Schiff’s Last Stand

If you have wondered why the Democrats in Congress seem to be in such a rush to remove President Trump from office, wonder no more. They have been in a race against an impending dangerous storm warning.

The storm warning is not President Trump. It is US Attorney General William Barr, US Attorney John Durham, and Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

First, IG Michael Horowitz wrote Congressional leaders that his report on the secret surveillance warrants used by the FBI during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign was “nearing completion.” The next day, news broke that the investigation by US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation was now classified as a criminal investigation.

Over the past three years, mainstream media reports made bold predictions about impending revelations of treasonous behavior by President Trump. One by one these claims were thoroughly debunked.

During the same three years, conservative investigative reporters reported on unelected bureaucrats colluding to remove, disable, or impair a duly elected President. These investigations focus on what Donald Trump called “the swamp.”

The swamp is more than political parties or political philosophy. It is a controlling culture composed of elected officials, bureaucrats, lobbyists, consultants, and contractors who had a free run of Washington, DC.

Donald Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp. He represented a clear and present danger.

The swamp used the power of the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try to stop Trump before the election. When the people elected him, the swamp tried to keep him from being inaugurated.

Since the day Trump took office, the swamp used every weapon available to cripple or destroy his service as President. Every attempt has failed.

President Trump stood up against the swamp, He has also done his job leading the American people.

Real median household income continues to rise as wages rise. More Americans have jobs today than ever before.

The unemployment rate continued its drop to record lows not seen in half a century. African-American and Hispanic unemployment is at record low levels as well.

The people in mainstream America are better off than ever before. They are experiencing more freedom and opportunity to invest and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

This is all the more threatening to the swamp. Adam Schiff and House Democrats, as the defenders of the swamp, are dug in deep in the bowels of the Capitol basement. In this inquisition, they are frantically searching for something – anything that they can call an impeachable offense.

The dragnet of justice is closing in on the swamp. The threat is imminent and real, and they know it. This is Adam Schiff’s last stand.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Truth, Justice and the Inquisition

Democrats continue to shock and anger the nation with their assault on truth and justice in their ongoing coup attempt to remove Donald Trump. News outlets are calling the latest efforts an impeachment, but this is not an impeachment, it is an inquisition. 

A two year, multi-million dollar fishing expedition by Robert Mueller came back with no catch on Russian interference or obstruction of justice. The best Mueller could do was say that he could not file charges but neither could he exonerate President Trump.

The latest attempt came with an unauthorized discussion about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. Conversations between the President and leader of another country are classified. 

Someone who apparently was authorized to be involved in the conversation broke the law and talked about it with an unauthorized individual. That second-hand party, who is referred to as a “whistle blower,” then talked to Congressman Adam Schiff and his staff.

They helped the second-hand whistle blower craft a formal letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Schiff himself is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. 

That letter, then went to the Intelligence Inspector General (IG) as a “whistle blower” complaint. What the IG received, was, at best, a second-hand report of an allegation about the President. 

It would seem that the IG would want to get someone who actually heard the call to corroborate the story. If he could not get a first-hand account, it should be “case closed.”  

On September 18, the Washington Post published a story, based on an anonymous source, about the existence of a “whistle blower” report on the President’s phone call.  That was the trigger in the Democrat playbook for Schiff, Pelosi, and the Democrats. 

On September 24, Nancy Pelosi met with the Democrat caucus behind closed doors to discuss impeachment. In order to begin an impeachment process, the House of Representatives must vote. Newly elected Democrats who ran as moderates did not want to go on record voting for an impeachment. 

Shortly after Pelosi had her closed door meeting, President Trump, who was at the United Nations, announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. The Whitehouse also announced that the second-hand whistle blower complaint would be released by the end of the week. 

Later that afternoon, Pelosi addressed Congress. She said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six Committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.” 

There was no vote then. There still has not been a vote. I do not believe that there will be a vote.  

In spite of having no vote for an impeachment inquiry, some Democrats were quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for Trump’s impeachment. Among the followers of the left was my member of Congress, Sanford Bishop, from Southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District. 

Even after President Trump announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of the call, Sanford Bishop published a statement saying that it was “imperative” that Congress begin an impeachment inquiry. He stated: 

“The President has admitted publicly to asking the Ukraine President to investigate Hunter Biden and has instructed his Director of National Intelligence to withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, which is illegal.”

Sanford Bishop made up his mind without getting any facts. He pre-judged the reported allegation before knowing the details or even seeing the complaint itself.  

The next day as President Trump promised, in an unprecedented display of transparency, he released the totally unredacted transcript of the call. Later that day, the second-hand whistle blower complaint was also declassified and forwarded to Congress. 

Democrats were so caught off guard by the release of the transcript that Congressman Adam Schiff made up his own version. In a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, Schiff read into the record a totally fictitious transcript of the call.

Republicans called his hand. He said that it was just a parody. 

When the second-hand whistle blower complaint was declassified, Sanford Bishop was quick to update his website with a link to the second-hand account of the whistle blower. In a blatant display of deceit, Bishop did not include a link to the transcript of the call itself.

The transcript was released before the whistle blower’s second-hand account and complaint. Nearly one month later, there is still only a link to the second-hand account made by the whistle blower.

Sanford Bishop has made no acknowledgement of the transcript.  He has not provided a link that would allow a constituent to read the transcript of the call itself.

Sanford Bishop should provide the transcript so that his constituents can get the complete and accurate account. He is presenting only one side. This is a calculated and disingenuous ploy to mislead.  

Democrats, with their loyal followers like Sanford Bishop, are seeking neither truth nor justice. They are carrying out a duplicitous, devious, dishonest inquisition. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Mueller’s Hail Mary and Barr’s Interception

I watched Robert Mueller’s press conference. For over two years, I held on to a glimmer of hope that Mueller was trying to do a thorough investigation to find and report the facts. His press conference confirmed solidly in my mind that his entire investigation was not to find the truth but to find that President Trump committed a crime.

He could not find that President Trump committed a crime so he turned the foundational principles of justice on its head. With glaring hypocrisy, Mueller applied the principle of justice to indicted Russians when he said that he would not comment on their innocence or guilt because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

In President Trump’s case, however, instead of reporting the facts that there was no evidence to charge the President with a crime, he turned the burden of proof upside down. While he extended the presumption of innocence to Russians, for President Trump he said, “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

This sounds more like the famous swimming test of a witch trial than American justice. In the swimming test, the accused would be bound with ropes and thrown into a lake. If she somehow managed to get to the surface for air, it was clearly through means of witchcraft. If she sank, then she must not have been a witch.

In the Russian collusion investigation, Mueller also attempted to plant a seed of guilt where there was none. He said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Note the modifier, “broader.” He clearly intended to leave the impression that there could have been a conspiracy. It was just that if there was one, it was a county road conspiracy, not an I-75 conspiracy.

Mueller went on to say that he did not come to any conclusion because department policy prohibited charging a sitting President. He said, “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Notice the careful use of words when he said that “we would not” not “we could not.”

Mueller’s argument on DOJ policy immediately raises a glaring question. If he was not going to come to a conclusion, then why did he waste millions of dollars over two years to write a 400 page gossip column?

Newt Gingrich quickly knocked down Mueller’s DOJ policy argument. He pointed out that Kenneth Starr’s report on the investigation of President Bill Clinton used the word, “guilty” eleven times with five of those being for obstruction of justice.

In an interview with Jan Crawford, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Mueller could have reached a conclusion. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were both surprised when Mueller did not.

Barr went even farther by pointing out that Mueller’s statement saying that he could not exonerate the President was not DOJ policy either. Barr said that Mueller’s standard of exoneration, “of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law.” There was no violation of the law. There was no narrow violation. There was no broad violation. There was no violation.

Mueller also said that the DOJ policy held that the Constitution puts the responsibility on Congress to formally accuse a sitting President. Barr said that he was not sure what Mueller was suggesting but that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. …we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.”

Mueller concluded his press conference by saying that he would not take questions. He went on to say that he had no plans to testify further. Referring to his report, he said, “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”

This raises another glaring question. If the report speaks for itself and is his testimony, then why hold a press conference?

There is a simple answer. Mueller was seeking to find that President Trump committed a crime. He could not because there was nothing to find. Bill Barr released the Mueller report six weeks ago. It was gaining no traction.

Mueller’s press conference was simply a Hail Mary pass. Bill Barr intercepted it in the end zone.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

President Trump’s Compromise

Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that he would sign a bill to fund the government for three more weeks and end the government shutdown. He accepted the Democrat proposal to first open the government and then they will discuss the President’s request for border security.

It was evident on the President’s face that this was not something he wanted to do. He knew that the headlines would be, “Trump Caves.”

President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.

A cave is when one party gives in without fighting to win on their position. They may talk a great deal but do not put up a fight because they never intended to put up a fight.

A compromise on the other hand is when both parties come to an agreement to resolve an issue. Both parties come out of the deal with something and both parties give up something.

President Trump’s position was to fund the government and include border security provisions with physical barriers, commonly referred to as a wall. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said, no wall.

Both made small concessions along the way. Trump’s recommendation changed from wall to steel slats that allowed border guards to see through to the other side. He later threw in provisions to address the issue of children who had been brought to the United States illegally by their parents.

Pelosi and Schumer softened their position from “no wall” to a short term bill of a few weeks to open the government. During that period, they assured the President that there would be serious and meaningful bi-partisan discussions to fund border security.

The President had serious reservations about Democrats actually operating in good faith. He did not want to play the role of Charlie Brown to have Lucy (Pelosi and Schumer) snatch the football away again.

President Trump knew that the shutdown was putting a financial strain on impacted federal employees. The strain was showing, particularly in air travel.

During the shutdown, President Trump has been talking with members of Congress. Some meetings were well publicized while many were out of the limelight.

His statement below summarizes the spirit of the compromise.

After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside, I think, and put the security of the American people first. I do believe they are going to do that.

They have said they are for complete border security and they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fences, or walls or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution. A bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts, and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who have worked with us so closely.

The key in this statement is the agreement to have a bipartisan conference committee. A conference committee is generally formed after the House and Senate pass a bill with slight differences. The conference committee meets to work out the differences and present the same bill to both chambers for final approval.

The bipartisan makeup of the committee means that Democrats and Republicans will both be at the same table talking with each other. They will not be talking at each other via 30 second sound bites.

The address was originally scheduled for 1:00 pm last Friday. It was almost 2:30 before the President spoke. That delay indicates that he was working on this address, probably making phone calls, and finalizing agreements up until the last minute.

President Trump wanted a bill that included funding for a wall. He believed that he could strike some agreement to get it done.

Democrat leadership refused to talk. As time went on, the focus of attention turned more and more to the impact of the government shutdown and away from the crisis at the border.

The President decided to eat humble pie. He agreed to the appeals he was hearing from both sides to open the government. The compromise agreement is in the best interest of all Americans.

President Trump displayed leadership in fighting for his position. He displayed leadership by taking action to move the issue forward. He displayed statesmanship by putting trust in both parties to work together on a conference committee in good faith.

President Trump kept his part of the agreement. Within hours of giving his address, the President signed the bill to give full back pay and put federal workers back to work.

Furloughed federal workers are no longer an issue. Now, the issue is solely on border security and funding a wall to address the crisis on our Southern border.

The President recognizes the process that the Founding Fathers built into our constitutional government. Technically, the President could declare a national emergency and act unilaterally.

He believes that Congress should recognize the crisis at the Southern Border. They should acknowledge the crisis by funding border security.

The President has done his part. Now, it is in the hands of Congress. President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Tribute to Chuck Wade, the Old Man in the Woods

On November 27, this world lost a prophetic patriot. Chuck Wade of Taylor County, Georgia stepped into eternity.

Every Thursday, like clockwork, the e-mail showed up from Chuck Wade. The subject line always began with three letters, “LTE”

It was Chuck’s weekly letter to the editor in the Taylor County News. It was not just any old letter to the editor. It was was rarely sweet and syruppy.

It was a passionate, pointed, view of our state of affairs in the greatest nation in the world. I told Chuck that he was the Jeremiah of political affairs.

Chuck introduced to me to a couple of words. I do not know if he coined them himself or if he picked them up from someone else.

They both described the same thing. He used the term, “uni-party” to describe the power establishment in Washington. The members of the Uni-Party were the “Washingtonians.”

From Chuck’s perspective, there was really no difference in the Republicans and the Democrats. He believed that the debates and campaigns between the parties are more like the choreographed professional wrestling matches.

The candidates do not fully realize it at first, but after election, they are introduced to the way things really work. He saw how easily elected officials got hooked on the opioid of power and prestige.

Ever so gradually, elected officials began to see themselves as the saviors of the people, not the servants of the people. Chuck saw the foundation of individual rights, personal responsibility, and trust in God being undermined.

I told Chuck that I called him Jeremiah because he wrote like a prophet. He did not try to pump up his readers with bright optimism for the future.

He journaled the slippery slope on which the Constitutional foundation of the American Republic was sliding. He became cynical about the motives of nearly all elected officials.

I once told him that I felt that even if I were in office, he would soon turn on me because things did not change as fast as he wanted. He reminded me that our nation is in a crisis and most politicians refuse to clearly and loudly shout it out like Paul Revere.

He did find a glimmer of hope in the election of Donald Trump. At the same time he wondered if it was too little, too late.

Chuck did not simply sit and complain. He communicated regularly with his elected officials.

Although he sometimes felt his efforts were futile, he did it anyway. I believe that he carried more influence than he realized.

He also invested his money and time into his church, First Baptist of Butler, the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association and the Georgia Sheriff’s Youth Home, and the Kiwanis Club.

Chuck served our nation with honor, retiring as a Lt. Col. in the National Guard. He continued to serve our nation by steadfastly proclaiming the truth week after week, often referring to himself as just the “Old Man in the Woods.”

His LTE in the Taylor County News and Butler Herald that I received on November 8 presents a good synopsis of his analysis and candid outlook for the future. I am reprinting it below.
*****************************************
Dear Editor,

Who is to blame for the current madness that defines American Politics? There are two candidates for this shameful honor. Politicians are blameworthy, but ultimately, it is voters who bear the responsibility for the upside down world in which we find ourselves.

Politicians have forgotten that they are representatives of the constituents who bother to vote in the electoral process. America is a Constitutional Republic wherein citizens grant to certain men and women the awesome responsibility to support and defend that which makes the United States the most unique nation that has ever existed in all of human history.

Clearly, the politicians have failed and continue to fail to do their duty. Why the pols reject their duty is the question of the ages.

Politicians seldom question their voters as to how votes should be cast on important issues. The ‘business approach’ and the ‘I will bring your values’ to Washington evaporate after the election like a morning dew in July.

This is because upon elevation to office, the reps assume that what they think is what matters and voters can be ignored. This is conscious, wrongful behavior among those who are supposed to vote in accordance with the will of the people who elected them.

The will of the people, carried out by the electeds, must be done in accordance within the limits placed on government and the reps by the Constitution.

The reps cannot be totally blamed for our problems because the great majority of voters consider that by voting they have fulfilled their civic duty. Too many voters avoid involvement in politics until the next election.

They voted, they assume their guy will do the right thing and they ignore the day to day shenanigans of the politicians. Ignoring what they do is a serious mistake. This avoidance allows the politicians to do whatever they please.

Upon election, the pols assume a very low profile, avoid involvement in serious issues and bring home the free stuff to their unwitting constituents. Failure of voters to question their elected officials and hold them accountable is the real reason for the sorry state of politics in America.

Fewer and fewer voters have any idea of the limitations placed on government by our Constitution. How can anyone be expected to defend something he or she does not understand?

This writer believes that the only change possible is that politicians will make things worse for all of us. Without accountability to the voters, the politicians will continue to do whatever pleases them, enhance their financial status and continue the façade that they are working hard to maintain our way of life.

Unless and until politicians fear their voters more than they fear their party leaders, nothing will change. Informed voters can control the politicians. Maybe someday they will.

There is little evidence to indicate as much for the foreseeable future. Some citizens vote, consider their civic duty done and hope that the political insanity ends. This does not bode well.

Chuck Wade
Butler
**********************
Funeral services for Chuck Wade will be on Saturday, December 1, 2018 at First Baptist Church of Butler, GA. Visitation is at 10:00 AM and the service is at 11:00 AM.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Execution by Paper Cut

Democrats are trying to execute Brett Kavanaugh by paper cut. They have been very clear about their goal to stop his confirmation. They intentionally hid an allegation of sexual assault for weeks. The sole reason was to throw it out as a last minute Hail Mary pass to delay the Senate Judiciary Committee vote.

Witnesses named by the accuser have denied knowing anything about the alleged event. Judge Kavanaugh immediately issued a strong denial and asked to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley made extraordinary accommodations for the accuser to offer testimony to the committee. The first hint came on September 13, after the committee had completed hearings. A vote was scheduled for the following week, September 20.

It was then that Senator Fienstein revealed that she had turned over a letter to investigators from an anonymous source about an anonymous matter. Unnamed sources stated that it was an allegation of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh.

Over the weekend, the accuser was identified as Christine Blasey Ford. She said that she wanted to testify. The scheduled vote for Thursday the 20th was cancelled and a hearing was set for Monday the 24th.

With each new day, new excuses and demands arose from Ford’s attorney. Then another accusation came out from Deborah Ramirez. Democrats immediately called for more delays and more conditions. The hearing was rescheduled to Thursday the 27th for Ford and Kavanaugh both to testify.

Meanwhile, not wanting to be left out, Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti, popped out of the clown car and announced that he also has someone ready to come forward in the next 48 hours.

Fortunately, Senator Grassley has put his foot down. Thursday, September 27 is the date for the hearing. I still doubt that Ford will show up for the hearing.

Grassley has scheduled a vote for Friday. Senate Republicans are poised to start the full Senate confirmation vote debate on Saturday. Until the Senate finally has a confirmation vote, we may as well get accustomed to hearing outrageous claims from all corners.

Democrats hoped that Kavanaugh would give up and quit. Thankfully, he is not quitting. He is standing firm while Democrats are trying to execute by paper cut.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required







FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Democrat Houses of Cards Are About to Collapse

Monday, September 17, 2018 will be recorded as a bad day for Democrats. They have built houses of cards that are about to collapse.

First, the accusation of Brett Kavanaugh. It began to break before the weekend from Senator Dianne Feinstein of a serious report of an anonymous incident by a person who wished to remain anonymous.

Senator Feinstein had the information since July but never said anything about it until the hearings were over. That alone proves her disingenuous intent.
Continue reading FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The OIG Report – Part 1

This commentary is a little longer than my average comments. I read the entire OIG report, all 500 plus pages, on the Clinton E-Mail investigation. My commentary on this just won’t fit in 500 words or less.

In his conclusion the OIG used a phrase of six critical words: “The damage caused by these employees’…”

A few powerful players at the top level polluted the entire investigation. The OIG was ultra cautious in concluding that he did not find “documentary or testimonial evidence” that there was political bias.

My conclusion after reading the full report is that political bias saturated this investigation like gravy on biscuits. This is not to cast a wide net over all of the FBI and DOJ personnel.

I want to share my observations of a few aspects of the report.

Director James Comey

With regard to political bias, I am willing to give Director Comey the benefit of the doubt. In his testimony and the testimony of others, it appears that Director Comey’s ultimate concern was the reputation of the FBI.

His problem was not political bias per se. His problem was (and still appears to be) a hyper-inflated sense that he is the only one in the universe who can determine what is “right.”

In July of 2016 when I watched Comey’s press conference, my first thought was, “Why is he making this announcement and not a US Attorney?” Comey’s decision to go on his own was pure and simple insubordination.

On page 245, the OIG report made a key point. “In our criminal justice system, the investigative and prosecutive functions are intentionally kept separate as a check on the government’s power to bring criminal charges.”

Comey willfully, knowingly, intentionally, tossed the checks and balances out the window. He made himself the chief arbiter of a decision that was never his to make.

In October, days before the election, Comey again made a decision to publicly re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation. In this case, DOJ was aware of his intention to notify Congress and requested that he not at that time. Again, Comey acted as if he alone had the integrity to make the “right” decision.

After President Trump fired Comey, he once again displayed his insubordination. He retained an official FBI work product after his termination of employment, and gave it to a college professor who had no business even knowing the document existed. The professor then leaked the document to the news media as a conduit for Comey.

Comey felt that his action was justified. It was not justified. It violated FBI policy, if not the law.

The FBI Director is part of the Executive Branch and as such is accountable to and subordinate to the Attorney General and the President. While Comey proclaimed his independence from outside meddling, in reality he was acting as a benevolent dictator. He should have been fired in July of 2016.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

The two lovebirds got a lot of attention over their text messages. Both held high positions of influence in the investigation. Incredulously, one of them, Peter Strzok is still employed by the FBI.

On July 31, 2016 Strzok sent a text to Page about the opening of the Russia investigation. He expressed his excitement to be on the investigation.

“And ____ this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t ___ something up. This matters because this MATTERS. So super glad to be on this voyage with you.”

The most publicized exchange was on August 8, 2016:

Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Strzok was not talking about organizing political activities to get out the vote for Hillary and assure her victory. He held a powerful role in an investigation of the Trump campaign. Based on his July 31 e-mail he appeared to believe at that time that the investigation would somehow stop Trump.

His belief is evident in a text one week later, on August 15, when Strzok wrote to Page:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40….”

On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. On May 18, Strzok wrote to Page,

“For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with MYE [the Clinton E-Mail Investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.”

Strzok also wrote about his career path. “Who gives a ___, one more A[ssistant] D[irector]…[versus] [a]n investigation leading to impeachment?”

On May 22, Strzok wrote another message to Page about her career path as part of the Special Counsel’s team: “This is yours. Plus, leaving a S[pecial] C[ounsel] (having been an SC) resulting in an impeachment as an attorney is VERY different than leaving as an investigator….”

These text messages reveal more than just a bias. In his role, Strzok had at his disposal assets from the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, and the Department of Justice.

Peter Strzok was texting about stopping a candidate in the American electoral process. Then he was texting about removing the duly elected President of the United States.

Every FBI agent takes an oath of office that begins with these words, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” Peter Strzok, in particular, needs to look into the mirror because his text messages reveal him to a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. It is a travesty that Strzok is still employed by the FBI. The new Director needs to clean house, or he needs to go the way of James Comey.

I have a lot more to write on this report. Watch for my next Note from Don Cole with more on the OIG report.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Pardon – Returning to the Constitutional Intent

President Trump raised eyebrows with recent pardons and reprieves. He needled his opponents by stating that the President even has the power to pardon himself if he wanted. He went on to say that in his case there was no need because he had done nothing wrong.

President Trump Signing Pardon (https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/trump-pardons-boxer-jack-johnson)Two recent pardons are noteworthy. One was the posthumous pardon of Jack Johnson, former World Heavyweight Champion boxer. Johnson, an African American, was convicted in 1913 of a federal crime for taking his white girlfriend across state lines.

There was no question that the motivation for prosecution was simply because he was dating a white woman. Johnson served 10 months in prison. He died in 1946.

Johnson’s great great niece, Linda Haywood, asked President George W. Bush to grant a posthumous pardon. It never happened.

She had great hopes for a pardon during the Obama administration. She even had the support of Congress.

President Obama refused to act on the basis of a recommendation from the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokesman wrote that is is the “department’s position that the limited resources which are available to process requests for president clemency—now being submitted in record numbers—are best dedicated to requests submitted by persons who can truly benefit from a grant of the request.”

President Trump learned of the case of Jack Johnson, not from Justice Department lawyers, but from Sylvester Stallone. When the President looked into the case, he saw that this was wrong.

He righted the wrong. Contrary to the view of career lawyers in the Justice Department, Jack Johnson’s family and our nation truly benefited from the grant of this request.

Photo of Alice Johnson (Courtesy of Can-Do)President Trump’s other noteworthy use of his pardon authority was to commute the life sentence of a non-violent drug offender, Alice Johnson. She had served 21 years on conspiracy to possess cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine.

As in the case of Jack Johnson, this was not the first time a request had been made to the Office of the President. Three request were made during the Obama administration. Justice Department lawyers denied her petition. President Obama left it up to the Justice Department and never acted on the request.

Also, as in the case of Jack Johnson, it was not the Justice Department that brought the matter to the President’s attention. It was Kim Kardashian. When the President called for the record and examined the case, he gave Alice Johnson her freedom.

The power of the President to issue pardons is found in Article II of the Constitution. The President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

The power to pardon is the least limited power granted to the President in the Constitution. Impeachment is the only exception. That is because impeachment is a power granted to the legislative branch in Article I.

President Trump’s direct action on granting pardons and reprieves is a return to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Over the years, the power to grant pardons and reprieves gradually became a defacto power of unelected career employees in the Justice Department.

Justice Department lawyers do not have the power to grant a pardon, but for all practical purposes, they decided, made recommendations to the President, and the President signed the papers. President Trump put an end to that practice.

There were probably more than a few lawyers wringing their hands with angst. After all, this President had never spent a day in law school. How could he possibly be qualified to make such decisions? The answer is simple. He is qualified because the Constitution says so.

A pardon changes the status of the one receiving the pardon. In 1867, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field wrote that the effect of a Presidential pardon on an individual, “makes him, as it were, a new man… so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.”

The philisophical basis of the power to pardon is also the foundation of the Christian faith. In II Corinthians 5:17, Paul wrote, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” These words may have been in Justice Field’s mind when he wrote “makes him, as it were, a new man..”

In the case of Jack Johnson, President Trump righted a wrong that was over a century old. In the case of Alice Johnson, he showed compassion and grace to give her a second chance. I am glad to see President Trump putting the Constitutional human element back into pardons and reprieves.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Unfettered Power

“Unfettered power.” Two words from the bench of Federal District Court Judge T. S. Ellis III that sum up the judge’s line of questioning in the investigation of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller and his team.

I read the 48 page transcript of the hearing before Judge Ellis. Most of the hearing consisted of Judge Ellis pointedly questioning the special prosecutor’s attorney about the origin of the case brought before him and the motivation of the special counsel regarding the indictment of Paul Manafort.

The judge opened the hearing by making a distinction between the government and the special counsel. “Let me ask the government — or not the government — the special counsel a few questions..” From that point, the remainder of the conversation was between the judge and the special counsel.

Judge Ellis focused on the question of why the special counsel was prosecuting Manafort at this time. The US Attorney had investigated Manafort as far back as 2005 with no indictment. Mueller’s team took that old investigation and pressed charges. The judge’s questioning boiled down to “why” and “why now?”

He could see no connection between the investigations of 2005 and the special counsel’s actions today. He noted that the special counsel was appointed to investigate links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

The investigations and indictment of Manafort related to events well before the 2016 Presidential campaign. Judge Ellis noted, “I don’t see what relation this indictment has with anything the special prosecutor is authorized to investigate.”

Judge Ellis got right to the point by stating that the special counsel did not really care about the alleged bank fraud by Paul Manafort. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in.”

The special counsel struggled to answer the judge’s question in a straight forward manner. At one point he defended the special counsel’s using the files from the 2005 investigation by implying that the special counsel was not really bound by the scope of the order appointing the special counsel.

It was at that point that Judge Ellis sternly lectured the special counsel:

THE COURT: What we don’t want in this country is we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. We don’t want federal judges with unfettered power. We don’t want elected officials with unfettered power. We don’t want anybody, including the President of the United States, nobody to have unfettered power. So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants…. American people feel pretty strongly about no one having unfettered power.

In the course of Judge Ellis’s questioning, he noted that a memo from Acting Attorney General Rosenstein was 75% blacked out. He wanted to know why he did not have a full copy.

The special counsel explained that the only paragraphs pertinent were the ones that were given to the judge. Judge Ellis responded, “I’ll be the judge of whether it relates to the others…. I’ll be the judge of whether it has anything to do with Mr. Manafort.”

Judge Ellis wrapped up the hearing with a requirement that the special counsel provide him a means to read the full unredacted memos. He also told the special counsel that he (Judge Ellis) was exercising uncharacteristic restraint on his part not to require special counsel to provide additional information on the decision making process involved.

Unfettered power sums up the attitudes and actions exhibited by the special counsel. For the first time, outside of the President and members of Congress, the special counsel encountered someone who threw the penalty flag. At one point in his remarks, Judge Ellis incredulously exclaimed, “Come on, man!”

The American people have been of the “Come on, man!” mindset for months. It is well past time for someone to exercise oversight and end the unfettered power of the special counsel by setting a deadline for Robert Mueller to issue a final report.

Signature-Donald E. Cole

I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts. Please forward these to your friends and share on Facebook.

Sign up to below to get my commentaries sent directly to your in-box.

I promise, you won’t get a bunch of junk and I will not share your e-mail address with anyone. When you get an e-mail from me, you can be assured that it will be easy to read, informative, and usually short. Thank you again for reading.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 






 FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather