RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Friday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View,” Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) stated that after President Donald Trump is impeached, Vice President Mike Pence won’t be a better president than Trump and should be impeached as well.http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/04/waters-when-we-finish-with-trump-we-have-to-go-and-get-pence/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20170804

One of the show’s hosts, Joy Behar asked, “Do you think Pence will be better than Trump if he were impeached? ”

Waters answered, “No. And when we finish with Trump, we have to go and get Putin. He’s next.”Behar then asked Waters if she meant Putin or Pence, and Waters clarified that she meant Pence.

A mounting unmasking scandal investigation is leading right to the Obama White House and to a former Obama administration United Nations ambassador. Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which is handling the investigation, has blown the lid off of what could well turn out to be one of the most egregious violations of Americans’ 4th Amendment privacy rights in the nation’s history.

In a July 27th letter to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, Rep. Nunes expressed the concern of his committee that government officials may have abused their authority to request the unmasking of U.S. person identities sourced from raw intelligence reports. The raw intelligence, which included the names of some Americans, focused on foreign individuals’ communications of interest to intelligence agencies. Some of those communications may have been with Americans caught up in the intelligence surveillance.

Rep. Nunes said in his letter that “Obama-era officials sought the identities of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports.” One official, the letter said, “whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration” (emphasis in the original). Rep. Nunes added that in the absence of individual, fact-based justifications for such unmasking, “the Committee is left with the impression that these officials may have used this information for improper purposes, including the possibility of leaking. More pointedly, some of the requests for unminimized U.S. person information were followed by anonymous leaks of those names to the media.”

During the final days of the Obama presidency, Obama administration officials widely disseminated information across government agencies regarding intelligence purportedly linking Trump officials to Russian contacts. Some of that information has been leaked to the press, most notably leaked transcripts of retired General and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Rep. Nunes’ July 27th letter did not provide any specific names of Obama-era officials who allegedly made the unmasking requests, including unmasking of the identities of Trump transition officials. However, in a letter sent Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee to the National Security Agency (NSA), former Obama White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was specifically named as a person of interest.

Circa’s Sara Carter has reported that Rhodes’ name was added “to the growing list of top Obama government officials who may have improperly unmasked Americans in communications intercepted overseas by the NSA.” The intelligence committee, Sara Carter wrote, is “requesting the number of unmaskings made by Rhodes from Jan. 1, 2016 to Jan. 20, 2017.”

Rhodes was the Obama-era official who boasted about creating “an echo chamber” in the press to sell the Obama administration’s disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Rhodes was subsequently reported to be part of “a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility,” according to multiple sources cited by the Washington Free Beacon. Their purpose was to preserve Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, which Flynn strongly opposed. They did not want to risk Flynn’s disclosure of “secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration,” according to the Washington Free Beacon report.

Thus, Rhodes had both motive and opportunity to abuse his authority to request the unmasking of the identities of Americans while still serving as deputy national security adviser during the waning days of the Obama administration, particularly if they involved the identities of Trump campaign and transition officials such as Flynn.

Ben Rhodes’ involvement in the actual leaking of the Flynn transcript has not yet been definitively established. However, in a tweet on March 2, 2017, after the leak occurred, Rhodes revealed how he felt about the public exposure of the Russian contacts: “Flynn, Kushner, Manafort, Page, Sessions all meet with Russians pre-inauguration. Why? And why go to such lengths to conceal these contacts?”

Is “unmasking” the Republican version of “collusion”: dramatic huffing and puffing in lieu of something truly worth huffing and puffing about?

I wonder. I’ve watched the story closely but I haven’t written about it for a while because I can’t get past a nagging question: Why must we speculate about whether the Obama administration abusively exploited its foreign-intelligence-collection powers in order to spy on Donald Trump’s political campaign? After all, Trump is president now. If he was victimized, he’s in a position to tell us all about it.

The president is in charge of the executive branch, including its intelligence agencies. He has the authority to decide what intelligence information, and intelligence abuses, can be declassified and made public.

When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he bashed the Bush administration’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques for high-value terrorist detainees. His campaign promised that there would be a public accounting. When he became president, Obama promptly ordered the declassification and public dissemination of government memos outlining the techniques.

Like many Obama critics, I disagreed with the merits of this decision. But there was no denying the president’s authority to reveal the information. He had objected to what he argued were abusive practices by the intelligence agencies under the guise of national security. As president, he was in a position to expose evidence of the practices, both to back up his allegations and to push for policy changes.

So, why hasn’t Trump taken a page out of this book? Why are we still guessing whether political spying occurred when the alleged victim is now in a position to tell us one way or the other?

New reporting on the subject by Circa’s Sara A. Carter injects confusion while adding to the unnecessary suspense. Its headline breathlessly proclaims, “Former Obama aide Ben Rhodes is now a person of interest in the unmasking investigation.” Not to pick on Ms. Carter, but . . . no he’s not.

There is no unmasking “investigation” in the commonly understood sense of a law-enforcement probe to determine if criminal laws were broken. The inquiry into unmasking — i.e., the exposure in intelligence reporting of the identities of Americans incidentally picked up in foreign-intelligence collections — is an exercise in congressional oversight. Its principal purpose is to determine whether there should be legislative changes in the laws that govern intelligence-gathering (e.g., Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is up for reauthorization soon).

The most significant conclusion we can draw from news that a grand jury has been impaneled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is that the so-called Russia investigation, officially, is a criminal investigation.

The purpose of a grand jury is to investigate a factual transaction or series of transactions to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. That makes it categorically different from a counterintelligence investigation. The latter, we have noted many times, is an information-gathering exercise geared toward understanding and thwarting the intentions and actions of foreign powers.

There is no need for a grand jury in a counterintelligence probe.

All that said, the fact that there is a criminal investigation does not mean charges are imminent, or indeed that they will ever be filed. There are virtually no limits on the investigative powers of the grand jury. Under our law, a grand jury may conduct a probe simply to satisfy itself that no crimes have been committed. That is to say, there is no evidentiary threshold that must be crossed before a grand jury can begin investigating. Contrast that with, for example, a search warrant or an eavesdropping warrant; those investigative techniques may not be used unless a court has first been satisfied that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

It is frequently observed that grand-jury proceedings are secret. That is not quite accurate. The obligation of secrecy applies to the grand jurors and government personnel who examine witnesses and collect evidence through subpoenas. But subjects of the investigation, witnesses, and their lawyers are under no duty to remain silent – even though it is usually a good idea to do so, since statements can be used as evidence. Of course, there are often government leaks. Putting that inevitability aside, though, it is worth noting who is permitted to speak and who is not. Media coverage of an investigation tends to rely on the people most at liberty to discuss it. That means coverage skews in favor of lawyers for the subjects, who obviously have a motive to minimize the prosecution’s proof.

The principal advantage of the grand jury for prosecutors is the ability to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and the production of documentary or other physical evidence. No investigation of any complexity can be advanced without this capacity. When I say “advanced,” I do not mean a progression toward the filing of criminal charges – at least not necessarily. An investigation should be a search for the truth, which means getting to the bottom of what happened, regardless of whether crimes can be proven.

Thus, the fact that we now have a grand jury does not mean a crime has been committed, much less that the filing of charges must be imminent. Still, the impaneling of a grand jury is a highly significant development. Prosecutors do not seek the assistance of the grand jury’s subpoena power, and do not contemplate presenting evidence to a grand jury, unless they see a realistic possibility of filing criminal charges.

Don’t look now, but while Democrats (and some goofy Republicans) continue to push Russian conspiracy stories, President Trump is advancing his Greatness Agenda through court appointments like wildfire. The Senate on August 1 confirmed Kevin Newsom to the 11th Circuit, joining Sixth Circuit Judges Amul R. Thapar and John K. Bush as confirmed Trump appointees. Ralph Erickson has already had his hearing and should be confirmed soon for the Eighth Circuit.https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/03/courting-success-bigly/

To date in his administration, Trump has outpaced Barack Obama and Bill Clinton with his judicial appointees. Trump has so far had confirmed one Supreme Court justice (Neil Gorsuch) and three circuit court nominees. Only four presidents have had a Supreme Court appointment in his first year. At this same point, Ronald Reagan had no Supreme Court justices and no circuit court nominees confirmed—his first wasn’t confirmed until September 19, 1981, although he finished with eight circuit justices confirmed in his first year. Trump could well surpass the pace of both Richard Nixon, who had one Supreme Court pick and 10 circuit judges confirmed, and Jimmy Carter (no Supreme Court justices but 10 circuit court choices confirmed) by the end of the year.

There are a number of outstanding nominations waiting to be voted on now, but they appear to be moving fast. For example, Amy Barrett from Notre Dame was just given the “blue slip” of approval by U.S. Senator Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), indicating her confirmation is imminent. Several Democrats have yet to return their blue slips, but there is no reason to think they won’t. In the Fifth Circuit, Trump has four nominations, plus one to the D.C. circuit, one to the Eighth, and one to the 11th (a vacancy in Georgia that just came up). Even assuming blue slips aren’t returned for Judges Joan Larsen, David Stras, Allison Eid, or Professor Stephanos Bibas, Trump could still rack up an astounding 13 confirmations in his first year. Only John F. Kennedy, with 14 (plus Byron White to the Supreme Court) had more.

Most of Trump’s nominees are young. Newsome is 45; Thapar, 50, and a Supreme Court short-lister; Bush is 52. Judge Erickson is on the way, almost certain to be confirmed. There are four Fifth Circuit vacancies (three current and one in October when Judge E. Grady Jolly assumes senior status); one Seventh Circuit (Amy Coney Barrett, whose blue slip has been returned, and her hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 8, ensuring confirmation); one in the Eighth Circuit (two Republican senators are supportive, although one—Ben Sasse of Nebraska—has been a pain in Trump’s neck and, like John McCain, could torpedo the pick); one in the Ninth Circuit; one in the 11th Circuit when Judge Frank Hall will assume senior status when her—yes, her—successor is confirmed); and one in the D.C. circuit, who will likely be Greg Katsas. In short, if Trump sends up the rest of the other 13 soon, he could match Reagan’s record with 13 confirmations.

District court judges are a different matter because of cloture requirements. And even with this blistering pace, Trump’s work is cut out for him. Obama nominated 329 judges who were confirmed (121 unanimously), and only 105 of them were challenged. All of six Obama nominees were rejected as a result of Republican filibusters. Obama withdrew them. Newsom’s vote

was 66-31, indicating there will still be Democrat obstruction. At this rate, though, it won’t matter. After a year of Trump in the White House, the U.S. judiciary will have made a sharp, decisive turn to the right. Contrary to the predictions of some NeverTrumpers—that Trump would betray conservatives on judges—Trump is embarrassing them with one solid appointee after another

Judicial Watch has been doing the work that Congress and the Justice Department can’t or won’t do, uncovering evidence of Clinton scandals heretofore hidden from the public. Thanks to their FOIA lawsuits, the State Department is coughing up redacted documents that are part of the public record – even the ones on Hillary Clinton’s illegal server and (soon, we hope) Anthony Weiner’s laptop, where Huma Abedin forwarded classified emails “to make them easier to print.”

In the latest release of 1,606 pages, Judicial Watch noted “repeated use of unsecured communications for classified information and numerous examples of Clinton Foundation donors receiving special favors from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff.”

As Hillary’s closest aide, Ms. Abedin had access to everything Hillary did.

There is a lot to go through, but the U.K. Daily Mail picked out this highlight:

[An] email from 2009 released by the State Department reveals Kelly Craighead of the Democracy Alliance and friend of Hillary Capricia Marshall, a former HillPAC director, putting in a good word for a person they describe as a ‘loyal supporter.’

Craighead followed up to try to get the booster a job.

‘It would mean a lot to me if you could help or advise on a personnel situation for a dear friend,’ she wrote.

Abedin, who worked for Clinton in the Senate and State Department and went on to join her presidential campaign, seemed to buy it. ‘We love [redacted]’ she wrote. ‘Looking into this asap.’

If and when a special counsel is appointed to look into the possible crimes associated with the Clinton Foundation and State Department, I am sure that this interaction will be the subject of inquiry and cross-examination of Ms. Abedin.

And this:

The emails also show the reemergence of Hillary Clinton brother Tony Rodham, who intervenes to try to get someone help with his green card.

In the 2010 email, assistant Monica Hanley wrote Abedin: ‘Hi Huma – Tony Rodham called again looking for an update with his greencard issue. Let me know if this is something I should follow up on.’

A March 2010 email from Hanley appears to show an effort to get out of the task.

‘Do you want me to tell Mr. Rodham that the State Departmtn doesn’t handle Green Card matters or do you want me to tell him something else?’ she inquired.

If only the State Department handled Green Cards, there would not be a problem in granting the favor – special consideration, it sounds like.

Leftist apologists are claiming that because Hillary Clinton lost the election, she should be immune from criminal prosecution. These are potential crimes in office, and the American people deserve a full inquiry. The left demands investigations, so let’s show how it is done.

Apparently, President Trump was not aware of the decision by national security adviser H.R. McMaster to grant senior Obama official Susan Rice top-secret security clearance. This disturbing news was revealed by Sara Carter of Circa News, who documents the letter that notified Rice that such powers gave her “unfettered and continuing access to classified information and waiving her ‘need-to-know’ requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure.”

Carter asserts that “[t]he undated and unclassified letter from McMaster was sent in the mail to Rice’s home. Trump was not aware of the letter or McMaster’s decision, according to two Senior West Wing officials and an intelligence official, who spoke to Circa on condition that they not be named.”

I hereby waive the requirement that you must have a ‘need-to-know’ to access any classified information contained in items you ‘originated, reviewed, signed or received while serving,’ as National Security Adviser[.] The letter also states that the ‘NSC will continue to work with you to ensure the appropriate security clearance documentation remains on file to allow you access to classified information.’

Circa revealed in “March that during President Obama’s tenure, top aides – including Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch – routinely reviewed intelligence reports received from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad. They were doing so by taking advantage of rules Obama relaxed starting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats[.]”

In June, “the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Rice as part of the committee’s larger investigation into the unmasking of Americans under the Obama administration..”

Apparently “[u]nder the law, and under certain conditions, it is common practice for some senior government officials to be given the unfettered access to classified information, and their ‘need to know’ is waived under ‘Executive Order 13526 Section 4.4 Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.’ But the White House officials told Circa that under the current congressional investigation, and given President Trump’s ongoing concern that members of his team were unmasked, Rice’s clearance should have been limited to congressional testimony only or revoked until the end of the investigation.”

President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has reportedly concluded that former Obama official Susan Rice did nothing wrong by unmasking the identities of Trump transition officials in conversations with Russian officials.

Two United States intelligence officials told Bloomberg’s Eli Lake that McMaster has concluded that Rice did nothing wrong.

That assertion is at odds with Trump’s thinking, as he repeatedly raised the Rice story during speeches and media interviews.

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story,” Trump said in an interview with the New York Times, suggesting that it was possible that she may have committed a crime.

On April 12, Trump used the story to defend his accusations that the Obama administration was spying and leaking on his transition team in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.
“When you look at Susan Rice and what’s going on and so many people are coming up to me and apologizing now,” Trump said. “They say, ‘You know, you were right when you said that.’”

When Bartiromo told Trump that Rice denied doing anything political, he dismissed it.

“Does anyone really believe that?” he said. “Nobody believes that, even the people that try to protect her in the news media.”House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes continues to investigate the hundreds of unmasking requests from former Obama officials, including those of former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

In Federalist 10, James Madison observes:

As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.

Indeed. The ordinary business of life provides a good illustration of what Madison was talking about. And when we come to politics, it’s not just human fallibility that is at issue. There is also the operation of what Madison calls “self-love,” and “the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.” It may be that “[t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government,” as Madison argued, but the diversity of interests means that there will always be a diversity of opinions — i.e., conflict.

These are truisms, I know, and I utter them as a preliminary to mentioning something that puzzles me. Granted, people disagree about many things. Granted, too, that in the realm of politics our own interests propel us to applaud certain courses of action and deprecate others. Still, I have been amazed by the discrepancy of opinions about Donald Trump’s presidency.

It’s not, I hasten to add, the fact of the discrepancy that puzzles me, but its global, all-encompassing quality.

I think I first became fully conscious of this phenomenon in the aftermath of Trump’s inauguration speech. The speech that I heard seemed to be toto genere different from the speech that NeverTrumpers, on the Right as well as on the Left, heard. Writing for the Financial Times, I described the speech as “gracious but plain-speaking.” That did not go down well among the readers of FT.

Writing here at PJM, I listed some of the negative reactions to the speech. Typical was a column in the Chicago Tribune, which described it as “raw, angry and aggrieved,” “pugnacious in tone, pitch black in its color.”

Had we been listening to the same speech? Possibly, but the speech that we heard was different. I quoted a famous bit from The Tempest to illustrate the phenomenon. A few of the shipwrecked men are taking stock of their situation on Prospero’s enchanted island, and it soon becomes clear that the island appears very different to different characters:

ADRIAN: The air breathes upon us here most sweetly.

SEBASTIAN: As if it had lungs and rotten ones.

ANTONIO: Or as ’twere perfumed by a fen.

GONZALO: Here is everything advantageous to life.

ANTONIO: True; save means to live.

SEBASTIAN: Of that there’s none, or little.

GONZALO: How lush and lusty the grass looks! how green!

ANTONIO: The ground indeed is tawny.

SEBASTIAN: With an eye of green in’t.

ANTONIO: He misses not much.

SEBASTIAN: No; he doth but mistake the truth totally.

The question is, of course, who is right, the cheery Gonzalo or his shipmates?

Having once been an active and paid-up member of the anti-Trump brigade, I understand that there are many things to criticize about Donald Trump. I have on several occasions explained why I changed my mind. It boils down to two things: Hillary Clinton on the negative side of the equation, and Trump’s agenda on the positive side.

I think that Clinton would have been a disaster for the country. I would have voted for the Cairn terrier who lives across the street before voting for her. But the more I heard about what Trump wanted to do — about taxes, about immigration, about the U.S. military, about regulation, and about many other things — the more I liked it. CONTINUE AT SITE