Friday, January 31, 2020

Should Roberts be impeached
for muzzling Kentucky senator?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
sparked a severe constitutional problem yesterday by refusing to read aloud a question posed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during the trial of President Trump. Though Paul asked about a National Security Council aide, Eric Ciaramella, the senator did not identify Ciaramella as the "whistleblower," whose complaint sparked the impeachment proceedings. Hence Roberts had no lawful reason to muzzle a member of the Senate.

Even had Paul identified Ciaramella as the whistleblower, the justice still had no lawful reason to muzzle Paul, since Paul is not forbidden by any law to mention any particular name and also because Paul has constitutional protection for anything he says on the Senate floor. It was a grotesque violation of separation of powers for Roberts to make such a decision, as well as an affront to the right of voters of the state of Kentucky to hear the answer demanded by their senator.

The behavior of Roberts in censoring a U.S. senator is so outlandish that a strong case can be made that impeachment proceedings should be opened against the chief justice, who was appointed by President George Bush.

At the very least, the Senate should protect senatorial prerogatives by voting to censure Roberts for blocking a senator's valid and proper exercise of free speech.
Here are Paul's tweets on the subject:

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tweeted after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read his question at the Senate trial of President Trump that his question never named any "whistleblower."

Tweet 1
My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together
Tweet 2
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.
Tweet 3
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
Tweet 4
If nobody knows the name of the whistle-blower, how can Roberts refuse to read the question?

BOLTON WON'T BE CALLED TO TESTIFY


'TRUMP WON,' CNN ANALYST LAMENTS


Dem senator denies bid to prolong trial
is meant to benefit Biden or Bloomberg

***************************************

'Irrelevant' that extended debate
keeps Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar,
Bennet off campaign trail as
rivals hit the stump in Iowa

***************************************

Bloomberg cleared to vie in caucuses


This afternoon's Senate vote to bar witnesses from the impeachment trial of President Trump was met with groans from Democrats and liberals.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York termed the outcome a "tragedy."

CNN's legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, saw the vote as a victory for President Trump, saying Democrats had failed to achieve a decisive result.

"Give us the big picture, right now, of what we're seeing," said Wolf Blitzer, a top CNN anchor.

"Trump won," said Toobin. "I mean you know he's gonna win this trial. He won on the issue of witnesses," he added. "He's going to get acquitted — and that's how history will remember what went on here.

Toobin, like others in the anti-Trump camp, sought to portray the decision to wrap up the trial without reopening the investigation as a very bad idea.

In a related matter, one of three Democratic senators pressing to prolong the trial of President Trump was unfazed yesterday by the predicament of four Senate colleagues who will be kept penned up in Washington if the trial is stretched out.

"Totally irrelevant," snapped Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., when asked about the predicament of the four senators seeking the Democratic primary nomination whose non-senator rivals are campaigning vigorously to do well in the bell-weather Iowa caucuses.

Blumenthal rejected any criticism that Democrats are trying to extend the trial until past the Iowa caucuses, which would keep the four 2020 White House hopefuls away from the campaign trail. Some observers suspect Democrats wish to deny Trump acquittal, now a near certainty, before the President's State of the Union address Tuesday.

Blumenthal said the timing of these events is "totally irrelevant" to his desire to make Republicans debate impeachment trial measures in public, whatever the cost to his four colleagues.

"Pardon me for seeming somewhat cavalier about it, but we're talking about an impeachment trial," Blumenthal said. "Nothing we do as senators will be more important."

Blumenthal has teamed up with Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to try to force extended public deliberations, which would violate current rules requiring impeachment debate to be held out of the public view.

But this evening the Senate voted mostly along party lines to bar reopening the investigation that the House had concluded. In a 51-49 vote, it was decided that former national security adviser John Bolton's testimony was unnecessary. But, sources told reporters that the trial is likely to be wrapped up on Wednesday, the day after the State of the Union address and two days after the Iowa primary.

Though the witness vote shows GOP resolve, the move for public debate is likely to be viewed favorably by many in the GOP, who have been muzzled during the presentation of the case, and who desire to explain their intention to vote for acquittal to the electorate.

On the other hand, Republican leaders had been pressing to dismiss the case rapidly. Senators were caucusing this evening to determine how to proceed for the remainder of the trial.

“Mitch McConnell wants this over as fast as possible with as little attention as possible,”  Brown, D-Ohio, said today in outlining his desire for a rule change.

The rule change would need the support of 51 senators to pass.

The four penned-up senators — Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael F. Bennet of Colorado — cannot leave early without the high probability of being tarred for shirking their preeminent duty.

Yet, other candidates such as Joe Biden, the former vice president;  Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind.; and Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, are traveling around Iowa, trying to persuade caucus-goers to turn out — and stand in their respective corners — on Monday night. Also Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire media mogul and former New York City mayor, was cleared to participate in the Iowa caucuses.

ACQUITTAL CERTAIN

Alexander chides Trump as tilting scales of justice
but says he will vote with Republican majority;
Murkowski ends her wavering on witness issue


Acquittal of President Trump of charges lodged by the Democrat House was certain today after Republican senators from Tennessee and Alaska announced their decisions to stick with the majority of their Republican colleagues and bar further testimony as unnecessary.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, ended the tension yesterday with her announcement. She had said repeatedly that she was curious about what a former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, had to say. Yesterday she said there was no way to correct the "flawed" impeachment proceedings with more witnesses and documents. She said that, because Congress had "failed," a fair trial was impossible.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., conceded last night that Trump had behaved in an "inappropriate" manner with respect to Ukraine and Joe Biden, a possible Trump rival for the presidency, but argued there is no need for more evidence, for the facts are there for all to see.

Alexander, who is retiring and has nothing to fear from the electorate, was among a handful of Republicans who were seen as potentially siding with Democrats in their demands for testimony from people that the Democrat-run House did not subpoena.

While Alexander said he made sure that senators would retain the right to seek more evidence if that was the consensus, he declared that there is no need for more information because "inappropriate" behavior has already been proved -- but that that behavior was not serious enough to warrant the removal of a president from office.

Murkowski said that she realized that, if she went with the Democrats, a tie vote on the witness issue could have occurred, potentially leaving it to Chief Justice John G. Roberts to break the tie, a possibility not foreseen in the Constitution. She said she preferred not to be the immediate cause of a constitutional crisis.

But Roberts later told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would decline to break any tie votes, according to Fox News, quoting its correspondent, Chad Pergram.

Roberts said that the precedent set in 1868 by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase was insufficient to give Roberts "authority to break ties." Chase, a political activist, broke two tie votes on procedural issues during the trial of President Andrew Johnson. Some senators objected to Chase's tie-breaking and so a vote was held that authorized Chase's decisions. That precedent implies that if Roberts were to break a tie, Senate Republicans could overrule him.


Should Roberts be impeached for muzzling senator?
Roberts already sparked a severe constitutional problem yesterday by refusing to read aloud a question posed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during the trial. Though Paul asked about a National Security Council aide, Eric Ciaramella, the senator did not identify Ciaramella as the "whistleblower," whose complaint sparked the impeachment proceedings. Hence Roberts had no lawful reason to muzzle a member of the Senate.

Even had Paul identified Ciaramella as the whistleblower, the justice still had no lawful reason to muzzle Paul, since Paul is not forbidden by any law to mention any particular name and also because Paul has constitutional protection for anything he says on the Senate floor. It was a grotesque violation of separation of powers for Roberts to make such a decision, as well as an affront to the right of voters of the state of Kentucky to hear the answer demanded by their senator.

The behavior of Roberts in censoring a U.S. senator is so outlandish that a strong case can be made that impeachment proceedings should be opened against the chief justice, who was appointed by President George Bush.

At the very least, the Senate should protect senatorial prerogatives by voting to censure Roberts for blocking a senator's valid and proper exercise of free speech.

Democrats needed four Republicans to vote with them on the pivotal question of whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial. But they fell short.

Senators Susan Collins, R-Me., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, have said they would support the measure. Collins faces a tough re-election fight this year in a state with considerable liberal leanings among voters. Romney has been highly critical of Trump, causing Romney's poll numbers to plummet in his home state, but he is only one year into a six-year term. Murkowski has two years left on her term.

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander declared, adding:
There is no need for more evidence to prove that the President asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine.

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the President withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the President for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

It was inappropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
Tennessee's other Republican senator, Marsha Blackburn, has been an outspoken defender of Trump during the impeachment battle. She replaced Bob Corker, who had publicly expressed disdain for Trump before deciding to get out of politics. Trump is enormously popular in Tennessee.

In a November 2018 interview, Corker asserted that Trump was a divisive figure, setting Americans against each other with his appeals to his core voters -- "instead of appealing to our better angels and trying to unite us like most people would try to do."

Even so, Corker voted to confirm Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Bret Kavanaugh, who had been the target of unsubstantiated claims leveled at him at the last minute.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Murkowski walks plank to try to sway others

On the eve of the vote on whether the Senate should call other witnesses or simply acquit President Trump of the Democrats' impeachment case, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, decided to virtually announce that she would vote with the Democrats. She is saying she is very curious about what John Bolton has to say but has hedged on witnesses Republicans may want to call, such as Hunter Biden.

Murkowski knows that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has the votes to shut down the trial by one means or another. So, she is the last chance the Deep Swamp has to force an extended trial which, swampers hope, will save the skins of officials facing federal felony charges for espionage against Trump's campaign.

The swampers also know that angry Republicans are poised to overcome senatorial swampers among them and screw the intelligence swamp six ways from Sunday by demanding major revisions -- or else: no dough re me. The swampers believe that with Trump severely damaged, Republicans will run away from the Swampers in a general rout, thus again ensuring the supremacy of the security gurus.

Murkowski obtained her Senate seat through the influence of the swamp-like GOP system once run by her father Frank Murkowski, a former Alaska governor and longtime U.S. senator.

The fact that Murkowski is so much more forthcoming on the eve of the vote implies a desire of her and her intelligence system associates to prod other "undecided" GOP senators to imitate her "courageous" stance.

Republicans charge that the Bolton testimony flap is "another Kavanaugh," in which Democrats tried a sleazy maneuver, empowered by the liberal media, to smear Bret Kavanaugh out of his nomination to the Supreme Court. Murkowski played a similar game in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Flash: Roberts outs 'whistleblower'

Fox News muzzles Paul on NSC aide's name,
though Paul did not call him 'whistleblower'


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tweeted after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read his question at the Senate trial of President Trump that his question never named any "whistleblower."

Tweet 1
My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together
Tweet 2
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.
Tweet 3
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
Tweet 4
If nobody knows the name of the whistle-blower, how can Roberts refuse to read the question?
Roberts' decision to muzzle Paul implies that Roberts has in fact now outed the "whistleblower." In addition, when Paul was interviewed about this matter on Fox News, he was cautioned not to name the person in his question, implying that Fox News is following some hidden agenda here, especially in light of the fact that he did not specify that Ciaramello was the "whistleblower."

See previous post in which we repeated the idea that Paul had specifically named the whistleblower, which he did not.

But Roberts and the media extended the muzzle order to a senator's question in which he never named the whistleblower. How is it not relevant that the intelligence committee staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Cal., huddled with a Democrat NSC staff member in a probable maneuver to bring about President Trump's impeachment?

The fact that the chief justice would muzzle a U.S. senator in order that American viewers not learn a name of someone that Roberts evidently connects to the "anonymous" whistleblower appears to indicate that Roberts is part of a conspiracy to keep Americans in the dark about someone with whom he is evidently familiar. It also indicates that he is liable to tilt the table in favor of spookdom.

Rice: Bolton undercut Powell
and was nothing but trouble

When Condoleeza Rice became President George W. Bush's second secretary of state, she vetoed a suggestion that she make John Bolton her second in command on grounds that he had betrayed his friend, Colin Powell, and been nothing but a source of trouble since Powell had brought him over to the State Department.

She feared Bolton would not follow her orders and decided against any clash that raised the possibility of insubordination, she wrote in her 2011 book Highest Honor, A Memoir of My Years in Washington.

In fact, said Rice, during Powell's tenure as secretary of state,
John Bolton, the ... under secretary for arms control and international security, oversaw the department's bureau that developed proliferation policy. John had been Colin's "neocon hire," in deference to the President's desire to have his administration reflect the full range of opinions in the Republican Party. But John was loyal to his ideological soulmates, not to the secretary of state, and was a constant source of trouble for Colin.P 158
Rice added that the Bolton schism would persist throughout the eight years of Bush's two terms.P 158

Further, Rice said, once she transitioned from national security adviser to head of the State Department, she rebuffed some in the administration who had pushed Bolton for the number two post at State because "I did not want to repeat Colin Powell's experience," adding, "I wasn't sure that I could fully trust John to follow my lead at State, and I didn't want a clash later on should John be -- or appear to be -- insubordinate." P 306

Still, said Rice, she was happy to see him placated with the post of ambassador to the UN, where "his skepticism was an asset." And, he would have little reason to tangle with her from that post yet still there was continuing friction.

Chief justice denies Trump
right to confront accuser

Backs conspiracy to keep CIA officer under wraps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeGlpfYOE3s

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., says there is no law that forbids the mentioning of the name of the "whistleblower" whose accusations were used to launch the impeachment and trial of President Trump. The intelligence system inspector general may be obligated to protect the leaker's anonymity, but certainly senators and the press are not bound by that proviso. Nevertheless, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read aloud Paul's question that named a person who is thought by many to be the leaker.

Paul argues that the leaker has information that is highly relevant to Trump's defense. The CIA analyst, Eric Ciaramella, worked for Vice President Joe Biden, specializing in Ukraine. Thus, says Paul, the person (Ciaramella) is a material witness to Biden's Ukraine activities, which have drawn fire from many quarters as reeking of corruption.

As a witness with more than hearsay knowledge, Ciaramella should be made available for questioning by Justice Department investigators and by Trump's lawyers, who might wish to strengthen their case that Trump was correct to suspect corrupt practices by Biden.

Paul has denounced the Democrat-led conspiracy to keep the leaker's name from the public.

The press and the GOP have gone along with this blackout. The Ciaramella case is hardly the first time the press, the CIA, judges and politicians have agreed to black out news regarding certain topics or persons.

Here is a transcript of Biden at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018:
I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
YouTube video of Biden boasting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3110&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4

Biden neglected to tell his audience that the prosecutor had been investigating an oligarch who had been paying his son Hunter nearly $1 million a year. The younger Biden's partner in Ukraine dealings, Devon Archer, who also received $1 million a year from the oligarch's firm, Burisma, was in 2018 convicted in Manhattan Federal Court of a $60 million swindle involving Native American bonds.

U.S. prosecutors tell of corruption conviction of Biden partner
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-convicted-manhattan-federal-court-fraudulent-issuance-and-sale-more-60-million

Archer is a nephew of Irish-American mob boss Whitey Bulger, who was slain in 2018 in a federal prison in West Virginia after menacing a woman guard at another prison.

Christopher Heinz, an heir to the Heinz fortune, was a partner in the firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC with Biden and Archer, but Heinz cut ties with his business partners when they grabbed the Burisma money, according to Trump's defense team.

Heinz is the stepson of former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

No doubt investigators would be highly interested in what Ciaramello knows about what looks like a crooked deal involving Joe Biden's apparent misuse of $1 billion in aid intended for Ukraine.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

House Dems guilty of coverup
for refusing to subpoena Bolton

Monday, January 27, 2020

Still on the warpath

After ouster, bitter Bolton vowed
a money blitz to aid Trump rivals


Adviser was suspected in leak that undercut
an Afghan policy that he strongly opposed


When he left the White House in September 2018, John Bolton squabbled with President Trump over how he came to leave the post of national security adviser.

The fiery tempered Bolton tweeted that he had offered to resign before Trump canned him. Trump said Bolton was too truculent for him to tolerate and that they had had to part ways over many differences. Bolton is known as a super hawk who wanted to invade Iran and bring about regime change by 2019. Bolton came to the White House as an old friend of Trump's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani but Guliani tweeted today that he had been wrong about his trust in Bolton.

At the time of the dust-up, Trump insisted that in fact he was the stronger of the two, mocking Bolton as "Mr. Tough Guy." Bolton immediately held a press conference at which he announced that he was rebooting his political action committees in order to raise money for hawkish Republicans who would be expected to challenge Trump's foreign policies.

“The John Bolton PAC and John Bolton Super PAC seek a strong, clear, and dependable U.S. national security policy, resting on constancy and resolve,” Bolton said in  a statement that seemed to be taking a jab at Trump for lack of resolve and weakness. “The experience that these incumbent members of Congress have provides them with a remarkable understanding and knowledge of the threats we face from international terrorism and rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.”

A Vanity Fair reporter wrote in 2018 that the statement was a  "not-so-subtle jab at the president," whose positions had often not jibed with those of Bolton.

The final fallout between Trump and Bolton reportedly came over Bolton’s increasing isolation as the administration began negotiations with the Taliban over withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, leading him to break with Trump over the president inviting Taliban leaders to a secret peace summit at Camp David. Bolton was suspected of being the leaker who tipped off the press to the parley.

Recipients of Bolton’s donations include three senators, Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Cory Gardner, R-Col., Thom Tillis, R-N.C.,  and two House members, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. All share Bolton's hawkish stance on foreign policy, but none of these lawmakers may wish to accept Bolton money in future. Cotton, for example, has been a vigorous supporter of Trump during the impeachment process, although Gardner was reportedly wavering on whether he wished to hear testimony from Bolton once the President's team wraps up its defense.

Bolton was a top adviser to Mitch Romney during Romney's presidential campaign. Romney, now a Republican senator from Utah, has blasted Trump and has been strongly leaning to calling his old associate Bolton as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial. How much Bolton's PACs have funneled to Romney is yet to be disclosed.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Bolton was embroiled in CIA leak probe

Biden saw neocon's role as problematic

Joe Biden once demanded that John R. Bolton disclose his role in a bombshell news leak that rocked the administration of President George W. Bush.

Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, wrote a letter to Bolton's boss, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, in which he voiced concern over the unmasking of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame, for political reasons. The Plame affair resulted in a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, spending nearly three months in jail and in a conviction of I. Lewis Libby for lying in that affair. Libby was pardoned by President Trump.

Biden, now a Democratic presidential contender, wrote,
On July 21, 2005, MSNBC reported that Under Secretary Bolton testified before the federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I write to request that you or the nominee inform the Committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred. As you know, the Committee questionnaire, which the nominee completed in March, requires all nominees to inform the Committee whether they have been “interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony.
The following information is from a 2005 report by Raw Story.

Bolton, while undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, was contacted by Libby in late May 2003 to find out who sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger, lawyers involved in the CIA outing investigation told Raw Story Wilson was sent to Niger to ascertain whether Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from the African country.

The attorneys, along with intelligence officials, provided Raw Story additional insight into the unnamed identities of key players referred to in the five-count indictment against Libby, who resigned last Friday as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Specifically, they relayed what two key prosecution witnesses now cooperating with the probe told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about the events that led to Libby learning about Wilson's mission and Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Plame Wilson, the wife of the former ambassador, was outed as a CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction issues after Wilson begin criticizing the Bush Administration's Iraq intelligence.

The 22-page indictment posted on Fitzgerald's website Friday says that on May 29, 2003 Libby "asked an Under Secretary of State ('Under Secretary') for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided Libby with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised Libby that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip."

News reports have identified the undersecretary as Marc Grossman. This is technically correct, in that he is the one who had received the June 10, 2003 classified Intelligence and Research memo for Libby about Wilson's Niger trip, in addition to information about Plame's covert CIA status and her relationship to Wilson.

But the attorneys said that two former Libby aides, John Hannah and David Wurmser, told the special prosecutor that Libby had actually first contacted Bolton to dig up the information. Wurmser, who worked as a Middle Eastern affairs aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was on loan from Bolton's office.

Both Wurmser and Hannah had been cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe for some time, the lawyers said.

In addition, sources say that the memo was written on Libby's behest as part of a work-up order orchestrated out of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which operated out of Cheney's office and was chaired by Karl Rove, a special adviser to  Bush.

Grossman asked Carl Ford, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, to write the memo. Ford is the State Department official who testified before a the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against Bolton during his unsuccessful UN confirmation hearings and described Bolton as a "bully."

Bolton was later appointed to the UN during a Congressional recess. His name came up several times during the course of the two-year investigation into Plame's outing, most notably when he paid a visit to the federal prison where New York Times reporter Judith Miller was housed for refusing to testify in the case.

The attorneys also said that Frederick Fleitz, Bolton's chief of staff and concurrently a senior CIA official who handles weapons Intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control matters, supplied Bolton with Plame's identity. Bolton, they added, passed this to his aide, Wurmser, who in turn supplied the information to Hannah.

Upon receiving this information, Libby asked Bolton for a report on Wilson's trip to Niger, which Wilson presented orally to the CIA upon his return. Fleitz was one of a handful of officials who was in a position to know Plame's maiden name, the sources said.

Fleitz is named in the indictment as an unnamed CIA senior officer, they added.

The indictment cites Fleitz's CIA role, but not his on-loan status to Bolton's office. It reads, "On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of WilsonпїЅs trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip."

Fleitz has been a trusted source of information to Bolton for some time and vice versa. In his book, "Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions, and U.S. Interests," Fleitz thanked Bolton for advising him on research and providing him with guidance in writing the book.

It has long been rumored that Bolton had his own connections to agents at the CIA who shared his political philosophy on Iraq. Greg Thielman, a former director at the State Department who was assigned to Bolton and entrusted with providing the former under secretary of state with intelligence information, told New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh that Bolton had become frustrated that Thielman was not providing him the smoking gun intelligence information on Iraq that he wanted to hear.

"He surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get CIA information directly," Thielman said in Hersh's book, Chain of Command (page 223).

"In essence, the undersecretary [Bolton] would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support," Hersh wrote. "Eventually, Thielman said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous administrations, such data had been made available to undersecretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specific secured offices of the INR" (page 222).

According to MSNBC, Bolton testified before the grand jury investigating the Plame leak. Questions were raised about whether Bolton knowingly left that fact out of the questionnaire related to his UN confirmation hearing.

Wurmser likely cooperated because he faced criminal charges for his role in leaking Wilson's name on the orders of higher-ups, the lawyers said. Hannah, a key aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and one of the architects of the Iraq war, was cooperating with Fitzgerald after being told that he was identified by witnesses as a co-conspirator in the leak, they added.

It is unclear whether Bolton played any other role in the Plame outing, but his connection to the Iraq uranium claims certainly gave him a motive to discredit Wilson, who had called into question the veracity of the Niger documents. A probe by the State Department Inspector General revealed that Bolton's office was responsible for the placement of the Niger uranium claims in the State Department's December 2002 "fact sheet" on Iraq's WMD program.

The attorneys said it is unlikely that the information Hannah and Wurmser had provided Fitzgerald and included in the indictment will ever become public, but their testimony in the case was crucial in that it allowed Fitzgerald to put together a timeline that showed how various governmental agencies knew about Plame's covert CIA status.

Don't cross Bolton or you'll be sorry

Neocon hawk is known as a rage-aholic
with very serious problems on veracity


John R. Bolton is known as a bad-tempered man with a penchant for warping the facts to suit his policy and for exacting revenge on anyone who crosses him.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bolton, as President George Bush's undersecretary of state, was one of the officials who were pressuring for cooked intelligence in order to rationalize the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In 2005, the head of the State Department's intelligence bureau offered a vivid portrait of Bolton as an abusive and vindictive boss who sought to manipulate intelligence on biological weapons with threats against an espionage analyst who balked at doctoring reports. Bolton sought to have the analyst fired, the official said.

Carl Ford Jr., a former assistant secretary of state for intelligence in the Bush administration, described Bolton, a high-level arms-control official in the State Department, as "a serial abuser" and "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."

Ford, a self-described "loyal Republican," said in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton's efforts to intimidate the analyst, Christian Westermann, rapidly sent a chill through the State Department's intelligence bureaucracy, although he said higher-ups countered the impact by backing the analyst, who did not waver under pressure.

Ford's testimony, as reported by The Chicago Tribune, came during a confirmation hearing on Bolton's nomination to serve as Bush's UN ambassador.

Bolton's nature is so aggressive that President Trump has remarked that he found it necessary to hold Bolton on a short leash.

"He has strong views on things but that's OK. I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing," Trump told reporters in May. "I'm the one that tempers him. That's OK. I have different sides. I have John Bolton and other people that are a little more dovish than him. I like John."

A March 2018 report on Bolton joining the Trump team found that those who worked for him saw him as having an "extremely aggressive, negative personality."

“There is the whole policy side, and then there is the personality side,” a former Bolton aide told Vanity Fair. “He has an extremely aggressive, negative personality.”

Bolton, Vanity Fair's source said,  has demonstrated that he is entirely “capable of being reasonable, capable of listening, capable of taking advice.”  Even so, Bolton also has “very serious anger-management problems,” the source said, recalling that, during arguments, Bolton would hurl papers and pens.

“He is acerbic, condescending, gruff," the source said, adding that Bolton is "demeaning when somebody doesn’t agree with him or he doesn’t like your argument. I can’t imagine how he is going to moderate that tendency all the time with Trump.”

Nor is Bolton known for humility in the face of obvious mistakes, Vanity Fair found. Of all the Iraq war defenders, Bolton is among the least apologetic. “I think it is sort of half amazing that he could have been wrong on so many issues, and not only be not apologetic about it, but double down on wrong predictions,” a State Department staff member told Vanity Fair.

Bolton was a member of a clique of neocons who exploited the 9/11 attacks as a rationalization for an invasion of Iraq, something the neocons had been pushing since the 1990s.

What is Jesus really saying in the Sermon on the Mount?

Yours truly offers a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.

Here is the Table of Content to the commentary
What is Jesus really saying in the Sermon on the Mount?

Here is the introduction, which is entitled,
On the writing of the Sermon on the Mount

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Speaking of witch hunts

Paul to Trump:
Be my guest at trial

Senator urging a deal on Assange
as press firestorm rages over
crackdown on cyber-journalism

Top Dem candidates rip Trump and blast cyber-journalism attacks
Sanders, Warren denouncing cyber-squeeze against Assange, Greenwald


Pompeo, Clinton both notorious for Russia smears tarring those journalists they don't like


Rand Paul says President Trump is welcome to attend the Senate trial of Trump's impeachment charges as his personal guest.

The Kentucky Republican, while differing from Trump on a number of policy issues, regards the impeachment articles as an irresponsible partisan maneuver. He said most Americans -- presumably including senators -- had already made up their minds as to impeachment articles. He scoffed at the articles, comparing the Democrats' indignance  with their glacial silence when Obama did similar things.

In the meantime, Paul has urged a compromise on the Assange case that would permit the Trump administration and Congress a means of ending the free press crisis, one that is liable to come to a head during the heat of the presidential race. Assange is being held in a maximum security British prison on ground that he poses a flight risk as the United States demands his extradition to face charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, along with cyber-law technicalities, that have never before been used against people publicly disseminating secrets who have not signed secrecy agreements.
Rand Paul's artful deal on Assange
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/rand-paul-floats-immunity-julian-assange-senators-/

Under the artful deal, all U.S. charges against Assange would be dropped in return for his testimony before Congress under immunity granted by the Justice Department and Congress. Trump came under pressure from Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA chief, who publicly excoriated Assange and WikiLeaks as Russian tools after WikiLeaks published some CIA documents that disclosed some ideas for ways the government could rig electronic devices so as to be able to spy on those nearby.

However, the pretext used by the Justice Department in its case was WikiLeaks' publication of low-security material, including a video in which a U.S. helicopter crew kills a group of journalists in Iraq and papers that disclosed the confidential opinions of U.S. diplomats about foreign politicians.  Since that time, Assange has been the target of a witch hunt by the Deep Swamp, including trivial Swedish sex charges that were dropped but then reinstated under U.S. pressure.

A storm of criticism is arising worldwide about the Assange case -- a storm that has been fueled by Brazilian charges against Gleen Greenwald by a vengeful president, angered that crooked trial-rigging was exposed by Greenwald's publication of private messages. Like Assange, Greenwald was accused of violating cyber-security laws. Among those denouncing the Assange indictment are Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, now retired as a Republican congressman from Texas. Both Pauls are vigorous defenders of individual liberties against government intrusion and are both known as libertarians.

Among the press groups registering dismay at what they see as Trumpian  tactics are:
Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, Agência Pública, American Civil Liberties Union, ARTICLE 19, Brazil and South America, Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Association for Progressive Communications (APC).

Brave New Films, Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji), CODEPINK, Columbia Journalism Review Committee to Protect Journalists, Cooperativa Tierra Común, Demand Progress, Derechos Digitales, Doc Society, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ExposeFacts, Fundación Acceso (Costa Rica), Fundación Ciudadania Inteligente, Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile), Fundación Karisma Fundación Huaira (Ecuador), Fundación Vía Libre, Human Rights Watch.

IFEX IFEX-ALC IPANDETEC, Centroamérica Instituto, Vladimir Herzog International Press Institute, Intervozes National Federation of Brazilian Journalists (FENAJ), Newscoop, Pen International, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Roots Action, Sursiendo, CCD, TEDIC, Ubunteam, Community Usuarios Digitales, World Association of News Publishers, Witness.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the use of cybercrime laws as a means of stifling investigative reporting, arguing that "constitutional protection" is necessary.

EFF said,
Around the world, cybercrime laws are notoriously hazy.  This is in part because it’s challenging to write good cybercrime laws: technology evolves quickly, our language for describing certain digital actions may be imprecise, and lawmakers may not always imagine how laws will later be interpreted.

And while the laws are hazy, the penalties are often severe, which makes them a dangerously big stick in the hands of prosecutors.  Prosecutors can and do take advantage of this disconnection, abusing laws designed to target criminals who break into computers for extortion or theft to prosecute those engaged in harmless activities, or research—or, in this case, journalists communicating with their sources.
Assange's source, Chelsea Manning, is being held in a federal prison for refusing to tell a grand jury what she knows about how data was transferred to Assange -- which implies that the federal case against Assange is insecure. Manning was pardoned by President Barack Obama after seven years in a military prison for transferring the data to Assange.

Sanders has blistered Trump's Justice Department for making itself the arbiter over who is a reporter and who is not. “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” Sanders tweeted. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”

The Sanders campaign also spoke out against the Greenwald charges. Sanders' campaign co-chairperson, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said he is crafting legislation to protect journalists for being prosecuted over their work. Presumably he means U.S. journalists, such as Greenwald, living overseas.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,  has chastised Trump for exploiting the Assange case as a "pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.” She called on Brazil to drop cybercrime charges against Greenwald.

Warren however has, in carefully worded statements, appeared to stick with the Clinton line that demands that Assange be punished for hurting Clinton's campaign. “Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” Warren has said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or., also rebuked the Trump team on press freedom. “This is not about Julian Assange,” Wyden said. “This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information. I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”

Wyden was also very critical of the Obama administration for its secret domestic surveillance program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The following information comes primarily from The Intercept:

Data included in those documents were reported by outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian; the Obama administration had always been reluctant to indict Assange due to what it called “the New York Times problem.” There was no way to say that Assange’s action was criminal without also saying that much of what the Times and other mainstream outlets do is also against the law.

Indeed, the documents are still officially classified, meaning that anybody who discusses them, even in the context of Assange’s indictment, could themselves be accused of a crime, despite the First Amendment and the fact that the person had signed no secrecy agreement. Transparency advocates have said that the executive branch has been classifying far too much basic information — the soup of the day at the CIA’s cafeteria, for instance, could be classified.

Greenwald's media outlet, The Intercept, said of the Assange case:
If the government effectively criminalizes reporting on classified information, that gives the government the unilateral authority to determine what can and cannot be published, simply by deploying its opaque and unreviewable classification scheme.
Members of Congress have been decidedly mum on the latest indictment, given the disdain in Washington for whistleblowing in general and the WikiLeaks apparatus in particular, which Democrats blame for upending Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. The Democrats however were very keen on the CIA officer who allegedly blew the whistle against Trump.

Assange critics have quibbled over characterizing him as a journalist, but press freedom advocates are alarmed at the Justice Department’s use of the Espionage Act to target someone who publishes leaked information, as opposed to targeting only the leaker. John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, has said that “Assange is no journalist,” and that the department “takes seriously the role of journalists and our democracy and we support it.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists said irrespective of how the Justice Department may characterize Assange’s role, the indictment “could chill investigative reporting.”

By Demers' statement, the Trump Justice Department is assigning the government the right to determine who is a real journalist, which in effect means the Justice Department is able and willing to license journalists -- a concept that not so long ago was anathema to U.S. news professionals.

The CPJ North America coordinator, Alexandra Ellerbeck, called the Trump team's move a "reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”

Reached for comment at the time by The Intercept, a spokesman for Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., head of the House Judiciary Committee, and now a chief House impeachment manager, said he had nothing on the Assange matter. Similarly, the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.
Canadians imitate Pompeo, U.S. Dems with Russia smears
If you criticize the government, you must be a Russian asset, a Putin puppet.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/01/22/consortium-news-libel-notices-cse-global-news-canada-russia/

Paul sees 14th Amendment as shield for preborn

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is sponsoring a measure that would shield most preborn humans in America.

Paul argues that section 8 of the Constitution's article 1 and the 14th Amendment's section 5 give Congress the power to right legislation to ban almost all abortions nationwide.

Paul addresses Right to Life rally in D.C.
https://www.youtube.com/">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJSk2bbFv90&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/

Paul differs from other libertarians on the abortion issue. Some of them see laws restricting abortion as an unacceptable intrusion by the government into personal liberty. Paul, a very dedicated libertarian but also a physician, sees it as the duty of government to protect ALL humans. The 14th Amendment was written with ex-slaves in mind, but the writers generalized the language to assure that everyone in the country was protected under the law.

We point out that the 14th Amendment's Section 1 draws a line between citizen and person. Any U.S. person is obviously a member of a bigger set than is a citizen. (That is, the set of citizens is a proper subset of the set of persons.)

The amendment requires that every state must provide all persons within its borders equal PROTECTION. This amendment does not undefine preborn humans as non-persons, but only as non-citizens. So then, the language of the amendment means federal and state govwernments are required to protect preborn humans.

Specifically Section 1 says that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The only way out of that protection is to deny that preborn humans are persons. Such a denial requires quite a bit of philosophical hair-splitting and sophistry of a type well known among certain politicians and lawyers.

Hence, the Supreme Court erred in Roe v Wade and should have recommended that those who favored decriminalization of abortion seek a constitutional amendment.

Paul's bill, which has a group of co-sponsors, specifies that it should not be interpreted to mean that women must be prosecuted for the abortion death of the unborn.
The 14th Amendment
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Friday, January 24, 2020

U.S. moves to void UN's free press proviso,
saying Assange has no such right in America

If British court accepts bizarre theory, any UK journo
could face extradition for publishing U.S. secrets


The U.S. Justice Department is urging a British court to accept a theory that Julian Assange, not being a U.S. person, is not entitled to the Constitution's First Amendment protection of freedom of press, according to the editor of WikiLeaks.

The First Amendment says nothing about U.S. persons -- citizens or aliens residing in the United States -- versus non-U.S. persons. The Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The Amendment says any abridgment of freedom of press is illegal.

U.S. lawyers of course avoided the obvious point that by abridging WikiLeaks' press freedom, the Justice Department also sets a precedent for abridging the press freedom of Americans who wish to read WikiLeaks. Press freedom is not only about freedom to publish. It is also about freedom to consume the product of the press.

The editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told Western Advocate that a new affidavit submitted by U.S. government lawyers this week for Assange's upcoming extradition trial takes the position that foreign nationals like Assange are not entitled to press protections under the First Amendment, meaning he is prosecutable for violating the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibits dissemination of state secrets. The Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for publishing secrets, though many have been prosecuted for stealing secrets in order to pass them to a foreign power.

Hrafnsson revealed the development outside Assange's case management hearing at London's Westminster Magistrates Court Thursday, the Advocate said.

"On the one hand they have decided that they can go after journalists wherever they are residing in the world, they have universal jurisdiction, and demand extradition like they are doing by trying to get an Australian national from the UK for publishing that took place outside U.S. borders," he told the Advocate.

The United States was a force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948. The declaration's Article 19 specifies that press freedom is guaranteed regardless of borders.

The declaration says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
As the UN press freedom declaration is regarded as the international norm, the U.S. theory that only U.S. persons are assured of press freedom violates a standard of international law. The UK of course was also a promoter of the international press rights declaration.

Hence the U.S. argument is a prima facie admission that international law, to which the UK has acceded, must be waived on behalf of U.S. prosecutors. In other words, the U.S. prosecutors have presented proof that a standard of international law is to be voided in order to "get" one individual who has annoyed powerful politicians with his publications.

U.S. theory voids press freedom for Assange
https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/6596140/assange-may-not-get-us-press-protection/?cs=12512

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Well, anyway, one person doesn't like him

"On a good day, my wife likes me, so let's clear the air on that one," Bernie Sanders told an NBC reporter when asked about Hillary Clinton's assertion that "nobody likes him."
Image result for bernie sanders Image result for hillary clinton
Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., the socialist candidate for President,
and former Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. who is still feeling bad about her loss

Monday, January 20, 2020

Pro-Red agenda tied
to impeachment push

Diana West interviewed by Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZhDlf7sOaE

Notorious Red led Women's March
Writer Diana West pointed out that the vehemently anti-Trump women's march of 2017 had Red revolutionary Angela Davis as a featured speaker and honorary co-chairperson.

Libertarian journalist Cathy Young wrote that Davis's "long record of support for political violence in the United States and the worst of human rights abusers abroad" undermined the march.

During the 1970s she visited Marxist-Leninist-governed countries and during the 1980s was twice the Communist Party's candidate for Vice President. In 1991, amid the dissolution of the Soviet Union, she left the party and joined the breakaway Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. Also in 1991, she joined the feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where she became department director before retiring in 2008. Since then she has continued to write and remained active in movements such as Occupy and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

In 1970, Davis purchased firearms for people who used them in an armed takeover of a courtroom in Marin County, California, in which four people were killed, including the judge. She was eventually acquitted of involvement in the armed revolutionary action.

In both presidential campaigns, Davis was the running mate of Gus Hall, U.S. Communist Party chairman, for whom President Obama's CIA director, John Brennan voted when he was a student in 1976. Brennan is a vociferous critic of President Trump.

Google is the sinister force
behind impeachment drive

In the 2018 midterm elections, Google used subliminal search persuasion to strongly influence the outcomes in Orange County, Cal., flipping the staunchly Republican districts to Democrat, according to findings by a former editor of Psychology Today.

Using special software, Robert Epstein, PhD, "peeked over the shoulders" of cooperative potential voters by examining their politically related search terms and the search results. His previous work had found that, among undecided voters, positive, highly placed search results -- along with auto-suggestions -- have a powerful influence on their  perception of candidates.

Epstein says his statistical results show strong pro-liberal, pro-Democratic bias in the results, as opposed to the Bing and Yahoo search engines, which showed no bias in the ranking of search results. Epstein points out that he is a liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, an election in which he determined that between 2 million and 10 million votes went to Clinton as a consequence of Google's subliminal methods of hidden persuasion.

If Google used its methods to tilt the 2018 result in Orange County and the 2016 vote count, it is virtually certain that Google used such methods nationwide in 2018, which saw the election of a group of pro-impeachment Democrats, who were striving to impeach Trump on any grounds they could find.

Google offered to provide the Clinton campaign with technical support and the campaign's chief technology officer had come over from Google, Epstein observes.

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Assange can't have violated secrecy laws
-- because the underlying laws don't exist

Julian Assange's personality is irrelevant. The issue is that he did nothing wrong.

The United States has no Official Secrets Act. And there is a multitude of problems in applying the 1917 Espionage Act to him, the biggest of which is freedom of speech and press inside and outside America.

It is very important  that Assange is being charged with violating classification regulations imposed by the Executive Branch, even though  these rubrics are not legally mandated, Only nuclear secrets were given a congressional imprimatur as legally defined.

The authority for all other classification derives from the President, and applies to people under the President's sway -- that is, employees of the Executive Branch and government contractors, all of whom sign secrecy agreements.

Assange never signed a secrecy agreement.

Not only is he not bound by the secrecy agreement, but the Espionage Act is being applied to "violations" that have only a quasi-legal basis. It's true that everyone is used to them and that numerous spies have been imprisoned on account of them. But custom does not make something correct.

How can a person be tried for violating a secrecy classification that has only a quasi-legal basis?

In any case, it is obvious that Mike Pompeo, when head of the CIA, was eager to exact revenge against Assange for publishing a file containing alleged CIA technical secrets. He blasted WikiLeaks as a Russian spy front. Britain's MI5 was also said to have been affronted, as the file had been shared with it, giving the Tories a pretext to continue the witch hunt against Assange.

This is all Deep Swamp bilge. Notice that the file was classified "secret," which in CIA-land is considered a garbage classification. A million or so people are cleared to see "secret" information. "Top secret" and special compartmentalized classifications are the only thing meaningful to the security crowd.

The technical information disclosed various gimmicks for backdoor entry into popular communications devices as well as a TV set that could be used to spy on you. All this had been mentioned in the media before being discussed in that file.

Every intelligence agency on the planet would have assumed that the CIA was looking into such gimmickry. So the "secret" stamp only made sure that the non-technical public was kept unaware of such possibilities. Hence, WikiLeaks was fulfilling the responsibility of the press to alert the public to things the government prefers that the voters not know.

Also, one has to wonder whether Assange was set up. That is, did the CIA leak these not-very-important "secrets" in hopes that he would publish them, which would in turn justify an "everybody against Assange" push?

Though he has not been charged in the CIA case, the charges of publishing U.S. secrets during the Obama years ring hollow. And what was so terrible? We saw a case in which a helicopter gun crew killed a group of journalists. Why shouldn't the public know about that? And the diplomatic papers that were published were so low-level that they were classified "confidential, no foreign." Those papers set off political firestorms, which included giving courage and impetus to the "Arab Spring" uprisings around the Mediterranean. So again, WikiLeaks contributed to the welfare of the average man and woman, whatever their pompous governments favored.

The idea that Assange could spend many years in a U.S. prison is an outrage against liberty everywhere -- especially here in the land of the free.

In any case, it seems unlikely that Assange can get a fair trial because of the CIA's spying on him and his lawyers while he was an asylum guest at the Ecuador embassy in London (see previous post).

Assange's French legal adviser believes that the recording of his conversations with Assange make a fair trial unlikely.

The adviser, Juan Branco, told a World Socialist reporter:
We believe this is a crucial element in our battle to avoid Julian Assange’s extradition. The gross violation of the principles of a fair trial, including the right to a fair defense, are epitomized in this episode.

The lack of secrecy of his exchanges with his lawyers was not only the fruit of covert operations: the dispositives were probably also used to collect evidence that could be used in trial, i.e., that could be legalized. In these conditions, in which the material basis of an indictment is based on illegal spying operations that violate the basic rights of the defense, it seems to us extremely difficult to argue that an extradition to the U.S. would not violate the basic requisites that apply in these circumstances.
Branco said that the secret taping by UC Global on behalf of the CIA violated the legal rights of Assange's defense team.

He said,
The Bar of Paris and I are going to file a complaint in France over the violation of the rights of the defense, professional secrets and the violation of my privacy. What we are trying to do is to fight against the normalization of practices that are devastating the privacy not only of our client, but more broadly of millions of citizens. In our case, the situation was particularly intense, with a few of us being the subject of tailing operations, photo operations, burglaries and so forth.
Socialist report on the attack on Assange's defense rights
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/16/bran-j16.html
Please visit our Support Assange blog
https://supportassange.blogspot.com/2020/01/assange-cant-have-violated-secrecy-laws.html

Biden hints: I will take the Fifth

Front-running Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has implied that, if called to testify at President Trump's impeachment trial, he will avail himself of his Fifth Amendment right not to take the witness stand.

As an experienced lawyer and former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden would have known the implication of his contradictory remarks reported Dec. 28.

Biden said that he would refuse to testify at the trial, but later issued a statement that he has always complied with lawful subpoenas. So either he intends to say that a subpoena from the Senate, where he served as a Delaware lawmaker for many years, is somehow technically flawed or he plans to show up but to say nothing -- which is his right under the Fifth Amendment if he believes he could face prosecution for his Ukraine activities.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Turncoat GOP cabal maneuvers to tar Trump

At least four Republican senators are playing a cagey game on the calling of witnesses for the impeachment trial of President Trump. There doesn't seem to be much reason for this cageyness other than to steer the trial in such a way as to justify their joining Democrats for a majority vote for removal. Trump still is unlikely to be removed, since that would require 67 votes. But a majority in favor of removal could severely hamper his re-election chances. 

The numbers show that it will be a close-run operation as to whether the Deep Swamp is able to achieve a Senate vote of censure, which could be enough to weaken the hand of federal prosecutor John Durham as he conducts a criminal investigation of the secret political police (AKA the "intelligence community").

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska hasn't been very clever about disguising her pro-abortion, anti-Trump animus. She made clear that she was eager to hear from Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, who is thought by Democrats to have damaging information against Trump, but she is extremely reticent on whether she would like to hear from witnesses called by the Trump team, in particular Joe Biden and his son Hunter. That is, her public priorities are no different from those of the Democrats.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says her position on the calling of witnesses has been "mischaracterized," but she also won't grant that the President should be allowed to call witnesses. She is campaigning for a fifth term for a seat expected to be strongly challenged by a Democrat.

Sen. Mitch Romney of Utah  has said explicitly that he wants  Bolton to appear. Romney has issued a scathing denunciation of Trump's mocking call for China to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter with respect to special financial favors from a government-controlled business.

Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado has declined to say whether he is one of a group of GOP senators who could vote with Democrats to obtain witnesses wanted by the Democrats.

Another unknown quantity is Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Despite his being counted as a member of the turncoat cabal, from his most recent statement it is not certain that he will tilt the table in favor of the Democrats. Alexander however cannot be counted on to vote with the Democrats. Alexander said he is open to seeking additional information and having witnesses testify, if necessary, during the Senate trial.

With the trial expected to begin Thursday, the three-term senator also said he opposes immediate dismissal by the GOP-controlled Senate of the articles of impeachment.

"I think we should hear the case," Alexander said Wednesday. "We have a constitutional duty to do that."

Alexander said that "number one," the arguments should be heard. "Number two," senators should ask questions and "number three," senators should be able to  vote on whether additional evidence should be sought.

"Evidence could be witnesses," declared Alexander, who is retiring at the end of this third term. "It could be documents."

Without naming names, Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, blistered the turncoat GOP cabal whose memmbers would, he suspected, grant the Democrats their witnesses but not Trump or other Republicans theirs.

The cabal is crucial to the Deep Swamp's push to get Trump "six ways to Sunday" as Durham closes in on security officials who abused power in order to carry out espionage against the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency.

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Pelosi's wild circus
Impeachment prosecutor faces grilling as witness

Adam Schiff, D-Cal., is one of the impeachment managers who will present the Democrats' case to the Senate. He also faces the prospect of being called to testify about his or his staff's contacts with the CIA's so-called whistleblower.

Because Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has been pressuring the majority to call witnesses the Democrats favor for bolstering their case, the GOP says it may wish  to hear from other witnesses, including Schiff, the "anonymous" (not really) CIA officer, and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, along with his well-remunerated son Biden.

Democrats "want all the witnesses that they want," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "They don't want any witnesses that the President wants. So I say this, either allow all witnesses, all witnesses that the President's defense team deems necessary to their defense, or no witnesses," Paul said in a Fox News interview.

"We're not going to do a kangaroo court like they did in the House," he said, adding that the House only produced witnesses that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff agreed to.

It is certain that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, R-Cal., knew that she was creating a very serious potential conflict of interest by naming Schiff as a manager, implying that she is hoping to create more controversy, no doubt in hopes that the more controversy, the better, as she is well aware that the case has virtually no chance of doing anything but arousing Republican wrath.

Monday, January 13, 2020

The GOP has not declined to call witnesses

The point of contention is whether they will need to be called for the impeachment trial once the Democrats present their case. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that the Senate will decide on whether any witnesses are necessary once the Democratic prosecution is complete.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., is saying that if Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., doesn't get to call witnesses, that result would be a coverup.

But neither Pelosi nor Schumer seem awfully enthusiastic about calling the CIA "whistleblower" or Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter as trial witnesses.

So though -- possibly -- testimony from John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, would hurt Trump, a number of witnesses summoned by Republicans are very likely to stir up bad PR for Democrats.

In other words, it seems likely that Pelosi is hoping no witnesses are called so that she can use the word "coverup" while Democrats are spared the harsh light of Senate exposes. But there is no doubt that a number of GOP senators would be happy to pay back House Democrats for their impeachment theater of the absurd, and that would mean summoning witnesses that put the Democrats to shame, though this might be handled, once the trial is over, during regular oversight hearings.

Sunday, January 12, 2020

McConnell backs rule change
to force impeachment action

The Senate majority leader is adding his crucial support to a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to permit lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over, the Hill reports.

The GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has signed on as a co-sponsor to the resolution, according to Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who introduced the resolution last week.

Changing the rules would either require a two-thirds vote or for Republicans to deploy the "nuclear option," the Hill observed. As the GOP does not control two-thirds of the Senate, the "nuclear option" for the use of a simple majority would be required. Whether McConnell is seriously considering this possibility is not clear, as further action will be unnecessary if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., sends the articles over this week, as she has indicated she would.

The resolution would give the House 25 days to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate. After that, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss "with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles" with a simple majority vote, according to Hawley's proposal.

McConnell has said he has been consulting closely with the White House on the impeachment case, which might imply that the President's legal team has assented to Hawley's maneuver.

McConnell has repeatedly assailed Pelosi for her delay in sending over the two articles of impeachment.

"This is what they have done: They have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution," he said Thursday. ‘The Speaker began something that she herself predicted would be 'so divisive to the country' ... and now she is unilaterally saying it cannot move forward towards a resolution."

Ax is poised at FISA court,
an angry Nunes declares

See his blast on Fox News.

Friday, January 10, 2020


Pssst...'Fair trial' refers
to what is due the defendant

not what is due the prosecution
Image result for trump
The defendant: President Trump
Image result for adam schiff Image result for nadler Image result for pelosi
The chief accusers (from top left): Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and Nancy Pelosi

NEWS of the WORLD launched

The Invisible Man is being folded into the new site, NEWS of the WORLD, which has begun operation. Though this Invisible Man site is ce...