nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2018, 04:59:24 PM » |
|
________________________________ The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 12-12-2018 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription _______________________________
Dershowitz concluded, “We need a single standard. If you would not go after Bill Clinton, don’t go after Donald Trump. If you are going after Donald Trump, then you have to go after Hillary Clinton. … This is such a danger to the constitutional system that I would hope that true civil libertarians would rebel against it, as I am.”
Patriots, one of the most cost-effective investments you can make toward the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We rely entirely on the voluntary financial support of our Patriot readers — people like you — to promote freedom and challenge the one-sided Leftmedia narrative. Please support The Patriot Fund’s Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.
As political analyst Hans von Spakovsky notes regarding the charges filed by the U.S. attorney in New York: “His theory that anything intended to ‘influence’ an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)25 specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures ‘used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.’ Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed ‘irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.’”
And how do the Trump payments compare with actual illegal campaign contributions in recent years?
According to Andrew McCarthy, “Barack Obama’s26 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million — an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohen’s case. The Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.”
Recall, too, that the Justice Department failed to convict former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards after he funneled actual campaign dollars — more than $1 million — to his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
In one election, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took in more than $1 million in revenue and had more than $6 million in expenses that he failed to report. He paid a $138,000 fine.
Of course, Bill Clinton had multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault, and in the Paula Jones case he paid $850,000 to “settle” that matter.
If Democrats are really concerned about campaign-finance violations, let’s put a price on the biggest of those violations — the Leftmedia’s12 support for Democrat candidates, which is equivalent to billions of dollars in free campaign advertising. Fake news27 is priceless.
So is this all Mueller and his Democrat team of hatchet men have against Trump after two years of investigation — a question about whether an extortion payoff constituted a campaign contribution, which may provide a pathway to indicting Trump after he leaves office28?
We’re not sure, because we’re still waiting on the substance of his report — someday. Regardless, the prospect of campaign-finance violations is sufficient to fuel the Democrats’ relentless hounding of Trump over the next two years, as it fits with their “stolen election” narrative and is fodder for faux impeachment charges.
On James Comey’s Testimony
Related to the Mueller investigation, disgraced former FBI Director James Comey was back in front of Congress testifying about what he no longer can recall. In his testimony29 last week, Comey was chastised for claiming not to know or recall key facts related to what he admitted was a fake dossier30 purporting to show Trump’s collusion with Russians. That phony dossier was then used as the basis for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, and then, after Trump’s shocking electoral victory, it was used to help launch the special counsel’s investigation.
According to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), “The biggest takeaway is that former FBI Director James Comey, with regard to the two most important investigations … into the Clinton email matter and into the Russia collusion matter, said, ‘I don’t recall,’ ‘I don’t remember,’ or ‘I don’t know’ 245 times.”
Let that sink in.
Typical of Comey’s abject obfuscation31 was this interaction with House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC):
Gowdy: Do you recall who drafted the FBI’s initiation document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?
Comey: I do not.
Gowdy: Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Comey: I don’t know one way or the other.
Gowdy: Do you know who approved that draft of an initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?
Comey: I don’t.
Ad infinitum.
During his testimony, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) asked Comey, “Is there any need to further investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails based upon the decision that you made not to prosecute?” He replied, “Not that I can possibly see. There’s no serious person who thinks there’s a prosecutable case there. And so, not that can I see.”
That notwithstanding, Comey’s testimony raises the prospect that Hillary Clinton4 may finally face charges for using a private email server32 to keep her official communications as Obama’s secretary of state off the grid. She did so to ensure her communications would not be subject to public scrutiny during her then-planned 2016 presidential bid.
Clinton’s unmitigated ethical abuses33, including her Benghazi cover-up34 to protect Obama’s reelection in 2012 and “pay-to-play” donations to the Clinton Foundation35 when she was serving as secretary of state, are about to be back on the table for possible prosecution.
Accelerating that possibility was last week’s finding by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth36 that Clinton’s private email server constituted “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” Likewise, Lamberth slammed Justice and State: “At worst, career employees in the State and Justice departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this court.”
However, what I believe was most consequential from Comey’s testimony is the emergence again of Clinton’s Russian Fusion Collusion37 — the dossier and FISA court warrant.
Mueller should be investigating the genuine 2016 election collusion between Clinton, Comey, and the Russians38, which had the objective of setting Trump up39 for a takedown in the event he was elected.
Seems to be working thus far.
Impeaching Trump
As we’ve noted many times, the entire Russia investigation was conceived to keep Trump on the ropes and on the defensive as president in an effort to block his agenda.
Democrats are hoping that this underwhelming campaign-finance charge will be their golden ticket to impeaching Trump. California Democrat Adam Schiff, incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, declared, “[Trump] may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.” New York Demo Rep. Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, added, “The president was at the center of a massive fraud, several massive frauds against the American people. It’s now our job … to get to the bottom of this … so we can hold him accountable.”
So far, Democrats have been unable to stop the Trump administration’s extraordinary achievements40, so they’re converting their “hate Trump41,” anti-peace-and-prosperity platform into an “impeach Trump42” charade to rally their constituencies ahead of the 2020 election.
In the meantime, the Democrat-controlled House will, under Nancy Pelosi’s thumb, attempt to inflict “death by a thousand cuts43” to keep Trump from further success.
Footnote: Patriots, one of the most cost-effective investments you can make toward the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We rely entirely on the voluntary financial support of our Patriot readers — people like you — to promote freedom and challenge the one-sided Leftmedia narrative. Please support The Patriot Fund’s Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
|