ANTIFA: America’s Own Domestic Terrorists

Wait a Minute: am I saying ANTIFA, that 100-year-old watchdog group that ferrets out Nazis and exposes them are really Domestic Terrorists? That’s exactly what I am saying!

And not just me, but the eyes and ears of millions of Americans have been opened to the realities of ANTIFA. And ANTIFA realities are opposite those relayed through their name, which means “anti-fascist.”

We saw them “demonstrating” in Portland last year, at Berkeley, Charlottesville, and other cities across the nation. Every time a “Free Speech” rally is announced pretty much anywhere in the U.S., ANTIFA leaders file for a demonstration permit for those events, show up, and do NOTHING at all peaceful. They are there for one purpose and one purpose only: to attack the “Free Speech” rally demonstrators and speakers AND police! That’s right: ANTIFA goes after cops.

ANTIFA is anything BUT peaceful. They cloak their real identities in their name, which stands for “Anti Fascist,” and expose their real purpose by almost in unison wearing masks at these public events. (Why masks? So to prevent their identities being exposed by the media) Think about this: If an organization that lashes out against Fascism shows up at a rally to peacefully protest against Fascism, why would they wear masks? The answer to that question is simple: ANTIFA’s purposes are identical to those of World War II fascists in Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other European countries that Hitler’s fascist Nazi armies invaded.

Wow! We all thought they were AGAINST fascism, right? Brutal Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini was the father of Fascism. To understand what it is, let’s turn to its creator. Mussolini himself explained it:

“…Fascism is the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism. The materialist conception of the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic concept of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.

…Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of ‘happiness’ and indefinite progress. The foundation of Fascism is the concept of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….

…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone…”

I suggest you take a few moments to read that explanation by the father of Fascism again, and maybe one more time.

The Players

Most have seen snippets of the rallies referenced in our opening in which ANTIFA members show up to take on those who set up the rallies. Those rallies have almost exclusively been to promote Free Speech and First Amendment rights. ANTIFA shows up to “demonstrate,” and their demonstrations always turn into violent confrontations with rally supporters and even the police.

Ask yourself this question: If ANTIFA members are really anti-fascist, why would they even demonstrate against organizers of these free speech rallies, speakers at rallies, and of course the police?

Another question: why do we not hear anything from the media who certainly are in full force at these rallies about ANTIFA initiating and perpetrating violence at these rallies — like in Portland, Berkeley, Charlottesville, New York, Philadelphia, and other major cities?

I’ll answer the second question: Mainstream Media purposefully ignores the violence and numerous arrests of attackers at these rallies and demonstrations. Why? Because telling and showing the truth would mean exposing ANTIFA for what really is their cause and who they really are. Even though ANTIFA dresses itself up as being against fascism, ANTIFA members are Fascists themselves who do nothing but carry out their real agenda: to destroy “liberty and justice for all,” and to implement control of the people by the likes of Mussolini and that “other” guy, Hitler.

Watch this video compilation (or listen to the audio) of ANTIFA rally footage, interviews with various ANTIFA members, and even Mainstream Media members:

UNDERCOVER IN ANTIFA: Their Tactics and Media Support Exposed!

Steven Crowder | Time to get personal here, Facebook. I, and the team at LouderWithCrowder need your help. This is by far the biggest video we've ever done. We've worked for months, tirelessly to infiltrate Antifa. You'll see not only how violent and premeditated their violence is… but how shocking the media silence is.All the footage is there! Antifa, on camera, handing my producer deadly weapons, discussing violent tactics. All of it is there, with more footage to come. We actually handed our footage over to local detectives who subsequently used it to assist some arrests. Officers, thank you for your service!But here's the real kicker. We offered the footage you see to multiple news sources. These reporters were there WHILE cops were confirming its authenticity, and they walked away! They chose not to cover any of it. This is not a conspiracy. The media does not want you to know the truth about Antifa. It's a total media black out.I need you to help break through the media blackout of Antifa. I need you to help us get the truth out there. Please share, like, comment and send this as far and wide as you can. Let's put a nail in Antifa's coffin and expose both them, and the media for the extremists they are. We are also fighting an uphill battle with Facebook, Youtube and social media. If you want to see more content like this, if you want to ensure a continued TRUE alternative media, you can join #MugClub at www.LouderWithCrowder.com/MugClub . We very much need and appreciate your support.

Posted by Louder with Crowder on Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Summary

Probably the scariest thing about all this is ANTIFA’s simple existence, its basis, and its leadership. Who sponsors and who leads them? Who knows. Obviously, the group as it participates in these rallies is organized, must be structured, is well-funded and certainly has leadership. We don’t know for certain who those could be and I will not speculate.

But what IS certain is that many of those who participate in these demonstrations-turned-riots are “trained” at college and universities by professors and other educators who are against the U.S. government structure and certainly anti-conservatives. Speculation of financial support includes several of the obvious candidates for such, but none have stepped out of the shadows to be named.

What else IS certain is this: ANTIFA is a blight on the political landscape of America. Their basis and tactics are eerily the same as the Nazi and Fascist European thugs who nearly destroyed Europe before and during World War II. But that was all stopped — all stopped by who and what? The United States of America AND Capitalism! Ironic isn’t it? The very process and structure that saved the World from Fascism, Communism, and Totalitarianism is the political structure ANTIFA attacks at its basis today.

ANTIFA and those who number among its members and supporters: you have been exposed to Americans. We know who you are and what you are about. And we summarily reject your Fascism at its roots and its tenents you espouse.

Socialism, Fascism, and Communism have no place in the U.S.A. The sooner you learn that the better off you will be.

To the “traditional” Capitalists and Constitutional adherents: wake up and realize that “freedom isn’t free.” It takes commitment, sacrifice, and persistence. Our grandparents and parents found those traits that fueled the ability and desire to prevail over Totalitarianism a century ago. We MUST implement that same will to maintain our Freedom — for this generation and those generations of Americans to come.

By the way: obviously, we cannot count on the Mainstream Media to put that out to the American public. Let’s do that the old fashioned way: TELL SOMEBODY!

Play

A Drunk Sits at a Bar….

You’re a bartender and a guy sits at the bar ordering drink after drink for 3 hours and you continue to pour for him long after it is obvious he’s drunk. He finally leaves the bar, gets in his car, and while driving home hits a car head-on and kills 4 members of a family. Who is responsible for those deaths?

Certainly, the drunk is. But in most venues, so is the bartender. You’d be charged as well.

Juan Ramon Vasquez — an illegal immigrant who was deported  — returned to Philadelphia, was arrested and plead guilty for returning after being deported. ICE requested Philly hold him to be picked up for deportation. Mayor Jim Kennedy (because Philadephia had been proclaimed to be a Sanctuary City) refused an ICE deportation hold and released Vasquez. He then raped a little girl, was found guilty, and is serving a sentence. Of course, that little girl will never be the same. Outrage?

If the bartender who continued pouring drinks for the drunk who killed those family members was complicit in that crime, shouldn’t Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kennedy be complicit in that little girl’s rape? He should have been prosecuted for refusing to hold Vasquez which led to a felony rape that would not have happened if the Mayor had simply followed federal law.

It’s ironic that our nation with the greatest justice system on Earth, though established to be governed by the “rule of law” now has a ruling class of politicians who thumb their noses at laws they do not like and refuse to enforce. Regarding illegal immigration, we have statistics that show the numbers of federal prosecutions of illegal immigrants for felonies, but we have no idea of the validity of the numbers or how many illegal immigrants who commit crimes skate through the system paying nothing for their crimes. We are told only about a few of the most heinous acts of just a few.

The American public as a whole is shocked when these stories slip through the media filters and are played out on a national stage. But that doesn’t happen too often. Why? Because the Mainstream Media are “in the tank” for acceptance of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants, even at the cost of “a few crimes.” In fact, liberal media outlets go after President Trump viciously for instructing U.S. immigration officials to go after offenders and for the prosecution of every offender.

Here’s an example of one such case. The Washington Post published the following story regarding stepped up illegal immigration enforcement policy changes under President Trump immediately after taking office:

“A week after he won the election, President Trump promised that his administration would round up millions of immigrant gang members and drug dealers. And after he took office, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers surged 40 percent. Officials at the agency commonly known as ICE praise Trump for putting teeth back into immigration enforcement, and they say their agency continues to prioritize national security threats and violent criminals, much as the Obama administration did.

But as ICE officers get wider latitude to determine whom they detain, the biggest jump in arrests has been of immigrants with no criminal convictions. The agency made 37,734 “noncriminal” arrests in the government’s 2017 fiscal year, more than twice the number in the previous year. The category includes suspects facing possible charges as well as those without criminal records. Critics say ICE is increasingly grabbing at the lowest-hanging fruit of deportation-eligible immigrants to meet the president’s unrealistic goals, replacing a targeted system with a scattershot approach aimed at boosting the agency’s enforcement statistics. ICE has not carried out mass roundups or major workplace raids under Trump, but nearly every week brings a contentious new arrest.

A Virginia mother was sent back to El Salvador in June after her 11 years in the United States unraveled because of a traffic stop. A Connecticut man with an American-born wife and children and no criminal record was deported to Guatemala. And an immigration activist in New York, Ravi Ragbir, was detained in a case that brought ICE a scathing rebuke from a federal judge. ‘It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust,’ said U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, reading her opinion in court before ordering ICE to release Ragbir. ‘We are not that country,’ she said. ‘Immigrants whose only crime was living in the country illegally were largely left alone during the latter years of the Obama administration. But that policy has been scrapped.’

Notice that last phrase: “But that policy has been scrapped.” That scrapped policy was the Obama Administration policy to ignore illegal immigrants living in the U.S. that had not before committed crimes. What happened to their being here illegally is a crime making them subject to immediate deportation BECAUSE OF THEIR BREAKING THE LAW!

“Politically Correct”

“The President’s immigration actions and Muslim ban will make America less safe. As a prosecutor, I can tell you, it is a serious mistake to conflate criminal justice policy with immigration policy as if they are the same thing. They are not. I have personally prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. But that’s what these actions do. They suggest all immigrants are criminals and treat immigrants like criminals.”

These statements were included in a speech by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). She is almost certainly going to make herself available for a White House run in 2020 and has become one of the chief opponents of all things President Trump. Harris’ staff explained her claim as meaning “illegal immigrants are not guilty of a crime for crossing the border illegally, but simply violated civil law.” No, their crossing breaks a U.S. immigration law which is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor and not a felony. One would think a former prosecutor would know the meaning of the word “crime! Harris does know: it’s just politically correct for her to say illegal crossing the U.S. border is not a crime, they just shouldn’t do it.

Kamala Harris and fellow California Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein simply cannot find it in their hearts to push local, state, and federal authorities to enforce immigration laws. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Did you hear the outcry from Dianne Feinstein when in her hometown, Kate Steinle was gunned down at Fisherman’s Wharf by a 5-time deported illegal immigrant? Crickets. Feinstein stood silently by while Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon in the killing of Steinle. He was deported 5 times before his 6th arrest for being in the U.S. illegally. He was NOT deported the 6th time because the city of San Francisco had taken the title of “Sanctuary City,” and therefore refused an ICE deportation “hold” notice for Garcia and released him. 32-year-old Kate Steinle paid with her life for Sanctuary City status for San Francisco when Garcia walked out of jail and found that gun and used it.

Pelosi was recently spotted in El Paso touting to a group of Hispanic the glory of voting for Democrats in November so to take back the House of Representatives to allow her as Speaker to marshall the U.S. Government to once again open the southern border to any and all illegals:

Summary

It is sad that the United States at its core is under assault from the inside. Under attack is the very backbone of the Nation that made us different from every other country. Without the rule of law, the U.S. will look just like Venezuela, Cuba, and European socialist nations. It is becoming more and more obvious that is what Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, Schumer and company want to see happen.

But on second thought, maybe that’s not true. Maybe the quartet is just trying to come up with any way possible to take back control of Congress. They have experienced the rush that power gives one who is the ultimate government official in charge. Both Pelosi and Schumer have led their respective Congressional chambers. They both know the fat-cat benefits that come with the House Speaker and Senate Majority titles: private government jets, huge House and Senate office and staff budgets, unlimited expense accounts, junkets with lobbyists from everywhere, cush jobs for friends, relatives, and campaign donors and craved-for Congressional appointments of those to whom they feel obligated. Yes, with power comes all the goodies D.C. has to offer. And Pelosi and Schumer don’t have it. Fighting FOR illegal immigrant safe status in the U.S. is just a means to their objective: get the immigrants legal and with the right to vote and convince them that for a lifetime, they owe all they have to Democrats.

What would fix this problem the right way? Congress needs to fix Immigration Law! We could spend days discussing whether or not members of Congress really want to fix immigration laws — but that would be based on opinion. Right now I am not certain there is sufficient political will to pay what the price would be for their political careers in either Party to go down that road. But it COULD be fixed with legislation — it SHOUD be fixed with legislation!

Lost in all the immigration noise is this: what would Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer AND Barack Obama think about Sanctuary City status and ignoring ICE deportation holds IF Kate Steinle was THEIR daughter? Or is Kate’s death and the virginity of that little girl in Philadelphia simply the justified price to pay to regain and maintain their political power?

Play

Bullet Points

Normally we publish Bullet Points on Tuesdays. But there have been so many things happening over the weekend, we did not want to lose a day without summarizing some of those critical events and their potential impact on your week. Please pay close attention to these because later in the week, specific events will trigger much more conversation. These bullet points reference past-weekend occurrences and several that are just ahead. When they DO happen, we want you to have a knowledgeable perspective on the reality of each so you will be able to consider them objectively.

“Monday” Bullet Points

Newspaper War Against the President  The Boston Globe’s editorial page is proposing a coordinated editorial response from publications across the United States to President Trump’s frequent attacks on the news media. ‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ said Marjorie Pritchard, a deputy managing editor of the Globe, referring to a characterization of journalists that Trump has used in the past. The president, who contends he has largely been covered unfairly by the press, also employs the term ‘‘fake news’’ often when describing the media.

The Globe has reached out to editorial boards nationwide to write and publish editorials this Thursday, August 16 denouncing what the newspaper called a ‘‘dirty war against the free press.’’ Pritchard said the decision to seek the coordinated response from newspapers was reached after Trump appeared to step up his rhetoric in recent weeks. It is reported that nearly 100 U.S. newspapers are joining this “War by Editorials.”

Here’s the rub: President Trump is misquoted daily by dozens of newspapers as saying “Newspapers and News Broadcasts are Fake News and the enemies of the people.” He has never said that. What he DOES say and says repeatedly is “Fake News is the enemy of the people.”

The fact that this is lost on those in the news world illustrates the dire danger to Americans regarding “Fake News.” No one knows what stories are real and what stories are fake. No one knows if quoted sources are real or contrived since most negative stories about Donald Trump and his administration usually come from “anonymous sources.” In fact, recent polls tag Americans’ approval rating of American News Media lower than that held by Americans about members of Congress! This fact has not even nudged the mainstream media to move away from “gossip reporting” toward simple “news reporting.”

Wednesday, August 15th (the day before the Globe editorial conspiracy) we will offer up a solution to Fake News. You will want to look closely at it. It makes sense, is totally responsible, fair, and reasonable. And most important of all is that it is doable.

Omarosa Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the ex-reality star and former Trump aide who has since accused the president of racism, on Sunday released what she claimed was a secret recording of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly “threatening” her in the White House Situation Room. In the recording, Kelly purportedly calls for Manigault-Newman’s “friendly departure” from the administration without any “difficulty in the future relative to your reputation.” According to the tape, Kelly continued by saying that things could get “ugly” for her and that she was “open to some legal action” for conduct that would merit a court-martial if she were in the military.

It may surprise you that Omarosa shared this on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and appeared to promote her soon-to-be-released tell-all book.

Several members of the press and current and former members of the Trump Administration that Omarosa quoted in her book as supporting her claims of the President using the N-word have denied her claims. In fact, they have lambasted her for blatantly lying and for her obvious breach of security and contractual violations in even recording a conversation in the White House.

We certainly have not heard the last of this. The former star of the NBC show “The Apprentice,” produced by the President, heard those deadly words from Mr. Trump on national television: “You’re fired!” She was famously disliked by her fellow contestants on the show. She was loud, demanding, and verbose in every episode they claimed. Apparently, those traits accompanied her to her short stint in the Trump Administration. She was terminated for continued “illegal and unauthorized use of federal vehicles.”

The Mainstream Media, of course, are and will continue to have a field day with us. More Trump non-political noise that makes for good soap opera fodder!

Turkey on the hot plate “I have just authorized a doubling of Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum with respect to Turkey as their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar! Aluminum will now be 20% and Steel 50%,” Trump tweeted Friday. “Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”

President Trump ratcheted up tariffs on the NATO ally because of their refusal to release American Pastor Andrew Brunson, who has been detained in Turkey for 21 months on “terrorism” charges along with alleged espionage accusations. The actual charge by Turkey is “Christianization.” There is no law against Christians or Christianity in the Turkish Constitution. In fact, at least in writing, freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed. Though the pastor has been moved from prison to his house, “house arrest” for him consists of 12 armed guards surrounding his home 24/7 to make sure he does not leave nor anyone unauthorized to goes in.

It remains to be seen how long Turkish President Erdagon who, by the way, has named himself the unofficial leader of Islam, will continue to illegally hold Brunson. It is expected that foreign investors and holders of Turkish debt will quickly force the Middle Eastern country into bankruptcy if Erdagon does not set Brunson free.

Bill and Hillary The pair must really be sweating this latest blockbuster: Thursday of last week, a Boeing 757 landed in Little Rock and off-loaded a group of reported Justice Department employees who left the Little Rock airport in Suburbans. Later that afternoon, they returned and loaded a large number of document boxes on the plane, boarded and took off.

A Little Rock Radio station — KARN — heard about the plane and photographed it at the airport along with those DOJ employees re-boarding. It was confirmed via the tail number on the plane it indeed belongs to the Justice Department. It’s Thursday publicly visible flight plan confirmed its departure from D.C. for Little Rock early Thursday and its return flight back to the D.C. area that afternoon.

Surprisingly the same plane made a return trip to Little Rock early Friday, loaded more boxes, and then again returned to D.C. Friday afternoon.

It was released in early July that the Department of Justice was re-opening their case into alleged financial wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation. Though the “official” headquarters of the organization is listed as New York, much of its activities have been orchestrated by the former President and foundation employees who headquarter at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, which is where Bill spends most of his time.

We will watch this matter closely and bring further details as received and confirmed.

Democrat Leadership Domestic Abuse Charges The co-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Keith Ellison, was accused of emotional and physical abuse by an ex-girlfriend who said: “You know you did that to me.” The allegations surfaced Saturday night from Karen Monahan after her son alleged in a Facebook post that he had seen text messages from Ellison threatening her and video of the congressman screaming obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.

“My brother and I watched our mom come out of pure hell after getting out of her relationship with Keith Ellison,” 25-year-old Austin Monahan said. On Sunday, Karen Monahan said that what her son posted was the truth.

Ellison responded to the allegations Sunday, issuing a brief statement that said, “I never behaved in this way.”

It will be amazing to watch how Democrats respond to these charges. Dems have made themselves the “keepers of the right to banish men they think are sexists.” Will they do so with Ellison?

Remember: Keith Ellison is not only a member of Congress, he is African-American. Not only is he African-American, he is the first Muslim elected to serve in Congress. Not only is he Muslim, he is the co-chair of the Democrat Party.

Seems like a conundrum to me. Will Dems treat Ellison as they have treated other offenders — or at least “alleged” offenders? Who reading this thinks Dems care at all about making fair and impartial decisions about anything?

Summary

This is already a busy week. The midterm elections around the corner, the Mueller investigation and questions surrounding the President sitting down with Mueller for a one-on-one interview filling the air, and — just in case you forgot — NFL players are kneeling or raising a fist in the air or just not coming to the sidelines before the National Anthem is performed! And Americans are really mad about that. As one journalist who is a friend of mine told me Friday: “NFL protesting players don’t care what Americans think.”

Stay close this week! We’re plugged in for you. And if you have not, please log in your email at the space bottom-right on the home page to receive an email every day a new podcast or story goes up to make sure you do not miss a story. We don’t give your email to anyone; we don’t sell anything here so will not email you anything other than that link, and we do NOT let anyone access your private information.

Thanks for looking in to start your week!

Play

Perspective

I’ve always been a thinker, mostly quiet and pensive. That has its benefits but certainly has its pitfalls. That mindset brings moments of insecurity and uncertainty about pretty much everything: how people feel, what I need to do, who I need to do it with, where I need to go, what’s going to happen next — I’m certain you know at least some of those feelings. Fortunately, through a relationship with God, strong upbringing and a great family, the older I grew the easier it became to deal with the negative parts of my nature. I worked hard to keep the “thinking” and “pensive parts.” I need those to be able to write — at least write things anyone else is interested in reading!

I’ve always been attracted to politics. My entrepreneurship, starting and operating several companies with some success, has skewed my political perspective to the Conservative side of most issues. American economics has always intrigued me. And watching Washington D.C. run the biggest “business” on Earth — the American Economy — long ago captured my attention. “Tax and spend” economics keeps the country running as fast as it can on that wheel the hamster spends so much time on. The results are the same for the hamster and the U.S.: running on that wheel doesn’t make the hamster thinner nor does it the U.S.

I’ve looked on as politicians have expanded the government to unnecessary and unsustainable levels. American tax dollars are gobbled up to feed the behemoth and keep it alive. Those same politicians — who are elected to run the country in a balanced and equitable way for its owners, American citizens — have grown to ignore their responsibilities to the People. That didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen because that’s what voters wanted. It happened because the glitter of politics and political might and power have consumed all things and all those who live and work inside the Beltway. And most of them do not even recognize it.

I’m told one can put a frog in a bowl of cold water, set that bowl on a stove burner at a low temperature, and watch the frog die from boiling as the water temperature passes 212 degrees. The frog could at any time easily jump out and save itself. But it doesn’t recognize the danger of the slow boiling of the water he is living in — until it’s too late.

I’m scared we Americans may be swimming in a bowl of water that has been on the fire a long time with the temperature slowly rising. And we haven’t yet recognized it. We’re still in the bowl, and if/when we recognize the water’s getting dangerously hot, it may be too late to get out.

I’m going to depart from our normal routine at the TruthNewsNetwork right here. As I do, I want to apologize to those of our members who read this stories instead of listening. The balance of today’s offering is very personal. I want to share it from my heart. I can best do that by speaking instead of writing. When we read stories, it’s hard to confirm the emotion of the writer. Words always have emotions that are integral in shaping the message of the words. Please “turn the page” with me this one time, and come to the Podcast to finish with me. I’ll think you’ll understand. And I am sharing the things that have prompted this chapter at the TruthNewsNetwork in the Podcast. If doing this creates a problem for you, I apologize in advance. I do not wish to intrude in the way any share these stories. Please humor me this one time! I’ll make it up to you somehow.

 

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

The “Truth” Part II

In The “Truth” Part 1, we examined and explained some of the hoopla in D.C. regarding dissemination of information as fact when it has not been true. This includes alleged collusion by the Trump Campaign with Russians during the 2016 election cycle, and alleged Obstruction of Justice during that same time. Today we will move forward looking deeper into the heretofore mysterious circumstances surrounding the massive negativity that permeates the Nation regarding all things political. We have not seen such negativity in our country since the 1960’s when young people literally revolted against the U.S. Government regarding the Vietnam War. First, we address some more of the “noise” — or as President Trump terms it “Fake News” — to dispel some of the rumors so you can get your brain around facts. Then we will discuss some behind-the-scenes actions being taken.

Obstruction of Justice

In Part I we quoted the segment of the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice in federal law that pertains to Obstruction allegations made against the Trump Campaign and those associated with it that pertain to the Mueller Investigation. But there are other parts to the Obstruction law that do not necessarily apply to the Trump Campaign but do apply to others regarding the 2016 election and matters since.

James Comey

The former FBI Director has pretty much kept himself in the limelight before, during, and after the 2016 Presidential election. We have in previous offerings here documented his professional (and often questionable) background. He has a speckled past, no doubt. However, listening to him in speeches, reading his book, or even listening to his sworn testimony before Congress, one would think he is a ray of sunlight in the total darkness of Washington D.C. And he hates Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for Mr. Comey, he HAS a public past. And unfortunately for James, his past is easily visible to all who care to take a look. James Comey — by federal statute — committed criminal acts while serving as FBI Director and since his removal. He has been and still is relying on his friends in federal law enforcement to protect him from prosecution for his wrongdoing. But if Justice is really “Equal under the law” for all, Lady Justice will soon come calling on Mr. Comey.

What did he do?

  • He forwarded FBI confidential memos of his meetings with President Trump to his friend at Columbia University expressly to be disseminated to the Press. Comey’s doing so violates 18 U.S. Code 798 which states “it is a violation to disseminate classified information to any unauthorized person. The term ‘unauthorized person’ means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.” Comey has given two different excuses for his releasing those memos: 1) the memos were NOT the property of the FBI, but his personal notes; and 2) his giving them to his friend was authorized because Comey was no longer an FBI employee. By law, the memos ARE property of the U.S. Government. In addition to the terms of the federal statute regarding his illegal release, The FBI employee agreement which Comey signed clearly states that all such documents belong to the FBI even after employment termination.
  • He lied under oath, and in doing so affected an ongoing FBI investigation. 1) Comey stated under oath there was no coordination between the DOJ and the FBI regarding the Clinton email investigation. Recovered text messages between FBI’s Peter Strozk and then DOJ Attorney Lisa Page expose that was not truthful; 2) Either James Comey or fired FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe lied to Congress. Comey stated (under oath) he never personally nor authorized anyone else to release any investigative information to the Press. Andrew McCabe in his sworn Congressional testimony stated HE gave information to the media and Comey knew about it making it authorized dissemination; 3) Comey testified that the decision to not indict Hillary Clinton for illegal use of a private email server to share classified information was made shortly before the press conference in which he announced that FBI decision. It was discovered that he penned the note announcing that decision two months before the FBI even interviewed Clinton or any of her aids.
  • There are more examples of Comey obstruction, but for the sake of time, we’ll leave it there.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

This is a tough one. It is rare for any Presidential Administration to take legal action against members of their predecessors. Why? Doing so would seem to be taking punitive actions for strictly political purposes of “Payback,” which no one wants to experience when THEY leave office. However, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

What did she do?

  • Apparently, that mysterious and “unscheduled” meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Sky Harbour Airport in Phoenix was NOT so “unscheduled.” According to reports, pilots later debunked that story saying the meeting WAS planned and coordinated.
  • James Comey testified that the Attorney General had asked Comey to call the FBI “investigation” into the Clinton email issue a “Matter” and not an “Investigation.” If her doing so was to deflect ordinary investigation into criminal matters, her doing so from her position of authority would be Obstruction.
  • Additionally, during Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document. Hamstringing the investigation by ordering the FBI director to mislead the public by calling it a “matter” instead of an investigation perfectly fits the description of keeping “the Clinton investigation from going too far.” After all, an investigation might “go too far” for those who wanted to protect Clinton, but a “matter” never ran that risk. Lynch’s interference also perfectly fits the description of “obstruction of justice.”

Andrew McCabe

  • The Justice Department’s inspector general submitted a criminal referral for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred the matter to the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, for potential prosecution. McCabe has been harshly criticized for months for alleged anti-Trump bias, he’s been investigated for and may be charged about a different topic entirely — his purported attempts to mislead about his role in a leak at Hillary Clinton’s expense. The gist is that McCabe orchestrated a leak to a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the 2016 election, describing private deliberations he’d had with Obama Justice Department officials about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe leaked that he had tried to keep this investigation moving forward, over an unnamed Justice Department official’s resistance. His motivation for leaking about this pending investigation, it appeared, was to rebut an earlier Journal article raising questions about his impartiality in the Clinton email probe, and a planned follow-up piece along similar lines. Once the FBI began looking into how the Clinton Foundation leak happened, Horowitz claims that McCabe repeatedly misled officials about his involvement.
  • Under McCabe’s watch, Anthony Weiner’s laptop was taken into possession of the FBI field office in New York. It was immediately discovered there were potential illegal pictures stored on Weiner’s laptop of underage girls. McCabe was notified by the Manhatten office of the laptop and its illegal contents, but McCabe slowplayed retrieving that laptop for forensic examination in New York. In doing so (and by not letting then FBI Director Comey know of the laptop and its contents) McCabe apparently was hiding the evidence of Weiner’s wrongdoing until after the November election. Accusations are that he was protecting Hillary Clinton whose chief aid was the wife of Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin. If true, McCabe committed Obstruction.

Hillary Clinton

Where do we begin? Hillary Clinton: Obstruction of Justice “PLUS”

  • 18 U.S. Code 798: “(a) 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, concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
  • The unsecured email server: based on legal requirements of protecting and keeping confidential documents and classified information, Clinton’s use of a non-certified computer server in an unsecured environment was a gross violation of the law. “Knowingly” is the keyword that exposed Clinton. Think about this: using that email server, then Secretary of State Clinton when traveling in foreign countries exchanged texts and emails with President Obama from an unsecured Blackberry transmitting messages via that server to Obama’s secret Gmail account.  Multiple violations of multiple statutes by both Hillary and Barack.
  • 46 CFR 503.59 – Safeguarding classified information: “All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification. Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.”
  • It is safe to say that using an unsecured server and a private (non-.gov) email address, Secretary Clinton grossly violated the law protecting classified documents and information. Notwithstanding her insistence regarding the “marked classified” status of some of those documents and emails, the fact the server was NEVER certified by the State Department and therefore was not an authorized server for use by the Department, can under the law be classified as obstruction of justice. If technically it would NOT be Obstruction, it would definitely have violated 46 CFR 503.59 — and makes it a felony.

Summary

There is no doubt there was Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller probe and also the Clinton email investigation — but apparently not by President Trump or members of his campaign, based on at least what we know now. But the others obviously have “dirty hands.”

Will there be any prosecution in these cases? At this point, it is hard to say. However, a prosecution is definitely warranted. There are numerous cases in which those guilty of far less serious infractions were sent to prison for their wrongdoing. If these escape penalties for their actions, it will prove the point that many Americans feel is applicable today: that political elites receive special treatment under this Justice Department and have for some time. It will be a travesty.

But wait: there’s more! In The “Truth” Part III that will be released tomorrow, read or listen to find out what the “Three Amigos” have been up to. Who are the “Three Amigos?” Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and James Comey. What have they been up to? I will NOT give it away today. But I assure you it is mind-boggling and exposes the worst elitism to date uncovered in the Justice Department. You will shiver to think that such corruption is alive and well in the very government department charged with protecting the laws of our Nation.

Don’t miss it!

Play

The “Truth” Part I

Is there Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion going on now (or has there been) in the Mueller Russia Collusion Investigation of the Trump Campaign? If so, who is guilty? What is truthful we are hearing from the Mueller Investigation — from both sides?

There are so many facets to the answers to these questions we cannot answer them all with accompanying facts and examples in just one setting. For the sake of YOUR time, this is a two-part presentation. First, we will talk about “The Truth.” Secondly, we will discuss (with examples of) how “The Truth” is being abused and even abandoned in this investigation as well as other Justice matters in Washington.

The “Playing Field”

Before we get started, there are a few things we need to settle for the purposes of this conversation:

  1. Collusion defined in federal law: where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint enrichment. “Collusion” in federal law attaches specifically to antitrust actions in which two or more people or companies work together to fix prices — such as two competing cell phone entities or oil companies collude with each other to set prices for consumers to secure unfair financial benefits. There is NO place in the Mueller Trump “Collusion” investigation where such a statute is applicable. Collusion, as used by the Press in the Mueller investigation, does not exist as a crime.
  2. Obstruction of Justice defined: (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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 administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
    That definition does not require that there be a direct order that would quash or affect the investigation.

Let’s Analyze Collusion in the Mueller Investigation Scenario

After 15 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 15 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign.

There are some individuals who, according to media reports, may have sought hacked material from WikiLeaks. There also is an unnamed journalist who sought such information, and even an unnamed candidate for Congress. That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal.

The efforts of the Russian operations detailed in these indictments do not establish a particularly significant impact on the election. When the Russians began this operation in 2016, we were already divided as a nation between the two least popular candidates ever to run for the White House. Thirteen trolls in St. Petersburg, or 12 military hackers in Moscow, certainly could spit into that raging ocean, but it remains highly unlikely to have had a material impact on the election.

To summarize Collusion as is used from the beginning of the Mueller investigation: Collusion is NOT a violation of any federal statute, even IF it was unearthed by Mueller.

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Investigation Scenario

From even before the formal inception of the Muller probe, politicians and Leftist Media members have tossed the “Obstruction of Justice” allegation against President Trump all day every day. We defined “Obstruction of Justice” in #2 above.

We could provide video after video, speech after speech, and news story after news story here that each contain multiple allegations and examples of how the President was/is guilty of obstructing justice. As recently as several days ago, Democrat members of Congress railed about the President’s obstruction because of a tweet:

“This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the USA!”

The cry is that Trump is telling the Attorney General to stop the Mueller investigation “right now.” Unfortunately for the angry Democrats and the Mainstream Media, the President’s tweets are NOT by law obstruction, especially in light of his saying to A.G. Sessions he “should” stop this Rigged Witch Hunt but stops short of telling him to stop. And even if he told Sessions to stop the investigation, it would not be Obstruction of Justice. (See/listen to tomorrow’s story “The Truth Part II” for details of this)

To help us all to understand what IS and what is NOT Obstruction, Senator James Risch (R-ID) in the Senate hearing with former FBI Director James Comey brought up this topic in Q & A. This will make understanding Obstruction easier. Risch used his time during the Intelligence Committee hearing to probe whether President Donald Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” former FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who was fired just 24 days into the new administration.
Comey said that he took it as an order, but that Trump used the words “I hope.”

Risch asked Comey, “Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?”  Comey said he wasn’t sure, but, “I took it as a direction. I mean, this is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, I hope this. I took it as: This is what he wants me to do.”

Risch seemed satisfied he’d scored his point. “He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” Comey shrugged, “I don’t as I sit here.”

The exchange raises the question, then, of whether an explicit order is necessary for the definition of obstruction of justice. Here’s the relevant section of the federal legal code (our emphasis):

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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 administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has a different take on the President’s tweet:

Unfortunately for the Senator and the Liberal Media, he (and they) are dead wrong at calling such tweets and any other previous statements made by President Trump as obstruction of justice. By statute, they are absolutely wrong.

So why do they continue?

The Mid-Term elections. Democrats have NO platform…NO agenda…NOTHING to attract their base to turn out in force to vote the House back to Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. Their only hope is to find something — anything — to discredit this president, even if it is not factual.

  • Dems cannot use the economy against the President;
  • Dems cannot use unemployment against the President;
  • Dems cannot use foreign policy against the President;
  • Dems cannot use lack of American confidence in his leadership against the President.

There is nothing of substance they can point to any bad policy or negativity in the Nation to discredit President Trump or his policies in office. Therefore they have only one thing left: blame of Obstruction of Justice and/or Russian collusion — neither of which is substantive or applicable to President Trump, his administration, or his staff.

Summary

Tomorrow we will look closely at REAL obstruction of justice playing out right under our noses as part of the Mueller probe, the day-to-day operations of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We will also look closely at obstruction by the Clintons and James Comey and what is underway to call those guilty to task.

Remember this: one of the age-old methods to deflect attention from wrongdoing is to loudly scream angrily at our foes, blaming them for exactly what we are guilty of themselves. (It’s the “real version” of “the first chicken to cackle is the one who laid the egg”)

Additionally, we will discuss strategy being planned (even already implemented in part) by the Democrat Party to craftily take the House of Representatives back from the G.O.P., and even wrestle away a few Senate seats.

The Fat Lady hasn’t started singing yet!

 

Play

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

American Media — Not Your Friends

Why does it seem we find it necessary to concentrate on the Mainstream American Media at least half of the time? Some say conservatives do so just because conservatives cannot stand media criticism. Others say it is because Media report the truth and conservatives refuse to accept facts. Neither is true. The fact that these two explanations are the most common given about Americans’ Media distrust illustrates just how out of touch Mainstream Media members are and how smart American voters really are. Let me explain:

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.
2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with a false report.
3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.
4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.
5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. The dishonest reporter showed a picture of empty arena HOURS before the crowd started pouring in.
6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.
7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in the process.”
8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.
9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under investigation.
10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.
11. And last, but not least: “RUSSIA COLLUSION!” Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

Those are just a few of the hundreds of examples of the ridiculous “reporting” Americans struggle with daily. Who should Americans believe in news reporting? Why should Americans believe ANY news reports!

So let’s just open Pandora’s Box a little bit wider and share the most ridiculous reporting from just 2017. (We’ll take you through 2018 later)  Starting in order working backward from December 26, 2017, here is our catalog of 2017’s shoddiest political reporting:

Dec. 26: Stop Making Fund of Me

The Claim: Republicans funded the Trump-Russia dossier.

The Source: CNN’s Evan Perez.

The Facts: GOP donor Paul Singer contracted Fusion GPS via the Washington Free Beacon during the 2016 primaries to perform opposition research on Trump and the other Republican candidates. The research that was done for that specific project is ultimately unrelated to the so-called “Russia dossier.”

Dec. 21: Dismissed!

The Claim: A judge has dismissed a suit accusing President Trump of profiting through his office, ruling that the president had not violated the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: The judge didn’t quite clear Trump of the charges. Rather, the judge said he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. It’s a small thing, and this isn’t really a major mistake on the Times’ part. That said, the reason this since-corrected misfire is so notable is that it stands as one of the extremely rare examples of a media misstep that favored Trump.

Dec. 19: Begging the Begin

The Claim: The GOP “begged” Democrats to work with them on tax reform, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: She said no such thing. Rather, Sanders said Democrats should have been “begging” the GOP to work with them on the bill.

Dec. 18: Off the Rails

The Claim: A deadly Amtrak derailment in Tacoma, Wash., that killed three people is another example of how the GOP puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of funding for infrastructure and technology advancements that could save lives.

The Source: A tweet by MSNBC’s Joy Reid that ended up being shared by more than 10,000 social media users.

The Facts: The derailment happened on a new track built specifically for a brand-new high-speed rail. Reid issued a correction eventually noting the facts of the deadly derailment.

Dec. 15: How Orwellian

The Claim: Under the Trump administration, the CDC has issued a list of banned words, including “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: There is no ban, and there was no attempt by right-leaning ideologues to strip supposedly politically charged language from the CDC’s lexicon. Rather, some bureaucrats suggested that certain words be removed from budget proposals so as to ensure specific programs would get requested funding. “The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans,” the paper reported.

Dec. 12: Fox Overhype

The Claim: Fox News has obtained roughly 10,000 messages sent by two anti-Trump FBI officials previously involved in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The Source: Fox News.

The Facts: Fox obtained the same 375 texts that were made available to Congress and the press prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before Congress. The cable news network did not, in fact, have access to additional materials that could’ve have gone a long way to disquieting concerns regarding the fact that the text scandal hinges entirely on out-of-context excerpts taken from private conversations spanning several months.

Dec. 11: Pentagon With the Wind

The Claim: “The Pentagon says it will allow transgender people to enlist in the military beginning Jan. 1, despite Trump’s opposition.”

The Source: The Associated Press.

The Facts: Nope. “Just confirmed with the lead lawyer on this case: This tweet is WRONG. The Pentagon will respect a court order requiring transgender enlistment on Jan. 1. That’s it. The order will likely be appealed before then,” reported Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. “No, the Pentagon did not overrule Trump on the trans troop’s ban,” he added. “I suppose the tweet could be technically correct under an EXTREMELY generous reading of it — but even then, highly irresponsible because anyone without our background knowledge of the case would misunderstand it.”

Dec. 8: Audience Size Twitter is the Best Twitter

The Claim: President Trump appeared before a nearly empty arena in December to stump for Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

The Source: The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel.

The Facts: Weigel shared a picture on Twitter claiming President Trump’s appearance on behalf of Moore had attracted a pitifully small crowd. Weigel was wrong, and the picture he shared was taken prior to the rally’s official start time. Weigel deleted the inaccurate claim and apologized.

Dec. 8: “A Colossal Screw Up”

The Claim: Donald Trump and his inner circle received advance notice during the 2016 presidential election of WikiLeaks’ plans to dump thousands of hacked emails belonging to Democratic National Committee staffers and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The Source: CNN, MSNBC, and CBS News.

The Facts: The email that supposedly showed the 2016 GOP nominee and his team received advance notice of the email dump was actually sent after the hacked correspondences were made publicly available. CBS, MSNBC, and CNN each reported separately that Trump and his team were given a heads-up, according to an email sent on Sept. 4. In reality, the email in question was sent on Sept. 14, after the emails were published online. The difference between Sept. 4 and Sept. 14 is the difference between someone flagging already public information and someone quietly slipping the GOP nominee and his team advance access to hacked correspondences. In short, the since-amended reports are little more than a “colossal fuck up” for their respective newsrooms, as on CNN reporter put it for the Washington Examiner.

Dec. 5 and Dec. 6: Deutsche Marks

The Claim: Special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed President Trump’s bank records.

The Source: Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal.

The Facts: Both newsrooms eventually walked backed their supposed scoops and the stories that remain are now about Trump associates. “Trump’s Deutsche Bank records said to be subpoenaed by Mueller,” read the original Bloomberg headline. A day later, Bloomberg amended the story and the headline so that it now reads, “Deutsche Bank Records Said to Be Subpoenaed by Mueller.” The Wall Street Journal, for its part, published a headline originally titled, “Trump’s Deutsche Bank Records Subpoenaed by Mueller. That headline was corrected eventually to read, “Mueller Subpoenas Deutsche Bank Records Related to Trump.”

Dec. 4: Another Huge Russia Scoop!

The Claim: Former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland appears to have lied to Congress this summer when she testified about disgraced Gen. Michael Flynn’s communications with the Russians, according to her personal emails.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: The Times has amended the article heavily since publication so that it is now mostly innuendo. The initial references to the emails have been removed, and the story now leans mostly on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who only questions whether McFarland was forthright in her congressional testimony. The report’s core message has been softened considerably since its initial publication. Where the headline once declared that “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts,” the story now reads, “A leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned on Monday whether a high-ranking official in Donald J. Trump’s transition team had been deceptive over the summer about her knowledge of discussions between Michael T. Flynn …” The article, which was once so sure of itself, now eases away from its original message by stating McFarland, “might have given ‘false testimony’ in her answers.” That’s not to say the article doesn’t try to pin something on the former deputy national security adviser. The wink-winking seen in the original version of the story is still there; the language is just less certain.

Dec. 3: Hatched From Thin Air

The Claim: Sen. Orrin Hatch is largely uninterested in rescuing funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program because he believes sick and lazy children do not deserve government aid.

The Source: Journalist Twitter, including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald, and the Los Angeles Times’ Jamil Smith.

The Facts: Hatch said no such thing. Rather, he said that the “billions and billions” that are wasted on those who can help themselves make it harder to keep CHIP-funded. Hatch said in reference to welfare spending in general: “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.” The senator also said in those same remarks that he’s committed to protecting CHIP funding. Lastly, it’s worth noting Sen. Hatch co-wrote the bill to extend funding for CHIP.

Dec. 2: A Huge Russia Scoop!

The Claim: K.T. McFarland conceded in a private Dec. 29 email that Russia tipped the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: McFarland did indeed write that Russia “has just thrown the U.S.A. election to [Trump].” However, as Times report itself noted, she most likely said this in a paraphrase of Democratic criticisms of the Trump administration. The White House certainly denied she wrote it in earnest. The Times’ breathless handling of a single excerpt from her emails nevertheless set off a news cycle alleging McFarland had actually conceded Russia stole the U.S. election for Trump.

Dec. 2: A Kushner Job

The Claim: Kushner ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: White House senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly ordered Gen. Flynn during the transition period to contact Russian officials about a certain U.N. resolution. That’s it. The headline suggests something much more ominous, but it’s just not there.

Dec. 1: Lobbyists Everywhere

The Claim: More than 6,000 lobbyists worked on GOP tax reform bill.

The Source: A headline published by the Hill.

The Facts: The report itself notes that there are, “11,000 active lobbyists in the nation’s capital … and more than half of them — 6,243 — have reported working on taxes this year.”

That’s not quite the same thing as working specifically on the GOP’s tax bill.

Dec. 1: Flynn, ABC News, and Brian Ross

The Claims: Former national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn is prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.

The Source: ABC News’ Brian Ross.

The Facts: The referenced directive came after the 2016 election. The president-elect reportedly ordered his transition team to contact Russia and other world leaders regarding the incoming administration’s foreign policy objectives, which is standard for incoming presidents. It took ABC eight hours to issue a correction. When it did, it characterized it incorrectly as a “clarification.” Ross was suspended for his error and subsequently banned from any further coverage of the president.

Nov. 30: Plagiarist Not

The Claim: Ivanka Trump plagiarized one of her own speeches during her visit to India

The Source: Newsweek.

The Facts: Ivanka Trump didn’t plagiarize a thing. She referenced her earlier, original speeches. That’s called repeating yourself. The Newsweek story has since been amended so that the headline now reads, “Ivanka Trump Recycles One of Her Own Speeches in India.” The article also includes an editor’s note that reads, “The headline of this story was changed to reflect that Trump reused portions of an earlier speech rather than ‘plagiarized’ it.”

Nov. 9: Not a First

The Claim: Trump is the first president since George H.W. Bush to fail to take questions from reporters alongside his Chinese counterpart on his first visit to China.

The Source: CNN’s Jeremy Diamond.

The Facts: Trump is the first U.S. president since the last U.S. president to take no questions during the first trip to China. Former President Barack Obama took no questions with the Chinese president during their first meeting in China.

Nov. 6: Japan and Cars

The Claim: President Trump doesn’t know Japan already builds cars in the United States.

The Source: CNN.

The Facts: The president is definitely aware Japanese businesses build cars in the U.S. “[W]e have a couple of the great folks from two of the biggest auto companies in the world that are building new plants and doing expansions of other plants,” Trump said in his address to Japanese business leaders on Nov. 6. “I also want to recognize the business leaders in the room whose confidence in the United States — they’ve been creating jobs — you have such confidence in the United States, and you’ve been creating jobs for our country for a long, long time.” He added, “Several Japanese automobile industry firms have been really doing a job. And we love it when you build cars — if you’re a Japanese firm, we love it — try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over.

Nov. 6: Don’t Be So Koi

The Claim: President Trump embarrassed himself in Japan when he dumped all of his fish food during the ceremonial feeding of the palace koi.

The Source: CNN, the New York Daily News the Guardian and many more.

The Facts: Full video of the event showed Trump was only following Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s lead. The two world leaders visited the Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, where they were both given individual boxes of fish food for the traditional feeding of the palace’s koi fish. The president and the prime minister spooned in their feed a little at a time. Abe then dumped the rest of his box into the pond. Trump followed suit, spooning in just a little at first, and then dumping out the remnants of his box. That’s it.

Nov. 2: Kill Him Two Times

The Claim: The fact that Donald Trump called for the death penalty for vehicular terrorist Sayfullo Saipov, but not for the white man who carried out the Las Vegas shooting, suggests the U.S. president is probably racist.

The Source: GQ magazine.

The Facts: Trump probably hasn’t called for the death penalty for Stephen Paddock because the Las Vegas shooter is already dead. Meanwhile, the man who killed eight people in New York City on Oct. 31 is still very much alive.

October 19: Flunking a True Statement

The Claim: No, the Clintons were not paid millions by Russia.

The Source: Newsweek.

The Facts: Yes, the Clintons have accepted millions of dollars from Russian entities. Newsweek’s supposed fact check came in response to a tweet from President Trump that read, “Russia sent millions to Clinton Foundation.” He is not wrong, and the Newsweek article acknowledges as much. It acknowledges that former President Bill Clinton received a generous $500,000 speaking fee in 2010 from a Kremlin-linked bank with ties to Uranium One, a Canadian uranium company that had mines in the U.S. The Newsweek article also acknowledges a separate New York Times report that showed Uranium One’s chairman donated approximately $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation in four separate installments as his company was being acquired by a Russian nuclear energy firm called Rosatom. The Newsweek article doesn’t, however, acknowledge that Uranium One owners donated an estimated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That particularly glaring omission is just icing on a crummy cake.

Oct. 13: Lyin’ Ryan

The Claim: House Speaker Paul Ryan said it’s on hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico to get back on its own two feet.

The Source: The Hill, MSNBC’s Joy Reid, NowThis News’ Matt Saccaro, SB Nation’s Marc Normandin.

The Facts: Ryan wasn’t being callous about the situation in Puerto Rico, nor did he dismiss the issue as merely a problem for the small unincorporated U.S. territory. “There’s a humanitarian crisis that has to be attended to. And this is an area where the federal government has a responsibility, and we’re acting on it…Yes, we need to make sure that Puerto Rico can begin to stand on its own two feet,” he said. Ryan added, “They’ve already had tough fiscal problems, to begin with,” the House Speaker told reporters this week. “We’ve got to do more to help Puerto Rico rebuild its own economy so that it can be self-sufficient.”

Oct. 2: The Mentally Ill and Guns

The Claim: Republicans have made it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns.

The Source: An oldie, recycled most recently by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Politico’s Michael Grunwald,

The Facts: This is a malicious smear. Here’s what happened: Congress voted to overturn a last-minute Obama-era regulation that would give the Social Security Administration the power to revoke a person’s Second Amendment rights based on whether he receives disability for a mental impairment that keeps him from working, or if he “[uses] a representative payee to help manage their benefits.” The repeal of the Obama-era regulation “doesn’t allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable,” as my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso explained at the time. “The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people’s rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ‘need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'” he added. “As the many non-political mental health and autism advocacy groups that supported the House action noted, there is no link between these factors and a propensity for violence.”

Republican lawmakers were joined in their opposition to the regulation by a number of disability and civil liberty advocacy groups, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union. Like the GOP, these organizations held that the Obama gun regulation posed a threat to civil liberties. They also argued that the now-defunct regulation stigmatized the disabled. The opposition wasn’t about making it “easier” for the mentally unstable to get their hands on firearms. Only an intentionally uncharitable read of the issue would take someone to that conclusion. The opposition was about restoring due process rights to people caught up in the now-defunct regulation’s overly broad guidelines.

Oct. 2: Gun Lift

The Claim: The House is voting to lift restrictions on gun suppressors just days after a mass shooting event in Clarke County, Nevada, left 58 dead and hundreds more wounded.

The Source: CNN chief national security correspondent and former Obama State Department official Jim Sciutto, NBC News’ Rebecca Sanchez and Mic’s Emily C. Singer.‏

The Facts: The House had no plans that week to address H.R.3668, which includes a provision that would loosen federal restrictions on gun suppressors. It never did. This story appears to have originated with a San Francisco Chronicle report titled, “Pair of pro-gun bills on move in House.” The article suggests the House “could pass” the SHARE Act as soon as this week, but it never provides proof of this claim. The closest that the report gets to backing the allegation is when it cites House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who said last week that the House had the votes to pass H.R.3668. A review of the House’s legislative itinerary for the week beginning Oct. 2 showed the measure was not scheduled for consideration. A handout provided to reporters on Sept. 29 by the office of Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., which is responsible for setting the House’s legislative agenda, also showed no signs of the SHARE Act. A source in McCarthy’s office also confirmed the bill was never slated for consideration that week. In short, this particular narrative is a total fabrication.

Summary

We’re going to stop right there…and we’ve only finished one quarter from the last year! But don’t worry: below this story finds a link that includes the Media lies listed above as well as all those to finish up the last 12 months.

Here’s the point of all this: we cannot trust the Mainstream Media for truth. We all must use what they tell us as nothing more than a starting point. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it now: we MUST research for truth on our own. It’s out there. There are plenty of resources in which you will find the truth on any item.

And of course, you can always come right here to the TruthNewsNetwork! We never tell you WHAT to think. But we DO give you things to THINK ABOUT.

2017 Media Lies

 

 

Play
WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com