RUTHFULLY YOURS

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office announced this afternoon that a federal grand jury in Virginia has returned a superseding indictment against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates. The new indictment, which charges 32 felony counts, replaces the original 12-count indictment filed in late October.

The indictment dramatically alters the case, although not in a way that will surprise National Review readers.

There continues to be no connection to the Trump campaign (which Manafort briefly chaired and Gates also served), much less any suggestion of collusion between the campaign and Russia. The new indictment, however, retreats from the original allegations of money laundering, failure to register as foreign agents, and the so-called conspiracy against the United States.

We observed back in November that all of these charges seemed problematic – the money-laundering theory was shaky, failures to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act are rarely charged criminally, and there is no “conspiracy against the United States” in federal law (the charge is either conspiracy to defraud the United States, which seemed to be what Mueller was alleging, or conspiracy to violate a federal criminal law).

We also noted at the time that the oddest thing about the original indictment was the absence of tax-evasion and bank-fraud charges. Mueller had seemed to lay the groundwork for these allegations but to have refrained from charging them.

Voila! The case is now exclusively a tax and bank-fraud case.

Counts 1 through 10 charge Manafort with subscribing false tax returns from 2010 through 2014, and Gates with assisting him in their preparation. Gates is also charged with subscribing to false tax returns in those same years (in Counts 15 through 20 – including two returns for the year 2013). Counts 11 through 14 charge Manafort with failing to file required “FBAR” reports regarding his controlling interest in foreign bank accounts (an offense that appeared in the original indictment); and Counts 21 through 23 charge Gates with that same FBAR offense.

http://jamieglazov.com/2018/02/22/glazov-moment-no-honor-killings-in-america/

This new Glazov Gang episode features the Jamie Glazov Momentwith Jamie Glazov.

Jamie asks: No Honor Killings in America? and then unveils the Left’s callous lies – and heart of darkness.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the whole scene of where the leftist lawyer “Steve” denied the existence of honor killings in America and attacked Anni at her recent talk in Omaha, Nebraska. Steve tried to exonerate Islam and accused Anni of preaching “hate”. Then Anni wiped the floor with him:

As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.

I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.

Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.

These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination.
Who Is Funding the Transgender Movement?

I found exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros; Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations, including corporations.

Separating transgender issues from LGBT infrastructure is not an easy task. All the wealthiest donors have been funding LGB institutions before they became LGBT-oriented, and only in some instances are monies earmarked specifically for transgender issues. Some of these billionaires fund the LGBT through their myriad companies, multiplying their contributions many times over in ways that are also difficult to track.

On Wednesday the White House released the annual Economic Report of the President. No surprise, Democrats like Jason Furman, who served as the top economic adviser in the Obama White House, say President Trump’s economic forecasts are much too optimistic. Mr. Trump says that his tax cuts and deregulation will restore robust growth and Mr. Furman calls the Trump growth estimates “absurd.”

The national press corps, which spends a good deal of time cataloging every inaccurate statement from Mr. Trump, may be particularly receptive to the Furman message. But as they dig into this issue, they ought to give some credit where it’s due.

Specifically, reporters may want to consult Table S-9 in the economic report Mr. Trump released last May. The press will note that the President and his economic team predicted 2.3% real economic growth for the calendar year 2017.

Based on the current reading from the Commerce Department released last month, the Trump forecast was right on the money.

Is it a surprise to find a Stalin apologist at the center of the Steele dossier scandal?

Gotta hand it to Special Counsel Robert Mueller: He knows how to set off a stick of dynamite. I refer, of course, to his office’s recent indictment of thirteen Russians in Russia, which we are now to chase after, yelling “Pearl Harbor!” on the Left and “No collusion!” on the Right, forgetting all about the coalescing revelations of corruption and conspiracy and, yes, Russian influence, to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, and, failing that, to destroy the Trump presidency.

The key is still in the “dossier” spying scandal.

Nellie Ohr is the “dossier” spying scandal’s woman in the middle.

To one side of Ohr, there is the Fusion GPS team, including fellow contractor Christopher Steele. To the other, there is husband Bruce Ohr, who, until his “dossier”-related demotion, was No. 4 man at the Department of Justice, and a key contact there for Steele.

As central as Nellie Ohr’s placement is, her role in the creation of the “dossier” remains undefined. For example, the House Intelligence Committee memo on related matters vaguely tells us that Nellie Ohr was “employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump”; the memo adds that Bruce Ohr “later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research.” Senator Lindsey Graham more sensationally told Fox News that Nellie Ohr “did the research for Mr. Steele,” but details remain scarce.

Still, relevant facts have emerged. These include Nellie Ohr’s study in the USSR in 1989; her fluency in Russian and Ph.D. in Russian history in 1990; a 2010 CIA affiliation, which practically makes her former MI6 agent Steele’s “opposite number”; and the extremely curious detail, harkening back to earlier eras of spycraft, that on May 23, 2016, around the time she came on board Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr applied for a ham radio operator’s license.

Notably, the “dossier” men in her life have tried to shield Ohr from public scrutiny, even at professional risk. Her husband, as the Daily Caller News Foundation reports, failed to disclose his wife’s employment with Fusion GPS and seek the appropriate conflict-of-interest waiver, which may have been an important factor in his demotion from associate deputy attorney general late last year.

Under Senate and House questioning, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson consistently failed to disclose Nellie Ohr’s existence as one of his firm’s paid Russian experts, let alone that he hired her for the red-hot DNC/Clinton campaign Trump-Russia project.

Even Christopher Steele may have tried to keep Nellie Ohr “under cover.” Steele, put forth as the “dossier” author ever since its January 2017 publication in BuzzFeed, does not appear to have let on to his many media and political contacts that he had “dossier”-assistance from at least two fellow Fusion GPS Russian experts, Nellie Ohr and Edward Baumgartner. Baumgartner, interestingly, was a Russian history major at Vassar in the 1990s when Nellie Ohr taught Russian history there.

Thus, Nellie Ohr’s exact activities inside one of the great Russian-American disinformation campaigns of all time remain opaque. What most observers don’t realize, though, is that we already have a window onto her thinking through her strongly-etched, ideological view of Soviet history.

This is in contrast to what we know of Steele, aside from his widely reported anti-Trump animus. We may read that Steele was widely known as a “confirmed socialist” while president of the Cambridge Union debating society in 1986; we may see, thirty blank years later, that he chose to break the sensational outlines of his relationship with the FBI and role in its investigation of the Trump campaign in Mother Jones, a media outlet named for a famous American socialist; but Nellie Ohr has a paper trail.

It requires a special degree of mendacity to compare Robert Mueller’s recent indictments to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Only someone desperate to get attention, or to please his new Trump-hating masters at a top news organization, or to improve his name recognition to sell his new book, would be shameless enough to equate one of America’s most horrific attacks to an unproven attempt by a handful of shady Russians to sway votes in a presidential election. One might even feel tempted to pity such a soulless, craven opportunist because, clearly, his brain is broken.

But you can’t feel sorry for Max Boot, the NeverTrump neoconservative whose tirades against the president and the Republican Party just earned him a primo spot in the Washington Post. Instead, you should feel sorry for the families and friends of the 9/11 victims Boot just exploited for clicks.

Boot called the alleged election interference by 13 Russian social-media agitators, “the second-worst foreign attack on America in the past two decades. The Russian subversion of the 2016 election did not, to be sure, kill nearly 3,000 people. But its longer-term impact may be even more corrosive by undermining faith in our democracy.”

Think about that for a moment. Boot, an historian who advocated going to war in Iraq, thinks a few Russian-funded Facebook campaign ads will have a longer-term impact than a massive terrorist attack on U.S. soil that killed 2,977 people, injured more than 6,000, and remains one of the most traumatic events in U.S. history. According to Boot’s logic, a Rooskie ploy to get a few unsavory hashtags trending is worse than the following: Fort Hood (13 dead), San Bernardino (14 dead), Pulse nightclub in Orlando (49 dead), Hudson bike path (eight dead), and Boston marathon (three dead). All because his candidate—Hillary Clinton—lost the election.

I dare Boot to try to persuade the parents of Martin Richard that low-level Twitter chicanery during a presidential election is a more devastating blow to our country than the murder of their child.

Boot went further, blaming Trump for “ignoring” the Russian threat—less than 48 hours after the Mueller indictments were announced. In more 9/11 comparisons, Boot accused the president of “refus[ing] to appoint a commission to study how to safeguard America,” much like the Bush Administration did after the 9/11 attacks. (Fun fact, Mr. Historian: The 9/11 Commission was formed 14 months later.) Nonetheless, Boot lamented how “we are at war without a commander in chief.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals for allegedly conspiring to sow confusion in the 2016 presidential election. The chance of extraditing any of the accused from Vladimir Putin’s Russia is zero.

Some of the Russians’ Keystone Cops efforts to disrupt the election favored Donald Trump (as well as Bernie Sanders). Yet Mueller’s team made it clear that the Russians neither colluded with any U.S. citizens nor had any material effect on the election’s outcome.

But from here on out, there will be ironies, paradoxes, and unintended consequences with just about everything Mueller does.

Is it now time to prosecute foreigners for attempting to interfere with a U.S. election? If so, then surely Christopher Steele, the author of the Fusion GPS dossier, is far more culpable and vulnerable than the 13 bumbling Russians.

Steele is not a U.S. citizen. Steele colluded with Russian interests in compiling his lurid dossier about Donald Trump. Steele did not register as a foreign agent. And Steele was paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to find dirt on political rival Trump and his campaign.

In other words, Steele’s position is far worse than that of the Russians for a variety of reasons. One, he is easily extraditable while the Russians are not. Two, his efforts really did affect the race, given that the dossier was systematically leaked to major media and served as a basis for the U.S. government to spy on American citizens. Three, unlike with the Russians, no one disputes that American citizens—Hillary Clinton, members of the Democratic National Committee, and anti-Trump partisan Glenn Simpson and his Fusion GPS team—colluded by paying for Steele’s work.

At West Point, folks are not easily impressed. They’ve seen Grant, Lee, Pershing and Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Abrams, Schwarzkopf and Petraeus. But this week West Point welcomed a new man to its ranks: Peter Wang.

Wang is the 15-year-old freshman gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida by a former schoolmate. Wang might have escaped, but he was killed holding a door for others to flee before him. When the bullets found him, Wang was wearing the uniform of the Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.

The young man’s goal was to attend West Point and serve as an officer in the U.S. Army. This was not to be. But in his selfless service, West Point recognized a brother. So on Tuesday, the same day young Wang was laid to rest, the academy honored his dream by offering him, posthumously, a letter of acceptance to the West Point Class of 2025.

Wang was one of 17 innocents whose lives were so cruelly taken and whose families are now left bearing the unbearable. Much of the focus is on Nikolas Cruz, the young man who pulled the trigger, and what steps we might take to prevent similar attacks.

That is all worthy and sensible. But the nation also does well to acknowledge the courage we saw that day, whether assistant coach Aaron Feis shielding his students from the bullets with his body, geography teacher Scott Beigel killed as he helped others to safety, or a young man standing his post at an escape. We join West Point in a salute to the newest member of that Long Gray Line, Cadet Peter Wang.

A unanimous Supreme Court struck a blow for the plain reading of the law on Wednesday, but a pair of dueling concurrences deserve broader attention for what they say about the different methods of legal interpretation on the High Court today.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the full Court in rebuking the Securities and Exchange Commission for reinterpreting the Dodd-Frank Act despite the clear text of the statute (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers ). Paul Somers sued Digital Realty Trust , claiming protection as a whistleblower for filing a complaint about a securities violation. He might have sued under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law that protects whistleblowers if they file complaints with the Labor Department within 180 days.

But instead he sued in federal court under Dodd-Frank, which lets whistleblowers who are retaliated against sue and receive double back pay. The problem is that Dodd-Frank defines a whistleblower as someone who provides information about a securities violation to the SEC. Mr. Somers didn’t do that, but the SEC claimed that didn’t matter because Congress intended the law to protect people like Mr. Somers no matter the law’s text.

Citing precedent, Justice Ginsburg rightly wrote that “‘When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition,’ even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning. This principle resolves the question before us.” She then went on an extended and needless tour of congressional intent that may invite legal mischief down the road.

As the James Comey saga continues to unfold, the James Comey legend continues to unravel. The more we learn about his involvement in the deep state’s illicit targeting of President Trump, the more reason the American people have to question both his motives and his management as director of the FBI, the now-disgraced agency he headed before Trump fired him on May 9, 2017. Comey has left a trail of suspicious activities in his wake.

Comey now looms large over a burgeoning constitutional crisis that could soon overshadow Watergate at its worst. To deepen the crisis even further, it now appears some of Comey’s former FBI and Justice Department colleagues continue to protect him from accountability.

Three suspicious activities stand out, all intertwined: the so-called Comey Memos, Comey’s controversial testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee and Comey’s book deal.
After Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, he arranged to give The New York Times a Feb. 14, 2017, memorandum he had written about a one-on-one conversation with Trump regarding former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.

On June 8, 2017, Comey testified under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he stated he authored as many as nine such memos. Regarding the Flynn memo, Comey admitted: “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times]. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”