Over at Powerlineblog we are reminded why a person who is holding a faulty position should not argue with a good lawyer.
The article refers to a female scientist screaming about the fake science of Evolutionary psychology which in part postulates that men and women are- hold onto your britches- different! The woman writing the article possesses a hyphenated name. It’s been my experience when a liberal progressive woman makes sure she hyphenates her name for “identity purposes” you can be assured she’s flying WAY out there somewhere. This author, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, has some pretty strident opinions and appears to not hesitate to share.
You can see the -“All you men are morons, I know, I minored in women studies”- written all over that stare!
Here is the title that caught Powerline’s attention:
Powerline points out a key passage.
Science is sold to us as an almost holy, objective pursuit: a pure endeavor, a way of pursuing truth and only truth. . . But nowhere is it more evident that this perspective is flawed than when we consider the uses and abuses of evolutionary biology and its sibling, evolutionary psychology.
It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It’s 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s. . .
Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.’
Then the good lawyer asks the question does this apply to all science, like say Climate Change?
Imagine the testimony where the professor says that Evolutionary psychology is bunk science and that all science can be influenced by bias and agenda. Then the lawyer says, “Including Climate Change?” At which point the professor would have to make a choice, violate the liberal third rail of Climate Change by saying yes maybe it isn’t settled or say indeed science is free of bias and lose her argument against EP.
Here is a paragraph or two from her article. She speaks of inherent bias. Does she hear herself when she speaks? Where did she learn all this and from whom?
Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies—which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views. The standard history of science that is taught to budding scientists is that during the Enlightenment, Europe went from the dark ages to, well, being enlightened by a more progressive mindset characterized by objective “science.” It is the rare scientific education that includes a simultaneous conversation about the rise of violent, imperialist globalization during the same time period. Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.
Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex. Racial taxonomies conveniently confirmed that enslaving African people was a perfectly reasonable behavior since, as Thomas Jefferson put it,s black people were “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind.” Of course, this apparent inferiority never stopped Jefferson from repeatedly raping his wife’s half-sister, Sally Hemings, herself a product of rape. Jefferson is remembered as a great thinker, but when one reads his writing about race, it becomes immediately evident that rather than being much of a scientist, he was a biased white supremacist who hid behind science as a shield.
Talk about hitting all the PC talking points; Jefferson rapist, white supremacist, warmed climate, culture theft..
But of course, like most liberals, she will demand to both have her cake and eat it too. But the truth would be known to all, at least to all who didn’t major in women studies.
Jumping off from my earlier post, if I’m the IT guy who worked for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and was caught trying to escape by the police, I would make sure I camped out in the lobby of the police station until someone got me into witness protection. The last thing I need is to get the urge to kill myself- if you know what I mean.
How bad is the behavior on the democratic side of the ledger? Roger Simon goes through the list over at PJ Media.
How many scandals can you fit on the head of a pin — or, in Maoist parlance, let a Hundred Scandals Bloom! And given the way they are blooming, Robert Mueller’s “Russia” investigation looks increasingly ludicrous.
Even if Mueller were even-handed and the exact right person for the job — an open question at the moment — no single special counsel could handle all this. It’s a game of whack-a-mole to beat all games of whack-a-mole.
Let’s enumerate the scandals as of this moment, several or all of which are or could be connected.
The Original Trump-Russia Scan-dahl. This has been going on for the better part of a century with little to show for it except Donald Trump Jr. demonstrating too much rookie zeal in listening (for a few minutes anyway) to some shady Russian characters and Paul Manafort possibly having made some less-than-savory deals with some equally shady Ukrainian characters. This would have been before Manafort went to work for Trump (a relationship that in itself lasted only for a short time). And, oh yes, Mike Flynn. When all is revealed, and it may never be, I predict what we will find is that Flynn was also guilty of another kind of zeal — wanting to woo Russia away from Iran with the promise of reduced sanctions for Moscow. Some of us (including me) think this was a fine idea that now will not happen thanks to the berserk partisanship on the part of the formerly Russia-friendly Democrats.
The Unmasking Scandal.It now turns out that a record number of unmaskings (revealing U.S. citizens’ identities during foreign intelligence surveillance) by the Obama administration — well over a hundred — took place during and after the election. Most of these unmaskings seem to have been illegal and were of people connected to Trump. Many appear to have been instigated by, of all people, Samantha Power, a person who, as UN ambassador, had no business doing such a thing. ……
Fusion GPS. Whoa. If you think the unmaskings were nefarious, this is downright sick and evil. This group of journalistic lowlifes — sadly including three former Wall Street Journal reporters (the paper is hopefully doing an investigation of its hiring practices because of this) — promulgates disinformation for creepy Russian regime types and, lately, the hideous Venezuelan leaders currently starving millions of their own people to death. These “genteel scriveners” were the authors of the anti-Trump “dossier” containing the lies about Moscow hotel golden showers, etc. It’s hard to imagine anything worse than smearing in this manner someone who could become the leader of the free world, unless you hate the free world or, more likely in this case, are despicably greedy. …..
Imran Awan. The story of the Pakistani-born IT fraudster who had access (for years) to computer data and materials of over two dozen House Democrats plus Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees threatens to become one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time. If Awan is merely some low-life con cheating the U.S. government out of a few dollars (okay — four million), why are the Clintonistas so concerned they have assigned one of their key consiglieres to head his legal defense? Why did Deborah Wasserman Schultz keep this obviously seriously corrupt individual on her payroll for months until he was finally arrested at Dulles on his way to Qatar by the FBI and the Capitol Police? The possibilities are so many they could fill a book by themselves. …
The Lynch Non-Mob. Our previous attorney general has so much more to answer for than our current one — the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, insisting the case of the massive Hillary email erasures was a “matter” and not an “investigation” when the alleged crimes would almost certainly send a civilian to jail for life. This undoubtedly contributed to the bizarre behavior of James Comey and to the fact that so much about this “matter” was never truly investigated, tarnishing the FBI’s reputation perhaps forever. A lot of Republicans think this was a big-time coverup and there’s more evidence for that than there is for Trump-Russia collusion, miles more. (Comic relief: Lanny Davis still insisting on Fox the other night that the 30,000 plus erased emails were about yoga lessons.)
Clinton Cash and Uranium One. Was this ever fully examined by anybody, let alone the FBI? Yet it’s all about Russia and Putin on a level none of the other allegations approach. If true, Hillary Clinton helped facilitate 20% of U.S. uranium being transferred to Russian hands. Uranium! Before you say this is debunked, think twice. Historically, collusion with Russia has been far greater by Democrats than Republicans — and I’m not just talking about Obama’s famous whisper to Medvedev or his pathetic cop-out on Assad’s use of poison gas. ….
But sticking with the IT guy, Daily Caller has covered it for a long time, alone. The NY Times covered it briefly- just so they could say they did. But their story was about the right wing conspiracy about the IT guy, not the crimes- many crimes- Debbie’s IT guy has alleged to have committed. The list is long. Some of them may involve some Hezbollah money laundering.
Andy McCarthy at the NRO finally paid attention. He also points out that nothing is as it seems. Which is true.
I will make one point here, McCarthy complains about how long it took to do the investigation. I pointed out to my former police buddies that the Capital Police are not a normal police department. They are not designed to catch Capital members doing bad things. In fact, they are more like the personal bodyguards to a celebrity, more tasked with providing hookers and blow to the celebrity than catching him in a crime.
That said, here are some of the highlights.
Congressional-staff salaries are modest, in the $40,000 range. For some reason, Awan was paid about four times as much. He also managed to get his wife, Alvi, on the House payroll . . . then his brother, Abid Awan . . . then Abid’s wife, Natalia Sova. The youngest of the clan, Awan’s brother Jamal, came on board in 2014 — the then-20-year-old commanding an annual salary of $160,000.
A few of these arrangements appear to have been sinecures: While some Awans were rarely seen around the office, we now know they were engaged in extensive financial shenanigans away from the Capitol. Nevertheless, the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak, who has been all over this story, reports that, for their IT “work,” the Pakistani family has reeled in $4 million from U.S. taxpayers since 2009.
That’s just the “legit” dough. The family business evidently dabbles in procurement fraud, too. The Capitol Police and FBI are exploring widespread double-billing for computers, other communication devices, and related equipment.
Why were they paid so much for doing so little? Intriguing as it is, that’s a side issue. A more pressing question is: Why were they given access to highly sensitive government information? Ordinarily, that requires a security clearance, awarded only after a background check that peruses ties to foreign countries, associations with unsavory characters, and vulnerability to blackmail.
These characters could not possibly have qualified. Never mind access; it’s hard to fathom how they retained their jobs. The Daily Caller has also discovered that the family, which controlled several properties, was involved in various suspicious mortgage transfers. Abid Awan, while working “full-time” in Congress, ran a curious auto-retail business called “Cars International A” (yes, CIA), through which he was accused of stealing money and merchandise. In 2012, he discharged debts in bankruptcy (while scheming to keep his real-estate holdings). Congressional Democrats hired Abid despite his drunk-driving conviction a month before he started at the House, and they retained him despite his public-drunkenness arrest a month after. Beyond that, he and Imran both committed sundry vehicular offenses. In civil lawsuits, they are accused of life-insurance fraud.
Congressional Democrats hired Abid despite his drunk-driving conviction a month before he started at the House, and they retained him despite his public-drunkenness arrest a month after.
Democrats now say that any access to sensitive information was “unauthorized.” But how hard could it have been to get “unauthorized” access when House Intelligence Committee Dems wanted their staffers to have unbounded access? In 2016, they wrote a letter to an appropriations subcommittee seeking funding so their staffers could obtain “Top Secret — Sensitive Compartmented Information” clearances. TS/SCI is the highest-level security classification. Awan family members were working for a number of the letter’s signatories.
Democratic members, of course, would not make such a request without coordination with leadership. Did I mention that the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee to whom the letter was addressed was Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Why has the investigation taken so long? Why so little enforcement action until this week? Why, most of all, were Wasserman Schultz and her fellow Democrats so indulgent of the Awans?
That is the million dollar question isn’t it? What does he know, or better, what does she know HE knows that makes the democrats so panicked?
Were they just a bunch of Pakistani hustlers taking advantage of the PC idiots in the Democrat party? Are they working with the Pakistani ISI? Or the Iraqis? Or Hezbollah? Or worse? (Is their worse?)
We know they started a car sales company and it appears within a year they went out of business, the cars disappeared (or ended up in the Middle East?), and they may have taken some money from a man known to be associated with Hezbollah. A million dollars went missing? (It is so confusing trying to keep up with all they were doing!) We also learned that is one way Hezbollah launders money throughout the world. Soo…
A smart guy runs from the other guy.
Like I said, if I were the IT guy, either I’m sneaking across the border under another identity and running, or I’m sitting in the lobby of the police station waiting for witness protection.
Plus, I would eat only canned food and sealed bottled water I bought myself. It appears one of Hillary’s lawyers is now his lawyer. Fine, but if that shill pulls up in a limo, opens the back door and tells Awan to get in, saying everything’s fine, Awan would be smart to start running.
When the Left complains about Russian “collusion” maybe they should take a harder look at the Putin ordered “clean up” operation that seems to be going on all across the globe. Putin is not a nice guy. He is singularly focused on retaining power and making Russia a player in global events. For that I do not fault him, we do the same thing. However, his methods are a bit more 007’ish than ours.
“Don’t worry, I fix!”
PJ Media has a short article linking to a much longer detailed article from Buzz Feed.
Why is the U.S. government covering up the murder of a formerly close Putin crony in Washington, D.C., in November of 2015?
Mikhail Lesin was a Russian media czar who, at one time, was in Vladimir Putin’s inner circle of advisers. He created the Russian media company Russia Today (RT) and gathered enormous power while head of the media ministry.
He moved to the U.S., purchasing several properties in California and, along with his grown children, lived a life of luxury.
But on November 5, 2015, Lesin was found dead in his Washington, D.C., hotel room. And that’s where the coverup began.
Many of the details are still not clear. But a year-long investigation by the FBI and D.C. police finally yielded an answer. Lesin died as a result of several falls in his room brought about by excess drinking.
And if you believe that one, I’ve got a bridge over the Chicago River I’d like to sell you.
According to BuzzFeed, 18 former and current FBI and intelligence officials say that Lesin was brutally beaten and murdered — almost certainly by Russian intelligence. They discovered that the Justice Department paid for Lesin’s hotel room and that he had an interview scheduled the next day with DoJ.
That seems to happen far too frequently. Somebody wants to talk, somebody “kills themselves” by falling down on their fists repeatedly until dead. Or jumping out a small window, or dying of a heart attack, while in perfect health, etc.
I’m not a fan of Buzz Feed, but they have linked to a number of mainstream articles from reputable papers. One in particular caught my attention. When the Brits discovered an assassination plot and actually intercepted the armed Chechen hit man heading to the target. Instead of making the arrest, they just disarmed him and put him on a plane back to Russia.
How is that right?
What is going on? I think the USA and the Brits (and others) are stepping out of the way as Putin cleans up his detractors and opposition. If he’s doing it inside Russia we can complain but not do much about it. But Putin is doing it here and in Britain and it appears our leaders have decided to not challenge him. That’s a bad idea. Because if he does it and gets away with it, he’ll do it again. Who would want to come forward and tell the truth if this is the outcome?
I was a big fan of Tom Clancey and the escapades of his hit man “John Clark.” However, this is real life and people are dying because they oppose a world leader who figures ways to solve a problem including poison and beating someone to death.
Our side doesn’t seem to mind, which is really weird.
During and after his government tenure, Eberwein faced allegations of fraud and corruption on how the agency he headed administered funds. Among the issues was FAES’ oversight of the shoddy construction of several schools built after Haiti’s devastating Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake. But, according to Eberwein, it was the Clinton Foundation who was deeply in the wrong – and he intended to testify and prove it on Tuesday.
But he is dead, and nothing changes.
Putin, Hillary, Barack and Bill. Different players, same outcome. Weird huh.
Legal Insurrection has a good summation of the situation- as of yesterday! Today, even more is coming out. As it does, I am developing a theory about what is going on. Bottom line is this- Putin didn’t care who won. All he wants is to create chaos and division in America so he could maneuver globally without America getting in the way.
It may be that the simplest explanation holds: This was a pitch by Veselnitskaya to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, and the promise of “official documents and information” showing that Hillary Clinton had improper collusion with Russia was just a ruse to get her in the door. Trump Jr. was happy to take the meeting for the same reason that Democratic operatives were happy to work with the Ukrainians — getting oppo research on your opponent is one of the things campaigns do. That foreign governments were involved didn’t seem to matter to either campaign, though the Clinton campaign was more savvy in keeping a distance of deniability.
Another simple theory is that this was a Russian espionage operation, an attempt to penetrate the Trump campaign, sound it out on collusion, maybe even collude. Jonathan Turley notes that this “simple” espionage theory makes no sense:
Let me try to sum up this theory.
The Russians decide to reveal their super secret clandestine effort to secure the presidency for Donald Trump. So they put together a high-ranking, high-visibility meeting at Trump Tower without knowing who would be at the meeting. They also allow a creepy publicist to send an email discussing the grand conspiracy. They then do a Charlie Brown football moment and do not actually disclose the promised incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. Does that track with any cognizable Russian intelligence operation? What possible advantage is there in revealing their operation, promising intel, and then not actually sharing anything of value? The Russians are not perfect but they are not morons. If this was Russian operation, we truly have over-estimated our opposition.
Russians do not usually set up meetings at places like Trump Tower with an unknown number of persons to discuss secret operations. Setting up such a meeting would give others leverage against the Russians by disclosing their operation. Russians are not known to hand over leveraging information, particularly for nothing in return. Spies are by their nature control nuts.
As more information has dribbled out, I’m becoming suspicious that all is not what it seems. I don’t pretend to have the answers to what really is going on, but a few developments have stirred questions.
The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.
This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.
Later, a series of events between an intermediary for the attorney and the Trump campaign ultimately led to the controversy surrounding Donald Trump Jr.
Yet Veselnitskaya stayed far beyond the time period of her “parole immigration,” ended up at Trump’s doorstep, at congressional hearings, and all about town. Strange.
And as The Observer notes, Veselnitskaya and Hillary Clinton were on the same side of the issue, with a Bill Clinton connection:
In December 2015, TheWall Street Journalreported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank—for which he was paid $500,000. “Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Nothing is as it seems.
No better words spoken. Because today the Guardian has more information as the number of people at this clandestine meeting grows to at least six. As one person said, there is no way the Russian intelligence people are involved here, they are control freaks and secret meeting in public with six people is something they would not do. Especially if one of those people is a State Department approved Russian interpreter whom the Russian lawyer uses all the time.
The latest revelation came as news reports suggested there were at least eight attendees at the meeting, which occurred at Trump’s eponymous New York tower shortly after he effectively clinched the Republican presidential nomination. The presence of additional participants contradicted Trump Jr’s assertion this week to the Fox News host Sean Hannity that all of the information about the meeting had been publicly disclosed.
Late Friday, the identity of a seventh person in the room was revealed to be Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian-born American translator who was working with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer initially at the center of the meeting. Veselnitskaya had previously informed the New York Times she was accompanied by a translator but would not provide his name. Ken Vogel, a reporter at the New York Times, revealed Samochornov’s identity during an appearance on MSNBC.
But it was the presence of Akhmetshin, now a pro-Moscow lobbyist, that raised new questions about the controversial meeting and its purpose. Akhmetshin dismissed reports that he has ties to Russian intelligence agencies as a “smear campaign”, but was described by the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee as an expert in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda” this year.
In an interview with the AP, Akhmetshin said he had accompanied Veselnitskaya to Trump Tower in New York, where they met an interpreter who also participated in the meeting in June 2016. He told the news agency he had learned about the meeting only that day, when Veselnitskaya asked him to attend, and turned up in jeans and a T-shirt.
The AP reported: “During the meeting, Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the Trump campaign, he said.
‘This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,’ Akhmetshin recalled her saying.”
According to Akhmetshin, Trump Jr asked Veselnitskaya if she had all the necessary evidence to supporting her claims. But when Veselnitskaya replied that the Trump campaign would need do further research, Trump Jr lost interest.
“They couldn’t wait for the meeting to end,” Akhmetshin told the AP, adding that he did not know if Veselnitskaya’s documents were provided by the Russian government.
The meeting was also attended by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, then chairman of the Trump campaign. Akhmetshin said he recognised Manafort because they worked in “adjacent political circles” but never together.
He told the AP that the meeting was “not substantive” and he “actually expected more serious” discussion. “I never thought this would be such a big deal, to be honest.”
The meeting had been brokered by Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist whose clients include the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, an acquaintance of the Trump family.
So let’s summarize as of today’s information.
We know the Obama administration thought the Russians were meddling. But he didn’t warn either campaign. (Which is a lie. He told HRC’s crew and they developed the Trump/Russian collusion plan early.) We have the fake dossier created by Fusion GPS, which was funded by a Republican and then a Democrat (Who is a good question).
We have Fusion GPS being hired by a Russian firm that hired the Russian lawyer. So they know and work with each other. That is very suspicious. Especially now that the founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, has decided he doesn’t want to testify in front of Congress after all. We have to wonder why not. It may be they will ask a question that puts him in a position where he has to lie- or give it up. And with Trump in charge, lying to Congress will get him prosecuted.
We have Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, who has been working to reverse the Magnitsky Act, in order to free up assets and abilities for Russian oligarchs. To this end, she has been allowed to move freely throughout Washington, rubbing elbows and lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle, without ONE peep from our intel agencies as her being a spy.
We have Loretta Lynch and the Obama State department allowing Natalia- forever now know as “Natasha” from Rocky and Bullwinkle- to enter the country with a waiver, so she can lobby against a bill Obama signed into law. Weird huh.
How the Left and dems and MSM see this. Natasha, Boris and Putin.
We have up to six or maybe more people in a twenty minute meeting where Donald Jr. was offered information on Hillary taking illegal Russian donations, but realized quickly that this was a bait and switch operation and the real issue was Natalia wanting to lobby for the reversal of the Act.
We have another Russian, a dual citizen and also a lobbyist who has made the round in Washington, in the meeting trying to influence the Trump campaign.
We have a State department authorized interpreter that works with Natalia/Natasha all the time.
And probably a few more we don’t know about yet.
Nothing in this meeting screams collusion or an attempt for secrecy. In fact, it is just the opposite. The Russian lawyer wanted to offer in trade for a later favor unverified documents that Hillary and the DNC were taking Russian money- which of course they probably were. Democrats project morals on others, they have none themselves.
Donald Jr rejected the offer by all accounts.
Unlike the HRC/Bill/Foundation money laundering schemes that netted them millions for their favors.
The MSM is going crazy.
Congressman Adam Schiff, who is truly a snake, says that Donald Jr should have informed the proper authorities.
Think about that. “The Proper Authorities“…. Who would that be? Loretta Lynch- who let the Russian attorney in, and met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac to assure him his wife would not be charged for the crimes she committed? Comey, who made the FBI look like fools covering for HRC and other’s crimes? Obama? The guy who openly stated prior to any FBI conclusions that Hillary was innocent. The DNC that shopped around a fake Russian dossier they got from the Russians (uh wait, what? But I thought dealing with the Russians was.. ) and is the target of the documents?
And Donald Jr was supposed to turn over a list of DNC/Russian money laundering incidents.
What as Natalia/Natasha’s purpose? Read the Powerlineblog article.
It’s clear that Natalia Veselnitskaya pulled a bait-and-switch on Donald Trump, Jr. She induced him to a meeting with the promise of information that could be used against Hillary Clinton, but delivered no such information. Instead, she used the meeting to lobby the son of the presumptive Republican nominee for president on the supposed evils of the Magnitsky Act.
That Act blacklists Russians who were determined to have engaged in certain human rights violations. It is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian attorney who, after reporting large-scale Russian corruption, was arrested and died in custody under suspicious circumstances.
All of this has been widely discussed. What’s less noted, presumably because it’s not part of the “collusion” story, is the wide-ranging nature of Veselnitskaya’s anti-Magitsky Act lobbying effort around the same time she met with Trump, Jr.
Yep. Here is a video of an interview of Mr Browder. He lays out why Natalia is here, and why Putin wants it changed.
Does any of the MSM channels care about the truth? Of course not. This is their job. Even has their own reporters fall from Trump fatigue.
CNN’s reverts to it base instincts.
Eric Erickson, a solid never Trumper, also points out that this was a set up.
This will not get nearly as much coverage as Donald Trump, Jr. meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, but it does raise the issue of whether Democrats and Russians were as collaborative as the Democrats claim the Trump team was. There is a remarkably small degree of separation between Natalia Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the Democrat opposition research firm that came up with the Trump dossier.
In 2012, the Russian government started hiring hordes of Washington law firms, lobbyists, political strategist, and others to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. The act, named for Sergei Magnitsky, sought to hold the Russian government accountable for the man’s death. Mr. Magnitsky was a lawyer who uncovered massive tax fraud in Russia. He was arrested, tortured while in prison, and died.
One of the law firms hired by Russia to work on repeal is Baker Hostetler, which also has ties to Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS. According to Senator Chuck Grassley, who wants Fusion GPS officials to testify before the Senate, Fusion GPS was also involved with the Russians over the Magnitsky Act. Senator Grassley’s office notes “Despite the reported evidence of their work on behalf of Russian interests, neither Fusion GPS nor Akhmetshin are registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).”
Grassley continued, “Fusion GPS was apparently simultaneously working on the unsubstantiated dossier alleging collusion between Trump presidential campaign associates and Russia” while helping Russia with the Magnitsky Act. It also appears the FBI was willing to pay Christopher Steele, the former spy, who helped Fusion GPS compile the dossier.
Now, let me quote directly from the Chuck Grassley press release on Fusion GPS with the major, relevant portions highlighted:
In 2013, the Justice Department opened a case to seize the U.S. assets of Russian-owned Prevezon Holdings, which received millions of dollars from the theft and used it to purchase real estate in New York, according to the department’s complaint. In response, Prevezon Holdings and the Kremlin launched a campaign to undermine the Magnitsky Act and discredit Magnitsky’s claims of corruption, according to a 2016 complaint by Hermitage CEO William Browder. Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin, among others, were involved in the pro-Russia campaign in 2016, which involved lobbying congressional staffers to attempt to undermine the Justice Department’s account of Magnitsky’s death and the crime he uncovered, repeal the Magnitsky Act itself, and delay efforts to expand it to countries beyond Russia, according to Browder’s complaint. Akhmetshin, a Russian immigrant, has reportedly admitted to being a “soviet counterintelligence officer,” and has a long history of lobbying the U.S. government for pro-Russia matters. Fusion GPS was reportedly tasked with generating negative press coverage of Browder and Hermitage.
In addition to working for Prevezon Holdings and working against William Browder, just like Fusion GPS was doing, Veselnitskaya also had dealings with Rinat Akhmetshin, the founder of the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation. As noted above, Akhmetshin was named by Senator Grassley as sharing work with Fusion GPS against Browder. In a letter to the Department of Justice, Senator Chuck Grassley says this about Akhmetshin:
It is particularly disturbing that Mr. Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were working together on this pro-Russia lobbying effort in 2016 in light of Mr. Akhmetshin’s history and reputation. Mr. Akhmetshin is a Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a “Soviet counterintelligence officer.” In fact, it has been reported that he worked for the GRU and allegedly specializes in “active measures campaigns,” i.e., subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda. According to press accounts, Mr. Akhmetshin “is known in foreign policy circles as a key pro-Russian operator,” and Radio Free Europe described him as a “Russian ‘gun-for-hire’ [who] lurks in the shadows of Washington’s lobbying world.” He was even accused in a lawsuit of organizing a scheme to hack the computers of one his client’s adversaries.
As you know, Fusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence –let alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaigns– as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier. The relationship casts further doubt on an already highly dubious dossier.
Radio Free Europe has a story noting Akhmetshin’s group had hired Veselnitskaya as an attorney:
Read the rest. The bottom line is Trump was being pursued by the Left. I think the plan was to have HRC win, then use the compliant media and the intel “deep state” leaks, along with the HRC DOJ harassment to destroy Donald Trump forever. Imagine how bad it would get for him and what that would do to anyone else who thought they could run against the “machine.”
But Trump won. He has the power and more importantly, access to the files. He needs to stay the course and then plan to do what he has to do to bring them to justice.
If I were him, I would go scorched earth on anyone I thought had something to do with this. For example, I would order all the agencies to compile all contacts any politician/bureaucrat/official had with any foreign representative dividing the contacts by time/date/context. Then take that information and release it on an open website for all citizens to see. No exemptions. You want to see how many times Senator Feinstein or Schumer or McCain met with the Russians? Just take a look. That will keep them busy for years!
Then I would assign the FBI/DOJ taskforce to look into this Fusion GPS/Natalia/Russian lobbying effort and see if any laws were broken. If so, they get to go to jail. And finally, if by chance those records Natalia offered were accurate, assign the FBI/DOJ investigate any illegal donations to the DNC and pursue charges.
Basically, burn their playhouse down! They went after his kid. That’s war.
Erik Erickson finishes up with the exact questions which should direct any investigation.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?
Did Veselnitskaya serve as a source for the “Trump Dossier”?
Who retained Veselnitskaya to attempt to meet with Donald Trump, Jr.?
One final point: the issue is not whether this excuses Donald Trump, Jr. for poor judgment. The issue is whether certain Democrats were collaborating with Russians at a time Democrats claim the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russians. Both sides should have been dubious of Russians bearing gifts and it looks increasingly likely that neither side was. The Democrats could be trying to undermine Donald Trump with as much help from the Russians as they claim Trump received from Russia.
I smell a rat. Warning bells in my brain are going off. What is Russian for “set up”?
Let’s go over the facts. Donald Jr is a novice. People know he’s a novice and maybe a bit cocky.
A “friend” (and I use that term loosely) sends him an email that the Russians want to help his dad win against Hillary, and are willing to give up the dirt on her dealings in Russia. The email is suspect at best. It’s like it was written to be released in order to embarrass someone over a subject not yet created. Who does that? Putin? Podesta? Never Trumpers? Fusion GPS?
Now in context, this is before the Podesta created Russian collusion lie was started. It was during the time Obama and his administration believed the Russians were messing with the election but weren’t telling anyone. It was also during the time a fake dossier about Trump in Russia was being shopped around by a organization called Fusion GPS, founded by several ex-reporters.
Here is the Heavy.com rundown. Take the time. There is SOOO much here. They are very, very suspicious. And heavily involved with both the Left and the Russians, and maybe the Obama administration and even Comey’s FBI.
Fusion GPS was behind the colorful and controversial Christopher Steele dossier that emerged as one of the most bizarre moments in an already bizarre presidential campaign. The dossier contained a listing of unverified, almost unspeakable allegations about President Donald Trump, and it emerged in news reports on January 10, 2017, just 10 days before Trump was inaugurated as president.
The company’s efforts were funded first by a Republican and, once Steele came on board and the primary was over, a Democrat. Neither donor’s name is known.
Steele is a former British spy who wrote the unverified report on Donald Trump’s alleged activities and connections in Russia. A former intelligence officer who was based in Russia in the 1990s, Steele now runs an intelligence firm in London. The dossier contained lurid allegations involving Trump’s supposed activities in Russia that are all unverified and hotly contested. Steele has acknowledged in a defamation case in England that information in one of his memos “needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified.” All the same, he shared the dossier with the FBI and, reports CNN, the Justice Department relied on parts of it to obtain a FISA warrant to “to conduct surveillance on Trump associate Carter Page.”
President Trump has decried the dossier as false and a hoax. CNN reported that President Barack Obama was briefed on the Steele dossier because of concerns that the allegations in it could open up Trump to blackmail; the Russian government has denied the dossier’s accuracy. The 35-page dossier was written by Steele based on memos he compiled from June through December 2016.
However, Fusion GPS’ research into Trump was initially funded by a Republican.
Before the Steele dossier came into play, according to Vanity Fair, Simpson was hired “to compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump.” Although Simpson wouldn’t say who funded that quest, Vanity Fair alleges through a friend of his that it was a “never Trump Republican.”
Vanity Fair reports that this donor’s interest dried up once Trump won the nomination, but Simpson had “grown deeply concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency.” He found Democratic donors to fund the effort’s continuance, and eventually subcontracted with Steele to look into Trump’s ties to Russia for between $12,000 to $15,000 a month, according to Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair dubs Simpson the “co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator” for Steele and the information the former British spy collected.
According to the BBC, “the opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump Super Pac – political action committee – during the Republican primaries. Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter.” The BBC and other British news outlets had initially reported that the PAC supported Jeb Bush’s campaign, but Bush has adamantly denied having anything to do with the dossier or Steele, and the BBC amended its reports.
The New York Times says Fusion GPS’ Steele effort was funded by “Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton” whose identities are not clear.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump critic, asked ousted FBI Director James Comey about Fusion GPS and what Graham called “the Russian intelligence apparatus.” The Federalist described their Q and A this way:
Graham: Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey: I know the name.
Graham: Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey: I can’t say.
Graham: Do you agree with me that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey: I don’t want to say.
Why James…why? (I have an idea.)
What is the connection between the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya and Fusion? They know each other and work together.
Not part of the Kremlin? Hardly. This is a variation of the honey trap.
The Magnitsky Act figures in a lot of this story; obscure to many Americans, it was a Russian priority to defeat. Fusion GPS’ efforts to help defeat the act led one top Republican senator, Grassley, of Iowa, to accuse the firm of acting as an agent for Russia. Fusion GPS has denied the allegation.
It’s also the topic that Trump Jr. says the Russian lawyer, Veselnitskaya, fixated on in their meeting, instead of the Clinton dirt he thought they’d be getting.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Grassley wrote a letter to the U.S. Justice Department in March 2017 that alleged that “Fusion GPS, which was also involved in the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, was involved in the pro-Russia campaign to kill the Global Magnitsky Act around the same time.”
The Magnitsky Act was “named for a lawyer who suspiciously died in Russian custody after accusing Russian government officials and members of organized crime of using corporate identity theft against Hermitage Capital Management to fraudulently obtain and launder $230 million, some of which allegedly ended up in U.S. real estate projects. The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions against those involved as well as other Russians designated as human rights abusers,” the Grassley statement says.
Hermitage’s CEO was a man named William Browder.
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr., is named in a complaint filed by Browder with the Justice Department as “Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer for Prevezon.” Prevezon Holdings Limited, is defined as Russian owned Cyprus registered company attempting to defeat the Magnitsky Act. According to the Browder complaint, Prevezon is “controlled/directed/influenced by the Russian Government in respect of the lobbying activity.” Trump Jr.’s own emails, which he dumped on Twitter July 11, allege he was told that Veselnitskaya was a government lawyer.
According to the Daily Beast, Browder will brief the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid July about “the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s ties to the Russian government—including to former top members of the GRU and the FSB, two of the Kremlin’s main intelli
The Browder complaint further describes Veselnitskaya by saying she “is the lawyer to Prevezon and the Katsyv family,” adding that she “played a key role in organizing screenings of the film intended to rewrite the history of Sergei Magnitsky.” She also attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on U.S. policy towards Putin’s Russia, the complaint says. It also says that she then filed a report with Congress accusing the Magnitsky Act of being “based on lies.”
The complaint alleges that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS “has been hired by Prevezon to lobby for the anti-Magnitsky campaign.” The complaint says that Vladimir Putin made it his “primary foreign policy objective” to get the Magnitsky Act defeated and adds that Prevezon is owned by a man named Denis Katsyv.
Works for the highest bidder, including the Russians.
Uh oh… . The smell is getting worse. Before we get too far down the rabbit hole let’s lay one principle on the table- Everybody knows everybody and they move around behind the scenes. You are not going to see a direct line between Fusion and let’s say John McCain or Putin or Hillary like you saw with the Trump email.
Unlike Donald Jr., they are smarter than that. Frankly, after watching Lynch avoid pursing Hillary and Mills, et. al., it is apparent even if the lines were clear and direct they would not chase them.
According to a news release from Grassley, “Fusion GPS was reportedly tasked with generating negative press coverage of Browder and Hermitage.” Grassley alleged that Fusion GPS should have “registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).” He alleged to the Justice Department that “Fusion GPS reportedly ‘dug up dirt’ on Mr. Browder’s property and finances, and attempted to generate negative stories about Mr. Browder and Hermitage in the media, shopping stories to a number of reporters.”
Grassley also alleged that Fusion GPS was working with Rinat Akhmetshin, “a Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a ‘Soviet counterintelligence officer.’” Grassley wrote the Justice Department: “Fusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence –let alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaigns– as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier.”
Who is Katsyv?
A law firm named BakerHostetler represented Katsyv, who “owns a company that the Justice Department has accused of laundering money from a tax fraud that Magnitsky uncovered,” according to Politico.
According to The Washington Post, Denis’ father “Pyotr Katsyv, was vice premier and minister of transport of Moscow region from 2004 to 2012. Katsyv’s deputy minister was Alexander Mitusov, Veselnitskaya’s ex husband.”
The Magnitsky Act in the U.S. Congress was fought by a Russian lobbying effort because it, Politico reported, “authorizes the president to freeze assets and deny visas to foreign officials responsible for corruption and human rights violations.”
A Politico story from December 2016 reported that “BakerHostetler hired a private research firm known as Fusion GPS led by Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter. (The firm also discussed information with journalists about Trump and his associates’ ties to Russia.)”
According to The Washington Post, Fusion GPS “did work on a lawsuit that involved Veselnitskaya for more than two years.” The Post reports that “Fusion GPS has said that it was working for the law firm BakerHostetler, which was representing Prevezon, a Russian holding company based in Cyprus, in its defense against Justice Department allegations that Prevezon laundered money stolen in the fraud Magnitsky uncovered.” There’s no known evidence that the Fusion GPS dossier work and this was connected, according to The Post.
Note the Washington Post KNOWS Fusion is suspect here, but don’t work too hard to remind the readers of this as they chase the Trumps. That is bad reporting. It would be like reporting on Jeffrey Dahmer as a food critic without reminding people he prefers..well people!
Then there is this “Who is this KGB agent that met with Donald Jr!” Suddenly, we see that this “KGB agent” is everywhere, including sitting in a hearing before Congress.
Uh, why is she there? I thought she was an agent for Putin?
This is odd. Already the Trump administration is pushing back by pointing out the attorney was in the country under the approval of the Obama administration. Plus, and this is a big deal, we have photos of her sitting in a hearing behind the American ambassador to Russia- Ambassador McPaul. Since this doesn’t look like a place to take a lunch break, I think someone should ask Congress who allowed the Russian spy to sit in a Congressional hearing?!! Suddenly, this whole collusion things starts to look a little suspect.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking top Trump administration officials to explain why a Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year was allowed in the country.
Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking why Natalia Veselnitskaya was allowed to stay in the country when, according to court documents, she had to leave in early 2016.
“It is unclear how she was still in the country for that meeting despite being denied a visa beforehand and her parole purportedly expiring on January 7, 2016. This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?” Grassley wrote.
Veselnitskaya met with Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort in June 2016. The meeting was supposed to be about potentially damaging information on then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to Trump Jr.
Grassley is asking Tillerson if Veselnitskaya applied for a visa and for any details of a potential application, including if she had to go through any additional procedures.
He wants DHS to say if Veselnitskaya is currently in the United States. She previously said that she was granted a parole letter to enter the United States to argue a court case.
Grassley wants to know any restrictions or extensions of her parole, what agencies were involved in the decision, dates when she left or entered the country, and listed addresses.
Again, Heavy.com compiles some facts about her. I fear Donald Jr, who says he had no idea who was going to show up at the meeting, did not do his homework. I also think his “friend”, Goldstone, who set this up, did Donald Jr wrong. Or maybe, seeing that he was the one that sent the amateurish email that conveniently listed what the Dems so desperately wanted- the hint of collusion- maybe he was told to write it in a certain way to maximize the damage. I see the hand of Putin here. Remember, his goal is to create chaos no matter who won the election.
She likes social media. Here Heavy posts some of her opinions from her account.
Veselnitskaya has shown an interest in American politics, including making several posts on her Facebook page about news related to the Trump and Obama administrations. Her anti-Obama stance appears to have stemmed from the fight against the Magnitsky Act, while she expressed hope in one post that the new administration could help stabilize the relationship between the United States and her home country, ideally in a way to help her clients.
“The beginning of our trial, new lawyers, new judges, the new President, balls and blow-ups in one day, and on 5 avenue – under the conductor of Schumer, a stream of dirt in the media, complete infantilism in understanding what is happening among the masses, the most serious in humorous shows, Then the prohibition of entry into the country and again hundreds of pickets and again on weekends, the resignation of the entire top of the State Department,” she wrote in Russian, referring to the protests against the first Muslim travel ban and the resignation of Sally Yates, which happened during her second visit to New York for the Prevezon Holdings case.
She also wrote about Yates in another post, “The current US Attorney General (Sally Yates) stated that all lawyers working for the government have no right to protect the government and Trump’s orders! She says it’s illegal and inexcusable! You can argue as much as you like about banning citizens from certain countries to the country, but something I can not recall any norm that allows the Prosecutor General to do so. In such cases, the general must resign. And it’s like the game and the last days of Obama.”
This sounds like a lawyer trying to position herself in a favorable light for the incoming administration, since the last one screwed her clients over. Again, lawyers lie and manipulate. Is she a spy? Either she is a Russian lawyer trying to get on the good side of the Trump administration or a master spy who acts amateurishly.
At this point it doesn’t matter. If I were Trump, I would pull off the gloves. I would demand that Sessions, Tillerson, and the rest force their agencies to provide a list of EVERY meeting or contact reported (or not) between any major foreign state actors (China and Russia primarily) and all public servants on both sides of the political aisle- listing content, time and date. Then release that list to the public on a website called something like “Transparency. com”.
But that’s me. If they went after my kid, I’d be looking to fix that problem so no one dared try it again. I think Trump falls into the same category. Mess with him, he gets mad. Mess with his kids, he may do some serious retaliatory damage.
This comes out of the Oregon Bundy siege. A FBI agent is being charged with lying in the shooting of a man who was part of the Bundy crew. The shooting was questionable, as it lends to the abuse of power that the history of the FBI over the decades. But even if it was a good shoot, why did the agent lie? That’s just dumb. And it insulted the local Sheriff to boot.
The FBI agent charged Wednesday with lying about firing his gun during a deadly confrontation during the 2016 Oregon-Bundy standoff may be only the tip of the iceberg.
Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson had harsh criticism Wednesday for multiple members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, saying that their actions during the 41-day siege with supporters of the anti-federal Bundy family had “damaged the integrity of the entire law enforcement profession, which makes me both disappointed and angry.”
His comments came during a press conference after FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita pleaded not guilty to three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice in federal court in Portland.
He said that he told Justice Department and FBI officials, including now-acting Director Andrew McCabe, over a year ago about “possible criminal conduct by some involved FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) agents.”
“I was disappointed when I recently heard FBI HRT agents associated with this case were not placed on administrative leave after the briefing by our investigators to FBI administration,” said Sheriff Nelson. “Today’s indictment will ensure that the defendant and hopefully any other culpable FBI HRT members will be held accountable through the justice process.”
George Orwell wrote a book years ago called “Animal Farm”. It was a satire of the USSR. In the book the pigs, representing the authorities inside the USSR, had a rule they followed. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
The feds say the charges of lying to impede an investigation do not invalidate the conclusion that shooting the Bundy friend was not justified. However, it does taint the issue. How do we know we are getting the straight scoop about anything any more?
The charges “do not in any way call into question the findings of the major incident team’s investigation of OSP’s use of deadly force,” said Mr. Williams. “OSP’s actions were justified and necessary in protecting officer safety.”
Outside the courthouse, Finicum family friend Kelli Stewart said the agent should have been charged with more serious offenses, including conspiracy and attempted murder.
“He and the other FBI agents literally conspired to impede a federal investigation,” said Ms. Stewart in a Facebook video. “They hid the fact that shots were fired, and here we waited 17 months just for a simple indictment to come down. So while we’re happy that something is happening, it feels a little like the people are being simply pacified.”
She noted that Mr. Astarita was released after the arraignment instead of being held in custody.
“If I fired a weapon at somebody else and lied about it and hid the evidence as he did, just even as a civilian, I’d be facing a lot of charges, and I’d be in handcuffs,” said Ms. Stewart, adding that “justice has not been served today.”
Sheriff Nelson thanked U.S. Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team for “tirelessly searching for the facts in this case.”
“His office will also conduct thorough administrative review to identify any areas of improvement that will help eliminate any mistakes made by the FBI in the future and increase transparency for federal law enforcement,” said Sheriff Nelson.
The woman has a point. In the end, the big government “we do no wrong” approach to this and other critical events- like lying about a President being under investigation or having Rice’s unmasking paperwork suddenly get transferred to Obama’s presidential library – will undermine the trust to the point where the people will not comply, and that’s the real loss here.
How does a government function when the people are convinced their leaders are lying corrupt scumbags, and the media along with them?
“They” meaning Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, CIA’s Morell, Obama, Rice, Clapper, Comey and Rogers.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has called out Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) over his public comments about the president being under investigation.
The problem, Grassley states, is that Schumer knew this was untrue because former FBI head James Comey had briefed not only the Senate Judiciary Committee but the Gang of Eight, including Schumer. During that briefing in March of this year, Comey stated that the president was not under investigation. This knowledge did not stop Schumer from, only weeks later, making public statements that he knew to be false.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley called out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Thursday for lying when the New York Democrat claimed that President Donald Trump was under investigation and Schumer knew otherwise.
Grassley stated that in March, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.
“This included telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation,” Grassley stated on the floor of the Senate.
. . . . Grassley then turned his attack toward Democrats who he said knew that Trump was never under investigation but proceeded to tell the public otherwise—particularly Democratic members of the “gang of eight,” which are all the top leaders of both parties in Congress and the top leaders in both parties on the intelligence committees in both chambers.
“I have to note something else here. Mr. Comey didn’t just tell the president Senator Feinstein and me that the president was not under investigation. He had also told the gang of eight. Of course, the gang of eight includes Senate Minority Leader Senator Schumer. But even after Mr. Comey told the gang of eight that the president was not under investigation, the minority leader told the media that the president was under investigation and of course that further help feed media storm– Hysteria.”
Grassley provides a specific example of Schumer’s knowingly untrue public statements about the president being under investigation.
As we speak, we hear the sound of wheels coming off the bus, the lug nuts initially loosened by Comey’s testimony. Now the Washington Post (of all places) begins to put the bodies under the bus- one of which is Obama.
The primary takeaways from the article, based on progressive responses:
Obama was too moderate and cautious, just like he always was as president, and Russia won’t suffer proportional consequences for its heinous crime.
President Obama “approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated.” Liberal journalists are impressed, but they worry Trump will back off from using Obama’s “cyber weapon.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell did not buy the intelligence suggesting that Russia was trying to undermine the U.S. election and dragged his feet on making a public statement as the campaign got into gears last September. The rabid left has been calling McConnell a “traitor” because of this. Yet the piece elsewhere admits that “some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country,” making the NSA “reluctant to view it with high confidence.”
There a plenty of articles out there detailing how Obama was indecisive because he didn’t want to screw up the Iranian deal or upset the Syrian peace process (funny right?) and blah- blah- blah. Truth is, Obama has been weak since the beginning, partially because he’s a wimp and partially because he hates America so he does not feel the need to defend any abuse to her.
Plus, it ain’t like he and Hillary didn’t do it to others!
But the real crime here is that Comey told the gang of eight in 2016 that Trump was not a target or involved in any “collusion”, yet they went out and again and again lied to the American people. All Trump wanted was Comey to come out and tell the American people what he told Congress and the President. Comey refused, citing some dumb moves HE MADE in 2016.
That, of course, is bullshit. Comey was trying to please the deep state establishment and at the same time keep his job. Under GWB, that would have worked. Under Trump it got him a —
However, since Comey admitted in his May testimony that he did tell Trump three times he was not a target, and that there was no evidence of collusion ANYWHERE to be found, suddenly we start seeing the rats jumping off the sinking ship. They know the truth is leaking out. Among the rats is this guy, Morell, former head of the CIA.
Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell hit the Obama admin based on the Washington Post story this week that they did so little to strike back at Putin for meddling in our election.
He said he “failed miserably” in his response.
It’s really interesting when you think about it – for eight years we called him a wimp and the ditherer-in-chief, and in the end, that’s what screwed him over. He didn’t have the guts to stand up to Putin, and gave him a slap on the wrist. He didn’t tell the American people it was happening because he didn’t want to rock the boat. “No drama Obama” thought Hillary had it in the bag, and because of that, he doomed her candidacy, and his legacy.
Comey was at the NY Times the other day. I’m sure there will be another “I hate, HATE Trump” story with him as the source. But what he did- or what Trump made him do by warning him about tapes- was to start the official unraveling of the “Trump colluded with Russia” lie. Now that it will start fall apart, it will be rats leaving the sinking ship moment. They all lied. Soon we’ll know they all lied. How they justify those lies will be the stories we’ll read in the coming months.
By not bailing out, Trump has forced those in the “deep state” to crumble. Good for him. I hate liars.
David French is a lawyer. I’m sure he’s confident in his perception of this issue. But he’s wrong.
In fact, it is perceptions that got Castile killed. Neither party were really wrong, but a confluence of events and perceptions created a moment where police deadly force was used.
If you watch carefully, two salient facts should emerge. First, Philando Castile was quite literally following the police officer’s instructions when he was shot. The officer asked for his license and told him not to reach for his gun. Castile reached for his license while verbally assuring the officer that he was not reaching for his gun. The officer shot him anyway.
The second fact overwhelmed the first. The officer panicked. His terror is palpable. The man went from conducting a relatively routine traffic stop to shrieking and firing in a matter of seconds. Part of this is understandable. Life can change in a flash, and when we’re in a state of ultimate distress, few of us can be as composed as SEAL Team Six.
When I saw that palpable panic, I immediately knew why he was acquitted. The unwritten law trumped the statutes on the books. The unwritten law is simple: When an officer is afraid, he’s permitted to shoot. Juries tend to believe that proof of fear equals proof of innocence.
Like a typical lawyer, French bolsters his argument with a totally unrelated event- the Scott shooting in SC. These two events have nothing to do with each other. Castille was not running from the police or fighting with the officer over his taser. Scott was not armed, nor did he fit the description of the robbery suspect. So, other than the police officer being not black, and the shooting victim black, there is NO OTHER resemblance. But why let facts get in the way of a good story, right David?
French is right in one way. Citizens who take on the uniform of law enforcement are not SEAL team six. So their ability to manage and work with a suddenly stressful and lethal event is not going to be as well honed. That said, those events happen thousands of times a year and nobody gets hurt.
What happened in the Castile case was not a criminal act. No more than a surgeon working on a patient and the patient dying on the table. Unless you can prove the surgeon went in with the intent to kill the patient, it is a civil settlement. Yes, your life has a monetary value, not always a criminal justice value. The reason it became criminal was due to the whole BLM movement frightening other lawyers- who happen to be prosecutors.
This fear is why what was a civil issue became a criminal one, and then ended back up as a civil settlement- as in the case of Mike Brown and Freddie Grey. Which, by the way, under normal circumstances only Grey should have paid out. Brown’s was just to keep the BLM from rioting again.
Let’s set some ground rules here:
A- This is important. There is a compact between citizens and the police, to work BOTH sides need to follow it. First part is that citizens gives another citizen (who has a little more training) the power over him to investigate, develop PC and make arrests. The citizen then complies with that arrest without resistance or violence to that officer. In return, the officer makes sure he does his level best to be unbiased and seek evidence fairly. If he does make the arrest, the officer must do it without violence and make sure the arrested citizen is delivered to the jail in good health. When that works, and it does a million times a year, nobody gets hurt. But when either side violates the contract, things go bad.
B- Nothing occurs in a vacuum. During this period of time, police were witnessing the resistance of blacks against police as part of the BLM movement. Violence was occurring with far greater frequency and with far less provocation. A black person could act out simply to get his fifteen minutes of fame, his momma whining about how he was on his way to get his college application, and how the “po-oolice” just harassed him.
And it would work.
This repeated mantra encouraged a lot of bad acts by black people who normally would not act out and it changes how the police react to the people they encounter. We know it, they know it. It makes everyone on both sides unsure how to interact with the other side. The playbook, if you will, has been thrown out. This breakdown in street communication is causing violence where violence never occurred before.
B-The police are rightly nervous. Plus their training has become too aggressive in my humble opinion. We are trained that everyone can be a threat and that standing your ground in the face of that threat keeps you alive. It’s something that about the time we figure maybe we got it wrong and start to ease up, some idiot jihadi slices the neck of a LT in a Detroit airport or a weed smoking thug tries to beat a cop to death in his own vehicle in Ferguson.
Lawyers, by and large, cannot assign common sense to the law. The law does not recognize common sense, it only recognizes the law. So when you see a lawyer act without common sense, you assume he’s stupid or just being willfully stubborn. Neither are wrong, but it is because that is how he sees the world, through the law.
This shooting was a wrongful act occurring because of bad perceptions by both parties. Let’s look at what happened.
In this particular case the police were aware of a robbery that occurred a few days earlier in a store not that far away. They had photos and BOLOs of the suspect. The officer, Yanez, was aware of those photos. He saw Castile drive by and radioed to this zone partner that this guy fit the description of a robbery suspect. (which he strikingly did!)
This guy looked like the robber. Not his fault, but part of the reason he was stopped that day.
Yanez did what we call “an investigative stop” which often is a traffic stop or contact with a subject for the reason of determining if the subject is involved in a crime. I have done thousands over the years, more than a few resulting in an arrest.
5. Castile did not know he fit the description of a suspect. He just knew once again the police were pulling him over. He had a traffic history. And he knew he was armed, with a license to carry.
HOWEVER, the gun was not secured in a holster, it was either in his crotch or his front pocket. This was a worry to him. So he wanted to make sure the officer knew. His intent wasn’t to alarm the officer. Often CCW holders are told to notify if they are armed. Some states demand it.
But NOTHING about being a CCW holder means the person will not kill police. That is a silly argument. Do you expect the officer to honor the verbal statement “I have a gun, I won’t pick it up. Okay, I promise I won’t point it at you. Oops, okay I promise not to pull the trigger”…BANG! That is just silly and French relying on it is just sillier.
Yet, it does go to Castile’s frame of mind, his perception.
6. Yanez’s whole approach was laid back. This was intentional. He didn’t want to alarm a potentially armed and dangerous robber that the jig was up. (Which is his way of avoiding the gunfight. That gets you killed.)
And remember the case in NC where the black man in the truck got out with a gun and refused to surrender?? I call these “statement days” where the bad guy decides basically “F**k it” and goes out swinging or blazing away. You cannot see these coming. So if you don’t know who you are talking to, but suspect he may be trouble, you can either play it cool, or go in hard and fast and hope to catch him off guard.
In this case, Yanez was just checking the guy out, low key and friendly.
Not a person looking to harm anyone. Just ask questions.
7. I would love to see Castile’s tox screen. I bet he was on weed. (I checked loaded with THC.)
With a screaming woman, a little dope and the stress, I don’t think Castille realized he was in trouble. HIS perception was he was just going to tell the officer he had a gun and a license and all was good, and now the officer is screaming at him. But WHAT WAS HE SCREAMING??? He had a license for it. (Again, why in the crotch/pocket and not a holster?)
8. Yanez had in the back of his mind he might have stumbled into a violent felon. Then the guy says “I got a gun.” Now Yanez’s higher brain/lower brain functions are kicking in. Higher brain is saying “Holy crap, he is the robber! and a gun!” The lower brain, where training and survival exist, is saying “Holy crap a gun, he can get me!” Even with that, Yanez commands the guy to do one..simple…thing… DON’T TOUCH IT!
At this point we come back to compliance. If the officer is yelling at you not to do something and is reaching for his gun. Do not do whatever he is saying do not do. It is really that simple. Castile complies, he is alive. Yanez backs up and retreats to cover, which could have worked, but also could have got him shot in the back of the head, Castile survives.
Neither happened, Castile died and Yanez is ruined and horrified. But it is not a criminal issue. That was because of the BLM movement and a frightened PC driven prosecutor….which is a lawyer…which are the bane of our society.
French is a back seat driver. Hit the streets for a year wearing a uniform and then critique yourself after every shift. You’ll come out a better man for it.
The issue of transgendered men or males just claiming to be women is a great example of the insanity that has exploded within our society due to PC and the socialist agenda driven by progressives. The latest, but not the only, example of the madness is the high school runner who decided that being last on the men’s side wasn’t as much fun as being state champion on the girl’s side.
Imagine this: Your daughter has been training and running track for four years. She’s a senior and she’s made it to the state finals. College recruiters are in the stands and this is her day to shine (and possibly get a scholarship so you don’t have to go bankrupt trying to fund her education). Except that doesn’t happen for her because a boy, claiming to be a girl, handily steals the title from her. She’s devastated, but when asked how she feels about it, she’s terrified to be truthful that she (rightly) feels she was robbed by someone who shouldn’t have been competing against her.
“I can’t really say what I want to say, but there’s not much I can do about it,” Kate Hall said after the race, alluding to the fact that she had to compete against Andraya Yearwood, a biological boy.
This was the moment when feminism died. You could argue that it was when the feminist left refused to stand up for the rights of Muslim women who are stoned and beaten for being raped. That is a valid point. But for sure, any surviving remnant of the movement is now just as dead as the spider I encountered in the car while driving today — beaten mercilessly with a shoe (to much screaming). How can a movement that claims to be for women survive staying silent (and even siding with the man) in this scenario? That boy (who couldn’t even bother to shave his mustache) may have stolen a girl’s very future, and no one cares. I searched the usual places, like the Huffington Post and Jezebel, for articles on this travesty and came up empty. Dead silence. Are they all in an emergency meeting with Gloria Steinem and Lena Dunham, planning how they’ll explain this one away? You can’t find one feminist perspective on this story on a Google search. Why not?
Here’s the kid.
The new normal. It’s biting feminists in the ass.
You can tell by his grin he isn’t serious. His dad’s comments confirm it. You have to watch the video where the reporter is doing back flips to make sure he stays PC. If he didn’t he would get fired or punished right? (It’s a Maoist technique. See the recent dust up over the St Louis Cardinals and the LGBT anger of a “Christian day”.)
As you might imagine, Yearwood’s dad has a different opinion.
Rahsaan Yearwood, who played college football, told the Courant “there are guys who were 350 pounds. It wasn’t fair that as a 225-pound linebacker, they came to block me, but that’s the nature of the beast.”
“As her father, I never think about it as competition,” he told the Courant. “This is not about winning and losing races. This is about the health of my teenage daughter. In terms of the fairness aspect, I don’t think about that as a father. I only think about, is my daughter happy, healthy and able to participate in what she wants to do? I don’t care if she wins or loses. I don’t care if she wins and gives the medals back. She got to compete as a girl where she feels she should compete. That’s all that matters to me.”
He told the Courant that his daughter will begin consultations about hormonal treatment in June.
Riiight…in June. AFTER the track meet. After he picks up his trophies.
Now nobody will touch this because the trangendered community has seized the “rights” argument from women feminists, just as the gays took the mantle of “civil rights” from the blacks. After years of struggle from the original group the LGBT gangs swooped in and stole it. It’s that simple. The blacks are none to happy and neither are the feminists, but they FEAR telling the truth. The reporter refers to the mustache wearing freshman as “she” and “her” all through the video piece.
The transgendered mess is a no go zone and nobody wants to say anything, expect Camille Pagila that is. In a long interview she addresses many issues, one of them is the ongoing battle between feminists and transgenders in Britain.
CP: Feminists have clashed with transgender activists much more publicly in the United Kingdom than here. For example, two years ago there was an acrimonious organized campaign, including a petition with 3,000 claimed signatures, to cancel a lecture by Germaine Greer at Cardiff University because of her “offensive” views of transgenderism. Greer, a literary scholar who was one of the great pioneers of second-wave feminism, has always denied that men who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery are actually “women.” Her Cardiff lecture (on “Women and Power” in the twentieth century) eventually went forward, under heavy security.
And in 2014, Gender Hurts, a book by radical Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, created a heated controversy in the United Kingdom. Jeffreys identifies transsexualism with misogyny and describes it as a form of “mutilation.” She and her feminist allies encountered prolonged difficulties in securing a London speaking venue because of threats and agitation by transgender activists. Finally, Conway Hall was made available: Jeffrey’s forceful, detailed lecture there in July of last year is fully available on YouTube. In it she argues among other things, that the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers who will need to take prescribed hormones for life.
Although I describe myself as transgender (I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on), I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.
It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women’s studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.
The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one’s birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.
In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories “trans-man” and “trans-woman” are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a “woman” or a “man” simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it. We may well take the path of good will and defer to courtesy on such occasions, but it is our choice alone.
As for the La Leche League, they are hardly prepared to take up the cudgels in the bruising culture wars. Awash with the milk of human kindness, they are probably stuck in nurturance mode. Naturally, they snap to attention at the sound of squalling babies, no matter what their age. It’s up to literature professors and writers to defend the integrity of English, which like all languages changes slowly and organically over time. But with so many humanities departments swallowed up in the poststructuralist tar pit, the glorious medium of English may have to fight the gender commissars on its own.
Palgia is an honest broker of feminism. Not a PC culturalist at all. She sees the threat of Islam and the threat of Transgenderism as endangering feminism and by extension all the good work women have done to obtain and keep an equal footing.
What I found interesting was Palgia’s reference to the battle between feminism and transgenderism. She appears to imply that the battle is further along than what we are just starting to see here, but if you asked anyone who watches the MSM, you would not hear one story about it. That’s because the agenda here is not to reveal what might be trouble down the road as they just continue to push something that does not fit logic or nature.
Let’s cut to the chase. Mueller, if a truly ethical man should resign. (and he’s a inside DC lawyer…so don’t hold your breath.) Why? Because Comey told us he leaked to the media HIS version of the truth in order to force a special counsel- which happened to turn out to be his buddy Mueller. (By accident I’m sure…hahaha!)
At this point, I want to see the email/phone logs of the acting AG in this matter- Rod Rosenstein! That is how bad it has gotten.
Word is Mueller is hiring to help him “find the truth” former Obama and Clinton supporters. One an actual Clinton Foundation lawyer! How do you think people who believe Trump are going to react to that????
How can she be impartial?
Jeannie Rhee served for two years under Eric Holder.
According to Wilmer Hale, Jeannie Rhee served for two years, up to 2011, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for the US Department of Justice, where she advised the Attorney General, the White House and senior agency officials on constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.
“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”
He’s not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.
One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.
Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.
Jeannie Rhee set her Twitter settings to private.
They are all in this incestuous soup together and all want Trump gone. We don’t really see this daily, as the media does not cover it. But this is how Washington works. Do you think an impartial outcome will the the result here? Worse, do you think Mueller will close down an investigation that will grow and grow without one scalp? (Think the Plame investigation and the “lying to the FBI” conviction of Scooter Libby.)
Powerlineblog and other have pointed out there are specific laws pertaining to Mueller and Comey, of which they are in violation.
In my post about Robert Mueller’s conflict of interest in investigating “obstruction of justice” claims based on the testimony of his friend James Comey, I ducked the legal question of whether the conflict requires Mueller to withdraw or be removed. My argument was that it provides President Trump with sufficient grounds to remove Mueller if he so chooses.
Let’s now look at legal provisions dealing with conflicts of interest in this context. 28 U.S.C. 528 provides:
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.
The statute does not address “special counsel.” However, in my view they are brought under its scope by 28 CFR 600.7.
Based on the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. 528, the Attorney General promulgated 28 CFR 45.2. It provides:
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
The threshold question is whether Comey was “substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. Comey’s conduct is not the subject of Mueller’s investigation, in the sense that he isn’t the target of the investigation (though he could be if the investigation spills over into leaking). But Comey’s conduct is a partial subject, in the sense that Mueller will apparently investigate went transpired between Comey and the president — a subject that goes to the heart of any “obstruction” claim.
In any case, it seems to me that Comey has a specific and substantial interest that likely will be affected by the outcome of the investigation. Mueller may well determine whether Trump is lying, as Comey says, or that Comey is lying, as Trump insists. Comey has a specific and substantial interest in not being found to be a liar.
The next question is whether Mueller has a “close and substantial connection” with Comey “of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality?” I think so. As I have argued, they are friends and former colleagues who stood side-by-side in at least one very important legal struggle.
If the requisite personal relationship exists, the question for purposes of removal becomes whether: (1) the relationship will have the effect of rendering Mueller’s service less than fully impartial and professional or (2) Mueller’s participation would create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
Whatever one concludes about the first prong of this test, I think it’s plain that Mueller’s participation in the investigation of “obstruction of justice” would “create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation.” If Mueller adopts Comey’s version of the facts, large segments of the population will question whether this is an impartial assessment, given his close relationship with Comey.
That last part is important. Comey has testified already in public that he felt Trump did not cross into obstruction (and legally the President can’t, so there is that). Comey testified- like a scared whiny girl- that he was too weak to resist Trump’s attempt to do nothing illegal. Then testified he thinks Lynch did do something wrong.
I swear to God if Rod Serling came out from stage left, holding a cigarette and revealing we are all in the Twilight Zone I would not be surprised.
Ahhh, nope. Nobody’s going to believe this crap!
So why is a friend of Comey’s handling and investigation of Trump, which has produced no evidence during several other investigations, and the same guy- Mueller- is hiring attorneys who have a vested interest in scoring a revenge win for HRC? Just how screwed up is that? The goal is to cripple and sideline Trump until they can get him out of office. It’s akin to the defensive player aiming at the knees of the other team’s star running back. One good hit and he’s out for the season.
There’s a reason. And here it is. Unelected bureaucrats, who think they are wiser than the rest of the populace, are running things and they do not want to give up the power.
Watching the ongoing clown show in Washington, Americans can be forgiven for asking themselves, “Why did we give this bunch of clowns so very much power over our nation and our lives?”
Well, don’t feel so bad, voters. Because you didn’t actually give them that much power. They just took it. That’s the thesis of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger’s new book, The Administrative Threat, a short, punchy followup to his magisterial Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Both deal with the extraordinary — and illegitimate — power that administrative agencies have assumed in American life.
Hamburger explains that the prerogative powers once exercised by English kings, until they were circumscribed after a resulting civil war, have now been reinvented and lodged in administrative agencies, even though the United States Constitution was drafted specifically to prevent just such abuses. But today, the laws that actually affect people and businesses are seldom written by Congress; instead they are created by administrative agencies through a process of “informal rulemaking,” a process whose chief virtue is that it’s easy for the rulers to engage in, and hard for the ruled to observe or influence. Non-judicial administrative courts decide cases, and impose penalties, without a jury or an actual judge. And the protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (like the requirement for a judge-issued search warrant before a search) are often inapplicable.
As Hamburger writes, “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights.”
To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio’s private jet lifestyle
Now James Comey knows how women feel when the boss harasses them
How did a system designed to provide government of, by, and for the people devolve into a system in which bureaucrats unaccountable to voters (though exquisitely accountable to political players and special interests) produce masses of law that was never voted on by an elected official? Simple: on purpose.
In the early days of the Republic, the franchise was limited. But as the mass of voters became larger, more diverse, and less elite, those who considered themselves the best and brightest looked to transform government into something run not by those deplorable unwashed voters but by a more congenial group. As Hamburger says, “They have gradually moved legislative power out of Congress and into administrative agencies — to be exercised, in more genteel ways, by persons like … themselves.”
It has been, in essence, a power grab by what Hamburger calls the “knowledge class,” or what others have called the New Class: A group of managers and intellectuals who, although they may not actually be especially knowledgeable or elite in practice, regard themselves as a knowledge elite.
These “knowledge elites” are the same ones that lost us Vietnam, gave us a failed healthcare system and blew up the Middle East. You would think they would take a pause and reconsider their approach. But no. That’s not how things are done in today’s America. They are working for themselves and the politicians who are smart enough to play along. Remember Chuck Schumer’s warning to Trump, he’d be crazy to take on the bureaucracy, they have a hundred ways to get him. We are seeing just a few.
So, why isn’t Mueller stepping down on his own, now that we all know what he already knew- he cannot be impartial. Because that’s not part of the plan. The plan is to keep digging until they find a weak spot and attack. You can bet old Hillary and Obama lawyers will do just that. But as Powerlineblog points out, that will lead to a civil war because half the nation will know the fix was in all along.
Trump’s presence in DC isn’t causing a blowup, it is the reaction TO his presence that is revealing the true nature of the people there. They are willing to throw off the mantle of respectability and start cheating and lying and abusing right in front of America.
This is a war that they started. It will be revealing and damaging. Americans across the nation voted not just for Trump but for a chance to regain some control over their lives. Those voters are a serious bunch. To spit in their faces, as Washington has done, may not work out they way they think it will. Somebody ought to lend them a copy of the Hunger Games series.