Posts Tagged ‘Special Counsel Robert Mueller’

As the Manafort Jury Deliberates, Let’s Look at the Background of Mueller’s Prosecutors

August 17, 2018

manafort-trial-closing-arguments

Reasonable Doubt – A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

FoxNews.com reports that

The jury in the federal trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended the first day of deliberations Thursday without a verdict, but did ask the judge a series of questions before breaking — a development the defense took as good news.

One source close to the Manafort team told Fox News, “We’re in the game.”

Before court was adjourned in the afternoon, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III announced that jurors would continue their work on Friday morning.

Ellis read aloud a note detailing four questions from the jury, which covered foreign financial accounts, shell companies, the definition of reasonable doubt and other evidence in the case.

Outside court on Thursday, Manafort’s defense attorney, Kevin Downing, called the questions from the jury — especially the one about reasonable doubt — a “good sign.”

“So, overall a very good day for Mr. Manafort,” Downing told reporters.

After a trial spanning nearly three weeks, Manafort, 69, is awaiting a verdict on tax evasion and bank fraud charges. He has been accused of hiding income earned from his Ukrainian political work from the IRS. He’s also accused of fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

A humorous moment occurred earlier Thursday after Ellis excused the jury from the courtroom.

“Mr. Trump, are you here?” the judge asked, eliciting an audible gasp from the many reporters in the room.

It turned out the judge was referring to a man named Jim Trump, a prosecutor who was present in court for the next case and has no relation to President Trump. The moment resulted in a smile and a laugh from Manafort.

Before deliberations started, Ellis acknowledged that the jury room is small. He offered to let the jurors use his conference room to deliberate instead. The jury, though, informed the judge that the members would prefer to deliberate in the break room, where they eat lunch. Ellis granted the request.

A unanimous verdict from the 12 jurors is required to convict Manafort on each of the 18 counts against him.

During closing arguments on Wednesday, attorneys for Manafort suggested that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had improperly ensnared their client in his ongoing probe of alleged Russian influence in U.S. politics.

Manafort attorney Richard Westling told jurors that banks had not reported any problems with Manafort to regulators “until the special counsel came and asked questions,” and he accused prosecutors of “stacking” charges against Manafort. And Downing, the other defense attorney, said several times the prosecution should have been handled by an IRS audit, rather than through a high-profile federal prosecution by the special counsel’s office.

Prosecutors said both arguments violated a pretrial agreement not to discuss the larger political context of the case. Later in the day, during jury instructions that lasted well over an hour, Ellis told jurors to ignore the defense team’s suggestion that the Mueller prosecution was politically motivated.

Throughout their closing arguments during the day, defense attorneys claimed prosecutors had produced “not a single bit” of evidence in support of their charges.

On Wednesday, prosecutors used their closing arguments to paint the former Trump campaign chairman as a chronic liar, telling jurors Manafort is “not above the law.”

The prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates – Manafort’s former business partner, who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government — testified that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together.

Manafort’s legal troubles won’t end with this trial. He is also facing charges in a separate federal court case in Washington, including allegations of conspiring against the United States, conspiring to launder money, failing to register as an agent of a foreign principal and providing false statements.

In an article from WRAL.com, they report that Mueller’s prosecutorial team is stay across the street at The Westin Hotel.

Guess whose dime they are staying on?

If you guessed the American Taxpayers’, you are absolutely correct.

Two of the members of the Special Counsel’s team of prosecutors mention in the article are Greg D. Andres and Andrew Weissmann, one of Mueller’s top deputies.

Greg D. Andres attended the University of Chicago Law School, where he graduated in 1995.

He was most recently employed as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Per opensecrets.org, here are the top five political campaigns whom the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families contributed to during the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign Season.

Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $165,612
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $11,150
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $10,600
Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $10,142
Kasich, John (R) Pres $8,350

Andres, 50, also served in the Obama/Holder Department of Justice from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

He was the 16th “investigator” hired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Andrew Weissmann is a veteran government prosecutor known for his work on the Enron task force and for going after mob figures in New York. He is an expert at “flipping” lower level defendants.

Per Heavy.com,

1. Weissmann Served as the FBI’s General Counsel Under Robert Mueller – Before his tenure at the FBI, Weissmann was a partner at Jenner & Block in New York for five years.

2. Weissmann Led the Enron Task Force but Not Without Controversy – Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann’s most touted ‘victories’ for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law. Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

3. Weissmann Donated Money to President Barack Obama – Weissmann is a Barack Obama and Democratic campaign donor, according to federal records. “Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation, previously gave $2,300 to Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008 and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, the same year Democrats won control of Congress.

4. Weissmann Attended Princeton & Columbia Universities & Prosecuted Mafia Crime Families – According to the DOJ press release, Weissmann “began his career with the Department of Justice in 1991 at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, where he served in various leadership positions, including as chief of the Criminal Division. According to Mother Jones, one of the people Weissmann prosecuted had ties to Trump. “As a prosecutor in the Eastern District, Weissmann signed a 1998 cooperation agreement between the US government and Felix Sater, a violent felon and securities trader who had pleaded guilty to financial crimes. Sater went on to become a confidential informant for the FBI and a Trump business partner,” the magazine noted.

5. Some Conservatives Have Noted That Weissmann Was in a Position of Power During the Clinton Uranium Controversy – Some conservatives contend that Mueller has a conflict of interest because they argue the FBI, under his stewardship, should have more thoroughly investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton over a uranium deal known as Uranium One. National Review notes that Andrew Weissmann ran Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section during this time frame.

President Trump has been right all along.

This is nothing more than a Witch Hunt coordinated by a bunch of Democrats to attempt to either evict Trump from the White House or, at least, slow down his wonderful rapid progress on behalf of our Sovereign Nation to a crawl.

Mueller and his entire staff are nothing more than a Democratic Party Lynch Mob, being allowed to run amok and cause chaos in the heart of a Republican Administration.

The very fact that Paul Manafort remains in jail while the Radical Muslims who killed a 3-year old innocent child in New Mexico are out walking the streets is a travesty in itself.

This “Russia Probe” being conducted by a politically biased Special Counsel is nothing more than an extension of the Deep State Operation involving the DOJ and the FBI which began under the Obama Administration, producing a phony FISA Dossier which just like Muller’s lawyers rooms at The Westin Hotel, our tax dollars paid for.

The fact that the jury asked the sort of questions that they did of Judge Ellis is a good sign that they are having serious doubts about the “chain of evidence” presented by Mueller’s team of “Angry Democrats” and the efficacy of their case.

Now…America waits.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

Trump Legal Team Sends Letter to Mueller About Proposed Interview- What’s in It?

August 9, 2018

mueller-conspiracy-600-li

FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump’s legal team said Wednesday they have responded to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s request for an interview with the president as part of the probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

“We have responded in writing to the latest proposal from the Office of Special Counsel regarding its request to interview the President,” said Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president. “It is not appropriate, at this time, to comment publicly about the content of that response.”

Rudy Giuliani, another lawyer for Trump, in a statement reiterated calls to end the Russia probe.

“Millions of pages of documents along with testimony from dozens of witnesses have been provided,” he said. “We’re re-stating what we have been saying for months: it is time for the Office of Special Counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay.”

Sources have told Fox News that the letter would largely turn down any Trump-Mueller meeting that would include any questions related to obstruction of justice.

Earlier Monday, Giuliani would not go into the details of their offer, but he told Fox News: “It’s not a refusal, but at the same time, it’s not a completely unreasonable position. I can see a way in which [Mueller] may agree with it.”

Giuliani acknowledged that Mueller could try to subpoena the president if an agreement for an interview cannot be worked out. The president’s attorneys have repeatedly stated that they will fight any attempt to subpoena Trump.

Talks between Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have restarted in recent days, and it is not clear a deal will be struck.

Trump has publicly expressed a desire to be interviewed, but his lawyers have repeatedly objected to the investigators’ proposals.

Trump attorneys say both sides have exchanged proposals for conditions for such a Trump interview.

Okay. So what was in the letter that the Trump Legal Team sent to Special Counsel Robert Mueller?

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz has an idea…

On “America’s Newsroom,” Dershowitz said that Trump’s lawyers will set a series of conditions that will legally protect the president going forward, which Mueller will not agree to.

“They’re going to make him an offer he can’t accept,” Dershowitz said, arguing that Trump’s team wants Mueller to subpoena the president, which he says will end months from now “in a draw.”

Dershowitz added that Trump won’t be able to be questioned about why he fired former FBI Director James Comey, but could certainly be questioned about the 2016 meeting involving Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower.

“I don’t see a crime, at this point, that Mueller can come up with,” he said. “I don’t think you can obstruct justice by exercising your Article II powers under the Constitution.”

He said that it’s “awfully hard” to show Trump’s testimony is actually needed, saying that Mueller could be attempting to capture Trump in a perjury trap.

If the President and his legal team did follow the course which Professor Dershowitz outlined, they have put Mueller between a rock and a hard place.

All along, Mueller has been itching to get President Trump in front of him, in hopes that somehow, someway, he could get the President to make a mistake and contradict himself, so that Mueller could file a perjury charge against him.

And, as the Professor stated, it is going to be hard to show that Trump’s testimony is actually needed, as absolutely no evidence of criminal activities has reared its ugly head in all these many months of Mueller’s and the “17 Angry Democrats'” Russia Probe.

Collusion in itself is not a crime.

Sales Managers and Salesmen on Use Car Lots “collude” several times every day.

President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “colluded” on the night of that 4 Americans were massacred on the ground of the U.S. Embassy Compound at Benghazi, Libya. They “colluded” to do nothing at all. and later. they and their staff, including Susan Rice, “colluded” and decided to blame it all on a video which no one had ever watched.

Later, failed Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton “colluded” with John Podesta and decided not to appear at her “victory” party, leaving her loyal voters to suffer their tears of anguish alone.

So, if no crimes have been committed, as Professor Dershowitz, who happens to be a Liberal, said, then why in the world are the Special Counsel and his band of Angry Democrats still expanding their scope of investigation…on OUR dime?

Hopefully, within the next week or so, Mueller will realize that his Quixotic Quest to drive President Trump from office has failed and he will submit his findings and bring this whole embarrassing exercise in futility to an ignominious end.

Then, he and his cadre of Democratic Donors can volunteer on the political campaign bandwagon of Bernie Sanders and that little girl from New York who wants everybody taken care of from cradle to grave via “Democratic Socialism”, but has no clue as to where the money will come from.

If they are going to spend money doing something useless, at least they would be spending their own for a change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Trump Tweets About Mueller’s Conflicts of Interest…Why Those are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

July 30, 2018

Trump-Mueller

TheHill.com reports that

President Trump on Sunday renewed his accusations that special counsel Robert Mueller has “conflicts of interest” in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, citing a previous business dispute between the two men.

In a sequence of tweets attacking the special counsel’s credibility, Trump noted that he and Mueller had “a very nasty & contentious business relationship.”

Trump has alleged on multiple occasions via Twitter that Mueller has unspecified conflicts of interest, however, Sunday’s tweet marks the first time he’s elaborated beyond such accusations.

The president seemingly confirmed a New York Times report from January that said Trump attempted to fire Mueller in June 2017 over alleged conflicts of interest.

The Times reported that Trump listed three conflicts he believed should disqualify Mueller: A dispute over fees at Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia, his interview for FBI director before being named special counsel, and Mueller’s previous employment at a law firm that represents Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Trump reportedly backed off his demand after White House counsel Don McGahn refused Trump’s order and threatened to quit.

Multiple reports indicated Trump interviewed Mueller for the vacancy, but it’s unclear if Trump turned him down for the position before he was named special counsel in May 2017.

Trump’s accusations about Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest came amid a string of tweets in which he claimed the special counsel’s team is filled with Democrats.

Trump also falsely claimed Mueller’s probe was sparked by the so-called Steele dossier, and questioned why the special counsel was not investigating Democrats.

The president has attacked Mueller’s investigation with increasing regularity in recent months, frequently decrying it as a “witch hunt” and a “hoax” in an attempt to discredit Mueller and his probe.

So now seventeen members of Mueller’s Investigative Team are Democrat. But, 13…16…17…what’s a few more Democrats in Mueller’s lynch mob, anyway?

Mueller and his cadre of Liberal SS Troops have made it their mission to undermine Trump through the continuance of their Dog and Pony Show, which they euphemistically called “an investigation”.

The more that Mueller and his troops have insisted that they are non-biased, the more information has come forth that they have been and still are holdovers from the Clinton Administration, working as Deep State Operatives to do unto Trump as Brutus did unto Caesar.

They are proving themselves to be nothing but Trump Haters with no actual evidence of any kind that President Trump “colluded” with the Russians.

Several members of Mueller’s Team worked for the same Law Firm, WilmerHale, a huge Donor to the Democratic Party.

Anyone who has ever worked for the Law Firm of WilmerHale has donated to the Democratic Party…including Special Counsel Robert Mueller!

Courtesy of OpenSecrets.org, here is a history of WilmerHale’s Political Donations from 1990-2018.

If you look at the Total Percentage of Political Contributions made by the Law Firm that Robert Mueller and several of his “investigators” worked for, you will notice that over the last 28 years, Wilmer Hale has donated approximately 8.5 million dollars to individual political candidates with 66% of those funds going to Democrats and only 31% going to Republicans.

Now. let’s get down to the number crunching….

Check out WilmerHale’s political donations for the 2016 Election Cycle. They gave $1,484,082 in total contributions. 76% of that total went to Democrats, including I am sure, a sizable chunk to the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton. Only 21% of their Political Donations for the year of 2016 went to Republican Candidates.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a partner at Hale and Dorr LLP, an affiliate of WilmerHale, from 1993-1995. In 1994, that Law Firm gave a Total of $64,525 in Political Donations to Individual Candidates. $40,550 went to Democrats. $23,975 went to Republicans. The percentages broke down to 63% and 37%, respectively.

Robert Mueller was hired at WilmerHale in March of 2014 and stayed there until he was appointed Special Counsel in May of 2017.

That means that he was a contributor through his Law Firm to two Election Cycles, the 2014 Midterm Elections and the 2016 Presidential Election.

For well over one year now, we have been hearing from the Democratic Leadership as to how Special Counsel Mueller’s integrity is above reproach. I do not personally know the man, so I have no first-hand knowledge of whether it is or not.

However, is it just me…or does it appear to be a gross Conflict of Interest for the Special Counsel and several members of his staff, who are conducting an exhaustive, no boundaries investigation searching for possible malfeasance of the part of a sitting Republican President and his staff, to have been members of a Law Firm with a very long and lucrative history of heavy donations to the Democratic Party?

With no evidence of collusion with the Russians on the part of Donald J. Trump having been found and assurances from Mueller that Trump is NOT his target, then what, at this point, is the purpose of the Special Counsel’s Ongoing Investigation?

The only logical conclusion that can be made is that Mueller and his Investigative Team are performing a service not unlike the service that David Axlerod performed for Barack Hussein Obama when he ran for the Senate in Illinois. Mueller and his team are digging up whatever dirt that they can find, using whatever means necessary, including going way out of their jurisdiction, is order to damage and possibly end the Presidency of Donald J. Trump.

That being said, it is time for Trump to get a new Attorney General and for that Attorney General to pull the plug out of the wall from Special Counsel Mueller’s Money Machine.

And, after that, how about some actual investigating of all of the corruption that went on during the Obama Presidency such as The Clinton Foundation’s Pay-For-Play Scandal, Huma Abedin’s familial connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, and, of course, the scandal known as Uranium One.

Mueller would not be able to investigate that one because he was heavily involved in it.

After all…he was the “mule”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

11 House Reps Introduce Articles of Impeachment Against Rosenstein – Why It is About Time

July 26, 2018

ap-rod-rosenstein

FoxNews.com reports that

A group of 11 House Republicans introduced five articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Wednesday evening.

The impeachment articles accuse Rosenstein of intentionally withholding documents and information from Congress, failure to comply with congressional subpoenas and abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was not immediately clear whether the House of Representatives would consider the resolution before lawmakers begin the August recess Thursday afternoon. The House will reconvene Sept. 4.

The resolution states it will be “referred to the Committee,” meaning the Judiciary Committee, for further review. That language suggests the full House will not immediately consider the articles of impeachment.

The articles were introduced by Reps. Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman and a prominent member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

In one article of impeachment, Rosenstein is accused of improperly signing off on the FISA surveillance warrant application against ex-Trump aide Carter Page.

…The application heavily relied on the infamous Steele Dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC and contained unverified, salacious allegations against Trump.

“Under Mr. Rosenstein’s supervision, the Department of Justice and FBI intentionally obfuscated the fact the dossier was originally a political opposition research document before the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court],” the articles of impeachment state.

They continue: “As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein has failed in his responsibility for the proper authorization of searches under FISA, and his conduct related to the surveillance of American citizens working on the Trump campaign has permanently undermined both public and congressional confidence in significant counterintelligence program processes.”

The documents also charge that Rosenstein has an impermissible conflict of interest.

“His conduct in authorizing the FISA surveillance at issue in the joint congressional investigation makes him a fact witness central to the ongoing investigation of potential FISA abuse,” the articles state. “Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s failure to recuse himself in light of this inherent conflict of interest and failure to recommend the appointment of a second Special Counsel constitute dereliction of duty.”

Rosenstein named Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the Trump-Russia probe after Rosenstein’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation because of Sessions’ own role in the Trump campaign.

Gentle readers, do you remember last month when Rosenstein appeared before the House Judiciary Committee?

CNSNews.com reported at the time that

In response to two specific questions–did the Department of Justice or the FBI spy on the Trump campaign, and did anyone in the Obama administration direct confidential informants to make contact with the campaign–Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday he was “not permitted to discuss any classified information.”

“Let me ask you this,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked Rosenstein.

“What did the DOJ or FBI do in terms of collecting information, spying or surveillance on the Trump campaign, be it via (FBI informant) Stefan Halper, or anybody else working on behalf of the agencies?” DeSantis asked Rosenstein.

“As you know, Congressman, I’m not permitted to discuss any classified information in an open setting, but I can assure you, we’re working with oversight committees and we’re producing all relevant evidence to allow them to answer this question,” Rosenstein replied.

DeSantis again: “Let me ask you this then: Did the Obama administration, anybody in the administration, direct anybody — Halper or anybody else — to make contact with anyone associated with the Trump campaign?

“As I said Congressman, I appreciate, obviously, the — I understand your interest, but I’m not permitted to discuss classified information,” Rosenstein said again.

“Well, we want the documents, and I know we’re in a back and forth on that,” DeSantis said. “But the American people need to know, were the counterintelligence powers of the Obama administration unleashed against Trump’s campaign — if that was done, was it done inappropriate?”

The smugness of Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice Rod Rosenstein in answering the Committee’s questions did not go unnoticed by the Congressional Representatives in attendance and average Americans, who were watching the proceedings at home.

As a matter of fact, those Representatives who drew up those articles of Impeachment and average Americans have a lot in common. We all remain both disgusted and concerned about a Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ acting as if it was beneath him to answer questions which Congress and the American People have a right to know concerning the attempted interference in the 2016 Presidential Election by Deep State Operatives within our own government.

The Hierarchy of the DOJ, like our municipal police organizations around the nation, are supposed to “serve and protect” the citizens of our great country.

Not themselves and the Democratic Party.

The silly games which Rosenstein and the Hierarchy of the FBI and the Special Counsel which he appointed have been playing for the entirety of the Trump Presidency became old, stale, and unappreciated by the American Public a long time ago.

A Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice has repeatedly told members of the House of Representatives that he did not know diddly-squat about the activities of those under him.

If you buy that, I would like to talk to you about purchasing a lifetime membership in the Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Center for Rational Thought.

It is time to begin the process of restoring the System of Checks and Balances to the Three Branches of Government which our Founding Fathers so magnificently created and bequeathed to us.

Certain representatives of the Judicial Branch have decided that they outrank the Legislative and the Executive.

The Founders created all three branches to be servants of the American People.

It’s time to re-introduce Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to a concept personified by a statue, known as “Blind Justice”.

Impeach him.

Until He Comes,

KJ

While Manafort is Still in Jail Awaiting Trial, Mueller Seeks Immunity for Podesta and Other Dem Operatives

July 24, 2018

180103162432-manafort-mueller-split-super-tease

there’s nothing here with Trump and collusion with Russia. There simply isn’t anything there. Now, Manafort did do some stuff. Maybe money laundering, maybe colluding or something with Ukraine, but so did Podesta. Is it feasible that this guy with 16 Obama and Hillary lawyers on his team would be going after a Democrat? Remember, Mueller is, supposedly, a Republican, former FBI director. Remember, untainted, one of the maybe two people in town untainted reputationally by the swamp. – Rush Limbaugh

FoxNews.com reports that

The upcoming federal court trial for President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, will be closely watched for revelations about Trump’s campaign for the White House in 2016.

But it’s also poised to potentially reveal embarrassing information about several Democratic political consultants, including a top adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and others who have worked in lucrative elections both in the United States and abroad, court filings indicate.

Manafort, facing charges of bank and tax fraud related to his work in Ukraine, has pleaded not guilty to the charges. His trial is scheduled to start in Alexandria, Virginia next week.

In a court filing last week by prosecutors detailing possible evidence it could present to the jury, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team listed the names of several well-known Democratic operatives included in the exhibits.

“The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits its list of trial exhibits,” the filing states.

Among those is Tad Devine, the chief strategist for Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign who also worked for Al Gore and John Kerry’s presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Like Manafort, Devine also did work for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The court filing lists Devine 16 times, and lists a variety of documents, including memos, invoices and emails involving both Manafort and Devine.

Devine did not immediately return to a request for comment from Fox News on Monday left with his Democratic media consulting firm Devine, Mulvey and Longbaugh.

Other Democrats listed in Mueller’s court filing are Julian Mulvey, Daniel Rabin and Adam Strasberg.

Mulvey is a partner of Devine’s and worked on the Sanders campaign. Rabin, according to the website for his Democratic consulting firm, has created “television ads have played vital roles in political victories in the US and overseas.” Strasberg is an ad maker who worked for Devine, as well as for the Sanders and Kerry campaigns.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III on Monday agreed to Manafort’s motion to delay the trial, moving the start from this Wednesday to July 31. Mueller’s defense attorney, Kevin Downing, had argued he needed more time to go through tens of thousands of documents.

Ellis also said Monday that he will grant immunity to five of the government’s witnesses.

The case against Manafort stems from Mueller’s Russia probe, but prosecutors have indicated the case against Manafort will not explore Russia’s attempted interference in the 2016 election.

Manafort is also facing charges in a separate federal court case in Washington, including conspiring against the United States, conspiring to launder money, failing to register as an agent of a foreign principal and providing false statements.

But the case has faced skepticism, even from one of the judges. In May, the judge in the Alexandria case harshly rebuked Mueller’s team, suggesting they were more interested in bringing down the president than in Manafort’s past dealings.

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” Ellis told Mueller’s team at the time. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”

Last month, Manafort was jailed after a federal judge revoked his $10 million bail based on new witness tampering charges.

There are more Democrats involved with Russia than just those whom Mueller is seeking to get immunity for.

Back of February 18th of 2017, Forbes.com posted an article titled “No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists” by Paul Roderick Gregory, which makes the keen observation that

Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying. 

That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Giustra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”  Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

Let’s not leave out fugitive Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Fortrash. He is represented by Democratic heavyweight lawyer, Lanny Davis, who accused Trump of “inviting Putin to commit espionage”

That’s still not all: Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) read Kremlin propaganda into the Congressional Record, referring to Ukrainian militia as “repulsive Neo Nazis” in denying Ukrainian forces ManPad weapons. Conyers floor speech was surely a notable success of some Kremlin lobbyist.

Lobbying for Russia is a bi-partisan activity. Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, Gazprombank, is represented by former Sen. John Breaux, (D., La.), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R., Miss.), as main lobbyists on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.” The Breaux-Lott client is currently in the Treasury Department list of Russian firms prohibited from debt financing with U.S. banks.

In his February 16 press conference, President Trump declared in response to the intensifying media drumbeat on his Russian connections: “I haven’t done anything for Russia.” K-Street lobbyists, on the other hand, have done a lot to help Russia. They greased the skids for a strategic deal (that required the Secretary of State’s approval) that multiplied the Kremlin’s command of world uranium supplies. They likely prevented the shipment of strategic weapons needed by Ukraine to repulse well-armed pro-Russian forces. A fugitive billionaire who robbed the Ukrainian people of billions is represented by one of the establishment’s most connected lawyers.

Gazprombank GPB hired Breux and Lott to gain repeal of sanctions. That’s perfectly fine in Washington; they are playing according established “swamp rules” in their tailored suits and fine D.C. restaurants. General Flynn lost his job when the subject of sanctions was mentioned by the Russian ambassador in their telephone conversation, but that’s the way the media and Washington play.

It was reported last week that Mueller was going to offer Podesta immunity.

And now, he is seeking to do the same for all of these other Democrats.

Are you beginning to see a pattern, gentle readers?

All of the Liberal Political Pundits who have been all over Cable and Broadcast News and all of the self-proclaimed trollish little Liberal know-it-alls who crave attention all over Social Media, are oblivious when it comes to the reality of the Mueller Investigation.

Democrat Politicians and their operatives have been wheeling and dealing with Putin and his henchmen for years.

And, if  the hearings concerning Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama’s Uranium One Scandal ever get started, even their seemingly well-planned distraction, known as the Trump-Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, won’t be able to stop the Sword of Damocles from ripping their political and professional futures to shreds.

The Dems are about to figure out that the old adage is true,

If you lay down with dogs, (even Siberian Huskies) you get up with fleas.

Until He Comes,

KJ

After Russian Indictment, McCain and Democrats Try to Give Orders to Trump About Putin Meeting

July 14, 2018

untitled (237)

FoxNews.com reports that

Sen. John McCain said Friday that the U.S.-Russia summit in Helsinki “should not move forward” unless President Trump is willing to hold Russia accountable for political meddling. This, after 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted for allegedly hacking emails from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party in the 2016 election. 

The Republican senator from Arizona released a statement praising the charges, which arose out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the election.  

The 12 members belonging to the Russian Intelligence agency are accused of hacking into emails from the Hillary campaign and her party, and of leaking damaging discussions between top party members.

“Today’s indictment is a result of the hard work of America’s law enforcement and intelligence officials who dedicate their lives to bringing to justice those who wish to do us harm,” McCain, who has been sidelined while battling cancer, said in a statement.

“These revelations add to a body of evidence confirming an extensive plot by Vladimir Putin’s government to attack the 2016 election, sow chaos and dissension among the American electorate, and undermine faith in our democracy.”

McCain has been a vocal critic of Trump, recently calling his visit to the NATO summit in Brussels “disappointing.”

While not expressing outright support for the meeting with Russia, which is to take place on Monday, McCain said Thursday that that summit represented an opportunity for Trump “to demonstrate his willingness to defend America” against its adversaries.

“Putin is not America’s friend. … Putin is America’s enemy,” McCain said.

He doubled down on that sentiment on Friday, urging Trump to hold the Russian president “accountable.”

“President Trump must be willing to confront Putin from a position of strength and demonstrate that there will be a serious price to pay for his ongoing aggression towards the United States and democracies around the world,” the senator said. “If President Trump is not prepared to hold Putin accountable, the summit in Helsinki should not move forward.”

Trump and Putin will meet in their first official standalone meeting on Monday at the Presidential Palace in Finland. The pair have met twice before, on the sidelines of international meetings.

On Friday, several Democratic leaders also weighed in, in some instances urging the president to consider canceling his summit with Putin.

Sen. Mark Warner, top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered Trump an ultimatum for the highly anticipated summit: make Russian interference a priority, or cancel the meeting. 

I know that this has been asked numerous times before, but just whose side is Senator John “Maverick” McCain on, anyway?

Anybody with an IQ above double digits can recognize a politically-inspired indictment such as the toothless one that Mueller and Rosenstein announced yesterday coming from a mile away.

Mueller and his team’s sole purpose for conducting their investigation was supposed to be to prove that there was some sort of Russian Collusion with Republican Candidate Donald J. Trump which influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.

From the get-go, they have been investigating the Trump Campaign trying to find something…ANYTHING…that would prove that Trump snd his Campaign Staffers “colluded” with those “dirty rotten commies”.

Guess what?

Mueller and his “13 angry Democrats” haven’t found Jack, Jack.

So, gentle readers, if you were a Special Counsel who had failed so miserably in your objective and you found some evidence that the Russians, as they have probably been doing in the last several elections, were cyber-snooping on the Clinton Campaign, wouldn’t you wait for the right moment that, in your mind, would be the optimal opportunity  to somehow hurt the person that you couldn’t find squat on?

Just like Admiral James T. Kirk “vexed” Khan in the Star Trek Movie “The Wrath of Khan”, so does President Donald Trump vex Special Counsel Mueller and all of the GOP Elite RINOs like Sen. McCain.

There is a problem with Mueller’s indictment, though: It doesn’t mean a thing.

He may be able to indict those 12 Russians but how is he going to serve them?

How is he going to “bring them to justice”?

Yesterday’s announcement by Mueller and Rosenstein was, as ol’ Willie Shakespeare would say, a bunch of “sound and fury signifying nothing”.

It was announced yesterday to be a distraction and to hurt Trump’s efforts on his Foreign Policy Trip, especially his meeting with Putin.

But, that’s not going to happen.

President Trump does not answer to the Democrats or the RINOs like “Maverick”.

He answers to the average Americans who elected him President.

And, for you members of the Beltway Elite who may not have noticed, we think that he is doing just fine.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Strzok Lies and the Dems Swear to It

July 13, 2018

strzok-fbi-hearing-12-gty-jc-180712_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg

FoxNews.com reports that

FBI official Peter Strzok’s first public hearing tumbled into a rancorous and heated political fracas on Thursday, as Republicans clashed with Democrats as well as the former investigator over his anti-Trump texts — and even threatened contempt for initially refusing to answer questions on the Russia probe.

Strzok, throughout it all, remained defiant and maintained that he did not show bias in those infamous messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Republicans sharply disputed that assessment, with Rep. Darrell Issa later making Strzok read examples of those texts aloud. Among them, Strzok read one message where he called Trump a “disaster,” and another calling him an “idiot.”

The initial contempt threat surfaced after House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., questioned “how many witnesses” Strzok interviewed before an August 2016 text from Strzok to Page stating “we’ll stop” then-candidate Trump from becoming president.

Strzok said he was not able to answer the question based on instructions from FBI counsel. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., rejected Strzok’s claim.

“Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and required to answer the question,” Goodlatte said.

This touched off a heated dispute. Judiciary Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., blasted Goodlatte for putting Strzok in an “impossible position,” while Strzok claimed he was there voluntarily. Goodlatte said Strzok could only consult with his own attorney, not the FBI’s. Several other committee members chimed in, blasting top Republicans on the committee, with Nadler even motioning to adjourn the hearing all together.

Goodlatte, instead, said that at the conclusion of the hearing, Strzok would be subject to “recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

However, hours later after a break in the hearing, Strzok returned to say that he was advised by FBI counsel that he could in fact answer Gowdy’s earlier question.

But after Gowdy asked it again, Strzok replied only: “I don’t recall. I’d have to check the case file.”

“That’s eerily similar to what you said a couple of hours ago. I’m looking for a number,” Gowdy said. “You don’t recall interviews conducted in the first week of an investigation you originated?”

Strzok maintained that he did not remember, which touched off another heated exchange with Gowdy.

It was one of many throughout the hours-long hearing, which began with Strzok asserting that his political opinions were rooted in “deep patriotism.”

All fascists believe that their actions are “rooted in ‘deep patriotism'”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

In order to ensure that no leader of this new nation would go mad with power, and become a tyrannical despot, our Founders set up a System of Checks and Balances, overseen by Three Branches of Government: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with each branch having a distinct and LIMITED role.

The situation, which we as a nation, find ourselves in today, is one which our Founding Fathers sought valiantly to avoid.

Thanks to the Imperious Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, which empowered the Far Left, even after 18 months of the advances made by President Donald J. Trump, America is still suffering under a “Tyranny of the Minority”.

This minority is not based on color, rather, it is one based on political ideology and self-interest.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

What began under the Administration of Former President Barack Hussein Obama is still covertly operating in the Beltway today.

I was watching the proceedings for about an hour or so before I had to go to work yesterday.

I literally had to restrain myself from throwing something at my television whenever Strzok was testifying.

His arrogant smarmy smugness made me want to punch him right in his pie hole.

I have written several posts in the past about the arrogance of those who work up in the Beltway. However, I have never witnessed it so clearly demonstrated “in public if you will” as Dusty Rhodes used to say.

Strzok and the rest of his Deep State Cabal never expected to get caught. They truly believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide and their crimes would never see the light of day.

And, the astonishing thing is, they never viewed themselves as treasonous or as being criminals.

In their egotistical minds they did indeed view themselves as “patriots”. They were saving us “smelly Walmart Shoppers” from the catastrophe (in their minds) of Trump being elected President.

However, as was plainly revealed for all of America to see during yesterday’s hearing, Strzok, representing the Deep State, was not the only arrogantly oblivious person in the room.

All the Democratic members of the Committee were pulling out every distraction and silly Parliamentarian Trick that they could think of in order to disrupt and derail the questioning of Strzok by the Republicans because they knew that Lisa Page’s lover had no legitimate defense for his actions except for the feeble lies which he was delivering so smugly in response.

I don’t know where this ongoing investigation will end up but I do know one thing:

Strok, Page, and all of those Democratic Representatives who were acting like clowns in a circus yesterday need to be held in contempt…not just of Congress, but of us average “smelly Walmart shopping” Americans as well.

Oh, and to Representative Steve Cohen, who said that Strzok deserved the Medal of Honor for yesterday’s performance…

Man, you’ve got to give up the weed. That stuff has got you seriously trippin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Lisa Page to Ignore Congressional Subpoena, Refuses to Testify

July 11, 2018

thCU1F9S9Z

FoxNews.com reports that

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page will not appear for a private interview with two House committees despite being subpoenaed, her attorney told Fox News Tuesday.

In a statement, Amy Jeffress said her client did not have enough time to prepare and had asked the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees to schedule another date.

“The Committees have not honored this request,” Jeffress said. “As a result, Lisa is not going to appear for an interview at this time.”

The committees did not immediately respond.

Jeffress added that the FBI had not given her and Page the necessary materials to prepare for her hearing.

Page originally was scheduled to appear before both committees Wednesday as part of their investigation into alleged bias at the Justice Department. She and FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is set to testify publicly before the committees Thursday, exchanged disparaging text messages about then-candidate Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign.

Page and Strzok both worked on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and, later, special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Both were removed from the Mueller probe last year after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog made the special counsel aware of the anti-Trump messages.

So, what are the consequences for ignoring a Congressional subpoena?

According to lawandcrime.com,

2 U.S. Code § 192 provides, in part:

“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before … any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

As you can see, failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena can lead to some serious consequences.

So, now let’s go into further detail about the process that may ultimately lead to the above referenced consequences.

After a witness ignores a subpoena and fails to appear, the committee rules generally require a majority vote of the full committee authorizing a resolution of noncompliance to be reported to the entire House of Representatives. After the matter is reported to the full House, a floor vote is taken to determine whether a resolution of contempt may be issued against the offending individual. It takes a majority vote in the House to approve a resolution of contempt.

Once the resolution of contempt passes the full House, Congress technically has two options to pick from in deciding how to proceed with the case.

First, the House may instruct its sergeant-at-arms to arrest the individual and bring them before the House presiding officer (usually the Speaker of the House). The individual could be held in the Capitol jail, but this practice has not been used for more than 80-years.

The second, and more practical option, is for the Speaker to refer the matter to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for criminal contempt proceedings. The law then requires the U.S. Attorney to empanel a grand jury to consider indictments for criminal contempt.

The problem that the House Committees are facing in their investigation of “SpyGate” is that fact that it is so intricate.

As I have written before, this Deep State Operation is like a gigantic spider web, with a single strand leading back to its weaver. And, in this case, I believe that “spider” to be none other than Former President Barack Hussein Obama.

The very fact that the fired FBI Lovers, Strzok and Page, were on Mueller’s Probe Team at all demonstrates that it is nothing more that a political scam, designed to circumvent the will of the American people.

From the start, Spygate has been a plan designed to knock Republican Candidate Donald J. Trump out of the Presidential Campaign and later, The White House, by any means necessary.

A lot of people belonging to the hierarchy of the DOJ and FBI have been a part of it.

The reason that Lisa Page is not testifying today is not just that her lawyer has told her not to, in order to avoid self-incrimination. I am quite certain that someone from that hierarchy that I just mentioned warned her not to.

Page and her lover, Peter Strzok, know “where the bodies are buried” and those who have participated and who continue to participate in this plot against the 45th President are afraid that one or both of the lovers will name names.

It is past time for Mueller to come forward with whatever he has on the President so that this mockery can come to an end, allowing Trump to continue to do what the American people elected him to do.

And, as far at Ms. Page goes, fine her and then lock her up.

And, while you’re at it, House of Representatives, lock the rest of her co-conspirators up , too.

Obama and Hillary would look great frog-marching in orange jumpsuits.

Until He Comes,

KJ

With IG Report #2 On The Way, It’s Time For Mueller To “Put Up or Shut Up”

June 16, 2018

 

bad-cops-600a-ci

LMTOnline.com reports that

…The clamor over the watchdog’s findings was the latest turn in the GOP’s increasingly hostile and preemptive offensive against Mueller’s expected report on the president’s conduct. And the furor is almost tailor-made for Trump, who throughout his career has clutched onto small details and controversy as weapons he uses to define his enemies and erode trust in institutions.

Particularly notable, from the perspective of Trump’s allies, was the searing criticism in the report reserved for the conduct of one of Trump’s most high-profile critics, former FBI director James Comey, as well as the revelation that lead FBI agent Peter Strzok had shown anti-Trump bias. “We’ll stop it,” Strzok wrote in a text message, referring to Trump’s presidential campaign.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the report “reaffirmed the president’s suspicions about Comey’s conduct and about the political bias of some members of the FBI.”

On Capitol Hill, there was an outcry. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump ally, said on Thursday he would support a new federal probe of Mueller’s special counsel investigation. “You’re going to need independent eyes,” he told reporters.

Democrats, as they have for months, sought to defend the sanctity of the special counsel’s inquiry. They said Mueller’s mission should not be attacked because FBI agents behaved inappropriately.

“None of this reflects on the special counsel’s work,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, Calif., ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee.

Republicans, however, sought to use the report to tarnish investigators.

Since the Strzok text message had not been previously disclosed to Congress, a number of Republicans immediately asked whether the Justice Department had purposefully hidden that missive from them.

Republican Reps. Andy Biggs, Ariz., Matt Gaetz, Fla., Ron DeSantis, Fla., – all Trump supporters – sent the Justice Department a letter Thursday demanding that the inspector general turn over all previous reports to see if “people may have changed the report in a way that obfuscates your findings.”

So, what is the “mission of the Special Counsel and his “13 angry Democrats”, Rep. Schiff?

Wasn’t the Russia Probe formed to find evidence of Russian interference on behalf of the Trump Campaign in the 2016 Presidential Election?

Well, the House Investigative Committee has already ruled that there was no collusion.

And, Special Counsel Mueller has stated that President Trump is not a target in the investigation.

So, what is the purpose of the Special Council and his Lynch Mob’s continued existence?

Is it to find something…ANYTHING…with which to impeach the 45th President of the United States of America…simply because Americans in “Flyover Country” elected him as President instead of “The Chosen One II”, Hillary Clinton?

Or, is the purpose of the Investigation simply to provide enough interference so that Trump cannot fulfill his Campaign Promises and will be seen as a failed President, ensuring a Democratic Victory in 2020?

Well, considering the enormous success of his first 500 days in office, I think you’ve got about as much chance succeeding at ever of those as Rosie O’Donnell has of being on the front cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (try unseeing that).

So, Rep. Shiff, considering that only a minority of Americans supported Mueller’s Investigation before the IG’s Report and one of his investigators is one of those FBI Agents singled out for possible legal consequences, and with the IG Report on the Russia Probe on the horizon, don’t you think that it is time for Special Counsel Mueller to “put up or shut up”?

Lord knows, us “rubes” out here in “Flyover Country” certainly do.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Clinton Says Impeachment Hearings Would Be Underway If a Dem Was President

June 4, 2018

monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-2

 

FoxNews.com reports that

Former President Bill Clinton argued Sunday that impeachment hearings would already be in full swing if a Democrat were in the Oval Office and if the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election were as deep as it is now.

“I think if the roles were reversed — now, this is me just talking, but it’s based on my experience — if it were a Democratic president, and these facts were present, most people I know in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already,” Clinton told “CBS Sunday Morning.”

Clinton, who appeared alongside James Patterson to promote the political thriller “The President is Missing” that the two penned together, noted that these are “serious issues” that the country is facing.

So far, the special counsel’s investigation, which is headed up by former FBI director Robert Mueller, has charged 19 people – including three former campaign aides of President Trump – along with three companies, and has received five guilty pleas. Perhaps the most high-profile of those guilty pleas came from Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Clinton, whose wife, Hillary, lost the 2016 election to Trump, is no stranger to impeachment hearings. After a lengthy investigation by independent counsel Ken Starr, the Republican-controlled House in 1998 voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton, however, was acquitted of both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges when the impeachment trial went to the Senate.

During the interview with CBS, Clinton also blasted Trump for the president’s bombastic style and his use of nicknames to poke fun at political opponents. Trump labeled Florida Sen. Marco Rubio “Little Marco” and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” during the 2016 campaign season, has referred to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un as “little rocket man” and continues to refer to Clinton’s wife as “Crooked Hillary.”

“I don’t like all this. I couldn’t be elected anything now ​be​cause I just don’t like embarrassing people​,” Bill Clinton said. “My mother would have whipped me for five days in a row when I was a little boy if I spent all my time badmouthing people like this.”

While the former president said that the press would have been just as “hard, or harder” in covering a Democratic president, he did defend the media against Trump habit of labelling certain news outlets as “Fake News.”

“I think they have tried by and large to cover this investigation based on the facts,” Clinton said.

Don’t you just love it?

Bill “Bubba” Clinton is now THE Moral Arbiter.

Back in the Bill Clinton era, White House advisor Betsey Wright coined the term “bimbo eruptions” to describe a long list of presi­den­tial gal pals.

BIll “Bubba” Clinton’s Bimbo List” includ­ed, but is not limit­ed to (I’m sure) Jennifer Flowers, Former Miss Ameri­ca Eliza­beth Ward, Paul Corbin Jones, and, of course, Monica Lewin­sky.

The Lewin­sky scandal was a sensa­tion that enveloped the presi­den­cy of Bill Clinton in 1998–99, leading to his impeach­ment by the U.S. House of Repre­sen­ta­tives and acquit­tal by the Senate.

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who claimed that Bill Clinton had accost­ed her sexual­ly in 1991 when he was gover­nor of Arkansas, had brought a sexual harass­ment lawsuit again­st the presi­dent. In order to show a pattern of behav­ior on Clinton’s part, Jones’s lawyers questioned sever­al women believed to have been engag­ing in sex  with him. On Jan. 17, 1998, Bubba took the stand, becom­ing the first sitting presi­dent to testi­fy as a civil defen­dant.

During this testi­mony, Clinton denied having had an affair with Monica S. Lewin­sky, an unpaid intern and later a paid staffer at the White House who worked in the White House from 1995–96. Lewin­sky had earlier, in a deposi­tion in the same case, also denied having such a relation­ship. Kenneth Starr, the indepen­dent counsel in the White­wa­ter case, had already received tape record­ings made by Linda R. Tripp (a former cowork­er of Lewinsky’s) of telephone conver­sa­tions in which Lewin­sky described her involve­ment with the presi­dent. Assert­ing that there was a “pattern of decep­tion,” Starr obtained from Attor­ney Gener­al Janet Reno permis­sion to inves­ti­gate the matter.

The presi­dent publicly denied having had a relation­ship with Lewin­sky and charges of cover­ing it up. His advis­er, Vernon Jordan, denied having counseled Lewin­sky to lie in the Jones case, or having arranged a job for her outside Washing­ton, to help cover up the affair. Hillary Clinton claimed that a “vast right-wing conspir­a­cy” was trying to destroy her husband, while Repub­li­cans and conser­v­a­tives portrayed him as immoral and a liar.

In March, Jordan and others testi­fied before Starr’s grand jury, and lawyers for Paula Jones released papers reveal­ing, among other things, that Clinton, in his January deposi­tion, had admit­ted to a sexual relation­ship in the 1980s with Arkansas enter­tain­er Gennifer Flowers, a charge he had long denied. In April, howev­er, Arkansas feder­al judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Jones suit, ruling that Jones’s story, if true, showed that she had been exposed to “boorish” behav­ior but not sexual harass­ment; Jones appealed.

In July, Starr grant­ed Lewin­sky immuni­ty from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testi­fy before the grand jury. He did so on Aug. 17, then went on televi­sion to admit the affair with Lewin­sky and ask for forgive­ness. In Septem­ber, Starr sent a 445-page report to the House of Repre­sen­ta­tives, recom­mend­ing four possi­ble grounds for impeach­ment: perjury, obstruc­tion of justice, witness tamper­ing, and abuse of author­i­ty.

On Dec. 19, Clinton became the second presi­dent (after Andrew Johnson) to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruc­tion of justice. The vote in the House was large­ly along party lines.

In Jan., 1999, the trial began in the Senate. On Feb. 12, after a trial in which testi­mony relat­ing to the charges was limit­ed, the Senate reject­ed both counts of impeach­ment. The perjury charge lost, 55–45, with 10 Repub­li­cans joining all 45 Democ­rats in voting again­st it; the obstruc­tion charge drew a 50–50 vote. Subse­quent­ly, on Apr. 12, Judge Wright, who had dismissed the Jones case, found the presi­dent in contempt for lying in his Jan., 1998, testi­mony, when he denied the Lewin­sky affair. In July, Judge Wright ordered the presi­dent to pay nearly $90,000 to Ms. Jones’s lawyers. On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Presi­dent Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testi­mony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspen­sion of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agree­ment by the indepen­dent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s succes­sor), to end the inves­ti­ga­tion and not prose­cute him.

In a later inter­view, Hillary claimed that Bill suffered child­hood abuse which may have caused him to philan­der­er and experi­ence “bimbo eruptions” later in life. She described her philan­der­ing husband as “a hard dog to keep on the porch”.

THIS is the guy who wants to judge President Donald J. Trump.

Which prompts the question:

IMPEACH TRUMP FOR WHAT???

The House Investigative Committee found no evidence of collusion and as Harvard Law Professor Emeritus (and Liberal) Alan Dershowitz explained in an interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on December 3, 2017…

I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis. You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire [former FBI Director] James Comey and his Constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That’s what Thomas Jefferson did, that’s what Lincoln did, that’s what Roosevelt did.

We have precedents that clearly establish that. When George Bush, the first, pardoned Casper Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice. For obstruction of justice by the president, you need clearly illegal acts. With Nixon, hush money paid. Telling people to lie. Destroying evidence.

Even with Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth. But there’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States, and I hope Mueller doesn’t do that and Senator Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about. When she says it’s obstruction of justice, to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the constitution.

A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president. After the charges of misconduct are filed, the Senate has the power to try impeachment cases like a court. Two-thirds of the senators must vote for conviction.

With the congress being controlled by the Republicans, there is no way that President Donald Trump can be impeached unless his party can be convinced that he is guilty of impeachable offenses, qualifying charges that are undeniable.

And, after one year of Special Council Robert Mueller and his cadre of Democratic Donors investing Trump as if they were accountants with the IRS, they have found exactly two things: “diddly” and “squat”.

So, Former President Clinton, I hate to disappoint you, but the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump has done nothing to be impeached for.

I mean, it is not as if he used a smitten young intern as a humidor for his cigars during an extramarital fling.

By the way, Bubba. What would your mother have said about that?

Until He Comes,

KJ