Thursday, June 14, 2018

CLINTON CRONIES SQUEEZE COHEN

As President Trump remains the primary target.

 
“Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime confidant and former personal attorney,” ABC reported Wednesday, “is likely to cooperate with federal investigators, as his lawyers are expected to leave the case” for “fee reasons.” That leaves Cohen staring down the barrel of the Friday deadline for review of more than 3.7 million documents the FBI seized in the April 9 raids of his office and home. Those documents are in the care of judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York, a person of considerable interest. 
Wood was on Bill Clinton’s short list for attorney general but after revelations of her false-documented nanny, the president and First Lady Hillary Clinton, who insisted that a woman get the job, opted for Janet Reno. In 2013, Kimba Wood presided over the marriage of George Soros to his third wife. The leftist billionaire gave $10 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, making him one of her top donors. 
When Special Counsel Robert Mueller outsourced the Cohen probe to Wood, former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka tweeted, “Now she has power over the lawyer who works for the man who beat Bill’s wife in the 2016 election, WHERE’S THE RECUSAL?” There was none, and Wood is not the only Clinton crony on the case. 
Cohen argued that his attorneys should get the first look at the materials seized in the raids for items potentially covered by attorney-client privilege before federal prosecutors could get to it. Judge Wood instead appointed former federal judge Barbara Jones to act as a “special master” to conduct the document review. Jones is a former federal judge nominated in 1995 by President Clinton, doubtless with the approval of First Lady Hillary Clinton. 
As of last week, Jones had reviewed 300,000 documents and determined that only 162 were covered by attorney-client privilege. And as ABC also reported, Jones “rejected three items that Cohen, Trump or the Trump organization had designated as privileged.” That gives some sense of what the unrepresented Cohen faces on Friday, and it supports President Trump’s tweet following the raid that “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” 
The day before Cohen’s attorneys bailed, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Special Counsel Mueller, threatened members of the House with, as some saw it, criminal investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News he was “confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion.” 
That pathetic performance supports Trump’s contention that Sessions was not the best man for the job. It also calls to mind Trey Gowdy’s claim  that “the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do”when they planted spies in the Trump campaign. By all indications, the FBI assigned no spies to the Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein campaigns. 
Today, one day after Cohen’s attorneys bailed, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz releases his long awaited report on the Clinton email investigation. This report will jostle with FBI-DOJ stars such as James Comey, General Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. It’s being billed as a “bombshell,” but the president wonders if the DOJ, which in effect is investigating itself, will smooth out any rough edges
As President Trump has also noted, former FBI boss Robert Mueller, allegedly a man of great integrity, has bulked up his team with partisan Democrats and Clinton donors. In similar style, Trump attorney Michael Cohen finds himself in the hands of Clinton cronies judge Kimba Wood, also a George Soros groupie, and special master Barbara Wood. 
After the FBI raid on Cohen’s office and home in April, Alan Dershowitz wondered how civil libertarians would respond if the FBI raided the offices of Hillary Clinton. Since she was never elected president, the Harvard man misses the true parallel. 
Imagine that in early 2009 the FBI had raided the offices and home of President Obama’s personal attorney Bob Bauer, whom the president also named the attorney of the Democratic Party. Imagine that partisan Republicans and McCain donors dominated the ensuring investigation, perhaps looking into the president’s identifying documents and demanding the academic records he had blocked. The response would amount to civil war. 
Meanwhile, as Clinton cronies shake down Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the Democrats’ chief Russia collusion-monger Adam Schiff wants Ivanka Trump to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, along with her husband Jared Kushner. President Trump remains the primary target, of what is essentially a coup d’état.  
On October 30, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama proclaimed,  “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” With the New Deal and Great Society, the nation was already a welfare state, so he had something else in mind.
In his vision, the outgoing president picks his successor and commandeers the intelligence, law enforcement and judicial agencies to make it happen. If voters don’t see it that way, as Peter Strzok said, there’s an “insurance policy” to make it work. 
That’s the transformation now playing out in Washington. As President Trump said of the Korea summit, “we’ll see what happens.” 

FROM 9/11 TO SPYGATE: THE NATIONAL SECURITY DEEP STATE

The men that failed on 9/11 used their new powers to suppress the truth about Islamic terror.

 
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
On September 4, 2001, Robert Mueller took over the FBI. At his confirmation hearings, fraud had overshadowed discussions of terrorism. And as FBI Director, Mueller quickly diverged from the common understanding that the attacks that killed 3,000 people had been an act of war rather than a crime.
In 2008, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who had been unleashed from Guantanamo Bay, carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq. Al-Ajmi had been represented by Thomas Wilner who was being paid by the Kuwaiti government. 
Wilner was a pal of Robert Mueller. And when the families were having dinner together, Mueller got up and said, "I want to toast Tom Wilner. He's doing just what an American lawyer should do."
“I don't know what he was doing from inside the government. I'd like to find out,” Wilner mused.
We know some of what Mueller was doing. The same official who paved the way for raiding the president’s lawyer, who illegally seized material from the Trump transition team and whose case is based in no small part on illegal eavesdropping, fought alongside Comey against surveilling terrorists. Materials involving the Muslim Brotherhood were purged. Toward the dawn of the second Obama term, Mueller met with CAIR and other Islamist groups and a green curtain fell over national security.
But the surveillance wasn’t going anywhere. Instead it was being redirected to new targets.
Those targets were not, despite the wave of hysterical conspiracy theories convulsing the media, the Russians. Mueller’s boss was still quite fond of them. Barack Obama did have foreign enemies that he wanted to spy on. And there were plenty of domestic enemies who could be caught up in that trap.
By his second term, the amateur was coming to understand the incredible surveillance powers at his disposal and how they could be used to spy on Americans under the pretext of fighting foreign threats.
Two birds. One stone.
While the Mueller purge was going on, Obama was pushing talks with Iran. There was one obstacle and it wasn’t Russia. The Russians were eager to play Obama with a fake nuke deal. It was the Israelis who were the problem. And it was the Israelis who were being spied on by Obama’s surveillance regime. 
But it wasn’t just the Israelis.
Iran was Obama’s big shot at a foreign policy legacy. As the year dragged on, it was becoming clear that the Arab Spring wouldn’t be anything he would want to be remembered for. By the time Benghazi went from a humanitarian rescue operation to one of the worst disasters of the term, it was clearly over.
Obama was worried that the Israelis would launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. And the surveillance and media leaks were meant to dissuade the Israelis from scuttling his legacy. But he was also worried about Netanyahu’s ability to persuade American Jews and members of Congress to oppose his nuclear sellout. And that was where the surveillance leapfrogged from foreign to domestic.
The NSA intercepted communications between Israelis and Americans, including members of Congress, and then passed the material along to the White House. Despite worries by some officials that "that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress", the White House "believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu's campaign." 
The precedent was even more troubling than it seemed. 
Obama Inc. had defined its position in an unresolved political debate between the White House and Congress as the national interest. And had winkingly authorized surveillance on Congress to protect this policy in a domestic political debate. That precedent would then be used to spy on members of the Trump transition team and to force out Trump’s national security adviser.
National security had become indistinguishable from the agenda of the administration. And that agenda, like the rest of Obama’s unilateral policies, was enshrined as permanent. Instead of President Trump gaining the same powers, his opposition to that agenda was treated as a national security threat.  
And once Obama was out of office, Comey and other Obama appointees would protect that agenda.
We still don’t know the full scope of Spygate. But media reports have suggested that Obama officials targeted countries opposed to the Iran sellout, most prominently Israel and the UAE, and then eavesdropped on meetings between them and between figures on the Trump team.  
Obama had begun his initial spying as a way of gaining inside information on Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran deal. But the close election and its aftermath significantly escalated what had been a mere Watergate into an active effort to not only spy, but pursue criminal charges against the political opposition. The surveillance state had inevitably moved on to the next stage, the police state with its informants, dossiers, pre-dawn raids, state’s witnesses, entrapments and still more surveillance. 
And the police state requires cops. Someone had to do the dirty work for Susan Rice.
Comey, Mueller and the other cops had likely been complicit in the administration’s abuses. Somewhere along the way, they had become the guys watching over the Watergate burglars. Spying on the political opposition is, short of spying for the enemy, the most serious crime that such men can commit. 
Why then was it committed?
To understand that, we have to go back to 9/11. Those days may seem distant now, but the attacks offered a crossroads. One road led to a war against our enemies. The other to minimizing the conflict.
President George W. Bush tried to fight that war, but he was undermined by men like Mueller and Comey. Their view of the war was the same as that of their future boss, not their current one, certainly not the view as the man currently sitting in the White House whom they have tried to destroy.
Every lie has some truth in it. Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, his frequent claims of allegiance to American ideals, are true, as he sees it, if not as he tells it. Men like Comey and Mueller believed that the real threat came not from Islamic terrorists, but from our overreaction to them. They believed that Bush was a threat. And Trump was the worst threat imaginable who had to be stopped by any means. 
What Comey and Mueller are loyal to is the established way of doing things. And they conflate that with our national ideals, as establishment thugs usually do. Neither of them are unique. Washington D.C. is filled with men and women who are registered Republicans, who believe in lowering taxes, who frown at the extremities of identity politics, but whose true faith is in the natural order of government.
Mueller and Comey represent a class. And Obama and Clinton were easily able to corrupt and seduce that class into abandoning its duties and oaths, into serving as its deep state against domestic foes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? It’s the old question of who watches the watchmen that no society has found a good answer to. And the answer is inevitably that the watchers, watch themselves and everyone else. What began as national security measures against Islamic terrorism was twisted by Obama and his deep state allies into the surveillance of the very people fighting Islamic terrorism. 
Spygate was the warped afterbirth of our failure to meaningfully confront Islamic terrorism. Instead, the political allies of the terrorists and the failed watchmen who allowed them to strike so many times, got together to shoot the messengers warning about the terror threat. The problem had never been the lack of power, but the lack of will and the lack of integrity in an establishment unwilling to do its job.
After 9/11, extraordinary national security powers were brought into being to fight Islamic terror. Instead those powers were used to suppress those who told the truth about Islamic terrorism.

Watchdog: Ex-FBI director Comey made 'serious error' in Clinton probe disclosures

X
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - Former FBI Director James Comey made a "serious error of judgment" when he announced shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election that he was reopening an investigation into candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, the Justice Department's internal watchdog said on Thursday.
But Inspector General Michael Horowitz also concluded in a long-awaited, 500-page report that Comey did not exhibit any political bias or try to influence the election. Horowitz also did not contest the decision not to prosecute Clinton for the email affair.
A long-serving law enforcement official, Comey became a controversial figure in the 2016 election, drawing accusations from both Republicans and Democrats that his handling of the probe into Clinton's emails influenced the campaign.
Comey later headed a separate investigation into alleged ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. Trump fired him as head of the FBI in 2017 and has frequently criticized him since.
Both sides of the partisan divide in U.S. politics are expected to use the Horowitz report to press their cases against Comey, who defended his actions in an op-ed published in the New York Times after the report was released.
Slideshow preview image
 
13 PHOTOS
Inside the White House on the day Trump fired James Comey
SEE GALLERY
  
"In 2016, my team faced an extraordinary situation — something I thought of as a 500-year flood — offering no good choices and presenting some of the hardest decisions I ever had to make," Comey wrote.
The inspector general's inquiry focused on public statements made by Comey about Democrat Clinton's use of a private email server, instead of a State Department server, while she was secretary of state.
In October 2016, less than two weeks before Election Day, Comey sent members of Congress a letter disclosing that a probe into Clinton's emails was being reopened after new emails were found. Two days befor the Nov. 8 election, Comey said the FBI found no additional evidence in the new emails, but Clinton contends the letter contributed to her defeat by Trump.
John Podesta, who ran the Clinton campaign, said "the report demonstrates beyond doubt" that Comey was unfair to Clinton by announcing developments of the email investigation during the campaign while not revealing the presence of the separate probe beginning in July 2016 into the Trump campaign and Russia.
"This report confirms what we have known for a long time - that the FBI inappropriately applied a double standard to the Clinton and Trump investigations which hurt her and helped elect him," Podesta told Reuters.
Slideshow preview image
 
7 PHOTOS
John Podesta says Hillary Clinton is not done yet
SEE GALLERY
AdChoices
Trump's allies have signaled they will use the Horowitz report to press their argument that Comey did not act properly while overseeing the Russia probe.
VIOLATING POLICIES
The report sharply criticized Comey for violating Justice Department policies and accused him of usurping the authority of then Attorney General Loretta Lynch when in July 2016 he held a news conference to announce there would be no charges against Clinton for her email use as secretary of state.
Comey chastised Clinton for being "extremely careless" but said there was insufficient evidence to charge her with a federal crime. That upset Republicans who said Comey's statement could have helped Clinton's election campaign.
Comey said Lynch forced his hand when she did not recuse herself from the Clinton probe, even after a June 2016 meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard her plane raised concerns she was conflicted.
Thursday’s report found that while Lynch did not discuss the email investigation with Bill Clinton, she failed "to recognize the appearance problem" created by the meeting.
Trump and his allies have accused a clique of FBI and Justice Department officials of working against Trump.
The Horowitz report was highly critical of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two FBI staff members who exchanged highly charged political messages, finding their texts cast a cloud over the FBI and created the appearance of bias.
In one newly released email from August 2016, Page wrote to Strzok asking “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right!”
Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
Although the report found no evidence that bias impacted decisions surrounding the Clinton email probe prior to July 2016, it said there were questions about whether bias could have factored into Strzok’s professional judgments later that fall.
In a statement Strzok's lawyer Aitan Goelman said the report, while flawed in some conclusions, found no evidence that his political views had an impact on the Clinton probe.
While some of their messages between Strzok and Page were anti-Trump, others took aim at lawmakers such as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Clinton defeated for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In a written response to Thursday's report, the FBI said it accepts the findings that certain text messages were “inappropriate and created an appearance that political bias might have improperly influenced investigative actions or decisions.” (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Mark Hosenball; Writing by Warren Strobel Editing by John Walcott and Alistair Bell)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *