How Can We Stop this Sexual-Domestic Assault Horror?

Millions of Americans watched as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford gave testimony in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Ford provided testimony of the attempted sexual assault allegedly attempted by a high school student — Brett Kavanaugh — in suburban Maryland 35 years ago.

While most take sides on the belief of her allegations based on presented evidence (or lack thereof), I’m certain a consensus is that Dr. Ford experienced a sexual horror perpetrated by someone at some time that changed her life forever — initiated if not by Kavanaugh, by someone else.

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, Domestic abuse, intimidation or any other oppressive sexual act even just attempted against anyone — child or adult — almost always totally or in part destroys a person’s life. And these abusive occurrences have been and still are sewn deep into the cloth that constitutes the fabric of our country.

It absolutely is one of the greatest tragedies in U.S. history. Women and children are the principal targets of sexual and abusive predators and have been for centuries. Many in our nation together created — and have perpetuated a climate — at best unfriendly, at worst antagonistic — towards those who wish to come forward with the stories of their abuses and attacks.

It is inhumane for such things to be experienced by the most vulnerable among us. But it is incomprehensible that Americans have allowed that climate of secrecy — the secrecy that has allowed and maintained continued existence — is one of the greatest scourges of this generation. IT MUST BE STOPPED!

What?

Let’s begin by looking at a segment from a post first published here November 20, 2017:

How Can Sexual and Domestic abuse be Stopped?

It MUST be stopped. No doubt there is no easy answer, but we must find one. Here are my thoughts:

This “environment” that has actually fostered these acts and their proliferation in numbers throughout all of America was created by Americans. And the acceptance of it as simply a part of life in the USA has become almost universal. In doing so, thousands if not millions of young men and women have been at least direly and permanently impacted by their abuses, and some scarred irreparably for life. Just as is the case with our children and even adults in our lives, recognizing there IS a real problem does not fix the problem. But seeing the problem as a problem is necessary to allow change. But it’s just a start.

For any changes to be created and implemented, the mental and emotional state of the Nation that even allows sexual and domestic abuse must be obliterated. That is a tall order. At least an entire generation riddled with this unacceptable behavior must make a 180-degree change. Personally, I think that is unlikely. So what’s an alternative?

We did not get here quickly. It has taken generations of compromise, benign acceptance — both in a vacuum of ignoring these practices — to get us to this moment in history. We cannot get it right overnight. And there will be a price to pay.

Fortunately, in this electronic, hi-tech world of satellite and internet instantaneous information worldwide distribution, we now have a tool that can make time fly. With the right leadership and developed plan combined with a mass American will to rid our world of sexual and domestic abuses of every kind, we can certainly see it happen during the next decade.”

Who?

Who can make it go away? It will take a partnership: a really large and encompassing number of people who are committed to find and achieve a solution. But any successful solution MUST be built on a foundation that is sound, far-reaching, and unavoidable by perpetrators. That foundation must be fundamentally based on law: Congress must act!

Here are the elements that must be included in any laws implemented by Congress and the President:

  • Law Enforcement Infrastructure. Laws are never effective when enforcement resources necessary for the success of their implementation are not made available. Those resources cost. But just like anything else in our lives, “You get what you pay for.” This administration must be totally committed financially to whatever processes and applicable laws are created. That will include federal law enforcement operations which cooperate with state and local law enforcement agencies. Human resources must be comprised of thoroughly vetted and qualified people to fill each identified and created position. Budgets must include the cost of outside necessary expert inclusion from the Mental Health community. This should NOT be another federal bureaucracy, but needs to be autonomous in its investigatory processes, but must be supervised by the Department of Justice. Members of the entity for this operation must be accountable in every way — and not just for funding — to the U.S. Congress.
  • Operational Laws. Laws for authorization and operation in this system must be carefully crafted in conjunction with Congressional identified experts who deal with sexual and domestic abuse all the time. Laws must be significant with severe penalties for those who violate them. Laws need to create a process whereby those who are violated by perpetrators have instant access to legal recourse with total confidentiality while investigations are performed, perpetrators are indicted by grand juries, and during trials to their conclusions.
  • Legal Representation. Built into these federal laws should be the creation of an environment in which victims have a freedom to report abuse directly to law enforcement without intrusion by attorneys who “shop” for sexual and domestic abuse clients. Fear of litigation and the significant costs of litigation in these cases need to be minimized as much as possible. Lawyers who troll for abuse clients need to be dissuaded from “shopping for dollars.” Punitive damages should be disallowed in abuse litigation. Damages need to be for actual damages only. Why? Americans will be much better served by including an environment of fairness so that all parties understand it’s not about making anyone rich, but about giving every wronged person recourse against those who attack them. It’s not just about making attorneys a lot of money.
  • Protection. There MUST be a method to stop the political tsunami of politization that is driving much of the current “enlightenment” in sexual and domestic abuse. Example: in the current Kavanaugh investigation, there is NO presumption of innocence for the accused and DEMANDS for all to take the word of accusers at face value. Those who make these demands demonize all who ask for and expect the American fundamental of “innocent until proven guilty” to be applied. There is no doubt the trauma of actual abuse most often keeps victims from stepping forward for fear of disbelief, rejection, shame, and retribution for doing so. Those elements of reporting abuse must be removed!
  • A two-way Street. As horrible to victims abuse always is, so it is for the accused in the cases in which their innocence until proven guilty is absent. Regardless of the outcome of the 7th Kavanaugh FBI investigation, his personal and professional life if not ruined, will never be the same. If he committed any of these travesties, he SHOULD lose the vestiges of jurisprudence that he maintains now. But if he is NOT proven guilty, how can he ever recover his integrity, professional and self-esteem, and the trust of many that he has garnered through years of working with him in professional and personal capacities? The answer to that is simple: it almost always is lost forever. No person who is innocent deserves that. For the “Protection” details listed above and the consideration of innocence as the default until guilt is proven, there MUST be an environment that maintains that innocence until guilt is confirmed. How do we do that? Such a process must be devised, implemented and maintained to protect ALL the innocents while assuring the guilty will be identified and prosecuted.
  • Prosecution. Sadly today in the criminal justice system, far too many who are guilty of of even serious crimes are not prosecuted orand sentenced appropriately. Why? There are far too many criminals who when convicted escape full sentences because of crowded jails and prisons. I could detail personal examples I have witnessed throughout my life in which too harsh sentences are handed down to some while in others, perpetrators either walk free after sentencing, sometimes sentenced to only to “timed served” while others have the book thrown at them for political or personal reasons. Punishment MUST be severe. Sentences MUST be served.

Congress

The linchpins in this process are Congress and Congressional action. The answer to the question “Why has the government not done anything to stop this?” has never been given. And, quite honestly, at this point asking and answering that question is worthless. CONGRESS NEEDS TO ACT!

The House and Senate together need to craft, pass, and send those bills to the White House for presidential signature that will do just that. These laws, besides addressing the assault perpetrators and stopping their criminal actions, need to protect those wrongly accused. Within the laws that are written, responsibility for truth underpinned by facts in evidence must be included.

“That will discourage victims from coming forward,” many will say. Think about this: if when this process is created and implemented, it is publicized in every way possible to the American public, and the built-in protections against abuse by accusers AND perpetrators are well understood by all, the process will ultimately prevent abuse.

  • Confidentiality must be a legal requirement in the system to protect the innocent;
  • Use of the process and those who are caught up in it must be off-limits to the political system. Use in any way of any part of this process in campaigning must carry significant criminal penalties. Politicians who abuse this system must be punished for doing so.
  • Statutes must clearly detail rights and obligations of accused and accusers and must limit the all-too aggressive methods used by attorneys to attract clients. Penalties must be clearly detailed;
  • Stiff penalties for those who are found to be untruthful (as defined by law) in these cases must be included;
  • Members of the Media must NOT be allowed in any way to have access to any information about any details of these cases (including the very existence of cases) before and during an investigation and when prosecutions are occurring. There MUST be serious PERSONAL criminal sentences for every media member, entity, or even non-media “leaker” for breach of confidentiality. Those innocent must at all costs be protected, and every precaution must be taken.

Summary

Unfortunately, in whatever the final process looks like, there will be casualties. Not every victim will receive immediate results of coming forward — at least in the beginning. How so?

We are caught in a catch-22. We have no way of knowing how many and who have already been victimized by sexual and domestic wrongdoing at the hands of others. While the process of ridding the nation of all the elements of this, some of these people will necessarily become sacrificial lambs. IF as we do in criminal law, we adopt for these cases “innocent until proven guilty,” those that have already been abused — without hard proof of the abuses — will likely not see a good conclusion for some of their stories. And some of their abusers without proof of their wrongdoing will walk free. I see no other way to quickly change a socially embedded process that for so long has been a scourge to our nation. It’s a process, it will be hard, and it will take time. It must be soon, it must be thorough, it must be fair, but it MUST be done.

 

Play

Obama’s Department of Justice: Corruption at its Worst

Notice the total absence of those former arguments about the “alleged” corruption in the Obama Department of Justice? I honestly believe there may be two reasons for the current lack of anger about those: people grew tired of the repetitious news coverage of pieces of evidence of corruption and just “turned off;” and/or the Media has purposely ratcheted up their already deafening attacks on President Trump in an effort to make Americans forget.

But with the daily revelations of MORE Obama DOJ corruption, it seems to be appropriate for us to simply remind everyone of just a few of instances of Obama Department of Justice corruption as it appears to have been even deeper and more widespread than first thought:

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Before Trump

  • Eric Holder was the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt of Congress when he stonewalled committee probes of the Fast and Furious investigation. Fast and Furious itself was a scandal, involving the government’s reckless abuse of investigative powers for the purpose of fabricating an anti-gun narrative. Instead, its “gun walking” resulted in the killing of a federal agent, among other violent crimes.
  • Attorney General Holder made misleading representations about both Fast and Furious and the investigation of Fox News journalist James Rosen.
  • The IRS’s intimidation and abuse of President Obama’s political opponents, and the cover-up thereof resulted in no charges and little apparent investigation.
  • There were politicized prosecutions against Dinesh D’Souza (an Obama critic whose minor campaign-finance infraction was treated as a major felony when more-serious violations are typically disposed of by administrative fine), and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (the anti-Muslim video producer scapegoated by the Obama administration for the Benghazi massacre).
  • Recall the misrepresentations by Justice Department lawyers to a federal court in the litigation over Obama’s lawless immigration non-enforcement programs (DACA and DAPA) — lies the judge found to be “intentional, serious and material.”
  • The Department of Justice reportedly refused to impanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury impaneled, and the reason they never had a grand jury impaneled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.” Further, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations.
  • Then there were the Justice Department’s outrageous misconduct and serial lies in a prosecution of New Orleans police, which a federal judge variously described as “bizarre,” “appalling,” and “grotesque” — conclusions upheld by the Fifth Circuit appeals court.
  • And, of course, the Clinton e-mails investigation, featuring: Justice Department collusion with Clinton-camp lawyers; inexplicable immunity deals; suspects who received immunity permitted to appear as lawyers for other suspects; no prosecutions despite significant evidence, several immunity grants, and patently misleading statements during FBI interviews; a furtive tarmac tête-à-tête between the attorney general and the main suspect’s husband (the former U.S. president who just happened to have launched the attorney general into public prominence, and who was positioned to influence whether the attorney general got to keep her job in an anticipated Hillary Clinton administration) just days before it was announced — surprise! — that there would be no indictment of Hillary Clinton; and startling public commentary by the FBI regarding an uncharged case that bore heavily on a presidential election.
  • Subsequent to that “chat” aboard Clinton’s jet in Arizona, it was learned that Attorney General Lynch was conducting official DOJ business via an alias name and email address: “Elizabeth Carlisle, ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov.” Why would an Attorney General use an alias and communicate via a secret email address other than to hide from the public certain actions taken if those actions were legal and above-board?

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Carryover to Trump Administration

How many and who in the DOJ that were Obama “carryovers” have resigned, retired, been demoted, or fired since the Obama Administration? (We formerly shared from this list, but the names have been added to)

Department of Justice (Non-FBI):

  • John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – announced resignation on September 27, 2016, after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing does not disclose known FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware NSA Rogers is conducting a compliance review which will uncover the FISA Abuse. Trump surveillance originated under Carlin’s tenure.
  • Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General (replacing Loretta Lynch – 10 days) – fired January 30, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division (replacing John Carlin) – announced resignation on April 17, 2017 – Left on May 11, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General – demoted twice. Stripped of Associate Deputy Attorney General title on December 6, 2017. Removed as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force January 8, 2018. Unofficial liaison between Fusion GPS and FBI/DOJ. Wife worked at Fusion. Long-standing ties to both Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.
  • David Laufman, DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence – resigned on February 7, 2018. Laufman “played a leading role in the Clinton email server and Russian hacking investigations.”
  • Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – number three official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – resigned February 9, 2018. Takes top legal position at Walmart. Brand “played a critical role in Congress’ re-authorization” of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned)
  • Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  • Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  • Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. attorneys)
  • Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  • Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

FBI:

  • James Comey, FBI Director – fired May 9, 2017. Oversaw all FBI operations – including exoneration of Clinton and Trump-Russia Investigation. Reported to AG Lynch.
  • Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterintelligence – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to FBI’s Human Resources. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Strzok involved in all facets of Clinton exoneration. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Strozk was fired August 13, 2018.
  • Lisa Page, FBI/DOJ Lawyer – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to parts unknown. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Baker, FBI General Counsel – demoted and reassigned on December 20, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Senior-most legal counsel at FBI. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Rybicki, Chief of Staff to FBI Director James Comey & successor Chris Wray – resigned/forced out January 23, 2018. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group.
  • Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI Director – on December 23, 2017, announced retirement effective March 22, 2018. Forced to resign on January 29, 2018. Involved in all aspects. Reported to Comey.
  • Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey – resigned on February 2, 2018. Writes an op-ed in New York Times on why he is leaving but does not disclose in the op-ed that he was Special Assistant to Comey – or that he had been offered lucrative CNN job. Takes a job with CNN on February 5, 2018.
  • Michael Kortan, FBI Asst. Director of Public Affairs – resigned on February 8, 2018 – effective February 15, 2018. Kortan served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access.
  • Bill Priestap, Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence – Holds the same position. Strzok’s former boss – reported directly to McCabe.
  • Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  • Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)

There are others that unofficially are being “watched” regarding the continuation of their employment with the DOJ.

Summary

We could spend the day discussing in detail all of the “known” investigations underway that include those above and others. But most of them and the details of their alleged wrongdoing are on already public knowledge. What remains unknown is just how deep and wide are the methods and the people who have been (and are) part of a concerted plan to destroy President Donald Trump and his administration, his implemented and pending policies, and to stall his appointments — including that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh who is almost surely a shoo-in as the replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

What is amazing to me is that everyone who plays any role in this coordinated effort to end the Trump White House actually felt that any and all of the illegal, unethical, and immoral acts they committed — and in some cases are still being committed — were/are justified because of the worthy goal of ridding the nation of President Trump.

What is MORE amazing to me is that everyone who played these roles honestly felt they were going to be successful in their quest to unseat a duly elected president and do it without the American public knowing about it! If any American is not incensed at the fact that appointed and hired individuals who work for the American people would participate in this “political coup,” you have no loyalty to your country.

You know what’s almost humorous? All those on the Left led by their media mouthpieces — those who have invented, implemented, and have maintained the bogus Russia collusion case — are actually guilty of the same crimes they invented and alleged perpetrated by the Trump Campaign. They were confident they would be successful getting rid of Donald Trump. There IS no Russia collusion. But there IS collusion. Let me explain:

The American public has yet to be shown the evidence that Intelligence Community individuals and several in Congress claim that verifies Russian attempted hacking of the 2016 election. Even if it does really exist, (and I have my doubts) there obviously was no involvement with the Trump Campaign. But there is verified collusion between the “other” campaign and the Russians: the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Hillary’s campaign funded the Steele Dossier knowing it was full of false information, had it promoted by James Clapper and James Comey to instigate the fake Russia collusion story and subsequent investigation of Donald Trump.

Further, more and more information leaks out daily showing just how “in the tank” members of senior FBI management were in the action to derail the Trump presidency. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page as more of their private texts and emails are revealed show there were intense actions initiated and managed by upper-level management members of both the FBI and DOJ to accomplish that objective.

What is going to happen and when? I have no idea. I have my suspicions, and they involved execution of a bunch of those 50,000+ sealed federal indictments on stand-by in federal district courts around the nation. I suspect Fall of 2018 is going to initiate the peeling of the onion of corruption that obviously dwarfs that ever witnessed in the United States government.

In the meantime: Donald Trump caused the hurricane headed for the Carolinas, Trump put those illegal immigrant children (in that picture that actually was taken during the Obama’s presidency), he single-handedly created global warming that will destroy Earth if he is not immediately kicked out of the Oval Office. To summarize it: EVERYTHING that is bad in the United States — and the World, for that matter — is the direct responsibility of President Trump.

Oh, one more thing: all of the good economic news in America is proof of the amazing accomplishments of Barack Obama. After all, nothing good could ever happen in America that wasn’t directly attributable to his knowledge, understanding, likability, and compassion!

What’s next?

STAY TUNED!

Play

Justice for All: But Two Versions

Who can honestly maintain that currently in the United States there is “Liberty and Justice for All?” If there is, it’s meted out differently for different folks. The “rule of law” has been attacked, amended, and re-defined by so many that no one any longer knows exactly what it is, what it means, and how it should function.

The U.S. was established by a bunch of vagabonds who had for generations experienced the horrors and oppression of multi-layered justice in Europe that was never fair, never consistent, and certainly never equal. That ‘injustice” resulted in the establishment of a set of laws in this New World that would obliterate the evil system of justice that always favored one group over another, put one person ahead of someone else, and was always determined by those “other” than rank-and-file citizens who were not quite worthy of the same justice. Equal justice was in no way equal.

We are seeing the evil of that system creep back into this New World. It is tearing at the very fabric of our country. Americans are in large part ignoring its power to quickly obliterate the founding principles that gave early Americans promise of equality under the Law. Many do not even acknowledge this “New” justice system’s existence. Generations of American patriots fought and died to protect and preserve the founders Justice System. Yet today it is in danger of destruction — not by foreign tyrants or evil nations, but by its own leaders.

Criminal Justice

In Europe, class warfare was not even real warfare. Commoners only value was for their service to the ruling class. Laws existed at the whims of elitists. There was NO justice.

In the U.S., 2.5 centuries after becoming a nation whose cornerstone is the guarantee of “liberty and justice for all,” we watch as a ruling class has evolved into the American elitists moving to replicate European justice which American settlers fled. In the U.S., criminal justice has become a  from top to bottom a system that favors those with social, economic, and political status, while punishing those who find themselves (most often by their own illegal actions) caught in a ever-growing whirlwind of “social” justice — a justice process/system eerily similar to that of 1600’s Europe.

Because certain populations are forced into positions of social inequality just like those Americans lived through in Europe, crime becomes more common within those populations. “Most inmates are minority men under age 40 ‘whose economic opportunities have suffered the most over the last 30 or 40 years. Incarceration in the United States is socially concentrated among very disadvantaged people,’” says U.S. News & World Report. In the United States, the people most likely to commit crimes are “people without education, jobs, housing, or hope,” U.S. News explains. This is further complicated by the fact that people from disadvantaged populations are frequently given harsher sentences than those from dominant populations for the same crimes.

Think about this: Retainers for felony crime cases start around $5,000-$10,000 but can be $25,000 or more for serious cases. Private criminal legal representation is literally out of reach and unattainable for most who fall into average working family category or below. Because of the high cost of securing “better” or “best” legal representation in such cases, public defense is most often the only option.

Public defense is not in itself necessarily bad or of poor quality. But many who serve in this capacity are just beginning a criminal defense career or are assigned a certain percentage of indigent cases they are required to work. Volume of cases and low public defense budgets obviously waters down capabilities of providing “better” or “best” defense for those charged who lack sufficient financial resources to obtain private representation.

It is not uncommon for a criminal case in which a defendant who has a criminal record and who is subsequently charged with one or more felonies to face a $100,000 defense bill if able to retain a private criminal attorney. There is very little hope for a person of average or below income to find defense other than through public defender representation.

Multiple offenders — no matter the seriousness of previous crimes — suffer disproportionately in the criminal justice system, simply because of their past brushes with the Law. Inmates and ex-convicts are, themselves, a disadvantaged population. Once a person has a criminal record, it’s easy for potential employers to access that information on the internet and deny jobs because of it, says U.S. News. This makes it difficult for those who have criminal records to find jobs that pay enough.

Seldom does the American media highlight criminal cases of those Americans caught-up in the justice system that because they are at social and economic disadvantage are forced into the Public defense system where they often get lost and certainly struggle for fairness. To the media, high profile cases that involve well-known public figures are “Newsworthy” and therefore capture newspaper and television coverage. Hollywood actors and directors, sports superstars, and music industry popstars have all the money necessary to assure great criminal defense while most members of minority communities who find themselves on the wrong side of the law get lost in the system where their stories seldom get told.

Political Justice

Yes, a new segment of the Justice System has evovled. It is for those who are members of the United States Political System. Even though constitutionally all those in this system were chosen from among their fellow citizens to be public servants, those within that system have turned it into a “super” class of Americans that in many cases have been — and are — above the Law. Sadly, we Americans are the ones who allowed members of this class to create and perpetrate its existence.

It’s not fair: nothing in it was envisioned by the nation’s founders. It is exactly what they hated and is exactly why in large part they fled Europe. Early Americans knew that no nation that is NOT fair to all its people without regard to race, religion, or place of origin can ever last. And no such nation can guarantee its citizens true freedom under the law. Why?

Those in that political class were authorized by the Constitution to craft laws to govern our lives. Founders knew times would change and those changes would demand adjustments in those laws. But they knew the basics of liberty and justice for all, the rule of law, one person-one vote, fair taxation, and private property rights were and would always be essential for the preservation of the U.S. Justice System. The American political class has stood watch while much of those tenets of Freedom have been purposely eroded, only to be replaced by Political Justice.

Here’s the rub about this new segment of the American justice system: everyday Americans do not determine who is part of that system and who makes the rules about which laws to keep, which to abolish, and which new laws to implement. The elitists do that for all Americans.

Consitutionally, that is to be decided by American voters who choose through elections 535 representatives to serve in Congress along with a President and Vice President who — with the advice and consent of Congress — implement and enforce the laws passed by Congress. But that process exists no more.

We watch as mayors, governors, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and even former Presidents thumb their noses at duly passed laws and simply do not enforce those laws with which they personally disagree. Examples: federal drug laws, U.S. voting laws, and U.S. immigration laws.

And then these same political elitists installed a system WITHIN the Constitutional system that allows NEW policies (which often circumvent old laws) that are implemented with the stroke of the pen of a governor or the President of the United States. These are called “executive orders.”

Corruption

Of course such a system operated by a chosen few was destined to become corrupt. It creates two different classes of people. It favors one class over another: the very definition of political corruption.

Examples of this corruption abound, and we will not even begin to list them all. But there are several current examples that vividly illustrate the class disparity within this system that beg for discussion. We have discussed them in detail previously. Look at some of these in bullet point format:

  • James Comey when fired released FBI memos to the press through a friend. Those memos were classified. Comey’s release of them was a felony;
  • Comey lied several times before Congress. While doing so is NOT a felony, it is a type of Obstruction of Justice which could be classified as a felony;
  • Hillary Clinton authorized destruction of at least 30,000 emails which some of contained classified information, but ALL of were under subpoena by Congress;
  • The Clinton email server was never approved as secure by federal authorities. Use of that server for transmission of documents and communication — much of which was classified — is a felony;
  • President Obama with a private gmail address communicated with Hillary via that unsecure server for years. Doing so was a felony violation for both Clinton and Obama, for ALL communications by any U.S. president are “classified;”
  • President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manaforte was tried for 13 year-old tax violations in an effort to coerce his flipping to Mueller about Trump wrongdoing. Manafort DID break the law. But the DOJ had (under Rosenstein) looked at those violations by Manaforte years earlier and declined to prosecute. Mueller’s prosecution was for purely political purposes;
  • Mueller appears to be trying to tie Trump’s payoffs to two women to campaign finance lawbreaking — efforts by Trump to impede the 2016 election results in his favor, which IS\\would be a violation. Campaign laws allow personal expense for personal reasons by candidates which are not for campaign reasons. However, Hillary’s campaign paid (through a law firm, which in itself could be ruled money laundering) for the Steele Dossier that was fabricated and had no factual basis. Her campaign obviously funded that for the express purpose of impacting the election against her opponent. Unlike Trump, there is NO possible personal reason Hillary could give for her doing so. No action pending against the Clinton Campaign for doing so.

Summary

We could list hundreds of examples of this two-tiered political justice system now raging in America. We could list hundreds of examples of this two-tiered criminal justice system in America as well. I will not bore you or insult your integrity by doing so. Americans see it and understand it. But here’s the problem:

“IF” Americans see and understand these two systems are in place; and “IF” Americans knowing they exist, who crafted and implemented both and why they were put in place; and “IF” Americans knowing all this allow these travesties to continue, the American Justice System is doomed. In fact, it may be too late for America to stop these two systems or change their paths of operation. Too many people have garnered too much power and authority through these systems. And all of that power and authority that will allow their existence is now controlled by a small group of individuals who have the power to perpetuate the status quo.

What can we do?

  • Speak out against criminal injustice every time you see it. Write emails, call lawmakers, get active in elections, and involve yourself in the process;
  • Vote in every election in which you are eligible. Sadly about 25% of all those eligible to vote determine who represents us at local, state, and federal levels. Why? 75% of Americans simply don’t vote!
  • Objectively research laws that govern where you live and U.S. laws. Ignorance of laws does not mean one is stupid. Ignorance of laws and not getting understanding of those laws is stupid;
  • Vote with your hands, feet, and wallets. Don’t support those who support the two-justice system: don’t go to movies, concerts, stores, purchase products, watch televisions shows, etc., supported by those who do support the two-justice system. And support those who support the rule of law;
  • Consider running for office. You may feel unqualified. But qualification for office does not entail dollars and cents, social status, or wardrobe. Those may make it easier to get attention. But door-to-door and person-to-person is a great way to get involved with lawmaking. Don’t disqualify yourself without consideration!

This is NOT a country founded to be like this. And this country does NOT belong to a group of elitists who have all power and authority to do anything they desire at the cost of the American people. But if Americans sit idly by oblivious to what is happening around them, doing that is support — albeit benign support — of the very evil this discussion is about.

None of us like being disliked or despised. Those might result from taking action. But what is certain is that all who ignore real disatrious historical events are doomed to see them occur again.

We must never give-in to those already strong and already moving to do away with “Liberty and Justice for all.”

 

Play

Murdered by a Stranger

In Iowa, it was Mollie Tibbets. In San Francisco, it was Kate Steinle. Who’s next? Where will the next such murder happen?

“Illegal Alien/Immigrant:” a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there.

Why?

Why is our nation covered with illegals? Why is it no longer politically correct to call those here illegally “illegals?” Who decided in the last few years to change the moniker for such people from illegal “alien” to illegal “immigrant?” What’s the difference?

Answers: Politically correct Leftists self-appointed to right the “rules” of illegal immigration apparently coined the new terms. Oh, and it’s no longer politically correct to use the term “illegal.” Last night I watched an immigration attorney on a talk show correct the host who used the term “illegal immigrant.” According to that attorney, they now are to be called “undocumented immigrants.” Hmmm… I’m pretty sure the families of Mollie Tibbets and Kate Steinle would argue with even the hint of political correctness in illegals’ naming correctness. Kate and Mollie are dead. That’s all that matters.

Every time a highly visible murder of an American at the hands of an illegal, the argument about this open-border policy begins anew. And make no mistake about it: America’s southern border is wide open. And regarding illegals entering the nation, Leftists are certainly open-border advocates. And most on the Right in Congress speak out against this practice while winking at the continued flow of “new” illegals crossing the border while sitting on their hands regarding repairing U.S. immigration law. Apparently, even Republicans in Congress (on the most part) must be for open-borders, too.

Meanwhile, Kate and Mollie are gone.

For the sake of this conversation today, and in honor of Kate and Mollie, we will refer to those in the United States without authorization or legal status as “illegal aliens.” If that offends you, please give us some leeway today in honor of those two young women. Humor us, please.

Dead at the Hands of Illegals

How many U.S. citizens are murdered by illegal aliens?

President Trump in a speech stated that 63,000 Americans had been murdered by illegal aliens. The 63,000 number we are unable to document. However, a 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said that a study population of 249,000 criminal aliens had been arrested for 25,064 homicides.

According to a recent Associated Press article, “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” But the issue isn’t non-citizens who are in this country legally, and who must abide by the law to avoid having their visas revoked or their application for citizenship refused. The real issue is the crimes committed by illegal aliens. And in that context, the claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” —  including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article —  combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal.

That isn’t the only problem with the study. Instead of using official crime data, it uses “self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information.” For obvious reasons, there is little incentive for anyone, let alone criminal aliens, to self-report “delinquent and criminal involvement.” When it comes to self-reporting criminal activity, some surveyed will, no doubt, exaggerate. Others will flat out lie. Furthermore, many that are questioned will likely not disclose if they are a non-citizen out of fear of discovery and deportation.

These claims overlook disturbing actual data on crimes committed by criminal aliens. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released two unsettling reports in 2005 on criminal aliens who are in prison for committing crimes in the United States and issued an updated report in 2011.

The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegal in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during the fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien. Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft, and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny. Once again, these statistics are not fully representative of crimes committed by illegal aliens: This report only reflects the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. If there were a way to include all crimes committed by criminal aliens, the numbers would likely be higher because prosecutors often will agree to drop criminal charges against an illegal alien if they are assured that immigration authorities will deport the alien.

The GAO reports also highlight another important flaw in the study referenced by the Associated Press. It uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of people living in the United States. Thus, the study does not take into account some potentially key factors highlighted in the GAO reports: that criminal aliens from Mexico disproportionately make up incarcerations (GAO-05-337R) and that most arrests are made in the three border states of California, Texas, and Arizona (GAO-05-646R and GAO-11-187). Let’s look at just one of those three border states who has provided the public actual statistics of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

Just Texas

According to DHS status indicators, over 261,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011, and July 31, 2018, of which over 175,000 were classified as “illegal aliens.”

Between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2018, these 175,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 273,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 505 homicide charges; 30,408 assault charges; 5,396 burglary charges; 34,555 drug charges; 365 kidnapping charges; 15,100 theft charges; 22,213 obstructing police charges; 1,569 robbery charges; 3,212 sexual assault charges; 2,022 sexual offense charges; and 2,754 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 112,000 convictions including 225 homicide convictions; 12,540 assault convictions; 2,967 burglary convictions; 16,762 drug convictions; 152 kidnapping convictions; 6,741 theft convictions; 10,720 obstructing police convictions; 950 robbery convictions; 1,567 sexual assault convictions; 1,076 sexual offense convictions; and 1,194 weapon convictions.

Exasperation

What is most exasperating to most Americans (other than federal politicians) is that there really is NO need for these senseless crimes to happen. What further heightens Americans’ frustration and anger about this problem is that Congress — who is the only agency that can make or change federal law — continues to bicker about certain parts of proposed immigration reform legislation while ignoring the most obvious and most critical reason for not just making those changes, but making those changes immediately!

How many times and how many studies have we seen that poll Americans who overwhelmingly state immigration reform MUST begin by sealing our southern border? If Americans — “legal” Americans — want their representatives in Washington to enact legislation to protect our babies against illegal alien crimes against them, why doesn’t Congress act?

Can’t members of Congress agree that trying to do anything regarding new or revised immigration law is sheer lunacy if it does not FIRST stop any continued influx of illegals?

It is virtually impossible that 535 men and women who are professionals that come to Congress from varied legal, business, medical, and other professional backgrounds cannot agree on a path to fix this problem — ANY PROBLEM — “IF” they really want to.” And that’s the key: Congress proposes, debates, amends, votes, and passes EVERY bill THEY want to see become law.

CONGRESS DOES NOT WANT TO PASS COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM!

Why is that?

To this journalist, the only plausible explanation for this is that more than half of those 535 men and women want to maintain the status quo. And the reason for that can be just one thing: votes. They not only want to allow the free flow of immigrants across the border, they have every intention of finding a way to make it legal for those illegals to vote in federal elections.

“What would that do?” you ask. Those Congressional members think that whoever/whichever political party initiates the steps and process for such legalization will be the party those illegals will support, forever indebted for that legalization. Would that work? It has worked for decades already. Democrats as a whole convinced African Americans that Dems were the saviors of Blacks. In almost every legislation at the federal level, Democrats have the votes of Black Americans locked up, simply because of that obligation Dems have sold them.

And Democrats are NOT the party that has made American life any better for those in the Black community. (We’ll save that conversation for another day)

Summary

Unless and until Congress passes a comprehensive immigration law that first closes our borders to illegal aliens, America is doomed for the repeat and repeat and repeat of stories like that of Mollie Tibbets and Kate Steinle who had their lives snuffed out at the hands of illegal aliens. I suggest you don’t ever let an open-borders advocate sell you the lie that illegal aliens commit crimes at a lesser rate than either native-born or naturalized American citizens. In fact, existing data seems to show that the opposite is likely true.

Get the truth out there in your circles of influence. Every chance you get, push your federal legislators to initiate and support comprehensive immigration legislation that begins with slamming the door on the southern border to stop illegals from entering the U.S.

But we do know one thing for sure. Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place. That includes the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by the 55,322 illegal aliens in the GAO study who victimized countless numbers of Americans. And that includes the 273,000 criminal offenses committed against Texas citizens alone.

Remember this: Kate Steinle with her father was innocently at Fisherman’s Wharf enjoying just being together. Mollie Tibbetts was jogging in a very small rural town in Iowa. With no apparent plan or forethought, two illegal aliens ended the lives of those young women and changed the course of human history for their families.

The next such loss of a young man or young woman could be YOUR child.

Murder by a Stranger

Play

Mueller’s Evil is Not Exclusive

By now you know a lot about Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his past. You have watched with me as the Trump-Russia investigation has virtually gone nowhere in 20 months. Yes, there have been indictments — but NOT of anyone or anything related to 2016 election-tampering collusion between Russians and members of the Trump Campaign. But Mueller does not give up. And he has a lapdog that owns a past in legal prosecutions that is more vicious and dogged than that of Mueller: Andrew Weissmann. Let’s meet Mr. Weissman.

Who is Andrew Weissmann?

       Andrew Weissmann

FBI Director Christopher Wray was an assistant attorney general in 2004 when he heaped praise on an ambitious Mafia-tested prosecutor while promoting him to the top of the Justice Department’s high-profile Enron task force. Wray specifically praised Andrew Weissmann for getting convictions against two Enron clients: accounting giant Arthur Andersen and executives at banking dynamo Merrill Lynch.

Andersen was finished as a company; four Merrill executives went to prison. Today, Weissmann stands as special counsel Robert Mueller’s top gun in a squadron of nearly 20 prosecutors and scores of FBI agents delving into Trump-Russia. Mr. Weissmann is leading the probe into the biggest target to date, Paul Manafort, President Trump’s onetime campaign manager. How Weissmann operated over a decade ago offers possible glimpses at how he carries out orders today from his longtime mentor, Robert Mueller.

He went to Texas from New York City in 2002 fresh from putting a number of Mafiosos in prison. By the time he left in 2005, he had rung up some impressive numbers, such as 22 guilty pleas and millions of dollars in restitution. But he also suffered historic courtroom losses. And how he won and how he lost is still the subject of bitter comments from his adversaries in Houston.

“Do not misunderstand my disdain for him with ineffectiveness or something not to be concerned with,” said Dan Cogdell, who represented three Enron defendants. “He’s a formable prosecutor. If I’m Donald Trump and I know the backstory of Andrew Weissmann, it’s going to concern me. There is no question about it.”

The backstory: Defense attorneys say Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.

They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist. “Weissmann seemed more interested in obtaining convictions than in promoting justice,” said Tom Kirkendall, a Houston lawyer who represented an Enron executive.

Those convictions for which FBI Director Wray offered praise in 2004? Weissmann’s cases against Andersen and Merrill Lynch lay in shambles just a few years later.

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 vote, overturned the Andersen conviction. A year later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erased all the fraud convictions against four Merrill Lynch managers. The jury had acquitted another defendant. “People went off to prison for a completely phantom of a case,” said Kirkendall.

Kirkendall became sort of an unofficial Enron historian. He observed goings-on at the Houston federal courthouse and blogged about what he considered a systematic miscarriage of justice. The task force, which ultimately would catapult prosecutors to lucrative careers, wanted to win as many convictions as possible. They were prosecuting players in one of the nation’s biggest corporate scandals. Enron bosses falsified balance sheets, inflated earnings and traded stocks with insider knowledge. By 2001, the mega-company went bankrupt. Its stock was worthless.

The Justice Department task force mobilized in 2002 and quickly won convictions. But there were dark sides. That’s where Sidney Powell enters the picture. The Dallas lawyer took the appeal of a Merrill Lynch figure. She obtained from Justice a batch of task force documents that should have been disclosed to trial attorneys years earlier. Justice prosecutors not connected to the Enron task force deliberately withheld evidence favorable to Stevens. A judge threw out his conviction.

Powell wrote a 2014 book about the scandals, “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” “All of the cases Weissmann pushed to trial were reversed in whole or in part due to some form of his overreaching and abuses,” Powell said. “The most polite thing the Houston bar said about Weissmann was that he was a madman.”

It probably will come as no surprise that the special counsel’s office declined to comment about Weissmann’s track record. However, the Justice Department in 2012 and 2013 defended him against ethics complaints and concluded he did not violate the rules.

His hardball tactics seem intact today. Within weeks of his arrival in June, the FBI executed a no-knock, predawn raid on Mr. Manafort’s condo. Agents stayed for hours after waking up the target and his wife. Then a leak appeared in The New York Times. Mueller had informed Manafort that he would be indicted. It’s an old Enron tactic: Scare people into talking.

Arthur Anderson

With over 20,000 employees, Andersen stood as one of the country’s most prominent corporate auditors. The Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating Enron, an Andersen client. Auditors started destroying documents. Weissmann took the lead in prosecuting Andersen for obstruction of justice in 2002. Andersen’s defense: It followed company policy on when to destroy the confidential material.

Convicted at trial, a fatally damaged Andersen appealed. The Supreme Court eventually took the case. In 2005, the nation’s highest court overturned the conviction in a 9-0 opinion, a devastating judgment that shattered Weissmann’s showcase. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion, solo — a message of how seriously the high court took the breach. In essence, Rehnquist said the prosecutor sold the presiding judge on jury instructions that assured a conviction. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote. “For example, the jury was told that, even if [Andersen] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Andersen] guilty. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ so that it covered innocent conduct.”

Rehnquist wrote that the government (Weissmann) insisted, over defense objections, that the word “dishonestly” be excluded from the instructions and that the word “impede” be added. The chief justice went to the dictionary, read the meaning of “impede” and concluded it was “such innocent conduct” for someone to “impede” the government.

According to Attorney Powell, “Weissmann indicted them for conduct that was not criminal, and he took criminal intent out of the jury instructions that he then persuaded the judge to give.”

With a lack of sustaining clients, a mortally wounded Andersen put out a statement. “We are very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which acknowledges the fundamental injustice that has been done to Arthur Andersen and its former personnel and retirees,” it said. In the end, the George W. Bush Justice Department put out of business a thriving accounting firm whose actions could have been handled in other ways short of felony charges. The pain? 10,000 Arthur Andersen employees were put on the street without jobs by an over-aggressive prosecutor.

Merrill Lynch

It became known as the Nigerian barge case. Weissmann induced indictments in 2003 against four Merrill Lynch executives, an Enron vice president, and an Enron accountant. He contended that Merrill and Enron entered into a sham transaction in 1999. The banker would buy three Enron barge-mounted power generators for $7 million purely to boost the Houston company’s balance sheet — and then Enron would buy them back at a profit. They were charged under a federal statute that normally requires proof that someone paid a bribe or received kickbacks that denigrated the business practices of “honest services.” There were no bribes or kickbacks. Five were convicted. The accountant — represented by Cogdell — heard the jury say, “Not guilty.”

Four of them appealed while serving time in prison. In 2006, the 5th Circuit reversed all the fraud charges, leaving just a perjury conviction against one executive, whom Powell came to represent on appeal. Again, the problem for Weissmann was his definition of a crime that greatly relaxed the standard for convictions. “We reverse the conspiracy and wire fraud convictions of each of the defendants on the legal ground that the government’s [Weissmann task force] theory of fraud relating to the deprivation of honest services is flawed,” the appeals court said. The opinion said the scheme may have been unethical but did not violate federal fraud laws. The court said that not all corporate fiduciary lapses are tantamount to crimes.

Attorney Kirkendall said the Enron trials in Houston were held “in a highly inflamed environment.” “The task force took advantage of that and convicted these men,” he said. “What it caused them and their families, you can just imagine.”

The government did not retry the five on fraud charges.

Concealed evidence

What the Merrill defense attorneys did not know during the trial was this: There were favorable witness statements that the prosecution withheld. In 2010, Justice began releasing confidential Enron task force documents. They showed that Weissmann’s team provided misleading summaries at the trial of raw witness statements to the FBI and to the grand jury. The disconnect became an issue in the appeal of Attorney Powell’s client, Merrill executive James A. Brown, in the Nigerian barge case. Although his fraud conviction went away, his perjury guilt stuck.

Powell was particularly struck by this: The government’s summary said a witness, Enron’s Jeffrey McMahon, “does not recall” a barge buyback agreement. In his actual interview, he said there was no deal. The prosecution badly distorted what he had said, depriving trial attorneys of information that could persuade a jury to acquit. Mr. McMahon was under threat of indictment and did not testify. The 5th Circuit agreed — to a point. “Favorable information was plainly suppressed from McMahon’s notes,” the court wrote. “The McMahon notes contain numerous passages that unequivocally state that it was McMahon’s understanding that there was only a ‘best efforts’ agreement and no ‘promise,’ whereas the government’s disclosure letter says only that McMahon ‘does not recall’ a guaranteed buyback.”

Even worse, the documents showed that Weissmann’s team yellow-highlighted favorable information that it deliberately withheld from its summaries presented in court. Yet the appeals court did not throw out the perjury conviction. It said the prosecution “flaw” was not material.

Chilling witnesses

When the task force brought indictments in July 2004 against the big cheese in the Enron saga — Kenneth L. Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Richard Cause — defense attorneys learned that Weissmann had done something even more far-reaching. In a sealed court document, he named 114 unindicted co-conspirators. Defense attorney Kirkendall did some research. He found that it was by far the largest number of such targeted people in the history of federally prosecuted white-collar crime.

Defendants at trial hoped that some Enron executives would testify on their behalf. But those hopes collapsed on the list of 114.

“Chilling effect, my ass,” said attorney Cogdell. “It was Ice Station Zebra. No one in their right mind would do anything that would upset the task force, specifically Weissmann.” It was evident Weissmann made the list for that exact reason: to scare potential witnesses.

Summary

Justice Department press releases in the 2000s would tout the number 30 as in over 30 people charged in the Enron saga. But final conviction count is short that number given that appeals courts eviscerated two major cases — Merrill Lynch and Arthur Andersen — while juries acquitted two people and partially acquitted others and two were allowed to withdraw guilty pleas. In all, 22 pleaded guilty and four trial convictions stuck.

Afterward, some task force prosecutors rose to significant government posts.

Weissmann joined Robert Mueller at the FBI and then arrived at a powerhouse New York law firm as a white-collar-crime defense specialist. He returned to the FBI as Mr. Mueller’s general counsel and, later, was appointed by the Obama administration as chief of Justice’s fraud unit in Washington.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, the Justice Department assistant attorney general who named him task force chief a decade ago, is now supplying Weissmann with the FBI manpower he needs to pursue Trump-Russia.

Kathryn Ruemmler prosecuted both the Merrill defendants and Lay-Skilling. Years later, she emerged in the prestigious post of White House counsel to President Obama.

Lisa Monaco, another task force prosecutor, stayed at Justice, was Mueller’s chief of staff and then went to the Obama White House as the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She joined CNN as an analyst this year.

Weissmann has become Mueller’s bulldog in the Trump-Russia investigation. He is arrogant, forceful, demanding, and almost cruel. He spearheaded the pre-dawn raid of Mannafort’s home. Agents broke through the front door with no notice, startled Mannafort and his wife in bed, and ransacked their house damaging much in the way of furniture and fixtures. These tactics are NEVER used by law enforcement in white-collar crime cases. As is his norm, Weissmann by taking this approach sent messages to all those surrounding President Trump that this investigation was and is brutal, far-reaching, and that Weissmann has carte blanche to use whatever tactics in this investigation he chooses to use.
Plain and simple: Weissmann is an evil guy who thrives on power over others. Even though he is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, he does almost anything and everything he needs to prevail in every case in which he is involved. And he does so with total disregard for the law or the fact that his perverting the law for his purposes has in the past destroyed the lives of innocent Americans. Yes, he has sent guilty people to jail. But his actions in the Enron and Merril Lynch and Arthur Andersen matters destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans. Even though those cases were overturned respectively by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, people had already served time in prison, lost jobs, Arthur Andersen went out of business costing thousands of people millions of dollars. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle!
The question of the day regarding the current Trump-Russia investigation pertaining to the actions of Weissmann is: to what lengths is Weissmann willing to go to “get” the President? Is Weissmann so bent on prevailing in action against the President that he is willing to employ the same or similar tactics as he employed in Houston? Only time will tell.

 

Play

The “Truth” Part III: The Three Amigos

Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey: three people from the Intelligence Community that play really important roles in the current U.S. political system. We know them all by name and title. But do we really KNOW them, or do we just know ABOUT them? Let’s look at their individual roles in current political matters and examine how they got to their current “positions.”

James Comey

Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton’s pardon of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency.  Many feel this was the beginning of a career for Comey in which he used his position and power to assist political folks in ways that only an incredibly connected D.C. lawyer could.  Comey reportedly provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining power and wealth after leaving office through pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer, and criminal.  Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons gained incredible wealth through their foundation after leaving the White House.  A huge piece of that puzzle was giving Marc Rich a free pass when he should have spent life in prison.  This started a new “politicratic” life for Comey, making him powerful and wealthy.

That’s how Comey got his start to judicial system “Stardom.” He has far more than this in his past. Rather than a lengthy essay on his legal travels, follow these two links to stories posted previously on our website that detail the professional history of the former FBI Director:

http://truthnewsnet.org/who-is-james-comey-part-i/

http://truthnewsnet.org/who-is-james-comey-part-ii/

Rod Rosenstein

The Deputy Attorney General has lived a quiet life when compared to most in D.C. He grew-up in a Philadelphia suburb, graduated from Penn and Harvard. In 1995, Rosenstein joined the team of lawyers investigating the Whitewater scandal, which involved allegations of illegal real estate dealings by the Clintons. Rosenstein headed one of the few successful Whitewater prosecutions, which led to the conviction of former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Clinton associates James and Susan McDougal.

Before ascending to the deputy attorney general post, Rosenstein spent more than a decade serving as a US attorney in Maryland. He is politically conservative and was appointed by President George W. Bush. But when Barack Obama took office, Rosenstein was one of only three US attorneys among 93 to be kept on the job by the new president.

As US attorney, Rosenstein led successful prosecutions for leaks of classified information, corruption, murders, and burglaries. But he is best known after being confirmed 94-6 by the U.S. Senate as Deputy Attorney General for writing a damning 1000 word letter to President Trump in which he excoriated James Comey’s action in the Clinton email investigation. Trump after receiving Rosenstein’s letter famously fired FBI Director Comey.

All know Rosenstein appointed Muller as Special Counsel in the Russian collusion investigation of the Trump Campaign. Since that appointment, Rosenstein has lived in constant turmoil as his actions in that case and others receive political assaults from both Houses of Congress for various reasons. The normal even-tempered deputy attorney general has blustered in Congressional hearings at the seemingly non-stop partisan drilling he has received from committee members. There have been many partisan calls for his impeachment for various reasons that have so far resulted in no action. (more about Rosenstein in our Summary below)

Robert Mueller

Mueller like Comey has a long, documented professional history. We have documented in several previous stories various chapters of his “speckled” past. Rather than repeat that here, please follow these links to get the “rest of the story” on Mueller. Then we will bring this all together with the shocking truth of where America stands with these three guys: the “Three Amigos.”

http://truthnewsnet.org/robert-mueller-who-is-he/

The “Three Amigos”

There is a longtime relationship between the Amigos who have been tasked with investigating President Trump, under the narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller go even further back.

James Comey wasn’t just an associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey’s go-to guy when he needed help. The two men, as it came to light years later, together disobeyed potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated in March of 2004.

Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein became close.

We look back at Rosenstein’s loyal work for Hillary Clinton when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He allegedly covered for the Team Bill Clinton, including for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Not surprisingly, no indictments were filed.

Rosenstein was appointed to work in the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then-President Bill Clinton. The Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rosenstein had help from his co-worker James Comey, who worked to see the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.

Mueller seemed to be shepherding Rosenstein and Comey, leading them in careers along the way. Knowing the close personal and legal relationships between these three, it should come as no surprise that once Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out to his old mentor for help. And it should have surprised no one when three of the top federal attorneys from the past find themselves together in a questionable quest to find wrongdoing by President Trump. But it surprised many.

Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Intelligence Communities. She works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebelius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times between 1991 and 2017.

Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, but many of the documents from the Court Dockets relating to these cases have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including records of her representation for Clinton in 1998’s case Hamburg. V. Clinton.

The “Three Amigos” have surprisingly obvious conflicts of interest in their past and current investigatory responsibilities. Mueller even acted as a delivery boy for Hillary’s State Department, hand transporting ten grams of highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. Was it a coincidence that this happened at the same time as Hillary and her associate John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America’s proven uranium reserves? Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of dollars from Russian donors.

Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller are truly the “Three Amigos” of the Deep State. Only time will show us what their true intentions were in the FBI investigation of the Clinton email server and the current investigation of the Trump Campaign. But from historical interactions between the three, it is almost certain the three are working in tandem for whatever their objectives in these investigations may be.

Summary

Here’s the Grand Finale of all this: Robert Mueller’s appointment by Rod Rosenstein as Special Counsel violates the law!

Here is the Special Counsel law used to appoint Mueller:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and –

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

There are multiple sleazy actions taken by the Mueller team — obviously with the approval of Rosenstein — in this action.
  • There was no criminal investigation underway by the FBI and no evidence of criminal activity;
  • Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller stated the following:

“The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.”

Here’s the problem with this: according to the law shown above, a Special Counsel can be appointed when “he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” A criminal matter worth investigating was NOT the predicate for Mueller’s appointment!

And it gets even deeper. Remember that Rosenstein wrote another memo later that was hidden from public view for a long time? That memo was to amend the first appointment memo quoted above to allow Mueller to investigate things that were not shown to be criminal. The problem is that the Special Counsel law was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. No member of the Justice Department or any agency of the Government has authority to change any duly passed law or even amend its stated purpose without Congressional approval.

Rosenstein had NO authority to appoint Mueller in the first place. Why? The FBI investigation under Comey had unearthed NOTHING that could be considered a criminal action. And Rosenstein’s second memo written to Mueller to try and justify his illegal initial appointment further proved the wrongdoing.

What will this mean in the long run?

This is my opinion only, but I think the facts of this illegal appointment will result in the entire Mueller investigation, its indictments of those Russians, the guilty pleas of Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos will be thrown out. And further, I believe that any of the actions taken by Mueller against Paul Manafort that may result in a conviction will be ruled void. Why? “The fruit of the poison tree.” The very foundation of the Mueller Investigation was invalid, illegal, and uncalled for.

There are several sad things about this debacle: General Michael Flynn was virtually blackmailed into his guilty plea. He was interviewed by Peter Strozk but was not represented by his attorney during the interview and was not under oath. He pled guilty to keep his son from being charged. FBI agents later said they did not feel he told any untruth during that interview!

Papadopoulos was pretty much trapped in a similar scenario. And Paul Manafort is being nailed to a tree for actions taken a decade ago regarding financial matters that Rosenstein and others at the time these were discovered decided they were not worth charging Manafort back then!

What are all these people actually guilty of? Supporting Donald Trump, and nothing more.

The “Three Amigos” are leaving a black mark on the history of the greatest law enforcement department in the World by bending the law and railroading good people. No matter the outcome, we are seeing the Deep State attacking the fabric of the American Justice System like happens only in third-world countries.

How will this end?

Play

“Truth” On The Way

We at www.TruthNewsNet.org have been silent for two days. It’s not because we have been on vacation. It’s because we have been exhaustively researching instances of Obstruction of Justice, violated federal statutes, and those who face certain federal charges for Obstruction for numerous infractions under the law during the last two years. We bring those to you in tomorrow’s story and podcast titled “The Truth” at www.TruthNewsNet.org. It will shock and appall you at how rampant Obstruction has become and who is guilty. Check it out first thing tomorrow!

Lady Liberty is No Longer Blind

We all have examples of law enforcement favoritism we have seen play out in our lives over time. Most are quickly explained by “someone knew someone in the police force who looked the other way,” or “he knew the brother of the judge who made a phone call,” or similar other innocuous examples. But all do NOT fall into the “innocuous” category. And it seems criminal justice and prosecutions are becoming more and more driven by who the principals are, their political power, and their political connections. Case in point: Hillary Clinton.

Connected

Questions about Hillary run-ins with the law started early in her political career. In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Clinton had become the First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery.

Clinton had no experience in such financial instruments. Bill Clinton’s salary as Arkansas Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas was modest and Clinton later said she had been interested in building a financial cushion for the future. The Clintons’ combined income in 1978 from the governorship and Rose Law Firm amounted to $51,173, equivalent to $192,000 in 2017. James Blair was a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas’ largest employer, and had been doing so well trading commodities futures that he encouraged friends and family to enter the market too. Blair in turn traded through and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. “Red” Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive and professional poker player who was a World Series of Poker semifinalist.  In October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor, Clinton opened a trading account, although Blair made most of the trades.

By January 1979, Clinton was up $26,000; but later, she would lose $16,000 in a single trade. At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her. Near the end of her trading, Blair correctly predicted a market downturn and sold short, giving her a $40,000 gain in one afternoon. In July 1979, once she became pregnant with Chelsea Clinton, “I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead.” She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc. During this period she made about $6,500 in gains, which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s. Once her daughter was born in February 1980, she moved all her commodities gains into U.S. Treasury Bonds.

This seemed to be too good to be true. But remember: even though this was at the beginning of Clinton Family political dynasty, this was “a Clinton.” Certainly, there was something amiss in this amazing financial accomplishment. And certainly, an investigation by authorities was necessary. There never was an official government investigation into, or findings of, or charges brought regarding Hillary Rodham’s cattle futures trading.

Hillary’s Broken Federal Laws

Below see the 11 actual federal laws broken by Hillary Clinton throughout her tenure as Secretary of State and also as a 2016 Presidential candidate. These are NOT possible violations — they actually occurred with evidence of those violations in public view.

U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information.

U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted….

U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency…..

U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress……

U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense.

Note: Greg Jarrett in his recently published book, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump,” Jarrett adds to the above list of federal offenses committed by Clinton 6 more violated statutes.

“Political” Criminal Justice

It is easy to make a case that Hillary’s career of escaping any prosecution for illegal activities was each fueled at least in part to her political career and that of her husband. But such is the case not only for past Secretaries of State and Presidents. Here’s a list of offenders who while political, never served in the White House:

  • Former FBI Director James Comey
  • Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
  • FBI Agent Peter Strozk
  • Former CIA Director John Brennan
  • Former director of the Department of National Intelligence James Clapper
  • Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
  • Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
  • Former President Bill Clinton
  • Former Clinton Advisor Huma Abedin
  • Former DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz
  • Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice
  • President Barack Obama

Barack Obama?!?!? Yes. It has recently come to light that President Obama — who stated he learned of Clinton’s use of a private email server only when the media released it — communicated via a secret Gmail email address that was his with Hillary numerous times while she was Secretary of State. Doing so was clearly a violation of U.S. Code § 798, which is a felony!

While there are others, this list is fairly comprehensive. Each of these has broken at least one of the federal statutes listed above. Several are guilty of violating multiple laws. Why have they NOT been charged and prosecuted?

It is a certainty that the only possible reason for none of these so far facing prosecution for their violations is a political covering that has been provided from someone (or several “someones”) in political positions that allow this to happen. There IS one commonality: they are all either Democrats or protected by powerful Democrats.

Does that mean there’s corruption in Washington D.C.? Surely it is not necessary to justify that question with an answer.

Does that mean Republicans are insulated from corruption? Absolutely not. In fact, the G.O.P. Establishment is rife with it. And this president has brought much of it (and more of Democrat corruption) to light than ever seen before. And THAT is why so many on the Left and those who number among the Republican Establishment so loathe Donald Trump.

How can he do it with such impunity? He owes no one in D.C. And that makes him distinctly different and so difficult for the corrupt in the Swamp to deal with.

Summary

What happens next is still up for grabs. We have an Attorney General that so far seems powerless — at least publicly. Is Jeff Sessions part of the Swamp or is he quietly working behind the scenes to help “drain the Swamp?” What about those now 45,000 sealed federal indictments that have been issued since October of last year?

There’s a whole lot more to uncover in the changing Criminal Justice system in the U.S.

Stay with us: we’ll uncover some more and bring it to you shortly as our look at American Justice continues.

 

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Four

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER HIRED EXTREMELY BIASED ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS WHO WORKED TO STOP TRUMP’S ELECTION

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and NO Republicans. Sure, all attorneys likel have political views and that is not a problem so long as they do not affect their job. But not a single Republican was worthy of Mueller’s selection? Were there no establishment Republicans who wanted to join him in railroading President Trump?

Mueller’s hand-picked team of Democrats reveal political views that distinctly conflict with Trump and the conservative agenda, raising questions about Mueller’s bias and his ability to conduct a fair investigation. At least nine members of Mueller’s team made significant contributions to Democrats or Democratic campaigns, while none contributed to Trump’s campaign and only James Quarles contributed to Republicans in a drastically smaller amount than what he gave to Democrats.

Analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Goldstein, James Quarles, Elizabeth Prelogar, Greg Andres, Brandon Van Grack, Rush Atkinson, and Kyle Freeny all contributed over $50,000 in donations to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns, various Democratic non-presidential candidates, and the Democratic National Convention.

Mueller also has surprisingly strong personal ties to a number of the lawyers he hired. Three former partners with Mueller at the Boston law firm of WilmerHale are on the payroll: Aaron Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, and James Quarles.

In addition to strong personal ties to Mueller, many of the attorneys have potential conflicts in working for persons directly connected to the people and issues being investigated. Jeannie Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, ex-Obama National Security Adviser, and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit, as well as Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit probing her private emails.

Aaron Zebley, former Chief of Staff to Mueller while Director of the FBI, represented Justin Cooper in the Clinton email scandal as he was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server. He admitted to physically damaging Clinton’s old mobile devices.

Andrew Goldstein joined the team after working under major Trump critic Preet Bharara in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Bharara became a strong critic after Trump fired him as an Obama-holdover and spoke on ABC News that “there’s absolutely evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against Trump’s team with regard to the Russia probe.” Does he sound a bit prejudiced?

Andrew Weissman, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissman shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi.

Additionally, Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weisman was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans.

Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after more than 10,000 texts between him and former Mueller investigator Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. They were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming President and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected.

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

Michael Flynn is a man who was caught up in manufactured controversy from the moment he stepped into his role in the Trump administration. The circumstances surrounding his take-down have become one of the more puzzling aspects of the Trump- Russia investigation.

His career took him from three decades in the U.S. Army to overseeing the Pentagon’s military intelligence operation and directing the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was more than qualified to act as the first national security adviser in a new administration. However, his influence and zeal made him a clear target for the Trump-Russia investigation. As a strong supporter and friend of Donald Trump’s from the onset, he campaigned and publicly supported then-candidate Trump throughout 2016.

As best I can sort it out through the media hype and hysteria, having no first-hand knowledge like the rest of America: after the successful election, during the transition period, in December 2016, Flynn reportedly conversed with a Russian ambassador. He was “accidentally” swept up in an intelligence foreign surveillance recording. When this happens, the names of American citizens are supposed to be masked in the transcripts. Somehow Flynn’s name was magically unmasked, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations.

Parts of the classified transcript of that conversation were leaked to the media by rogue Deep State law breakers (criminals who Mueller seems completely disinterested in). This appears to be what fueled the media-driven narrative of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia because Flynn had a discussion with a Russian ambassador, which conversation is absolutely legal and advisable.

A media-generated doubt clouded Flynn’s reputation, as the discussion was long- reported as having taken place during the campaign (which could possibly be illegal) but was later proven to have been after the election and during the transition which should not have been illegal. After a complete pounding of media-driven hysteria, in mid-February of 2017, Flynn resigned having served only 23 days as National Security Advisor. Mueller targeted Flynn using illicitly-gathered and leaked foreign intelligence and surveillance as evidence.

Nine months later after Flynn and his family were subjected to Mueller’s usual threats and intimidation, a financially exhausted Flynn entered a guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI—the result of a Mueller-technique perjury trap as was used on Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart.

What is Flynn guilty of? He apparently misremembered a conversation that took place 33 days previously? The FBI had a transcript of that conversation and already knew what information was there. They went into a conversation with Flynn not seeking answers to questions, but to try to trip him up on exact statements made in a conversation when they were already in possession of the transcript. Flynn’s unmasking has become the center of a controversy wherein those transcripts were procured under exceedingly questionable circumstances before a judge who had a questionable and undisclosed relationship with part of Mueller’s team. That judge was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secretive court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows federal law enforcement to seek secretive warrants to surveil foreign persons outside of the United States who are suspected of terrorism.

But the Obama administration and Mueller seemed to find it much more politically expedient to use the secret court to go after Americans who were part of the Trump team for actions that did not occur while they were part of the Trump campaign team. Strange goings-on. One could argue that Judge Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, conveniently misremembered that he also served on the FISA court as a judge and conveniently misremembered his friendship with the FBI agent whose interview was used as evidence against Flynn.

As it turns out, the FBI interview notes of that very encounter with Flynn may exonerate Michael Flynn, crushing Mueller’s case against him, not to mention the highly questionable hearing before a judge who may well have been recused much too late to save the Flynn prosecution.

A FISA JUDGE TOO CLOSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS INVOLVED

The FISA-authorized FISC is built upon the principle that highly delicate cases dealing with government surveillance of foreign agents and officials would be handled in an unbiased and respectful environment where secrecy at all costs was critical. There is supposed to be an added precaution to prevent any potential for bias in a FISA Judge by having a rotation of judges. That is why it is such a shock to find out now that Mueller’s case against Michael Flynn would happen to end up before the “randomly selected” very dear close personal friend of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who hated President Trump with a passion, as evidenced in his text messages with colleague and paramour, Lisa Page.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, or “Rudy” as Strzok likes to refer to him, should have recused himself from such a highly sensitive case involving the ultimate attempted removal of the duly-elected President of the United States who happened to be despised by the very people who by law were required to prosecute with fairness. He was later forced to ‘recuse’ himself and be removed from the Flynn proceedings, without public explanation. This forced recusal was an unmistakable indication that he never should have been involved in the Michael Flynn plea agreement. Judge Contreras’ conflict of interest has yet to be explained by the court.

Contreras’ is one of only three local FISA court judges, and by default, is likely one of the judges who have on four occasions approved the Title I surveillance of another character in this melodrama, Carter Page. This is the case where the FBI is known to have intentionally misled the FISA court by using as evidence the illustrious “Steele Dossier,” a sordid opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Oh, what a tangled web of crime Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team appears to have helped weave, and of which Mueller appears to be completely disinterested, all while he searches high and low for an elusive crime to pin on the President.

MUELLER IGNORES APPARENTLY PROVABLE CRIMES INVOLVING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISA COURT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES

Strategically timed leaks of selective classified information are being used to target individuals for investigation in order to create the appearance of some sinister crime having been committed. Upon closer scrutiny, the cases fall apart. Yet, slam dunk federal criminal cases of leaking classified material are going on under Mueller’s nose, and by those within his purview and his team. When we think of all the leaks from Mueller’s investigation, it brings to mind Wilford Brimley’s quote from Absence of Malice: “You call what’s goin’ on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.”

Case in point: Eric Prince.

As Lee Smith put it in a recent article from TabletMag.com, Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up:

News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover-up…

Mueller is said to believe that the Prince meeting was to set up a back channel with the Kremlin. But that makes no sense. According to the foundational text of the collusion narrative, the dossier allegedly written by former British spy Christopher Steele, the Kremlin had cultivated Trump himself for years. So what’s the purpose of a back channel, when Vladimir Putin already had a key to the front door of Mar-a-Lago? Further, the collusion thesis holds that the Trump circle teamed with high-level Russian officials for the purpose of winning the 2016 election. How does a meeting that Erik Prince had a week before Trump’s inauguration advance the crooked election victory plot? It doesn’t—it contradicts it.

The writer goes on to point out that serious crimes have been committed that Mueller is purposefully ignoring.

Prince was thrown into the middle of Russiagate after an April 3, 2017, Washington Post story reported his meeting with the Russian banker. But how did anyone know about the meeting?

After the story came out, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that the information was swept up in the collection of electronic communications and his identity was unmasked. The US official or officials who gave his name to the Post broke the law when they leaked classified intelligence. “Unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].”

Prince’s name was unmasked and leaked from classified signals intelligence. Oddly enough, it’s the same modus operandi used in the targeting of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It is a federal felony to publish leaked classified information. Ask WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about that particular unequal application of the law. The Deep State felons who are strategically leaking this information have politically weaponized our justice system and should be brought up on charges of high treason for their attempts, with malice of forethought, to manufacture the overthrow of a duly- elected President of the United States.

The leaks and publication of classified information alone warrant investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law in this matter, yet Mueller is uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of the supposed justification of his investigative mandate. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of this Russia “collusion” case, Robert Mueller, has perfected the art of abuse of the justice system for personal and political gain. He is uninterested in any criminal activity that does not further his cause of damaging this President. If you think that is harsh, consider the criminality of the FISA court abuses by the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.

We have all heard ad nauseum about the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign that was used to manufacture the Russia collusion narrative and spark what became the Mueller investigation into our President. On June 18, 2017, Muller protégé and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Clinton campaign-funded document, telling Congress that the document was, “salacious and unverified.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295)

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, created a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to allow secret warrants to surveil agents of foreign governments, be they U.S. citizens or non-U.S. actors. In October of 2016, the Obama DOJ/FBI successfully applied for one of these secret warrants to surveil Carter Page, a short-time Trump campaign volunteer. Since these warrants against U.S. citizens are outside of the bounds of the Constitution, they have to be renewed by applying to the court every 90 days after the first warrant application is approved. These secret warrants are so serious they have to be signed off on at the highest levels. The applications in question would have been signed off on by Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials including then FBI Director James Comey. At least one of the renewal applications would have been signed off on by our current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At the time of signing, they all would have had the knowledge and/or the professional and legal duty to know that the dossier was used as evidence and also had the legal duty to know the evidence origins. The same would apply to the knowledge of the penalty for submitting unverified information to the FISC for the purpose of obtaining a warrant. It is a crime to submit under the color of law an application to the FISC that contains unverified information. 50 U.S. Code § 1809 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1809]

Comey’s “salacious and unverified” testimony before the Senate occurred eight months after the Clinton campaign-funded dossier was used in the first successful FISA court application to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer for several months. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence examined the documentation submitted to the court and concluded that the unverified information contained in the Steele dossier was in fact used in the FISC application, without disclosing to the court that it was an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials. The timing of the applications, the inclusion of material the DOJ/FBI knew to be unverified at the time, and the successful result after this fraudulent inclusion speak to the level of criminal corruption of those who sought to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and still seek to destroy his subsequent Presidency when their initial efforts failed. The widespread abuse of the FISA-authorized court, FISC, was laid bare in a court memorandum of review of these abuses that was declassified in 2017 that went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

These are serious crimes that, left unchecked, lead nations down the path to tyranny at the hands of people who think they know better than we do what is best for us. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to keep us from experiencing.

The FISC judges themselves have a duty to police their own courts and call to account these bad actors who, by all facts in the documentation I’ve personally seen, have committed a fraud upon the court. If these judges do not have the integrity to self-police in this matter, we in Congress must hold them accountable. using the power granted to us in the Constitution, Congress has created every single federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. We have the duty to phase out, then disband the FISC, while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. We have got to clean up the mess that the Obama administration showed is far too easy to create.

If you want answers, and you CAN handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has undertaken in this entire investigation.

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Three

This story — now beginning its “third chapter” — is being relayed to TruthNewsNet.org by Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert. Congressman Gohmert has an extensive past as a criminal attorney, a judge, and now a longtime member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also has extensive personal interactions with Robert Mueller when Director of the FBI. Gohmert serves on the House Judiciary Committee that holds oversight of the U.S. Intelligence community as one of its highest priorities. It is in that setting that Congressman Gohmert has obtained a detailed and accurate understanding of Robert Mueller as a man, as an attorney, as an FBI Director, and now as Special Counsel in the Russia/Trump Campaign “collusion” investigation that remains ongoing.

If you have not read or listened to Parts One and Two of this story, please do so before reading or listening to Part Three. Doing so will give you a greater understanding of Mr. Mueller.

Tomorrow we will wrap this story up. But our wrapping it up will NOT end it — Mueller is still trying to find something — ANYTHING AT ALL — to use to attack President Trump. Maybe after these four chapters about Robert Mueller, the professional inside interactions between Mueller and Congressman Gohmert, and your own interpretation of Mueller’s actions, you will be able to form informed and objective determinations of the Truth in this “Mueller Matter.”

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

In 2003, during yet another fabricated and politically-charged FBI investigation, this one “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valery Plame’s identity to the media. Robert Mueller’s very dear close friend James Comey was at the time serving as the Deputy Attorney General. Comey convinced then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that he should recuse himself from the Plame investigation. At the time, Ashcroft was in the hospital. After Deputy A.G. Comey was successful in securing Ashcroft’s recusal, Comey then got to choose the Special Counsel. He then looked about for someone who was completely independent of any relationships that might affect his independence and settled upon his own child’s godfather and named Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the source of the leak. So much for the independence of the Special Counsel.

The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called apolitical, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything. Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller, and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver.

Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-Comey- Special Counsel distinctive modus-operandi. Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report in 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/judith-miller-scooter-libby- and-the-trouble-with-special-prosecutors/]

“… By the time Scooter Libby was tried in 2007, it wasn’t for anything to do with the Plame leak — everyone then knew Armitage had taken responsibility for that — but for lying to federal officials about what he had said to three reporters, including Miller. It is relating to this part of the story that an extraordinary new piece of information has come to light. After her spell in prison, and with her job on the line, Miller was eventually worn down to agree to hand over some redacted portions of notes of her few conversations with Libby. Several years on, she could no longer recall where she had first heard of Plame’s CIA identity, but her notes included a reference to Wilson alongside which the journalist had added in brackets ‘wife works in Bureau?’ After Fitzgerald went through these notes it was put to Miller that this showed that the CIA identity of Plame had been raised by Libby during the noted meeting. At Libby’s trial, Miller was the only reporter to state that Libby had discussed Plame. His conviction and his sentencing to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, rested on this piece of evidence.

But Miller has just published her memoirs. One detail in particular stands out. Since the Libby trial, Miller has read Plame’s own memoir and there discovered that Plame had worked at a State Department bureau as cover for her real CIA role. The discovery, in Miller’s words, ‘left her cold’. The idea that the ‘Bureau’ in her notebook meant ‘CIA’ had been planted in her head by Fitzgerald. It was a strange word to use for the CIA. Reading Plame’s memoir, Miller realized that ‘Bureau’ was in brackets because it related to her work at State Department. (Emphasis added) What that means is that Scooter Libby had not lied as she originally thought and testified. He was innocent of everything including the contrived offense. For his honesty and innocence, Scooter Libby spent time behind bars and still has a federal felony conviction he carries like an albatross.

The real culprit of the allegation for which the Special Counsel was appointed and massive amounts of taxpayer dollars expended was Richard Armitage. A similar technique was used against Martha Stewart. After all, Mueller’s FBI developed both cases. If the desired crime to be prosecuted was never committed, then talk to someone you want to convict until you find something that others are willing to say was not true. Then you can convict them of lying to the FBI. Martha Stewart found out about Mueller’s FBI the hard way. Unfortunately, Mueller has left a wake of innocent people whom he has crowned with criminal records.

History does seem to repeat itself when it is recording the same people using the same tactics. Can anyone who has ever actually looked at Robert Mueller’s history honestly say that Mueller deserves a sterling reputation in law enforcement? One part of his reputation he does apparently deserve is the reputation for being James Comey’s mentor.

MUELLER’S ‘COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’ WITH DOJ ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS OF TERRORISM

In 2011, in one of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly testified during questioning by various Members about how the Muslim community was just like every other religious community in the United States. He also referenced an “Outreach Program” the FBI had with the Muslim community. When it was my turn to question, I could not help but put the two points of his testimony together for a purge question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haayF4jmthU ]

GOHMERT: Thank you, Director. I see you had mentioned earlier, and it’s in your written statement, that the FBI’s developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities and in answer to an earlier question I understood you to say that you know Muslim communities were like all other communities, so I’m curious as the result of the extensive outreach program the FBI’s had to the Muslim community, how is your outreach program going with the Baptists and the Catholics?

MUELLER: I’m not certain of, necessarily the rest of that, the question I would say — there is outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

GOHMERT: Well do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, the Jewish community, agnostics or is it just an extensive outreach program to –

MUELLER: We have outreach to every one of those communities.

GOHMERT: And how do you do that?

MUELLER: Every one of those communities can be affected can be affected by facts or circumstance.

GOHMERT: I’ve looked extensively, and I haven’t seen anywhere in anyone from the FBI’s letters, information that there’s been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

MUELLER: I would say if you look at one of our more effective tools or what we call citizens academies where we bring in individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the office operates . . . look at the citizens’ academy, the persons here, they are a cross- section of the community, they can be Muslim, could be Indian, they can be Baptists –

GOHMERT: Okay but no specific programs to any of those. You have extensive outreach to the Muslim community and then you have a program of outreach to communities, in general, is what it sounds like.

(Congressman Louie Gohmert)

We went further in the questioning. The 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, linked the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Because of this affiliation, the FBI issued policy and guidance to restrict its non-investigative interactions with CAIR in an effort to limit CAIR’s ability to exploit contacts with the FBI. As a result, FBI field offices were instructed to cut ties with all local branches of CAIR across the country.

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation?

MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to specific information in a particular case. I would tell you on the other hand that we do not –

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the case, Director? [CROSSTALK]MUELLER: – relationship with CAIR because of concerns –

GOHMERT: Well I’ve got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence – talking about during the trial – evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine committee, evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, he says, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and FBI. Well now it’s my understanding, and I’ve got documentation, and I hope you’ve seen this kind of documentation before, it’s public record, and also the memo order from the judge in turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be eliminated from the list, and he says the FBI’s information is clear there is a tie here, and I’m not going to grant the deletion of these particular parties as unindicted co-conspirators. So, I’m a little surprised that you’re reluctant to discuss something that’s already been set out in an order, that’s already been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this trial. I’m just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had, being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships with CAIR that it (the FBI) had that showed going back to the 1993 meeting in Philadelphia, what was tied to a terrorist organization. So, I welcome your comments about that.

MUELLER: As I told you before, we have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership on that.

What Director Mueller was intentionally deceptive about was that the FBI had apparently maintained a relationship and even “community partnership” instigated on his watch with CAIR and other groups and individuals that his FBI had evidence showing they were co-conspirators to terrorism. That, of course, is consistent with his misrepresentation that Mueller’s FBI had outreach programs to other religious communities just like they did with the Muslim community. They did not. He was not honest about it.

In a March 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) questioned Mueller over the FBI move to cut off contact with CAIR. Mueller responded to Kyl’s pressing over how the policy was to be handled by FBI field offices and headquarters with the following: [https://www.investigativeproject.org/1242/fbi-director-vague-on-cair-freeze]

MUELLER: We try to adapt, when we have situations where we have an issue with one or more individuals, as opposed to the institution, or an institution, large, to identify the specificity of those particular individuals or issues that need to be addressed. We will generally have — individuals may have some maybe leaders in the community who we have no reason to believe whatsoever are involved in terrorism, but may be affiliated, in some way, shape or form, with an institution about which there is some concern, and which we have to work out a separate arrangement. We have to be sensitive to both the individuals, as well as the organization and try to resolve the issues that may prevent us from working with a particular organization.

KYL: They try to “adapt” with members of terror-related groups? Are they as “sensitive” with other organizations? Do they work out “separate arrangements” with members of, say, the Mafia or the Ku Klux Klan for “community outreach”? Why the special treatment for radical Islamic terrorism?

A March 2012 review of FBI field office compliance with this policy by the Office of Inspector General found a discrepancy between the FBI’s enforcement policy restricting contact and interaction with CAIR and its resulting actions. Rather than FBI headquarters enforcing the rules, they hedged. Mueller set up a separate cover through the Office of Public Affairs and allowed them to work together, despite the terrorist connections. That was the cultivated atmosphere of Mueller’s FBI.

The DOJ actually set out in writing in an indictment that CAIR and some of the people Mueller was coddling were supporters of terrorism. I had understood that the plan by the Bush Justice Department was that if they got convictions of the principals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, they would come right back after the co-conspirators who were named in the indictment as co-conspirators but who were not formally indicted.

In late 2008, the DOJ got convictions against all those formally indicted, so DOJ could then move forward with formally indicting and convicting the rest—EXCEPT that the November 2008 election meant it was now going to be the Obama DOJ with Eric Holder leading. The newly-named but not confirmed Attorney General apparently made clear they were not going to pursue any of the named co-conspirators. That itself was a major loss for the United States in its war against terrorism in the Obama administration. It was a self-inflicted refusal to go after and defeat our enemies. All of the named co-conspirators would not likely have been formally indicted, but certainly there was evidence to support the allegations against some of them, as the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had formally found.

One of the problems with FBI Director Mueller is that he had already been cozying up to named co-conspirators with evidence in hand of their collusion with terrorists. That probably was an assurance to President Obama and Attorney General Holder that Mueller would fit right into the Obama administration. He did. It also helps explain why President Obama and AG Holder wanted him to serve and an extra two years as FBI Director. Mueller was their kind of guy. Unfortunately for America, he truly was!

PURGING THE FBI TRAINING MATERIALS

We repeatedly see cases where people were radicalized, came on the FBI radar, but the federal agents were looking for Islamophobes, not the terrorists standing in front of them. That is because Mueller’s demand of his FBI Agents, in the New Age to which he brought them, was to look for Islamophobes. If a Mueller-trained FBI agent got a complaint about a potential radical Islamist who may pose a threat, the agent must immediately recognize that the one complaining is most likely an Islamophobe. That means the agent should first investigate whether the complainant is guilty of a hate crime.

Too often it was AFTER an attack occurred that Mueller-trained FBI agents would decide that there really was a radical Islamic threat to the United States. The blinding of our FBI agents to the domestic threat of radical Islam is part of the beguiling damage Robert Mueller did as FBI Director. That is also the kind of damage that got Americans killed, even though Mueller may have avoided offending the radical Islamists who were killing Americans. As terrorism expert Patrick Poole continually points out in his “Known Wolf” series, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are committed by those the FBI has interviewed and dismissed as a threat. Here are three of the more high-profile cases: [https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/09/28/known-wolf-terrorism-a-dozen-cases-of-fbi-failure-on- obamas-watch/]

ORLANDO: The mass killer who attacked the Pulse nightclub in June 2016, Omar Mateen, had been interviewed by the FBI on THREE separate occasions. The open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months after Mateen had told others about mutual acquaintances he shared with the Boston bombers and had made extremist statements. He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point, Mateen was placed on TWO separate terrorism databases. He was later removed from them.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit- bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing an underwear bomb intended to murder them all. He was well-known to U.S. intelligence officials before he boarded.

Only one month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had actually gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers. He directly told the CIA that he was concerned about his son’s extremism. Abdulmutallab’s name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database. However, his name was not added to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database. Or even the no-fly list. So, he boarded a plane.

When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and these missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.” The only “system” that worked in this incident: a culture that values bravery, already instilled in the passengers who acted.

BOSTON: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off. Twice. Russian intelligence warned that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.”

Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan. They later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the United States. But Tsarnaev’s name was misspelled when it was entered into the database. An internal FBI report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case — unsurprisingly — saw the FBI exonerate itself.

When I asked at yet another House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Mueller himself admitted in response to my questioning, that the FBI had indeed gone to the Boston mosque the bombers attended. Of course, The FBI did not go to investigate the Tsarnaevs.

The bombers’ mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston, was incorporated by known and convicted terrorists. The incorporation papers were signed by none other than Abduram Al-Amoudi who is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison for funding terrorism. One of the members of the Board of Trustees included a leader of the International Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qawadari, who is barred from entering the United States due to his terrorist ties. Did Mueller’s FBI go to the Boston bombers’ mosque to investigate the Tsarnaevs? This is from the House Judiciary oversight hearing transcript: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/113-32-81462-1.pdf

GOHMERT: The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks. If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you find out the name Al-Amoudi, which you will remember, because while you were FBI Director this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism. This is the guy that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosque? And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They may attend here. Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?

MUELLER: Your facts are not altogether——

GOHMERT: Point out specifically.

MUELLER: May I finish my——

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts.

“Outreach efforts”? Yes. That is apparently Mueller’s efforts to play figurative patty- cake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got the assurance that Mueller’s FBI is after those bigots. Maybe they sat around on the floor and had a really nice meal together. One thing for certain, they weren’t asking about the Tsarnaevs! But the hearing got even worse:

GOHMERT: Were you aware that those mosques were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. I’ve answered the question, sir.

GOHMERT. You didn’t answer the question. Were you aware that they were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. No.

Then my time for questioning expired, leaving many questions unanswered. Why was the FBI unaware of the origins of the mosque attended by the Boston bombers? This was arguably the most traumatic Islamic terrorist attack in America since 9-11 because the explosions happened on live television at the Boston Marathon. When did the FBI become an outreach-to-terrorism organization to the detriment and disregard of its investigations? Under Director Robert Mueller’s tenure, that’s when!

In Director Mueller’s efforts to appease and please the named co-conspirators of terrorism, he was keenly attuned to their complaints that the FBI training materials on radical Islam said some things about Islamic terrorists that offended some Muslims. Never mind that the main offense was done to the American people by radical Islamists who wanted to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Mueller wanted to make these co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease.

Director Mueller had all of the training materials regarding radical Islam “purged” of anything that might offend radical Islamic terrorists. So, in addition to using his “Five Year Up-or-Out” policy to force out so many experienced FBI agents who had been properly trained to identify radical Islamic terrorists, now Mueller was going even further. He was ensuring that new FBI agents would not know what to look for when assessing potentially radicalized individuals.

When some of us in Congress learned of the Mueller-mandated “purge” of FBI training materials, we demanded to see what was being removed. Unfortunately, Mueller was well experienced in covering his tracks, so naturally, the pages of training materials that were purged were ordered to be “classified,” so most people would never get to see them. After many terrorist attacks, we would hear that the FBI had the Islamic terrorists on their radar but failed to identify them. Now you are beginning to see why FBI agents could not spot them. They were looking more at the complainant than they were at the radical Islamist because that is what Mueller had them trained to do.

Michele Bachmann and I were extremely upset that Americans were being killed because of the terribly flawed training. We demanded to see the material that was “purged” from the training of FBI agents regarding radical Islam. That is when we were told it could not be sent over for review because the purged material was “classified.” We were authorized to review classified material, so we demanded to see it anyway. We were willing to go over to the FBI office or the DOJ, but we wanted to review the material. We were told they would bring it over and let us review it in the Rayburn Building in a protected setting. They finally agreed to produce the material. Members of Congress Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, and I went to the little room to review the vast amount of material. Lynn was not able to stay as long as Michele and I did, but we started pouring through the notebooks of materials.

It was classified so naturally I am not allowed to disclose any specifics, but we were surprised at the amount of material that was purged from training our agents. Some of the items that were strictly for illustration or accentuation were removed. A few were silly. But some should clearly have been left in if an FBI agent was going to know how and what a radical Islamic terrorist thinks, and what milestone had been reached in the radicalization process. It was clear to Michele and me as we went through the purged materials that some of the material really did need to be taught to our FBI agents.

For those densely-headed or radical activists who will wrongly proclaim that what I am writing is an Islamophobic complaint, please note that I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have never said that because all Muslims are NOT terrorists. But for the minority who are, we have to actually learn exactly what they study and learn how they think.

As Patton made clear after defeating Rommel’s tanks in World War II, he studied his enemy, what he believed and how he thought. In the movie, “Patton,” he loudly proclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent ___, I read your book!” That is how an enemy is defeated. You study what they believe, how they think, what they know. Failure to do so is precisely why so many “Known Wolves” are able to attack us. Clearly, Mueller weakened our ability to recognize a true radical Islamic terrorist. As one of my friends in our U.S. Intelligence said, “We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy! You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot define.” Robert Mueller deserves a significant amount of the credit for the inability of our federal agents to define our enemy.

PURGING THE ADVANCED COUNTER-TERRORISM AGENTS’ TRAINING MATERIALS

FBI Special Agent Kim Jensen had spent a great deal of his adult life studying radical Islam. He is personally responsible for some extraordinary undercover work that remains classified to this day. He was tasked with putting together a program to train our more experienced FBI agents to locate and identify radicalized Muslims on the threshold of violence. Jensen had done this well before Mueller began to cozy up with and pander to groups such as CAIR.

Complaints by similar groups caused Mueller to once again demand that our agents could not be properly instructed on radical Islam. Accordingly, Jensen’s approximately 700-pages of advanced training material on radical Islam were eliminated from FBI training and all copies were ordered destroyed. When Director Mueller decides he wants our federal agents to be blind and ignorant of radical Islam, they are indeed going to be blind and ignorant. Fortunately, in changing times well after Mueller’s departure as FBI Director, a new request went out to Mr. Jensen to recreate that work because at least someone in the FBI needed to know what traits to look for in a terrorist. It still did not undo the years of damage from Mueller’s commanded ignorance of radical Islam.

MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Robert Mueller had more than one direct conflict of interest that should have prohibited him from serving as the Special Counsel to investigate President Donald Trump. For one thing, President Trump fired his close friend and confidante, disgraced FBI Director James Comey. Mueller had long served as a mentor to Comey, who would most certainly be a critical witness in any investigation of Donald Trump. Mueller and Comey had also been exceedingly close friends beyond the mentor relationship. But Comey’s insertion of himself into so much of the election cycle and even its aftermath in conversations he had with the President himself made him a critical witness in the investigation. There is no way Mueller could sit in judgment of his dear, close friend’s credibility, and certainly no way he should be allowed to do so.

Gregg Jarrett explained one aspect of this situation quite clearly and succinctly at FoxNews.com in an article titled, “Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘Colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?” A portion of that article said the following:

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a “conflict of interest.” Even the appearance of a conflict is disallowed.

The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict. That is, “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” (28 CFR 45.2). Comey is that person. He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation. In fact, the former Director is the only other person involved. There were no witnesses beyond himself. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice. Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself. The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language. It does not say “may” or “can” or “might”. It says the special counsel “shall” recuse himself in such instances.

An excellent post by Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey. Byron York, the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/gregg-jarrett-are-muller-and-comey-now- acting-in-concert-as-co-special-counsel.html]

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mueller’s conflict of interest is and was his role in the investigation of Russia’s effort to illegally gain control of a substantial part of United States’ precious supply of uranium. That investigation was taking place within the Mueller FBI, which should have had a direct effect on prohibiting Secretary of State Clinton from participating in the approval of the uranium sale into the hands that were ultimately the Russian government.

Of course, then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein had direct control over that Russia- uranium investigation in conjunction with FBI Director Mueller. It certainly appears that with what they had gleaned from that undercover investigation, they should never have been involved in any subsequent investigation that might touch on potential collusion and millions of dollars paid to Clinton’s foundation by the very beneficiaries of the Russians’ uranium schemes. Rosenstein and Mueller’s failure to warn against or stop the sale reeks of its own form of collusion, cooperation, or capitulation in what some consider a treasonous sale.

Quite the interesting little duo now in charge of all things investigatory surrounding their own actions. In fact, Rosenstein and Mueller are now in a position to dissuade others from pursuing THEM for their own conduct.

Play
WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com