RUTHFULLY YOURS

‘If we wish to preserve a free society,” Friedrich Hayek observed, “it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is a cautionary example.

Mr. Cuomo issued a statement in April warning financial institutions that they faced “reputational risk” if they do business with the National Rifle Association: “I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients.” Soon after, the DFS hit an insurance company and a broker working with the NRA on policies for gun owners with large fines for license violations. The one-two punch of the warning and fines sent a chilling message to corporations with lawful business ties to the NRA.

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Cuomo had used extralegal coercion. In February he tried to change the rules in the middle of a transaction in which Fidelis Care, a nonprofit health insurer operated by the Diocese of Brooklyn, was purchased by a for-profit company, Centene . The governor demanded a massive cut because Fidelis earned much of its revenue from state-funded programs like Medicaid—money that was for services rendered.

Mr. Cuomo threatened both to withhold state approval of the sale and to push a bill through the Legislature confiscating the money whether or not the sale took place. They couldn’t stand up to the threats and will pay Mr. Cuomo a $2 billion ransom.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/390922-gop-senate-report-says-obama-officials-gave-iran-access-to-us

A new Senate GOP-authored report alleges that top officials in the Obama administration secretly authorized Iran to convert assets to the U.S. dollar, even after the officials repeatedly assured Congress that no such financial transactions would take place under the 2015 nuclear deal.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, unveiled the new report on Wednesday, claiming top government officials granted a “license” that would allow the “conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system.”

“Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” the report reads.

“Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system,” it continues.

The transactions didn’t go through, however, because two U.S. banks refused to comply with the administration’s request to convert the money over legal and reputational concerns, the report says.

The report cites multiple instances where top officials such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew pledged before Congress and the public that Iran would not have access to the U.S. financial system, both before and after authorizing the license.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/05/what-didnt-trump

How can a president obstruct justice when he did not know there was any justice to obstruct?

For more than a year, Donald Trump’s foes have pinned their impeachment hopes on the idea that the president obstructed justice when he allegedly told then-FBI Director James Comey in February 2017 to “let this go.” Comey claims that remark was about Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor, who had just been forced to resign amid allegations he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

The widespread (unconfirmed) assumption, then and now, is that Flynn was under some kind of investigation and that Trump’s off-the-cuff, vague remark (which the president denies) is evidence he was pressuring Comey to drop the case—and therefore obstructing justice.

Although Flynn did meet with FBI investigators in January 2017 (without a lawyer present and without notifying the White House), it is unclear whether Flynn was the subject of a formal investigation or the agency was simply looking for clarification about the conversations.

But a letter written by Trump’s lawyers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and leaked over the weekend to the New York Times now reveals that the Justice Department refused to give a direct answer about whether Flynn was indeed under investigation at the time. According to the letter, a private meeting between Trump’s personal lawyer and then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates on January 27, 2017, went down like this:

Among the issues discussed was whether dismissal of Flynn by the President would compromise any ongoing investigations. Yates was unwilling to confirm or deny that there was an ongoing investigation but did indicate that the DOJ would not object to the White House taking action against Flynn.

Therefore, Trump’s lawyers argue, there “could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an ‘investigation’ that had been neither confirmed nor denied to White House Counsel, and that they had every reason to assume was not ongoing.”