Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

This NYTimes article highlights one of the major differences between a Republican majority in the upcoming House or a Democrat majority.

The article opens by saying “House Democrats will open an investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh if they win control of the House in November, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat in line to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday. Speaking on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote this weekend, Mr. Nadler said that there was evidence that Senate Republicans and the F.B.I. had overseen a ‘whitewash’ investigation of the allegations and that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake. He sidestepped the issue of impeachment. ‘It is not something we are eager to do,’ Mr. Nadler said in an interview. ‘But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.'”

Do we want a congress that’s focused on investigations all the time or on making people’s lives better by getting government out of the way? Put another way, do we want a revenge congress or a prosperity congress? Nadler has cast his vote. He’d prefer a revenge congress. No thanks.

This shows what the Democrats’ priorities are. Their priority isn’t the American people. Their priority is destroying President Trump. That’s because they hate the fact that President Trump is demolishing President Obama’s legacy. The American people don’t mind because there’s more money in their wallets than during the Obama administration.

According to this AP article, the DFL’s investigation (I use that term loosely) into Keith Ellison’s alleged domestic abuse is drawing to a close. What that investigation will find is anyone’s guess.

According to the article, “The longtime Minnesota congressman and Democratic National Committee deputy chairman has called the allegations false and tried to ride out the storm of questions after winning the Aug. 14 primary. But the old sexual assault allegations that have thrown Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination in doubt have renewed focus on Ellison and a six-week old investigation into his conduct that has shown few outward signs of progress.”

Ken Martin, the chairman of the Minnesota DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) party is getting frustrated:

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin said he believes the investigation has concluded and that a final report should be issued in the coming days. “I’m starting to get a little frustrated because it’s been a long time now, almost two months,” he said. “I hope soon. I hope any day here.”

That won’t happen after Karen Monahan’s Twitter rampage last night:


That’s just one of her tweets. Here’s another:


Then there’s this:


Based on this new information, I’m skeptical that the investigation is finished. I suspect this is just getting restarted. If these types of tweets keep coming out, the DFL won’t have a choice but to throw Ellison under the #MeToo bus.

Karin Housley and Jim Newberger are making a point of highlighting Tina Smith’s and Amy Klobuchar’s hypocrisy when it comes to Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

When contacted by the Duluth News Tribune, Sen. Housley said “I believe the Judiciary Committee should hear directly from the accuser so that all the facts can be known by the public. Tina Smith and national Democrats should apply the same standard to Keith Ellison, who has been accused by two victims of horrific accounts of abuse.” The Committee should hear from Judge Kavanaugh after they’ve heard from Dr. Ford. If Dr. Ford decides not to testify Thursday, then the Committee should immediately proceed to a vote on the nomination.

If Dr. Ford thinks that it’s ok to drop this uncorroborated bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh, then walk away from testifying, then it’ll be apparent that she’s afraid that she’ll be exposed as telling whoppers. Dr. Ford’s attorney apparently agrees:

“This hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich wrote. “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor,’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations.”

He added: “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Grandstanding senators would turn the hearing into a circus. I suspect Democrat senators will deploy that strategy if Dr. Ford shows up. Having an experienced sex crimes prosecutor question Dr. Ford would eliminate the circus.

Jim Newberger raised questions about Sen. Klobuchar in a tweet, saying “Where is her call for further action regarding Keith Ellison’s repeated reports of abuse, which are now supported by medical records?”

If anything, this article proves that the Democrats’ calls for an FBI investigation were a political stunt. This article highlights the ‘plight’ of Deborah Ramirez, who supposedly was sexually assaulted by (drum roll please) Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

According to the article, Ramirez “was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”

In the legal profession, that’s like admitting that you’re making this stuff up. “Contained gaps”? “She’d been drinking at the time of the alleged incident”? Let’s pre-emptively tell the feminist left that nobody is under any obligation to believe anything this woman says. Any person, male or female, who admits that they’ve got gaps in their memory of something that happened in the 1980s because they were drinking heavily at the time has credibility difficulties.

There’s nothing in the article that’s credible. Check this out:

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

Translation: After Democrats prevailed upon her to step forward, Ramirez said yes.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski is one of my favorite state legislators in Minnesota because he’s a straight shooter and an honest man. In contrast, Ilhan Omar is my least favorite state legislator because she’s dishonest and she apparently thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. I’m basing my opinion on information contained in this article.

According to the article, “After learning that State Representative Ilhan Omar accepted payments from MNSCU campuses last year – a violation of Minnesota House rules – State Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) is calling on Omar to return the thousands of dollars she received. ‘It’s clear to me that Representative Omar abused the power of her office and her committee assignment for personal financial gain, which is truly disappointing,’ Drazkowski said. ‘Despite being fully aware that accepting these payments violated the rules of the Minnesota House, she not only kept the money but failed to disclose it for as long as she could to avoid an ethics hearing and an endorsement headache.'”

The article also says “Minnesota House Rule 9.20, Acceptance of an Honorarium by a Member: A member must not accept an honorarium for a service performed for an individual or organization that has a direct interest in the business of the House, including, but not limited to, a registered lobbyist or an organization a lobbyist represents.” There’s no excuse for Ms. Omar’s behavior because “every newly-elected member attends an orientation where non-partisan House research staff explains potential conflicts of interest to incoming lawmakers, including gifts, travel and lodging, and honoraria.” Plus “Rep. Omar voted to adopt the Permanent Rules of the Minnesota House – which includes Rule 9.20 – on February 16, 2017, 12 days before her first paid MNSCU speaking engagement.”

Rep. Omar is a violations machine. Check out this video:

Scott Johnson has done the digging into Ms. Omar’s marital difficulties. He explains what he found in this article:

I originally checked out the SomaliSpot story online through the Minnesota Official Marriage System. Inputting Omar’s name, I found that the two marriages cited in the discussion board post checked out as indicated. The site reflected Omar’s 2002 marriage to her advertised husband, Ahmed Aden (later Ahmed Hirsi), and her 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (identified in the SomaliSpot post as Omar’s brother). A few days after the primary, I submitted written questions to representatives of the Omar campaign, citing the SomaliSpot post, and asking whether Omar’s second marriage had been entered into with her brother for dishonest purposes.

Predictably, Omar deflected the questions Scott Johnson had to an attorney:

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have been contacted by the Ilhan Omar campaign. Their response to your email from this morning is as follows:

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it. Ilhan Omar’s campaign sees your superfluous contentions as one more in a series of attempts to discredit her candidacy. Ilhan Omar’s campaign will not be distracted by negative forces and will continue to focus its energy on creating positive engagement with community members to make the district and state more prosperous and equitable for everyone.”

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please direct them to me in writing so we have a record of any further communications.

Sincerely,

Jean Brandl

Apparently, Rep. Omar is a complaint factory:

  • On May 17, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $1,000 due to the late filing of her 24-hour notice reports.
  • On November 30, 2017, Rep. Omar was fined $150 due to the late filing of her campaign finance report. That 2016 report listed a non-campaign disbursement in the amount of $2,250 in legal fees to the Kjellberg Law Office, which specializes in divorce law, and is listed as her representative during her 2017 divorce case. It also noted that she paid her now current husband $3,100 for unspecified campaign services.
  • On June 20, 2018, Rep. Omar was fined the maximum $1,100 due to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest.

There’s more:

“Representative Omar’s willingness to accept money from institutions that are dependent on her committee and her vote for their funding is the textbook definition of unethical,” Drazkowski said. “Because of her decision to withhold disclosing this information until after the Legislature adjourned sine die, we are unable to formally file ethics charges against her.”

Drazkowski said Omar must return the MNSCU payments, and he said that she may not use campaign funds to make the repayment. “If the ethics committee were to find Representative Omar in violation of House Rule 9.20, and I have no doubt that it would, the end result would be a demand for her to return the payments,” Drazkowski said. “With that in mind, Representative Omar needs to return these payments to the MNSCU campuses immediately.”

For all of Omar’s complaints about being the victim of Islamophobia, etc., the truth is that she’s just a typical unethical politician who thinks that the rules don’t apply to her. There’s nothing Islamophobic about that. That’s just a long-held belief that people in positions of authority shouldn’t extort money from the people they regulate.

In this op-ed, Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz poses a pretty potent what if that liberals should think twice about.

First, he wrote “the New York Times has reported that, according to three sources, special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to stitch together an obstruction of justice case against President Trump based on his public tweets, TV appearances, conversations with public officials and other entirely lawful acts.” Next, he wrote “Just imagine a prosecutor going through all of your tweets, all of your conversations, all of your actions and all of your emails in search of a plausible theory of criminality based on an accordion-like statute such as obstruction of justice. If Mueller manages to cobble together an obstruction of justice case from innocent communications, then this dangerous precedent will lie around like a loaded gun ready to be used by any vindictive prosecutors against any plausible target. That target could be you or someone you love. It could be a Democrat or a Republican. It could be a liberal or a conservative.”

People keep saying that “we don’t know what Mueller has.” Technically, that’s true. It’s also misleading. The truth is that Mueller would already be writing the report if he had something damning against President Trump. He wouldn’t be expanding the fishing expedition into President Trump’s public comments and tweets if he had the goods.

Dershowitz has been consistent talking about civil rights:

Defenders of Mueller will surely argue that it is common for prosecutors to stitch together innocent conduct to manufacture a crime, especially when the target is a suspected drug dealer, a terrorist or gangster. Tragically they are right. There are such cases, but there shouldn’t be. Many wrongs do not make a right.

Moreover, in those cases, the underlying conduct is generally done in secret. Here, Mueller apparently is trying to turn public, open communications — core First Amendment expression — into a crime.

The time has come — indeed, it is long overdue – for all Americans to take a hard look at broad, ambiguous and open-ended statutes, which empower prosecutors to be “creative.” There is a concept in criminal law known as lenity: If there are numerous ways of interpreting a statute, the law requires that it be interpreted in the most reasonably narrow way, so as to avoid empowering prosecutors to target unpopular defendants. Failing to apply this concept to constitutionally protected tweets, messages, emails, etc., should concern every civil libertarian, even those who are anxious to find legal weapons with which to target President Trump.

JFK once famously said that if the laws don’t protect everybody, they don’t protect anybody. We should never forget that statement because truer words were never spoken.

Kim Strassel’s column this week take a bright sharpie and highlight John Brennan’s ulterior motives in spreading the Trump-Russia collusion storyline. Before getting into that, it’s important to highlight the fact that the FBI was politicized. Strassel did that early in her article.

That’s where she wrote “The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week, it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as ‘horrible’ and ‘disgusting.’ This week, it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.”

John Solomon’s article casts serious doubt on Strzok’s credibility. That’s because he wrote “For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read. That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. ‘There’s no big there there,’ Strzok texted.” Considering the fact that Agent Strzok hates President Trump, it’s safe to say that there really isn’t much to the Mueller ‘investigation’.

I wrote here that calling Mueller’s endeavor an investigation is a stretch because it’s glaringly apparent that he hasn’t found anything against President Trump. If he had, he would’ve written the report and handed it to Congress so they could start pushing impeachment without hesitation.

That points us back to Mr. Brennan:

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

Earlier this week, Mr. Brennan emphatically said that President Trump’s statements at the Helsinki Summit rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” before saying that he considered President Trump’s words treasonous.

In this video, Alan Dershowitz emphatically stated that “You can’t just throw the term treason around”:

Apparently, Mr. Brennan hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

Let’s be clear about the Mueller ‘investigation’. I’m with President Trump when he says that it’s a witch hunt. (Personally, I prefer calling it a fishing expedition but I’m ok with a witch hunt.) Day after day, we hear that Mueller is squeezing Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen or Gen. Flynn. I’m not a lawyer but I’m thinking that this proves that Mueller doesn’t have anything on President Trump. If you have the goods on President Trump, why wouldn’t he put that proof into the report and turn it over to the Congress?

After all, there won’t be an indictment of President Trump while he’s in office. The Constitution is quite clear on that. They saw the mischief that a political opponent might cause by charging a sitting president with trumped up accusations. That president would then be distracted from his official duties because he’d be defending himself against deceitful criminal accusations. But I digress.

The truth is that Mueller doesn’t have anything because he’d want to get the dirt to Congress so Republicans would either be forced to impeach a sitting Republican president or pay a political price this November if they did nothing. Further, it isn’t believable to think that Mueller wouldn’t want to extract revenge for President Trump’s firing of his friend Jim Comey. It simply isn’t believable to think that Mueller doesn’t want a great historical legacy. What better way to gain a legacy than by getting a president impeached and convicted?

I get it that some Republicans are saying that Mueller should be given the time:

Then again, Mueller’s had time. He’s had tons of time to investigate. Biased people who hate President Trump have said that there’s no there there in this case. In the interview, it’s mentioned that the Benghazi investigation took 2+ years.

That’s entirely different because Hillary tried hiding everything from investigators. She was the opposite of transparent. With President Trump, he turned over all requested documents virtually immediately. How are the Mueller investigation and the Benghazi investigation remotely similar? That’s like arguing that a kayak race and a speed boat race are the same because they’re both races and they’re both watercraft.

It’s time to wrap this up even if it requires listening to Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell whine about obstruction of justice and collusion for the next 6 months.

Most headlines about today’s joint hearing will focus on the firefights between Peter Strzok and Republicans. The goal thus far is to portray Republicans as either pawns of Russian President Putin or as bitter partisans who are just upset that Hillary isn’t wearing prison uniform. Either that or they’ll be portrayed as hyper-partisan hatemongers who just don’t understand the context surrounding his texts with Lisa Page.

That’s how the MSM is portraying today’s hearing. The truth, however, is that buried within the intramural catfights are major helpings of important substance that demolish Agent Strzok’s credibility. One such interlude is John Ratcliffe’s interrogation of Agent Strzok:

Ratcliffe sets Strzok up, saying “On page 400 of the Inspector General’s report, someone tells the Inspector General quote — there is a line — a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. Who said that?”

Agent Strzok replied “I believe I said that.” Here’s the rest of that exchange:

Rep. Ratcliffe: You did say that. I heard you say similar things last week and I heard you say similar things today. You said it very clearly today. You said it very clearly, very unequivocally in your opening remarks. You said that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years. Earlier today in response to a question, you said “I took my personal belief out of every official act.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like “f— Trump” and “Stop Trump” and “Impeach Trump”, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you say those things, you never crossed that line and that bright, inviolable line and allowed that to impact your official judgment. That’s what this really comes down to. You said that “I took my personal belief out of every official action.” So you’re asking us to believe that when you say things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, that those are just personal beliefs and that when you said those things, you never crossed that line, that bright, inviolable line and allow it to impact your official conduct. That’s really what this comes down to that you’re asking to believe, isn’t it?
AGENT STRZOK: Sir, what I’m asking you believe is that I’m offering you evidence…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Listen, you’ve been absolutely clear under oath, as clear as a bell on it. You’ve said it over and over again and because of this, I’m almost embarrassed to ask you this question. Of the approximately 50,000 text messages that I’ve seen with your personal beliefs with things like ‘F— Trump’ and ‘Stop Trump’ and ‘Impeach Trump’, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of those were done on an official FBI device or on official FBI time. Go ahead and do that.
AGENT STRZOK: Sir. No sir, some of them did…
REP. RATCLIFFE: Oh they did? So what you really meant to say when you said that you’d never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say is ‘Except for the hundreds of times a day when I went back and forth expressing my personal opinions about ‘F—ing Trump’ and ‘stopping Trump’ and ‘impeaching Trump’ on official FBI phones and official FBI time, other than that, you never crossed that line.

This is how you interrogate a rogue FBI agent. For all his hours or moral preening and saying all the right words, Agent Strzok couldn’t avoid the truth that he’d crossed “that bright, inviolable line” hundreds of times.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.