The U.S. Department of Justice Archives

Who is “Below the Law?”

June 5, 2019

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the president is not above the law.”

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 3, 2019

The Law

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

That’s the law — 18 U.S. Code § 798 — regarding the handling of classified information: the Law. By any understanding of that law and the penalty for breaking the law, when someone does so, their doing so is a heinous act against the U.S. Government that in doing so allows someone — anyone — to access potentially serious national information that could be damaging to the United States in any number of ways.

“Anyone:” Then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Follow along very carefully these next sentences:)

According to documents, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into de-classifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.

“Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigation? Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?
What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation. This is, of course, was just one revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.
When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be a lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.
According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July of 2016. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack.

Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either. Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals.

Does anyone besides me see any conflict in the happenings detailed above and what Ms. Clinton said in her speech on Monday of this week and in her tweet: “…the president is not above the law?”

Then There’s Congress

Everyone knows that it takes an impeachment proceeding initiated from the House Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, then with that committee’s referral to the floor of the House followed by a successful House vote to impeach to start that process. If and when that occurs, the matter is turned over to the Senate for an actual trial on the merits. Obviously, much debate ensues during an actual trial. At the conclusion, the Senate votes on the charges. If two-thirds of the Senators vote to confirm the House resolution for impeachment, the President is convicted and removed from office.

We want to note here: there’s a process — a Constitutional process. That process requires charges, evidence of violation by the President of U.S. Constitutional mandate that states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a Constitutional process for impeaching the President, Vice President, and other “civil officers of the United States.” Certainly, Americans support everything within the Constitution, right? But let’s see what longtime Democrat and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say about what is being threatened by House Democrats right now:

“The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that ‘no one is above the law.’ That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law.

All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.

It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged ‘corruption.’ Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Consider Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA), who has said the following:

Congressman Waters said this the other day: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.”

It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress.

So Hillary, members of Congress, and most in the Mainstream Media are claiming they are above the Law, who then would be considered to be below the law?

The answer to that is simple: anyone who disagrees with anything any member of the Democrat ruling “Elitist-ocracy” is certainly below the Law and obviously unworthy of the consideration of “Equal justice under the Law.” Who throughout history are some of those “folks?”

All those who fled the repression of European elitist members of the Ruling Class who considered anyone not deemed to be eligible for membership in their groups to be less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
African-American men, women, and children who were taken by slave traders in Northern Africa and sold in America had no rights and were certainly less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
Today’s working-class Americans who don’t live and work in Coastal American states or those several interior states comprised of like-minded elites who have garnered favor from the political elite “Overclass” are less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
According to Hillary and other Dems, everyone who did NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 but chose Mr. Trump instead is not only ineligible for “Equal Justice under the Law,” but are reprehensible human beings and deserve no consideration of the benefits of simply being Americans.

Summary

I know this may seem harsh today. But it is time for Americans to wake up and realize liberty and justice for all is about to be “liberty and justice for only an elite few.” And regardless of what the pundits on the Left want all to believe, those elites are NOT the current inhabitants of the White House. They are led by the defeated 2016 presidential candidate and all those who had surreptitiously created, implemented, and maintained her path to the White House so as to cover-up all the wrongdoing committed by her team and others comprised by a large number of very important government officials.

Even in the aftermath of two years of an exhaustive investigation into ridiculous allegations against this president, his staff, family, and many friends, those Elitists still shout in anger threats against all of those who are “below the Law” that support the duly elected president and the Rule of Law.

I never in my wildest dream we would ever see a day like this today. But it’s true: for at least the eight years of the Obama Administration, evil and deviousness ran rampant through the Capital and the Department of Justice in D.C. And the U.S. government was nothing more than a piggy bank for Elitists to tap for their evildoing. Taxpayers paid every dime for what they did. And our children will continue to pay that bill.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Mueller Probe Was Bad — Really Bad

May 24, 2019

Now that the dust has settled after the two-plus years of the Mueller probe into Trump Campaign collusion with Russians and Obstruction of Justice, common sense dictates an objective look back to examine the probe’s function, its purpose, and objectively examine its findings.

Donald Trump early on named it a “Witch Hunt.” That term angered many and many of his followers adopted it. The Mueller findings in many ways confirmed that name was in some ways appropriate. But in the aftermath of its release and upon close examination a “Witch Hunt” may be too nice a term for it. One more appropriate may be a “Hit Job.” What am I talking about? Let’s dig in.

“In The Beginning….”

What was Mueller appointed to do? Investigate the alleged collusion between the Russians and members of the Trump Campaign during and for the purpose of impacting the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of Donald Trump. Remember this: Mueller signed on to the task AFTER the FBI had been on the case for quite a while. They had investigated the Trump Campaign for the same reasons. The FBI had already accumulated a plethora of evidence to which Mueller had unfettered access.

In that pile of evidence from the considerable FBI interrogations and documents already compiled was the infamous Steele Dossier. FBI and DOJ investigators had already been to the FISA Court and had obtained surveillance authorization to surveil electronically Carter Page and those with whom he communicated. The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, who we now know was an FBI paid informant. All of his interview materials, documents prepared by Steele for his “employer,” (FBI) were there for Mueller.

Why is this important?

Mueller knew from the very beginning there was NO collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians!

If he didn’t know that on Day One, he knew it very shortly afterwards. Think about it: a good investigator — Mueller was a god of investigators according to Democrats and career FBI officials — would upon initiation of such an investigation first peruse all the evidence available so as to intelligently initiate whatever actions were deemed necessary to achieve the goal of the investigation. Again, Mueller knew quickly there was no Russian collusion.

From that, here’s the obvious question: Why did Mueller NOT inform the Department of Justice, the President, the FBI, or members of Congress?

Some will say that Mueller didn’t know early on for certain there was no Russian collusion. But even if he didn’t know early, in no more than a few days he knew. Remember the process of the DOJ that was used with Senator Dianne Feinstein? The instant the FBI knew that an employee that had been in her employment for years was actually a spy for China, they immediately informed Feinstein and that employee was terminated.

But Mueller didn’t know who or what was happening illegally, right? And the FISA warrant was for surveillance of Carter Page. Still, the DOJ protocol was when an individual was being investigated, if there is evidence that individual is involved in any way with a government entity, the leader of that department or entity is immediately notified of that investigation and the evidence against that individual.

Why wasn’t Donald Trump notified by the FBI or the Mueller team about the suspicions of Carter Page and the FISA authorized wiretap? Could it be the purpose of the Mueller Witch Hunt was to look further for dirt on the Trump Campaign, or to maybe just keep the cloud of “suspicion of wrongdoing” over the heads of all people and all things Trump?

The Rest of the Story

Remember this: the FBI had just gone through the Hillary Clinton email investigation and simultaneously the investigation of the hacking of the Democrat National Committee’s servers. Strangely enough, NO expert at the FBI was given access to the DNC servers. Also, strangely enough, the FBI took for granted the Russians must have been the guilty party who hacked the DNC.

So how did Mueller get started with all of this stuff up in the air? Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” that hacked the DNC, and he deliberately excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. Remember this: he was hired to investigate the Russians and their role in the 2016 election. He put 2 and 2 together and “assumed” the DNC attack and Russian collusion with Trump were connected. The key word in that sentence is “assumed.”

To that end, Mueller, as a matter of policy in his investigation, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did NOT commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did NOT interview the DOJ and National Defense IT expert for hacking: Bill Binney. He did NOT interview Julian Assange. Why Assange? Remember: part of the cloud of allegations against the Trump gang was that they got all the Hillary bad news and emails from Wikileaks and Assange. Mueller’s failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless in the minds of many experts domestically. And foreign intelligence IT officials are laughing at the Mueller Investigation ineptness!

Just one important note: It’s May, 2.5 years after the Trump Collusion investigation began. There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

Two Facts underline how incompetent the Mueller Report and his investigation are:

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organization. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is far more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: therefore the information must have been downloaded to a local device, like a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy it’s actually laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the IT packets containing the information would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. Explanation? It never happened!

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from the Wikileaks “Vault 7” release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of key foreign material. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claims to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately not taking any steps to get evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had plenty of time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales when compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on NO conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most importantly, he did NOT give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice AND a pre-determination of the results. That’s horrible police work!

Unbelievably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. Mueller if honest should have certainly gone to London to interview Assange. Not doing so exposed Mueller’s investigation ”pre-judgment.”

It is also cowardly as Julian was held in silence with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

Summary

How could such an experienced, well-respected career investigator take two years, 20 professional federal prosecutors, millions of pieces of evidence and spend $30 million doing so and not find wrongdoing by those investigated if there was wrongdoing going on in the first place? If there really was Russian hacking of the Clinton email server and the DNC, how could this reputable investigator NOT examine either server, nor have any IT expert examine them instead taking for granted what he was told about Russian hacking was true?

It makes NO logical sense.

But what really smells is the fact that after all this work, all this investigating, spending all this money, Mueller did NOT find evidence of collusion and did NOT find evidence to justify charges of Obstruction of Justice either. ”BUT”……..he DID feel compelled to give 248 pages of doubts of his own conclusions (or non-conclusions)!

Why would any prosecutor do so? After all, prosecutors are not charged under any federal laws to investigate the accused in an effort to prove they are NOT guilty of a crime. They begin investigations starting from “A Crime Was Committed.” The investigation is to find evidence that proves who committed the crime.

THAT’S NOT WHAT MUELLER DID!

His perspective apparently was that a crime was “alleged,” and even with NO evidence that a crime WAS committed, he launched a 2-year fiasco that began with NO crime and NO evidence of a crime.

But he had an ALLEGED criminal offender: Donald Trump.

The only logical conclusion one can draw for those 248 pages of the Mueller report that followed the Mueller conclusion that there WAS no collusion and WAS no Obstruction of Justice is this: either Mueller was on a mission to take whatever actions were necessary to discredit the presidency of Donald Trump, OR Mueller was paying Mr. Trump back for NOT hiring him as FBI Director to replace James Comey, OR Mueller was using this sham investigation to avenge the firing of his close friend and buddy: James Comey.

One or all those three MUST be the explanation for the findings (or lack of findings) detailed in the Mueller Report.

One final thought: If the process of the Mueller investigation really was an honest effort, using honest and thorough investigative procedures, real evidence, and methods, and if the crew of attorneys Mueller collected for his team were really the best of the U.S. federal prosecutors, the United States Department of Justice and the entire Intelligence group of agencies are in really sad shape!

Bless Their Hearts!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

What About Hillary?

April 26, 2019

We know from being doused with 24/7 news reports that Democrats are going after everything Donald Trump: his personal attorney, company accountant, his tax returns, etc. That’s ALL Democrat members of Congress are about. But now that the Mueller Investigation is history, what’s going on regarding all the exposed wrongdoing of numerous Democrats from the Obama Administration? Think about it: National Security Adviser Susan Rice, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI Head James Clapper, Justice Department operatives Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, (and the list goes on and on) ALL were implicated by hard evidence of wrongdoing revealed during the past 2 years. Are they simply going to go free, escaping penance for all the evil they participated in? Or are they going to be held accountable?

We know that Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has been investigating wrongdoing in the DOJ for the last year or so. And we are told that Federal Attorney John Huber from Utah since tasked by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November of 2017 is still investigating apparent wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons regarding possible criminal actions in the Uranium One transaction with Russia. But we don’t know exactly what the pair are specifically investigating or who. And Americans — MANY Americans — are chomping at the bit to get the details of these 2 investigations.

And what about Hillary?

I won’t list all the details of the illegal acts committed by the Obama Secretary of State and two-time presidential candidate. Everyone knows details of enough of those to know that if an average American was found to have done even 1 or 2 of those things, they’d have been charged, tried, convicted, and would be serving time in federal prison. So far, Hillary has been “bulletproof.” And with all of her exposed garbage, one would expect her to be quiet and certainly away from news reporters and their cameras. But Hillary cannot avoid the press:

I was floored that TIME would question Hillary about the “truth” of impeachment. When you lookup the term “political corruption,” Hillary’s picture is adjacent to the definition. How and why she is given any credit by anyone regarding the validity of any information or explanation she may share regarding anything to do with politics is beyond human comprehension.

We’ll have more to discuss about Mrs. Clinton personally a bit later.

The “Gang” at The Clinton Foundation

Pretty much lost in the exhaustive conversations during the post-2016 election hoopla have been what’s going on with investigations in The Clinton Foundation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed it received multiple referrals for criminal investigations related to Uranium One and the Foundation in the past two years. One source reported that the referrals sent to the Justice Department have led to ongoing investigations into the controversial deal that allowed 20% of U.S. uranium resources to be placed under the control of Moscow. The investigations also dive into allegations of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation.

Multiple sources, including congressional officials, told Circa News that the requests sent to the Department of Justice have led to ongoing investigations, which they say also include investigations into the alleged leaking of classified information to the media and the improper unmasking of Americans.

DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Flores stated, “the department takes seriously all allegations from Congress of criminal conduct in determining whether to open an investigation.” She said, “requests to open an investigation would be referred to the appropriate investigative agency, such as the FBI, for review.”

Flores said, “all allegations are reviewed in light of the principles of federal prosecution. And while some may find it frustrating at times, the Department has a policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations in order to maintain the integrity of the process until and if charges are filed.

That FBI “Bombshell” Witness

Remember a year ago that it was revealed the FBI uncovered a massive bribery, corruption and racketeering scheme before the Obama Administration approved the Uranium One deal? The last news we heard came shortly after the Trump DOJ cleared a confidential informant for the FBI to testify before Congress on Uranium One. The decision lifted an unprecedented non-disclosure agreement, allowing him to testify about what he witnessed undercover surrounding Russia’s efforts to corner the global uranium market.

“It was expected to also prove damning to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who ran the FBI during what numerous experts say appears to be a scheme to coverup potential crimes resulting from the deal. Then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now the Deputy Attorney General and the man who appointed Mr. Mueller, oversaw the investigation.”

Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for another special counsel to investigate the Obama-Clinton era deal, particularly given Mr. Mueller’s role in the investigation. While his committee launched a probe as well, only the powers granted to a federal prosecutor can get to the bottom of what appears to be a clear cut Clinton quid pro quo. A growing number of lawmakers in both the House and Senate joined Chairman Grassley in that call. (Wonder where that investigation stands — especially in light of the Mueller connection!)

The Uranium One “Scam”

FBI documents show Vadim Mikerin, the director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow, was engaged in illegal activity as early as the fall of 2009.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified. “Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere.”

However, the Obama Administration still allowed him to enter the country with a L1 temporary work visa.

At the time, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence against him and the Russian plot to corner the global uranium market. Worth noting, the Uranium One deal did not permit the exporting of the material out of the U.S., but unknown quantities have been exported to unknown nations and parties. And who knows where that uranium went from there? (Anyone think it may be Russia?)

Incidentally: when calls were made to the FBI for updates on the status of the Uranium One-Clinton Foundation investigation, no one will comment.

How/What do we “Know” about Hillary and Bill’s use of her State Department Job?

While Hillary was Obama’s Secretary of State, Bill Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe during his wife’s tenure at State. And 215 times the State Department stated that it had “no objection.” There are more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers. These “reviews” considered speaking engagements and consulting arrangements proposed by Bill Clinton speaking during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

These documents also show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by controversial Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

So we know that the Obama administration’s judgment as to what constitutes a “conflict of interest” is skewed, to put it nicely. Still, Bill was really busy on the Speaking Tour. Let’s take a quick look at where President Clinton took his business and the types of companies that were involved:

appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands.
Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others—as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media.
Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

And, again, zero objections from the Obama administration.

How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind. That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage. Clinton “earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

That main ethics agreement Hillary signed when accepting her appointment as the Obama Secretary of State? Hillary and Bill both committed that The Clinton Foundation would accept NO funds from any foreign entities while she was in office: foreign countries OR companies. Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman — no known discussions with any in the Obama White House and no known disclosure by the Clintons as these foreign donations hit the Foundation’s account.

Now the Answer to “What About Hillary?”

Yesterday it was released by Judicial Watch that a slew of those missing Hillary emails — remember those “30,000 deleted emails that dealt with yoga and Chelsea’s wedding plans” — have been discovered! Here’s the report:

Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue. U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap, to be deposed or answer writer questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Uh Oh: Hillary just MAY be in some trouble! But the trouble for Hillary got just a bit worse:

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”

The Finish

Let’s be honest: so far, almost without exception, the Clintons have been bulletproof. They have escaped virtually unscathed in multiple investigations, (Bill even from impeachment) and have avoided any nasty prosecution, even though they have been the subjects of even many more “look-sees” than any of us know about. For 30 years the Clintons have been the darlings of the Left. Bill’s tenure as Arkansas Attorney General, Governor, then U.S. President, and Hillary’s as a big shot lawyer in Arkansas, a First Lady, New York U.S. Senator, 2-time presidential candidate and Secretary of State have ALL been marked with innumerable allegations of wrongdoing, shady dealings with shady characters, infidelity, adultery, misuse of funds, skirting the law, and now probable obstruction of justice. And that list is only a part of what they’ve done!

What’s going to happen to Hillary? I think it would be foolish for anyone to speculate at there being any serious accountability for her wrongs. Why? She’s NEVER been touched for ANY of her wrongdoing. If it happens now, it will be a first.

Let me wrap this up by saying this: the fact that a former president, former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, a 2-time presidential candidate and the principals in a massive charitable foundation could have through a couple of decades involved themselves in all of the above misdeeds and many more not mentioned, and never paid any type of legal penalty for any of it is virtually impossible! But more than that, it’s a sad tale about how deep, wide, and massive is the U.S. world of political corruption that is centered in Washington D.C. but operates in all 50 states and in numerous countries around the world. And we in the United States when confronted with the tidbits of news about it we hear always seem to turn a deaf ear. That can be the ONLY reason why Hillary has never paid any price for all that she has done.

There are a couple of principles I’ll close by mentioning: “Be sure your sins will find you out.” (Numbers 32:23) Also, Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” What that means is we always get in life the fruit of the exact seed we sow. When we plant watermelon seeds, the only thing that will grow is watermelons. Hillary has planted a bunch of bad seed in the ground. I’m pretty sure we’re close to “harvest time.”

Wonder what Hillary fruit is going to pop up first?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

How’s The Swamp Draining Going?

January 28, 2019

Although it seemed like the Mueller investigation had cooled down, apparently there are many moving parts at work behind the scenes. The very visible arrest of Roger Stone was obviously for more than anything Stone had to give the Meuller team. I wonder what and who that message was for?

Let’s face it: Stone received the arrest method normally reserved for terrorists or those who are about to be charged with serious crimes and that pose a danger. 29 FBI cars, and several dozen special agents stormed Stone’s Florida home before 6AM. Normally, the FBI would have called Stone’s lawyer and allowed them to show up at the federal courthouse later in the morning. No, that “attack” on Stone was crafted by Mueller’s attack dog Andrew Weismann. Weismann authored a very similar arrest process for Paul Manafort. Remember that a large group of FBI agents who were dressed in riot gear carrying automatic weapons literally stormed Manafort’s house while he and his wife were asleep. There was a message attached to both arrests.

”There’s something in the Air” is a hit song from the 70’s sung by Thunderclap Newman. We can say that fits today’s D.C. “Investigatory Climate” for sure. Robert Mueller is either in the process of preparing a blockbuster or two regarding the investigation of the Trump Campaign, or he’s winding down and in preparation to complete his final report to give to the Justice Department. There are very learned people who weigh-in on both sides of that conversation. I have at times leaned heavily in either direction. But today, I feel stronger than ever, Mueller has an axe to grind, and to that end, is hellbent on the destruction of this presidency and in doing so, destroying Donald Trump. His venture to drain the Swamp called Washington D.C. is at least putting some of the evil sectors that continually bleed our government on notice.

Mueller Probe Side Benefits

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, supposedly into collusion between President Trump’s election campaign and Russia, is casting light into dark corners of the Washington swamp where powerful political figures become highly paid agents of foreign governments.

The prominent Americans Mueller has indicted are all foreign agents. That is, they work as lobbyists or consultants for foreign governments, who paid them handsomely. This includes retired Gen. Michael Flynn, GOP operative Paul Manafort, and his consulting partner Rick Gates. None of these men were indicted or convicted for activities on the Trump campaign. The charge sheet against Manafort was generally for crimes allegedly committed in his lucrative work in the transnational, revolving-door lobbying industry centered on the federal capital.

George Papadopoulos, another Trump-world conviction by Mueller, was reportedly suspected of being an unregistered agent for Israel.

We learned recently that Special Counsel Robert Mueller referred a handful of American lobbyists and consultants to federal prosecutors in New York for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. These reportedly include President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, Greg Craig, who became an agent for Ukrainian politicians who supported Russia’s tyrant, President Vladimir Putin. Tony Podesta, a former Democratic congressional staffer and hugely successful lobbyist and fundraiser is also said to be among those sent by Mueller to New York prosecutors. He seems to have failed to register his work ties to Putin.

Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and a senior adviser to GOP candidates, was another alpha lobbyist reportedly referred to federal prosecutors for investigation.

It’s cheering that federal prosecutors are getting serious about FARA. Lobbyist registration, foreign and domestic, has long been required by law, but not enforced. Lobbyists who abide by the law gripe privately about this, and about nonenforcement of the Lobbyist Disclosure Act and the fact that many avoided Obama’s scorn by simply deregistering while continuing to lobby. The Obama administration put its stamp of approval on this deception by accepting donations from such lobbyists.

Podesta and Craig haven’t been accused of breaking the law, Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted on non-FARA crimes, and Manafort has been convicted of breach of FARA and primarily tax violations. But verdicts and indictments aren’t needed to say these men all played in a corrupt game.

Flynn monetized his military service by putting his name and his rank to work for foreign governments including Turkey and Ukraine. American policymakers, journalists, and the public all trusted him because the U.S. Army made him a ranger and then a lieutenant general. He sold that hard-earned authority to people whose purposes were, in our opinion, incompatible with this country’s interests.

Craig served in the inner circles of the Obama White House. Podesta was the Democrats’ most important campaign finance bundler. Manafort pretended to work for Trump when in truth he was serving the foreign governments who were the clients. Trump was the product he was selling.

Weber was a public servant who cashed out to K Street and also served as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney while he was working for Ukrainian interests.

Some or all of the above was legal. That’s an important part of the problem. It’s pretty common in Washington. There’s little or no stigma to becoming a lobbyist for a foreign government. There should be.

No American politician ought to take the trust Americans place in him and parlay it into an enriching gig advancing the interests of another country. Every revolving-door lawmaker-turned-lobbyist should get the message that if he comes knocking on behalf of some foreign potentate, he’ll get the curb.

Regardless of what federal prosecutors do, Congress should begin investigating foreign agents and pass stricter laws to provide at least better transparency on this shady business. Current FARA reporting is opaque. The Republican Congress should have taken up reforms before the midterm elections. It would have been a fitting way to wrap up the first two years of a president who promised to drain the swamp.

It would also have given a real purpose to Mueller’s investigation if Republicans responded by draining a swamp that is far deeper than Trump perhaps suspected and spans oceans.

Summary

I as well as many others would love it if Mueller’s intentions and his findings so far were more public. Their NOT being public is by design. Of course those on the Mueller side who protect this special counsel and the federal statute that allows such maintain secrecy is mandatory while these investigations are underway. I am certain that was the original intent when that statute was drafted. But if that really was the operating method used by Mueller, why have so many pieces of the investigation been “leaked” to the press and others at conspicuous times and for seemingly specific reasons? Mueller is using the system.

I’m not certain if Mueller is grandstanding as this investigation is likely his last — at least formally. If not that, maybe it is his intention through this investigation to regain some of the public perception of his being a stellar senior law enforcement figure that he has lost over the past decade or so as details of some of his botched investigations have come to light. In either case, Americans have had about enough. It’s time for a conclusion.

Yes, it is wonderful that some suspected of wrongdoing have been confronted and are paying the prices for that wrongdoing. But it is beyond unfortunate that dozens of Americans who may have done something wrong but nothing that rises to the high levels of serious and damaging evils have seen their entire lives’ accomplishment banished by just allegations and innuendo during this probe. It has exposed that Special Counsel law as egregious, political, and grossly unethical in my view. ROBERT MUELLER IS ARGUABLY THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TODAY, AND HE ANSWERS AND IS ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE!

That’s NOT what our founding fathers expected would be part of the Justice Department. And I’m certain the Congress that drafted and put that statute in place did not envision a scenario where even THEY had no authority to rein-in a Counsel who had become an attack dog and was needlessly destroying people’s lives.

That’s what Special Counsel Mueller is all about. And far too many Americans are paying a senseless price for a senseless investigation that could have been accomplished by the Justice Department with its own investigators.

But wait a minute: that would require an ETHICAL DOJ with non-partisan investigators. Let’s call roll at the DOJ to find one of those investigators:

“Bueller….Bueller….Ferris Bueller?……….”

There aren’t ANY!

Comey: A Sociopathic Danger to America

December 20, 2018

Fired FBI Director James Comey after his closed-door testimony to Congress, when confronted, weighed in with his thoughts about Republicans, FOX News, President Trump, and (of course) added his personal opinion about everything that has been happening and those things ongoing in the current myriad of investigations in Washington D.C. But obviously, there are numerous things that have happened — primarily with those fired or who have been forced to retire from the FBI and DOJ — that Comey totally ignores in his analysis he shared with the World.

There is a common denominator in this entire debacle, and that common denominator is NOT President Trump: it’s James Comey. HE was the FBI Director who initiated the Hillary Clinton email investigation, stopped it, and started it again. HE was the FBI Director on whose watch the Steele Dossier was brought into focus and given legitimacy. HE was the FBI Director who signed-off on the grossly negligent, fact-missing, illegal FISA warrant applications that initiated the Mueller Investigation and all this noise. HE is the one who has been caught in lie after lie told in public settings and in his contradictory testimony.

Putting it mildly: Comey in the video/audio above rails against President Trump, Trump’s supporters, and FOX News for telling and supporting lies. In fact, COMEY IS THE LIAR!

It is appropriate today that using that position as the basis for this discussion — that Comey lies — to analyze how such an important man in the Department of Justice could justify his actions in numerous false statements about much of every part of every DOJ and FBI investigation currently underway. To reasonable people, unreasonable actions like those of Comey cannot be explained in a reasonable way.

What type of liar could James Comey be?

A Sociopath

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

Compulsive Liar

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit—an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship.

Normal Lies vs. Pathological Lies

Most people occasionally tell “normal” lies as a defense mechanism to avoid the consequences of the truth (e.g. “It was like that when I found it.”) When a lie is told to cheer up a friend or to spare another person’s feelings (e.g. “Your haircut looks great!”), it may be considered a strategy for facilitating positive contact.

Pathological Liars vs. Compulsive Liars

Though often used interchangeably, the terms “pathological liar” and “compulsive liar” are different. Pathological and compulsive liars both make a habit of telling lies, but they have different motives for doing so.

Pathological liars are generally motivated by a desire to gain attention or sympathy. On the other hand, compulsive liars have no recognizable motive for lying and will do so no matter the situation at the time. They are not lying in an attempt to avoid trouble or gain some advantage over others. Actually, compulsive liars may feel powerless to stop themselves from telling lies.

In Which Category of Liars do we find James Comey?

We are not today (or any other day) going to try to ascertain what type of liar Comey is, why he lies, and how could an FBI Director do so again and again with impunity. What we DO know is that he has found an adoring Media who deplored Candidate and now President Donald Trump and continually look to Comey to provide more ammunition for their daily assaults on this White House.

What ammunition does Comey provide? “President Trump is a liar!” How often have we heard that from Comey in interviews?

What we DO know is that it apparently is critical to Comey that Americans like him. And to like someone, it is necessary to believe what that person says. It is obviously foremost in the mind of James Comey that Americans really trust him, like him, and believe what he says.

But how can we trust a former FBI Director that so categorically lies to the press and he obviously either believes or assumes the naivete of Americans will command their belief and trust? Here are just a few of his whoppers:

FISA Application: In a letter to the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham say information Comey provided members of the Judiciary Committee in a private interview regarding the FISA application to spy on former Trump campaign official Carter Page was contradicted by the applications themselves. “What is the reason for the difference between what Mr. Comey told the Chairman and Ranking Member in March 2017, and what appears in the FISA application?” they ask. “No explanation for the inconsistencies has ever been provided,” they said, adding, “did Director Comey intentionally mislead the Committee?”

Trump Dossier: Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it’s more likely that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press. As Graham and Grassley note in their IG letter, the press wasn’t covering the dossier before that briefing because they considered it unverified. But the mere fact that Trump had been briefed on it instantly made it newsworthy. “CNN only broke the story on the dossier because Mr. Comey briefed the President-Elect about it,” they note. In other words, it’s far more likely that Comey lied about why he briefed Trump, a briefing that just happened to get the entire Russia scandal story rolling in the press.
Trump Memos: Comey repeatedly asserted that none of the memos he wrote about his interactions with Trump contained any classified information. That matters because Comey took these memos with him after he got fired by Trump, in violation of FBI rules. Comey then shared some of the memos with a friend, who leaked them to the press. Despite Comey’s claims, however, the Hill reported that four of the seven memos did, in fact, contain classified information. So it’s highly likely that Comey shared classified information. Comey did admit that he leaked these documents in hopes that a special counsel would be appointed to investigate Trump. We don’t doubt that’s true.
Clinton Exoneration: Then there was Comey’s insistence that he hadn’t decided what to do about Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal until after the FBI interviewed her on July 2, 2016. Comey told Congress that “the decision was made after that (interview) because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview. She maybe lied in the interview in a way we could prove.” Long after Comey made that claim, however, draft FBI memos exonerating Clinton — written months before several key figures, including Clinton, had been interviewed — came to light, suggesting that the FBI was planning to exonerate her all along.
Then a text exchange from two top FBI officials indicated that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch also knew Clinton wouldn’t face charges before Clinton had been interviewed.
Finally, there’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not entirely true. As was noted by many federal legal experts in 2016, career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged. What’s more, a key term in Comey’s final statement was changed from earlier drafts from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” The difference was critical because gross negligence is specifically listed as a prosecutable offense when it comes to mishandling classified material, even if there was no intent to do wrong. In other words, the only way Comey could convincingly claim that Clinton’s actions were un-prosecutable was by watering down the language.

In a piece on the Lawfare Blog, Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes note that “The FBI takes telling the truth extremely seriously.” So much so that ” ‘lack of candor’ from employees is a fireable offense — and people are fired for it. Moreover, it doesn’t take an outright lie to be dismissed.” The authors were writing this in the context of why McCabe was fired.

Don’t expect Comey to own up to any of this, even though his tell-all book is titled “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Tucker Carlson

Without question, the most detailed and specific commentator at FOX News is talk-show host Tucker Carlson. Much can be said for his style, his “in-your-face” interviews, and confrontational nature. But one thing is certain: Carlson is a researcher and a deep thinker. He often digs out a tidbit or two that no one else seems to have discovered.

I was intrigued during research for this story to find an example of Carlson’s investigative expertise regarding James Comey. Take a look/listen to it here:

Summary

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is crass, self-confident, often arrogant and combative, and never leaves one wondering how he feels about anything. He is jealously loyal to those who he trusts: often to a fault, as he has discovered. Politics in D.C. is far different from the business world. And people who live and work inside the D.C. beltway are far different from average Americans.

Many feel Donald Trump met his match when he took-on James Comey and made Comey his personal foe. But I am fairly certain that Trump went into that confrontational relationship with his eyes wide open. Comey? Not so much. Let explain.

One thing the Queens mogul learned long ago to simply survive in commercial real estate in New York City is that people more often than not act differently from the perception they paint for all to see. In “Trump World,” that is far more prevalent than in everyday Middle America. And for one to survive in that Swamp requires fortitude far beyond that possessed by most, and the ability to “give it out before it gets thrown at you.” Let’s face it: building a professional career in Queens requires the ability to instantly understand those with whom one interacts. And responses to those people require instant action. Most in Washington don’t quite get that. However, most in Middle America do.

Enter Donald Trump.

We can summarize where the Trump v Comey case is by simply stating this: Trump changed the rules — changed the narrative of “conflict” that has lived almost exclusively one-sided in D.C. for generations. Washington government conflict until now has always been controlled by the “current” political party in power, either Democrats or Republicans. He changed the rules.

What if anything will happen to James Comey and his “associates” who are almost gone from the DOJ and FBI now? It’s anyone’s guess. If those decisions are left to the Mainstream Media, Democrats and Establishment Republicans, the answer is simple: Nothing. But if Trump survives, it will mean an end will have been put to the one-sided government operations that control Washington.

Only one will survive: Comey and Company or Donald Trump. No doubt, the D.C. Establishment is throwing their best game to beat the real estate mogul from Queens. Will their best be good enough?

Surviving in Queens is tough enough. But thriving in Queens says a lot. Donald Trump is NOT just a survivor.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

DOJ Earthquake

November 8, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

Why the hoopla?

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

The Process of DOJ “Trump Hate”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sally Q. Yates was a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration.

Ms. Yates’ writing eerily echoes some claims from fired FBI Director James Comey. It is personally difficult for me to reconcile the grossly erroneous claims made by Yates just as those from Comey. Their basis comes from one place common in Deep State matters: Elitism. Yates, Comey, and Democrat Party leaders falsely maintain the Department of Justice and its investigative arm — the FBI — are legally to act as an independent arm of the Federal Government. Unless the Constitution has been amended without my knowledge, these folks are absolutely incorrect. The Department of Justice/FBI are part of the Executive Branch, headed by the President of the United States.

That means that Donald Trump has total authority over the hiring and firing of every member of the DOJ: they all work “at the pleasure of the President.” The ruse that by firing James Comey and now Jeff Sessions is somehow obstruction of justice is not only untrue, It is laughable. The elitist purpose can only be to trick Americans into thinking that lie and creating further animus in the Executive Branch — specifically the Trump White House. How could firing Comey (who leaked classified information to the press) and Jeff Sessions (who numerous times has ignored legal subpoenas for Congressional appearances and multiple classified document production) be obstruction? They each brought to their firings a trail of actions that violated the responsibilities of their jobs.

But the silliest charge in all this is the instant cries from the Left for the Interim Attorney General to recuse himself from having anything to do regarding Robert Mueller, the Mueller Investigation, or anything to do with “other” investigations of the President. What basis is there for their demands? “Conflict of Interest.” What’s Whitaker’s conflict? In 2017, Whitaker as a guest commentator on CNN in a discussion about the possible firing of Robert Mueller, stated that one way Trump could terminate Mueller (other than his firing) was to fire Sessions, then have his replacement cut Mueller’s funding to operate the investigation, therefore ending it. That’s the conflict of interest they all are screaming about. They all demand that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein be allowed to continue as the person at DOJ who Mueller answers to.

Think about that: Whitaker in that interview purportedly showed conflict of interest in that statement on CNN. They demand Rosenstein stays on the case. ROSENSTEIN IS RIDDLED WITH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING ROBERT MUELLER!

Rosenstein worked previously directly for Mueller;
Rosenstein’s wife worked with Mueller;
Rosenstein (with corroboration) discussed going to a meeting with the President wearing a wire, and even discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office.

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

Summary

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

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

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

I agree.

Obstruction: “LOCK THEM UP!”

October 19, 2018

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

What can be done?

There IS Recourse

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

Inherent Contempt

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

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

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

Statutory Contempt

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

A “Sample” Scenario

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

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

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

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

It would:

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

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

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Mueller Bullet Points: 10 Reasons to Dislike the Guy”

September 12, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

1. The guy’s a leaker.

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

2. Mueller is a highly political actor.

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

3. Mueller is too thorough and taking too long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Mueller himself has conflicts of interest.

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

7. Mueller keeps expanding his investigation.

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

8. Mueller is best friends with Comey.

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed you cannot.

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Crisis at Justice

August 30, 2018

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

FBI Departures

James Comey, director (fired)
Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

Department Of Justice Departures

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

*Status Unclear

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

What’s Going On?

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

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

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

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

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

What Steps Can/Should be Taken at the DOJ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary: “Accountability”

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

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

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

Clean House?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Justice for All: But Two Versions

August 25, 2018

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

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

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

Criminal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corruption

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

What can we do?

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

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

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

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download