RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Robert Mueller “investigation” is a disgrace to the Constitution, to our tradition of ordered liberty, and to the American Way. Tell me: did you ever expect to read a passage like this in an American newspaper?

Though Mr. Mueller doesn’t face any specific legal deadline… [he]has a lot still to do—prepare several reports, bring expected charges against alleged Russian hackers behind the breach of the Democratic National Committee and make decisions on whether to prosecute other cases. Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue he has yet to resolve is whether the special counsel’s office will demand an interview with Mr. Trump. If he can’t get all those things done in the next few months, his probe is likely to stretch into 2019.

Or longer — to infinity and beyond. Should he wish, Mueller can be at this for the rest of his life, with an unlimited budget, and at taxpayer expense.

But this is not justice in any meaningful sense of the term. Rather, it’s the sore-loser Left’s latest attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election by orchestrating, via deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and St. James Comey, a quasi-legal proceeding to demonstrate that Donald Trump is unfit to sit in the Oval Office, and that therefore his presidency must be ended by any means necessary. As Ed Koch, the late former mayor of New York City, famously said: “The people have spoken and now they must be punished.”

The point of the Wall Street Journal story quoted above is that with the election season fast approaching, Mueller may have to lie doggo for a while so as not to — stop laughing! — influence the fall congressional vote.

Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign will soon run into a dead zone of sorts, in which former prosecutors say they expect him either to wrap up, or lie low and take no visible steps until after the November vote…. He will reach a point this summer when Justice Department habits dictate he would have to go dark so he doesn’t appear to be trying to sway voters’ decisions, which would be at odds with Justice Department guidelines for prosecutors.

Any action by Mr. Mueller that implicates or exonerates Mr. Trump or his associates in working with Russia or obstructing justice could go a long way to determining whether Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress. Democrats have promised extra scrutiny of the Trump administration if voters pull the lever for their party in November, while Republican candidates have largely sided with Mr Trump, and some have echoed the president’s message that the prosecution is a witch hunt.

This is ludicrously disingenuous — the very continuance of the Mueller investigation into non-existent Russian “collusion” has already swayed, and will continue to sway, voters, as the Democrats and the never-Trumpers knew it would. Even if they can’t get a do-over on 2016, the Left has made it clear that this fall’s elections should be a referendum on Trump — both his fitness for, and his performance in, office. Indeed, at this point there’s nothing Mueller can do not to influence the election. If he fails to bring any charges against the president, or issue an impeachment referral, the Left will scream bloody murder; if he does, the Right will howl. And if he just keeps on keepin’ on… well, where there’s smoke there must be fire, right? CONTINUE AT SITE

Former Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo condemned the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday following his closed-door testimony. His words, no doubt, resonated with every Trump aide, associate, and family member ensnared in the bogus Trump-Russia election collusion scam.

“God damn you to Hell,” Caputo told the committee—an impassioned conclusion to an emotional statement explaining the personal and financial strain the investigations have caused his family.

Caputo called out a former staffer to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is orchestrating the ongoing smear campaign against anyone in Trump’s orbit thanks to deep-pocketed Democratic activists in New York and California. And he implored the committee to “investigate the investigators.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team interviewed Caputo the following day, nearly one year after Mueller got his marching orders from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. So, why has Caputo now been interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the special counsel? What makes this longtime GOP consultant who worked on the Trump campaign for less than a year (and not in any central role) possibly complicit in, or a witness to, the yet-unproven crime that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election?

Caputo made the egregious error of having once worked for the Russians. In the 1990s. He told New York magazine in an interview this week that he “studied Russia in college and became a big admirer of Russian literature and ballet. I worked hard in the Cold War to defeat Russia, and after the Wall fell I grew curious about the Russian people. I wanted to see the results.” Of course, this all sounds very fishy now. It’s obvious that Caputo developed an interest in Russia in the 1980s so he could earn the coveted post of Donald Trump’s New York primary election coordinator in 2015 and then work with the Rooskies to strip Hillary Clinton of enough votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan to cost her the election in November 2016 (even though he left the campaign in June 2016.)

One week after a Senate committee approved a bill to protect the special counsel from being fired by the president, both of Robert Mueller’s high-profile cases appear to be in legal jeopardy.

On Friday morning, a federal judge accused Mueller’s team of weaponizing its prosecutorial authority in an effort to take down Donald Trump. U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis III suggested the special counsel’s case against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, is “about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment. President Trump’s prosecution or impeachment—that’s what you’re really after.”

ABC News reported that Ellis, a 30-year veteran of the federal bench, repeatedly criticized the 18-count indictment against Manafort for bank fraud and tax evasion as being unrelated to Mueller’s initial directive, which was to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government before the 2016 presidential election.

Ellis pointed out that “the allegations clearly pre-date the appointment of the special counsel. None of it had any relation to the campaign.” He ascribed ulterior motives to Mueller’s investigation: “You get somebody in a conspiracy and then you tighten the screws. I’ve been here awhile, the vernacular is ‘to sing.’”

Justice is Stonewalling
Judge Ellis also might prevail where Congress has so far failed: Obtaining an unredacted version of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’sAugust 2017 memo that purportedly widened Mueller’s powers to include non-collusion crimes against Manafort.

On Monday, the Justice Department—citing “long-standing principles of investigatory independence”—declined a request by Republican lawmakers to see a clean copy of the largely blacked-out memo. The dispute devolved into a war of words this week between Rosenstein and some GOP leaders amid impeachment threats and accusations of extortion.

It’s time to level with the public about the basis for Mueller’s investigation.

‘How do you know Trump’s not a suspect?”

I’ve been hearing that question a lot these days. News reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may try to coerce President Trump’s testimony by issuing a grand-jury subpoena if the president does not agree to a “voluntary” interview. That has sparked a public debate over the question of whether Mueller, an inferior executive officer, has such authority to strong-arm the chief executive — the official in whom the Constitution reposes all executive power, including the power that Mueller exercises only as long as the president permits it.

I don’t think he does.

To be clear, there is no question that Mueller, as a special counsel, is a federal prosecutor who has the authority to issue grand-jury subpoenas. But everyone who works in the Justice Department has a boss, including the attorney general (who answers to the president). As special counsel, Mueller answers to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the so-called Russia investigation). That means Mueller has the authority to issue a subpoena to the president unless Rosenstein — or the president — tells him not to.

Before we come to whether the deputy AG should clip the special counsel’s wings, let’s address one point of confusion.

Many people believe, as I do, that the president should not be subjected to questioning by a prosecutor on the facts as we presently known them. From that premise, however, they argue that Mueller may not subpoena the president, or that the president may ignore any subpoena. Neither of those things is true.

Those against Gina Haspel being confirmed utter the word “torturer” yet refuse to say “Islamist jihadist.” They have a problem with her involvement in the enhanced interrogation program, but are willing to overlook the fact that she has been acting director ever since Mike Pompeo has been confirmed as secretary of state. If she is so horrible, how could they let her be in that position even for a day? The answer, according to 9-11 families, is that she was the shield that kept Americans safe during the turbulent times right after September 11.

David Beamer lost his son, Todd, after United Flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. He expressed the sentiment of all the other 9-11 families interviewed, supporting Gina Haspel as CIA director. “She has given the prime years of her life in service to protect us. Her performance, intellect, dedication, and skills have been recognized in many assignments.”

His answer to those who criticize the enhanced interrogation program: “Unlike my son, none of the enemy died during interrogation. The plans that they executed caused the death of many free and innocent people, just as they intended, as much collateral damage as possible that was their objective. If some uncomfortable questioning leads to uncovering further attacks and lives saved, so be it.”

Gordon Haberman concurs: “Our beautiful, vibrant, loving Andrea was subjected to torture. She was alive after the building was hit and then brutalized in a desperate attempt to escape the inferno. She was then ripped apart as she died. It haunts me till this day. I only hope she was dead before being dismembered in this manner. In seventeen years, they have recovered and identified eleven pieces of her. Do I worry about how those who perpetrated this act were treated after being caught alive and are still alive? No.”

Democrats have made a political calculation to delay or challenge every Donald Trump nominee, no matter the merits, and one egregious episode is playing out now. The left is smearing a nominee for CIA Director as a queen of torture, but the White House can win this argument if it rebuts the charges head on.

On Wednesday Gina Haspel will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a confirmation hearing, and her critics are gearing up for a mugging. Ms. Haspel is largely unknown to the American public: Only recently did the CIA declassify some of the details of her 33-year CIA career. Ms. Haspel started as a case officer in Africa and after assignments around the world in its operations directorate became deputy director in 2017.

Ms. Haspel is the first CIA officer in more than five decades to reach the top position. She won the confidence of former director Mike Pompeo as his deputy, so the agency’s leadership transition would be straightforward.

The problem is that Democrats and Rand Paul of Kentucky are painting her as an unrepentant torturer. The specific rap is that Ms. Haspel in the early 2000s “ran a secret center in Thailand where prisoners were tortured,” as Mr. Paul put it in an op-ed. She is also branded for involvement in destroying tapes of CIA waterboarding.

Americans can disagree about the merits of enhanced interrogation after 9/11, but there’s no debating that the CIA’s interrogation program was legal at the time. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel produced memos making the legal case. The memos were withdrawn some years later, and Congress has also since changed the law to ban some of the techniques that were used in the immediate wake of 9/11. But Ms. Haspel is not responsible for any legal errors. Her job was to protect the country.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is used to getting kid-glove treatment. That changed Friday in a federal courtroom in Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis directed a blunt challenge to the Mueller team prosecuting former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on charges of tax and bank fraud, some of which date back to 2005.

“I don’t see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate. You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge Ellis told Michael Dreeben, who was representing Mr. Mueller in court. “What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Judge Ellis won’t win a diplomacy-in-judging prize, but his sharp words expose a central problem with the evolution of the Mueller probe. Though he was appointed to investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, Mr. Mueller’s indictments thus far have concerned other matters—lying to the FBI, or in Mr. Manafort’s case actions relating to his business with Ukraine.

Mr. Manafort’s team wants Judge Ellis to throw out the charges on grounds they exceed Mr. Mueller’s original mandate. And the judge’s questions leave the Mueller team in a difficult position. Essentially Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors now have to argue that even if they violated the Justice Department’s rules, it shouldn’t matter.

Mr. Dreeben of Team Mueller responded that the indictment doesn’t exceed the special counsel’s mandate, but the judge wants to see specifically the full and unredacted August 2, 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying what Mr. Mueller could pursue. The judge put it this way: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

https://www.openthebooks.com/
The federal government doled out 560,771 grants in fiscal year 2016, totaling $583 billion. On average, each grant exceeded $1 million.
Research shows pork-barrel spending is bipartisan, as the top 50 grant-receiving districts are represented by 27 democrats and 23 republicans. The top 10 congressional districts are evenly split: 5 democrats and 5 republicans.

Consider just a few examples of taxpayer abuse:

*Virtual Reality Platform to Teach Children in China How to Cross the Street – $183,750 from the Department of Health and Human Services funded a virtual reality platform in China to teach safe pedestrian techniqueNew *

*Condom Design with More Lubrication – $200,601 in taxpayer money funded a new condom design that lowers the chance of breakage and increases “satisfaction between partners.”

*Cigar Taste Test – $114,375 funded a study to determine whether cigar flavor affected its addictiveness.

*Sex Ed for Prostitutes in California – $1.5 million funded “safer sex and needle” education for prostitutes in California even though prostitution is illegal in the state.

*Space Racers: An Animated Children’s Cartoon – $2.5 million in NASA funding supported the production of two seasons of a children’s cartoon series about galactic adventures.
These grants flowed to state governments ($505 billion); higher education institutions ($35 billion); for profit organizations including Fortune 100 companies ($2.5 billion); nonprofit organizations ($19.8 billion); and more.

Fortune 100 companies received $3.2 billion in federal grants between fiscal year 2014 and 2016. Boeing can’t argue it needed $774 million in federal grants while reporting nearly $95 billion in 2016 annual revenue.

How can we rein in this insanity? The people must bring the heat, so the politicians see the light on fiscal restraint.

Imagine if a right-wing version of Robert Mueller, backed by a properly pro-Trump legal team, had sent former President Barack Obama the same sort of questions that Mueller allegedly delivered this week to President Trump. The special counsel might dress them up in legalese, innuendo, and with perjury-trap IEDs, thereby casting suspicion with the mere nature of the questions.

If so, the interrogatories might run like the following—

President Obama:

What did you mean when you were heard, by accident, on a hot mic, providing the following assurances to outgoing Russian Prime Minister Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility”?

Did you and the Russian government have any private agreements to readjust Russian-American relations during your own 2012 reelection campaign? Were there other such discussions similar to your comments to Prime Minister Medvedev?

If so, do you believe such Russian collusion had any influence on the outcome of the 2012 election?

Did your subsequent reported suspension of, or reduction in, some planned missile defense programs, especially in Eastern Europe, have anything to do with the assurances that you gave to the Russian Prime Minister?

Did the subsequent Russian quietude during your 2012 reelection campaign have anything to do with your assurances of promised changes in U.S. foreign policy?

Did you adjudicate U.S. responses to Russian behavior on the basis of your own campaign re-election concerns?

More specifically, what exactly did you mean when you asked the Russian Prime Minister for “space”? And further what did you intend by suggesting that after your 2012 election you would have more “flexibility” with the Russian government?

Would you please define “flexibility” in this context?

What do you think Prime Minister Medvedev meant when he replied to your request for space, and your promise for flexibility after the election, with: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . . I understand . . . I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Did you hear subsequently from the Russians that Prime Medvedev had delivered the message that you had intended for Vladimir Putin?

An antifa group in Los Angeles celebrated May Day by holding a small march, hanging a Trump effigy, and advocating for “revolutionary violence” against the “capitalist state” in order to “create real political power.”

“We must carry out military actions against the enemies of the people!” a member of the L.A. cell of the Red Guards said in a speech published on their blog.

The Red Guards is a Maoist group that hopes to duplicate in the United States the anarchy and terror Chairman Mao’s Red Guards inflicted on China during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. The group also identifies as “antifascist” and has cells throughout the United States.

Hundreds of thousands of leftists throughout the world mobilized for the annual “International Workers; Day” on May 1 to advocate for various social justice causes and celebrate communism.

While May Day protests in France, Turkey, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere turned violent, Wednesday’s protests in the United States tended to be relatively calm. As PJ Media reported, 22 police cruisers in Portland were vandalized yesterday. Additionally, three Red Guards members in Charlotte, North Carolina, and four Red Guards members in Kansas City, Missouri, were arrested for protest-related shenanigans. However, most American May Day protesters conducted their far-left activities in a peaceful manner.The same cannot be said for the rhetoric of the protesters. CONTINUE AT SITE