Ruth Marcus' Partisan Analysis of the Steele Dossier

Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post needs either a law degree or a course in logic if she intends to comment intelligently on the legal issues presented in the Mueller probe.  In this video commentary, Ms. Marcus, sounding like Edith Bunker, strains the law and principles of logic to argue that Donald Trump, Jr. committed a crime by engaging in a conversation with a Russian lawyer but Hillary Clinton did nothing illegal by concealing campaign expenditures to pay Christopher Steele to reach out to Kremlin sources for dirt on Donald Trump, compiling that foreign-derived information to paper, and then shopping that information throughout the media corps to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

Here's Marcus’ argument:  

In one case, Trump’s, an emissary of a foreign government – have I said that enough? – foreign government – came to you to offer you dirt on your opponent because the foreign government, it was said in the emails, wanted to see you elected.  In the other case [Clinton’s] a campaign was doing actually, as the President has said, what campaign’s generally do.  They investigate their opponents. There is no rule that says if you investigate your opponent you can’t make overseas phone calls, you can’t talk to overseas sources.  You are allowed to collect information.  You are allowed to pay somebody to do that collection.  But asking for it is really very different from being the ‘if it’s what you say I love it, bring it on attitude’ that the Trump campaign had towards information that as far as it knew and was told was being peddled by the Russian government.  Big difference!  

Where’s the logic in that distinction?  If you take a meeting to listen to information being peddled by a foreign government representative you are a criminal, but if you conceal an expenditure to a foreign citizen (Steele) to “make overseas phone calls” to Kremlin-linked sources and then distribute that information to American press outlets like The Washington Post to influence the election, that’s different?  Marcus’ argument makes no sense.

Mr. Mueller should listen closely to the logical errors one must commit in order to contrive a crime here.  Mere conversations become “things of value.”  But one conversation is a crime, because your name is Trump.  Other conversations, “overseas phone calls,” are not crimes, because your name is Clinton. 

Meanwhile, Ms. Marcus, and presumably Mr. Mueller, will turn a blind eye to Clinton’s knowing and willful concealment of her campaign expenditure to Christopher Steele and Clinton’s knowing and willful peddling of the Steele opposition research report, containing information from Kremlin-linked sources, from American media to the FBI and federal courts.

Chairman Devin Nunes Leading the Fight Against DOJ and FBI Abuse & Scheduled to Address the RNLA

Perhaps no one has fought against the alleged abuse of power and anti-Trump bias from high-level officials at the Department of Justice and FBI more than House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. In February, Nunes released a memo despite fierce Democrat opposition claiming to have evidence of Justice Department abuse of power against President Donald Trump. As The Hill summarized:

For those on the right, the memo confirms every suspicion they have had about the U.S. government spying on the Trump campaign and political bias they say has reached the top levels of the DOJ and FBI. 

They say the memo proves that the FBI obtained questionable intelligence from partisan sources and shielded their methods from a surveillance court to investigate a candidate and campaign they were eager to see fail. 

The memo makes the case that the FBI and DOJ did not inform a surveillance court that Democrats had partly funded an anti-Trump dossier that was used, in part, to obtain a secret surveillance warrant in October 2016 for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. 

The memo goes on to allege that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, did so out of animus against Trump and that the FBI had not sufficiently vetted his claims when it obtained warrants to spy on Page...

These are serious charges by Chairman Nunes that must be answered for by the DOJ and FBI. As of June 3rd, Nunes informed the American public that he still has not seen the documents requested from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein despite his issuing a subpoena to have the Justice Department prove this is a legitimate and fair investigation. RealClear Politics reports:

"For almost a year now, we've been waiting for documents from the deputy attorney general," Nunes said. "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could provide all the documents, all the information we need this week, and we could write a report by Friday."

"All the members of my committee don't believe that the counter-intelligence capabilities should be used to target a political party - none of my members on the Republican side do."

"We could finish this by Friday," Nunes said, if the DOJ would provide the documents he has asked for.

Chairman Nunes has not wavered in pursuing transparency and accountability at the highest levels of the Justice Department. He has been vilified by the left simply for demanding an honest and unbiased investigation of the President of the United States.

Despite these fierce partisan attacks, Chairman Nunes has consistently put the sanctity of a principled American justice system first and for that he should be applauded.


Upcoming RNLA D.C. Luncheon:

On Monday, June 25, the RNLA is holding a luncheon with Chairman Devin Nunes. PLEASE NOTE: This date has changed from its original date.

To purchase for this noon luncheon at Tony Cheng's Restaurant in Washington D.C.; please click here for more information.  Also, priority-seated tables are still available; to inquire about a table, please email RNLA Deputy Director Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net.

We hope to see you there!

Did the Obama Administration Spy on Its Political Adversaries?

The Washington, DC liberal political elite is spinning madly over the fact that it appears that the Obama Administration and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. If true, this is extremely troubling and possibly the worst example of the politicization of the FBI by the last administration. As Rep. Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, stated:

Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told "Fox & Friends" that the committee has not seen any "credible evidence or intelligence" explaining why the FBI opened its investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. . . . "What we’re trying to do is get the documents to figure out what methods were used to open this counterintelligence investigation," Nunes said, suggesting that it could reflect badly on the DOJ and FBI once all the information comes to light.

“I believe they never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party," Nunes said. "Counterintelligence investigations very rarely happen. And when they do happen, you have to be very careful because you‘re using the tools of our intelligence services and relationships with other countries in order to spy on a political campaign. Probably not a good idea."

As Andrew McCarthy explains, if true, this would be a clear abuse of power:

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

It is important to note that the counter intelligence effort against the Trump presidential campaign is very different from the criminal investigation into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign:

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.  . . . The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

The real story is, as McCarthy concludes:

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

This should scare all Americans and goes to the heart of our Democracy.  Rep. Nunes will address the RNLA on this and other topics on June 12 in Washington, DC. 

ICYMI: Judge Mukasey Blasts Comey's "Claptrap"

Friday, Judge Michael Mukasey will be addressing the RNLA’s National Policy Conference. Judge Mukasey is also, of course, a former U.S. Attorney General with an insider's knowledge of what the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can, and cannot, do. That topic came up on a recent episode of the Laura Ingraham show. First, Judge Mukasey is emphatic that former FBI Director James Comey’s memos that are the basis of his book and talk show appearances are classified:

They were classified as soon as he wrote them. I had an experience when I started as AG on taking notes at a meeting on a top secret procedure, and when I got up to leave the meeting, my then chief of staff leaned over and wrote in big block letters at the top, TS/SCI, meaning Top Secret/Secure Compartmentalized Information. In other words, those weren't my notes those were the government's notes and the information in them, if it was classified, was classified as soon as he put it down on paper.

Judge Mukasey goes on to criticize Comey in one specific matter in his straight-to-the-point style:

His handling in particular, everybody has their own favorite issue, mine is with his handling of the Clinton email investigation was an outrageous performance. President Obama was sending messages and receiving messages on Hillary Clinton's private email server. Jim Comey knew that and when President Obama went on television and said there is no issue here, she doesn't really intend to cause harm. What he was saying in essence is you better let her off; if you wind up accusing her, you accuse me and Comey followed that lead. The notion this somehow was something he had to do for the welfare of the country is a lot of disingenuous claptrap.

Judge Mukasey’s perspective on the FBI and DOJ is especially enlightening as he ran DOJ as Attorney General without any ethical issues or dissension.  His concerns should alarm all Americans regardless of their political affiliations.  We look forward to hearing from him Friday at the RNLA National Policy Conference. 

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.  

Democrat Leaders All Agreed with President Trump that Comey Needed to Be Fired, Until He Fired Him

Yesterday, President Trump did what Democrats have long called for: he fired FBI Director James Comey.  Of course being Democrats, they disagree with President Trump even when he does what they want.  Here's a list of just a few of the past statements by Senate Democrats calling for Comey to be fired.

SenateMinority Leader Chuck Schumer:

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” said the New York Democrat, who has criticized as “appalling” Comey’s decision to send a letter to lawmakers 11 days before the election disclosing the bureau’s new review of e-mails potentially pertinent to the investigation of Clinton’s private server.

House Minority Leader Nancy Peloisi:

"Maybe he's not in the right job," Pelosi said. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."The former House speaker said Comey had made a "mistake" by sending a letter to Congress about the new review of emails potentially related to Clinton's private server after not recommending prosecution earlier this summer. She alleged that he had a "double standard" given reports that Comey at other points did not want to use his agency to interfere in the election, adding that the new investigation is interfering in the race.

Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee:

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.

Rep. Adam Schiff,  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Ranking Member)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday criticized FBI Director James Comey’s “disparate” treatment of President Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, saying Comey failed to justify his actions during a Senate hearing earlier in the day.

“Nothing excuses the disparate way he handled those,” Schiff said. "I don’t think in any way he justified both what he did and why he treated those investigations so differently.”

Former Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid:

“Comey knew and deliberately kept this info a secret,” he said. Asked whether he believes Comey should step down over the matter, Reid replied, “Of course, yes.”

President Trump did what the Democrat leaders had been asking him to do for months.  This is just another in a long line of examples that the Democrats do not want to work with the President to govern but instead are trying to undermine the government and never stopping their efforts to campaign. 

Reactions to FBI Statement on Hillary Clinton's Email Server

"Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," [Hillary] Clinton responded. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

Except that Clinton did, then she lied about it. Not just once, but on several occasions. That is now established as an indisputable fact.

Watch the statement from FBI Director James Comey here, or read the statement here.  On to some of the comments statements:

House Speaker Paul Ryan via Politico:

"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation," Ryan said in a statement. "No one should be above the law."

Even as Comey announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case against Clinton, Ryan remarked that even "based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law."

"Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent," Ryan continued. "The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

National Review put out a piece that sums up the clear legal issues evidenced in Comey’s statement.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

Even the liberal Washington Post thought the issues were serious and headlined their story on it Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought:

It's hard to read Comey's statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.

Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media.

For a candidate already badly struggling on questions of whether she is honest and trustworthy enough to hold the office to which she aspires, Comey’s comments are devastating. Watching them, I could close my eyes and imagine them spliced into a bevy of 30-second ads — all of which end with the FBI director rebuking Clinton as “extremely careless.”

RNC Chair Reince Priebus via a statement on Facebook:

Rudy Giuliani on CBS News:

"No one should be above the law. Today Hillary Clinton was put way above the law."

Hillary may have avoided criminal prosecution but she will be made to pay a political price.  

More Problems for Hillary Clinton's Friend, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe

Yesterday, we discussed some of the recent problems for Governor Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. The staunch “Crooked Hillary” minion McAuliffe has recently come under investigation by the FBI for donations to his gubernatorial campaign. CNN published an article detailing what is known about the investigation up to this point.

McAuliffe is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and prosecutors from the Justice Department's public integrity unit, U.S. officials briefed on the probe say.

Among the McAuliffe donations that drew the interest of the investigators was $120,000 from a Chinese businessman, Wang Wenliang, through his U.S. businesses. Wang was previously delegate to China's National People's Congress, the country's ceremonial legislature.

Wang also has been a donor to the Clinton foundation, pledging $2 million. He also has been a prolific donor to other causes, including to New York University, Harvard and environmental issues in Florida.

Since the story broke on CNN several other media outlets have picked it up as well including NBC, CBS, and Fox News. The Washington Post released an article today walking through the speculation swirling around the investigation:

In 2013, Wang's Chinese company pledged $2 million to the nonprofit foundation. The donation caught the attention of a CBS News investigation in March 2015 -- not because of any campaign finance laws (this is a foundation after all), but because of Wang's political connections. . . . 

Tying this back to McAuliffe: He also served on the board of the Clinton Foundation around the time of the donation. McAuliffe is a longtime Clinton ally and a prolific fundraiser for them. In 2015, Post reporter Laura Vozzella detailed McAuliffe's connection to Wang to show how Clinton Foundation donors also pumped millions into the governor's campaign accounts. 

Details continue to surface. Keep your eye on the ball. It’s likely given McAuliffe's close ties to the Clinton family that there is a whole lot more to the story. That is until "Crooked Hillary" cleans up the evidence . . . with a cloth.

Vote Harvesting: The New Democrat Grassroots?

Public corruption is so bad in South Texas that the FBI developed a task force to clean up the Rio Grande Valley’s wrongdoings. In 2013, more public officials were convicted for corruption here than any other reason. The major sin, vote-stealing.

In South Texas, a local candidate can call on a campaign worker, or politiqueras, if they need dependable votes. After losing candidates challenged this practice, the authorities caught wind of the investigations, and both the Justice Department and the Texas attorney general’s office filed charges. James Sturgis, assistant U.S. attorney in McAllen says,

"Yes, there is a concern in which the politiqueras are being paid to then go and essentially round up voters and have them vote a certain way."

Voters were bribed with cigarettes, beer, or dime bags of cocaine, but other politiqueras tamper directly with mail-in ballots. Most are not willing to talk to reporters, but one like Herminia Becerra, spoke with NPR. As a self-anointed queen of politiqueras, Beccerra claims she can be the winning factor in small precincts.

Allegedly some politiqueras charge $10-20 for each mail-in ballot delivered in favor of their candidate. Yet, others simply know their precinct’s votng habits and can be a helpful political consultant. Some claim not to break the law and only to deliver votes. 

Citizens Against Voter Abuse (CAVA) founder, Mary Helen Flores discussed with NPR that

"[I]t's important to clean up Valley elections because residents need honest leaders to address the rates of high poverty and low educational achievement in the region, not office-holders who feather their nests."

Vote fraud disenfranchises legal voters including the poor.  It is particularly ironic that this practice is so widespread in Texas where the left spent so much of last year denying the existence of vote fraud and fighting against commonsense measures to combat fraud such as voter ID.