Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

After watching U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it’s clear that the Democrats aren’t interested in investigating their claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. For that matter, it’s apparent that they aren’t that interested in finding out whether President Trump obstructed justice. Finally, it’s apparent that their goal is to attempt to play a game of gotcha.

Tuesday afternoon, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden got into a testy exchange with Attorney General Sessions. Saying that Gen. Sessions got upset is understatement. The exchange started with Sen. Wyden saying “The question is that Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and that he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?” Sessions replied “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Sen. Wyden. There are none. I can tell you tell that for absolute certainty.”

The Democrats can’t pretend anymore that President Trump colluded with Russia to defeat HRC. With Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley shooting down the Democrats’ obstruction of justice arguments, there’s nothing much left but rubble of that argument, either.

After Comey’s testimony last Thursday, he exited looking like a pathetic wimp. After Tuesday’s testimony, it’s clear that this is mostly just a show produced by the Democrats. With people getting tired of the pure partisan politics played by the Democrats, they can’t afford to play this game much longer. If they do, the Democrats will hurt themselves for 2018.

It’s clear that this investigation is mostly rubbish from the Democrats. People were initially drawn to the claims like a moth to a flame. Now that we’ve had 2 witnesses, one pathetic (Comey), the other impressive (Sessions), people are questioning the validity of the collusion/obstruction of justice scandal.

Technorati: , , , ,

After reading Clarice Feldman’s article, it’s clear she’s on the right track. Anyone that Mueller asks to testify should immediately demand to know what the underlying crime is that Mueller is investigating. If Mueller refuses to tell them that basic information, that person should immediately assert their Fifth Amendment rights.

Further, that person’s attorney should tell Mueller that this pattern will continue until Mueller states publicly what the underlying crime is. That attorney should make this statement publicly, preferably on TV. That way, Mueller will be put on the spot. If Mueller doesn’t state what crime he’s investigating, then the people will know that he’s conducting a fishing expedition. The minute that’s exposed, he and Jim Comey become laughingstocks.

At that point, they’ll also turn into discredited DC political operatives.

Why shouldn’t they be exposed? Comey and Mueller aren’t patriots. They’re political hacks. They haven’t earned and maintained that reputation. They might’ve been patriots at one point but they don’t fit that description anymore. It’s time they’re put to rest.

Technorati: , , , ,

Friday night on Almanac, they opened their show with a panel of Kathryn Pearson, Larry Jacobs and David Schultz talking about the Comey hearing. Toward the end of the panel, one of the panelists (I can’t remember which) said that, as a result of the hearing, the investigation would focus on the obstruction of justice charges Democrats are pressing against President Trump. Apparently, the panelists weren’t listening during the hearing because the star witness, Jim Comey, said the President didn’t commit obstruction of justice.

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz was paying attention during the hearing. In fact, he’s been saying for months that a president can’t obstruct justice if he’s exercising his constitutional authority, which is what he was doing. Dershowitz told FNC’s Neil Cavuto that President Trump would’ve been within his authority to outright end the investigation by telling Comey not to investigate Michael Flynn or by pardoning Flynn.

It’s time to shut down the House and Senate’s investigations because there’s no there there. Apparently, Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz just want to be faithful Democrats prolonging a fishing expedition as part of the Democrats’ Resistance movement. That doesn’t do anything to fix Obamacare or get the economy running again.

It isn’t just Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz that want to prolong the fishing expedition. Sen. Jack Reed, (D-RI), wants to prolong it, too:

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., however, told “Fox News Sunday” that cutting the collusion probes short would not be appropriate. “We have a separate obligation,” said Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Serves Committee and an “ex officio” member of the intelligence committee which heard testimony from Comey.

A separate obligation for what, Sen. Reed? It’s one thing if you had proof. It’s another when this ‘investigation’ looks more like a fishing expedition. You don’t have a separate obligation to conduct hyper-partisan fishing expeditions while ignoring the health care crisis.

I’m tired of the Democrats constantly being the obstructionist party that never proposes solutions to the biggest crises of the day. It’s impossible to get things done when the Democrats operate in bad faith.

As for Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz, it’s pretty obvious that they’re Democratic Party hacks.

According to Jim Comey’s testimony, Comey said “I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey said. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was there and whether that’s an offense.”

That investigation shouldn’t last long. There’s nothing for Trump to obstruct. Just because CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin breathlessly insists that Trump obstructed justice doesn’t make it so. Toobin said, in a heated debate with Prof. Dershowitz, that Watergate established the standard for obstructing justice. Apparently, Toobin can’t read a statute. Greg Jarrett, in this article, proved that he care. In this article, Jarrett said “The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act ‘corruptly.’ The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.”

Further, Nixon obstructed justice in Watergate, which was an investigation into a verified crime: the break-in of the DNC Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. There isn’t a verified crime yet committed in the Russia collusion case. That alone eliminates the possibility of obstruction of justice. This exchange between Sen. Risch and former Director Comey settles that score:

Later in his article, Jarrett explains what obstruction of justice is:

The president’s statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a “request,” though Comey insists he understood it to be.  But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a “corrupt” act that accompanies the directive.

For example, if the president had said, “Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely… or I will fire you.” That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements –a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened.

That doesn’t mean Mueller will wrap up the investigation quickly. That isn’t what special prosecutors usually do. Still, barring additional proof of corruption, I’m confident of saying there is no obstruction of justice here.

Today’s biggest loser in the Comey spectacle was Jim Comey. Comey came across as a spineless wimp at times. He was especially wimpy when a) he didn’t stand up to Loretta Lynch after her meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona and b) he didn’t resign when Lynch told him to characterize the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton as a matter, not an investigation.

Further, Comey admitted that he leaked a memo to a Columbia professor, who then leaked the memo to the NY Times. Besides that, Comey called President Trump a liar. He also admitted that he leaked the memo to the Columbia professor to get a special counsel named against President Trump.

Other than that, Comey had a fine day testifying to the Senate.

Loretta Lynch was yesterday’s other major loser. After her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, it’s clear that she became a recruit for the campaign. She told then-FBI Director Comey to not refer to the Clinton campaign investigation as an investigation. Lynch told him to use the term “matter” instead:

According to this article, Comey leaked his notes to the press through a friend to the press to get an independent counsel named:

Comey, who was fired by Trump on May 9, revealed during his testimony that he had a friend, later identified as Columbia University Law Professor Dan Richman, leak contents of his private memos to the media in hopes of prompting the “appointment of a special counsel.”

Many of DC’s talking heads said Trump took a hit Thursday. While he took a few minor hits, it was Comey and Lynch, especially Comey, who sustained the hardest hits.

God bless Tucker Carlson for calling out Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for saying that he knew that Russians hacked into John Podesta’s email account. During the debate, which lasted a little less than 9 minutes, Tucker asked Schiff about a letter Democrats sent to President Obama.

The letter they sent urgently requested his administration look into whether Russians hacked into Democrats’ email accounts. This is a political stunt because they know the intelligence community can’t complete that type of investigation in a month.

During the interview, Schiff repeatedly said that Russians hacked into Mr. Podesta’s email account. When pressed how he knew that, Schiff said that it was the opinion of intelligence agencies that Russians had hacked Podesta’s emails. That isn’t the same as saying Schiff had verifiable proof that Russians had hacked Podesta’s email account. Without proof, it’s just an opinion.

At another point in the debate, Carlson asked Schiff why the letter didn’t criticize the Obama administration for their lax cyber-security. Schiff said that he’d made some opening statements at committee hearings, as though that’s going to get the public’s attention. That’s a CYA move. If Schiff were truly distraught over Russians hacking into government email accounts, he should have held a press conference on the subject. Either that or he could’ve gone on national TV and made that announcement. The fact that he didn’t indicates that this is just another scam by Democrats. Here’s the video. Judge for yourself whether Schiff is a weasel:

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t a secret that Steny Hoyer is a partisan hack who doesn’t have consistent principles. That’s apparent in Hoyer’s latest statement to the press. Monday morning, Hoyer issued a statement, saying “One of the basic principles that safeguards our democracy is the separation of the personal business interests of our leaders from the government business with which they are entrusted while in office.  That is why I am deeply concerned by reports over the past few days that Donald Trump is continuing to promote his personal business ventures as he prepares to assume the presidency.  Reports of his meeting with Indian business representatives and reports that he used a phone call with Argentinean President Mauricio Macri to lobby on behalf of a Trump-branded building project are, if accurate, unacceptable behavior for the incoming President of the United States.”

Don’t mistake my opinions with defending Donald Trump. I won’t defend the indefensible. Another thing I won’t do is tolerate political hacks that use situational principles. I define situational principles as principles that are used on political opponents but aren’t used on political allies.

I checked Hoyer’s Whip webpage to see if he’d issued any statements criticizing Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Thus far, I haven’t found anything resembling that. This statement, however, complains about the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation. While Hoyer stopped short of defending the Foundation, that didn’t prevent him from launching a blistering political attack against Republicans:

With their barrage of unwarranted attacks through subpoenas and letters, House Republicans are engaged in a blatant and partisan campaign to discredit Secretary Clinton at the expense of American taxpayers and Congressional resources. Investigation after investigation has found no wrongdoing, and Director Comey made clear that there was no criminal activity. House Republicans’ attacks against Secretary Clinton have become an obsession, and they have been dragging the American people along with them on a political witch hunt while ignoring critical challenges that ought to be the focus of Congress’s attention instead.

Apparently, the American people thought the Clinton’s pay-to-play disturbing. First, every poll released in the final month noted that the American people didn’t trust Mrs. Clinton. Next, I think it’s interesting that Hoyer thinks investigating the Clinton Foundation’s self-enrichment plan isn’t using Mrs. Clinton’s official governmental responsibilities for personal enrichment.

Clearly, donors thought that donations to the Clinton Foundation bought them additional access to Mrs. Clinton. That’s what this article indicates:

Foundation officials delayed release of the quarterly report of its latest donors on its website until the after the Nov. 8 presidential election, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to Republican rival Donald Trump.

The low number of new donors may indicate potential contributors were frightened away by repeated news reports that the Clinton charity is under FBI investigation regarding multiple allegations of “pay-to-play” influence-peddling schemes involving both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, as well as their key political aides.

The thing that this election taught us is that people are tired of DC insiders being hypocrites. I suspect that people think of Hoyer as being a classic DC hypocrite. This video is proof of that:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This NY Times editorial highlights why the NY Times editorial page isn’t taken seriously anymore. For instance, they wrote “Mr. Sessions has been the Senate’s most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump’s chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants.”

The horror of that. Sen. Sessions actually thinks that laws should be enforced. What that quote shows is that the NY Times noticed that the Obama administration didn’t enforce this nation’s immigration laws. It’s long past time to enforce the laws already on the books. Further, why wouldn’t Sen. Sessions enlist the help of local law enforcement?

As for the NY Times’ statement that Sen. Sessions “endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants”, the reality is that he supports stopping the refugee resettlement program. Sessions’ thinking is that it isn’t smart letting in people whose identity can’t be verified from nations with problems with terrorism.

What’s frightening is that the NY Times apparently thinks that enforcing the laws on the books and protecting this nation’s citizens against potential terrorist attacks.

Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.

Why shouldn’t the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play practices be investigated? Based on what WikiLeaks exposed, there’s certainly justification for investigating the Clintons. Shouldn’t the Clintons live by the same rules as everyone else?

We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’ views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.

I guess this means the NY Times isn’t undecided on Sen. Sessions. While that isn’t surprising, it is disappointing.

This article reminded me of something I’d hoped I’d forgotten forever. The article reminded me that the Clintons are the original Alinskyite administration. Seriously, long before Tony Rezko had corrupted the Obamas, the Clintons were painting their political opponents as political boogeymen.

Newt Gingrich was the Clinton’s first boogeyman. Dick Armey was the Clintons next boogeyman. Tom DeLay was the final boogeyman of Bill Clinton’s administration. They taught the Democratic Party how to paint conservatives as boogeymen. During the Obama administration, Democrats painted ALEC, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, the TEA Party and, most importantly, the Koch Brothers as political boogeymen.

Before she’s even been elected, Mrs. Clinton is attempting to paint FBI Director Jim Comey as the latest boogeyman. That’s the Clinton’s habit. The Clintons understand that they’re seen as sleazy people. That doesn’t bother them a bit because they’re comfortable with rolling around in the mud. That’s who they are. That’s who they associate themselves with.

In the 1990s, after President Clinton got caught with his pants down, literally, Hillary dispatched Jim Carville to intimidate Paula Jones. Carville’s now-infamous line was “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

Trey Gowdy, quite possibly the sharpest person in Congress, isn’t buying into Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to tarnish Dir. Comey’s reputation:

Here’s part of what Rep. Gowdy said in response to the Clinton campaign’s attempt to paint Dir. Comey as the villain:

GOWDY: Yeah, that’s an old trick, Bret. Blame the cops. If you’re being investigated, you blame the cops. Jim Comey is not responsible for a single one of the facts at hand. He didn’t tell her to use a private server. He didn’t tell Huma not to turn over all of her devices. And God knows he didn’t tell Anthony Wiener to allegedly send sexually explicit texts to allegedly underage people so Comey’s not responsible for any of this. The timing is a direct and natural consequence of decisions that Hillary Clinton made. So I get that Podesta is upset. Bret, remember that he didn’t even know about the email situation and then he thought that it had been taken care of by Cheryl Mills and Patrick Kennedy so I get that he’s frustrated. He’s just frustrated at the wrong person.

Mrs. Clinton established the home-brew server to hide emails from FOIA requests. If Mrs. Clinton hadn’t insisted on hiding public information from the public, none of this would have become an issue. Period. She would’ve coasted to the White House if not for this email scandal.

It’s a given that the Clintons will use Alinsky’s tactics to push their way through their scandals. Their habit is to make things about the boogeymen they’ve created, not the boogeymen they are.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights what happens when a campaign gets caught with its pants down. Actually, it’s happening because a pervert married to one of the campaign’s top people got caught with his pants down. But I digress.

The truth is that there’s tons of blame to go around in the aftermath of the FBI’s announcement that they’re re-opening their investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal. One staffer was upset with Mrs. Clinton. That anonymous staffer was quoted as saying “I’m livid, actually. This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.”

How do you say no to a mean-spirited, manipulative, corrupt bitch intent on hiding information? Good luck with that.

After the FBI news broke on Friday, the campaign seemed resigned to Trump and other Republicans campaigning on the email issue in the final days of the race. “In the short term at least, this does provide Republicans with something they can all hang their hat on, at a time when they’ve been fighting with each other so much — so that can have a salutary effect by shoring up the GOP base and distract from the daily drama around Trump himself,” one longtime Clinton adviser said.

I don’t know who’s sleazier — Wiener or Mrs. Clinton. If that question doesn’t turn your stomach inside out, nothing will.

This is a good place to stop at:

It’s Huma Abedin’s computer. Shouldn’t she know what’s on her laptop? If the Clintonistas are upset, they need only look at each other.