DOJ Earthquake

Jeff Sessions is out at the Department of Justice. And Democrats are incensed. How could Donald Trump even think about asking for the Sessions resignation? Doesn’t POTUS know that Congress controls the Department of Justice, who runs it, and who is allowed to do certain things in the DOJ? Isn’t he afraid of what Congress can and will do — especially now that Democrats will control the House and therefore wield unfettered power over the White House — to punish the President for kicking Sessions to the curb? Certainly firing Sessions is to impact the Mueller Investigation, maybe even to fire Mueller to end the Russian collusion investigation. However, Trump doesn’t care what Democrats think!

Democrats think American voters have forgotten the frustration of this President when Jeff Sessions — immediately after his confirmation as Atttorney General — announced his recusal from all 2016 election investigative matters, which include Trump Campaign alleged collusion with Russians to impact the election. Do they not remember that the recusal included any revisiting of the Hillary Clinton FBI investigation?

Have they forgotten the dozens of times in press conferences and conversations on the record President Trump’s desire for Sessions to leave the DOJ so that he could appoint a replacement without any conflicts that could perform every one of the AG duties?

Oh, by the way, in a White House nationally televised press conference today, President Trump when asked what his intentions are about Robert Mueller, he demonstratively declared he has no intention to fire Mueller, he wants the Mueller investigation to conclude but will not stop it, and that he has no concerns regarding the investigation because there’s no wrongdoing to be uncovered.

Then what is the basis for the Democrat outcry about the firing of Jeff Sessions? Congressional members should be ecstatic at the firing. Sessions resisted Congressional requests for documents over and over again — even after they were subpoenaed. Both Democrats and Republicans have complained again and again about the resistance of the Sessions DOJ in compliance with Congressional oversight.

Why the hoopla?

SImple: IT’S ALL ABOUT DONALD TRUMP! Bottom line is that Democrats — including their “2nd arm,” the Media — hate Trump simply because he does NOT comply with their mandate or their agenda. None understand his commitment to the American people to whom he promised to “Drain the Swamp.” The Swamp includes all of them!

The Process of DOJ “Trump Hate”

We first saw that hate immediately following the firing of James Comey and the appointment of Robert Mueller. But it evidenced its existence in a great way after the termination of Deputy A.G. Sally Yates. She was an Obama holdover who from the announcement of the election results joined the leftist plot to foil his administration.

Here’s an Op-Ed she penned July 28, 2017, explaining her angst for all things Trump: (edited for length)

“The spectacle of President Trump’s efforts to humiliate the attorney general into resigning has transfixed the country. But while we are busy staring at the wreckage of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ relationship with the man he supported for the presidency, there is something more insidious happening.

The president is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time-honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and day out, regardless of which political party is in power.

If we are not careful, when we wake up from the Trump presidency, our justice system may be broken beyond recognition.

Over the past few days, many people from both parties have rightly expressed their dismay at how President Trump has publicly lambasted the attorney general, noting the president’s lack of loyalty to a man who has been consistently loyal to him.

Former Deputy AG Sally Yates

And while this is indeed true, it misses the larger and more dangerous consequences of the president’s actions.

President Trump claims that it is very “unfair” that Mr. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, a recusal indisputably necessary given Mr. Sessions’ role in the campaign that is now under investigation. At its core, the president’s complaint is that he doesn’t have a political ally at the Justice Department to protect him from the Russia investigation. And he is apparently trying to bully Mr. Sessions into resigning so that he can put someone in place who will.

President Trump’s actions appear aimed at destroying the fundamental independence of the Justice Department. All the while, he’s ripping the blindfold off Lady Justice and attempting to turn the department into a sword to seek vengeance against his perceived enemies and a shield to protect himself and his allies.

The Justice Department is not just another federal agency. It is charged with fulfilling our country’s promise of equal and impartial justice for all. As an agency with the authority to deprive citizens of their liberty, its investigations and prosecutions must be conducted free from any political interference or influence, and decisions must be made based solely on the facts and the law.

And the outcome of that analysis does not vary based on who occupies the White House. While some in the public may disagree with particular decisions, the Justice Department prosecutors and agents must have the independence to call it like they see it.

The strict separation between the Justice Department and the White House applies to even the most mundane of criminal investigations, and nowhere does it matter more than when the investigation reaches into the White House itself. In short, no one at the White House should have anything to do with any decisions about whom or what to investigate or prosecute. Period.”

Sally Q. Yates was a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration.
Ms. Yates’ writing eerily echoes some claims from fired FBI Director James Comey. It is personally difficult for me to reconcile the grossly erroneous claims made by Yates just as those from Comey. Their basis comes from one place common in Deep State matters: Elitism. Yates, Comey, and Democrat Party leaders falsely maintain the Department of Justice and its investigative arm — the FBI — are legally to act as an independent arm of the Federal Government. Unless the Constitution has been amended without my knowledge, these folks are absolutely incorrect. The Department of Justice/FBI are part of the Executive Branch, headed by the President of the United States.
That means that Donald Trump has total authority over the hiring and firing of every member of the DOJ: they all work “at the pleasure of the President.” The ruse that by firing James Comey and now Jeff Sessions is somehow obstruction of justice is not only untrue, It is laughable. The elitist purpose can only be to trick Americans into thinking that lie and creating further animus in the Executive Branch — specifically the Trump White House. How could firing Comey (who leaked classified information to the press) and Jeff Sessions (who numerous times has ignored legal subpoenas for Congressional appearances and multiple classified document production) be obstruction? They each brought to their firings a trail of actions that violated the responsibilities of their jobs.
But the silliest charge in all this is the instant cries from the Left for the Interim Attorney General to recuse himself from having anything to do regarding Robert Mueller, the Mueller Investigation, or anything to do with “other” investigations of the President. What basis is there for their demands? “Conflict of Interest.” What’s Whitaker’s conflict? In 2017, Whitaker as a guest commentator on CNN in a discussion about the possible firing of Robert Mueller, stated that one way Trump could terminate Mueller (other than his firing) was to fire Sessions, then have his replacement cut Mueller’s funding to operate the investigation, therefore ending it. That’s the conflict of interest they all are screaming about. They all demand that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein be allowed to continue as the person at DOJ who Mueller answers to.
Think about that: Whitaker in that interview purportedly showed conflict of interest in that statement on CNN. They demand Rosenstein stays on the case. ROSENSTEIN IS RIDDLED WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING ROBERT MUELLER!
  • Rosenstein worked previously directly for Mueller;
  • Rosenstein’s wife worked with Mueller;
  • Rosenstein (with corroboration) discussed going to a meeting with the President wearing a wire, and even discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office.

Do you think Rosenstein has a conflict of interest? Do you think that conflict should prompt Rosenstein to recuse himself? Many think he should (because of all of the above) even resign his post as Deputy Attorney General.

Summary

I have a unique suggestion: President Trump (as the defacto head of the DOJ) should relinquish the control of to whom at DOJ Mueller answers TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Congress is Constitutionally charged to oversee the DOJ anyway. It makes sense for them to temporarily assume that responsibility, and make sure everyone part of the Mueller probe complies with all laws and are accountable for compliance with subpoenas for production of documents and committee appearances.

61% of Americans polled are ready for the Mueller probe to end. About the same number now believe there was no collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump Campaign. They also believe every day the Mueller investigation is allowed to stretch its mandate, doing so is strictly for political purposes. The primary purpose: GET RID OF DONALD TRUMP!

Most Americans — even those who don’t personally like President Trump — feel he should be allowed to do the job for which he was elected.

I agree.

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

Crisis at Justice

How much more is necessary before someone in charge sounds the alarm? The Department of Justice is in shambles — including the FBI. “Shambles,” you ask? Look at senior staff departures so far from the Trump DOJ and FBI:

FBI Departures

  1. James Comey, director (fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

Department Of Justice Departures

  1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
  2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
  3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
  4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
  5. Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
  7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
  9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
  11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

*Status Unclear

Keep in mind, there are quite a few others who are on the “watch-list” for potential demotions, firings, and retirements in both agencies. And it’s very possible there are those not yet on this list because for security reasons they have not been announced.

What’s Going On?

It seems that almost daily new revelations about wrongdoing, insubordination, and borderline illegal activities of many at the FBI and Department of Justice find their way into the news. Americans are rapidly losing confidence in the Department of Justice and FBI. It gets more difficult by the day to believe that this Justice Department has always been the most proficient, most successful, and most important justice system of any on Earth.

What has become apparent to many is that the decline of credibility and integrity of those at the top of both agencies is nothing new. It apparently began years ago — if not during the Clinton or Bush 43 administrations, then certainly during the Obama years. And those from the Obama Administration seem to have been deeply involved in the most egregious of the instances of wrongdoing being exposed today.

That causes many questions to be asked by American of DOJ leaders:

  • How long has this been going on?
  • Who at the top was involved (and IS involved) and may be responsible for these illegal and inappropriate actions?
  • How deep does this evil go?
  • Who in the Obama Administration was involved?
  • How far up the chain of authority in Obama’s White House did involvement go?
  • Who in the Obama White House knew about it all?
  • Was U.S. National Security ever breached?
  • If so, by whom? Who was responsible and who was involved?
  • If involved, what was President Obama’s involvement?
  • Did the President authorize any/all of the illegal actions taken by the DOJ and FBI?
  • Was Obama involved in the FISA warrant process to authorize surveillance of the Trump Campaign?
  • When did the Obama Administration first get knowledge of Russia’s attempts to hack into the U.S. election system? What if anything was done about that suspected or actual election interference?
  • Are details available of contracts or agreements between the Obama DOJ and outside vendors and any compensation for anyone for “assisting” the fulfillment of those contracts?
  • Who (if anyone) in the current DOJ or FBI has personal communication with Obama or any other former Obama Administration individual?
  • Who at the DOJ or FBI authorized Clinton Campaign individuals to receive immunity from prosecution?
  • Who at the DOJ or FBI determined all interviews of Clinton Campaign individuals and Clinton herself were not be sworn testimony?
  • Why has Attorney General Jeff Sessions not been removed?
  • What investigations are underway by the DOJ regarding any/all of the wrongdoing mentioned above?
  • Who has authority besides the President to fire Robert Mueller?
  • Why has no one stepped in to assure Mueller stays within the guidelines of his appointment as Special Counsel in the Trump Campaign/Russia collustion investigation?

There are certainly hundreds of additional questions Americans have (with new ones coming daily) about the apparent corruption in the current DOJ. And Americans wonder more and more about corruption in past Departments of Justice and how it impacted the nation.

What Steps Can/Should be Taken at the DOJ?

No doubt, opinions of what should happen are all over the place — speculation and possibilities abound. Almost universally, Americans want those in the Department of Justice and the FBI who are guilty of any wrongdoing, collusion with outside sources or are involved in any way in a process to remove a duly elected president to be discovered and immediately removed from their position pending prosecution whenever prosecution is appropriate. In fact, those steps should have already been taken at the DOJ.

Some will say that the removal and/or retirement or quitting by those on the list at the top of this story prove actions ARE being taken. But for most Americans, that step simply shows the tip of an iceberg of corruption and wrongdoing.

Should the 6th floor of the Hoover Building (the Administration floor where all the top leaders of the DOJ and FBI office) be cleaned out totally? That question asked at the time of the Trump inauguration would have been laughed at. But today, asking it is certainly warranted. Should it happen?

There are those who will say that it is inevitable that those who remain from a previous administration will likely remain loyal to the policies of the past administration to the disadvantage of the “new” boss. And in many cases that is true. However, the specialization and the magnitude of the tasks that must be performed by every department of the DOJ and FBI certainly require continuity for success. Replacement of all senior management at every change of President would create a mountain of problems while the new folks figure out what to do and how to do it. That is the purpose for many of the “career” members of the agencies who remain when new administrations takeover. But that practice comes with significant potential dangers. We are seeing many of those “potential” dangers become “actual” dangers in many cases perpetrated by some holdover Obama DOJ senior staff members.

I ask again: should President Trump “clean house” at the management level of the DOJ?

Remember when fired FBI Director James Comey after his termination stated that President Trump questioned him privately about his loyalty to the President? Comey thought that the question was inappropriate and a conflict.  But let’s be honest: how can any president hope for his policies and ideas of operations in any department of government to be implemented by management if those managers and supervisors feel no sense of loyalty to their boss? That’s not an unreasonable expectation at all! In fact, Americans who elect each president expect his/her policies for which he/she was elected to be implemented wherever necessary, and rightly so. That requires cooperation and LOYALTY by those who swore an oath or made a promise to do just that!

How could Comey or anyone else expect to NOT be requested for loyalty — either literally or benignly? This is certain: Comey asked for (if not demanded) loyalty from those in management positions under him at the FBI, as did former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder of DOJ managers. I am certain so did Robert Mueller when he was FBI Director before James Comey.  Obama may not have asked for it or demanded it, but if he did not expect such loyalty it was a huge mistake.

Summary: “Accountability”

Here’s the success code for senior management’s success in any business setting — private or governmental:

  1. Detail a master plan (policy plan) for all members of senior management;
  2. Require each management member to determine what piece of that master plan is their responsibility to fulfill;
  3. Make certain the resources necessary for the success of each task are provided to each manager: infrastructure, equipment, personnel, etc.;
  4. Make yourself available routinely to discuss the progress of each task, any issues, potential solutions for issues, and status of completion timeline;
  5. Coordinate completion of each task with each manager until completion;
  6. Here’s the most important component of this process: Hold EACH accountability for management of their task process AND final results.

I don’t think Lynch, Comey, or Obama used this process to run the FBI or Department of Justice. Eric Holder certainly did not. He didn’t even hold HIMSELF accountable.

Clean House?

Donald Trump is a really smart business manager. He knows this process better than I ever could. It is the Federal Government and who are their bosses — you and me — that make this process somewhat convoluted. But here’s the ONLY important piece of this process: Donald Trump was elected to fulfill each of the promises he made to voters during his campaign. He needs to do just that. AND VOTERS NEED TO (AND WILL) HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE!

He must hold his managers accountable for carrying out their individual tasks and making those completed tasks fit into the master plan. That may mean the termination of some. That happens in every administration and at every successful private company. But the President of the U.S. MUST make certain the operations of the most important two departments in the Executive Branch of government run smoothly, honestly, and on-track with the implementation and practices necessary to achieve their stated goals. That’s the Department of Justice and FBI.

I think there needs to be a carefully planned and coordinated house cleaning at the DOJ and FBI. There are honest and reliable managers in each department that if identified, empowered, and put in place could help make such a move seamlessly and as painless as possible.

Doing so would rid the nation of the corruption and self-dealing that seems to be running amuck at both places. It would also give rank-and-file employees confidence that this president really is committed to guaranteeing voters that every member of his administration is going to do the right thing the right way every time — or else. That’s what is missing in today’s DOJ and FBI: accountability.

Are Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray the right people to head such a cleansing? That’s something I cannot determine. But one thing is certain: President Trump has access to all the information necessary to determine if such a cleansing is necessary and justified.

If the conclusion is for a cleansing, President Trump should have instant access to whatever resources are necessary to complete it AND to guarantee that during that cleansing, no effectiveness at the FBI or DOJ is lost or watered down.

Change for change itself is seldom good. But change anytime it is warranted is not only good but imperative.

 

Play

Justice for All: But Two Versions

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

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

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

Criminal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corruption

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

What can we do?

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

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

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

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

 

Play

“Unjust” U.S. Department of Justice

Tomorrow, Saturday August 25th, the TruthNewsNetwork will present evidence of serious and actual illegalities and political partisanship that is driving the “new” justice in our nation. It will shock you. 

Make sure and come back tomorrow morning for the inside scoop. And if you haven’t registered your email address, feel free to do so on the home page. Your address is secure, no one will ever see or have access to it. We don’t sell anything at all either. Doing so will simply result in your receipt of a brief email reminder with a “click-link” to any/every new story and/or podcast when published at TruthNewsNet.org. 

See you tomorrow!

“Omarosa”

I avoided this topic for obvious reasons. I have never liked soap operas. They seem mushy, unrealistic, and cheesy, to be frank. This is nothing more than another soap opera. But this one plays out on a national stage called the White House. The star of this soap opera is a former reality show star fired several times by another former reality show star who happens to now be President.

I know very little about Omarosa Manigault-Newman — no relation to this writer. The little I DO know about her is nothing more than the spin from the press about her and her idiosyncrasies. I was not an “Apprentice” fan, but even with that I knew a little about her — the media always loves controversy and made her controversial during that show’s run.

Moving from an NBC hit television show to the White House was quite a move for Donald Trump AND Omarosa. The tension between the two on television transitioned to the White House. Everyone thought Mr. Trump and Omarosa kissed and made up. Why else would she get a PR position in his administration? Apparently, if amends were made between the pair, they did not last long.

As one can imagine, the Media has gone bonkers with non-stop factual coverage and, of course, non-stop demonizing of President Trump for not only firing Omarosa but calling her a “dog” in the subsequent back-and-forth initiated by Marigault-Newman. Watch just a fraction of the “Omarosa — noise” and obsession in the Media:

The “Real” Story

There was a “real” firing that should have dominated the news cycle on Tuesday. And it wasn’t the firing of Omarosa by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. It was the firing of FBI agent Peter Strozk. But another FBI firing would not have played well in the anti-Trump 24/7 Mainstream News Media reporting, even if Strozk’s termination is of national security and American justice importance. Omarosa’s termination gave the Media sharks another chance to take shots at the President. And they did.

I will not waste your time discussing Strozk. By now, everyone knows he was the pivotal investigation head of the FBI’s Hillary Clinton private server debacle but was also a key part of Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Campaign for alleged Russian election collusion. It was with Mueller’s discovery of Strozk’s extreme bias against Trump evidenced by his obsessive string of texts with his girlfriend Lisa Page Mueller pulled the plug on Strozk’s job with his investigative team.

Strozk will probably be remembered most for his bombastic public testimony before Congress in which he brazenly defended his vitriolic political rants with his lover through those texts in which veiled threats were shared against “Candidate” Trump and then “President” Trump after the election. It is more than fair to say both Strozk and Lisa Page were/are adamantly opposed to Donald Trump being President.

Strozk is certainly in the spotlight of the DOJ regarding security clearances, threats against the President, and discussions of conspiracy with others regarding actual plans to stop Trump from winning the election and then “taking him out” after he won.

The “Other” Story

John Brennan. “Oh what a web we weave.”

John Brennan

The former CIA Director who has made himself probably the most ardent opponent of this President lost his security clearance for very obvious reasons: He perjured himself in Congressional testimony twice (with charges for those pending), one of which was regarding CIA hacking Senate computer systems while the Senate was investigating the CIA for wrongdoing. In sworn testimony, Brennan denied such hacking actually happened.

Additionally, that selacious “Steele Dossier” was actually put on public record by Brennan himself. He is the guilty party that brought the Dossier quietly to former Senator Harry Reid who took it to James Comey’s FBI. This happened while Brennan was still CIA Director.

Just yesterday, Brennan in the wake of his crying fowl for the President’s termination of Brennan’s security clearance maintained he knows factually that Trump colluded with Russia.

Think that fact through:

  1.  If while CIA Director Brennan discovered evidence of this happening, he was bound by requirements of his job to bring that evidence to prosecuting authorities — the Department of Justice that would have gladly used that evidence to prosecute Candidate Trump (Loretta Lynch was Attorney General at the time);
  2. If he found evidence of collusion after he left the CIA, he violated security laws by NOT taking it to authorities.

Brennan is not a good person and certainly not an honest person. It’s sad that a person with such drastic character flaws ran the largest foreign intelligence agency on Earth for so long. How could President Obama appoint such a person to that role?

Summary

There are a bunch of bad people in this world. How is it that so many seem to have raised their heads and been exposed of late? How is that so many come from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI? Think about how many there are:

James Comey

Lisa Page

Peter Strozk

John Brennan

James Clapper

Bruce Ohr

Nellie Ohr

Rod Rosenstein

Loretta Lynch

Eric Holder

Susan Rice

And there are plenty more.

It is shocking to know that there are approximately 2 million people in America that have government security clearances! How could that happen? How in the world could that many people have security clearances?

Let’s be honest: there is only one possible justifiable reason for any “former” federal employee or contractor to have such a clearance: if whoever follows them in their post or office needs to consult with them to draw from their knowledge and/or perspective on specific government topics, they would be required to have a security clearance to do so. And getting that clearance takes an inordinate amount of time.

But that simply does not justify so many people having legal access to significant documents and information after leaving their federal positions. I feel strongly that EVERY federal person who has a security clearance of any kind should have that clearance terminated simultaneously with their job departure. In this politically charged foreign and domestic environment, there are far too many opportunities for confidential and top secret information to pass to people who will use it against the United States. The U.S. has had enough of Snowden and Assange passing such information around to our enemies.

But the thing that galls me the most is that guys like Brennan, Comey, and Clapper use their security clearances in the private sector for profit. Yes, such authorizations gives them a leg up in the news world because of their “special” access to inside information that regular folks cannot legally access.

The problem is that all these people listed above are just the type who (for a buck or two) have and will continue doing so unless their clearances are terminated.

My safety is worth that. Is yours?

 

The “Truth” Part II

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

Obstruction of Justice

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

James Comey

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

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

What did he do?

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

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

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

What did she do?

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

Andrew McCabe

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

Hillary Clinton

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Don’t miss it!

Play

The “Truth” Part I

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

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

The “Playing Field”

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

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

Let’s Analyze Collusion in the Mueller Investigation Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Investigation Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why do they continue?

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

The Fat Lady hasn’t started singing yet!

 

Play

Equal Justice

Over the next few days, we are going to concentrate on the specific dangers Americans now face because of the growing disparities in the American justice system as they play out in the lives of Americans. The current state of the justice system is front and center daily through the Mueller probe, investigations by various Congressional committees, and media gross misrepresentations of all these in the Media. 

Today we take a look at the “current” need for — and efforts to — “Drain the Swamp,” which is Washington D.C.

Let’s get started!

Distractions

Our media’s valiant efforts to distract us notwithstanding, information continues to seep out that underscores how badly a housecleaning is needed in Washington, D.C.

Last week saw the release of the applications used to obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. Obtained by Judicial Watch, the 400-plus pages of (heavily redacted) documents support the conclusions earlier drawn by the House Intelligence Committee (and denounced by Democrats as hysteria): the FISA warrants were obtained through obfuscation and deceit.

As various commentators predicted would be proven, the bulk of the information that formed the basis for the FISA warrant applications was the “dossier” of allegations about Donald Trump’s activities in Russia. This dossier was provided to the FBI by British spy Christopher Steele. Steele was hired during the 2016 presidential campaign by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, who was paid by Hillary Clinton’s law firm Perkins Coie, who was paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The allegations were scandalous and completely unverified, in violation of federal statutes and FISA court rules.

In other words, the FBI used oppo research paid for by the Democrats as justification for government spying on a political opponent and other Americans.

But there’s more. In another incredible coincidence, Fusion GPS had hired scholar and professor Nellie Ohr as a “paid Russian expert.” Nellie Ohr happens to be married to Bruce Ohr, deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Bruce Ohr is alleged to have passed his wife’s anti-Trump research to the FBI. He was demoted for failing to disclose not only his wife’s employment with Fusion GPS, but also his own meetings with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.

The FISA court was never told any of that. They were never supposed to know. None of us was ever supposed to know.

When thousands of DNC emails were leaked to the public through Julian Assange’s organization WikiLeaks, we learned that Hillary Clinton had abused the primary process, nearly bankrupted the DNC and effectively stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. We also learned the press played favorites with Clinton, getting her approval before running stories and forwarding debate questions to Clinton in advance. (The official line is Russians hacked the DNC computers and gave the emails to WikiLeaks. Assange and former U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials vehemently deny this and maintain it was an inside “leak,” not a hack. The DNC refused to turn over their servers to the FBI for inspection.)

And then there is Hillary Clinton’s misuse of a personal email server to handle classified State Department information. We now know that then-FBI director James Comey decided not to prosecute Clinton before the investigation was even concluded. We also know that FBI attorney Peter Strzok rewrote Comey’s initial report to change Comey’s description of Clinton’s conduct from “grossly negligent” — which was a violation of the applicable federal statute — to “extremely careless.”

This is the same Peter Strzok who expressed his loathing for Donald Trump in many of the tens of thousands of texts he exchanged with his lover and fellow FBI attorney Lisa Page. Strzok infamously assured Page that they had an “insurance policy” and that they “would stop” Trump from becoming president. At a congressional hearing two weeks ago, Strzok arrogantly insisted that his bias did not affect his job performance.

He must think we’re all idiots.

But then, we were never supposed to know any of this.

Hillary Clinton was supposed to win. No one would know the FBI “investigation” into her violations of federal statutes was a foregone conclusion that would exonerate her. No one would know that members of the FBI and the DOJ were using their government powers to attack and discredit the man who wasn’t “supposed” to win, but did.

Trump’s unorthodox presidency has been a great gift. It has exposed the corruption in our government, and the betrayal of the American public by so much of the press.

Summary

We are going to tomorrow discuss specific inequities in the methods the DOJ is using to enforce the law and what is missing. The disparities are blinding! And we are growing numb to their impact.

”Equal justice under the law” is quickly becoming a withering memory from an old way of life. Americans are paying for that in alarmingly rising numbers.

We will also discuss the 45,000 sealed indictments that we are waiting for the Feds to take action on. What could they include and against whom?

(Laura Hollis contributed to this story)

Note

As you know, we asked you to weigh-in with your thoughts on TruthNewsNet doing a daily 9-11 AM Central live web interactive talk show. Many of you did respond and I thank you for it. However, with the large number of participants we have here, the positive responses we received didn’t really represent a large enough sample of our partners to feel comfortable in moving forward with that venture.

That being said, we are NOT saying such a project is something we will not do in the future. But we will wait to initiate it until enough of you voluntarily request it. There are many conservative talk-show options for us all. Another one just to have one is not worthy of the effort or the expected contributions of your time.

Until that happens, we will continue down this road in similar fashion on an almost daily conversations with you in the same manner.

As you feel you want to express your ideas on this and/or any other subject, please feel free to drop me an email at dan@truthnewsnet.org. Nothing you want to express to me about what we do here is too trivial and certainly is important for me to hear. Please feel free to question or comment.

Also know that everything about everyone who participates here remains 100% confidential. No one has access to any member’s information in any way. Our partner list is kept under lock and key. We have never tried to market any products or services here, and we’ve never attempted to sell advertising on the site, even though we receive almost daily inquiries from potential advertising sources. This is a joint venture with our partners: YOU. And YOU call the shots.

Until tomorrow, Happy Reading!