Wednesday, July 26, 2017

If Sessions leaves, a new DOJ sheriff could rein in or ax Mueller

By Gregg Jarrett

It is unconventional, if not unprecedented, for a sitting president to publicly disparage his attorney general after a mere five months on the job.
Nevertheless, is President Trump justified in his displeasure and frustration with Jeff Sessions?  Let’s examine the facts.
"If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked somebody else,” Trump said at a Rose Garden news conference.  “It’s a bad thing not just for the president, but also for the presidency.  I think it’s unfair to the presidency.”
Trump’s point is this: Sessions concealed his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.  In so doing, the attorney general effectively “sandbagged” the president.
Perhaps the former senator from Alabama was so desperate for the job, he did not care that his recusal might undermine the presidency of the man who nominated him to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.  Or maybe Sessions was naïve in convincing himself that failing to disclose such a material matter was somehow inconsequential. It was not.
By his own admission during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in June, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion within hours after being sworn-in as attorney general on Feb. 9.  On his first full day as AG, Sessions immediately met with Justice Department officials to discuss stepping aside from the investigation. A month later, on March 2, he made his recusal official.
Clearly, Sessions was considering disqualifying himself well before he took the oath of office. It was not something that simply dawned on him the moment he raised his right hand in the Oval Office ceremony. And there stood the president, expecting his new attorney general to serve the nation fully and honestly. In retrospect, it was a significant and deliberate deception by Sessions.
On this basis alone, President Trump would be justified in firing him. In the alternative, Sessions could choose to resign. Either way, it is apparent from Trump’s recent remarks that he is more than “disappointed” in his attorney general. He has lost confidence in Sessions.
One can legitimately debate whether Sessions was required to recuse himself. Under the law (28 CFR 45.2), there is sufficient latitude and discretion for Sessions to have remained involved in the Russia investigation. The legal standard is a subjective one.  One person’s interpretation of the language is invariably different than another person’s judgment.
Regardless, President Trump was entitled to know the truth. He deserved an attorney general who, at the outset, was forthright about his intentions, not someone who was hiding his plan to step aside from a major investigation that would surely impact the new administration.
But for Sessions’ deceit, it is unlikely that a special counsel would have been appointed. Instead, Sessions’ replacement in the Russia case, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, took it upon himself to appoint Robert Mueller to preside over the probe… which played neatly into the scheme admittedly devised by fired FBI Director James Comey, who just happens to be Mueller’s close friend and long-time professional ally.
If there was ever a conflict of interest that demanded recusal under the special counsel law (28 CFR 600.7), it is Mueller’s relationship to his protégé, Comey. The regulations, codified into law, specifically require Mueller to step down if he has a “personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  It then defines personal relationship as a “friendship…normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2). The current conflict is so conspicuous, there may as well be a photo of Mueller and Comey accompanying the rule.
Yet Mueller continues to ignore the law. And Rosenstein has shown no inclination toward limiting the special counsel’s investigation which seems to have morphed into matters well beyond the scope of his original directive.
Rosenstein, himself, is also hopelessly conflicted because he authored the memo that led to Comey’s firing which is reportedly being examined by Mueller as possible obstruction of justice. As Mueller’s boss, it is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without turning the entire case into a charade of conflicts. President Trump expressed it more succinctly when he tweeted, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!”
However, all this could change if Sessions were to leave the Justice Department. President Trump could then name a new acting attorney general who would not only replace Sessions, but assume oversight over Mueller’s investigation, pushing aside Rosenstein.
Who might the president choose? Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe predicts that Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand would get the job, although her name has been bandied about in the media for more than a month. Already confirmed by the Senate as third in command, the respected lawyer could take over the helm at Justice and properly confine Mueller’s probe to its expressed directive: “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”.  If he strays, she could rein him in.
Under the special counsel law, Mueller would be required to consult directly with Brand and explain the course of his investigation. If any of his actions are determined by Brand to be “so inappropriate or unwarranted that it should not be pursued,” she could stop him.  If he persists, she would then be authorized to discipline or remove Mueller for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies” (28 CFR 600.7-d).
Or, Brand could simply decide that Mueller’s existing conflict of interest, as noted above, is now so pronounced that it compromises the integrity of the overall investigation. For this reason alone, she could dismiss the special counsel and select someone else who is fair, impartial and devoid of the kind of bias that has rendered Mueller and his investigation inherently suspect.
For now, President Trump seems to be escalating the pressure on Jeff Sessions to resign.  At the same time, the president is mounting a public case that Robert Mueller is the wrong person to serve as special counsel.
Both arguments have merit. If they prevail, it could dramatically alter the president’s fortunes.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
________________

OTHER NEWS


Trending in Politics


Sunday, July 23, 2017

America's Media Meltdown

By Victor Davis Hanson

 
Image credit: Barbara Kelley

Between 2008 and 2016, the media were unapologetic about their adoration of President Barack Obama. Now, they are energized by their thorough loathing of President Donald Trump. In tragic fashion, the hubris of deifying Obama has now come full circle to the nemesis of demonizing Trump. The common denominator of the two extremes is the abandonment of disinterested reporting.
When Obama announced his candidacy for president in 2007, the media relinquished pretenses of objectivity. The progressive Obama, who had the most partisan record in the U.S. Senate after less than four years in office, appeared to progressive journalists to have come from central casting: glib and charismatic, an Ivy-League pedigree, mixed racial ancestry, a power marriage to a Harvard-trained black lawyer, and an exotic name resonant of multicultural fides.
By comparison, even the would-be first female president Hillary Clinton seemed staid. In the 2008 general election, moderate Republican John McCain—once the darling of the liberal press during his bid to sidetrack George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries—was reduced to a cranky spoiler of the nation’s rare chance to be saved by the messianic Obama from the Bush era’s legacy of war, economic crisis, and callousness.
In the 2008 campaign, reporters ignored the close and disturbing relationships between the mostly unknown Obama and a cast of unsavory characters: his racist and anti-Semitic pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the neighborhood confidant and former terrorist Bill Ayers, and the wheeler-dealer and soon-to-be felon Tony Rezko.
Instead, journalists quickly started worshipping candidate Obama in a manner never quite seen before, not even in the days of the iconic liberal presidents like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared Obama to be a deity (“Obama's standing above the country, above the world, he’s sort of God.”) His very words were able to make the leg of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews “tingle.” His pants’ crease proved for David Brooks a talisman of his future greatness, along with the fact that the mellifluent Obama “talks like us.”
While a few journalists were aware of their cult-like worship, most were hooked and competed to outdo one another with embarrassing hagiographic praise. Upon election, Obama was summarily declared by one presidential historian and television pundit to the smartest man with the highest IQ ever to have been president.
Obama himself channeled the veneration, variously promising in god-like fashion to cool the planet and lower the seas, remarking that his own multifaceted expertise was greater than that of all of the various specialists who ran his campaign.
For the next eight years, the media largely ignored what might charitably be called an historic overextension of presidential power and scandal not seen since the days of Richard Nixon’s presidency. A clique of journalists set up a private chat group, JournoList, through which they could channel ideas to promote the Obama progressive agenda.
Freed from most press scrutiny, the Obama administration surveilled Associated Press reporters accused of leaks and monitored the communications of Fox News’s White House Correspondent James Rosen. In a variety of scandals, UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor Susan Rice lied repeatedly about the Benghazi catastrophe, the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap, the Iran deal, and the supposed destruction of weapons of mass destruction by the Assad government in Syria.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch faced inquiries about massaging the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Close advisors such as Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power faced congressional inquiries into whether some in the administration had requested improper surveillance reports of political opponents, unmasked their names, and illegally leaked them to the press—a story that the media overlooked.
Most Obama foreign policy initiatives proved disappointments: reset with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the bombing of Libya resulting in postwar chaos, the withdrawal of all U.S. peacekeepers from Iraq, the faux redlines with Syria, failed “strategic patience” with North Korea, writing off the ISIS terrorist caliphate as “Jayvees,” and the expansion of Chinese bases into the South China Sea.
At home, Obama was the first president in recent history never to have achieved three percent economic growth, as labor non-participation rose and median family incomes fell.
The media largely ignored a series of scandals, as if investigating them might endanger the Obama progressive moment: the politicization of the IRS, FBI, and Justice Department; ICE reduced to de facto irrelevance; fraud at the VA; overreach at EPA; and incompetence at the Secret Service and GSA.
Rather than appreciate such media obsequiousness, Obama sometimes showed near contempt for toadyish reporters, joking about his positive press coverage and joshing how he got the Nobel Peace Prize without much accomplishment.
His deputy National Security Advisor and would-be novelist Ben Rhodes contemptuously manipulated and then wrote off young foreign correspondents as know-nothings—despite the fact they had helped the administration obfuscate the dangerous implications of Obama’s Iran deal through what Rhodes called an “echo chamber” of administration-fed talking points.
Former speech writers Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett joked on television how they had easily deluded the public on the downsides of Obamacare. Special advisor Jonathan Gruber laughed at the “stupidity of the American voter” who was easily deceived by the administration and media about the nature of Obamacare. Again, the common denominator was an expectation that the press was not a public watchdog but an enabler of the Obama agenda.
By the time of 2016 presidential race, the media had lost their credibility as disinterested guardians of objective truth. And while Hillary Clinton in 2016 was no Barack Obama in 2008, reporters still gave her special privileges. CNN talking-head Donna Brazile fed debate questions to the Clinton campaign prior to a Clinton-Sanders televised debate. And the John Podesta Wikileaks trove revealed that a number of marquee reporters were openly colluding with Clinton to defeat Trump.
Once the media crossed the Rubicon of partisanship, there was no turning back. The unchecked ebullience that they had showed for Obama has now been replaced by an undisguised hatred for Donald Trump.
Just as journalists saw no negative repercussions in their adoration of Obama, they are now able to denigrate the conservative populist Trump without consequences. Arrogance plays a role: the media feel that they displayed power in getting Obama elected and now they wager that they can also ensure Trump’s defeat, or at least derail his presidency.

The liberal Harvard Kennedy School and Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy issued a report recently showing how the media has established a “new standard” of negativity in presidential reporting. It noted that the aggregate news stories from the first 100 days of the Trump administration were about 80% critical. Some networks such as CNN aired 93% negative coverage of the president.
CNN was forced to fire three reporters for creating fictional news about the Trump administration. Some of its anchors and hosts used scatology to denigrate the president. CNN's New Year’s host Kathy Griffin was fired at the end of May 2017, for holding up a facsimile of the decapitated head of Trump. Some producers were caught on tape bragging about CNN’s biases against Trump and the stupidity of the voters who elected him.
Media hosts and commentators have been lavish in their coverage of progressive efforts to subvert Trump—whether it was getting the Electoral College to deny Trump the presidency; the attempts to overturn the voting results in three states Trump won; the move to impeach him or remove him by the 25th Amendment; or to find him guilty of obstruction of justice or collusion with the Russians.
Some exasperated journalists have been at least intellectually honest enough to admit that the profession should no longer adhere to traditional norms of disinterested presidential reporting in the post-Obama age. According to Christiane Amanpour, Carl Bernstein, Jorge Ramos, and Jim Rutenberg, the singular menace of the Trump presidency demands open anti-Trump advocacy, without the veneer of unbiased reporting.
What caused the media’s Trump meltdown? There were a variety reasons.
Trump represents everything that the media despise: a crude reality-TV billionaire without military or political experience, whose orange skin, combed over dyed blond hair, sharp Queens accent, and confrontational attitude seemed vulgar and crass.
The nexus between beltway politics and the media, often cemented through marriages and familial relationships, recoiled that an outsider like Trump sought not just to overturn the Obama agenda but to do so unapologetically and with the same executive orders that Obama himself had bragged about in his “pen and phone” ultimata to make laws without the help of the Congress.
Moreover, Trump campaigned on an us/them, red-state/blue-state dichotomy. He smashed the proverbial Democratic blue wall—a fact that caused great unease to liberal journalists who sensed that half the country found their coastal progressive culture not just foreign but apparently hypocritical and elitist.
In addition, the current generation of marquee reporters was schooled at the major journalism schools by veterans of the 1960s, when the “new” journalism saw progressive political activism—opposition to the Vietnam War and the promotion of civil rights, feminism, and environmentalism—as the proper counterweight to traditional and supposedly regressive American values.
Postmodernism—the theory that there are no absolute facts or eternal truths, only interpretations based on power machinations—seeped out from university English departments into the larger elite culture. Such relativism may explain the epidemic of fake news accounts and plagiarism as alternative “narratives” rather than simple untruths.
Buzzfeed, for example, published the infamous fake Steele file, a lurid dossier of oppositional research against the Trump campaign, even though it admitted it could not confirm the veracity of the salacious accusations against Trump. But who was to say that the accusations were any more true or false than any other? In such anything-goes fashion, Politico’s Julia Joffe channeled the vulgarity of television celebrities like Steven Colbert and Bill Maher in suggesting an incestuous relationship between the president and his daughter.
Trump was neither shy nor decorous in punching back, ridiculing the appearance of on-air talking heads, relegating them to back of the room slots at press conferences, and going over the head of the media through often crude ad hominem tweets. Although polls (whose reliability remains questionable after the 2016 election) rarely showed figures higher than forty percent for Trump, the media is held in even less regard, with about two-thirds of those polled expressing their disapproval of journalists.
If the media became unhinged in the adulatory Obama years through hubris, it might have earned back its respect and professionalism by covering Trump in even-handed fashion. But Nemesis does not work that way: those it destroys, it first makes mad.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

White House Press Changes: Sean Spicer Out-Sarah Hukabee Promoted-Anthony Scaramucci In

IN THE NEWS

Newly appointed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci says President Donald Trump administration "on track" and will "get the message out."


_____________

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been promoted to White House press secretary following Sean Spicer's resignation Friday. 


____________

OTHER NEWS

Our Corrupt Media Is Now Haunted By All The Precedents They Set While Colluding With Obama

Barack Obama trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, secretly delivered pallets filled with billions in cash to Iran's America/Jew-hating mullahs, left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it, allowed his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to exchange government favors for hundreds of millions of dollars slushed into the Clinton Foundation, sic'd his IRS on everyday, law-abiding Americans, and used a trillion dollars in "stimulus" funds to pay off his cronies, like those behind a boondoggle called Solyndra.
And all along, over eight terrible years, our media did a whole lot more than just let Obama get away with it. They wholeheartedly colluded. They allowed Obama to persecute them through the Department of Justice and to lie to our face (remember: I just now read about it in the newspaper, the IRS did nothing wrong, you can keep your insurance). And when that wasn't enough, the media mercilessly attacked as racist anyone who criticized the Precious and ginned up nothingburgers like Todd Akin to distract from those four dead Americans. And when even that wasn't enough, they themselves lied and obfuscated, covered up and dissembled, and most of all they set all kinds of precedents that, in a delicious form of irony, are now driving this utterly failed institution to the edge of insanity.
The very same media that shrugged when Hillary Clinton set up a secret server, deleted 33,000 government emails, BleachBit'd whatever remained and then literally took a hammer to the devices — the media that set that precedent now wants us to get all worked up over Trump's tweets?
The very same media that buried Bill Clinton's perjury and his numerous victims of sexual abuse — the media that set those precedents now wants us to consider an Access Hollywood video a disqualifier for the presidency? Now wants us to freak out over an awkward handshake?
The very same media that gushed over Barack Obama's magical ability to "slow-walk the truth" — the media that set that precedent now wants us to impeach Trump over how the details of his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer have been released?
The very same media that joined Obama in pointing and laughing at Mitt Romney's concern over Russia, the very same media that told us Obama's serial-appeasement of Russia (refusing Poland missile defense, "more flexibility after the election") was in reality an extraordinary form of statesmanship — the media that set those precedents now wants us to toss Trump out on his ear because he's hoping to work with Putin?
The very same media that covered up the fact that Democrats and Team Hillary worked with the foreign government of Ukraine in the hopes of digging up dirt on Trump, the media that itself has used opposition research from the Russian government (the Golden Showers dossier) in the hopes of destroying Trump — the media that set those precedents now want us to turn on Trump because his son hoped for the same?
The very same media that again and again used "Republican overreach" as a tactic to damage the GOP whenever a Democrat scandal rose up — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the Trump administration chooses to communicate directly through social media?
The very same media that asked 23 follow-up questions of Trump and none of Hillary — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the White House limits the press briefings they can peacock in?
The very same media that said nothing when Obama hired a 9-11 Truther as a Czar (and later hired him as one of their own) — the media that set that precedent wants us to be upset over Ivanka and Jared?
The very same media that showed absolutely no interest in recovering even one of Hillary's 33,000 illegally deleted emails — the media that set that precedent, now wants us to share their outrage over the fact that Don Jr. tried to recover them in a 20-minute meeting?
And now — now! — this very same media (with the help of #NeverTrump's forever-preening moral narcissists) is using the spear of Muh Principles to demand that those of us on the political right agree to destroy ourselves in their corrupt crusade, that we acquiesce like second-class citizens to their separate sets of rules?
Like hell.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Injustice Anywhere Is Injustice Everywhere

By William Haupt III


“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

– Francis Bellamy
Those that crossed the Mason-Dixon Line to work in the Civil Rights Movement were shocked to experience denial of justice and the violation of their Constitutional rights.
Photo: Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.

They entered a twilight zone in a mythical Orwellian novel.

Photo: Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin- burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
 

They gathered from around the U.S. for an adventure few knew little about.
 
 
Some wandered to the delta of the Mississippi, the red hills of Georgia, and war zones of Montgomery to Selma for conviviality.

Others came to listen to Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger and Joan Baez. 
But by the time they navigated Highway 61 back to the North, they knew why they’d ventured south—into the “solid south” that had been controlled by the Democratic Party for over one hundred years.
 
“A nation that denies equal access to justice is a prison of malcontents.”

– William Howard
The Civil Rights Movement has taken on an air of inevitability in the popular imagination.
 
Far too many have reduced its significance to a few heroic figures and the words “I have a dream.”

The true purpose of the Civil Rights Movement has been distorted and romanced into something each individual, secular, political or religious group wished it to be for convenience or condemnation. Erased in the re-written civil rights history is the fact that the struggle for black freedom and equality was not a battle between liberals and conservatives, but, instead, it was a battle between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
 
The Civil Rights Movement had only one salient, underlying purpose: To banish the practice of denying equal justice to all Americans.
 
Those ideals are embedded in every founding document. It remains an enigma why so many distort its historical significance, with false narratives promoted by liberal race baiters, media pundits and politicians.

“The true rule of law and justice in a judicial system is one in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others.”
– John Seales 
Three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of all Americans for over two centuries and are considered instrumental to our founding and philosophy of our nation.
 
These are The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

In each founding document, they guarantee us equal rights and equal access to justice, which is the most indispensable right of all.
Without access to justice, none of our rights are guaranteed or protected.
Any American who does not covet their right of expedient access to justice is forsaking liberty.
If we don’t protect that one right, it’s impossible to defend all others.
“The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.”
– Stonewall Jackson 
Americans are continually at the mercy of lesser magistrates who cowardly subvert the provisions in our founding documents to deliver justice.
Our right to justice is guaranteed by the Department of Justice, yet government subordinates regularly invent ways to abridge them.
We hear about this on TV, see it in the fish-wrap and social media during high-profile trials, but hear little about the denial of justice by our local governments.
We permit this to happen daily, yet this is a federal right and is disciplined by the DOJ!
“America was founded upon the doctrine of equal rights. Its cornerstone is the principle every man is endowed with access to equal justice to defend them.”
– Randal Hall
In hearing rooms across this nation, questionable legal practices are being reported to the DOJ to expose a miscarriage of justice in court proceedings.
If a litigant cannot afford a high priced mouth-piece, they are appointed counsel.
If they foresee an unfair advantage for the defense, they seek a change in venue, dispose of a capricious juror and recuse a judge.
Although this is not a perfect system, most Americans have a fighting chance to improve their access to unabridged justice in our courts when they suspect malpractice.
Even a green horn public defender will point out abuses of statutory protections to insure his client has access to justice.
 “Today, there are few times we are powerless to prevent injustice, but we must possess the knowledge on how to do so.”
– May Willard
The biggest offenders are not criminal or civil courts.
We’ve all heard about the speed traps in our local “one-blink-of-the-eye speed limit signs” in rural townships.
Although America has its fair share, they pale in comparison to the rights we thought we had and found out we didn’t have in local and state governments.
These are rights denied at what are billed “informal hearings.”
The only thing informal about these proceedings is how “informally” you find out they were anything but “informal.”

Once a gavel is dropped, and the magistrate makes his decision, more times than not, you leave this “informal hearing” wondering if you just appeared before Judge Judy in a kangaroo court.
“One cannot bandage a mortal wound, that’s been inflicted by a miscarriage of justice.”
– Throe Bradley
This judicial deception has been going on for decades when offended citizens choose to protest any activity they have a right to in the governments they own.
This is common when their property rights are violated.

If their home or business is hijacked by eminent domain, the decision is etched in stone before the commission meeting.
The hearing officer makes up rules as he goes along if they do not have Perry Mason there to scold him.
If their rural neighborhood is rezoned to build a burger joint or county dump, notifications for these meetings are tacked on the bathroom door of the county seat or placed on page 10 in a local throwaway scandal sheet so they can call it legal.
“Those who make the law know best how to break the law without getting caught.”
– Albert Simms
States never reassess all counties at the same time. If they did this they’d have a tax revolt similar to California’s tax tsunami Prop 13 that rocked the U.S. like a New Zealand earthquake from east to west. “Prop 13 made the Gold Coast as infamous as Boston Harbor.”
When a homeowner receives a tax bill for a Taj Mahal and they live in a 1,000 square foot home, they are forced to buy back their rights at dubiously “informal” tax hearings.
The homeowner is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the taxman.
 
The moment they arrive to face this hit squad, they are intimidated by the judge who is also the jury and only allows them to present what he wants to hear, not what they prepared. They feel like a Roller Derby skater in the “penalty box” wearing a dunce cap and wonder why! To this judge, just showing up is a capital offense!

 
“Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.”

– Dr. King
Denial of justice is generic in local tribunals.
Most are semi-structured to mimic a fair legal process.
There is no impartial verdict, to the detriment of the accused. It is decided in advance.
This violates all formal judicial process.
Rules are invented by the officer obtusely, which even the best jailhouse lawyer cannot defend! If you try to quote law, you are declared out of order.
Humbling intimidation is the worst injustice of all.
Taxpayers are made subservient to justice that is rationed to guarantee they lose.
When a taxpayer is scolded for something insignificant to put them in their place, they are defeated before they have a chance to win or lose and sheepishly give in to the tax man to end this abuse! They quickly learn how it feels to be a punching bag in a federal penitentiary gym!
“Bullies are everywhere, but the worst kind of bully is one who bullies behind the cloak of law.”
– Eely Stalls
President Ronald Reagan once said, “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
The only way we can guarantee our access to justice is to know the law.
If you feel violated in any way by a magistrate, you have the duty to file a formal complaint with your governmental controlling agency or the federal DOJ.
You must know your rights and how to defend them!
“It takes great courage to stand alone against a judge whose best resource is to intimidate you when you and he both know you are innocent.”
– Reggie Stone 

William Haupt III is a retired professional journalist, citizen legislator in California for 40 plus years, and author. He got his start working to approve prop 13.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions as Bill made $500G on Moscow speech

By Malia Zimmerman  

 
Emails show Bill Clinton paid thousands for speech in Russia

The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.
Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a half-million-dollar speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.
Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.
“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I'd look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”
The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for the speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010 speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company's annual conference. 

The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.
This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side. 
Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.
Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law. 
Fast-forward to 2015, and the timeline apparently had caught the attention of Bloomberg News. 
According to a memo from Clinton’s presidential campaign team later published by WikiLeaks, however, the Clinton campaign was able to stop the presses.
“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” Jesse Lehrich, on the Rapid Response Communications team for Hillary For America, boasted on May 21, 2015.
The Global Magnitsky Act was named for 36-year-old tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky, who died in the custody of the Russian government after accusing the government and organized crime of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign company, Hermitage Capital Management. Magnitsky, hired by foreign investor and Hermitage owner William Browder, had tracked what turned out to be hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud. He reported the fraud to the Russian authorities, but instead of pursuing charges against the alleged offender, Russian authorities jailed Magnitsky.
After Magnitsky died in November 2009, Browder said Magnitsky proved Renaissance officials were among those orchestrating the scheme.
The State Department finally reversed its position in 2011 and refused visas to some Russians purportedly involved in the financial fraud seeking to enter the country.
The Magnitsky Act passed with bipartisan support in 2012.
Russia retaliated against the U.S., ending any possibility for Americans to adopt Russian orphans and also banning 18 U.S. officials from entering their country.
Malia Zimmerman is an award-winning investigative reporter focusing on crime, homeland security, illegal immigration crime, terrorism and political corruption. Follow her on twitter at @MaliaMZimmerman


_______________________

POWERLINE

Collusion Confusion
By John Hinderaker
Many Democrats, and even a few Republicans, have claimed that Donald Trump, Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have information about Hillary Clinton’s illicit dealings with Russia while she was Secretary of State constitutes the long-sought evidence of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, even though the Russian with whom Trump, Jr. met conveyed no such information.
This, I think, overlooks a very basic point. It’s only collusion if the parties’ purpose is bad. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “collusion”:
secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose * acting in collusion with the enemy
Thus, when the U.S., Russia and other countries jointly operate the International Space Station, they aren’t colluding, they are cooperating.
Liberals talk about “collusion” in connection with Trump, Jr’s meeting to paper over the fact that there was nothing wrong with it. Collecting information about corruption on the part of a candidate for office is a good thing, not a bad thing. We know from Clinton Cash that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a key role in turning over a large part of America’s supply of uranium to the Russians, at about the same time when Russians associated with that country’s government paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill and Hillary Clinton. So we know about the quid and the quo, the only question is whether there was a pro. If the Russian lawyer had had information on this point, it would have been a public service to disclose it.
It is different, of course, if false information about a candidate is being fabricated. Thus, we can properly say that Democrats colluded in the production of a fake dossier on President Trump.
Some have tried to argue that it would have been illegal for Trump, Jr. to get information on Mrs. Clinton from a Russian because under our election laws, foreign nationals and governments can’t provide cash or other things of value to candidates. (Of course, it does sometimes happen, as when the Chinese government supported Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996.) I would consider taking this argument seriously if anyone had ever reported giving information about an opponent to a campaign as an in-kind contribution. To my knowledge, it’s never happened.
Having failed to come up with evidence that the Trump campaign had anything to do with spearfishing the DNC’s and RNC’s email accounts–presumably because it didn’t–the Democrats are now defining collusion down to include innocent conversation toward a proper purpose. If that is the standard, we have photographic evidence of Congressional Democrats colluding with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during President Trump’s speech to the House and Senate in January:

 
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/collusion-confusion.php

___________________

IN OTHER NEWS

SENATE EFFORT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA CARE FAILS
 Senator Mike Lee Withdrew His Support Which Killed ObamaCare Repeal

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed late Monday that he will push the Senate for a clean repeal of ObamaCare, after conceding defeat to repeal and replace the health law.
________________
Trump to Republicans: Let's Repeal ObamaCare
When all else fails, kill it.
President Trump tweeted late Monday that Republicans should “just REPEAL” ObamaCare after two key Republican Senators announced they would not support the bill, ending any chance the bill had of passing the Senate.
Republican Senators Mike Lee, of Utah and Jerry Moran, of Kansas joined Senators Rand Paul, of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine. Republicans hold onto a 52-48 majority and the two senators’ opposition means the bill is effectively dead.
“Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!” Trump tweeted.
Trump appears confident that a straight repeal of ObamaCare is a shoo-in, but moderate Republicans may feel pressure to vote against the legislation. It is also unclear how many Democrats would support the move.
Trump's tweet was in stark contrast to his faith in the Senate just hours before when he predicted the legislation would pass.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., acknowledged the roadblock and, like Trump, said he plans a repeal vote. McConnell also mentioned a two-year delay for a substitute.
"Regretfully, it's now apparent that the effort to repeal and immediately replace the failure of Obamacare will not be successful," McConnell said in a statement. "So, in the coming days, the Senate will vote to take up the House bill with the first amendment in order being what a majority of the Senate has already supported in 2015 and that was vetoed by then-President Obama: a repeal of Obamacare with a two-year delay to provide for a stable transition period to a patient-centered health care system that gives Americans access to quality, affordable care."
It was the second straight failure for McConnell, who had to cancel a vote on an earlier version of the bill last month when defeat became inevitable.
Trump failed to rally support for what has been the GOP's trademark issue for seven years — ever since President Obama and the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
Republicans won the White House and full control of Congress in large part on the basis of their promises to repeal and replace the health law but have struggled to overcome their deep internal divisions and deliver.
The Associated Press reported that Democrats "could barely contain their glee."
 
"This second failure of Trumpcare is proof positive that the core of this bill is unworkable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said. "Rather than repeating the same failed, partisan process yet again, Republicans should start from scratch and work with Democrats on a bill that lowers premiums, provides long term stability to the markets and improves our health care system."
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.