Sunday, May 5, 2024
Facebook Instagram RSS Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 4

DOJ Reviewing Whether Steele Dossier Was Russian Disinformation

By
Gustavo
-
0

At a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General William Barr said his department is reviewing whether the discredited Steele dossier is evidence of a Russian disinformation campaign. Asked about that possibility by Sen. John Cornyn (R–TX) Barr noted he was “concerned about it.”

Cornyn prefaced his inquiry to Barr by noting Christopher Steele’s links to the Clinton campaign in 2016, describing him as “a former British intelligence officer hired to do opposition research by the Hillary Clinton campaign on her political adversaries including President Trump, or candidate Trump at that time.” The Steele dossier was used in 2016 by the FBI to obtain the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants on Carter Page, who had worked previously for the Trump campaign.

“How do we know that the Steele dossier is not itself evidence of Russian disinformation campaign, knowing what we know now, that basically, the allegations made therein were secondhand, hearsay, or unverified?” Cornyn asked Barr. “Can we state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?”

In his response to Cornyn, Barr said the Justice Department is reviewing that possibility.

“No, I can’t state that with confidence,” Barr told the committee. “And that is one of the areas that I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it, and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”

5 Times The Mueller Probe Broke Prosecutorial Rules That Ensure Justice

By
Gustavo
-
0

There are rules against using the power and authority of a prosecutor to smear a defendant without giving him his day in court.

CNN recently published an article arguing that Special Counsel Robert Mueller should not have issued a report suggesting the president may have committed obstruction of justice without actually reaching this conclusion. CNN is obviously disappointed because inside the leftist echo chamber the obstruction case seems indisputable.

For example, the Mueller report suggests that the president committed some kind of sin for wanting to fire former FBI director James Comey for being a party to the plot to blackmail or frame the president. Some believe presidents should fire FBI chiefs who participate in hoaxes against their boss.

Mueller did no favor to CNN’s client Democrats, who now face three terrible choices: (1) Impeach President Trump using their majority in the House, which will lead to a self-destructive trial in the Senate; (2) Drop it and move on in defiance of a rabid get-Trump base; or (3) use their majority in the House to drag the country through a Mueller 2.0 investigation, which runs the risk of distracting from Democratic messaging in the upcoming 2020 election.

Like Aesop’s scorpion on the frog’s back, the partisans on Mueller’s team just couldn’t help themselves. The Mueller report poisons public opinion without bringing charges. It should have been written on a postcard because the outcome of a criminal proceeding is binary: Guilty or not guilty. There’s no middle ground under constitutional principles. President Trump is not guilty until the Senate convicts him otherwise.

Do you remember why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote that Comey should be fired? If Rosenstein is still capable of embarrassment, it must have been hard to stand behind the lectern as he did what he has told us prosecutors and cops should never do.

Let’s review his words about Comey: “the [FBI]Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

Yet here we are, at the end of another highly political investigation with another public trashing of a target without indictment. People accused of “obstruction” or “collusion” (whatever that is) or any other crime are supposed to get their day in court. Prosecutors aren’t supposed to use the newspaper as a courtroom.

There are rules against using the power and authority of a prosecutor to smear a defendant without giving him his day in court. If Democrats impeach the president, he will receive a long-overdue opportunity to defend himself in the Senate. That is exactly why it will never happen.

Americans should be concerned about the conduct of the Mueller probe and its supervisor, Rosenstein. Let’s take a look at some of the basic law-and-order rules Mueller and Rosenstein broke during the probe of the Russia collusion hoax.

1. Using Leaks And Press Conferences to Trash Un-charged Targets

Rule 3.8 of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional responsibility for prosecutors provides,

A prosecutor shall, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Mueller’s team violated this rule from virtually day one, and their final report makes no effort to hide this fact. Footnotes 561-563 cite news accounts that the president was being investigated for obstruction of justice. The sources for those news accounts? Likely Mueller’s team.

Much of the “obstruction” evidence comes from the statements of White House counsel John McGahn. We’ve known since at least January of 2018 about McGahn’s statement from “four people told of the matter.” Who would four people be who would confirm what McGahn said? Again, likely the leaks came from Mueller’s team.

For a longer list of Mueller leaks, read here. In fact, the entire report relies heavily on news accounts and indictments, neither of which constitute evidence but do remain effective for public reputation smearing.

Rosenstein, always an excellent source of legal guidance he liberally violates, spectacularly failed to direct Mueller to adhere to this principle, ““The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.”

So why didn’t he order Mueller to edit out the report’s innuendo and accusation that the team did not have the gumption to prosecute? Rosenstein understands the unfairness of what he did. And he did it anyway.

2. Using Their Power to Crush Client-Attorney Privilege

Rule 3.8 also provides,

A prosecutor shall not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceedings to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

When one considers the fact that Mueller knew early on, if not from day one, that there was no Russia collusion, it’s pretty hard to argue that the special counsel’s many invasions of attorney-client privilege were “essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation.”

Mueller has inflicted incalculable damage to the sacred principle of attorney-client privilege. We now know that prosecutors had search warrants collecting electronic files of the president’s private attorney within weeks of the special counsel appointment. Mueller’s team went on to coordinate a raid of Michael Cohen’s office, leading to shocking and public invasions of the attorney-client privilege.

One of Mueller’s first acts was the warrantless seizure of all of the president-elect’s emails for the entire team without regard to privilege. Add to that the now-public disclosure of Trump’s communication with McGahn, which resulted in no illegal presidential action.

We want our president, and all Americans, to be able to have a confidential conversation with his legal advisor, possibly blowing off steam or even contemplating unwise acts, without those conversations ending up in a special counsel report. It is the essence of an attorney-client relationship that the attorney is given the opportunity to confidentially guide his client away from rash action.

Because of the damage, Mueller has done, future presidents may now avoid their White House counsel for fear that a special counsel will publicize the conversation. Instead, the president may act without counsel. That’s bad.

3. Prosecuting Despite Knowing They Can’t Prove Their Case

Rule 3.8 also provides “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.”

Notwithstanding that the key collusion allegation had already been disproven before Mueller first turned on the lights in the special counsel’s office, for nearly two years Mueller has been trying President Trump in the court of public opinion. This is more than a mere expression. The venue for trying the president is in the Senate under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, and the constitutional framers always intended that senators make their decisions based in part on the opinions of the electorate they represent.

There’s no apparent legitimate explanation for the Mueller probe to have continued the “hunt” for Russia collusion after both the House and Senate concluded their investigations finding the same thing Mueller eventually admitted. Yet another election in 2018 proceeded under that cloud and the Democrats made significant gains from motivated voters looking forward to the impeachment of a Russia-colluding president. Was the investigation left open just to gin up process crimes and tempt the president to “obstruct” an otherwise stationary investigation?

Imagine responding to a subpoena from Mueller and having to cough up voluminous financial and personal records. Now consider the fact that Mueller issued approximately 2,800 subpoenas—almost six per business day while the probe remained open. How on earth did they even review that much information?

Imagine yourself sitting through an interview with an FBI agent that might last hours. Imagine trying hard to answer the same question over and over again without contradicting yourself. Imagine searching your memory for what you said in an email or text message years ago, praying your memory remains true lest you be charged with a felony.

Now consider that 500 Americans were interrogated by federal agents during the probe—one per business day. Finally, imagine federal agents looking through your private email, pictures, and other electronic data. Imagine FBI agents swarming your house with guns drawn. Mueller executed approximately 500 search warrants against our fellow Americans, all to no end.

4. Special Counsels Aren’t Supposed to Be a Partisan Hit Squad

Federal law regarding the “Independence of the Special Counsel” says: “An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, …. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”

Mueller should not have been selected as the special counsel, due to his close personal relationship with Comey. Further, his entire staff was clearly not impartial.

As one example, the prominent attorney Jeannie Rhee worked for the Clintons to keep Hillary’s emails out of public view only months before joining the Mueller team to investigate Hillary’s political opponent. Clinton might face legal consequences for secretly starting the Russia collusion hoax using campaign funds.

Is it a surprise that Clinton’s role in hiring Fusion GPS appears nowhere in the report? Instead, on the very first page of the report, Mueller’s team repeats the myth that the investigation began with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat. This is the desperate cover story the media pushes to hide Clinton’s obvious effort to use campaign money to frame her political opponent.

Prosecuting Papadopoulos was key to advancing this myth because it distorted an early but innocuous “Russia has dirt” conversation into a sinister predicate for the entire hoax. Who worked on the Papadopoulos prosecutions? Jeannie Rhee.

Many of the other investigators involved in the investigation were “not from outside the United States Government,” and were already heavily involved in the hoax. You can read an in-depth analysis of the partisanship of the Mueller team here and here. This is not only a terrible look but actually contradicts federal law governing special counsels. Does anyone care?

5. Rosenstein Used His Government Position to Protect Himself

Federal conflict of interest law (28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)) says:

Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

The Mueller report repeatedly references the indispensable role Rosenstein played as a witness (when he was supposedly supervising the investigation). As I predicted, the special counsel found no fault with Rosenstein’s participation in the Comey firing. Would Rosenstein have approved a report that said otherwise?

Of course not. This created a powerful motive for Rosenstein to hang around until the report was submitted. And that’s exactly what he did. Consider this line from the report: “Sessions and Rosenstein criticized Corney and did not raise concerns about replacing him. McGahn and Dhillon said the fact that neither Sessions nor Rosenstein objected to replacing Corney gave them peace of mind that the President’s decision to fire Corney was not an attempt to obstruct justice.”

What’s missing? Oh, how about a little post-Comey firing incident in which Rosenstein discussed recording his conversation with the president in order to recruit cabinet members to oust Trump under the 25th Amendment. One can imagine the awkward conversation in which Mueller asked Rosenstein for permission to interview Rosenstein.

Footnote 426 specifically cites Rosenstein’s May 23, 2017 statement to the special counsel as evidence. May 23, 2017? That’s less than a week after Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate the president for firing Comey. The conflict of interest was known immediately and should have been addressed.

The explanation justifying Rosenstein’s continued participation is nonsensical. In any case, Rosenstein should not have overseen the investigation into the president’s motives because, guess what, the investigator ended up taking a view of the facts that helped Rosenstein.

The get-Trump crowd has been carrying the scorpion of the Mueller investigation on their backs for nearly two years. The damage this has done to America may never be undone. The zealots claiming Trump to be a threat to the rule of law have proven themselves right by using their outrage to trample important constitutional principles such as the presumption of innocence, the right to defend oneself from criminal accusations, attorney-client privilege, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

None of that seemed important if we truly had a Russian agent occupying the White House. But we don’t. The anti-Trump zealots, not Trump, threatened these cherished principles that ensure equal treatment under the law for all Americans, even the president, regardless of the political party.

Show Of Hands If The U.S. Media Are The Clowns In The Russian Collusion

By
Gustavo
-
0

The mainstream media convinced a large portion of the American public that their elected president was illegitimate, playing straight into Vladimir Putin’s hands.


For the past two years, the mainstream media has reported hysterically on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. To listen to their apoplectic rants, one would believe it was the first time the Russians had ever interfered in U.S. domestic affairs.

Although this falsehood played embarrassingly well with cable news audiences, one doesn’t have to consult a CIA historian to realize that Russia has actively engaged in meddling and disinformation operations for decades to sow discord among Americans and undermine their confidence in U.S. institutions.

The 2016 Russian disinformation campaign was indisputably Russia’s most successful anti-USA propaganda operation to date. It divided families, ruptured friendships, and caused millions of Americans to question the legitimacy of their country’s leader and the system that elected him.

However, Vladimir Putin’s golden arrow was not the half-million dollars of social media advertisements and posts that seeded this turmoil, it was Russian intelligence’s minor contribution to Christopher Steele’s dossier, solicited by the Hillary Clinton campaign. What’s painfully ironic is that it did not cost Putin a dime. In fact, he likely pocketed a few Rubles from it.

The Steele Dossier

This Steele dossier was the predication of the investigation into President Donald Trump, which has been at the epicenter of the country’s deep divide. The dossier was a weapon, but like all weapons, Putin needed hands to wield it: He needed accomplices. Who would put the weapon into action? Who would spread the deception to the American people and convince them that their lives and their country lay in the hands of a deranged lunatic who answered to a foreign power?

Apparently, Putin understood all too well the misplaced loyalties of the leadership Barack Obama placed in America’s judicial and intelligence institutions. He also understood the American media’s disdain for Republican presidents. He observed the escalation of the media’s attacks on Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan, and the media’s willingness to engage in lies and deception.

Although Putin is an intelligent and calculating villain, never in his wildest dreams could he have imagined such success from so little effort. It is likely he underestimated how hellbent the corrupt government officials and an unscrupulous media were to overturn the will of the American people.

Obama’s Deep State actors ran with Putin’s disinformation to initiate an unprecedented investigation on a sitting president—an investigation that lacked a shred of credible evidence to justify any level of investigation. Nonetheless, anything as illegal as an attempted soft coup predicated on knowingly false, malicious, unsubstantiated reports requires accomplices.

The perpetrators needed to convince the American people that their seditious activities had merit, so messaging to the American people needed to be consistent and repetitive. It required constant bombardment, day and night, of accusations bolstered by convincing charlatans to erode any doubt in the minds of the media audience that their outlandish accusations were true.

The Media’s Role

Working together and coordinating their false pretenses, the mainstream media were successful. They convinced a large portion of the American public that their elected president was illegitimate. They convinced many that their election system and their governing documents were flawed. In doing so, they fomented discord and pitted American against American. In short, the American media accomplished Putin’s goals.

We now know that neither President Trump nor anyone in his campaign or administration coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 elections. We know that the Steele dossier, developed in collaboration with Russian intelligence operatives, was the basis for the investigation into President Trump. We are all aware of the damage this investigation and the false allegations made daily in the mainstream media did to the country in terms of financial costs, diverting attention and resources from real issues, while dividing the country.

In light of what has been learned, who should Americans blame for the fraud perpetrated on the country? Who should be the focus of the country’s ire? Putin? That would be like sticking your hand in the lions’ cage and being angry at the lion for biting you. The finger should be pointed inward.

Those who serve in government positions should be trusted to do what is right and in the country’s best interests. The mainstream media should be trusted to inform the American people objectively and honestly. Both failed. However, the actions of a few bad apples in government, fueled by the accusations of a global foe, would not have been successful without the efforts of an army of journalists who worked tirelessly to convince the American people of a lie.

The sensible response of Americans would be to accept the phony Russian collusion story as a fraud and move on as a united country. Yet the mainstream media will not let this happen. They continue to hold the country hostage by continuing their baseless attacks. They continue to sow discord among Americans and undermine Americans’ faith in their government, all to Putin’s delight.

Putin will never change. He will continue to meddle in America’s domestic affairs and elections. He will continue to sow discord and undermine the U.S. government. Putin hardly needs to plant spies and engage in social media disinformation campaigns anymore. He’ll still do that, but that’s not where he’ll get the most bang for his buck.

Putin has found a loyal ally in America’s mainstream media. As he learned in 2016, he needs to do very little, as his collaborators will do his heavy lifting. As long as Putin and the American mainstream media share the same goals, America will remain divided. Unless Americans learn to change the channel.

7 Glaring Omissions In The Mueller Report That Kill Its Credibility

By
Gustavo
-
0

Robert Mueller’s special counsel was presented to the American public as unimpeachable. From its beginning, a distinct minority in politics and media, including several Federalist writers, were skeptical, citing the special counsel’s past prosecutorial abuses, the past alleged misconduct of its pivotal investigators, and the team’s peculiar partisan makeup.

Once in action, its seemingly limitless powers, heavy-handed usage of such powers, and more questionable if not dubious indictments, far removed from “collusion,” seemed to confirm our worst fears. While there is much within the Mueller report that further suggests this skepticism was well-founded, what is perhaps most probative is what the report omitted.

The following are seven of the most glaring omissions from the collusion section of the redacted Mueller report—since collusion, not obstruction, was the theory from which the investigation stemmed.

1. No Attempt to Grapple with the Investigation’s Troubling Underpinnings

Russiagate in many ways appears to be the fruit of a poisonous tree of epic proportions. Allegations of a treasonous Russian conspiracy led to beyond novel legal theories, including the ludicrous invocation of the Logan Act, pervasive unmasking, spying on a presidential campaign by a political adversary based in part on a salacious and unverified dossier gleaned from sketchy Russian sources by a foreign agent and paid for by an opposition campaign, chicanerous circularity in the warrants backing the spying, the use of informants to perhaps entrap campaign members, a deluge of leaks (some of which were illegal), and much else.

We can layer on top of these malevolent acts the biases, ethical infractions, outright criminality, and clear double standards applied by law enforcement figures common to the Trump-Russia and Hillary Clinton emails investigations.

The collusion section of the Mueller special counsel report barely addresses any of the foregoing. How could such an investigation have any credibility without dealing with any, if not all of these issues?

2. No Discussion of Whether the Special Counsel’s Appointment Was Legitimate

From the special counsel’s inception, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy and others have harped on a single fundamental question: Was the special counsel appointed in accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations?

A special counsel must be appointed based on a criminal investigation. The Mueller special counsel stemmed from a counterintelligence investigation. A special counsel’s scope must be tailored to “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” The Mueller special counsel order did not seem to adhere to this standard, and in practice, its scope was virtually unlimited.

The Mueller report does not even attempt to address this basic challenge to its legitimacy. Nor does it deal with the arguable conflicts of interest and improper actions taken by those associated with its creation, including former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, former FBI director James Comey, and the man overseeing the special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who, as Sean Davis points out, was a participant, witness, and perhaps target of the investigation himself.

3. No Discussion of Special Counsel’s Perceived Bias

The appearance of conflict based upon the composition of the special counsel team is striking. To highlight the affiliations of just a few members: Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night 2016 party and cheered on Obama DOJ holdover and former acting attorney general Sally Yates’ defying of a directive from President Trump.

Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit regarding her private emails, as well as the Clinton Foundation, and previously served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration. Aaron Zebley defended former Hillary Clinton staffer Justin Cooper, who installed her infamous private email server.

Democrats with deep ties to the administration under which the Russia investigations commenced, as well as Donald Trump’s presidential opponent, predominated in the special counsel’s office. Meanwhile, Mueller, as former FBI director, was a creature of the political establishment, and the institutions from which the investigations sprung. That his report does not grapple with any of the misconduct of the high-ranking individuals behind those investigations in and of itself raises questions.

One would think Mueller would have at least sought to create the appearance of neutrality among the investigators, especially given the anti-Trump biases exposed in the investigations preceding it. Yet Mueller did not, nor did he apparently feel it necessary to address this issue in his report. In fact, he fails even to discuss the circumstances surrounding the removal from his team of its most outspoken Trump hater known to the public, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.

4. Skating Over the Papadopoulos Predicate for the Collusion Investigations

The Mueller report asserts that the investigation into collusion began when a foreign official (presumably unnamed former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer) told the FBI that Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos conveyed to him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton that could help the Trump campaign. There is not even an attempt to grapple with the theory that Papadopoulos was set up, based on sketchy approaches from U.S. government informants and foreign counterparts who seemed to be fishing for validation from Papadopoulos that he had knowledge about this Russian “dirt.”

The focus of Papadopoulos’ contacts is Joseph Mifsud, who is described as “a London-based professor who had connections to Russia…” The Mueller report omits that Mifsud, who made the original claim to Papadopoulos about Russian dirt that Papadopoulos then regurgitated, also had extensive ties to Western intelligence agencies.

Was Mifsud planting this information on Papadopoulos? On whose behalf? Meanwhile, such contacts seem an awfully thin starting point for such a critical investigation. Yet the Mueller report fails to give a thorough explanation for why Papadopoulos’ contacts justified the start of the Trump-Russia investigation.

5. Never Mentions Steele or His Dossier in the ‘Collusion’ Section

Amazingly, in spite of the centrality of former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s so-called dossier to former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and the dossier’s dissemination across the highest levels of the intelligence community and law enforcement, neither Steele nor his dossier are mentioned once in the collusion section of the Mueller report. Steele and his “reporting” solely appear in the obstruction section of the report, largely in passing.

The paucity of attention to Steele’s work—and its origin, how and to whom it was disseminated, and what role it played in the “collusion” investigation—smacks of an attempt to downplay its significance.

6. Excluding Relevant Information About Numerous Actors

It is simply stunning the level of exculpatory evidence or at least needed context the Mueller report omits. While Steele and his dossier merit their own section, there are several other significant examples:

  • Steele’s benefactor and Fusion GPS colleague, its founder Glenn Simpson, are never mentioned by name.
  • Relatedly, critical information about Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is missing. In relevant passages about Veselnitskaya and the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower “bombshell” turned dud meeting she led, the Mueller special counsel fails to mention that Veselnitskaya (i) worked with Fusion GPS on behalf of Russian clients, and (ii) met with Simpson the morning of the Trump Tower meeting, as well as the night before and after it. Was the Trump Tower meeting, as journalist Lee Smith has hypothesized, a setup? The Mueller report omits the critical details that would underpin such a theory. Also unclear, and undisclosed is why the Justice Department granted Veselnitskaya special entry to the United States multiple times in 2015 and 2016.
  • In discussing Page’s background, the Mueller report notes his contacts with Russian agents, who supposedly tried to recruit him as an asset, beginning in 2013. The report notes that those agents were charged by U.S. authorities in 2015. What the Mueller report omits is that Page effectively served as an FBI asset in helping the bureau make the case against at least one of the agents. Further, one of the agents charged described Page in a secret recording as an “idiot.” Are not these facts relevant when Page was put under FISA surveillance and treated as a traitor?
  • The Mueller report describes Felix Sater as a “New York-based real estate advisor” who worked with and lobbied disgraced former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen extensively in an effort to execute the Trump Tower Moscow project, touting its political benefits and the ability to garner support from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not mentioned is Sater’s colorful background: The Soviet Union-born Sater spun a stock swindling conviction into a lengthy career as a major CIA, DIA, and FBI asset, participating in numerous critical operations. Was Sater planted in the Trump organization? While he disputes it, should not the special counsel have included this full background, and sought to remove all doubt?
  • The Mueller report ties former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to Russia by way of his prior work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Not mentioned: Deripaska had served as an asset to Mueller’s FBI dating back to 2009; he was sought out by senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr and FBI in 2015 to help on organized crime investigations; FBI agents reportedly floated the theory of Trump-Russia collusion to Deripaska two months before the 2016 election, which Deripaska dismissed out of hand. None of this was mentioned in the Mueller report. Why?
  • The Mueller report references Roger Stone and Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo’s contacts with a Russian citizen named Henry Oknyansky. Oknyansky and an associate supposedly came to Stone by way of Caputo seeking to sell “derogatory information” on Hillary Clinton. Stone rebuffed them. Left unstated: Oknyansky, according to federal court filings and 14 visa waivers, has been an FBI informant for nearly two decades. Did he approach the Trump campaign in such a capacity?
  • Last but not least, intelligence informant on the Trump campaign Stefan Halper, who made contact with both Papadopoulos and Page, is never mentioned in the Mueller report.

7. Raising Potential Russia Violations about Trump Not Applied to Clinton

The Mueller report explores the novel theory that the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials and Veselnitskya could have had campaign finance law implications. While it ultimately declines to assert any such violations, it notes:

[C]andidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.

The above well describes the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funding of the Steele dossier. On this basis, and considering Rosenstein’s desire to “ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” should not the special counsel’s office have investigated the Clinton campaign for campaign finance violations associated with the Steele dossier?

The special counsel appears to have purposely sought to exclude any details pointing to an attempt to frame the Trump campaign by doctoring a Trump-Russia collusion narrative and entrapping campaign members, in spite of the fact there was no collusion, and ample evidence backing such a theory.

It simply ignored the real or perceived deficiencies of the special counsel’s investigation. It also refused to call into question any of the defects associated with the investigations that preceded it.

These takeaways challenge the idea that the special counsel engaged in anything resembling an intellectually honest, objective, and good faith investigation. Rather, it would seem to indicate that wittingly or unwittingly, this was more politicized smear job and de facto coverup.

Then, although “collusion” was the starting point for the special counsel’s investigation, when the Mueller team found none it nevertheless proceeded to obstruction. But there was nothing to obstruct. The Mueller special counsel could have ended its report at Volume I because absent Volume I there could be no Volume 2.

By presenting the collusion section as it did, similarly to the obstruction section, the counsel damaged the Trump administration to the greatest extent possible without affirming its criminality. It seems that Mueller pulled a Comey.

We must have a thorough investigation of the investigators. The growing cacophony of attacks on Attorney General William Barr is a testament to it.

Democratic Presidential Primary Is An Arms Race In Crazy

By
Gustavo
-
0

When asked at a CNN town hall this week if he believed that incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote, socialist presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders responded: “This is a democracy and we have got to expand that democracy, and I believe every single person does have the right to vote.”

What about someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber? “Yes,” Sanders went on, “even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Slippery slope, indeed.

After spending decades incessantly repeating the “America is a democracy” lie—liberals, of course, tend to scoff when you point out this jejune detail —the only logical conclusion, ideologically speaking, is terrorist suffrage, I guess. “Every vote” means every vote.

Now, there’s a rational argument to be made for allowing Americans who have served their time and paid their debt to society to fully participate in American political life. Certainly those who’ve never committed violent crimes shouldn’t have to surrender their civic rights forever. The notion that incarcerated murderers should be weighing in on gun laws or that child molesters should have a say on local school bond issues or that a terrorist’s vote should have an effect on American foreign policy, however, undercuts the liberal contention that casting a ballot is a sacred act.

Most of the cynical anti-republican ideas that Democrats are willing to entertain these days—getting rid of Electoral College, giving children the right to vote, etc.— are popular because gullible activist types believe they would create more Democrats. There’s probably a better way to rally support for the Green New Deal than enlisting the Unabomber’s support. (Then again, when we consider the specifics, maybe not.)

There’s no denying that Sanders’ collectivist ideas have gained traction on the contemporary left. Sanders—a Marxist who spent time in the Soviet Union praising a system that offered no genuine voting rights to anyone; not even to the political prisoners being held in the still functioning-Gulag—could have been the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016 had the primaries been run “democratically.” He’s certainly not alone.

In this crowded primary field, even allegedly moderate Democrats can’t say “no” to every extreme idea for fear of being cast from the group. The same night as Sanders’ CNN town hall, another presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris, was asked the same question: “People who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?” asked Don Lemon.

“I think we should have that conversation,” Harris responded.

CNN helpfully notes that this was a “noncommittal answer.” Technically, it’s true. I’ve already seen reporters laying the groundwork to rationalize her comments. In fact, I look forward to the 2,000 “fact check” articles next year explaining why the GOP is wrong to tie Harris to this idea. But try, if you can, to imagine a Republican candidate acquiescing to a discussion about the prospects of giving mass-murdering white supremacists a vote, and I’m sure you can understand why no one should regard Harris’ answer as noncommittal.

“Having a conversation” is euphemism for “Sure, I back every puerile and sophomoric idea you socialist crackpots come up with, although I don’t know if I can explicitly do so during the general election, so here’s an unscrupulous political answer that telegraphs my moral support, but also gives me a measure of plausible deniability should I actually win the nomination.”

Saying you’re willing to “have a conversation” about an issue is implicit support for the underlying idea. The only question is whether you believe it’s politically feasible. Would Harris have a conversation about legalizing fully automatic firearms? Of course not. Would she be open to having a conversation about banning post-20-week abortions? No. Harris won’t even have a conversation about banning post-abortion abortions. Any deviation from wild-eyed progressivism has the potential to brand you a heretic in this environment. And candidates keep ratcheting up the ridiculous.

Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been the leading instigators of this dynamic, but they’re not alone. It’s a group effort. Every time a candidacy lags, the contender will offer a new attention-grabbing plan to confiscate wealth for some socialistic policy proposal. Want to form a commission to develop slavery reparations proposals? Let’s have a conversation. “Free college?” Let’s talk. Nationalize the entire health care industry? Let’s start a dialogue. You want to pass a law that guarantees every American a job? Yep, let’s huddle on it.

How about a plan that eliminates all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, and replace them with windmills, bicycles, and choo choo trains? Nearly every Democratic Party presidential hopeful—including Harris, Sanders, Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, and Beto O’Rourke—says we need to get a conversation going.

Democrats who keep promising groups of people free stuff are just thinking “outside the box,” after all. It should be noted that some candidates have avoided the perfunctory habit of injecting legitimacy into every crazy idea. Pete Buttigieg, for example, deserves some credit. When asked about allowing terrorists to vote, he simply said “no.” Maybe others will follow his lead as the party goes off an ideological cliff.

At this point, Republicans should figure out ways to pose questions to Democrats in public and stimulate extremist contagion: Do you support allowing non-citizens voting rights? Do you believe all abortions should be paid for by taxpayers? Do you believe that border walls should be torn down? Do you think it would be okay for presidents to unilaterally institute bans on fossil fuels to save the earth if Republicans had “refused to act“?

Let’s have a conversation!

TIMELINE: Canada garbage shipped to the Philippines

By
Gustavo
-
0
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte delivers his speech during the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) campaign rally at the South Cotabato Sports Complex in Koronadal City on March 26, 2019. ARMAN BAYLON/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – While people swooned over Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his visit, many still called him out for his government’s inaction on his country’s garbage illegally shipped to the Philippines starting 2013.

Trudeau was in the country earlier this week for the 31st Summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). (READ: 4 hard truths about Justin Trudeau)

The issue of one Canadian company’s illegal shipment of trash hounded the Prime Minister’s visit with he himself calling it a “longstanding irritant” with Manila.

It has been more than 4 years since the first batch of Canadian shipping containers full to the brim with garbage arrived in the Philippines, yet the problem remains unsolved. What has happened since?

June to August 2013

A total of 50 container vans arrive in 6 batches at the Manila International Container Port (MICP) from June to August 2013.

The vans, declared to contain recyclable plastic scrap materials, are shipped by Chronic Plastics Incorporated (CPI), an export company based in Ontario, Canada. The declared total value for 19 of the containers is P3.9 million.

December 2013 to January 2014

At least 48 container vans containing household trash arrive in 4 batches in Manila from Canada.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) says the Bureau of Customs should send it back after it was not claimed by consignee Live Green Enterprise.

January 21, 2014

The Bureau of Customs discovers the garbage on January 21, 2014 when they open container vans as part of procedures on shipments not claimed for a long period of time.

The 18 vans opened by the Bureau contains plastic bottles, plastic bags, newspapers, household garbage, and used adult diapers. The discovered waste are classified as hazardous as per Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste and Control Act of 1990, or Republic Act 6969.

BOC decided not to open the rest of the containers fearing that they too contain hazardous waste that could further contaminate surroundings. According to the Department of Health, disinfecting the 18 opened vans costs the government P20,000 ($393).

DUMPED IN THE PHILIPPINES. Environment officials open one of almost 100 container vans of garbage shipped illegally from Canada. Photo courtesy of BAN Toxics

DUMPED IN THE PHILIPPINES. Environment officials open one of almost 100 container vans of garbage shipped illegally from Canada. Photo courtesy of BAN Toxics

February 20, 2014

BOC files a smuggling complaint against the company which allegedly imported the garbage shipment from Canada to the Philippines on February 20, 2014.

Charges are filed against Adelfa Eduardo, owner of Chronic Plastics, and its licensed Customs brokers Leonora Flores and Sherjun Saldon, for violating the Toxic Substance and Hazardous Wastes and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990.

They are also accused of violating the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP).

March 2014

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) starts sending letters to the Canadian embassy in the Philippines requesting for assistance in shipping the garbage back to Canada.

April 24, 2014

Then Canadian ambassador Neil Reeder tells the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) during a meeting that his government “would like to explore with the Philippines options for processing the rest of the shipment – in accordance with Philippine law – in the Philippines.”

June 9, 2014

Reeder allegedly tells the DFA that the Canadian government “has no domestic or international authority to compel the shipper to return the shipment to Canada.”

While Canadian law imposes penalties on violations of import and export laws, it does not provide a mechanism to compel the return of illegal shipments to the port of origin.

May 2015

Despite calls made by various local environmental groups, then president Benigno Aquino III says he did not discuss the issue of the illegally shipped Canadian garbage in Manila when he met with then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a state visit in May 2015.

According to Aquino, the issue has been addressed locally and there has been recent developments in the case. Meanwhile, the Manila City Council adopts a resolution seeking to remove the 50 shipping containers of garbage from Canada.

NOT A DUMPSITE. On May 4, 2015, Environmentalists tell President Benigno Aquino III to remind Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that container vans of garbage from Canada are still stranded in Philippine ports. Photo by Gigie Cruz/BAN Toxics

NOT A DUMPSITE. On May 4, 2015, Environmentalists tell President Benigno Aquino III to remind Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that container vans of garbage from Canada are still stranded in Philippine ports. Photo by Gigie Cruz/BAN Toxics

June to July 2015

The contents of at least 26 containers vans are dumped at a landfill in Capas, Tarlac, between June and July 2015 despite protests from environmental groups.

July 2015

The Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to file a diplomatic protest against Canada to “prevent a repeat of the unfortunate incident and enjoin the government of Canada to revisit their domestic regulations on the export or illegal traffic of wastes.”

The letter, signed by then Customs deputy commissioner for enforcement Ariel Nepomuceno and then DENR undersecretary Jonas Leones, also ask the DFA to formally request from the Canadian government “documents and other evidence to support our legal action” against Chronic Plastics.

It, however, does not reflect the sentiments of various environmental groups which called on Canada to take back their garbage.

Three days after the letter is sent, DFA says it will relay a diplomatic note to the Canadian embassy “which will underscore the Philippine government’s position on the issue and to reiterate our request for the Canadian government to take appropriate action.”

It is the 3rd note sent by the DFA to Canada. The first two notes relay “the Philippine government’s request for the Canadian government to assist with the re-exportation of the containers” and conveys its “objection to the presence of the containers”.

November 2015

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, during his first visit to the Philippines to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in November 2015, is non-committal on calls for Canada to bring back 103 container vans of trash. He says the issue “exposed a problem that needs fixing within our own legislation.”

“Well, I think, going forward, we need to ensure that if a situation like this were to arise once again that the Canadian government has more power to actually demand action from the companies responsible,” Trudeau says. “I believe there are loopholes here that were allowed to be skirted that we need to make sure we close, both for Canada’s interest and for our good relationships with our neighbors,” he adds.

June 30, 2016

Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 1 Judge Tita Bughao Alisuag orders on June 30, 2016 the shipping back of the wastes to Canada at the expense of the importer.

November 2017

Unlike his statement when he first went to the Philippines in 2015, Trudeau says it is now “theoretically” possible for Canada to bring back 103 container vans of trash illegally shipped to the country. He, however, does not make a full commitment to move the garbage out of the country yet.

“Even though it originally came from Canada, we had legal barriers and restrictions that prevented us from being able to take it back,” he says. “Those regulations and those impediments have now been addressed, so it is now theoretically possible to get it back.”

Emphasizing that the trash came from a private business, Trudeau says that both the Canadian and Philippine governments need to iron out certain details, including who will shoulder the costs of shipping back the trash to the country of origin.

Will Trump’s Finest Speech Save His Presidency?

By
Gustavo
-
0

A chastened president gave a great speech last night. But will it be enough? 

Donald Trump had promised a State of the Union address that could bring the country together. Did he deliver one? It’s hard to say. His address was the most mellow hour of commentary he has ever delivered. The PR pros who urged him to be himself will be happy tonight. He spoke to all Americans, and did so effectively.

Against Trump, at least according to the narrative, stood an army of women, elected to Congress all wearing white to spite him. It didn’t quite work out the way it was supposed to. In fact, Trump challenged and trumped them on several occasions, compelling applause and even the some standing ovations.

President Trump gave a speech about America, about America’s virtues. He challenged us all to live up to the promise of our nation. He even scolded us, warning against the “politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution.” This might seem like a big lift for a presidential candidate who excelled at name-calling, but it is welcome nonetheless. Trump’s tone seemed to be new.

Maybe he was mellowed by his defeat in the recent government shutdown, but whatever it was, this is a Trump who works. More charming than usual, he even seemed to disarm the women in white at times. Celebrating the record number of women both in Congress and on the nation’s employment rolls was wise.

But as is usual, the main thrust of his message was restoring the nation to greatness. This has always been the trickiest, but most essential message Trump offers. It’s tricky because it assumes that at some point America stopped being great.

Last night, the president said, “I am asking you to choose greatness. No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together. We must keep America first in our hearts.” That’s a lot of “we’ from a guy who tends to prefer “I.” It’s welcome. It opens his playing field, and with that running room he was able to advance an agenda.

Trump did not budge much on illegal immigration, but also did not call for a national emergency on the border, at least not yet. In a somewhat shocking moment, Trump said he would like to see the largest legal immigration ever, which, should it turn into policy, would be quite a switch from his usual position.

Now he may be offering a different sort of deal. Instead of money for the wall, he may take the loss on that and instead offer an open government for the end of investigations. “If there is going to be peace and legislation,” said Trump, “there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way.” And ofcourse that’s right. For two years the Trump administration has been marred and defined by investigations that have found tangential crimes but haven’t laid a finger on Trump.

The general tone of conciliation from Trump makes a lot of sense in this context. If the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation does end soon, with no serious findings that harm the president, then the next two years will be very different from the last two. It’s not just that Trump will be vindicated, but that he will be freed from playing that kind of defense. He will be able to offer an agenda to Democrats who are no longer able to pretend they are waiting for evidence of collusion, or whatever they were hoping for.

Charles Bukowski once wrote, “In the morning it was morning and I was still alive. Maybe I’ll write a novel, I thought, and then I did.” After last night’s speech, the best of his presidency, and maybe his life, Trump has a right to feel this way. Some kind of dawn may have broken for him. The gleaming white dresses of his adversaries did not so much hurt him as give him an opportunity for grace that he took.

This was a State of the Union that almost didn’t happen — or that almost happened at a rally, or in the Oval Office, or a gas station on the southern border. In the end, it was good that he waited for the invitation and the chance to come to Nancy Pelosi’s House with an offer of peace.

Will she take the offer? Maybe, maybe not, but there is a lot of room in between. If this is the Donald Trump we see for the next two years, two important things might happen. First, he might get some things done. Second, he just might get re-elected.

The State Of American ‘Fact-Checking’ Is Completely Useless

By
Gustavo
-
0
FEBRUARY 5, 2019 - WASHINGTON, DC: President Donald Trump delivered the State of the Union address, with Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at the Capitol in Washington, DC on February 5, 2019. (Doug Mills/Pool via REUTERS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

With a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship.

If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statement’s worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:

Hyper-precision fact-checking that creates the impression that a Republican is misleading the public: For this, take Politico’s insinuation that Donald Trump was lying to the public about abuse of women at the border. During the State of the Union, Trump claimed “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” This contention is only “partly true,” according to Politico, because a “2017 report by Doctors Without Borders” found that only 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been actually abused while traveling through Mexico.

Whether Doctors Without Borders’ scary statistic is accurate or not, is one thing. Trump, however, was being called out for asserting that “one in every three” illegal immigrants has been abused attempting to cross the border rather than “33.333 percent of women”––probably a rounding error in the poll. It is almost surely the case that every past president and every politician has used “one-third” or “one-half” rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked.

Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy.  In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossing have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.

Even if those numbers correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.

If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lots of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” to establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.

Partisan talking point masquerading as a fact check: “FACT CHECK: President Trump praised the record number of women in Congress, but that’s almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party,” NPR tweeted, correcting the record on a statement that president never made.

Here’s what Trump said:

“And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.”

Trump was offering his rundown on the state of the union, not the Republican Party. It’s true that presidents take credit for all the good things that happen under their watch. Trump is no exception. In this rare case, however, Trump didn’t even take credit for electing the female politicians. In fact, he congratulated them after they broke out into cheers over his comment. Some people have argued that the NPR’s piece was providing context to the president’s comment. Perhaps. Still, their nitpicking created the impression that somehow Trump had misled the public. He did not.

Fact-checking meant to obscure actual facts: The Washington Post’s fact-checking page offered a number of egregious examples of outright misinformation. In one of them, reporter Meg Kelly claimed that, “Abortion legislation in New York wouldn’t do what Trump said.” There are a number of words in her post intimating that Trump lied about the New York and Virginia late-term abortion bills, but none of her words debunk Trump’s core contention. Ramesh Ponnuru has a good rundown here.

Here’s what Trump said:

“Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful, babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.”

As I’ve noted before, the biggest clue that you’re about to read a deceptive fact check on the abortion issue is an author mentioning that “only” few abortions of viable babies take place. “Indeed,” Kelly writes, “only 1.3 percent of abortions — or about 8,500 a year — take place at or after 21 weeks, according to 2014 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute.” This number, as Ponnuru points out, is almost surely low. Whatever the case, Trump never claimed “most” abortions were post-20 weeks. Whether 8,500 or 15,000, thousands of viable babies are being aborted. No fact-checker would ever point out that only .0001 percent of legal gun owners commit crimes when talking about more firearm restrictions (and, yes, that’s an approximation).

And yes, the president bit of rhetorical flourish to say that babies can be “ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” because, actually, they can be poisoned or dismembered in the mother’s womb moments before birth. Both the Virginia bill, which was tabled, and the New York law allow, just as Trump says (in his blunt language), for the termination of infants who survive the abortion procedure. Absolutely nothing in The Post’s “fact check” debunks the president’s contention that in New York, and elsewhere, abortion on demand until crowning (and after) is now legal as long as the woman and a doctor decide that the baby is stressful in some way to the mother. How often it happens is up for debate. What the bill says is inarguable.

Update: Factchecking a truthful statement by demanding that Trump highlight information that has absolutely nothing to do with his contention. As an astute reader points out this PBS fact-check of a Trump tweet from a couple of weeks ago. I’ve noticed this genre, as well. In it the president points out that a reputable Marist/NPR/PBS Poll had shown that his approval rating among Latinos had risen to 50 percent, an increase of 19 percent over a year’s time. After confirming that, yes, Trump had been precise in his assertion regarding their poll, PBS spends around 700 words taking Trump to task for failing to highlight other negative information in the poll. Will this be a new standard for all politicians?

The state of American fact-checking is dreadfully misleading. There’s no reason for conservatives to give its authors the deference they seek.


Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

By
Gustavo
-
0

Democrats will protect American children from the evils of trans fats and gay conversion therapy, but not from doctors who will kill them through negligent homicide in the first few hours of their lives. This is the ugly reality of the contemporary abortion debate. It’s why most advocates will do about anything to avoid describing the unpleasant realities and consequences of their increasingly radical position.

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked Republican Ben Sasse’s effort for unanimous consent on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It must be stressed that this bill wasn’t technically about abortion, but about protecting babies who survived the procedure. It seems the already risible argument of “my body, my choice” has morphed into “not my body anymore, still my choice.”

Sasse’s bill, which exempted mothers from prosecution, would have required “any health care practitioner present” to help ensure “that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital” and to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Now, it would have been one thing if Sen. Patty Murray objected on grounds of states’ rights or the broad nature of the bill, but she did not. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed. “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore, I object.”

She is wrong. There are laws that allow for infanticide. We have one of those laws in New York. The failed Virginia bill that precipitated this debate would also have allowed the killing of unborn babies until birth for virtually any reason—and, if those babies happen to survive an attempt on their lives, after birth, as well.

When asked if her bill would allow abortions for woman dilating in the “40th week,” Virginia Del. Kathy Tran said, “My bill would allow that, yes.” Her mistake was being honest. When Gov. Ralph Northam tried to make Tran’s infanticide bill sound humane, explaining that the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” his mistake was also honesty.

Northam, as his defenders pointed out, was merely talking about euthanasia—although they would never call it by its appropriate name—as if terminating the lives of infants with fetal abnormalities like Down syndrome for the convenience of the parents is more morally palatable. The Virginia bill, however, also allowed for the abortion, or post-birth termination, of viable, once-healthy infants for nearly any reason.

The reality of the bill hasn’t stopped people from continuing to act as if every abortion is a life or death decision for the mother. This, it seems, is rarely the case. The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that both medical literature and late-term abortion providers show the majority of late-term procedures are not performed for “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.” The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute also found that a majority of women who seek these abortions “do not do so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment,” either.

In any event, every bill limiting post-20 week abortions makes exceptions for the life of the mother. Sasse’s bill does not stop parents and doctors from making tough decision about critically ill infants. This is a myth.

When late-term abortion defenders are honest, as feminist writer Jessica Valenti was recently, they sound like old-school eugenicists. Reacting to National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis’s excellent article in The Atlantic, Valenti first tries to distract from the law itself by complaining that “the author writes about ‘third trimester abortions’ while linking to research about abortion post-20 weeks (which is about when you get an ultrasound for fetal abnormalities.)”

Yes, it’s true that most 20-week bans are opposed by Democrats because the abortions in question are used to weed out imperfect children. But the reason it’s easy to conflate the two is that viability keeps expanding and going well beyond the third trimester. Let’s start using the phrase “viable babies,” then.

One of those kids, Lyla Stensrud, was bornafter 21 weeks and four days, weighing just 14.4 ounces. It is almost certain that technology will advance to a place where there will be many more children like Lyla. Does anyone really argue that a single week makes that fetus a mere clump of cells? According to the Guttmacher Institute, around 15,000 Lylas are aborted every year.

Valenti, though, goes on to tweet, “the GOP is bankrupting parents with kids in the NICU – stays that cost literally millions of dollars.” Not only can you abort a completely healthy baby for reasons of emotional stress, but you can also choose not to care for viable infants because it puts unfair fiscal pressure on parents and hospitals. Do you know how much an autistic child costs? Why not them, as well?

If this is really an argument for post-birth termination, can someone explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is either causing the mother emotional fiscal stress or injecting poison into another baby–same exact age, same exact reasons–that’s in the womb? If you’re honest, like Valenti, there is none.

Most people circumvent the reality of late-term abortion (and post-abortion killings) for convenience by claiming it never happens. This is a highly dubious contention. But if it’s true, why pass state laws protecting doctors who might engage in the practice? Seems like a good way to incentivize it. And if there is no market for infanticide, why do people like Kermit Gosnell exist? What is the difference between what Gosnell did and what they want to legalize—other than cleaner facilities?

For many years, Democrats have been allowed to get away without any serious questions regarding their opposition to post-20-week abortion restrictions. Despite interference from fact checkers and other Democratic Party surrogates, for example, their 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supported, from conception to crowning, not a single restriction on the procedure. This fact becomes obvious in the rare times they’re honest about what abortion means.

Amid Blackface KKK Photo And Infanticide Scandals, 50 Percent Of Democrats Still Support Ralph Northam

By
Gustavo
-
0

Amid two major national controversies, Ralph Northam has retained most of his support among Virginia’s Democratic voters, according to a new poll. 

Amid two major national controversies, Gov. Ralph Northam, D-Va., has retained most of his support among the state’s Democratic voters, according to a new poll. Fifty percent of Virginia Democrats approved of Northam in a Morning Consult survey conducted Saturday and Sunday, down only 20 percentage points from a poll the firm conducted in January that found him with 70 percent Democratic approval in the state.

The new survey was taken as Northam fought back against a racially-charged yearbook picture released Friday and days of backlash over his defense of late-term abortion. In a widely-circulated interview, Northam went so far as to support cases where babies born in certain circumstances would be left to die after birth. On Friday, Big League Politics published a picture from Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook showing two men, one in blackface and the other in KKK robes. The governor admitted to being in the picture on Friday, then reversed course in a bizarre mid-day news conference on Saturday.View image on Twitter

Even after the photo prompted calls for his resignation from nearly every high-profile national and state-level Democrat, Morning Consult’s weekend poll of registered voters found Northam maintaining support from half of his party in Virginia. Among all Virginia voters, Northam went from enjoying 48 percent support pre-controversy to 29 percent post-controversy, according to the report. Forty-eight percent of all registered voters now disapprove of Northam, with 23 percent replying “Don’t know/No opinion.”

His support among Independents was halved after the controversy, dropping from 42 percent to 20 percent, though 49 percent still say they approve. Among Republicans, Northam went from 31 percent approval to 15 percent.

As Northam mulls a potential resignation, refusing so far to cede his post, this poll could boost his optimism about weathering the scandals. Though Morning Consult’s headline read “Virginia Voters Quickly Sour on Northam Amid Blackface Scandal,” managing to keep half his party’s support in light of both controversies, and a chorus of calls for his resignation, might just put a spring back in the governor’s step.

It’s worth noting that Northam’s strange press conference, in which he admitted to dressing in blackface as Michael Jackson but changed his story on the yearbook photo, occurred halfway through  Saturday and could have changed the minds of some voters polled earlier in the day or those who had not seen the news.

Morning Consult’s Feb. 2-3 poll surveyed 291 Virginia voters and has six point margin of error. The firm’s January poll was conducted throughout the month and surveyed 4,326 Virginia voters with a one point margin of error.

1...345...15Page 4 of 15
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

© Website Created by Gustavo Frias