Mueller Time!

Attorney General Barr appeared with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to give his “final” report about the presentment of the Mueller Report to Congress and the American people. The report in full (with minimal redactions for legal purposes) was released 2 hours later to Congress and the public.

We are NOT going to go through the details of the report. This story today is simply to point out some facts about the process and how those facts and the process itself play into the future of the U.S. To that end, let me say this: the Mueller Report and Mueller’s entire process of putting his team of attorneys together, the methods they used for interrogations, grand juries, and even making arrests have never been seen in American history in past Special Counsel or Special Prosecutor cases. 

We did predict here the release of his findings would certainly NOT end the noise about Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia and also alleged obstruction of justice. In fact, Mueller’s findings and the structure of his report left the door open for all those on the Left to simply ratchet-up their investigation threats, subpoenas, and more allegations. In our Summary, we’ll detail exactly where we are. Let’s put all this in bullet points to make it easy to follow (and keep it brief):

♦Collusion

“The Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.

“First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.”

The report said there was no collusion found between Donald Trump or any member of his campaign and the Russians regarding manipulation of the 2016 election.

♦Conspiracy

The report said there were numerous contacts between members of Trump’s circle and Russia and that the campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

But it said the efforts did not amount to criminal conspiracy.

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

♦Obstruction of Justice

The report said the special counsel investigated numerous actions by Trump “that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.”

These included “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

“The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct.

“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

♦Efforts to Remove Special Counsel

The report detailed an effort by Trump to have the special counsel removed.

“On June 17, 2017, the president called (White House counsel Don) McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say that the special counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

“McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”

The determination by the Special Counsel was that President Trump could not be legally implicated in any action to remove Special Counsel Mueller.

♦The “Rest of the Story”

I know, the above is really brief. And what it does is summarize all of the “meat” — if one can call it meat — in the report. But, believe me, there’s plenty more “stuff” in the Mueller Report.

Again, we will not detail it all — there’s a bunch of stuff that basically seems to be included to in some way justify the $25 million + of taxpayer dollars spent and the 2 years of constant daily political uproar regarding the president and nothing more.

The report highlights most of the areas of question American have had and still have, even with the release of the report. Questions regarding the possible influence many felt the President tried to use to “influence” Michael Cohen in his multiple testimonies to Mueller’s team were included in the report with “no finding of wrongdoing.

Conventional wisdom states that in spite of the bottomless budget of taxpayer dollars used in this investigation, in spite of millions of pages of documents, numerous subpoenas, and testimony, 37 indictments (none of which implicated Mr. Trump or his campaign for Russian collusion), Donald Trump is walking away with no “baggage.” But is he?

Mueller may be done, but Congress is not. Members of Congress — all Democrats — who hold very critical jobs heading committees are still beating the drum of  “Collusion and Conspiracy.”

♦“Russia, Russia, Russia!“

Who’s guilty of still carrying the “Russia” torch?

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA)

March 27, 2017: The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said on MSNBC there is evidence that is “not circumstantial” of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

August 5, 2018: Rep. Schiff said there is “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight” regarding the Trump campaign and Russia.

March 25, 2019: “There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY)

March 24, 2019: “Obviously, we know there was some collusion,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “We know the president’s son and campaign manager were involved in a meeting with the Russians to receive what they thought was information stolen by the Russians from the Democratic National Committee, as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help Trump in the election.” (It was later shown in sworn testimony that the meeting was called to make available “Opposition Research” materials to the Trump team which was perfectly legal and used by every campaign in the 2016 election)

(One note here since we’re speaking of Congressman Nadler: in the Clinton Impeachment Starr Report that Starr released without redactions to the public. Nadler and 13 other Congressman currently still in the House all fought AGAINST its release at the time. But Nadler’s committee is demanding continuously for the Mueller Report to be released without any redactions)

Calling the comparison “apples and oranges,” Nadler said his remarks on the Starr report concerned the release of grand jury information to the public rather than to Congress.

Nadler did not take a position on whether the full Mueller report could contain grounds for impeachment, saying “there could be grounds for impeachment, there could be grounds for other actions, there could be things the American people ought to know.”

Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

March 25, 2019: Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted from a March 2018 interview on CNN saying, “In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion.” He was referring to his panel’s Russia investigation. That inquiry took place when the House Intelligence Committee was in GOP control and concluded there was no collusion.

March 26, 2019: Swalwell told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, that all the evidence points to the president being a “Russian agent” and that he has not seen “a single piece of evidence that he’s not” a Russian agent. He stood by those claims on Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

March 4, 2019: Senator Mark Warner said there are “enormous amounts of evidence” linking the Trump campaign to Russia — the same day House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said there’s “direct evidence” of collusion between the two.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)

March 6, 2017: Liberal Delaware Senator Chris Coons caused a stir when he indicated during a televised interview that yet-undisclosed transcripts of recorded phone conversations conclusively prove that elements of the Trump campaign explicitly colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)

March 24, 2019: “Here you have a president who I can tell you and guarantee you is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy,” Waters said.

Waters predicted in December 2017 that Mueller’s report is “going to lead right to, not only collusion, obstruction of justice, money laundering.”

♦Summary

As we warned, Democrats are just getting started. And their attack dogs — the Leftist Media — moments after the completion of Barr’s presentation summary of the now released report showed America what Democrats are totally about for 2020: NOTHING NEW. Sadly for their base, they have nothing to offer the nation other than “Get Donald Trump.” STILL!

We close today with the most troubling revelation in the Mueller report. There is stark proof that the President’s terminology of the Mueller investigation as a “Witch Hunt” was and is warranted. It’s contained in the following statement from the report:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

By making this statement as THE basis — not for their findings but for their NO-findings — Mueller and his staff of “13 angry Democrats” (as termed by Sean Hannity) have categorically reversed a fundamental  guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution. According to Mueller, the inability of such a mass of investigators with such a mountain of evidence never before seen in any other federal investigation could not find evidence to justify charging President Trump with a crime. Yet they end the report by saying they could not conclusively determine that no criminal conduct occurred! 

It either DID occur or it DIDN’T occur. If it happened, a crime was committed. If it didn’t happen, NO crime was committed.

The Mueller gang just stomped all over the fundamental that millions of people charged throughout American judicial history in civil and criminal trials alike have relied on for fundamental fairness in their prosecution: The Presumption of Innocence. That presumption clearly states that those charged are “Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty.” 

It’s sad that a sitting president who in the 2016 presidential election demolished a career-political opponent who was a shew-in for the White House was NOT given the Presumption of Innocence.

Maybe that is the “new” way for the Judiciary in America to operate now. Maybe it’s so just in politics.

Or maybe — just maybe — this was Robert Mueller’s parting shot at President Trump for NOT offering him the FBI Director’s job in that Oval Office meeting with Rod Rosenstein which was purportedly a job interview for Mueller.

Is that what Due Process in America has come to?

 

 

Play

Over The Top

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of Thursday, April 11, 2019, 50% of Americans approve of President Trump’s job while 49% disapprove. In light of the incessant negative noise that permeates throughout the United States from media reports, achieving that 50% approval number is significant.

While we are considering thoughts about the President, what about Congress? According to Real Clear Politics polling division, as of April 9, 2019, just 18% of Americans approve of the job performance of members of Congress while 61% disapprove. Why do you think that is? And do you think the media might have something to do with that low approval number for members of Congress?

Let’s look at what Americans think about the media. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year. Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

To those of us at TruthNewsNetwork, the combined low approval ratings by Americans of members of Congress AND the media are tied directly together. In objectively reviewing both groups, one can reasonably compute that American distrust of its elected leaders AND validity of what the media disseminate daily go hand in hand.

Why?

Great question. Under today’s circumstances, it is critical for Americans — including those in Congress AND the media — to finally and in earnest open discussions to “right the ship” of the distrust of Americans for both groups. Can those honest conversations begin? Will they begin?

If we base our hopes on what happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the day before (Tuesday) that set fires previously unseen in the media and in Congress, our hopes are already dashed! Attorney General Barr in yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing lit the fire when said this:

He actually used the word “Spying!” His saying that has set the media world on fire, also among Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who said that Attorney General William Barr was “going off the rails,” citing his public testimony over the past two days that appeared to support President Donald Trump’s claims that his campaign was spied on by the intelligence community in 2016.

“How very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails,” Pelosi said at the start of Democrats’ annual retreat. “He is the Attorney General of the United States, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she said. 

Pelosi’s comments, which followed an Associated Press interview featuring similarly harsh criticism of Barr, followed two days of appearances by the attorney general on Capitol Hill in which he said he wouldn’t provide Congress with an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and raised concerns that the government was “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016.
It came as no surprise that media outlets took the lead from Congressional Democrats and started in on Barr with furor unseen in quite a while. CNN got things started:

CNN — Congressional Democrats are furious over Attorney General William Barr’s statement Wednesday that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, accusing the attorney general of mischaracterizing the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in an effort to please President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments are likely to ratchet up Democrats’ unease over the attorney general that’s already simmering over Barr’s role in the Mueller investigation and the decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.
“I’m amazed that the AG would make that kind of statement, I think it’s in many ways disrespectful to the men and women who work in the DOJ, and it shows, I think, either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “He almost seems to be endorsing one of these theories that have been debunked time and time again by the various, even House Republican-led, investigations trying to show some kind of resentment,” Warner added.
Not to be left out of the relentless attacks on the Attorney General, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) piped in:
Chuck Schumer accused Attorney General William Barr of spreading conspiracy theories on Wednesday after the Justice Department chief said he thinks “spying did occur” on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. In a terse tweet, Schumer demanded a retraction from Barr.

“AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign ‘did occur.’ AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Reality

If anyone wonders about American distrust of Congress and the media, this back-and-forth unanimous attack by Democrats and members of the media illustrate the reason for the distrust better than any one person can explain. What Congressional Democrats AND members of the media have not even mentioned are the “facts” that are known already. These “facts” are those that have appeared over the last two years as the basis for the investigations of all things going on regarding tampering in the 2016 Election. And there are plenty of pieces of evidence of such that have resulted in ongoing (yet quiet) investigations by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and former Federal Attorney Jim Huber out in Utah. Those investigations have been quietly underway for more than a year. And the “facts” that initiated those two investigations are the “facts” on which AG Barr based his “Spying” comments in his testimony. Obviously, Democrats and the media ignore those two investigations AND those widely known facts.

What are they? Here are some “Facts:”

  1. The Steele Dossier.  We will not even discuss the details of that expose prepared by former FBI informant Christopher Steele on behalf of the Clinton Campaign who paid Steele for what they called “opposition research.” It was nothing more than a fake story that we just found out had existed for years, but was reshaped and edited to implicate Donald Trump for the Clinton Campaign. We know for certain that dossier was an important part of the FISA warrant application if not THE important information that began the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign that later became a key element of the Mueller Investigation. Former FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI knew that dossier was unverified as to its truthfulness. Christopher Steele himself testified in court that HE could not verify its validity. And he’s the one who wrote it!
  2. Trump Campaign Surveillance. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may have notified Team Trump of Obama’s Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John Brennan) spying on their activity. As you look at the FISA request dates below, it’s important to note that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the October request – Granted.  Pay specific attention to the October request. “October”!.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held.  Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their “leaks” and stories.  The State Department “leaks” to CNN for the same purposes.

♦ On Saturday November 19th Reuters reported on the WaPo Story and additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.

Many feel that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper, Brennan, etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his remaining loyalists.  After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective.  10 Days after the election Rogers travels to President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.

Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being monitored by President Obama?

Summary

It is clear to Americans that there IS plenty of detail exposed to the public in the two-plus years of the Mueller Investigation that it is likely something was going on regarding some type of “spying” on the Trump Campaign. What is still unknown is who did it, what was its purpose(s), and if its implementation and operation was justified under U.S. laws that regulate surveillance of Americans.

It is further clear to Americans that Democrat leadership and media pundits are obviously in the tank for Democrats. How else can one explain how they can possibly justify ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that has already pooped on the floor? Attorney General Barr simply made it clear that, when he was asked, an investigation into the specific details of that already known surveillance was legal and legitimate.

But the media and Democrats both ignore his revealed purposes AND have done nothing but attempt to destroy the impeccable reputation he developed and earned from both Republicans and Democrats over decades. That’s the way they operate.

“If” they had really listened to the attorney general, and “If” they really cared about truth, they would be instead of attacking Mr. Barr nonstop would be talking about what he stated further into that testimony. As always, we at TruthNewsNetwork have it all for you:

“Later, Barr was asked twice whether he wanted to clarify his statement. Barr first said he wanted to make sure no ‘unauthorized surveillance’ occurred, and then offered up his own clarification at the conclusion of the hearing.

‘I just want to make it clear, thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,’Barr said. ‘I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.’

When Barr spoke of ‘spying,’ according to a source familiar with his thinking, he meant it in the ‘classic sense’ of intelligence collection. The source said Barr doesn’t view the term as ‘pejorative’ and is focused on where there was proper ‘predication’ for any surveillance. The source said Barr did not use the term ‘spying’ in order to throw red meat to Trump and those who have voiced concerns over surveillance tactics.”

Here’s the sad part of this entire story. Our elected officials — and NOT just Democrats in Congress, but every member of Congress — each take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States. Taking care of U.S. citizens and protecting everything to do with our nation is their Job #1. To that end, they each should be concentrating on those things that come into the lives of Americans that attack the one thing that differentiates our government from other world governments: “The Rule of Law.” That means anytime any law enforcement agency uncovers such a possible attack, prudence AND their oath of office dictates that a true and full investigation must be conducted to either prove the attack was not real and was not going to happen, or to vett details, determine the specifics of the wrongdoing, and guarantee those responsible are brought to justice.

But in this case we watch as members of the media and Congressional Democrats go stark raving crazy because the senior law enforcement official of the United States — Attorney General William Barr — when asked in a Congressional hearing states he is making certain that the acts of surveillance that occurred against the Trump Campaign that are known to have happened were legal, warranted, and conducted in the legal and proper manner. Something’s not right about that!

Would Democrats and the media prefer that even though it is known that such surveillance occurred to turn a blind eye and just ignore the possibility of such surveillance being illegal in nature? Normally the answer would be “Certainly not!” Sadly though, it appears that Democrats and the media don’t want the truth of the matter to be confirmed OR that they want the possible wrongdoing to remain hidden.

THAT’S THE REASON WHY AMERICANS DON’T APPROVE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA TO TELL THE TRUTH!

Play

In The Beginning…

We’re two years in and now with the completion of the Mueller investigation, and at least six months more investigating by the FBI pre-Mueller. We have a Mueller declaration of no-finding of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump Campaign and also no finding of obstruction of justice. And you know what else? We still don’t know how and who started this entire war against Donald Trump!

There are many ideas being thrown about by very intelligent people who certainly have access to a bunch of government intelligence that folks like you and me do not. But even those people have come up empty — “so far.” But how could that be? I’m an amateur in all this investigating stuff. But I am a researcher. And using all of TruthNewsNetwork’s considerable contacts for inside information, we have come up empty as well. But we’ve stumbled onto something that is the first piece of concrete information we’ve identified in this cesspool of Washington D.C. regarding this concerted and coordinated effort to unseat a sitting President.

Who has the power to bring to bear the considerable resources necessary to orchestrate such an attack and potentially win a battle to drive Donald Trump out of Washington? Who can do so and keep quiet his or her involvement in it for two years plus?

The book with the answers to this is still not on the menu at Amazon. But someone who very few expected has turned on a light — a bright spotlight — on this entire situation. And that someone has come forward with a big bunch of answers.

We have those answers to your “Mueller-Trump Debacle” questions. And we are bringing them to you straight from the proverbial “horse’s mouth.” This is about 24 minutes long. But once you begin this, you will NOT turn it off. In fact, you’ll watch and listen and again and again and again. Better yet, you’ll tell someone elsewhere to go to watch and listen for themselves.

So, here we go! I suggest you don’t turn this on until you know you can do so in twenty-four uninterrupted minutes. Then we’ll get together to summarize what we’ve seen and heard. Here with what happened “In The Beginning” is Dan Bongino.

Summary

If you did not know already, Dan Bongino was a longtime Secret Service Agent, New York policeman, has a widely viewed daily podcast and is a regular FOX News contributor. He also ran for Congress in Maryland. He like few has access to those who work inside the federal government — some currently and many formerly with various Intelligence Departments.

Now that you have listened and watched to this narrative, think back: how often did we maintain with our deductive reasoning that the chain of responsibility had to far up the chain of power in Washington — all the way to the White House. But think it through: all of the “leaks” of data and information by the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, and others had to be initiated by not just a flunkie on the White House staff. Someone with access to the Oval Office had to be in that loop. In the Obama Administration, that narrowed the group of those possible to Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Senior “Handler” Valerie Jarrett, or Michelle Obama. But even if one or several of these were included in that information stream, none would have initiated it. It has to be President Obama himself.

So what happens now? Certainly, federal attorney Jim Huber in Utah who was given the green light in 2017 to investigate all things to do with the Clinton Campaign, the 2016 election, and all illegalities that may have occurred regarding any of these, has unearthed facts that will document these conclusions. Additionally, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is deep into a separate investigation. Most do not realize that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions authorized Jim Huber to use all of the federal resources directed by the Inspector General that are necessary to get to the bottom of all this. Those resources: 400+ federal attorneys already engaged in this in the Department of Justice.

What happens now? There is very little left to occur but the exposure of those involved in this non-military coup to remove a duly elected President from office.

One final note: many think some of those 70,000 sealed federal indictments issued since October 27, 2017, are for some of these people mentioned above and others that participated in this operation. It is certain that those indictments are for very serious wrongdoing by a bunch of people. In American history, there have NEVER been more than 3000 such indictments issued in any 12-month period.

When will we find out? It certainly will be soon. But here at TruthNews Network, we are confident this entire matter has never been seen before in American history. It runs really deep, and it involved hundreds of people. When revealed, many people who we know well with lengthy political histories in D.C. will be named.

I think we’re seeing the layers of the onion being peeled already. How many layers and how many in each layer is still to be determined. One thing is certain: as the onion layers are peeled away, there will be many tears for those guilty of wrongdoing.

Then maybe — just maybe — we can allow this President to get about the business of America for which he was elected.

Democrat Attack: The Rule of Law

Americans are growing numb to the Trump attacks at the hands of Congressional Democrats. That numbness we are experiencing is real, but its impact is lessening everyday because its use by Dems is incessant and just morphs into a newer version almost daily. That is a dangerous thing: it’s much like the frog and the pot of boiling water. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and the frog quickly jumps to safety. Put that frog in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the water’s heat and the frog will stay in the pot until it’s too late. For Americans, the pot contained cold water at the beginning of the Trump Administration, but Dems have steadily turned up the heat.  Their attacks are obviously all aimed at Mr. Trump. But in doing so, we are watching a planned and coordinated attack against the Rule of Law. And conservative Americans are ALL in their sights with the President.

What is The Rule of Law?

The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embody four universal principles:

1. Accountability
The government, as well as private actors, are accountable under the law.

2. Just Laws
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons, contract and property rights, and certain core human rights.

3. Open Government
The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.

4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Before we move forward in this conversation, it is important for us to break-down the specifics of Law so we can relate them directly to today’s United States legal operations by our government and exactly what House Democrats are really up to.

  • Constraints on Governments Powers measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. Governmental checks take many forms; they do not operate solely in systems marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are they necessarily codified in law. What is essential, however, is that authority is distributed, whether by formal rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures that no single organ of government has the practical ability to exercise unchecked power.
  • The absence of Corruption measures the absence of corruption in a number of government agencies. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military and police, and the legislature, and encompass a wide range of possible situations in which corruption – from petty bribery to major kinds of fraud – can occur.
  • Open Government measures open government defined as a government that shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. The factor measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized, and evaluates the quality of information published by the government. It also measures whether requests for information held by a government agency are properly granted.
  • Fundamental Rights measures the protection of fundamental human rights in the United States. It recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under the U.S. Constitution is at best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a “rule of law” system.
  • Order and Security measures how well society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law society and a fundamental function of the state. It is also critical in the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance.
  • Regulatory Enforcement measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. Strong rule of law requires that these regulations and administrative provisions are enforced effectively and are applied and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests.
  • Civil Justice measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. The delivery of effective civil justice requires that the system be accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, free of corruption, and without improper influence by public officials.
  • Criminal Justice evaluates the criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring an action against individuals for offenses against society. Effective criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offenses successfully and in a timely manner, through a system that is impartial and non-discriminatory and is free of corruption and improper government influence.

Clear Enough?

It certainly should be. Each area detailed in the above simple explanation of the Rule of Law is critical for the process of government that sets the U.S. apart from every other country on Earth is critical and MUST exist in tandem with the others. Without each and every one of them in force and adhered to in every area of government, NO government can truly be a democratic republic that promises “equal justice under the law.” 

Folks, we’re not in danger of losing that justice, IT’S ALREADY GONE!

How can I say that? It hasn’t been hidden very well. Its demise began decades ago while we benignly sat by and allowed it. We turned our eyes away from day-to-day government operations in D.C. We trusted our lawmakers to do the right things. As we watched, a seedy group of unscrupulous politicrats (Who together invented the perpetuity in positions of power that they solely control) quietly enacted a “new” legal system totally controlled by that group of elites. And it is in full operation.

Have you wondered how the FBI senior staff could almost en masse collude to perpetrate a coup against this sitting President who was duly elected? And they did it with impunity! Have you wondered why it has been so difficult for the “white hats” in Congress to obtain — even through subpoenas — documents, testimony, and other evidence of the “alleged” wrongdoing by many of those elites? How have people like Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and dozens and dozens of others skated through the most egregious non-military takeover of the American government while we Americans simply slept while they did it? And that doesn’t even take into account the “leaders” of that coup — the only ones that could have originated the idea, built the operation, put it in motion and managed it to its end: Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. THEY ARE IN THIS THING UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS!

Summary

Our only hope is that enough of the 60+ million Americans who were awakened during the Trump campaign, had their eyes opened (at least to some small degree) to the horrors and illegalities that were underway right before our eyes and voted to keep that “cartel” from completing the government takeover began by the Clintons during their 8 years, and put in full gear during Obama’s 8, are still watching this horror as it is revealed one page at a time. (Yes there was a momentary pause in their plan during Bush 43)

Is there still time? I believe there is. But I’m not certain of that. Fortunately, Americans are in large part still a creative lot. There are enough free-thinkers that refuse to swallow the Leftist Koolaid of Socialism being peddled by the Democrat Party to right the ship, IF the “white hats” (the “good guys”) are allowed to continue the digging up and exposing those wrongdoers.

What can go wrong? Plenty! If this Democrat Party has its way, their attempted coup which is with total impunity attacking EVERY part of the Rule of Law we detailed above will take this country down. Even right now — today — the U.S. has lost a large part of its freedom. And they want to steal the balance. How?

  • Democrat hypocrisy in governing. Remember their glorification of their “savior” Robert Mueller? They even attempted to pass legislation to keep Trump from interfering with or even firing Robert Mueller. Then his report (though we haven’t seen it yet) apparently exonerates President Trump. And now those same Dems want Mueller’s head!
  • They seriously intend to force President Trump to release his tax returns. There is absolutely NO law that allows them to do that! Can you imagine a United States in which someone — ANYONE — can petition the IRS to release YOUR tax returns? Yet these Democrats are doing just that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez actually tweeted a threat to the President today about that, saying “We didn’t ASK you to release your returns.” In other words, she was saying they TOLD the President to do so. As if Congress has such authority!
  • They are more and more loudly shouting and demanding the release of the FULL, unredacted Mueller report, saying they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They do that when it is already clear: there IS American law contained within the Special Counsel statute THAT PROHIBITS DOING SO! It is imperative to protect the hundreds of Americans whose grand jury testimony could potentially damage the reputations of those who were NOT indicted in that investigation. Remember: 500 witnesses testified; only 37 people were indicted. But Democrats don’t care!

If these attacks and Democrats intentions are allowed to be carried out, privacy of working class Americans will be gone: FOREVER! Once that liberty is taken by Big Brother, he will NEVER give it back.

There are enough guys who wear the “white hats” to take this on who are willing to “take one for the team” if necessary. Chief among them is Donald Trump. Let’s face it: I cannot think of one other Republican who ran that if elected, would have had the staying power this President has. It is simply amazing to watch how he refuses to cave even with the non-stop harassment he and his family sustain every day.

Encourage all you know to ferret out the truth in everything they hear spewed by each arm of the Democrat Party: The House of Representatives, and the Mainstream Media. Every conservative needs to turn up the volume in conversations with those with whom they interface when discussing these political matters. Remaining silent will allow the Rule of Law to be killed — permanently.

”Pray for all those who are in authority over you.” That is NOT instructions from TruthNewsNetwork. That’s from the Bible. I encourage all to make that a daily practice — including EVERYONE in authority. You cannot skip those with whom you disagree when you pray. In doing so, hold on to this:

”The effective and continual prayer of my people will bring to pass what is asked for in those prayers.”

Trump Investigation: Part II

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed in 2017 he had “factual evidence” that proved collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. (That evidence has never appeared)

Then Sunday, March 10, 2019, on CBS Schiff claimed “There is ‘direct evidence’ of Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. He stated it this way:

“I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“They offer that dirt. There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the president’s son, Don Jr., and there are overt acts and furtherance of that,” he added. “That to me is direct evidence,” Schiff said. “But there’s also abundant circumstantial evidence.”

And then there’s Senator Mark Warner from that same Committee:

Given “the litany of what we know,” Warner said, “the ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower, well into the campaign, I believe the fact that Mr. Trump knew about the dump of the Wikileaks material, the fact that clearly the meeting at Trump Tower which was not described appropriately, in terms of offering dirt are examples. To me, that’s all evidence,” he said. “There’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians.”

I’m a simple American. But even in my small, trite world, when someone feels that something is illegal, you go get facts. Democrats did that: They saw to the appointment of an Independent Special Counsel — Robert Mueller. Special Counsel Mueller is 2 years and a reported $25 million into extensive investigations based on exactly what Schiff and Warner “claim” is “evidence.”

Definition of evidence: an outward sign; indication; something that furnishes proof — testimony; specifically; something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Two years and $25 million — WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

The Mueller Probe has been going strong for two years. “Anonymous sources” (there they are again) say that probe is wrapping up and to expect the report from Mueller on his investigation of the Trump Gang any day now. With the “leaks environment” in Washington, conventional wisdom maintains that because there have been no reports of pending charges against the President or anyone in the Campaign regarding Russian collusion, there will be no smoking gun in the Mueller report. Finally: we’re getting through with investigations and now we can just get on with governing!

Of course, that’s not so. Congressman Schiff and fellow Democrats apparently are simply going to ditch Mueller’s findings, even though we don’t officially know they will even exonerate the President. But they simply cannot let sleeping dogs lie. That’s how we are now on the front-porch of Part II of the Trump Investigation. They’re never going to give up. Democrats are convinced there’s something in the Trump camp that is going to kick Donald Trump out of the White House.

And Adam Schiff shows up one more time with “news:”

“Within our committee, we certainly have a compelling interest in making sure that U.S. policy … is not driven by leverage that the Russians have over the president,” Schiff said. “There have been credible allegations that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization, and if that’s the case, then we need to be able to look into it and be able to tell the country, ‘Yes, this is true,’ or ‘No, this is not.’ But I think it would be negligent not to find out.”

“It’s going to be important for Congress to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is being driven by U.S. national interests and not by Trump family finances,” Schiff said, in reference to the president’s business ties to Saudi Arabia and his pro-Saudi policies, such as backing the kingdom in its confrontation with neighboring Qatar. “The president has not truly divested his family’s interests or been the least bit transparent about it,” the congressman said, and lawmakers need to “make sure we’re protecting the country.”

Americans knew full well that with Democrats in the 2018 midterm taking control of the House of Representatives, investigations regardless of Mueller’s findings would definitely be the Democrat Party agenda for the next two years. And that certainly appears to be true. But there are a few things that may throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans.

Department of Justice Investigations

While the Democrat parade is ramping up, the Department of Justice continues its behind-the-scenes investigations of which very little is known. Many remember the comment former AG Jeff Sessions made to Congressman Goodlatte about the AG’s instructions to restart the investigation into the Uranium One transaction AND Hillary Clinton. Months later when asked about that investigation, a DOJ official stated there was NO such letter or authorization by Sessions to do so.

After it claimed no such document existed, the Justice Department just unearthed a letter Matt Whitaker (when Session’s chief of staff) delivered to the Utah U.S. attorney directing a review of how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One issues.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote the letter on Nov. 22, 2017, for Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber. Matt Whitaker emailed the letter to Huber that day, writing, “As we discussed.” He also sent Huber a copy of a letter the Justice Department’s Congressional affairs chief sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 13 of that year.

The existence of a letter documenting Sessions’ directive that the DOJ revisit probes of Trump’s top political foe is a surprise because a department lawyer said in court last year that senior officials insisted it didn’t exist. The liberal nonprofit American Oversight obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they filed on Nov. 22, 2017––the same day Whitaker emailed Sessions’ letter to Huber.

The request asked for documentation of the directions Sessions gave Huber about the review of the Clinton investigations. After DOJ failed to produce any written directions, American Oversight sued.

And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”

That wasn’t correct. On Wednesday of last week (March 6, 2019), a DOJ lawyer told American Oversight that they had found the document that kicked off Huber’s work.

The letter is consistent with what the DOJ’s chief of legislative affairs has told Congress: that Huber is scrutinizing the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company with interests in the United States to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned company. Republicans have long alleged that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to oppose the deal because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The DOJ hasn’t brought any charges related to the foundation or the transaction. Some Hill Republicans and conservative media commentators have long argued this is because the Department hasn’t sufficiently investigated it. They have called for the appointment of a special counsel to scrutinize the transaction. Sessions didn’t bite.

Some Republicans say Huber’s work is too little, too late. Democrats, to no one’s surprise, argue it’s evidence of the Trump administration weaponizing law enforcement to target its political rivals.

Is Something Besides Mueller’s Report Imminent?

Hardly any of the media are talking about the publicly available list of 82,000 sealed federal indictments that have all been issued since the week after the instructions to Utah Federal Attorney Huber to reopen Clinton and Uranium One investigations. Every federal district court in the United States has issued several of those sealed indictments. The feds AND the media are strangely quiet about even speculating on the nature of those indictments.

What’s staggering about that is their number. For the previous decade, the total average number of sealed federal indictments issued by all federal district courts combined is 1077 — that’s for each year. These have all been created since October of 2017 — about 16 months.

Speculations of novices and political pundits are that at least some of those indictments are for those involved in human and sex trafficking. Another speculation exists that some may be for some current and past elected and appointed federal officials caught-up in various kinds of wrongdoing. No matter who or what they are for, when the veil of secrecy is pulled back there certainly will be some surprises, especially if any have to do with members of the Trump Administration, Hillary Clinton or her former staff, and even of those from the Obama Administration.

Subpoenas of 81 Trump Associates

House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Jerold Nadler (D-NY) announcing the committee’s subpoena of 81 Trump associates was no surprise. His explanation for doing so simply plays into the Congressional Democrat plan to go after the President.

Nadler has made numerous claims that he “knows” Trump colluded with Russia and/or has obstructed justice:

”It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler told ABC News on Sunday, March 10, 2019.

“It’s very clear,” he explained, “1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to have Mueller fired — he tried to protect Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News. He — he’s dangled pardons — he’s threat(end) — he’s intimidated, witnesses, in public.”

But Nadler, his committee, and other Democrats may face an obstacle they did not expect in their serving subpoenas wholesale to the host of Trump associates they plan to intimidate into relaying something incriminating about the President. Doing so may be illegal: The attempted harassment of President Trump (as it appears to be too many), especially after two years of the Mueller probe, may be unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a case that has direct implications for what Democrats are doing right now.

Watkins v. the United States

John Thomas Watkins, a labor union official from Rock Island, Illinois, was convicted of contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for failing to answer questions posed by members of Congress during a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities on April 29, 1954. Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party. Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee’s jurisdiction. He said:

“I am not going to plead the fifth amendment, but I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your committee’s activities. I will answer any questions which this committee puts to me about myself. I will also answer questions about those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party and whom I believe still are. I will not, however, answer any questions with respect to others with whom I associated in the past. I do not believe that any law in this country requires me to testify about persons who may in the past have been Communist Party members or otherwise engaged in Communist Party activity but who to my best knowledge and belief have long since removed themselves from the Communist movement.

I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities. I may be wrong, and the committee may have this power, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to answer, I most firmly refuse to discuss the political activities of my past associates.”

His conviction carried a fine of $100 and a one-year suspended prison sentence. Watkins first won a 3–2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but then lost, 6–2, when that court heard the case en banc. The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7, 1957, and announced its decision on June 17, 1957.

The Supreme Court decided 6–1 to overturn Watkins’ conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority. Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question “pertinent to the question under inquiry” in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:

There are several sources that can outline the “question under inquiry” in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.

The New York Times commented: “The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless.”

Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to “the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion.”

One can easily make a case that current House Democrats and their various committees that have started burying the White House with new investigations of these old allegations against the President are committing the same acts that resulted in the Watkins conviction being overturned by SCOTUS.

How would that Court finding apply to what’s underway now in D.C.? The exact same thing: “The Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision.”

The difference now is that (as many have maintained since the inception of the Mueller probe) in normal investigations, the investigation begins because of specific wrongdoing and is to find the evidence sufficient to prove who is guilty of wrongdoing. This Congressional witchhunt is based on wrongdoing that hasn’t been proven to even exist!

Summary

Congressional Democrats are afraid. The leadership of the Democrat Party is afraid. What can they possibly be afraid of?

  • Not only the contents of the 82,000 sealed federal indictments but the results of the prosecution of those federal indictments as they are unsealed and executed;
  • President Trump really may NOT be guilty of anything sufficient to run him out of office one way or the other;
  • Extreme wrongdoing — both criminal and simply reprehensible — on their part may be exposed;
  • All of the above may result in their loss of political might and standing and even expulsion from their positions and status;
  • The Democrat Party totally imploding;
  • President Trump’s agenda actually succeeding.

I know there’s a lot in this discussion for us to chew on. It has become extremely difficult to get a fix on what is truthful and what is not, what is applicable to the President, members of Congress, and those from the Department of Justice. But there’s a worn out adage that I believe is appropriate here: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” I think it’s safe to say that so far in the exhaustive investigation of this president, his staff, family members, and even his friends, there may not even be smoke. To borrow a phrase from the President, this could all simply be more “Fake News.”

Whether you are a Democrat, a Socialist, a RINO, a Trump supporter, it is probably accurate to say you want this resolved. There may be an argument on the actual resolution you desire, getting this all done and getting the U.S. on the road to what’s ahead without further distractions is really all that matters. But it certainly is time to get this out of the way.

Play

“In Full Disclosure…” Part 2

President Trump’s most recent public campaign against the US Justice Department and US intelligence community has stunned current and former intelligence officials. “He’s doing the enemy’s job for them,” one FBI agent said. Another agent compared Trump’s unwillingness to accept intelligence assessments that contradict his beliefs to the behavior of a toddler. “It’s like when my son threw temper tantrums when I told him he couldn’t do something or if I said something he didn’t like. Of course, my son was three years old at the time and wasn’t sitting in the Oval Office with the nuclear button,” the second agent stated. As a result of Trump’s actions, intelligence officers are “more vulnerable to approaches by foreign intelligence services — and more vulnerable to accepting those approaches — than any other time in US history,” Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, described. “For decades, the Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia, have denigrated the CIA and our intelligence professionals, attempting to de-legitimize US intelligence in the process,” another intelligence veteran, Ned Price, said. “Now our adversaries have a helper who sits in the Oval Office.”

This is the narrative being spun in the protection of the US intelligence community and the US Department of Justice. Meanwhile, at the top of several of the “alphabet” agencies and the DOJ, stories of wrongdoing, collusion, lying, even possible treason and acts of subversion are surfacing daily.

American Justice as our forefathers established it is long-gone — at the hands of political elitists who today control most of the senior positions, not just in Justice and Intelligence, but in most of ALL  of the leadership in American government.

The Department of Justice — where equal justice under the law, the “rule of law,” “innocent until proven guilty,” honesty and integrity have resided for 250 years — is now nothing more than a shadow of its former self.

Corruption lives and is thriving at the DOJ.

Whose Hands are Dirty?

You probably cannot read the information next to the pictures of those shown here who have been fired at the DOJ, but by now they are well-known. In previous stories, we have listed the names of these and others who have (for various reasons) been fired, forced to retire, or those who have resigned during the Trump presidency. It has become so common that announcements of a “new” firing or resignation from the DOJ are greeted with a simple “Ho-Hum” from most Americans. They’re no big deal — just “another day at Justice.”

That should alarm every American!

Never before in American history has anything even similar to this bloodbath of management happened in one department in the U.S. government! Why now?

The answer to that question is simple: Accountability.

For the last 20 years, senior positions in the Justice Department have become exclusively political appointments for which many in government lust for and fight to get for themselves. Why? They’re cush jobs. They come with amazing perks and special “opportunities” for those who hold them to garner power second only to those in the upper tier in the Executive Branch, but come also with amazing financial opportunities — while in office and promises of financial windfall when leaving. Those who have held these positions during the last 2 decades have crafted mechanisms to amass personal gain while perpetuating an environment of cronyism that protects them all from ALL accountability. By loading the top-tier of management  at the DOJ with those who have “obligations” to those who appointed or hired them, they assure their safety from accountability. The cost for this bureaucratic layer of those who have unilateral control over how federal law is enforced makes them bullet-proof. And the use of that power has obliterated the DOJ of Washington and Jefferson.

How?

There are now at least 2 tiers of American justice: 1 for the politically connected and 1 for everyone else. Impartiality in justice is gone — Lady Liberty is no longer blind.

A former federal prosecutor by the name of Sidney Powell has blown the whistle. January 27, 2019, Ms. Powell dispelled the illusion that our justice system is fair and impartial.

Powell, author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, in a television interview described a system consisting of out-of-control prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction. She accused the Justice Department of a broad range of offenses. Some of those include:

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DOJ.

• Destruction of the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives. Before they could appeal their fake convictions, they were sent to prison with the toughest criminals in the country. “They did the worst things they could possibly do to these men,” says Powell. The defendants were eventually exonerated on appeal, but it was only after one of them served eight months in solitary confinement.

• Frequent failure by the DOJ to disclose evidence favorable to defendants as required by law.

• Using the phony Steele dossier, the DOJ and FBI unlawfully obtained FISA warrants for the surveillance of the Trump election campaign. The dossier was then used to justify creation of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion. After two years, that investigation is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Trump supporters.

• Leaking at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ in the midst of criminal investigations.

• Unwillingness of federal judges to discipline the DOJ for its transgressions.

Taking it one step further, these top-level DOJ bureaucrats simply weaponized various departments and agencies to for their own benefit get rid of enemies either by their destruction or through intimidation.

How? Investigate; Harrass; Prosecute

  • An early Trump supporter targeted by the DOJ right before the 2018 midterm elections was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY). Normally, letters and other contact from the SEC are initiated regarding perceived violations and a deal is worked out, fine paid, etc., just as happened with Tesla’s Elon Musk. Instead, the DOJ initiated an investigation into Collins that has/will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  • In another example of selective justice: If you steal a credit card and charge over $100,000, and the DOJ handles the case, you can be charged with credit card fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and theft through deception. You would be facing 50-80 years in federal prison. Or, you can alternatively be given a penalty of community service and two years’ probation. That’s what you get when you are Joe Biden’s niece. And that’s what Joe’s niece got.
  • On the other hand, look at former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). The donations at issue in his prosecution case were less than just Hillary’s travel costs – a mere $915,000 in four checks written to two nonprofit organizations. Neither of the donors in Stockman’s case complained. Instead, the DOJ sought out the donors. If there was real guilt there, such a small case should have taken only about six months to investigate. Instead, it took DOJ and Lois Lerner’s former nonprofit division four years, four grand juries, and an estimated $20 million to create a believable story in order to bring charges against Stockman. They really wanted him. Why? In the 1990s, he served on the Whitewater House committee that investigated Clinton wrongdoing. In his most recent term in Congress, Stockman threatened to consider articles of impeachment against President Obama, called out Hillary Clinton for breaking the Iran sanctions, and busted Obama for giving money to the Haqqani terrorist network. And apparently “the straw that broke the camel’s back” was when Stockman filed a House resolution calling for the arrest of Lois Lerner for being in contempt of Congress. He had the audacity to stand up to the same hit team now going after Trump. The government wants life in prison for Stockman.
  • Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric Holder, identified and placed sympathetic ideologues in key departments of the DOJ and FBI. They were also placed in the FEC and the IRS. This all combined to form a “Red Team” that would target, isolate and destroy opponents of Obama or his legacy. Reportedly, both Democrats and Republicans were on the list, but the majority were conservative leaders. They mapped out weak targets, then the IRS, SEC or FEC would research them deeply, looking for any mistakes or missteps. Once information was gathered that would spark interest, it was leaked to friendlies in the press, politicians or sympathetic nonprofits such as the Sunlight Foundation. By doing, so they covered their tracks to avoid the charge of targeting. Multiple sources in Congress stated that the DOJ would then hijack these administrative agencies’ actions, bringing these investigations “in-house” and handling them as felony investigations. The targeted list (enemies list) was developed and fleshed out by the Red Team (or “hit squad”). Once the DOJ took a case, it moved without interference, using broad powers to issue subpoenas and charges in federal criminal indictments.
  • Republicans are treated differently than Democrats. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), an early Trump supporter, received a publicized complaint about a potential FEC problem. When the same thing happened to Obama, Obama simply received FEC warning letters and a notice to correct the problem. He was instructed to pay a $375,000 fine and the matter was over. Notably, the money in question was a larger amount than Hunter was even accused of. But Hunter didn’t receive warning letters or the opportunity to pay a fine. Instead, the complaint went to the DOJ and Obama sympathizers’ Red Team – the “hit squad.” The bomb was dropped in a press release right before the 2018 midterm elections, designed to sink Hunter’s campaign and defeat him. And it worked.

The “Fix” is in

The Feds have made the justice system “good” for them — bad for those charged. Equal justice under the law is now only a “story” that kids talk about in Political Science class about the way the justice system worked “a long time ago.” Innocence until guilt is proven is long gone when federal law enforcement gets involved in a case. If the feds want to come get someone, they always get somebody. The process they now use is NOT to examine a crime that was committed and then put evidence together that shows who committed the crime, their purpose, and how it was committed. They now use broad criminal statutes that make it easier than ever for federal authorities to get their way against everyday people. And the feds have many tools.

Federal prosecutors frequently bring conspiracy charges. Conspiracy is a broad crime that can sweep up many kinds of conduct.

  • Conspiracy charges are challenging to defend. A federal criminal defense attorney who has a client who is charged with conspiracy has to be very diligent in investigating the government’s evidence and what role the government thinks each person had in the conspiracy.
  • A conspiracy to commit a federal crime happens whenever there is an agreement to commit a specific federal crime between two or more people, and at least one of those people makes some overt act to further the conspiracy.
  • The government doesn’t have to prove that there was a written agreement between the co-conspirators; instead, the prosecutor can prove a conspiracy just by proving that the people it says were involved in the conspiracy were working together to do some crime.
  • The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute criminalizes both conspiracies to defraud the United States as well as conspiracies to violate any other provision of federal law. By the text of that provision you can see how the two elements work. The statute says that it is a crime, [i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.
  • The United States Code contains other specific conspiracy provisions. For example, 21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it illegal to commit a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. Eighteen U.S.C. § 1951 – which prohibits committing a robbery of any article in interstate commerce – contains its own conspiracy provision. So section 1951 makes it a crime both to commit a robbery and to conspire to commit a robbery.
  • Courts have held that a person can be in a conspiracy with another person, even if the two people never meet or interact – as long as they knew the other person was doing something to further the conspiracy. This is most common in a larger sprawling conspiracy where a central person, or a group of people, is coordinating the work of many others.
  • Conspiracy charges have the potential to be abused by the government, and taken to absurd consequences – in theory, a conspiracy offense could be committed, and prosecuted in federal court, merely by having two people agree that they would rob a bank together and then buy a ski mask to wear in the bank robbery.

It boils down to this: pretty much when federal law enforcement authorities want to get someone for something, they can easily find a way to do it.

Summary

It would be useless to name more names, list wrongs done or illustrate further travesties experienced by Americans who come face-to-face with the Department of Justice. It simply boils down to this: the DOJ became a weaponized arm of Deep State operatives at the top of the U.S. Government during the Obama Administration. Those operatives created an atmosphere that used an armed FBI, CIA, and Justice Department to conduct each and every “hit job” deemed necessary by the Bosses.

In perfecting this process, they needed a military arm to paint the one-sided narrative to legitimize this method of operations to the American people. That messaging arm? The Mainstream Media. Every day, all day, “agents” at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, New York Times, all spin the stories that impact all our lives with the political elitists’ version of every story. They’re pretty good sales people too. But in fairness to Americans, when “news people” almost in unison give every story with the same details and perspective as those at other networks and newspapers who give the same story, Americans just accept the story as true. “If everyone of the news outlets give every story the exact same way, the story must be true.”

Thankfully, the truth is somehow getting around the barriers erected by the Media. And Americans have begun to ask the right questions, question what they are reading, seeing, and hearing from the media, and seeking the truth.

There’s hope, folks. And this President began the “Swamp drain” in January of 2017. It IS draining, however slowly. Thankfully the truth rings true to most Americans.

There’s still hope!

Play

“In Full Disclosure…” Part I

Do you have all this stuff figured out in D.C.? On one hand, we have what seems like 80% of Congress pushing-back on everything this President wants to do that requires legislation. They end up passing into law a boondoggle of a bill that is full of pork and gratuitous spending provisions that are hidden from citizens. All the while, they simply refuse to enforce the southern border: period.

But the logjam and misanthropy on the part of leftists for Donald Trump does not just extend into the legislative branch of government. The Judicial Branch is full of it as well. We knew of the corruption in the Department of Justice. We watched as the Obama DOJ initiated some of the most incorrigible and illegal programs and acts the resulted in the deaths of a number of Americans. But what is worse is than we thought. Any accountability by the perpetrators of those acts and programs (which reach as far as the Obama White House) were just summarily dismissed by almost everyone in government!

Until today, we have seen just a scant fraction of those unspeakable acts exposed. And every day, more new atrocities at the hands of Congress and the DOJ show their ugly heads.

They’ve been hidden for too long. The reckoning is here: at least the first part of it –“In Full Disclosure…”

“Full Disclosure” is here!

Today, in Part I of “In Full Disclosure…” we will reveal the Congressional villainy that has plagued America’s lawmaking process for so long and costs American taxpayers trillions of dollars. We will disclose the attitude of entitlement that is nowhere else more obvious than among members of Congress who with impunity year after year literally “steal” billions from us in the name of doing what’s best for Americans.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives now controlled by Democrats feel that the power their majority gives them is a permission slip to intervene at any time in any way they so choose in the government funding process to reward their minions while penalizing their opponents with the power of money. Nowhere else is this illustrated better and in a more timely fashion than the funding bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2019 (H.R. 648)” President Trump just signed into law to keep the government open. But that bill does MUCH more than just that. It includes multiple examples of the graft and corruption that literally fuels Washington D.C.

In Part II of this story, we will together peel back the layers of the onion called “Corruption” in the Department of Justice. Part II comes tomorrow.

Folks, this expose’ has been fun to research and put together for you. Even though we knew we have horrible issues in Washington, it has been unnerving to uncover them and to learn just how far-reaching into the dark corners of government they have been.

This ride will certainly be unsettling for you.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 648): America’s “Current” Boondoggle

Nobody could wait for this bill to be passed by each house of Congress, be signed into law by the President, and start the erection of that southern border wall while protecting government employees from another work stoppage when government funding expired. It passed just in the nick of time! Of course, everybody got everything they wanted, right? WRONG! But they got a lot — an 1169 page bill full of $$$$$ — OUR dollars and cents.

You haven’t read it yet? I cannot believe that! Everybody should have read the bill — especially those who passed the bill: members of Congress. But, as usual, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING! They each received copies of the bill — all 1169 pages — at midnight the night before the vote. It was impossible for any one of them to read and understand everything it includes. But as usual, Congress followed the Nancy Pelosi instructions that accompanied Obamacare: “We must pass the bill so that we can know what’s in the bill.” They passed it; it’s law.

Certainly, by now, you’ve read the bill, right? You haven’t yet? Here’s your chance: here it is:

CRPT-116hrpt9_u2-

It’s lengthy, it’s verbose, it continuously refers one back to the Omnibus bill from 2018, so let’s just summarize its contents for you.

Border Security

Obviously, the linchpin in this bill was funding of “Trump’s” border wall. It is amazing to me that in discussions of a bill that funds the entire federal government with about $1 trillion through September of this year, the only item that receives discussion is a tiny segment of a barrier that constitutes less than $2 billion — the “wall.” But Congress had to address it to prevent another government partial shutdown. It did. And it was a pittance.

What you have NOT heard and will NOT hear anyplace but here is this:

The bill provides a de facto amnesty pipeline for all illegal alien household members of MS-13 gang members who arrive in the United States as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UACs). As part of a bipartisan “compromise” spending package, lawmakers included provisions that prevent federal immigration officials from deporting anyone who has close contact with UACs who are readily resettled throughout the U.S. with so-called “sponsors” after being trafficked across the southern border. These sponsors are often times illegal alien relatives, in many cases parents, of UACs. Federal officials have repeatedly noted how the UAC program has been widely used by the MS-13 gang to import more gang members into the country.

Last year, New York City Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Angel Melendez said there are roughly 22,000 UAC “potential recruits” who are resettled across the country every year out of about 40,000 total UACs. These are mostly young men trafficked across the southern border from Central America, especially El Salvador.

But we can put up with that little “oops” in the bill, right? We’re getting a big chunk of border wall/barrier out of this. But wait, there’s more:

The new law mandates that the White House have approval from left-wing Starr County, Texas officials before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can begin building a wall at the region’s U.S.-Mexico border.
Slipped into this funding bill that provides about $1.3 billion for 55 miles of border wall construction is a provision that prevents the Trump administration from constructing the barrier until DHS officials seek input from Starr County, Texas locals and city officials. The spending bill mandates that Trump must “seek to reach a mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers” with Starr County “local elected officials,” including those from:

  • Roma, Texas
  • Rio Grande City, Texas
  • Escobares, Texas
  • La Grulla, Texas
  • Salineno, Texas

The deal demands Trump’s DHS to continue “such consultations” with local elected officials about the border wall until September, or until an agreement is reached. In the meantime, the spending bill stipulates that the administration cannot build any barriers “while consultations are continuing” with local elected officials.

But there’s still more. I know you may find this hard to believe, but there are a bunch of “gimmicks” included in the almost 1200 page monstrosity that, only now, are showing their ugly little heads.

(You need to follow this line of explanation very closely. Congressional members love making it difficult for everyday Americans — most of us — to understand what they are really doing when they craft and pass spending bills.)

Gimmicks

Changes in Mandatory Programs are one of the most commonly used gimmicks in the appropriations process. On paper, mandatory spending is delayed, creating new savings that can be put toward unrelated discretionary spending. In reality, the vast majority of the delayed funding would never have been spent in the first place and generated no real savings. Each year, billions of dollars in new spending is enabled through Changes in Mandatory Programs.

The largest change each year is delayed spending from the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Fund. The bill caps spending from the Crime Victims Fund at $3.35 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2019. However, that fund consistently carries a balance of around $13 billion, meaning that any unobligated balance above $3.35 billion can now be captured as savings and used to circumvent the Budget Control Act caps. And the Crime Victims Fund is not the only Change in Mandatory Programs. In the fiscal year 2018, changes with no real savings increased spending by nearly $18 billion.

The area of the bill with the most potential for harm is in the critical areas of immigration enforcement, particularly detention beds. As the number of caravans, children, families, and asylum seekers has drastically risen, the administration has been handcuffed by loopholes and prevented from quickly removing many illegal immigrants. The result is that many illegal border crossers or asylum seekers are “caught and released,” and many will disappear into the public and never be seen again. The Trump administration has attempted to limit catch and release, both at the border but also in the interior, by expanding the number of detention beds.

In this bill, Democratic efforts to set a hard cap on immigration detention were stopped, but the bill does try to push the administration to reduce the number of detention beds by limiting funding. That said, the administration is allowed to transfer or reprogram funds to expand detention, but does so at the expense of other homeland security programs. In essence, the bill forces the Department of Homeland Security to steal from other important security and preparedness missions in order to fulfill the immigration enforcement mission.

Critically, the bill fails to address the key loopholes in U.S. immigration law that have encouraged the drastic increases in asylum claims and families and children coming to the border. Without fixes to these loopholes and other immigration enforcement tools, border security is only a superficial fix and detention beds will always be too few.

More “Hidden”

  • The omnibus includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees, costing roughly $3.3 billion in 2019, and more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. This overturns a December 2018 executive order from President Donald Trump freezing federal pay. And, for more than half of federal workers, it serves as their second pay raise in 2019 because federal workers receive both cost-of-living increases as well as step increases based on tenure. On average, federal employees receive $121,000 in total compensation, compared to average private-sector total compensation of $69,000. Part of this differential stems from the fact that federal workers have more education and experience, on average, but studies consistently find that federal employees receive a significant compensation premium.
  • The text of the 1,169-page compromise bill was released just before midnight on Wednesday, February 13, 2019. Both houses of Congress had to debate and vote on it. It was already law two days later.
    Once again, Congress is ignoring its own budget rules. The House requires that text of legislation be available for at least 72 hours before a vote is held. This is not the way the process is supposed to work. It leaves no time for lawmakers to even read the bill, let alone have a chance to debate and offer amendments to improve the legislation. That’s just a symptom of the larger problem. The fiscal year is already more than four months old and Congress still hasn’t finalized funding. If lawmakers were doing their job and passing budget and appropriations bills on time, continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and government shutdowns could become obsolete, or at least the exception rather than the rule.

State of Emergency

Democrat after Democrat from both sides of the aisle have taken to the airways and declared how unjust, un-American, and illegal is the declaration of a national emergency and the subsequent plan of the President to divert funds to pay for the construction of the border barrier. Even several Republicans are against the wall! It’s purely partisan and in no way reflects any actions contemplated or taken against the previous 61 such declarations made by this and other presidents. Politics at its worse.

We won’t waste a bunch of time, but Nancy always chimes in with a quote of remarkability when it comes to Congressional matters of historical nature. At a news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi railed against Trump declaring a national emergency, saying Republicans “should have some dismay to the door that they opened, the threshold they crossed.” She continued, “The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans and, of course, we will respond accordingly,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said an emergency declaration opens the door for other presidents to do an end run around Congress. “Just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” Pelosi added. She didn’t say specifically how Democrats will respond but said that they would “review our options.”

Summary: “Full Disclosure”

This action in Congress had NOTHING to do with southern border security. They don’t want better border security:

  • Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and six other House Democrats who chair subcommittees of the judiciary panel signed a letter to the president, writing that “we believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system.”
  • Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, called the reallocation of funds “utterly disrespectful of U.S. national security and the needs of our men and women in uniform, and it further undermines his credibility in requesting the upcoming defense budget.”
  • And it’s not just Democrats. Centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election in 2020, called Trump’s planned move a “mistake” in a statement Thursday. Collins also argued that the National Emergencies Act was only “intended to apply to major natural disasters or catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our country.”
  • Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose districts covers about 800 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, said on The View that the declaration was “unnecessary” and expressed concerns about the land seizures that would have to take place in order to build the wall.

The corruption in Congress is unfathomable — until now. Let’s be perfectly clear and honest: on the most part, those who serve in either house of Congress face every bill presented for their consideration, not from the perspective of “how do we need to process this measure to maximize all our resources to best facilitate meeting the needs of American citizens?”  Their almost unilateral perspective — Democrat AND Republican — is “how can I get what I need out of this bill: money, power, and favorability among voters in my district.” Their perspectives blow as the political winds in D.C. blow on the particular day of their considerations.

The bottom line is this: truthful consideration of the resources we give to them, the needs that WE have, and the rule of law are GONE in Congress.

In conclusion, here’s what they have almost entirely missed: the American electorate in sufficient numbers walked away from “business-as-usual” in Washington and voted for the one person who entered the race for the presidency that voters felt could and would fulfill campaign promises to fix legal immigration while stopping illegal immigration at our southern border. And in doing so, those same members of the electorate sent a message to Congress that “We are done with status quo, identity politics perpetrated by the elitists in D.C. that want nothing but control over all of us Americans.”

Have members of Congress gotten that message? With the spending bill passed simply to temporarily pacify the President with the pittance allocated for the border barrier, apparently Congress still has not gotten it.

And here’s the look “down the road” current members of Congress and those who want in better see and understand: Congressional hypocrisy is being exposed in greater measure than ever day after day. And Americans in seeing the corruption is being summarily rejected. Sending those members home is just part of the equation. Prosecution for wrongdoing is pending. There WILL be a price to pay.

They have underestimated this President. He’s not stupid — far from it. His validity resonates far greater with Americans than the abomination being unearthed in the midst of today’s lawmakers.

And it’s not just in Congress: it’s in the Department of Justice. Tomorrow come back for “In Full Disclosure…Part II.” The DOJ is front and center. You think you know all the corruption there is there? Get ready: there’s far more than you know today!

Play

Russia Collusion: The Next Chapter

It is becoming clearer and clearer why Deep State operatives have worked so diligently to cover Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from any public scrutiny about entanglements with Russia. Donald Trump has been the obvious distraction to accomplish that objective. And until now, it has been very effective. But now, details of just how entangled the Clintons were and are with Russia are slipping into the light. And what is showing up is very nasty. The former President and former Secretary of State apparently worked with numerous individuals and entities to surreptitiously line the pockets of the Clintons personally and the Clinton Foundation from Russian sources.

We’re not referring to that one $500,000 speech given by Bill in Russia while the Uranium Deal was in process. There were far more dollars in this charade carried out with apparent assistance from a myriad of well connected American political operatives and probably American politicians. On the other side was Putin himself.

At the end of all this will be greatest ironies that will unfold publicly beginning very slowly but will initiate a cascade of revelations that will leave Americans aghast as one political heavyweight after another will walk the American justice plank. Who will take the perp walk first remains to be seen. But the scales of American justice are precipitously swinging against the Clintons.

Who are the culprits in this? What have they done? What are the details that are about to be exposed to the World? When will it all happen? I don’t know those answers with certainty. But I do know evidence of it all is in the hands of the people who have the power to push this into the justice spotlight. I’m certain it will not be too far off.

I can think of no better way to put the beginning of this out there and simply passing along the details already known as given by one of the greatest investigative reporters in U.S. history: John Solomon. We don’t do this often, but what follows is the article Solomon just published in The Hill. John and his collaborator Sara Carter have meticulously crafted names, dates, and specifics for us all. And it’s like reading a spy novel.

Enjoy!

The Case for Russia Collusion…Against the Democrats

Now that both the House and Senate investigative committees have cleared Donald Trump of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.

As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.

Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.

A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.

The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show.

That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves.

Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns.

In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarmed that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.

“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.

“Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?”

A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage. And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.

Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with a military and commercial application,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.

The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion, and bribery.

Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.

Campbell also warned that a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department. Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.

Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.

Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele — whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump — to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election.

Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.

Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.

Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians.

Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.

Steele’s dossier also relied on information from a Belarus-born Russian businessman, according to numerous reports and a book on the Russia scandal.

Steele and Simpson had Russian-tied business connections, too, while they formulated the dossier.

Steele worked for the lawyers for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and tried to leverage those connections to help the FBI get evidence from the Russian aluminum magnate against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The effort resulted in FBI agents visiting Deripaska in fall 2016. Deripaska told the agents that no collusion existed.

Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon — which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties — and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Simpson insists the two dinners sandwiching one of the seminal events in the Trump collusion narrative had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, a claim many Republicans distrust.

Whatever the case, there’s little doubt the main instigators of the Clinton-inspired allegations against Trump got information from Russians and were consorting with them during the political opposition project.

This past week, we learned from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that his committee came to the same conclusion as the House: There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But now there is growing evidence — of Democratic connections to Russia. It’s enough that former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) believes a probe should be opened.

There is “obvious collusion the Democrats had through Glenn Simpson and through Fusion GPS, that they were talking directly to Russia,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s “Rising” in an interview to be aired Monday.

Collusion can be criminal if it involves conspiracy to break federal laws, or it can involve perfectly legal, unwitting actions that still jeopardize America’s security against a “frenemy” like Russia.

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns.

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.

 

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

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

 

Who Remembers Sandy Berger?

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

Here’s what Berger did:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then There was Scooter Libby

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

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

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

Election Meddling

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

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

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

Israeli Spy Ring

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

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

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

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

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

The “Weisman” Factor

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

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

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

Summary

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

Does that sound like a Witch-hunt to you?

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

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

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

Does that sound like justice to you?

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

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

And Mueller is quacking!

Play

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

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

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

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

The Mystery of Mueller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Now he’s running the Russia collusion investigation.

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

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

Play