Monday, February 19, 2018

WOW! Trump Goes After Obama for $1.7 Billion Cash Bribe to Iranian Regime!



The following article appeared in the Gateway Pundit on February 18th

by Jim Hoft

On January 17, 2016, a cargo plane with $400 million in foreign currencies was secretly sent to Iran in the dead of night.

This was the same day the Iranian regime released four American hostages held in Tehran.
L to R: Matt Trevithick (Photo Credit Robin Wright) Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian (Photo Credit AP), Saeed Abedini
Barack Obama later told reporters this was not a ransom payment.

Obama lied.

Former US Iranian Hostage Saeed Abidini told FOX Business Network today the Iranian regime WOULD NOT let his plane leave Tehran until the ransom plane arrived.

US officials held the ransom cash until the hostages were released.
Two days after Obama sent Iran the ransom cash the US government wired 13 individual payments for $99,999,999.99 , each with an independent MICR, totaling $1,299,999,999.87.

Already the cash from Obama’s ransom payment to Iran has been traced to terrorist groups in the region.

On Sunday President Trump blasted Barack Obama for his $1.7 billion bribe to Iran.

Trump Tweet:

Never gotten over the fact that Obama was able to send $1.7 Billion Dollars in CASH to Iran and nobody in Congress, the FBI or Justice called for an investigation!


Ed.  Trump didn't exactly "go after" Obama, but that's exactly what he NEEDS to do. Of all the unconstitutional acts committed by Obama, this one takes the cake. How in the Hell can a president literally steal $1.7 billion from American taxpayers, give it to a sworn enemy of the United States and have no one say a word about it??  God knows the GOP is made up of first class wimps, but this is corruption; abuse of power; THEFT and TREASON!

Trump should tell Sessions to investigate NOW.

Better yet, how about a new special counsel!



Johns Hopkins proudly employs convicted killers

The following article appeared in the American Thinker on February 18th


The PBS NewsHour (at the 9-minute mark) last night had an inspiring story about a black church that helps ex-cons get jobs.  The program focused on a sympathetic obese black lady named Cally Thomas.  She's soft-spoken, she dresses well, and she even dyed her hair blonde like Beyoncé.  We're still somewhat sympathetic even after we learned that Cally Thomas is a convicted killer because, as NewsHour assures us, the murder was "domestic violence-related," so maybe she won't kill anyone else except boyfriends.  But then we learn where Cally has a job – as a janitor at John Hopkins Hospital.

That's very disturbing.  A hospital is full of patients, some of whom are helpless and/or unconscious.  It would be easy for them to be assaulted or robbed.  Places that have children or helpless people should not employ ex-cons, especially violent ex-cons.

But Johns Hopkins has no problem with that.  Between five and ten percent of jobs at the hospital are held by convicted criminals.  What's going to happen the first time they get hit by a lawsuit from a patient who was robbed or attacked by one of their staff?  Theft of patients' property in hospitals is quite common, and now we have an explanation for it.

Ex-convicts should have jobs, of course.  But there are plenty of jobs they can get that don't involve vulnerable populations.  They can work as janitors, as Cally does (but not in hospitals or schools).  They can work in restaurants.  They can work in retail, under supervision.  They can work in construction, in warehouses, as receptionists, or in low-level administrative capacities in the government  They can also work in factories or in service jobs.

Here's an interesting list of companies that hire felons, which includes Apple, American Airlines, Trader Joe's, Uber, and Federal Express.

Hiring felons is politically correct but not always appropriate.  What do you think?  Would you want to be a patient in a hospital that employs convicted criminals?  If you were going in for surgery, would you bring some pepper spray with you, just in case?

An emerging police state that spies on Americans? The left yawns



The following article appeared in the American Thinker on February 18th


Ever since the McCarthy era, hasn't it been a cultural norm from the left to holler about the U.S. becoming a police state? A police state that spies on innocent Americans? One that represses free speech and imposes thought which in reality is little different from a Soviet-style totalitarian police state? Aren't camps around the corner for the U.S., too? Hasn't the dark night of fascism been always descending over the United States (for decades), to paraphrase Tom Wolfe, yet lands only in Europe?
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
It's a drum the left has been banging for decades, all out of a supposedly pious 'principle.' Of course we don't spy on terrorists who would kill us! Gentlemen don't read each other's mail! We wouldn't dream of spying on Black Panthers or subversives within so many social movements because their rights might be violated! It's wrong! And the left's auxiliary to this defense of anti-Americans' "rights" was to align with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union which always favors the criminal over the protectors of Americans; calling for the full Marquess of Queensberry rules as far as the state goes. As Weatherman terrorist leader Bill Ayers put it: 'Guilty as hell and free as a bird' and the left has been happy with that. On the matters of state, the culmination of this philosophy was in the Church Commission, which debilitated our intelligence services over few past abuses during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, including what were known as the CIA's "family jewels," which included news of its Keystone Kop effort to get rid of a monster like Fidel Castro by trying to make his beard fall out. A fine summary of the origins of the left's creation of the Church Commission by Thomas J. Farnan can be read at Townhall here.

But as Farnan notes, all that oom-pah-pah from the left over spying seems to have changed.

We had the Internal Revenue Service spying on and repressing internal dissidents, which were not people who sought to harm us, as the left's heroes did, but who called themselves the 'Tea Party' and campaigned for lower government spending. The IRS and its minions such as the notorious Lois Lerner, who looks every bit like the warden she was, spied away, admitted their political motivation, and got off scot-free, retiring to their multi-million-dollar beltway mansions as their reward.
NOT police, but DNC Truth Squad

And from the principled left? Silence.

Then the deep state got busy spying on Carter Page, a blameless man who has not been charged with anything, for the 'crime' of liking Russia, based on his experience in Russia. A flimsy-as-hell, we-knew-it-was-garbage partisan file document, paid for by the Democratic Party, was used by the FBI as the basis for a FISA warrant, that protection put in by largely the left to keep the government from spying on citizens, and sure enough it was abused, resulting in the utterly unwarranted spying by the government on a U.S. citizen. And from there, more citizens were spied on, many more - including all of the people on the Trump team who got 'unmasked' in mass numbers by Obama officials, one of whom may have stolen Samantha Power's password to use in the unauthorized searches. Obama, was that you?

And the response from the left? Absolute dead silence. Abuses left and right and not a voice of principle among them. It's all because they hate Trump that much. They are absolutely blind to the double standard their silence implies. What it means is they can't go to that well a second time if more spying on their favored subversives occurs again. Because they've dropped their principles, that path is now wide open. Two can always play at their games.




Why Mueller Didn’t Indict the Russians For Meddling In the Presidential Election



The following article appeared in Powerline on February 17th

By John Hinderaker

I wrote here about Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian citizens and three Russian companies. The indictment is an odd one, as I pointed out:

Its very first paragraph recites that it is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to influence US elections, or for agents of foreign countries to engage in political activities without registering. But no one is charged with these crimes. Instead, the indictment is devoted mostly to charging a “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Normally, that would refer to defrauding the U.S. out of, say, $10,000 in Medicare benefits. Its application to the 2016 election seems dubious. Beyond that, the indictment charges relatively minor offenses: bank fraud (opening accounts in false names) and identity theft.

I have continued to puzzle over why Mueller chose not to indict the Russians for their most obvious offenses. I think the answer lies in this column by Robert Barnes, titled “Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?”


Barnes’s column is off the mark, I think, because it is written as though Mueller did indict the Russians for improper meddling in a U.S. election:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign?

Actually, Mueller indicted the Russians only for violating 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States), §§ 1343 and 1344 (wire fraud and bank fraud), and §1082(A) (identity theft). He did not indict them for violating 52 U.S.C. §30121 (contributions and donations by foreign nationals). The question is, why not? Here, I think Barnes supplies the answer, although again I do not think his explanation is technically accurate.

This is the relevant language of 52 U.S.C. §30121, which covers “meddling” in U.S. elections by foreign nationals:

(a) Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The Russians obviously violated this statute; they spent millions of dollars to promote the candidacies of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Jill Stein, and to oppose the candidacies of Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. So why weren’t they charged with the most pertinent crime they committed? Because Christopher Steele arguably violated the same law. He is a foreign national, and he contributed a “thing of value” to the Hillary Clinton campaign, namely the fake dossier.
Steele

Note, too, Section (2): it is a crime to “solicit, accept, or receive” such a contribution from a foreign national. Isn’t that what the Perkins, Coie law firm, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and probably Hillary herself, did?

The FEC guidance on contributions by foreign nationals is interesting. There is a “volunteer exception”; i.e., foreign nationals can volunteer their services to a political campaign. But Steele wasn’t a volunteer.

I don’t doubt that election lawyers could come up with defenses for Christopher Steele, were he to be charged with violating §30121. But that is a can of worms that Mueller didn’t want to open. Too many people know the facts behind the Steele dossier, and if he had charged the Russians with meddling in the presidential election under §30121, he soon would have faced questions about why he didn’t indict Steele–and Glenn Simpson, Perkins, Coie, Clinton campaign officials, and perhaps Clinton–for the same offense.

It was in order to avoid that pitfall, I suspect, that Mueller overlooked the most relevant federal offense that the Russians committed, and instead charged them with a vague “conspiracy to defraud,” along with wire fraud, bank fraud and identity theft. The first charge is entirely discretionary on Mueller’s part, and Steele didn’t commit wire fraud, bank fraud or identity theft.

I think that is why Mueller chose not to indict the Russians for meddling in a U.S. presidential election.

(Article continues HERE)



Ed.  I believe author Hinderaker has it right; that is, Mueller brought these silly charges because he didn’t want to expose his friends and colleagues to a legal brouhaha over their collusion in promoting the Steele dossier.


Of course, the average interested individual will assume Mueller actually DID charge Russia with meddling. Would you have thought otherwise had Hinderaker not spelled it out? And as no one will take up the torch by charging Hillary, Steele, the DNC et al, it may be falsely claimed by the left that these folks didn’t really meddle after all.