Those who read my memos know I believe the wheels of justice move slowly an grind finely. Therefore, I believe as the final investigative reports come out they will be very revealing and will ensnare a variety of people beginning with Obama, Hillary and Comey and his crowd of friends.
Between the Steele Dossier, how it was paid for, manipulated and then used to obtain FISA Warrants will be enough to throw a big net over a lot of alleged criminality. This is what separates America from so many other nations. Eventually corrupt actions are brought to light and cleansed through the judicial system notwithstanding enormous efforts to prevent same.
When the final bell has tolled on this sordid episode in our history regarding Russian Collusion etc. I am confident my views will have been justified, ie. Obama knew about it and might have been involved in a variety of ways. We have plenty of past evidence that he shielded the only Atty. General ever held in contempt by Congress, over saw the use of The IRS to go after conservative opponents, and skirted the constitution regarding the Iran Deal by calling it such instead of a treaty that needed ratification by The Senate, among other misdeeds.
As for Hillary, we have an entire history of over 40 years of questionable behaviour and law violations along with and supported by husband Bill and their seamy Foundation.
Comey and his crowd of gumshoes resorted to every trick in the book to allow Hillary to escape being charged with a variety of potential crime breaking activities while orchestrating the secret spying/surveillance of an opponent's campaign. and then lying about it.
Though Trump's behaviour, in seeking to end the "Witch Hunt," does not do him proud it never ended in obstruction not only because of Justice Department Guidelines but because you cannot obstruct an illegal activity that never took place simply because you wanted to and sought it through others who did not act upon any requests and/or orders.
The fact that Trump Haters cannot accept his election and now allegations of obstruction is a reflection on them not Trump.I know it is galling for the likes of Waters, OCA, Harris, Pocahontas et al but their continued persistence and harassment will boomerang because Americans generally reject piling on and are fair minded. Being an anti-Trump Radical Party will eventually leave Americans with a sour taste.
.
Let the final music begin. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Want to help the poor.? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden began his candidacy by resurrecting The Charlottesville Canard, suggesting he is the virtuous one. At some point he should be made to explain his financial ties to Libya and how he arranged money to flow to his son etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Mueller's Political Prosecution
Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims correctly that a traditional prosecution or declination decision is a binary choice – to prosecute or not to prosecute. Mueller was able to make a decision regarding collusion, so why couldn’t he make one regarding obstruction? He claims he couldn’t because the Office of Legal Counsel had previously opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted; he also claims that it would be unfair to accuse the president of committing a crime without indicting him and thus denying him the right to defend himself in court to clear his name.
Then why did Mueller spend millions of taxpayer dollars investigating the president for obstruction when he wouldn’t indict him for it anyway? Mueller claims that he was creating and preserving a record for the future, perhaps when Trump is no longer president and thus can be indicted. But he also wrote that he was concerned that indicting Trump would, “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” What does he mean? Read his footnote -- he means impeachment. So, Mueller didn’t charge obstruction because he didn’t want to preempt the Democrats’ impeachment plans.
Instead of performing his duty as a prosecutor, Mueller was creating a road map to impeachment. Mueller made a political decision, not a legal one. He was appointed to investigate any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. He was authorized to prosecute any federal crimes arising from his investigation. He admitted there was no evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or even the made-up crime called “coordination.” Yet on corruption, instead of reaching the obvious conclusion, he deferred to Congress.
But Mueller is a prosecutor, not a member of Congress. His job is to enforce the criminal code, not to facilitate impeachment.
Where Mueller played the politician, Attorney General William Barr played the prosecutor. Barr determined the evidence provided by Mueller was insufficient to establish an obstruction of justice charge. In reaching that decision, Barr based his conclusion on the evidence, which is what prosecutors are supposed to do. Barr even examined the evidence using Mueller’s unconventional legal theory that a person can be charged with obstruction for carrying out his lawful duties, and still found none.
Mueller, on the other hand, laid out the “factual issues” that he believes could support an obstruction charge: “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.” First, public criticism cannot constitute obstruction; the president, like any American, has the 1st Amendment right to criticize the government, including the agents who prosecute him. Even if one disregards the Constitution, the facts reveal that although the president criticized the investigation, he did nothing to hinder it.
Second, the president has the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed; that duty includes efforts to control any federal investigation. And whether he acknowledges it or not, the special counsel ultimately works under the president. Again, if one disregards the Constitution and examines just the facts, one reaches that same conclusion; there was no evidence that the president actually “controlled” the investigation. The evidence reveals the opposite. Mueller reports that Trump wanted him removed for a “conflict of interest.” Well, he wasn’t -- he wasn’t even asked. Mueller reports that Trump wanted then Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. Well, he didn’t. And, the president’s response, “I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.”
The third “factual issue” is the only one that could possibly be in the realm of obstruction of justice. But, upon examination of the facts, not Mueller’s characterization of them, there is no there, there. Mueller claims Trump made, “efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.” Mueller’s best proof? Michael Cohen claiming that the President's personal counsel told him to “stay on message” and not contradict the President. Yet, Michael Cohen had plead guilty to lying to Congress and was trying to save himself from a long prison sentence. He lacks any credibility.
In the end, Special Counsel Bob Mueller has done significant damage to the Trump presidency. Because he refused to do what he was appointed to do, he has fueled the fires of impeachment. So, now we’ll spend the next year and half with Democrats beating the drums of impeachment even though the special counsel exonerated the president of committing the crime for which the special counsel was appointed, and the attorney general cleared the president of obstruction of justice. Mueller reports that Trump complained the appointment of the special counsel will end his presidency.
Let’s hope the American people see this for what it is -- a political prosecution, not a legal one.
Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of The Marc Scaringi Show on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
1a)
Despite compiling private allegations of loud and obnoxious Trump behavior, Mueller also concluded that there was not any actionable case of obstruction of justice by the president. It would have been hard in any case to find that Trump obstructed Mueller's investigation of an alleged crime.
One, there was never a crime of collusion. Mueller early on in his endeavors must have realized that truth, but he pressed ahead anyway. It is almost impossible to prove obstruction of nothing.
1a)
MuellerInvestigationWas Driven by Pious
Hypocrisy
By Victor Davis Hanson
Despite compiling private allegations of loud and obnoxious Trump behavior, Mueller also concluded that there was not any actionable case of obstruction of justice by the president. It would have been hard in any case to find that Trump obstructed Mueller's investigation of an alleged crime.
One, there was never a crime of collusion. Mueller early on in his endeavors must have realized that truth, but he pressed ahead anyway. It is almost impossible to prove obstruction of nothing.
Two, Trump cooperated with the investigation. He waived executive privilege. He turned over more than 1 million pages of administrative documents. He allowed then-White House counsel Don McGahn to submit to over 30 hours of questioning by Mueller's lawyers.
Three, anyone targeted by a massive investigation who knows he is innocent of an alleged crime is bound to become frustrated over a seemingly never-ending inquisition.
Trump's reported periodic rages at the Muller investigation are regrettable but not unnatural, given that Mueller expended a huge amount of government resources to confirm what many knew at the outset: that there was never any collusion with the Russian government to warp the 2016 election.
Yet Mueller's team went down every blind alley relating to its investigation -- except where Obama-era officials were likely culpable for relevant unethical or illegal behavior.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were integral to Mueller's investigations. But there is no mention of how the FISA court was deceived by not being told that the chief evidence used to obtain the warrants was an unverified dossier paid for in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Some of the collusion narrative Muller examined was based on FBI informants' unverified stories. Yet strangely, the Mueller team did not investigate whether it was legal in the first place for the FBI, possibly with CIA help, to use informants to spy on a presidential campaign.
Former FBI Director James Comey figures into the Mueller report. But there is no curiosity about whether he broke the law in leaking what may well have been four classified memos of private presidential conversations to the press for the purpose of forcing an appointment of a special counsel.
The Christopher Steele dossier likewise makes an appearance in the Mueller report. But for a team investigating the alleged collusion of foreigners in a U.S. election, there is silence about the salient fact that Steele, a foreign national, enlisted other foreign nationals to dig up dirt on Trump to weaken his election chances -- with part of the funding for this research provided by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
What bothers many Americans about the collusion hoax is the accompanying sanctimony of the so-called investigators. The Mueller team could have helped itself had it just noted that much of the evidence it looked at was a product of Obama-era officials' unethical or illegal behavior.
Comey wrote a memoir, "A Higher Loyalty." Its eponymous themes are Comey's own ethics and principles. But Comey may well have misled the FISA court and possibly lied under oath to a House committee. He was not candid with federal investigators and leaked confidential and classified government memos.
Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe also wrote a memoir, "The Threat." Its argument is that FBI kingpins such as McCabe protect America from dangers such as Donald Trump. But McCabe himself is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators. His sworn congressional testimony cannot be reconciled with Comey's. McCabe also likely misled the FISA court. And he apparently contemplated staging a near-coup to remove an elected president through the deliberate misuse of the 25th Amendment.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is a paid analyst for MSNBC who often railed about Trump's "treason" and predicted his indictment. Yet Brennan himself has lied under oath to Congress on two occasions. He likely misled Congress about his role in trafficking in the Steele dossiers. And Brennan's CIA may well have helped the FBI use informants abroad to entrap Trump campaign aides in efforts to find dirt on Trump.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a CNN analyst who often predicted that a supposedly treasonous Trump would be indicted. Clapper, too, has lied to Congress under oath. He once denied and then admitted to leaking confidential documents.
The problem with the Muller investigation, and with former intelligence officials such as Brennan, Clapper, Comey and McCabe, is pious hypocrisy. Those who have lectured America on Trump's unproven crimes have written books and appeared on TV to publicize their own superior virtue. Yet they themselves have engaged in all sorts of unethical and illegal behavior.
The only mystery left is whether our elite investigators actually believe their own delusions. Or were they constantly broadcasting their virtue as a preventive defense against growing evidence of their own moral lapses?
(C) 2019 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
No comments:
Post a Comment