Happy Friday, Everybody!

Good Morning,
It has been a while since I have posted on my blog. That is, sometimes, the life of a very busy person. I will keep it short, since I have to be up, in a few hours, to head into work. Thank you, Joyce, and other who have posted.

I am currently second in command at my job, and have been for almost a year. I am the type that does both administrative duties and cover a post, at least five days a week. I am a Lieutenant for a security company, earning the title in July, 2016. I have been with such since 2014. Regardless of the uniform that I wear, I give it my best effort day in, day out. That is how I was raised, and that is how I approach each day at work. My hard work has paid off, as I have earned an award from the owner. I plan to use part of it towards going to a dinner show in December. It is a nice way to celebrate the spirit of the holiday season, in my opinion.

Speaking of uniform, Veterans Day is this weekend. If you know someone who has served or is serving, take a moment to shake their hand; or, at least, say "Thank you!" Many are humble in regards to talk about it, but I know that they will appreciate the gratitude extended. I know that Wawa is offering free coffee to all veterans on Saturday, November 11. It's the little things that count.

I will let you go here. Take care, and Blessings on your day. Happy Friday, everybody!


Bill P.

The Clinton cover-up, brought to you by the same guys who are investigating Trump By Gregg Jarrett

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/18/gregg-jarrett-clinton-cover-up-brought-to-by-same-guys-who-are-investigating-trump.html
October 18, 2017

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. 

But there’s more.  It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter).  Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. 

The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.  

Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years.  Until now.

Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?

It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money.  It is often referred to as “pay-to-play,” but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).

If the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.

The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal “pay-to-play” laws were broken.  The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play.  And prosecutors are required to show a “quid pro quo” or “nexus” between the payments and the benefit provided.  But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.

If Hillary leveraged her public office as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago.

Racketeering is the use of a business for a corrupt and illegal enterprise.  The “Mafia” and other organized crime syndicates are often prosecuted under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO” (18 USC 1961-1968).  Frequently, they devise a dual purpose company –one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the back door. 

There is little doubt the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity.  But if the FBI documents demonstrate that there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, then prosecution could be pursued against Clinton for racketeering.

According to the Associated Press, more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state donated money to her foundation.  If Clinton was peddling access, was she also peddling influence?  Again, the reported FBI documents seem to answer that question.

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him? 

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.   Who are they?

Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case. 

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia. 

If this is true, Mueller and Rosenstein should immediately recuse themselves from the case.  How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of the lead investigators has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?

And, if the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption. 

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.

Still no evidence of Trump-Russia 'collusion' - but Hillary is a different matter By Gregg Jarrett

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html

October 30, 2017

Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller.  

This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. 

Manafort & Gates

The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning.  It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case.  The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it.  That’s it.

The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.”  The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree.  Gee whiz.  

The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings.  The FBI raided his home over the summer.  It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014.  And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.

It could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign.  In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign. 

Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying.  Again.  Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost. 

Papadopoulos

But wait.  Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign.  Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong.  George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.  He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters.  It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.  They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton.  What law did he break?  None.  The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money.  Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. 

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343).  It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise. 

Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel.  Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence. 

Robert Mueller

The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel. 

Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal.  The criminal charges change all that.  The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law. 

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.  Only crimes.  He has limited jurisdiction.  Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”   It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable. 

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law.  It is a legal impossibility.  He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. 

If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order.  The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely. 

The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning.  Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner. 

It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller.  We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset.  A cover-up?  It has the stench of one. 

How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?   Both men should resign. 

And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.   

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

Hillary Clinton's scheme in 'rigging' the nomination may have been criminal By Gregg Jarrett

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/03/gregg-jarrett-hillary-clintons-scheme-in-rigging-nomination-may-have-been-criminal.html

November 3, 2017

Hillary Clinton has spent a year crying about how the presidency was stolen from her. Turns out, she stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders.

The stunning revelation from former Democratic National Committee interim chairperson Donna Brazile that Clinton secretly rigged the primary process by commandeering the DNC should come as no surprise to anyone. Clinton is nothing, if not unethical and corrupt. She always has been. This is precisely why pre-election polls consistently showed that a majority of Americans found her dishonest and untrustworthy.

The critical question now is whether she committed crimes in her theft of the nomination. 

The Scheme

According to Brazile, the DNC went broke under the leadership of Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This dire circumstance presented a perfect scenario for Clinton to seize command of the party apparatus by paying off its debt of roughly $20 million dollars. But in exchange, the DNC executed a written, albeit hidden, agreement transferring to Clinton the committee’s finances, strategy, and money raised -- all to the benefit of Clinton and to the detriment of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her primary opponent.

Even more deceptions and money shuffling ensued. It was a clever and complicated stratagem, but here is the simple version. During Clinton’s joint fundraising events with the DNC and state parties held across the nation, more than $82 million was raised. The states immediately kicked back nearly all of their share to the DNC which, in turn, kicked back their share and the states’ share to Clinton’s campaign.

With Clinton in control of the Democratic party’s staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, mailings and money, she was able to overcome the serious primary challenge by Sanders in securing the nomination. The DNC, which was supposed to remain neutral, had been neutered by Clinton. It devolved into nothing more than a willing accessory to a devious scheme for Clinton’s campaign to get rich at the expense of Sanders. 

There appears to be little doubt that Clinton rigged the election process. It was so unconscionable and unprincipled, that Brazile’s discovery of the incriminating document left her in tears. So she says.     

Clinton Crimes?

The Federal Election Commission must immediately launch an investigation. So, too, must the Department of Justice and the FBI. It appears that Clinton may well have violated several laws which could constitute serious crimes. 

First, federal law sets strict limits on campaign contributions.  Financial records must now be subpoenaed to determine whether these laws were broken. Given Clinton’s past record of shady transactions such as the Whitewater land deal and her sale of cattle futures, there is a strong chance that a document trail will lead investigators to multiple violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 

Second, if Brazile’s account of Clinton’s artifice is true, it is likely that campaign finance reporting laws were broken under the same Act. Hiding campaign money through false or misleading campaign reports is illegal. In egregious cases it is a crime, not just a civil penalty.    

Finally, the funneling of campaign funds from one source to another smacks of money laundering. Any transaction that seeks to conceal or disguise proceeds of illegal activity constitutes money laundering. So, if it can be shown that Clinton violated campaign contribution limits or reporting requirements, then the channeling of the proceeds from one source to another would be the “laundering” of it.

Second Special Counsel

Clinton and her campaign are already suspected of playing a pivotal role in violating federal law by paying a substantial amount of money to a British spy and Russian government sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier”.  Talking to a Russian in a campaign is not a crime, but paying money to one as part of a political campaign is a crime.     

There is also evidence Clinton used her public office to confer a benefit to the Russian government in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. If the Clintons were enriched at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia, it would amount to a violation of seven criminal statutes, including racketeering. 

Yet, despite calls by the House Judiciary Committee and others on Capitol Hill for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, he has taken no action whatsoever. Perhaps this is because he recused himself from any matter related to Hillary Clinton during his confirmation hearing in January. 

This, however, would not legally prevent him from appointing a special counsel to handle the investigation. But it does underscore that Sessions has become so compromised on so many disqualifying matters of vital public interest, including the Trump-Russia case, that he can no longer serve in an able capacity.

As I have written before, Sessions should resign, but not before appointing a special counsel.

It is clear from President Trump’s many comments over the last several months that he has lost all confidence in his attorney general. It is time for him to go.   

Hillary Clinton has bemoaned for months that the presidential election was stolen from her and that Donald Trump “colluded” with the Russians. As with many thing in Clinton’s mind, she has it backwards.    

Evidence continues to mount that it was Clinton who may have conspired with the Russians, while also rigging the primary election process to hand herself the Democratic nomination for president. 

If she committed crimes in the process, she should be charged, convicted and punished.     

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).