everyone has heard about it. Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, under specific direction of Candidate Donald Trump, paid hush money to two adult porn stars with which Trump allegedly had affairs. That money was Campaign money. How do we know that? The Media said so, of course. And Democrats make the same claims. So what happens now?

Let’s dig down into the nitty-gritty of all this:

  • Did Trump actually have affairs with the two women? President Trump says he did not. Of course, his saying so means nothing to Leftists. Anything he is accused of is factual in their eyes. Nevertheless, he was accused. Then why did Cohen under Trump’s direction pay the money? Remember this: Trump was running for President. Both of those women apparently came forward at a critical time in the campaign cycle. Having “bimbo leaks” at that particular time would be deadly to any campaign. Stopping their stories from hitting the news was critical.
  • We don’t know that Donald Trump actually had those affairs. He says he didn’t — they both say he did. To my knowledge, no evidence has been presented proving either had any involvement with Donald Trump. But even if he did, he did so prior to being a candidate for any office, and therefore his doing so would have been purely a personal matter. But the President maintains there were NO affairs with either woman.
  • Why would they both say it happened if it really didn’t happen? Come on! Both proved by the way they came forward at the time they came forward their purposes in doing so: MONEY and FAME. Democrats and their media puppets all took the bait and have incessantly beat the drum of “bimbo payoff” since the revelations. And with the Cohen admission of making the payoffs as campaign funds payout — which if true would be illegal — just stoked the liberal fires again.
  • The payoffs DID happen. Confirmation of that is not in dispute. However, were campaign funds used? Apparently, Michael Cohen provided no hard documentation showing the payoff methods and their details. But it is surely certain that if the Trump Campaign wrote checks or wired money, the Federal Election Commission would have stepped forward with that information. Cohen actually initially stated that he paid both women himself. As Trump’s personal attorney, Cohen was on a monthly retainer for legal services. It is commonplace for people of financial substance to have attorneys and accountants under contracts in that exact fashion. They pay for the operating expenses of their clients and bill clients for services provided above what those retainers cover. In that manner, Cohen’s paying them was normal.
  • Those women were paid hush money to keep their stories from impacting the 2016 election results. The public would have NOT voted for Trump if they knew. Therefore, the payoffs were campaign fund violations.” That’s the story being passed around by Democrats. But their story doesn’t stop there. “Experts” are actually all over Mainstream Media outlets stating that this rises to the level of an impeachable offense. But there is precedence and irony here. And both past such events point to these payments — IF they were made to coverup Trump sexual impropriety and not just to thwart blackmail, which is what they seem to have been — are NOT criminal and probably were not at all improper.

Let’s examine those two precedents.

Senator John Edwards

John Edwards is a former United States Senator from North Carolina and a Democratic Party vice-presidential and presidential candidate who, in August 2008, admitted to having had an extramarital affair. The affair was initially reported in late-2007 by The National Enquirer but was given little attention outside the tabloid press and political blogosphere. The Enquirer cited claims from an anonymous source that Edwards had engaged in an affair with Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker hired to work for his presidential campaign, and that Hunter had a child from the relationship.

Edwards vehemently denied the affair and that Hunter’s child was his. But after much media pressure, on January 21, 2010, Edwards issued a statement admitting the affair and that he was the father of Hunter’s child.

On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges. The charges? They came from Edwards’ use of campaign funds to cover up the affair and the subsequent birth of the child. (Sound familiar?) Edwards faced a maximum sentence of thirty years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, or a USD $250,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment per charge. The indictment came after the failure of intensive negotiations for a plea bargain agreement that would have required Edwards’ guilty plea to the misuse of campaign funds.

After delays, due to John Edwards’ medical condition, jury selection for the trial began on April 12, 2012. Opening arguments began on April 23, 2012.  A verdict (not guilty on one count and a mistrial on the remaining five) to the trial was reached on May 31, 2012.

As Democrats, (who are about to take control of the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment proceedings would begin) mull over the constant cries of many Congressional Democrats and also from many big campaign donors to impeach President Trump, they have something much bigger than John Edwards’ conundrum with Rielle Hunter to deal with. “IF” they push forward with impeachment, they must deal with the 900-pound gorilla that lives in “their” house: a Congressional Sexual Settlement Hush Fund.

The “Hush” Fund

You may have heard whispers about this fund. You may have at the time you heard of it wondered who in Congress was involved, how long the fund has existed, who was paid out of the fund and for what, and what was the source of dollars IN the hush fund.

If you wondered those things then — two years ago — you STILL wonder about all of those! NOTHING HAS BEEN RELEASED.

Here are the details:

If you’re a victim of sexual harassment and you work for Congress, you can’t complain to the human resources department.

You can’t file a lawsuit, either — at least not until you’ve gone through months of mandatory counseling and mediation designed to keep such complaints out of court. And out of the public eye.

That’s all spelled out in the laughably named Congressional Accountability Act, a special set of rules designed to protect the people who wrote them.

Instead of HR, claims are handled by the congressional Office of Compliance. It receives allegations of sexual harassment, salary discrimination, and other workplace issues, and pays out settlements — with money supplied by the U.S. Treasury — if the parties reach an agreement. Since 1997, taxpayers have shelled out $15.2 million.

Think of it as the Taxpayer Hush Money Fund. You pay, and the complaints go away. Those records aren’t subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. The compliance office doesn’t disclose the names of congressmen or their aides who reach settlements with their accusers. A case becomes public only if mediation fails and the victim later wins a favorable ruling in federal court or through an administrative process.

So, in the midst of such an outrageous and egregious system in place in Congress, who is responsible for it? And who funds it? The answers: it is part of a bill that Congress passed itself. Who pays for it? WE DO — EVERY DIME! Taxpayer money in — sexual harassment by members of Congress committed — victims get paid by those taxpayer dollars WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Surely there is some member of Congress who saw the horrors of this process and the outcry that would certainly come from Americans if revealed. Surely some member of Congress would blow the whistle and take action to expose this law and shine the light of revelation on all the wrongdoers who had wasted taxpayers dollars to pay off their sex victims. Well, there WAS such a lawmaker: Florida Governor-elect, Ron DeSantis.

BILLS-115hr4494ih

I have pasted the bill above. It is not really lengthy, but it is too long to post here. Click on it to read.

The bill was NOT intended to do away with the fund, but rather to force total transparency for Americans to see not only who in Congress were guilty of using unapproved taxpayer funds to pay off those abused by members of Congress, but to chronicle the dollars of every incident going forward.

The bill was introduced in Committee in the Fall of 2017 by DeSantis. It’s current status? More than one year later it is still in Committee: no hearings, no amendments, no discussion. Basically, it is dead.

Summary

Democrats in the House have a tall hill to climb if they choose to take the Trump “Bimbo Eruption” to the door of Impeachment. First, there’s the precedent set by federal courts in the John Edwards campaign funds charges in which that court determined Edwards was not guilty of campaign violations.

Then, Democrats would be forced to throw open the doors of sexual improprieties of dozens (if not hundreds) of current and past members of Congress. Why would they do that? Think about the current allegations against Trump in the Cohen revelations in federal court: he paid two women who accused then “private citizen” Trump of having affairs AND paid them with campaign funds. If any federal court went against the Edwards precedent and ruled against the President, that would mean the Congressional Hush fund and those who benefitted from hush payouts from the fund would be guilty of the same wrongdoing Trump is accused of! Every member of Congress who benefited from those hush fund dollars would have had them paid from — by the definition of “campaign fund disbursement rules” as determined and published by the Federal Election Commission — campaign funds paid out for personal purposes. The reasoning for THEIR payouts could only be to hide their personal wrongdoing to thwart the possible negative impact of the news of their wrongdoing IN THEIR CAMPAIGNS. Members of Congress run every two years for election and re-election — they are always campaigning.

Let’s face it: Democrats are simply posturing for political purposes. Their lapdog messaging merchants — the Mainstream Media — simply parrot those claims over and over. They hope an American public that is growing weary of all the political posturing and the necessity to fact-check every bit of news seen or heard, simply turn a deaf ear to this entire process and simply cave to the hollow and false allegations by Democrats and fall in line — their line — against the President.

Democrats and the Media are praying that facts will be forgotten, emotions will rule, and Trump will be driven from office.

They really, really pray that Robert Mueller will miraculously uncover Russian collusion on the part of Trump and that Trump criminality will do the dirty work for them!

Donald Trump is guilty of one thing for sure: his policies have made everything he has tackled politically better — much better — than as he found them.

Will that be enough to keep him in the White House for two more years and possibly six? The truth has worked in the past. Most Americans hope the truth will work this time, too.

 

Play

“Q Anon Part II”

The following was posted July 22, 2018, regarding the phenomenon in today’s “news” and “intelligence” called “Q,” or “QAnon. Please read this again to begin this conversation.

“In keeping with our promise to always provide the opinions of others who may be different from ours, today we introduce you to ‘Q,’ sometimes called ‘QAnon,’ or ‘QAnonymous.’ But before you watch this video, you need to understand some things:

  • QAnon’s identity is unknown. Whoever QAnon is — whether person or a group of people — has access to much information regarding extremely sensitive U.S. government and political information. Some claim QAnon is an inside military intelligence group. Others say QAnon is a former CIA operative. Whoever QAnon is, TIME Magazine just included QAnon on the list of ‘25 Most Influential People on the Internet.’ Heads are turning;
  • QAnon shares via internet posts many questions, predictions, and conclusions about political persons and events. Many of those predictions have been shown to be true with others still pending; QAnon alerted all to the now approximate 40,000 (now up to 65,000+) federal sealed indictments that have all been issued since late October of 2017. Every federal district court has issued at least one of those sealed indictments. By way of comparison, in U.S. history the most sealed federal indictments issued during any calendar year is less than 3000. Heads are turning.”

Fast forward now to today.

A couple of questions come to mind when discussing this topic:

  • Is this “Q” person real? If he is, who is he and where does he get his information?
  • Why doesn’t the Mainstream Media even talk about Q? Since they do not, does that mean the information Q puts out is not real or not true?

I am right there with you! But in the last few years, I have learned an important lesson about the Media: today’s Media is NOT the Media of the 1960s and 1970s. If you question that, reference the non-stop coverage of the President George H.W. Bush funeral. I was shocked to see network anchors continually make fun of President Trump EVEN WHEN THE GRANDSON OF PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH HAD JUST FINISHED A EULOGY FOR HIS GRANDFATHER! Nothing matters to 95% of the Media other than garnering approval from their fawning public. And for many reasons, the American public in large part have simply determined that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and CNBC are the sources they will always turn to for “news in sound bytes.” And their “news” is no longer just facts. Their interpretive narrative is painted as truth — and on the most part, it is not. It’s simply THEIR narrative.

Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans have discovered Q and are simply listening to what Q is saying as a perspective. I personally shudder to think any of what is coming from Q might be true.

But since July 22, 2018 — the date I first introduced you to Q — much of what has been given to us has materialized or has been confirmed by other news sources. And nothing published by Q has been found to NOT be true.

That tends to make one listen.

Listen we will. “At TruthNewsNet.org we never tell you what to think. We simply give you Truth to think about.”

To that end, here’s another message from “Q.” Please take a look and/or listen. At its completion, we’ll chat in Summary.

 

Summary

There are so many things happening daily — especially in American politics, — that cannot be reasonably explained. There are far too many things that do not have reasonable or realistic explanations. It seems to me that something or some”things” are going on in the shadows that are instigating those unexplainable things. Is this a new instigator of world events on a world stage? Or is this something that has been going on in the shadows and we just did not see or hear about them? I’m beginning to think the latter is more believable than the former. We had Walter Cronkite, Roger Mudd, Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, and Peter Jennings for those decades of the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s. It is true we did not have satellite television, the internet, Facebook or Twitter. But those guys brought us the news, didn’t they? Or did they? To believe that back then the news was really the “truth” in news would mean everything that is being uncovered today just began to happen. But it is difficult to believe that all of the obvious corruption, lies, deceit, misrepresentations, coverups, and even murders just began to happen a few years ago.

Is it not more realistic to accept that all those things — though maybe to a lesser degree — were going on all along and we just didn’t know about them? Does it not make more sense to believe that Cronkite and Company knew about all or much of these things but did not report them for the purpose of making certain the American public was in the dark about them?

Enter the internet, satellite television, and talk radio.

No matter what others think, this journalist is pretty certain that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Breitbart News, and the host of other conservative journalists did not and do not have daily conference calls each morning to discuss the conservative conspiracy stories of the day. It is far more realistic to believe that evil has been and is alive in America that is simply being uncovered for the first time in our lifetimes. I am certain what has begun to be exposed almost daily has been there — maybe just bubbling under the surface — for a long time but has been disguised, hidden, and maybe even kept secret so Americans will not go crazy when seeing and hearing the truth about the garbage that has been buried in Washington D.C. by those who took an oath to serve and protect us.

Here is the bottom line: we DON’T really know. And we have two choices: one is to continue walking down a road, ignoring the road signs posted in front of us as we go about our merry ways. Or, two, we can listen, watch, dig into those things we see and hear, and make decisions about truth armed with all the possible answers.

At TruthNewsNet, I don’t think there’s an option. We are virtually certain there is much going on we do not see and therefore do not understand. That is NOT because we are stupid or blind or uncaring. And if it is because we do not want to learn the truth, we probably should not look at videos like that above (or listen to audio versions of such videos). Why? Because all they will do is scare us. But if we live as our parents taught us to live, we should push through the shadows of unknown certainties that are right in front of us, we with facts we will be able to investigate, discern what they mean, and what to do about them.

I promise you that I am not sure about Q. I promise you that Q asks questions that I cannot answer. But I am committed to seeking answers to all those things and others that I do not know or understand today as they are revealed. I owe that to my family, my friends, and I certainly owe it to you.

We may disagree on the “probabilities” I deduce and share. We may disagree on hypotheticals that come up in our continued search for the truth. But for certain, we will look at all the possibilities we can garner to get the answers to the toughest questions in our lives.

Not knowing answers does not mean one is stupid. Not knowing answers and then doing nothing to find those answers means one is stupid.

There’s NO stupid here!

Play

What Now, Congress?

Americans are waiting with many questions about what and how Congress will act regarding legislation — what Congress is designed to do. That comes as control of the House of Representatives crosses the aisle to the Democrat Party in January 2019. Though the GOP picked up several Senate seats that increased their Senate majority, all “fiscal” matters — matters driven by government funding — must come from the House.

Yes, it is true that for the first two years of the Trump presidency Republicans controlled both houses. But because of rules put in place — rules passed by each house of Congress that are NOT Constitutional mandate –, restrictions regarding even taking up measures for floor debate and what can and cannot be done in the House and Senate lie entirely at the feet of members of Congress. Why?

Congressional Identity Politics

Americans look on as Congress continually defeats completion of legislation for extremely important matters. examples: each year the Constitution requires Congress to prepare, pass, and the President to sign into law a fiscal budget. And each fiscal year the budget that controls government spending expires the same time. Yet each year, Congress waits until the last minute, delaying even a vote on a budget bill, passing temporary spending resolutions, due exclusively to partisan wrangling that seldom has anything substantive to do with the overall budget. Most often those delays are direct results of the current “legislative hotspot item of the week.” The repair of illegal immigration, funding healthcare, and building a southern border wall are the latest hot spots that have delayed a new budget. Of course, stop-gap resolutions for temporary spending have to be put in place to prevent a government shutdown. But even the threat of a shutdown is turned into a political football everytime one is rumored: either Democrats or Republicans hold out wanting this legislation or that legislation included or excluded, and it’s always “the other Party’s fault.”

In the past, members of Congress were really concerned about how Americans felt about Congress and the job they do. Their approval ratings among the public were important. But in past years Americans watch as Congress demonstrates, again and again, their lack of concern for the will of Americans in legislation. Their approval ratings as a result of their lack of concern for the will of Americans hover around just 10%. And they don’t care.

With that in mind, and with Democrats reclaiming control of the financial mothership in Congress — the House of Representatives — don’t you think Congress would want to get back to work and diligently move legislation for Americans and government operations forward? One would think that. And one would be wrong.

What legislative matters do you think Congress should be concentrating on? Let’s name a few: Further tax relief for the middle class; meaningful comprehensive immigration reform; sealing both U.S. borders to stop the rampant influx of illegals from the north and south; revision of healthcare financing and regulation to make it affordable for all Americans without tampering with healthcare’s effectiveness; taking control of runaway U.S. government federal deficit spending. There certainly are others. But I feel almost all Americans would be tickled if Congress would make at least honest efforts on these during the next two years. But it won’t happen. Even with a fresh start with a new House of Representatives, NOTHING substantive will be accomplished in the next Congress — nothing but passing a budget after several spending resolutions are passed at the last minute. The cycle of Congressional lunacy just rolls over — again, and again, and again, and again.

Did you notice as I did the lack of party platform promotion in the 2018 midterm campaigns by either Party? There were none. All the campaigning were against those running on the other side. Voters heard very little from either Democrats or Republicans about any ideas to fix any of the broken government process mentioned in the last paragraph. In fact, the election conversation was driven primarily by just one thing: Donald Trump. And seldom did you hear at campaign rallies or in television, radio, or print ads “new” ideas from either Party’s candidates. They each simply drew a line in the sand: either for or against President Trump.

Hardly anyone spoke about the amazing accomplishments in the nation on his watch in just his first two short years. (I won’t list them here, but we all know about most) Regardless of the claims made by his predecessor for initiating all of those successes, most Americans are smart enough to look at their payroll deposits and see deposits for corporate bonuses, pay increases, and more net pay because of the reduced federal income tax deductions. They see their 401K values have risen rather than leaking away as under the last President. Americans also saw their neighbors who had previously struggled to find work get not just jobs, but jobs in sectors that not only had completely stopped hiring were moving operations to foreign countries. Americans know Obama promised exactly opposite, telling Americans that manufacturing would never come back to the U.S.

It happened because Donald Trump changed the way people at the top in Washington think. Let’s call it “Trump Change.”

But, wait: not EVERYONE in Washington changed — or wanted “Trump Change.” Enter members of the Deep State — inhabitants of the Swamp. They didn’t want “Trump Change.” They still don’t.

With new House control by Democrats, one would think Democrat Party leadership would be excited about looking ahead at new ways to build on existing successes and find new ways to initiate new ones. But that’s not happening. Want to know what Democrat Party upcoming House leadership and committee leaders are planning?

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign. “There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Schiff’s premise has NO basis in fact, rather relies totally on information contained in Robert Mueller’s memo released Friday, December 9th. Specifically, Schiff’s comments were based on allegations contained in that memo stating Cohen lied to Mueller and his investigators. According to the memo, Cohen admitted that he had lied to Congress about when he stopped pursuing a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow — which was June 2016 instead of January 2016, and about other statements he had made. It said he also offered new information to the special counsel’s office. The memo said Cohen admitted he lied to Congress to “minimize links between the Moscow Project” and Trump, and to “give a false impression” that the Moscow Project had ended before the Iowa caucus and the first presidential primaries, in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations being conducted by Congress and the special counsel’s office.

Cohen also said he had lied to Congress about a 2015 radio interview, in which he suggested that Trump meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in New York City during his visit for the United Nations General Assembly. Cohen had told Congress that his comments were not discussed within the campaign, but later said that he had “conferred” with Trump about contacting the Russian government to gauge interest in such a meeting.

Congressman Schiff disclosed that Democrats are in talks with counsel for former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to “bring him back” for further testimony, less than two weeks after Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2017.  Schiff suggested Cohen will return voluntarily. If Schiff becomes the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats retake the House in January, as expected, he would have the power to subpoena Cohen to testify and provide documents — but Cohen would retain the option of pleading his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed Friday, December 7th that he will end the Republican-led probe into decisions made by the FBI and Department of Justice during the 2016 presidential election. “Yes, [I will end it] because it is a waste of time to start with,” Nadler told reporters after momentarily stepping outside the closed-door hearing of fired FBI Director James Comey. He branded the probe a political stunt designed to divert attention from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election. “The entire purpose of this investigation is to be a diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence of bias at the FBI and this other nonsense they are talking about,” the Democrat claimed.
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), promised the following legislation to be taken up if she retakes the gavel as Speaker of the House: a package for campaign finance reform as Dems’ first bill of the 116th Congress; Democrats will pursue reducing drug prices, something the Trump Administration is doing successfully already. Then, they will make an effort to work with Republicans on a bill on background checks for gun purchases, as well as address protecting “Dreamers.” That refers to young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. “I don’t see any of us voting for wall funding,” referring to President Donald Trump’s plan for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. In addition, Pelosi said she would like Democrats to make sure there is integrity in the U.S. voting system.
  • And then there’s Maxine Waters (D-CA). Throughout the campaign and since she speaks about nothing but impeachment. I am not for sure, but I believer her ardent supporters from her California district would rather she work with all those in D.C. to reduce illegal immigration that has resulted in lost jobs for those voters and others, further reduce taxes and help find ways to fix healthcare finance, stemming the flood of ever-increasing federal spending that is driving our national debt far beyond any hope of repayment, and the constant logjam in Congress due exclusively to partisanship from both sides of the aisle. Yet, Ms. Waters still chants in rallies and meetings, “Impeach 45, Impeach 45!”

Summary

There’s very little any non-elected American can do to right this ship. At best we can continue to communicate with our elected federal officials and encourage them to take care of the enforcement of existing laws, pass new laws to fix bad laws, to cut runaway spending, close our borders to illegals, and take care of American citizens before spending billions on illegals who invade our country.

Regarding the likes of Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi and others who hail from the Democrat Party far left, they still hold the belief that their political false narrative has captured the minds of most Americans. I laugh every time I hear Nadler or Schiff or Pelosi or Waters in interviews spouting their talking points. Remember this: Schiff is the one that on numerous occasions has stated he “factually” knows and has evidence that proves that President Trump colluded with Russia to help get him elected in 2016. Nadler knows that everything he said that I quoted above about the current House investigation into Department of Justice and FBI wrongdoing and even illegal actions during the 2016 election is not only legitimate, but it is also necessary to simply hold government officials accountable for partisanship that has led to unbelievable illegal activities that put Watergate to shame!

Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and even Waters are oblivious to this one fact that cannot be forgotten or ignored: all Americans are not drinking from the trough of Political Elitism from which Democrat Party leadership live by. Americans understand things in D.C. are not right. And most Americans — even proven in polling results — want the process in D.C. fixed and those responsible for wrongdoing to be held accountable.

In all of this, don’t be dismayed: the Sheriff that took charge in 2016 is far from working alone in his so-far successful quest to clean out the Swamp. Schiff and Company want to intimidate the Sheriff into believing he has no hope and that they’re “gonna’ get him!” He doesn’t care. He came to D.C. a very successful entrepreneur. He’ll leave D.C. the same.

And Americans will still be in control of the United States of America!

 

 

Play

Mueller: “I Will Take President Trump Down!”

It’s on. Clearly, in the aftermath of the Friday release of Mueller’s reports of at least his partial finding against Paul Manafort and the President’s former attorney Michael Cohen, it is now clear: Special Counsel Robert Mueller has one and only one person in his sights: President Donald Trump.

Today instead of getting down in the dirt with nitty-gritty details contained in those reports and what they mean, we’ll “bullet point” details of those documents and will — in the Summary — give you our observations. Let’s get right to it:

Robert Mueller

  • Mueller has now made it clear to all, his target is the President himself. Many wondered why he so viciously attacked Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort in the investigation and with the serious charges made against both that could put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life and Cohen for quite a few years. Mueller in Friday’s releases did, however, through a heavily redacted portion of the Cohen report, make it clear that he is looking for more from Cohen. The redactions of specific information could be for one thing and one thing only: Mueller did NOT want Cohen to see what the Mueller team has on him that they have not yet used. That means they still have those at their disposal to get more from Cohen to allow them to hit the bullseye: the President.
  • Russian Collusion? It looks like there is “no there-there.” Although Mueller is still pressuring Manafort and Cohen for facts about Trump team members to tie the President and/or his campaign to the Russians, the fact that nothing about that was included in the reports leads me to believe he has not put anything together implicating the Trump Organization in Russian collusion. However, he left that door open.
  • I would be remiss if I did not point out the obvious conflicts of interest held by Mueller in this entire case. The day before accepting appointment by President Trump to be the Special Counsel, Mueller along with Rod Rosenstein sat in the Oval Office purportedly to interview with the President for fired FBI Director James Comey’s job. But the most obvious Mueller conflicts that (according to the Special Counsel statute) disqualify him from service in any government investigative capacity are the multiple personal relationships with those either acting as witnesses or active participants in the investigation — like James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and many others.

Rod Rosenstein

  • Rosenstein drafted and sent a letter to the President and to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommending the firing of James Comey for a multitude of infractions committed while FBI Director. There are numerous questions that Rosenstein’s actions bring to this discussion: Why would Rosenstein join Mueller to petition the President to hire Mueller? Mueller had already termed-out as FBI Director and was ineligible. And then why would he a day later appoint Mueller to serve as Special Counsel? Why hasn’t Rosenstein recused himself for conflicts he certainly holds?
  • Talk about conflict of interest: Conflicts? Rosenstein — because of conflicts — should not have even appointed Mueller. Why? Rosenstein is Mueller’s boss in this entire thing. And Rosenstein previously worked for Mueller AND Comey! Rosenstein certainly should have immediately recused himself from the Deputy Attorney General post and should not have even considered the Mueller appointment because of conflict. Think of all the witnesses that the Mueller team has used in this proge. Almost all worked with or for Rosenstein at some point. And he’s the one who wrote the letter advising the President to fire Comey in which he in detail listed the reasons for Comey’s termination.
  • Remember Rosenstein’s letter sent to Mueller with the terms of his role and what he should and was allowed to do as Special Counsel? It was specifically to investigate alleged collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign for the specific purpose to impact the results of the 2016 election for Trump’s benefit. But — with no fanfare, press release, or public notice and after Mueller launched his probe into Trump obstruction of justice — that letter from Rosenstein to Mueller was amended. The “new” version includes the phrase to include authorization for Mueller to investigate any possible illegal actions which were discovered in the collusion investigation. If court tested, much of the Mueller investigation will probably be thrown out because it was initiated BEFORE authorization from the DOJ was given. (We’ll watch that closely)

Paul Manaforte

  • Manafort cut several deals with the Mueller team to get a better deal. But consistently Mueller has piled on charge after charge, stiffening Manafort’s recommended sentences for lack of cooperation and even taking action for Manafort to be held in jail without bail during this entire mess. Why is that?

     Paul Manafort
  • Mueller — even though cutting deals with Manafort — is apparently angry that Manafort has not given Mueller what he wants. There is something else Mueller is looking for, and he’s certain Manafort has it but is holding it back. That’s why Mueller has added more and more in the way of charges, trying to ratchet up pressure on the former campaign manager.
  • Mueller feels strongly whatever the missing piece or pieces in the puzzle to unmask Trump wrongdoing is in the possession of Paul Manafort. Mueller still has the door open for Manafort, which means there’s something else he wants or needs and will continue to work on Manafort until he gets it from him. Stay tuned for that.
  • Mueller also knows that Manafort is at the front of the line for a presidential pardon. Recently, President Trump when asked by reporters said a Manafort pardon is “still on the table.” That may have been stated by the President as a message to Manafort being dangled like an apple: a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Michael Cohen

  • Ever wonder why Mueller turned over his case for prosecution of Michael Cohen to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York? His reasoning is now crystal clear. Mueller messed up with Manafort. All of the actions the Mueller team has taken and will take against Paul Manafort have and will be made at the federal level. Cohen’s are too, but the criminal actions allegedly committed by Cohen happened in New York state and broke identical or similar New York state laws. Though state charges have not been filed, it is clear that should President Trump pardon Cohen, such a pardon would apply only to the federal crimes to which Cohen has pleaded. After such a pardon, it is likely that New York state’s attorney general would then file state charges for the infractions already admitted to by Cohen. No presidential pardon would be available regarding any state charges.
  • It seems that the Mueller case against Cohen is incomplete. Yet Mueller keeps cranking on Cohen, apparently trying to obtain more evidence of Trump wrongdoing. If that was not true, why would the court categorically deny Cohen’s plea for his sentencing to include no jail time? What could that “evidence” be Mueller is looking for? In the report released on Friday, Mueller accused Cohen of being a “non-cooperative” witness, even though Cohen has provided a multitude of information to the Mueller team. What’s left that Cohen could provide? The Mueller team needs Cohen to validate their belief that President Trump aggressively pursued obstruction of justice. Think about it: the Friday report stated Cohen alleged the President not only knew about the payoff Cohen made to the two porn stars who claimed they had affairs with Donald Trump, Cohen claimed the President asked him to hide the fact that he knew. If that Cohen claim is valid, it could possibly implicate the President for obstruction of justice.
  • Cohen is a liar. Mueller and his team have caught Cohen in numerous lies retracted later when confronted with facts. How will that factor into this entire case? (See details in the Summary below)

Summary

Where is this investigation going? What will be the end result? Who is “in the weeds” driving this attack on President Trump? Why hasn’t Congress stepped in to impact this charade underway at the expense of the American people?

If it is true that the Department of Justice and everyone in that department who work in the Executive Branch — one of the three branches of U.S. government authorized in the Constitution — doesn’t the Deputy Attorney General (Rod Rosenstein) and the Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) work for the DOJ and therefore work at the behest of the head of the Executive Branch? Who is the head of the Executive Branch? President Donald Trump.

If it is true that all departments in the government created by the Constitution are required to divulge details of all of their operations to the U.S. Congress, why has Congress not stepped in to control this runaway Special Counsel investigation that is full of conflicts of interest, illegal activities by employees, and multiple examples of obstruction of justice?

There is much to still be learned about what Mueller is doing and why. But it is becoming crystal clear: Mueller’s target is President Trump. But who would want to take down this President with the amazing accomplishments the nation has witnessed during just the first year plus of his administration? Economically the country is zooming forward, employment, new corporate investment, the greatest tax revenue in U.S. history even AFTER the middle class tax cuts, foreign leaders standing in line to meet with and negotiate international trade deals with our president, and the first legitimate presidential push to secure our nation’s borders to keep terrorists out and also those who want to enter the country illegally strictly for government assistance for life. How is any of that worthy to open a door for kicking Mr. Trump out of the White House?

Let’s be clear: none of this has anything to do with Donald Trump! He just happens to, unfortunately, be the guy who beat “THEIR” candidate for president — Hillary Rodham Clinton. The fact is that there really is a Deep State comprised of foreigners, American politicians, political contributors, lobbyists, and others who have created and perpetrated their operations for decades to control every aspect of American life. And President Trump is a “fly in their ointment.” He spoiled their party. They are committed to doing ANYTHING to regain the control they lost with the Trump presidency.

You see, he is independent of the special interests that have run the government for decades. He is politically obligated to no one. They are in a frenzy.

How to get rid of him? Find or create dirt sufficient to run him out of office.

They are wailing and gnashing their teeth in the realization that THERE’S NO LEGITIMATE DIRT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP! So what do they do? Create something — anything — to use to justify sending him packing.

Enter Robert Mueller.

I will not waste your time listing the people formerly in government, currently, in government, those fired or forced to retire, titans in industry and corporate giants who are implicated as part of this now front-and-center task to rid themselves of this president who refuses to become a pawn of the Deep State.

So here’s how this will all play out in coming days:

  1. Mueller will probably sometime in January 2019 issue his “official” report to the Attorney General and to Congress, detailing the first part of his findings in this probe. In spite of what many have said, I believe strongly the Mueller probe will continue for some time after that. Mueller will exhaust every resource given to him by the American people in this probe — unlimited dollars — to find or create sufficient “evidence” to destroy President Trump.
  2. Mueller and his team will continue to increase their pressure on Cohen and Manafort to push them to provide either actual facts against Trump or even create some. It is so ridiculous how rabid Mueller is at this point, it is believable that he can and will force Cohen and Manafort to actually create fake evidence sufficient to implicate the President, members of his campaign, but especially his family members. Mueller has already shown it matters not whose life is destroyed in his quest. He has already ruined the life of a 30-year military servant and General — Michael Flynn — who had to sell his home just to pay his legal bills. That purportedly occurred after Mueller offered Flynn an “either-or” deal, threatening action against Flynn’s son if Flynn did not plead guilty.
  3. When the new House of Representatives takes control in January, Democrats then in the majority have already promised to launch a massive offensive against the White House and the President. Their goal? Impeach President Trump. They will NOT relent on that path and will settle for nothing less than driving the President out of office. They will bury the White House legal office with subpoenas for documents, other evidence, and testimony before various committees and the full House regarding matters in the Mueller probe.
  4. On Friday, James Comey showed just how powerful the Deep State is by (in a classified session not open to the public) refuse to answer questions regarding his previous actions and testimony at the instructions of attorneys from the Department of Justice! Think about that: the DOJ and its attorneys work for the President yet still advised Comey to obstruct. Don’t forget: Comey has been proven to lie under oath, to commit felonies by mishandling classified information, by illegally giving classified documents to the media, and NOTHING has happened to him. That all comes because of the power of the Deep State.
  5. Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, former AG’s Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch, Mueller himself, and many others have all been implicated in the same ways. It is likely NONE will pay any price for their illegal activities. Why? Again, the Deep State.
  6. What about the Clintons? Americans will be happy to know that the Jim Huber investigation (using 470 DOJ investigators that answer only to him) has started letting the subpoenas fly in the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Thursday a bank that had been accused of laundering money for the Foundation was subpoenaed. And that is just a start. 2019 will certainly be a bad year for the Clintons as their wrongdoing will be finally front and center.

What about impeachment? Here’s how that process works: the House can file articles of impeachment. With a Democrat majority in the House, they can probably garner enough votes to take that action. The Senate would then take the evidence from the House, investigate and literally conduct a trial based on the purported wrongdoing of the President that rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — what the Constitution requires for impeachment. The GOP actually in the 2018 election created a larger majority in the Senate. Unless something really shocking is found by Mueller, it is doubtful a two-thirds majority in the Senate would vote that the President is guilty. At that point, Democrats hope President Trump will have tired of the fight and simply resigned, or we will be approaching the 2020 election and they will be able to run Trump out of Washington.

My prediction: the House will probably impeach President Trump. The Senate will not convict him.

Then what?

Americans need to go to their knees. It’s anyone’s guess as what path Americans will choose to allow the country to go down. here’s the problem: there is a generation of 30-year-olds who came through this socialist-driven education system that have been convinced Socialism is viable, is attractive, and is necessary. My fear is that those of this generation who have been raised on the internet, who get their news via the net in soundbites and rely only on the news sources to which their educators referred them, will continue to NOT think for themselves. Instead, they rely on that news — almost 100% Leftist inspired — to make their political decisions. God help the U.S. if that happens. The only path for us is the one toward full-blown Socialism with a hint of Totalitarianism added.

The problem with that that this generation does not see: in that political scenario, Capitalism dies, entrepreneurship dies, and all those who are wealthy who are tagged to pay for all of this walk away from doing so and the nation collapses.

“That can’t happen to the United State,” you say. Well, it happened in Venezuela. It happened in Cuba. It is happening in Brazil. And it surely is happening in France.

TruthNewsNet is watching closely. Stay close: we’ll have almost daily if NOT daily updates on this. And this is the most important political process in your lifetime. Make certain you stay tuned in to hear and read the Truth.

 

Play

“Spartacus”

Before we begin today’s analysis, please note that tomorrow in both our story and in the podcast we are releasing some bombshell information that has nothing to do with this series to determine who will run against President Trump and who will win. Nevertheless, what we are bringing to you is staggering.

Be sure if you have not done so already log your email address below right so that anytime we post a new story or podcast you will NOT miss it. You will get an email with a link to that story/podcast each time. We don’t sell anything, we don’t make your email address available to anyone. It’s strictly for your purposes.

Now enjoy “Spartacus!”

Cory Booker (D-NJ) if not the most polarizing potential Democrat Party nominee to run against President Trump is at least one of the top 3. Booker seems to revel in controversy. More about that ahead. But first, let’s look at who Booker is.

Cory Booker

Cory Anthony Booker (born April 27, 1969) is serving as the junior United States Senator from New Jersey since 2013 and a member of the Democrat Party. The first African-American U.S. Senator from New Jersey, he was previously the 36th Mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. Before that Booker served on the Newark City Council for the Central Ward from 1998 to 2002.

He born in Washington, D.C. and raised in Harrington Park, New Jersey. He attended Stanford University where he received an undergraduate and master’s degree in 1991 and 1992, respectively. He studied abroad at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship before attending Yale Law School. He won an upset victory for a seat on the Municipal Council of Newark in 1998 where he staged a 10-day hunger strike and briefly lived in a tent to draw attention to urban development issues in the city. He ran for mayor in 2002, but lost to incumbent Sharpe James; he ran again in 2006 and won against deputy mayor Ronald Rice. His first term saw to the doubling of affordable housing under development and the reduction of the city budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million. He was re-elected in 2010. He ran against Steve Lonegan in the 2013 U.S. Senate special election and subsequently won reelection in 2014 against Jeff Bell.

As mayor, he was described as a New Democrat and as a political moderate, known for defending Bain Capital during the 2012 presidential election and for supporting school vouchers. As a senator, his voting record was measured as the third most liberal. Considered a social liberal, Booker supports women’s rights, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and single-payer healthcare. His age and political ideology have marked him as a potential member of multiple U.S. presidential tickets. When asked about his desire to run for executive roles in American government he has stated, “life is about purpose, not position,” neither confirming nor denying potential runs for President.  There were even rumors Clinton was considering him as a potential running mate in 2016 before she ultimately chose Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

The New Jersey senator has had star-power for many years, even during his time as mayor of Newark. While Booker does have ties to Wall Street, he has also been a major critic of President Trump and outspoken proponent of criminal justice reform. He also tackled declassifying marijuana as a scheduled substance on the federal level.

When asked in mid-March of 2018 about a possible 2020 run and the message Democrats need to send to voters, Booker seemed to hint at a possible strategy. “I’m saying this to Democrats who will listen to me—we can’t make our elections about being against Trump. They have to be about what we’re for,” Booker told the Atlantic.

In May of 2018, Booker was asked on The View about his 2020 aspirations but was non-committal. “I’m a contender for the 2018 midterms where I’m going to be fighting for every Democratic candidate,” he said. “This is the most important midterm election of our lifetime… for folks who are looking beyond that… don’t look beyond.”

Similarly, at a University of Chicago event in May, Booker seemed to think someone else would be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2020. “In the mosh pit of all the names that are talked about, maybe there is going to be a person where you and I both will say ‘she is the one’ and let’s get involved in supporting them,” he said.

During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Booker also raised speculation about a White House bid when he grilled the nominee and released documents from the committee that were deemed “committee confidential.” It was during that hearing in which Booker won the moniker of “Spartacus” for jumping in the limelight in the hearing with his personal reference to “Spartacus:”

Senator Booker has received much criticism for was has been characterized as “showmanship” in this back-and-forth with the committee leadership. No doubt it was pure grandstanding for an appearance on national television to show a national Democrat base that he is willing to “fall on his sword” for a worthy liberal cause. The criticism came when moments after this charade, it was revealed that the documents that were the subject of this event had already been released to the public hours before the hearing.

Political Positions

  • He has been described as a liberal, and a moderate.
  • In a July 2013 Salon interview, Booker said that “there’s nothing in that realm of progressive politics where you won’t find me.”
  • In a September 2013 interview with The Grio, when asked if he considered himself a progressive, he stated that he is a Democrat and an American.
  • George Norcross III described Booker as “a new Democrat—a Democrat that’s fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.”
  • In May 2012, Booker defended Bain Capital’s record and criticized Obama’s attack on private equity. In response, the Republican National Committee created a petition called “I Stand With Cory Booker.”
  • Abortion: Booker opposes overturning Roe v. Wade.
  • Affirmative action: When asked if affirmative action in university admissions should be based on class or race or banned completely, Booker said both race and class should be considered and cited the 2003 US Supreme Court ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger.
  • Civil liberties: He has called for amending the Patriot Act and said he was “troubled” by the revelations of the scope of the National Security Agency’s secret spy programs, but has shied away from specifics. He voted for the USA Freedom Act which re-authorized certain provisions of the Patriot Act in modified form.
  • Climate change: Booker believes climate change is man-made and supports cap-and-trade or carbon tax approach in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. In September 2018, Booker was one of eight senators to sponsor the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, a bill described by cosponsor Elizabeth Warren as using “market forces to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy — reducing the odds of an environmental and financial disaster without spending a dime of taxpayer money.”
  • Confederate monuments: In August 2017, Booker announced his plan to create a bill ordering the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from the Capitol Building after Labor Day of that year.
  • Gun rights: Booker has routinely defended the right of law-abiding citizens to own legal firearms and blames most shootings on criminals with illegal guns. He voted to prohibit people on terror watch lists from buying guns.
  • Healthcare: Booker has called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imperfect, said it needs to be improved and wants to control health care costs. He opposes cutting Medicare, he supports expanding the program, and he supports transitioning to a “Medicare-for-all”-style single-payer healthcare system. In September 2017, Booker joined Bernie Sanders and 14 other co-sponsors in submitting a single-payer health care plan to Congress called the “Medicare for All” bill. The plan also covers vision and dental care, not currently covered by Medicare.
  • Immigration Booker supports the passage of the DREAM Act. In July 2018, Booker was one of eleven senators to sign a letter requesting the agencies responsible for reuniting families provide weekly updates until every separated child was returned to their parents.
  • He is for same-sex marriage.
  • Booker opposes raising the age for qualification for Social Security benefits except for those 20 and under.
  • Marriage: Booker has never married. In spite of rumors of his being gay, he has frequently described himself as a “straight-male” that is looking for someone with whom to settle down with.

Summary

It is almost certain that “Spartacus” is already in the running — although not “officially” — as a candidate for the 2020 Democrat nomination for President. He has much going for him: he is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, a 2nd Amendment adherent, supports efforts that include military action if found to be necessary to keep nuclear proliferation from happening in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Cory Booker seriously dislikes Donald Trump. Many think a race between the two would expose some really negative debating since both are prone to very dramatic personal expression in public forums. (In other words, Booker would certainly NOT be shy to respond “in-kind” to jabs the President takes against his opponents almost daily) That might make for a humorous “made-for-television” campaign cycle!

Could Booker win? He would be a formidable foe for Donald Trump in that he is more conservative than almost all other Democrats contemplating running. In other words, he is not “hard left,” which is a position missing so far from other Dems.

Will Booker run? No doubt he is building a platform, testing the water, and leaning toward running. It is no surprise that he loves politics, loves the political stage, and salivates at making the White House his political podium. I would imagine he is in conversations (and probably has been for some time) with Party leadership about running. But there is a gaggle of other potential 2020 Democrat candidates doing the same things as Booker.

I imagine by mid-April 2019 all will know the 2020 intentions of Cory Booker. But don’t be surprised to tune into MSNBC’s Morning Joe and see Spartacus on the set making an announcement to run. After all, Booker is STILL chasing his “Spartacus Moment!”