care free attitude in regard to fair play

The walls are closing in on Obama. Thomas Lifson – “The truth of violations of law by the Obama White House, long buried, is being excavated by two private groups.”

“Judicial Watch has obtained testimony from a top FBI official that Hillary home brew server emails were found in the White House. This means that Barrack Obama’s illegal handling of classified information contained in those emails is closer to being exposed. This implicates him in the same felonies committed by Hillary Clinton that James Comey falsely claimed “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue.

A second scandal threat for the Obama administration is also slowly being excavated. Proof is piling up that White House operatives exploited the NSA’s surveillance of all electronic communications in the United States to monitor political opponents.

The Obama Use of FISA-702 as a Domestic Political Surveillance Program…. sundance – “Now that we have significant research files on the 2015 and 2016 political surveillance program; which includes the trail evident within the Weissmann/Mueller report; in combination with the Obama-era DOJ “secret research project” (their words, not mine); we are able to overlay the entire objective and gain a full understanding of how political surveillance was conducted over a period of approximately four to six years.

“Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer’s brief and ruling is not an easy read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes outlined. The complexity also helps the media avoid discussing, and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the issues. So we’ll try to break down the language.

The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were conducting searches and then removing, or ‘exporting’, the results. Later on, the FBI said all of the exported material was deleted.

Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal.

Private contractors with access to “raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI’s requests”:

All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a footnote on page 87: “deliberate decisionmaking

Impeaching Trump. William L. Gensert – “Mueller is a man who has built his career on destroying the careers, families, and lives of people with little regard for guilt or innocence — or the law and the truth for that matter. He was a perfect choice to tee up the ball for the Democrats in the House.”

“It’s not as if Americans are going to see it as unfair persecution of a man who did nothing wrong, much like themselves. And maybe it will take voter’s minds off Democrat plans to seize their guns, cars, free speech rights, most of their money, and every other little thing the Democrats want to do to destroy the people in order to save the nation.

Obama crony Eric Holder should stop lecturing William Barr on legal ethics. Deroy Murdock – there’s a lot on the record to examine.

“Are you gonna stay around for all four years?” radio host Tom Joyner asked Holder on April 4, 2013, early in Obama’s second term.

“I’m still the president’s wingman,” Holder replied. “So, I’m here with my boy.”

The “president’s wingman” was the president’s lawyer, and got nailed for it. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for not surrendering documents on the Fast and Furious scandal. This involved some 2,000 marked guns that Holder and Obama leeched into Mexico. They hoped that these weapons would lead them to drug cartels south of the border.

When Congress investigated this disaster, Holder refused to yield relevant documents. So, on June 28, 2012, the U.S. House voted 255-67 for a criminal-contempt resolution. Seventeen Democrats voted Yes. Earlier, the House approved a civil-contempt measure, 258-95. Twenty-one Democrats concurred.

But wait. There’s more.

WaPo’s Latest Weapon. Baldilocks (ht Hinderaker) that cites Everything I don’t like is far-right. Arthur Chrenkoff – “The Washington Post (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”) spends the whole article discussing how various “far-right” figures and forces, from France’s Marine Le Pen to Germany’s Alternative for Germany, got angry at the coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks that targeted churches among other locations and killed some 300 people.”

“And so we increasingly live in a world where, if you believe the media, everywhere you turn there’s the “far right”. Mainstream centre-right ideas and concerns are now being redefined as being somehow associated with and tainted by extremism. If you are worried about the violence against and the persecution of Christians you might be far right. If you value the cultural and philosophical heritage of the Western civilisation you might be far right. If you don’t believe in an open borders immigration policy you might be far right. If you prefer local democracy to transnational institutions you might be far right. If you are defending your country from an armed invasion by another country you might be far right too. If these are all to be the indicators of far right extremism, then what exactly is the “normal” right right now?

This effort to use language as a cudgel has several sinister implications. … For every action there is eventually an equal and opposite reaction. The left might think it’s courageously defanging the fascist dragon but instead it’s just sowing its teeth.

A Response to Checks & Balances’ Press Release on the Mueller Report. Seth Barrett Tillman – I think a more prudent approach might have been for the Press Release’s signatories to await a review of the process that launched the Special Counsel’s investigation before describing its conduct as “lawful.” This is a succinct description of the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ approach to politics, justice, and law on display in the assault on the President. Supposedly reasonable and mature thinkers are tossing out wild accusations and allegations without any effective support or rationale nor any apparent awareness of the consequences of their actions.

The Press Release also states: “The facts contained in the report reveal that the President engaged in persistent conduct intended to derail, undermine and obstruct ongoing federal investigations.” It is unclear what specific allegations within the report the Press Release is relying on. Whether those allegations are, in reality, “facts” or not has not been established by anything like an unbiased or independent decision-maker—like an Article III judge—after both parties have had notice and an opportunity to be heard. By contrast, the Special Counsel’s report is merely a prosecutors office’s memorandum which attempts to marshal one side of the evidence, where the object of the investigation has had no opportunity to respond. As far as I know, the Special Counsel’s report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence. Yet the Press Release relies on this report in arriving at far-reaching conclusions about the President’s conduct. Checks & Balances’ care free attitude in regard to fair play (a/k/a due process) is somewhat odd for an organization named “Checks & Balances.”

Finally, the Press Release speaks to “the President’s violations of his oath, including but not limited to [1] his denigration of the free press, [2] verbal attacks on members of the judiciary, [3] encouragement of law enforcement officers to violate the law, and [4] incessant lying to the American people.” Examples of [1], [2], and [4] are not specified. Absent some specific examples, I will posit that the Press Release’s signatories (which includes several legal academics) are merely characterizing lawfully protected free speech as constitutional violations by the President. Likewise, no example in regard to [3] is specified—if it refers to the President’s exercise of his pardon power, then the critique amounts to just a mundane political disagreement in regard to who should be the object of the President’s bounty—a matter entirely committed to the President’s discretion. All the allegations, mentioned above, from the Press Release amount to [1] constitutionally protected free speech; [2] internal Executive Branch deliberations (and legal advice) about policy during policy formation; and, [3] normal politics—being recharacterized as a constitutional wrong, tort, or crime. Indeed, the Press Release concludes by supporting an investigation of the President based upon his having had engaged in First Amendment protected free speech and his exercise of the pardon power (which remains lawful even when exercised to achieve contested or political purposes). If this is not the criminalization of democratic politics, it is too close for comfort.

At Instapundit – KYLE LAMB: I Fought In The Battle Of Mogadishu. Here’s What Rep. Ilhan Omar Gets Wrong About ‘Black Hawk Down.’“Ingrate” would be the nicest possible thing you could say about Omar.

somewhat odd? massive dose of somewhat odd at hand.

Comments are closed.