Another Court Criminalizes Political Activity -- Will It Be Applied Equally?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled, in United States v. Benton (8th Cir. May 11, 2018) that three officials from Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign committed criminal acts by (1) paying an Iowa State Senator for various services, including his endorsement, through a sub-contract with a video production vendor and (2) reporting the purpose of the expenditure as "audio/visual services."

The State Senator indeed provided "audio/visual services" to the Paul campaign by recording telephone messages and appearing on television for the Paul campaign.  He also traveled for the campaign and encouraged support for the campaign.  But federal prosecutors claimed the main purpose of the payment was the State Senator's "endorsement," which was not reported as the purpose of the payment.

All three of the Republican political operatives were convicted and punished.  One had his house raided and went to prison.    

The ruling has serious implications for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.  News media have reported that the Clinton campaign and DNC funneled money to the Perkins Coie law firm, which in turn sub-contracted with an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, which in turn sub-contracted with a foreign operative, Christopher Steele, to perform opposition research about Donald Trump.  The foreign operative reached out to Russians with Kremlin connections for information that might harm Donald Trump's candidacy.  The Clinton campaign reported the purpose of its payments to Perkins Coie as "legal services."  One liberal group has filed a complaint with the FEC over the activity. 

RNLA member Prof. Brad Smith noted that this decision could impact Perkins Coie:

“If I'm Perkins Coie, right now I'm a bit nervous about the reporting of payments to Fusion GPS,” said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman and current chairman of the Institute for Free Speech.

Republicans do not support the criminalization of politics.  But Republicans do respect the rule of law and equal justice.  

House Intel Memo with Concerning Omissions to FISA Court Released

Earlier today, President Trump declassified a House Intelligence Committee memorandum regarding "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation" that has been the subject of the recently trending social media hashtag #ReleasetheMemo.  Key parts of the memo include:

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle.  Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process. . . . 

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified.  As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard--protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all material and relevant facts.  This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.  In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts.  However, our findings indicate that . . . material and relevant information was omitted. 

The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. . . . Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young stated in response: “This memo contains disturbing details from both a political and a legal perspective. According to the memo, attorneys from the Department of Justice misrepresented facts to the FISA court, which is especially troubling as filings with it are classified and ex parte, so there is no opportunity to defend against the charges."

While there are many legal issues involved in the subject of the memo and it will be hotly debated in the coming weeks, one thing is certain (as noted by Dan McLaughlin of National Review):

[W]ithin those narrow confines, it does make a persuasive case – pending any detailed rebuttal by its partisan Democratic critics – that flimsily-corroborated Democratic Party campaign opposition research succeeded in influencing law enforcement to spy on a U.S. citizen involved in the political process at the height of a presidential campaign. That may not be an enormous scandal in size, but it is, if true, a scandal.

To his credit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement in response to the memo that took the actions outlined in the memo seriously and indicated that DOJ takes its responsibility to the American people seriously and will determine what happened.  

RNC Consent Decree Ends After 35 Years

After 35 years, the consent decree that prohibited the Republican National Committee (RNC) from engaging in ballot security activities was terminated by a federal judge.  RNLA Chair John Ryder, former General Counsel to the RNC, stated:

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ended the consent decree that had banned the Republican National Committee from engaging in activities to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest since 1982.  Despite years and much money spent searching for evidence of Republican voter suppression, the Democratic National Committee could not present evidence to the court sufficient for the consent decree to remain in effect.  We applaud the fact that the RNC may now, on the same, lawful, non-discriminatory basis as other political organizations, ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote and that the votes of ineligible voters are not counted.

In November, the judge noted that the DNC had not presented any evidence of voter suppression, let alone any by the RNC:

“As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” [Judge John Michael] Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

The judge had kept the consent decree in force after a December 1 sunset date to give the DNC an additional opportunity to present evidence of voter suppression or violation of the decree's provisions by the RNC.  It failed to do so:

In order to extend the decree, the DNC needed to show that the RNC violated the terms of pact. . . . However, Vazquez, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that despite the various claims, the Democrats had not shown any violation "by a preponderance of the evidence." . . . 

"We are gratified that the judge recognized our full compliance with the consent decree and rejected the DNC’s baseless claims," said RNC communications director Ryan Mahoney. 

"Today’s ruling will allow the RNC to work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program." 

While the consent decree has been in effect, other Republican organizations, such as the RNLA, NRCC, NRSC, Republican state parties, and other groups, have worked to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest.  As Mr. Ryder noted, we look forward to a new era where the RNC can, if it so chooses, be a part of this effort to protect the right to vote of every eligible voter.  

Obama-Appointed Judge Confirms There is NO Evidence of Republican Voter Suppression

Since 1981 the Republican National Committee has been under a consent decree regarding election integrity operations. For years the RNC has avoided any and everything to do with such activities.  The Democratic National Committee and its allies have been frothing at the mouth on this issue, despite no evidence of ANYONE on the right engaging in voter suppression.  Today, a federal judge appointed by President Obama, Michael Vazquez, made a statement that should put the argument over voter suppression to rest for good:

 “As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

This statement is worth breaking down.  In 2016, in the entire country the DNC with its large staff, money and nationwide affiliates could find “no evidence” of “actual voter suppression.”  The word actual is important because the DNC, Democrats and left-wing groups have accused Republicans in the media and fundraised off such claimed “voter suppression.”  Yet, the DNC could find “no evidence.” 

The DNC and liberal allies will no doubt latch on to the fact that the judge granted a deposition of Sean Spicer based on comments he made in a news article.  However, again, the judge stated:

“I want to give you a realistic expectation that I’m not going to be inclined to grant any additional discovery unless, through material issue of the consent decree, you have real evidence that what he said was not accurate,” he said.

The RNC did not engage in election integrity operation in 2016 or for years prior.  More importantly, an Obama-appointed judge agrees that there is no “actual voter suppression” by Republicans.   Now it is up to the media to focus on the real problems with election administration and to call out Democrats for "fake news."  

Disunity and Elitism at the DNC Convention – Beyond Reality TV

After the GOP convention, all eyes turned to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, and what a slow motion train wreck it has been.  Once you get past the lies and blatant attempts to deceive the American people, you can start to see that even the most tenured of Democrats are not buying the garbage spewing forth from the stage. There have been walkouts, consistent “booing” frequently when Clinton’s name is mentioned, and even resignations in the first few days. The DNC is in a tailspin plummeting toward the ground at a high rate of speed.

Before the convention even started, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced to step down after several thousand internal DNC emails were released by WikiLeaks. Some of the emails contain attempts by the DNC to exert control over the message being spread by the media, which clearly reinforces the well-known fact that media readily caters to and communicates with the DNC, putting a leftist spin on real news and painting it as reality.

But the real story in the leaked emails is the fall of Bernie Sanders. He consistently raised questions about the impartiality of the Democratic Party during the primaries. He was right - the DNC actively conspired against his campaign and in support of Hillary. The party enabled a scandal-laden Hillary Clinton to steal the nomination away from him. This is not Democracy nor is it fair.

“Myself and other Democrats who were Clinton supporters, we have been saying this was serious. It truly violates what the DNC’s proper role should be,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former DNC chairman and former Pennsylvania governor.

“The DNC did something incredibly inappropriate here” and needed to acknowledge that, Rendell said.

In the midst of the drama, one cannot help but pause and reflect on what would have happened without a corrupt DNC functioning off of a system rigged to negate the American public’s vote. As a point of clarity, Sanders is a crazy socialist and I put very little stock in much of anything that he says; however, that does not give his party the right to override America’s choice.  We vote for what we believe. Bernie believes what he preached. You can see that on his face when he speaks, and he lives it and owns it like few politicians on the left have over the years.  That does not make him right, but it does make him different. Americans believed him and that is what matters in our system, or at least it should be.  It became abundantly clear to many (both Republicans and Democrats) watching the primaries progress that Sanders was gaining steam and arguably could have won were it not for the completely rigged super delegate system that enabled Clinton to hang on for the win.

Clinton’s camp is continuing to scream unity over the chorus of “Boos” at the convention, but that unity is not for the voters, and many have started to realize that division most certainly exists between average Americans and the left’s political elite. That unity is not for Americans. That unity is not for Bernie. That unity is for DNC’s inner circle alone.  

The fact is that Democrats have now proven that they are no longer the party of the people.  Despite my personal disagreements with Bernie on just about every possible policy, I genuinely feel bad for the man. His run was admirable and instead of accepting the nomination, he is forced to deal with this travesty that is slap in the face to every American voter in this country. At least for Republicans, our voice still matters and our leaders are strong enough to uphold the will of the American people rather than cave to political corruption and elitism.

The DNC consistently states that they support the people, yet their actions paint a starkly different picture. The Democrats' goal is most certainly not to ensure that the people have a voice in their government.  This is yet another scandal feather that the Clintons can put in their already brimming caps.