Monday, June 26, 2017

Hypocrisy Reigns? Hezbollah Itching To Fight Israel? Should Republicans Let Democrats Own Obamacare?

Is the shoe  on the other foot as hypocrisy reigns?  (See 1 and 1a below.)
Hezbollah continues prepping for an eventual fight with Israel. (See 2 below)
Will Sweden be the first Democratic nation to implode because of the Muslim influence?  (See 3 below.)
I received this from a log time and dear friend and fellow memo reader just before I was going to make a comment of my own; "Dear Dick,

Now that the Republican health care bill is on the senate floor, Gigi and I have watched with dismay as various parties debate the merits of how best to modify Obamacare.  Our alarm is that the healthcare debate has conceded the war over repeal and free enterprise and is now only fighting the battle over the best solution for socialized medicine.

With best regards,


My own comment aligns with Bill Bennett's view.  If Republicans cannot come together on a health care bill that is a significant improvement over Obamacare then they should just let the Democrats continue to own it.
There really is something smelly about the way Mueller came to be the independent counsel and the fact that his relationship with Comey disqualifies him from serving according to the language in the independent counsel law.  (See 4  below.)

This is a pretty simple, and concise recap of the opposing health care bills; i like to call it" legislation for dummies”


Bernie Sanders & Wife Under FBI Investigation For Bank Fraud

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane have lawyer'd up amid an FBI investigation into a loan obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president.

As we noted just over a year ago, Burlington College, a small Vermont private school once led by the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, said Monday it will close later this month, citing "the crushing weight" of debt incurred during the presidency of Jane Sanders who was in charge of the college until 2011.

According to WaPo, the college which enrolled 224 students as of fall 2014, said it faced financial troubles connected to its 2010 purchase of 32 acres of lakefront property from the Archdiocese of Burlington, according to the Burlington Free Press. The college said it had sold property to reduce its debt to a manageable level, but it was placed on probation in 2014 by its accrediting agency and it faced cash flow problems due to the imminent loss of a line of credit.

The reason for the small liberal school's terminal financial trouble is that to fund the property purchase from the Catholic diocese, Sanders took out $10 million in loans.  As HeatStreet reported last year, the college almost immediately fell short on its financial obligations as fundraising pledges and commitments Ms. Sanders cited in the loan agreements never materialized. Less than a year after leading Burlington College into massive debt, Ms. Sanders resigned, taking with her a $200,000 severance package. By 2014, because of its shaky finances and running deficits, Burlington College found itself placed on probation for two years by the regional accreditation agency.

Jane Sanders was president of the college from 2004 to 2011. Her husband, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a former mayor of Burlington, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007 and since then has represented Vermont in the U.S. Senate.

Jane Sanders stepped down in 2011 amid a dispute with the college’s board. After her husband launched his presidential campaign, news stories emerged that scrutinized her role in a loan application for the lakefront ­real-estate purchase. Jane Sanders has dismissed those stories as politically motivated and said the issue was not a factor in her departure from the college.

A Burlington College news release issued this morning called these financial hurdles insurmountable at this time.

And now, as Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders have hired lawyers to defend them in the probe.

Sanders' top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state

"I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."

"My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.

Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false."
Interesting that a growing number of people around Hillary Clinton are suddenly under FBI scrutiny?

Finally the truth and the "Breaking News" we've all been waiting for! The Administration's connection with the Russians, including the names of all those involved!! 


1.  Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as "Putin's Child”?

Oh wait that wasn't Trump it was John Podesta.

2.  Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies?

Oh wait that was Bill Clinton.

3.  Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton.

4.  Remember when Donald Trump lied about that deal and said he wasn't a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing he did lie about it? 

Oh wait the was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

5.  Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

6.  Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that's part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putin’s?

Oh wait that was the Clinton Foundation.

7.  Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records?

Oh wait that was Hillary Clinton.

8.  Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 80s called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over?

Oh wait that was President Obama.

2) Hezbollah disguising military outposts as environmental project
By: Aryeh Savir  
Hezbollah disguising military outposts as environmental project
Amb. Danny Danon presents evidence of Hezbollah outposts. 
Israel has again warned that Hezbollah is preparing hostilities against the Jewish state under the guise of civilian activity. 
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Danny Danon presented new evidence to the Security Council (UNSC) revealing that the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorist group has established a series of outposts along the border with Israel under the guise of an agricultural organization.
The agricultural NGO, Green Without Borders, is funded by and operates on behalf of Hezbollah, Israel charges.
In a letter sent to UNSC members on Tuesday and published in the media Thursday, Danon explained that in April, a United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) patrol was denied access by a group of locals to an observation post flying the ‘Green Without Borders’ flag.
Danon included in his letter to the UNSC photographs of the observation posts and their locations.
“The well-documented proof of Hezbollah’s dangerous provocation verifies that Hezbollah conducts reconnaissance activity near the Blue Line [the UN-drawn boundary between Lebanon and Israel] and disguises it as civilian activity, in clear violation of UNSC resolutions 1701 and 1559,” Danon wrote.
He warned that “Hezbollah’s continued military buildup and destabilizing activities in southern Lebanon have serious repercussions on both regional stability and the ability of the Lebanese government to effectively control its country.”
“The international community cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Hezbollah’s flagrant violations of UNSC resolutions,” the ambassador continued. He concluded his letter by calling on the UNSC to demand that the government of Lebanon dismantle these observation posts immediately.
The IDF on Thursday released photos and a video of the Hezbollah observation posts. One video showed a pair of uniformed men climbing onto a watchtower on spots used by Green Without Borders.
UN Denies Charges
Responding to the charges on Friday, UNIFIL said it has not seen any violations of the ceasefire.
UN spokeswoman Eri Kaneko told reporters that over the past two years, UNIFIL “has observed tree-planting activities undertaken by the NGO as is their stated objective.”
“UNIFIL has not observed any unauthorized armed persons at the location or found any basis to report a violation of the (cease-fire) resolution,” she said.
Danon responded by saying, “It is unfortunate that UNIFIL has chosen to turn the other way as Hezbollah continues to operate in the region. This NGO is not protecting the environment, but is conducting reconnaissance activity along our border. It is time for UNIFIL to fulfill its mandate and ensure that UN Security Council resolutions are implanted.”
Israel has previously protested Hezbollah’s violations of the ceasefire and presented evidence to the UN proving that the terror organization is utilizing the civilian setting in the area to prepare and launch another attack on Israel.
3) Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”

Sweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help, and it is only a question of time before the country will need military intervention from abroad in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.

A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:

“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”

10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamists” sharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police escort or protection.

The word that Swedish authorities and media use for the country’s “no-go zones” is utenforskap. The word means something like “excluded area.” In these areas, Swedish law has been replaced with a mixture of the law of the jungle and the Islamic legal code, sharia. Armed Muslim gangs and Islamic radicals are simply carving out big pieces of Sweden for themselves. The only reason why it has not evolved into large-scale armed conflicts — in this formerly peaceful and safe country — probably relates to how Sweden’s feminist-liberal government is not putting up any real resistance against the Islamists.
Even if the Swedish feminist government chose to fight back tomorrow, Sweden has nothing close to the paramilitary capacity needed to reverse this situation. That80 percent of the country’s law enforcement officers are considering quitting their jobs is a clear sign of a police force that is completely demoralized. The military in this traditionally pacifist country is cut down to almost nothing, and there is no money to fix it.

As Johan Patrik Engellau puts it: “The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”
The fact remains that Sweden’s political elite is nowhere near taking such decisive action, as it has not even started to openly speak out about these problems.

Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.
4) Trump, Mueller and Arthur Andersen

Did the president act ‘corruptly’? Not from what we know—but then neither did the accounting firm.

By Michael B. Mukasey
What exactly is Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating? The basis in law—regulation, actually—for Mr. Mueller’s appointment is a finding by the deputy attorney general that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”
According to some reports, the possible crime is obstruction of justice. The relevant criminal statute provides that “whoever corruptly . . . influences, obstructs or impedes or endeavors [to do so], the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had,” is guilty of a crime. The key word is “corruptly.”
President Trump’s critics describe two of his actions as constituting possible obstruction. One is an alleged request to then-FBI Director James Comey that he go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was under investigation for his dealings with Russia and possible false statements to investigators about them. According to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” because “he is a good guy.”

An obstruction charge based on that act would face two hurdles. One is that the decision whether to charge Mr. Flynn was not Mr. Comey’s. As FBI director, his job was to supervise the investigation. It is up to prosecutors to decide whether charges were justified. The president’s confusion over the limits of Mr. Comey’s authority may be understandable. Mr. Comey’s overstepping of his authority last year, when he announced that no charges were warranted against Hillary Clinton, might have misled Mr. Trump about the actual scope of Mr. Comey’s authority. Nonetheless, the president’s confusion could not have conferred authority on Mr. Comey.
The other is the statutory requirement that a president have acted “corruptly.” In Arthur Andersen LLP v. U.S. (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the following definition: that the act be done “knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity” of a proceeding. Taking a prospective defendant’s character into account when deciding whether to charge him—as Mr. Comey says Mr. Trump asked him to do—is a routine exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is hard to imagine that a properly instructed jury could decide that a single such request constituted acting “corruptly”—particularly when, according to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump also told him to pursue evidence of criminality against any of the president’s “ ‘satellite’ associates.”
The second act said to carry the seed of obstruction is the firing of Mr. Comey as FBI director. The president certainly had the authority; it is his motive that his critics question. A memorandum to the president, from the deputy attorney general and endorsed by the attorney general, presented sufficient grounds for the firing: Mr. Comey’s usurpation of the prosecutor’s role in the Clinton matter and his improper public disclosure of information unfavorable to Mrs. Clinton. But the president’s detractors have raised questions about the timing—about 3½ months into the president’s term. They have also cited the president’s statement to Russian diplomats days afterward that the firing had eased the pressure on him.
The timing itself does not suggest a motive to obstruct. Rather, coming a few days after Mr. Comey refused to confirm publicly what he had told Mr. Trump three times—that the president himself was not the subject of a criminal investigation—the timing suggests no more than an understandable anger. The statement to Russian diplomats, which might have been intended to put the Russians at ease, collides with the simple fact that an investigation—conducted by agents in the field—proceeds regardless of whether the director continues in office, and thus hardly suggests the president acted “corruptly.”
One of Mr. Mueller’s early hires among the dozen-plus lawyers already aboard has a troubling history with the word “corruptly.” Andrew Weissmann led the Enron prosecution team that pressed an aggressive interpretation of “corruptly,” which permitted a conviction even absent the kind of guilty knowledge the law normally associates with criminal charges. As a result, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted. By the time the conviction was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court in 2005—in large part due to the erroneous application of “corruptly” in the statute at issue—Arthur Andersen had already ceased operation.
What if—for some reason not apparent to the public now—Mr. Mueller were to conclude that the president did act “corruptly”? Could he initiate a criminal prosecution? The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, which sets policy for the department and other agencies of government, has already opined more than once—starting in 1973, during Watergate—that the answer is no. It would offend the Constitution for the executive branch to prosecute its head.
What else might Mr. Mueller do? Some have suggested that if he finds criminal activity occurred he could report his findings to the House so as to trigger an impeachment proceeding, as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr did in 1998. But the law under which Mr. Starr was appointed has lapsed, and the regulations governing the special counsel provide for only two kinds of reports—either to Justice Department leadership when some urgent event occurs during the investigation, or to the attorney general to explain the decision to prosecute or not. Reports of either type are to be treated as confidential.
Mr. Mueller could simply take the bit in his teeth and write a public report on his own authority, or write a confidential report and leak it to the press. If he did either, he would be following Mr. Comey’s lawless example.
Or if, as appears from what we know now, there is no crime here, Mr. Mueller, notwithstanding his more than a dozen lawyers and unlimited budget, could live up to his advance billing for integrity and propriety and resist the urge to grab a headline—not necessarily his own urge but that of some he has hired.
Hold fast. It may be a rough ride.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and a U.S. district judge (1988-2006).

No comments: