“Q Anon Part II”

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

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

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

Fast forward now to today.

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

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

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

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

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

That tends to make one listen.

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

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

 

Summary

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

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

Enter the internet, satellite television, and talk radio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s NO stupid here!

Play

Democrat Party: Promoting Racism?

When in the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton put those who chose to support Trump over her in a basket she named “Deplorables,” she revealed something more than her personal disdain for Donald Trump. She exposed the bias she and many other Democrats hold for American people who do not espouse their political perspective — specifically that of “Identity Politics.” But it gets even worse.

In the trail of recent very visible occurrences in the U.S., it appears that the Democrat Party is home to a bevy of pure racists. No, everyone in their party is not racist, but many are. And it appears that those who run their party are chief among that group.

“Wow!” you say. “That’s a bombastic allegation, Dan.” It certainly is. And as bombastic as the allegation is are the examples that show that racism.

Racism: America’s Fascism

For decades we have defined racism based solely on ideas and opinions of people of one skin color for people of another skin color. That definition is true — at least in part. Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others.

Even by its 21st-century definitions, racism is indeed evolving from being a system that creates and maintains extreme bias based solely on skin color to be more of  “a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others.” In other words, Racism is no longer identified as being extreme bias based strictly on skin color alone.

Don’t get me wrong: there IS extreme racism based on color in the World, and especially in the U.S. But the practice of racism has slipped through the walls surrounding politics as people and groups more and more adopt systems of extreme bias for others that are not always based solely on skin color. What is so devastating and explosive is this type of racism extends past just color to “status” — especially political status. Political elitists in the U.S. and other countries — primarily in Europe — have commandeered the right to determine that status for everyone, and have systematically thrust their definition and “norms” on all Americans.

Besides the pending revelation of scandal engulfing Democrats and the Democrat Party, there is a large issue that heretofore Democrats have been able to dispel or push under the rug that has now become too big to ignore. And that is Democrat Party systemic racism that encompasses the “old” definition and well as the “new” definition of racism.

Let’s go!

Being Black in America

Though it appears U.S. racism targeting blacks has diminished somewhat, it’s alive and well. But it has deepened in many ways. And in its current state, it is more deadly than ever. Politics is driving the narrative now. And political elitism is the driver. That means there is a small group of people who have assumed the power of controlling that narrative and everything about it and everyone in it.

That reality has been exposed in a most obvious place: the Criminal Justice System. Let’s look at details:

Roughly 5 million kids have — or have had — at least one incarcerated parent. In the general population, that’s 1 in every 14, according to Child Trends, a national nonprofit. The chances are much higher for black children, researchers found: 1 in 9 has had a parent in prison.

By the best estimates, about 2.7 million children under the age of 18 have a parent in prison or jail. According to sociologists Bruce Western and Becky Petit, that means one in 28 kids in the United States (as of 2010) has a mother or father, or both, in lockup – a dramatic change from the one in 125 rate a quarter of a century ago.

Approximately one in nine black children have an imprisoned parent, four times as many 25 years ago. Furthermore, 14,000 or more children of the imprisoned annually enter foster care, while an undetermined number enter juvenile detention and adult prisons. And that number compared to that of white children with a parent or parents in jail is nine times higher. 

Why is that? Does that mean that blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites? Or is it that there is racism among those in law enforcement who are looking for law breakers?

Or is it that in judicial prosecutions of criminal offenders there is racial bias against blacks in courts, just because they’re black?

Or is it because most blacks — especially as compared to whites — do not or cannot fight the criminal justice system for personal fairness in prosecution because of disproportionate financial capabilities. After all, securing the best criminal defense in the U.S. is really expensive. And although many public indigent defenders are proficient in their service, many are  just entering their profession and all are overwhelmed with extreme workloads.

But Where’s the Democrat Racism in this issue? Hmm..Keep Reading

Homelessness in America

The overall homeless population increased from 44,359 in January 2015 to 46,874 in the count in January 2016 in all of Los Angeles County. There was a 20 percent increase in tents, encampments and vehicles there, not counting the cities of Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena.

Homeless in US in 2017

White. 260,979

Black. 224,937

Multiple races. 35,745

Native American. 16,796

Pacific Islander. 8528

Asian. 6760

Number of homeless vets: The number of homeless veterans across America increased in 2017 for the first time in seven years, when government officials began their nationwide push to help impoverished former service members.

The increase reflects estimates from last January, before President Donald Trump took office and any of his new housing policies were put in place. The annual point-in-time count from Housing and Urban Development officials found roughly 40,000 homeless veterans at that time, an increase of nearly 600 individuals from the same mark in 2016.

Hunger in America

  1. 1 in 6 people in America face hunger.
  2. The USDA defines “food insecurity” as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for all household members. Last year households with children reported a significantly higher food insecurity rate than households without children: 20.6% vs. 12.2%.
  3. Food insecurity exists in every county in America. In 2013, 17.5 million households were food insecure. More and more people are relying on food banks and pantries.
  4. 49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table.
  5. In the US, hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food, but rather the continued prevalence of poverty.
  6. More than 1 in 5 children is at risk of hunger. Among AfricanAmericans and Latinos it’s 1 in 3.
  7. Over 20 million children receive free or reduced-price lunch each school day. Less than half of them get breakfast, and only 10% have access to summer meal sites.
  8. For every 100 school lunch programs, there are only 87 breakfast sites and just 36 summer food programs.
  9. 1 in 7 people are enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Nearly half of them are children.
  10. 40% of food is thrown out in the US every year, or about $165 billion worth. All of this uneaten food could feed 25 million Americans.
  11. These 8 states have statistically higher food insecurity rates than the US national average (14.6%): Arkansas (21.2%), Mississippi (21.1%), Texas (18.0%), Tennessee (17.4%), North Carolina (17.3%), Missouri (16.9%), Georgia (16.6%), Ohio (16.0%).

Homeless Veterans

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) states that the nation’s homeless veterans are predominantly male, with roughly 9% being female. The majority are single; live in urban areas; and suffer from mental illness, alcohol and/or substance abuse, or co-occurring disorders. About 11% of the adult homeless population are veterans.

Roughly 45of all homeless veterans are African-American or Hispanicdespite only accounting for 10.4and 3.4of the U.S.veteran populationrespectively.

Homeless veterans are younger on average than the total veteran population. Approximately 9% are between the ages of 18 and 30, and 41% are between the ages of 31 and 50. Conversely, only 5% of all veterans are between the ages of 18 and 30, and less than 23% are between 31 and 50.

Summary

”Dan, at the beginning of this story you made some really challenging allegations against Democrats. You gave a bunch of statistics. But how do those statistics prove your point: that the Democrat Party is a political party is a racist organization that promotes racist policies?”

Let’s just use reason:

  • Democrats are NOT and never have been supportive of African-Americans. They talk a good game, but when push comes to shove Democrats never follow through on substantive change for the betterment of African-Americans. Democrats voted against legislation to end slavery — Republicans passed it; Dems voted against giving citizenship to African-Americans — Republicans passed it; Democrats voted against giving African-Americans the right to vote — Republicans passed it. Democrats voted against allowing African-Americans to enter the military — Republicans supported and passed it.
  • Democrats supported legislation and policies during the last 65 years that while “giving” things to African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and other minority races actually were structured, given, and maintained, not to help minorities, but to take control of those minorities and make them dependent on Dems and those policies: Housing, school busing, school lunches and breakfasts, Welfare, AFDC (“Aid for Dependent Children), Medicaid, etc.
  • Regarding Central and South American migrants and illegals from other nations, Democrats support their “easy” entry to the U.S. — not for humanitarian purposes, but for the power Dems can amass over them using that same “obligation” control: “We got you entry to the U.S., a bunch of free stuff, a pass at breaking the law” (migrants).
  • The same can be said for African-Americans: “We got rid of slavery, your right to own land, the right to vote, free healthcare, free school lunches, then breakfasts, guaranteed income (Welfare), and preference at jobs and business contracts. You owe us for doing all that for you.”
  • Those homeless Americans — especially veterans — are made to feel like outcasts and are treated that way. While Democrats rail against citizens who want closed borders and do not want to allow illegals the right to live in the U.S. without doing so with legal entry, these Americans are doing without basic living conditions: food, housing, and employment. Many have mental and emotional issues and they are deprived of necessary medical care.

EVERYTHING that the Democrat Party does “for” minorities is not based on generosity, for fairness and equality, for love and acceptance, to bring them to the political and social table in the U.S., to partner with White America in equality in every aspect of everyday life. Democrats would love to foster belief in that hollow ideal. But it is just that — and “ideal.” And it is a unrealistic and untrue ideal that has never been actualized in any area we have mentioned above.

You say, “Dan: you allege that Democrats are racist and are promoting racist ideas. Even if what you have detailed above does effectively and rightly illustrate inequities in America, those inequities are not all based on racial skin color. So they cannot mean — even if they are truthful and even if they are promoted by the Democrat Party — that Democrats are racist, right?” Wrong.

Remember that current and prevailing “new” definition of racism that sociologists have given to us that does away with the “skin-color” version of the definition of the word? “Racism refers to a variety of practices, beliefs, social relations, and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yield superiority, power, and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others.”  That is at the core of the way Democrat Party officials and legislators have operated for decades trusting that Americans are either to0 blind or too dumb to recognize those policy issues listed above that Democrats did not just vote for, but pushed them on ALL Americans as being good for minorities while being good for everyone else. They certainly have been good for “everyone else.” But minorities find themselves standing on the corner, standing at a window on the sidewalk looking in, and always wondering why they STILL find themselves always drawing the short stick.

It’s because of RACISM!

”But ALL Democrats are not racist! And many Republicans ARE racist.”

Both statements are certainly true. But as a party, why haven’t Democrats taken control of fixing legislation and policies both in Congress, the White House, and even state governments to repair these minorities inequities? And remember: those minority inequities apply not only to those initiated by skin color, but by religious, social, and economic differences from “average” people — even people who are homeless.

”Democrats don’t now and seldom have had control of the House, Senate, and the White House at the same time, which is necessary to guarantee passage to enable a President to sign such legislation into law. You cannot blame this racism on just Democrats.”

And I don’t. But what I HAVE NOT seen from Dems is a legislative bill (or two, or three, or ANY!) written, presented, and even voted on to fix Homelessness, Income inequality, Minority Unemployment, Minority wage disparity, Poverty among minorities, school food issues, Welfare structure adverse for minorities, Comprehensive immigration, etc. I’ve seen plenty of those bills proposed by Republicans.

”IF” Democrats are such all-in advocates for the rights and equality of people of color and OTHER minorities, why have they not prepared and submitted bill after bill after bill after bill to show Americans — including members of minority communities — that Dems really DO have the backs of minorities for the good of those people?

The Reason: Minority members on the most part have found it easier to take the “booty” handed out by the Democrat Party and accept those benefits as being sufficient to fulfill the promises and narrative Dems use to hook minority members and keep them in place. And while they have minorities believing that Dems are all-in for them, Dems have convinced minorities they are obligated to Democrats and must vote to keep them in place.

Unfortunately, leaders of American and migrant minorities are all acting at the whim of Democrats to use those promises to keep their minions obligated — minority leaders like Sharpton, and Jackson, and news organizations such as MSNBC, CNN, NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and multiple online news services.

There is NO doubt the Democrat Party promotes racist ideas…period.

There is NO doubt Democrat Party leaders promote racist ideas…period.

There is NO doubt that unless the leaders — REAL leaders — of these minority groups do not turn away from their platform of control and allow the life promises in the U.S. Constitution to all Americans and legal immigrants to be actualized and perpetuated lawfully, lawlessness will soon take control in America.

Do Democrats really want to turn the United States into a Venezuela, Italy, Turkey, or Haiti?

Wake up America! 

Bill, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation “Pay For Play” was Real: Evidence

(Make certain you read or listen to this entire release, and certainly thoroughly read or listen to the Summary today. There is VERY important information for you in today’s Summary.)

Bill and Hillary

Have you as most grown weary of hearing about Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, (even Chelsea) and all the Clinton scandals? Are you like most astonished at the fact that with all the exposed corruption, unethical actions that have been sometimes illegal actions, misuse of government information, quid pro quo with donors from all over the World — campaign donors AND “donors” to the Clinton Foundation for “worthy” causes — and “Pay to Play” schemes, stupid operating decisions regarding the United States classified information, Bill is the only one who has paid a price for any of this? And even then, he was impeached as a direct result of not any wrongdoing as President or the governor of Arkansas, but for lying under oath in a civil trial!

I think it is safe (and accurate) to say that the Clintons for everything they have done publicly have been “bulletproof.” But it actually looks like the Paymaster may be about to call on the Clintons for “Payback.”

Before we get into what the “payback” may look like or its details, let’s just refresh your memory about just a few of the Clinton faux pas of the past. These are just a few reminders of some of their chicaneries:

1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.

2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary- of-state damaged.

3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.

4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.

5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.

6. Travel-Gate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.

7. Huma-Gate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.

8. Pardon-Gate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.

9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.

10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.

11. File-Gate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.

12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.

13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.

14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.

15. Trooper-Gate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?

16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.

17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.

18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.

19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?

20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.

21. China-Gate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.

Pending Clinton Legal Actions

Two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell report the following:

The investigation looking into the possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, “very high priority.” Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one source said, quote, “a lot of it,” and “there is an avalanche of new information coming every day.” Some of it from WikiLeaks, some of it from new emails. The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case. They will be going back to interview the same people again, some for the third time.

As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. Word is “definitively,” that has NOT happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office in Washington, D.C. and are being forensically examined.

The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation.

Meantime, the classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security Division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener’s laptop and have found e-mails that they believe came from Hillary Clinton’s server that appear to be new, as in not duplicates.

Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known. But apparently, it will likely be known soon.

Summary

So why is it that those in the political and American Justice Systems have given the Clintons pass after pass for their wrongdoing through the years? The answer can be only one of — or maybe both of — these two reasons: the Clintons have a “retribution machine” they have effectively used through their decades in power in Arkansas and D.C. to discourage anyone from going against them in any way. That could explain how and why they seem to be made of Teflon: nothing sticks. Knowing which closets of one’s enemies hold skeletons can be a very valuable tool to use to demand and hold the loyalties of political insiders. Having that information works well to tamp-down the temptation for payback. The second could be that Leftist politicals in the U.S. seem to thrive on partial truths and good sounding stories instead of demanding “the rest of the story.” To that end, one can see and understand how the Media seem to bow at the altar of Clintonism, jealously protecting their hero and heroine from the screams from underling Americans who are unworthy to breathe the same air as Bill and Hillary. How dare the American public want to know all there is to the Lewinsky scandal that resulted in Bill’s impeachment, what really happened in Benghazi, the Whitewater affair in Arkansas, Hillary’s commodity trading financial windfall, the deaths of approximately 60 Clinton underlings who died through the years under extremely suspicious circumstances during or after voicing a desire to press the Clintons on certain matters? Both Clintons will probably go to their graves having lived the words “Payback is Hell” brutally executed on their foes more than any other political power players in U.S. history.

And it’s worked….so far.

It seems to this writer that even when obvious facts are thrust into the eyes and ears for all Americans to consume, Democrats assume that just because (in this case) the Clintons wield so much power and have so many obligated “friends” in high places everyone must and will bow to the whims of the royal couple. And that theory has reaped dramatic political results for the Clinton duo throughout the last 3.5 decades. We listed only the names of the 21 scandals of the Clintons that everyone knows about to jog your memory. There are dozens of others, many of which are worse. Mention any of those publicly to initiate an explanation always results in a Democrat somewhere responding with, “That’s just a rumor. There’s no evidence that really happened.” Maybe the current confirmed investigation that is part of the “old” Clinton investigation will unearth and share with the world some of the unearthed evidence.

There have been non-stop scandal investigations throughout American politics since the birth of the nation. Those are not rare. But it IS rare for so many scandals involving so many individuals, foreign countries, and corporations to be so closely guarded by those who fawn over Bill and Hillary — especially the Leftist Mainstream Media. But they’re smart: the Clintons know and understand better than most other Americans that when one has the ability to coax the MSM into what to cover and what not to cover using something or some “things” to elicit their cooperation, one can easily control and edit the media narrative one desires to impact what the American public learns about any specific topic. Come to think of it: the Clintons aren’t the only political leaders to so effectively do that. Hitler was surprisingly effective at literally controlling the media narrative — by force when necessary — to promote the Nazi agenda throughout Germany and the rest of Europe, purposely hiding the facts of scandal and travesty that occurred daily, while Hitler literally slaughtered millions of people.

So what do you think this ongoing investigation into Clinton wrongdoing that certainly involve Hillary’s private email server and irregularities in the Clinton Foundation is going to reveal? To be honest, I think that will be determined not necessarily by facts, but by what skeletons the Clinton Group know of that belong to whoever is conducting this investigation!

Remember this: in American politics, facts don’t really matter — no matter what any of us think. “Perception is reality.” And that’s how the Clintons have kept the truth captive so effectively for many years. Tell a pig enough times he’s a dog and he’ll eventually start barking. I’m not saying we are pigs or dogs, but we have seen many Americans swallow the Clinton narrative for so long without even asking questions. Why? Because Bill and Hillary (and now Chelsea) are so wily at spinning stories to a fawning populace, they have not only repeated the effective process over and over, Americans have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Will the merry-go-round ever stop? I don’t know. But maybe with the unsealing of some of those 63,233 sealed federal indictments, some from every one of the 50 states, several may be for William Jefferson, Hillary Rodham, and Chelsea. Oh, and for a point of clarification: that 63,233 number is 30 times more than have been issued during the same time frame at any time in American history. I don’t think that’s an accident. Remember: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in a 2018 letter to Congress that he had appointed federal prosecutor Jim Huber of Utah to continue investigations with unfettered cooperation from the 477 Justice Department investigators that were already being used by Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

When you do that math, that means each investigator was responsible for just 132 of the indictments during the last 12 months.

That’s doable!

 

 

Play

Hello: My Name is “Corruption”

”I am certain you know who I am. I have been around for a really long time. If we haven’t met personally, certainly you’ve seen my handiwork.

I don’t remember a time when I didn’t exist. Honestly, I’m certain I’ve been around as long as you guys. The reason that many don’t recognize me when they see the results of my work is because I have a great attribute that only I can initiate: I make myself look just like anyone I want. I can look like anybody and I can act just like the wind. You really do not SEE the wind, but you see its results — you see what the wind does. When you see leaves on a tree blowing around, you know the wind is there. I can make myself just like that. You don’t necessarily see me; you see what I DO. And I do a lot!

So what do I do? What’s my ‘job?’ I have one goal in life: to get every human I can to blindly accept everything I show them is what they need, and then get them to do ALL of those things. What does that mean? Let me explain.

I find a way to exploit your weaknesses. I’m really good at finding them. Let’s face it: they usually are about sex, money, fame, or power. All I have to do is find which is your ‘poison.’ It’s easy for me to use it against you.

Alexander the Great was extremely insecure. As a boy, he just wanted to be liked. Kids his on age bullied him. All he ever wanted was to retaliate against them all. So I surrounded him with a bunch of guys that I had already made mine. They taught Alex how easy it is to be powerful and tower over others as those bullies had done to him. So he did it. He found ways to not only destroy people, but he also slaughtered tens of thousands of humans who stood in the way of his lust for power. The more death and destruction he initiated, the more he wanted. He was my favorite son…for a while.

Europe was easy for me. Stalin and Lenin were easy pawns. Their lust for power made it simple for me to dangle conquest in front of both. Their pride and greed consumed them and destroyed millions of good people. War was just a tool for them to use to spread their brutality. They both fed on all my ‘benefits:’ wealth, sexual perversion, fear, and the domination of their nations citizens’ lives — until those two were through with them. Those plebes were then marched to death camps, the Gulags, or simply executed.

Before the Russian pawns, I turned Hitler my way. Adolph was pretty easy. He was a shy German lad who hated the Jewish people. He deplored his own weaknesses. That made it easy for him to spot in others and flame in him the fires of hatred. I gave him tools that allowed him to easily convince people to follow him. He loved the military which he used to obliterate Jews that dared to call the Motherland theirs. He conned a large group of military leaders to ‘get rid’ of the Jews — first in Germany, then Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria. I gave him the idea of how to exterminate the ‘vermin,’ which he passed along to his minions. His military leaders fired up ovens, gas chambers. The Jews that escaped those were simply starved to death.

But America REALLY opened the door for me to expand my craft. There was a group of really strong and honest people who resisted me in the beginning. They set up a government that was designed to assure settlers in the New World the brutal dictatorships and monarchies they lived through in Europe would NEVER dominate America. That government was supposed to be ‘of the People, by the People, and for the People.’ It worked…for a while.

America’s becoming the most powerful, richest, and freest country on Earth made it a candy store for me. I’ve had a field day! When people get fat, content, and happy, Mr. Corruption has a much easier time breaking down those doors. Americans became so content and oblivious to the realities of life elsewhere, they all on the most part adopted an attitude of entitlement that became the easiest portal I’ve ever had to quietly invade a nation.

Do you think slavery just happened? Heck no! Men throughout history lusted for power over other humans. But I used Americans’ pride and laziness to push their thirst for control over others to the limits. Slaveowners took depravity to the lowest depths of humanity. Sex and human trafficking ran amuck. Forcing men, women, and children to play the humiliating role of nothing more than chattel property was one of my greatest achievements. Plantation owners treated slaves like farm animals with no regard for their health, welfare, families, or any role they played other that whatever role the slaveowner chose for them. And I instilled and maintained in all their minds that owning another human was just something they did. ‘Everybody does that!’ made it OK.

I hope you didn’t think when Americans adopted the attitude that government was nothing more than a tool for them to use for their personal enrichment that their doing so was just something that happened. I DID THAT! And it was pretty easy. After all, when men and women live every day of their lives thinking their desires are the only things that matter in their world, they ALWAYS find ways to make certain what they want is available — somehow. I dropped this question into a politician’s head one day: “Why not just use government to take care of all of this. When I control the political might, I control every person, every business, every law, and every dollar. That way, I can have everything I ever want!”

The first politicians I turned took it to some really way-out limits. So I made it clear to them that they needed to keep pushing forward with their political power-grabbing processes, but they needed to keep it quiet. There were always going to be men and women around who would reject me and my ideas and would stick to everything right, legal, and fair. We didn’t need those do-gooders talking to others about us. And it worked.

You may be saying, ‘All this is just a bit too far-fetched!’ Do you REALLY think that?

  • You don’t think I was there when John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln? Booth was one of my guys. Lincoln refused to drink the ‘Corruption Kool-Aid.’ I had to take him out. Booth was just the guy.
  • You don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald acted on his own? That conspiracy theory about ‘Who Shot Kennedy’ was about a real conspiracy. I couldn’t have a guy in power who was teaching Americans to live lives totally opposite to my teaching. He told them ‘Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.’ I couldn’t have this nation become one of people who cared for others!
  • You don’t believe that James Earl Ray shot Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because Ray was a racist? James Earl Ray was on a mission — for ME! My people needed African Americans to continue to be subservient to Caucasian Americans and live only to fulfill the whims of those ‘superior’ Americans. King was teaching those African Americans that they were really valuable, and were created as equal human beings in every way. I couldn’t allow that!
  • You don’t think those white Southern Democrats came up with those white sheets and the burning hunger to terrorize African Americans on their own? I planted those seeds in their minds. I had created racism! It was an amazing tool to pit one human against another, to perpetuate anger, bigotry, and hatred, and to perpetuate war — real or perceived — between people who are ‘different.’ I had to keep white Americans believing black Americans were unworthy of human dignity. I had to keep black Americans subservient and willing to accept they were less than human.
  • You don’t think that some guy just decided that he didn’t like women and he preferred other guys and some woman that she liked other women? Things regarding sex between men and women had rocked along too quietly for too long. I had to plant those thoughts and confuse those men and women. And I later used that confusion to create an entire political movement to instill and perpetuate some of the most amazing animus yet in America. And it’s still working!
  • I made politicians’ lust for power so consuming they accepted every thought I gave them as to how to build and perpetuate power while hiding their intentions, methods, and actions in accumulating all the power in the U.S. necessary to enslave the entire population without them even knowing it.
  • I created blackmail. I taught politicians how to use it to enslave their fellow legislators, forcing them to commit the most disgusting acts against others one can imagine. Politicians were forced to go along with horrific and heinous acts against American citizens in every way imaginable: confiscatory tax policies, theft of citizens’ rights and property, unfair criminal law and prosecution, personal enrichment through unimaginable schemes — all while opening the door to bigger and bigger government to allow an elite class of Americans to self-determine every aspect of life for every American with no regard for those Americans’ wishes.
  • I taught Elitists from that government to allow the evils created by Stalin, Hitler, Gerbel, Mao, and even King Herod stealthily creep back into American culture. Planned Parenthood has been given billions of dollars confiscated from Americans through taxpayers to summarily destroy millions of humans before birth, while those elitists hide that Planned Parenthood ‘refunds’ to those politicians millions of those tax dollars they’ve been given, calling them ‘campaign contributions.’ Politicians waste trillions of American dollars in scheme after scheme, pork project after pork project, passing out money to friends, relatives, companies owned by campaign supporters, all the while accepting billions of dollars and ‘contributions’ from supporters which are all payback. It is ridiculously funny that through the lust for power, money, and their pride, I have (with all of these tools) them so tied to me they cannot say one thing to anyone about any of this! If they do, they’ll all go down. And when one or two start thinking about ‘talking,’ all I have to do is send one of my lieutenants to remind them of what I can do, and they all shut up…or I shut them up!

All this stuff you see politicians do today that just doesn’t seem right? I’m the source of their doing so and their justification for doing it. Things like: picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which ones to forget about, and who can get away with breaking any laws without any penalty — that’s me! Their promoting open borders and illegal immigration — that’s me too! Allowing the unfettered funding of hate groups like ANTIFA and the White Supremacists who each promote nothing but racism, hatred, and anarchy — all of it I instigated. The death of morality and decency throughout the American populace, exploding violence and murder, rape, human trafficking of all kinds, pedophilia, incest, and even abortion — that’s all me. And it’s some of my finest work!

None of any of this is possible without people in power. There are many in government — too many for me to list for you here. (I wouldn’t do that anyway. I don’t want to give myself away anymore than I already have.) But you know them all by name. I won’t even talk about them individually.

God has done an amazing job in creating the world and creating humans. I sometimes slap myself thinking ‘Why did God even create me?!’ I wonder why God created evil, too. I’m not going to worry about that. I’ll just revel in that evil and continue to corrupt everyone I can. I’ve gotten really good at it and hiding it as well.  I’ll bet you never really thought much about me. See, I’ve done a pretty good job!

I’ll let you go with this one thought: people in America are not as stupid as they act. They see all of this along with all the good in the world. American people make choices about whether they are going to let me do through them what my name says I’m all about: corrupting them and leading them into the corruption of others. There are very few who actually speak up against me. Most people (like you) are NOT politicians. Those people (like you) willingly allow this all to happen.

I’m taking a chance coming forward and talking to you about this today. I’m pretty sure you could start talking about me, trying to convince others that I’m real and that you guys should do something to get rid of me. But I’m SO confident, SO sure, and SO good at what I do, I’m pretty sure those other people aren’t going to do something like that.

There is something that is certain: as long as I exist, and as long as men and women keep me around, I’m the one that is going to be in power. I’m the one that will run the show. And I KNOW all the ins and outs of human beings, and how to manipulate you all. Doing so is pretty easy — TOO EASY! And I plan to just keep right on doing what I do best: Corruption.

You could do something about me. You could talk about me to your family members, friends, relatives, and even politicians who are supposed to serve you. But you won’t do that. Why?

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. I KNOW WHAT YOU’VE DONE!

You already knew that, didn’t you? Listen to this and remember this one thing: you’re being quiet about ME is the reason I exist, AND the reason I’m not going anywhere!

 

 

Play

Obstruction: “LOCK THEM UP!”

It has been obscene to watch Congressional committees subpoena witnesses to appear and to subpoena various government agencies for the production of documents regarding very serious investigations only to be stonewalled. Potential witnesses AND those who receive production-of-document subpoenas are NOT appearing and NOT producing those documents demanded by Congress. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are the two chief committees who have fought for testimony and documents from current and former Department of Justice employees and others which seldom see successful subpoena results. This is especially frustrating — not just for committee members, but for American citizens who expect Government to be not only responsive in providing evidence in these investigative matters, but to achieve expected results from the various investigations underway. For the seemingly nonstop obstruction of witness testimony and document production, Americans want not just answers, but results.

What can be done?

There IS Recourse

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).

The witness would have certain due process rights such as the right to counsel, to be advised of the nature of the charges, and to confront witnesses and compel them to appear. The witness could also resort to the courts, for example by seeking a writ of habeas corpus if wrongfully detained. If the dispute were over something like executive privilege, you’d expect the Executive branch to seek judicial intervention at the outset to head off the proceeding — but even then, at least Congress would get a judicial ruling on the privilege question, rather than being forced to rely simply on the Executive’s own interpretation.

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.

Statutory Contempt

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law, it is the “duty” of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action. However, while the law places the duty on the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for action, some proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President, and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They argue that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch.

The legal basis for this position, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinated by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as “departmentalism” or “coordinate construction.” Others argue that Article II of the Constitution requires the President to execute the law, such law being what the lawmaker (e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt) says it is (per Article I). The Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts). They argue that any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President’s subordinates, then the President must “take care” to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be the faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.

According to a detailed study of Congress’s contempt power by the Congressional Research Service, this inherent contempt power has long been dormant. Congress has not sought to use it since 1935, perhaps because it is too unwieldy and time-consuming or is politically unpalatable. From time to time, partisans on one side or another argue that Congress should dust off this power and start arresting witnesses for contempt on its own rather than relying on the statutory process of a referral to the U.S. Attorney.

Summary

Here’s the bottom line for American citizens: as we reported in yesterday’s story and podcast, taxpayers fund the operations of Congress to the tune of $4.6 Billion a year. That number includes all of the legislative operations of the House and Senate, AND all of the other Constitutional functions relegated to the Congress — including implementation of all Constitutional and Congressionally passed laws plus (as the Constitution dictates) operational actions as agreed to by members of Congress that may be violated. Those “actions” include adherence to production and appearance according to legally issued and served subpoenas for all applicable persons.

The criminal offense of “contempt of Congress” sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.

But let’s be honest about all of this: there is a multitude of federal government officials that have been and currently are under subpoena for appearances and production of documents regarding governmental operations and activities that occurred in the professional lives of those subpoenaed regarding government operations. Those documents and sworn testimony expected to occur as a result of subpoenas are necessary for the legal and just operation of the U.S. government, through its various departments and agencies. The American government has the legal right to expect adherence to the terms of those subpoenas. And those subpoenaed MUST comply.

A “Sample” Scenario

Former DOJ Chief Counsel James Baker testified before Congress about numerous matters. Prior to that meeting, Congressman Jim Jordan spoke to FOX News about this entire matter, especially on the frustration of Congress about Rod Rosenstein’s resistance to subpoenas:

 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is supposed to appear before a Congressional oversight committee next week. Mr. Rosenstein has continuously ignored (as has the entire Department of Justice) subpoenas issued for production of documents for more than a year that are needed to show DOJ justification for the application(s) to the FISA Court for authorization to surveil through electronic measures members of the Trump Campaign, possibly including the President. On multiple occasions with the subpoena of other DOJ documents, the excuse for non-production is for “national security” reasons. Some documents HAVE been released that when released prove they were not being held for national security purposes but because of their containing embarrassing information about the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA.

Let’s suppose that when Deputy AG Rosenstein walks into that hearing, the sergeant-at-arms hands him a subpoena that compels him to in 48 hours or less provide those other documents to Congress AND to testify under oath regarding the information confirmed by others that he discussed his personal illegal surveillance of President Trump by wearing a wire while meeting with Mr. Trump. Rosenstein has (for any number of reasons, none of which are true for national security purposes) resisted personal testimony under oath and the production of all those documents. If he refuses to appear and produce within that 48-hour window detailed in that subpoena, have the sergeant-at-arms arrest Rosenstein for “criminal contempt of Congressional subpoena,” taken to jail and jailed per federal law.

“What good would that do?” You ask. It would send a message that FINALLY members of Congress have decided to stop just talking about doing their oversight job and actually DOING Department of Justice oversight!

It would:

  • certainly, result in the sworn testimony of Rosenstein;
  • that testimony would certainly result in additional information necessary to initiate further federal actions regarding criminal wrongdoing by those currently in U.S. government and probably some who have retired or been terminated;
  • jailing Rosenstein would send a resonating message to ALL who are part of the government that Congress is no longer willing to let the “tail wag the dog,” but the “dog” — the American People — demand the enforcement of federal laws — ALL federal laws. And when those laws are broken, (like ignoring subpoenas) legal penalties for wrongdoing will be immediate and harsh.

“If” members of Congress will grow backbones and simply do their jobs, Americans will finally see the truth. Americans will see just how evil the critters in the swamp really are.

Maybe then the President will be finally able to start draining that swamp he promised he’d drain if he was elected.

 

 

Play

Mueller Bullet Points: 10 Reasons to Dislike the Guy”

With the appointment as Special Counsel by his buddy Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller has become just about the most powerful man in the U.S., making him just about the most powerful man on Earth. With his convoluted appointment that violates all types of moral and legal ethics, breaks every rule regarding conflict of interest, and has given him and his group of legal henchmen an unlimited budget with no time restraints whatsoever, this Russia collusion hoax has morphed into what President Trump calls a Witch Hunt.

In this atmosphere, it is easy to see the political, social, moral, and cultural divide steadily widen as this probe forces most Americans to pick a side: Mueller or President Trump. Very few Americans have taken the time and given the effort to research who Mueller is, his political and legal history, and researched the actual basis for this investigation, which is unquestionably based on a false legal premise. For a Special Counsel to even be appointed, the process requires actual evidence of a crime to be present to justify such an appointment. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s named justification for the appoint was “collusion with Russians by members of the Trump Campaign to change the results of the 2016 election.”

Rosenstein was given NO evidence of any collusion that would justify Mueller’s appointment. And even if there was, there is no federal law regarding collusion except in Anti-Trust proceedings! And after 18 months, Mueller has turned up NO collusion with Russia.

Many Americans are steamed about this probe. In fact, a majority who have been polled say this investigation needs to end. And many Americans have negative feelings about Mueller and don’t appreciate what he’s doing.

Instead of our traditional “Bullet Points,” today we are going to look at “10 Reasons to Dislike Robert Mueller,” even if you don’t know him. Let’s get going:

1. The guy’s a leaker.

Breitbart says so. Sure, Mueller’s got a rep for rarely speaking in public or giving interviews. But behind the scenes he’s obviously spending day and night dishing dirt on Donald Trump and the president’s oh-so-honorable colleagues to any reporter who will listen. The deluge of daily stories disparaging President Trump, after all, began the day Mueller was appointed; before Mueller, Trump press coverage was constant sunshine and rainbows. Plus, it’s clearly to Mueller’s strategic advantage to have his investigative steps aired to the public in real time. Besides, who else would leak this kind of stuff? Only Mueller and his team have a motive. The White House isn’t a factionalist den of vipers; the president’s legal team is a well-oiled machine that never leaks; defense lawyers are paragons of virtue. Don’t even get us started on tight-lipped congressional staff — those guys never talk. The only logical explanation here is information about the investigation is coming from Mueller.

2. Mueller is a highly political actor.

Thank God, Newt Gingrich has seen through Mueller’s act. He tweeted recently that “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he has hired. (check FEC reports) Time to rethink.” It’s quite a rethink. Mueller is so political that he’s spent his entire career going back and forth between politicians. He worked in the first George H.W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, then he was a prosecutor on murder cases in Washington, D.C., after running the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and then he flip-flopped back to be a U.S. attorney in the Bill Clinton administration. Get this: He then goes on to run the FBI for both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (a bipartisan Congress even extended his term for two years at Obama’s request). The guy is so political he can’t even decide which side he’s on.

3. Mueller is too thorough and taking too long.

This thing is seriously taking forever. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke for all of us in saying that, “the president is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation and he’d love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do.” You and me, both, friend. Could Mueller go any slower? It’s as if he’s a highly methodical actor systematically gathering strings on multiple broad areas simultaneously: Trump-Russia collusion, Trump Organization business dealings, misconduct in the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice. He needs to hurry this thing along. Trump just wants to be cleared without the fuss of an investigation. Wouldn’t you? The president knows he is innocent and only wishes to spare us all the pain of this drawn-out ordeal. Of course, Trump recently told the New York Times that “I’m not under investigation. For what? I didn’t do anything wrong.” It’s completely reasonable of Trump to be frustrated that this investigation — which doesn’t exist — is taking so long and that Mueller is being so thorough about it.

4. Mueller is too aggressive and is moving too fast.

Slow down, buddy. The New York Times reported that “The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors” and their “shock-and-awe tactics.” When Mueller isn’t moving at a glacial pace, he’s being unprecedentedly aggressive. The Times reported clucking in the defense bar:

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team’s more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

This well-meaning concern among defense lawyers for the effectiveness of Mueller’s investigation is touching. When they aren’t overwhelmed with concern Mueller is moving too slowly, they’re worried sick that he’s going too fast for his own good.

5. He’s hiring bad people with conflicts of interest.

Trump warned us that Mueller’s staff comprises “some very bad and conflicted people.” Fact check: True. Some of Mueller’s staff attorneys have indeed committed the iniquitous crime of donating to Democratic candidates. This is what matters. Ignore their famed careers as prosecutors or appellate lawyers. Ignore the Supreme Court clerkships. Mueller’s staff actually are just human embodiments of contributions to Democratic candidates. No previous special prosecutor has ever employed people with political affiliations. We can’t recall any Republicans in sight for Kenneth Starr’s investigation, and Democrats absolutely fled from working for the Watergate special prosecutor and in the Iran-Contra investigation. If Mueller’s team isn’t wearing #MAGA t-shirts to work underneath their suits, the whole endeavor is hopelessly biased.

6. Mueller himself has conflicts of interest.

Mueller is the most conflicted one of all. Trump astutely pointed out that he’d even agreed to discuss becoming FBI director again following Comey’s dismissal: “He was up here and he wanted the job,” Trump told the New York Times. After he was named as special prosecutor, “I said, ‘What the hell is this all about?’ Talk about conflicts. But he was interviewing for the job.” Plus, Mueller’s old firm also had clients involved in the investigation. The Justice Department reviewed those and found no problem with Mueller’s current role, but what do those guys know anyway? And there’s even more! Trump told the Times that “There were many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.” When he does tell us, everyone is going to feel very foolish about trusting this Mueller guy.

7. Mueller keeps expanding his investigation.

The president warned Mueller that his investigation “is about Russia” and it would cross a red line if he strays into areas like Trump-family finances. And yet, the prosecutor keeps having the temerity to stray beyond the lines that Trump — the conduct of whose campaign and company is the investigation’s very subject — thinks he should be examining. It’s possible Mueller just got confused by his capacious mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which gives him authority not merely over “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” but also over “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any attempt obstruct the investigation. But clearly, Mueller is trampling the time-honored legal principle that the subjects of investigations get to say which parts the police are allowed to investigate.

8. Mueller is best friends with Comey.

A lot of people say this. Here’s Republican Rep. Trent Franks: “Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties. Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.” Here is blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem. He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.”

Sure, their actual premise is wrong and Comey and Mueller are not close friends. But never mind that. If we say it enough times, it will become true.

Mueller and Comey certainly know each other. They ran the same federal law enforcement agency in sequence. They worked together when one of them was deputy attorney general and the other was running the FBI. And they appear to have a mutually respectful relationship. They’ve probably even had lunch. And just as all of us maintain intimate personal friendships and unfailing loyalty towards all our former co-workers, so too is Mueller in the tank for Comey and incapable of remaining objective about President Trump.

9. Mueller is a problem because he was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who is a problem because he appointed Mueller.

No less a figure than the estimable Sean Hannity made this decidedly sensible — and certainly not circular — argument by way of arguing both that Mueller’s probe has gone on too long and that it was exceeding its jurisdictional boundaries, both points discussed above. Rosenstein, you see, is suspect because, among other things, “Rosenstein is … the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn’t know or didn’t care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director’s job.” Mueller, thus, is suspect because his investigation is being overseen by the guy who is suspect for having appointed him. “You can’t make this up,” Hannity writes.

Indeed you cannot.

10. Mueller is respected and admired at the FBI, and the FBI is the depths of the Deep State.

Do you need a better reason to dislike him than that?

Summary

I don’t think anyone knows for certain how this Mueller thing is going to play out — even Mueller himself. But in the midst of the strangest and most obviously evil federal investigation I know of in American history, something certainly IS about to happen. Only time will tell what it is.

Regardless of its outcome, one thing has been lighted like Rockefeller Center during Christmas holidays: there is a large number of evil folks in our government in D.C. And there is a very large volume of evil that needs to be identified, rooted out, and “turned” out — whether it’s laws, policies, government employees or elected legislators. The bad stuff and people must go.

If this Mueller probe does nothing more than simply shine a light on all of this wrongdoing, isn’t that enough? The light is on in the kitchen and the roaches are scrambling for cover. This is not a political thing. This is a good vs. evil thing. And the war has just begun.

This American for one hopes the guys wearing the white hats win this one.

Play

The “Latest” NY Times Anonymous Source

Yep. The hits just keep on coming! The New York Times insulted every pensive, reflective, and intelligent American with their “current” bombshell allegedly based on inside information provided by a senior White House Source. Before we dig into all this, here’s the actual Op-Ed:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. President Trump is facing a test of his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall. The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier. The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over. The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

Facts

Let’s put this all in perspective with Bullet Points!

  • “Anonymous” Think about the fact that such a derogatory Op-ed would be printed in a national newspaper that is supposed to be impartial, honest, and transparent. It contains a series of negative attacks against a sitting President, and is supposedly to be penned by a senior member of that president’s staff! “Anonymous” source? Who reading/listening to this really feels there’s something fishy about this entire process AND the opinion piece? It’s no secret that the owner, publisher, editors, columnists, and reporters at the New York Times despise Donald Trump. It’s no secret they have taken every opportunity to print horrendous stories that contain every conceivable type of nasty allegation against Mr. Trump. Over and over again, this paper has printed “factual” stories that have on numerous occasions been exposed to be complete fabrications. Yet with that history, the Times expects Americans to ignore their history of purposely telling lies and to simply believe that an anonymous White House senior staffer not only wrote this Op-ed for publication but is working with an entire segment of the White House staff surreptitiously actually running the policies of the White House behind the President’s back!
  • For a moment let’s assume someone there really did write and submit this to the New York Times. Look at the content and the claims made. According to this source, this group of staffers sees themselves as knowing what’s best for Americans, what presidential policy should look like, are quietly framing legislation and policy on all fronts, and as American heroes are “steering the administration in the right direction until — one way or the other — it’s over.”
  • The “right direction.” I am trying to understand what direction that might be. Obviously, this “group” does not believe in the Constitutional right of every American to vote their conscience in each election and those elected are then legally empowered to fulfill the responsibilities of the office for which they were elected. They obviously don’t trust that Americans had the sense or prudence to elect this president, are too stupid to understand what craziness would result in America if his campaign promises were fulfilled. Those policies were revealed to Americans months and even years before those staffers ever thought they had a chance to work in the White House. Oh….the President HAS implemented dozens of those policies (I guess over their hard work to thwart behind-the-scenes his doing so) that have resulted in the unequaled and never-before-achieved employment numbers, tremendous corporate expansions, hirings, implementation of new technology, billions of corporate dollars kept abroad re-patriated back to the U.S. to fuel expansion, growth, employee raises and bonuses. That doesn’t sound like the work of some back-office pirates contemplating mutiny OR a deranged politician who apparently cannot even complete sentences in a conversation or make a phone call.
  • This person is (with all of this animus, anger, regret, and frustration) still working in the White House. Why? Purportedly to steer the ship — the U.S. — out of the Trump troubled waters back into the waters they have empowered themselves to determine as “safe.”

Summary

If you have not yet surmised this: I don’t believe this “anonymous” source even exists. I feel strongly — especially with the ridiculous past exposures of New York Times reporters’ fabrication of stories — this is a non-existent source with outrageous manufactured story elements.

How many times does it take for you to hear lies from a liar before you question the viability of everything the liar says? How many times will the Times lie before you refuse to believe what they publish — especially an Op-ed replete with bombastic allegations that heretofore are unreported and unconfirmed. But wait: using “anonymous” sources allows one to say anything, quote anyone, make numerous allegations, and expecting benign acceptance of a willing public. I am confident that is what we are experiencing with this.

We have reported extensively — as have numerous other reputable news sources  — of the danger of reliance upon anonymous news sources. Those who use those sources claim that without identification protection, details of a presidential administration wrongdoing, illegal and/or inappropirate actions of government agencies and individuals, and even their illegal activities would remain unknown. In a way, I can “kind of” agree with that. (hey: “kind of” agree with sounds a bit like being “kind of” pregnant!) But then I remember this: Congress crafted a federal whistleblower program that not only protects those who step forward with information such as that revealed in this Op-ed, but the whistleblower is rewarded financially for doing so. Why then would the New York Times “anonymous source” want to remain in the shadows? Any reasonable person in the White House would know that with the release of this Op-ed, their identity will certainly be ferreted out and they will be exposed and almost certainly terminated.

But that should never be necessary. This person — if they exist — should immediately resign their position. No American who really believes in the American political system, the structure and operation of the presidency, and the sensitive nature of running a White House, would even consider working under such conditions as are alleged in this story.

The release of this Op-ed has begun another Trump feeding frenzy — especially in the Media. Here’s how it works:

Bubba Gump Newspaper” prints a story that quotes an anonymous source who said Jack and Jill went up the hill. Then “Barney Fife News Network” airs a television breaking news story that says: “According to confirmed sources, we have verified that Jack and Jill went up the hill.” Barney Fife Network did not verify the source or the accuracy of the story. Their “confirmed source” was “Bubba Gump Newspaper!”

This is how today’s Mainstream Media functions. One will release a story. The others may half-heartedly make attempts to confirm independently from a reputable source the truth of the story. But usually, they simply use the news outlet that originated the story as their “confirmed source!” It happens every day.

In fact, regarding the Trump-Russia FISA warrant, the basis was at least in part based on such a process:

The FBI leaked information about Carter Page and his Russian contacts to a news source so that news source would publish it. When published, other news sources immediately picked up that story and ran with it. Then the FBI went to the FISC requesting a FISA warrant, stating in the warrant application that “multiple sources have confirmed that Carter Page actually met with Russians promoting a meeting between Trump and Russian President Putin.” Their “multiple sources” were the news agencies that re-published the original story leaked by the FBI! The original source was not a source, but was the FBI.

Today’s media cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That’s sad but true.

Let’s hope those 45,000 sealed indictments (yep: the number is up to 45,000 now) begin being unsealed and executed soon. “Aren’t you afraid there are indictments in there of President Trump, his campaign members, his family members, and Republican lawmakers?” You know what: I REALLY DON’T CARE! I want the truth on the street. I want the discontinuance of news releases based on information obtained from “anonymous” sources. I want complete transparency without hiding anything.

Mr. or Ms. White House senior staff member anonymous source: either be quiet and trust the decision made by your bosses — the American people — to make Donald Trump the American CEO to operate the business of the country, or resign and sell your story — with supporting and verifiable evidence — to the New York Times.

Maybe you already have sold it to them.

If I was you I would have.

Play

The Mueller “Blockbuster”

I hated to end yesterday’s story forced for lack of time to “tease” the finale today. But there are very important considerations for you as this Mueller Investigation is winding down — so important they deserve a space of their own. There is history to start this story. I think it is apparent to most people that this investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is anything BUT traditional or normal. Its sources are hazy at best. Its foundation is questionable based on the Special Prosecutor statute and Department of Justice regulations. Nevertheless, a sitting U.S. President is under investigation for “collusion” or involvement with Russia in some way to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Let’s begin this analysis by drawing two potential/probable conclusions as to the basis, intent, and expected findings of the Mueller Investigation. Please follow the thoughts and evidence immediately below. At the end of the story, we’ll look at the “Either-Or” blockbuster scenario I promised! Don’t cheat…read all the way through!

“In The Beginning”

It started long before Robert Mueller sat in the Oval Office with Rod Rosenstein and President Trump, reportedly interviewing for the FBI Director position after the President terminated James Comey. Many think that Mueller’s NOT being offered the job initiated a payback by Mueller to Mr. Trump for not hiring him. That supposedly prompted his appointment the next day as Special Counsel by his longtime friend and business associate (now Deputy Attorney General) Rod Rosenstein. Let’s think this through:

  • Mueller was not even eligible to take that job even if offered. Mueller had already served his term limit as FBI Director: 10 years. In fact, President Obama held him over as Director, obtaining special permission to do so. Mueller knew that before the meeting was even scheduled;
  • There was someone else in that Oval Office meeting: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The AG certainly knew of Mueller’s term limits conflict. Knowing this, why would the President and Attorney General have such a meeting with Mueller? And if Sessions was in that meeting, why would his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, be there as well?
  • Sessions as the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General recused himself from his being a part of “any investigation into any matter dealing with the 2016 election.” His stated purpose for his recusal: potential conflict of interest in that he had been somewhat involved in the Trump campaign;
  • Robert Mueller — a lifelong attorney who had spent much of his career in the Justice Department — hired a team of investigators comprised almost entirely of Democrats who had supported the Hillary Clinton campaign and previously Barack Obama. Why would Mueller make such a partisan effort to taint the investigative staff knowing it would certainly cause concern for any impartiality of any actions the group would take?
  • Mueller, with the expansive investigatory authority he held from Rosenstein’s letter of appointment and its amendment, could have (and many say “should have”) cast a net far wider in the Russian investigation to include the Clinton Campaign and its surrogates in light of the findings of Clinton involvement with Russians before and during the campaign. Why would such an experienced investigator not go after that “low hanging fruit?”
  • The Mueller team is comprised of 13 attorneys and their staff. How could such a small group effectively examine 1 million + documents received from the Trump Campaign plus the myriad of other applicable evidence in the investigation? (divide 1.4 million by 13. Each would have had 107,692 multi-page documents to investigate)
  • There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well. The evidence that triggered the special counsel’s Russia investigation was the 35-page opposition research document known as the “Steele dossier.” Democratic campaign operatives funded the dossier; it was not an independent intelligence report. And it was later shared with the FBI, whose former director, James Comey, has acknowledged that allegations in the document could have been made up.
  • Comey’s personal memos. The then-FBI director intentionally leaked these classified memos recounting his version of conversations he had with President Donald Trump, hoping they would lead to the appointment of a special counsel. Comey admitted this at a Senate intelligence committee hearing last year, testifying, “I needed to get that out into the public square. And, I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Under the poisonous tree doctrine, if the premise is faulty, the conclusion must also be faulty. Since the evidence for a special counsel was tainted, so too was his appointment. Comey got exactly what he wanted, even if it was unfair to the president, possibly illegal, and tarnished the reputation of the FBI.

A Look at The “Other” Thoughts

  • Remember DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his bombshell report of DOJ wrongdoing in the Clinton email investigation? Remember that note from AG Sessions stating that the DOJ had assigned “470 investigators to work with Horowitz on the investigation?
  • Remember AG Sessions in November of 2017 appointed Utah federal prosecutor John Huber to (independently and far from D.C. distractions) investigate a bunch of things that included wrongdoing by unnamed politicos in D.C.?
  • Did you know that Sessions assigned those 470 investigators to work with Huber after the Horowitz investigation was completed?
  • Did you know that starting in late October of 2017, more than 45,000 federal indictments issued in part by every federal district court in the U.S. have been sealed for later adjudication? Did you know that in U.S. history, the most such indictments handed down in total in the U.S. in any year is less than 2,000?

Let’s play the “What If” Game with this.

“What If:”
  • The Trump/Mueller/Rosenstein/Sessions meeting in the Oval Office was NOT about FBI Director position. What if it was a meeting to initiate a plan to quietly create a smokescreen with a Special Counsel investigation to simultaneously investigate secretly the Clinton Campaign, Clinton Foundation, former and current Justice Department officials, while objectively investigating any potential wrongdoing in the Trump Campaign?
  • Some of those 45,000 sealed indictments are of a rogue intelligence agency, IRS, FBI, DOJ, State Department, and political party individuals for illegal activities? Remember: 25+ DOJ and FBI employees have been fired, demoted, or have “retired” since this investigation began.
  • Jeff Sessions — who has been suspiciously “incognito” during the last year or so — has been quietly working behind the scenes supervising these ongoing investigations? Remember: Sessions made a public statement regarding Utah federal attorney John Huber’s appointment to investigate many things without Washington D.C. interference. In that announcement the AG mentioned Huber’s having access to those 470 DOJ investigators. Many think Sessions announcing that was quietly putting the word out that serious investigations were/are ongoing in all of these wrongdoings by many.
  • All the noise and tweets and allegations and even name-calling by the President the last 18 months has been a purposeful distraction of the American media (and even of potential targets of these investigations) and Americans? We have seen the President use this distraction tool on numerous occasions: “Look what I have in my right hand — see, I’m waving it.” When all along what he is REALLY doing is in his left hand behind his back. Trump is a master salesman.
  • The targets of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation are NOT Donald Trump and Trump associates, but rather James Brennan, James Clapper, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey being investigated for obstruction of justice in their actions in covering up illegal activities? Other targets could also be the Clinton Campaign, Hillary and Bill personally, the Holder and the Lynch DOJ, the Comey FBI, Brennan CIA, and Clapper DNI? That could explain the public anger and borderline threats by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey and why Holder and Lynch have stayed so obviously out of any discussions.
  • John Huber is really “The Guy” carrying the weight of ALL these investigations? He certainly has sufficient investigative staff and resources to get the job done.

The “Blockbuster” Revelation

By now you certainly know the TruthNewsNetwork perspective that there are actually two possible scenarios we are living through regarding the real purposes for the Mueller investigation. Obviously, the premise of the investigation was false: there IS no collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign.

The conventional wisdom is that the first explanation listed above is exactly what is happening. But to believe that, one has to believe in the Deep State, that all those in leadership at the Department of Justice, the FBI, DNI, CIA, and other investigative agencies and the U.S. Military are actually part of a grand conspiracy to turn the U.S. rule of law upside down. And while doing so, their intent would surely be to turn the nation away from its established political structure as a democratic representative republic. A Deep State comprised of a self-appointed class of individuals would have to be chosen, installed, and in control of the U.S. political process AND the U.S. military. It could never be successful without a military coup.

On the other hand, the second scenario and possible Mueller investigation explanation detailed above would require thousands of people to remain totally quiet about that process: no leaks at all. One would have to believe that Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions, the President, and his senior staff members would all have come to an agreement to work together surreptitiously to complete these investigations.

You might feel that getting such a task successfully completed is impossible. And you might be correct. There are so many moving parts and so many people that are part of it, accomplishing the investigative tasks necessary is a monumental task at best. But IF it is actually as described above, it would explain many things and answer any questions we have no answer for now:

  • Why has AG Sessions been so quiet and seemingly totally uninvolved in any of the investigations in what appears to be an effort to force a sitting President out of office?
  • Why was Huber appointed, and to investigate what and whom?
  • Why has Sessions allocated Huber 470 DOJ investigators fulltime?
  • Why has President Trump not fired Sessions in light of the President’s many tweets questioning the Attorney General’s lack of action regarding any of this?
  • Why has the DOJ and/or FBI NOT announced any investigations that are underway into anything to do with obvious inappropriate if not illegal actions by the Clinton Campaign, the Democrat Party, and individuals in both organizations?
  • Why has the DOJ not launched a REAL investigation into the Uranium One transaction and those who were part of the sale of U.S. uranium to a Canadian company who sold it to a Russian government-controlled company?

Summary

Which do you think it is? I am certain you have an opinion on both possibilities. Let’s face it: either Mueller is an evil tyrant bent on the destruction of Donald Trump and all those who work for or with him, or you think Mueller is secretly a really good guy working with the President, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and others to bring a bunch of people to justice for their reprehensible wrongdoing.

I have personal opinions as I am certain you do on this entire American political debacle. Part of me wants to give all those involved in the investigation the benefit of the doubt. Another part wants to believe there is a grand conspiracy by a large group of those heretofore who have been trusted leaders of the Department of Justice, the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and even senior members of the Democrat Party and the Clinton campaign.

Unfortunately, part of that second scenario must be consideration of the involvement in this entire action by former President Obama and members of his administration.

My conclusion? It’s certain to be one or the other. Only time will tell. I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the evil by many that have been exposed, and how much evil was successfully hidden from Americans for so long.

God help us if the Deep State is already in charge or is successfully taking charge of our country. If so, we can all be certain Big Brother is in control and the rule of law is gone as is “liberty and justice for all.”

GOD HELP US!

 

 

 

Play

Mueller Mania

“The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s fury toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

For a lawyer to share so much with investigators scrutinizing his client is unusual. Lawyers are rarely so open with investigators, not only because they are advocating on behalf of their clients but also because their conversations with clients are potentially shielded by attorney-client privilege, and in the case of presidents, executive privilege.”

This bombshell story was released by the New York Times Sunday, August 19th. Don McGahn — White House Counsel — according to this report has spent 30 hours in private meetings with the Robert Mueller team answering questions about President Trump’s actions regarding all those things Mueller is investigating. And who knows what things that includes.

There are some significant things to note from this occurrence:

  1. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, as President Mr. Trump would have had to waive Executive Privilege for McGahn to meet with Mueller;
  2. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, Mr. Trump would have had to waive his right to confidentiality between his attorney and himself;
  3. 30 Hours: Obviously this was a long time for a lawyer to meet with prosecutors to discuss anything — especially alleged wrongdoing by the President of the United States. Certainly MUCH was discussed, MUCH was asked of McGahn, and MUCH was answered;
  4. I’ll stretch way out there with this statement: It is almost certain McGahn’s discussions yielded absolutely nothing in the way of implicating President Trump on collusion (which is not a crime) or obstruction of justice. In fact, buried at the bottom of the New York Times story is this: “Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky.”

Mueller Leaks

  • June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
  • July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
  • August 3, 2017: Citing “people familiar with the matter,” the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
  • August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
  • August 24, 2017: “A source close to the investigation” provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
  • August 25, 2017: “People familiar with the matter” informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
  • August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
  • September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
  • September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to Mueller’s team and Senate investigators leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
  • October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three “sources familiar with the investigation” saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
  • October 27, 2017: “Sources briefed on the matter,” told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
  • November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
  • November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a “person familiar with the matter” reporting that Mueller’s team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump’s campaign, including documents and emails were written by several campaign officials.
  • December 2, 2017: Multiple “people familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
  • January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
  • February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
  • February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three “people familiar with the matter” said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
  • February 28, 2018: An unnamed former Trump campaign aide told CNN Mueller’s team asked about comments former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made during her interview with investigators about possible contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.
  • March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited “sources familiar with the matter” saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
  • March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
  • March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
  • March 7, 2018: “People familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to the inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
  • March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
  • April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
  • April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump’s legal team.
  • March 9, 2018: from POLITICO —“Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors aren’t talking to the media, but still the leaks keep coming. In the past two weeks, anonymously sourced news reports have said the top federal Russia investigator is preparing to indict Russians for hacking Democratic emails in 2016; focusing on why one of President Donald Trump’s longtime lawyers was in talks about a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign; asking questions about Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s business dealings; and probing whether the United Arab Emirates improperly sought to influence Trump White House policy.”
  • Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman has seen no evidence that these leaks—often sourced to people familiar with the investigation or briefed on it—have come directly from Mueller or his staff. When Mueller has spoken publicly, it has been through criminal complaints and indictments.

This list includes Mueller leaks only through March 9, 2018. How many others are there? How many more will there be?

What is Mueller’s Objective and How do Leaks Play into that?

I have an “informed” conclusion I have drawn from this and other evidence surrounding the Mueller Investigation. It’s pretty exhaustive and detailed. For the sake of time, let’s wait until tomorrow to have that entire discussion. There are enough important details in this explanation that we need to lay it all out in chronological order and with complete details. We’ll do that tomorrow.

Rest assured of one thing: there IS a master plan with a sinister under-girding in the Mueller probe. Many circumstances of this investigation are too stark and too related to things outside of the actual investigation to be random. This entire chapter of the Trump presidency was planned in advance and orchestrated.

Who, How, and What? Find out tomorrow at the Truth News Network!

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
WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com