Trump is forcing Europe toward safety, PESCO announced

AFP and AP © Emmanuel Dunand, AFP | EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (c) with foreign and defence ministers after signing the PESCO notification in Brussels on November 13. Text by NEWS WIRES Latest update : 2017-11-13 European Union countries on Monday officially launched a new era in defense cooperation with a program of joint […]

via EU nations sign up for new era of deeper defense cooperation — Peace and Freedom

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jason D. Greenblatt must be doing something right

Jason D. Greenblatt must be doing something right

I was down at the Defense One Summit last week in Washington D.C., and I heard Wendy Sherman give a wonderful, in-depth, interview with Andrea Mitchell. Sherman made a number of important points I will be writing about in detail over the next few months – but today’s tidbit needs to get out more immediately because it ties in nicely with some other things being “heard” on the grapevine about a Trump team negotiator named Jason D. Greenblatt.

Sherman praised Greenblatt for listening to the different groups connected with the formative peace process, and seemed to be impressed with his diplomatic abilities. Sherman would not normally be on a list of people I would count as promoting Trump and/or his agenda, so this was pleasant news. I have read and heard good things about Greenblatt from the Israeli press as well (TOI and TJP) and the NYT piece I have excerpted below is very positive.

Since the Trump people and our allies, and even some of our foes are also signaling respect – I have to wonder, who is this Jason D. Greenblatt and why are so many people, from very different POV’s, positive about him?

First the NYT:

By Peter Baker, NYT

WASHINGTON — President Trump and his advisers have begun developing their own concrete blueprint to end the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, a plan intended to go beyond previous frameworks offered by the American government in pursuit of what the president calls “the ultimate deal.”

After 10 months of educating themselves on the complexities of the world’s most intractable dispute, White House officials said, Mr. Trump’s team of relative newcomers to Middle East peacemaking has moved into a new phase of its venture in hopes of transforming what it has learned into tangible steps to end a stalemate that has frustrated even presidents with more experience in the region.

The prospects for peace are caught up in a web of other issues consuming the region, as demonstrated in recent days by Saudi Arabia’s growing confrontation with Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is likewise worried about Hezbollah as well as efforts by Iran to establish a land corridor across southern Syria. If a war with Hezbollah broke out, it could scuttle any initiative with the Palestinians.

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump’s team has collected “non-papers” exploring various issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and officials said they expected to address such perennial dividing points as the status of Jerusalem and settlements in the occupied West Bank. Although Mr. Trump has not committed to a Palestinian state, analysts said they anticipated that the plan will have to be built around the so-called two-state solution that has been the core of peacemaking efforts for years.

“We have spent a lot of time listening to and engaging with the Israelis, Palestinians and key regional leaders over the past few months to help reach an enduring peace deal,” said Jason D. Greenblatt, the president’s chief negotiator. “We are not going to put an artificial timeline on the development or presentation of any specific ideas and will also never impose a deal. Our goal is to facilitate, not dictate, a lasting peace agreement to improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians and security across the region.”

Mr. Trump, who considers himself a dealmaker, decided to adopt the challenge when he took office in January, intrigued at the idea of succeeding where other presidents failed, and he assigned the effort to Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser. Neither had any background with the issue and the effort was greeted with scorn, but the fact that the president entrusted it to a close relative was taken as a sign of seriousness in the region.

Mr. Trump’s team sees the convergence of factors that make the moment ripe, including an increased willingness by Arab states to finally solve the issue to refocus attention on Iran, which they consider the bigger threat. With that in mind, Egypt is brokering a reconciliation between Mahmoud Abbas, who presides in the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls Gaza, a deal that would cement the Palestinian Authority as the representative of the Palestinian people. Saudi Arabia has summoned Mr. Abbas to Riyadh to reinforce the importance of a deal.

“The stars begin to align in a way that creates a moment,” said Nimrod Novik, a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum who served as foreign policy adviser to former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who negotiated the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. “But obviously the two key questions are will Prime Minister Netanyahu decide to go for it” and “will President Trump, once he’s presented a plan by his team, decide it’s worth the political capital required.”

Still, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel nor President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is in a strong position to negotiate. Mr. Netanyahu faces corruption investigations and pressure from the right in his narrow coalition not to make concessions, while Mr. Abbas is aging and endures strong opposition among his own constituents.

Skepticism abounds, especially among those who spent years struggling to overcome the same challenges with the same set of tools. President Barack Obama and his advisers debated for months putting forth their own parameters for a deal, ultimately outlining a general set of principles at the end of last year in a speech by Secretary of State John Kerry as time ran out on the administration.

“There’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to Middle East peace,” said Philip Gordon, a White House Middle East coordinator under Mr. Obama. “When you get into these details, that’s when you come up against the strong objections of the two sides. If they don’t want it to be dead on arrival, they may wind up with vague principles, but as we’ve seen, even vague principles are beyond what the parties are willing to embrace.”

Tamara Cofman Wittes, a State Department official under Mr. Obama, said both Israeli and Palestinian leaders “are heavily constrained” not only by their own governing coalitions but by suspicious and risk-averse publics. “It’s hard even for willing political leaders to make major concessions under those circumstances,” she said.

The core four-member team drafting the plan includes Mr. Kushner, Mr. Greenblatt, Dina H. Powell, a deputy national security adviser, and David M. Friedman, the ambassador to Israel. They are consulting with Donald Blome, the consul general in Jerusalem, and others from the State Department and National Security Council. Officials said the effort may take until early next year.

Mr. Trump and his team make no bones about being pro-Israel. The president has boasted of being Israel’s “biggest friend” and Mr. Kushner, Mr. Greenblatt and Mr. Friedman are all Orthodox Jews with ties to Israel. But Ms. Powell is an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian and Mr. Kushner has developed strong ties with the Saudis and other Arabs and recently returned from a visit to Riyadh. Mr. Trump has met with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas three times each.

The team has drawn praise from across the spectrum. “We do believe this is a historic opportunity, and we will spare no effort to support President Trump’s investment in a better future,” Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian Authority’s envoy to Washington, said in an interview. During a trip to London this month, Mr. Netanyahu said, “They are trying to think out of the box.”

I’m always suspicious when I hear that someone thinks “Out of the box”, it’s usually the kiss of death, but I’m going to give Greenblatt the benefit of the doubt here, maybe he is an original thinker. One thing is for certain, he is the most universally celebrated person to attempt such a feat in decades.

A New York lawyer (bad beginning) from Queens, Greenblatt tried his hand at entrepreneurship with a coffee company, and has subsequently worked for Trump for 20 years. His parents, Hungarian Jews, immigrated here. His wife is a psychiatrist and together they have 6 kids, the oldest group being a set of triplets.

Greenblatt is an optimist. He doesn’t think the Israeli settlement issue is an obstacle to peace. But then, I repeat myself. Maybe his experience as a real estate lawyer is the difference. Maybe Greenblatt sees the Middle East problem as a real estate deal, one where everybody has to get something before the deal can be sealed. Every attempt to solve this problem every other way has failed, maybe Trump’s drive – coupled with Greenblatt’s silky hand, will produce results where no others have.

Maybe I’m just being an optimist, but when I hear Wendy Sherman and the NYT both throwing praise at Trump’s lead negotiator, I have to take notice.

 

Posted in Jason D. Greenblatt must be doing something right, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Donna Brazile situation illustrates why China plans to invade Taiwan

Donna Brazile situation illustrates why China plans to invade Taiwan

When I try to explain what a threat tiny little Taiwan is the huge puffed-up Communist Chinese mainland, with it’s 88 million strong CCP and its 2.5 million man PLA – people just don’t understand.

But the Donna Brazile controversy this week is a perfect illustration of what I mean.

For over a year now, millions of Americans could plainly see that Hillary rigged her primary, and yet – millions of Americans could NOT see that. The people making these charges lacked credibility in this audiences mind and therefore any propaganda suggesting it was false, simply reinforced the bias toward Clinton.

But Donna Brazile has street credibility with this group, and her revelation the primary was rigged, shattered that group, split them in two, leaving only half of the loyal Democratic base, (according to Rasmussen) still believing Clinton, a number that will most likely get even smaller.

In China, the CCP is all-powerful; what they say goes, and what they say — a lot of Chinese believe. But not all of them, some of them have access to CREDIBLE outside information.

In other words, Chinese families that still communicate with other Chinese family members, extended or not, in Taiwan. This is a like a giant fountain of information about the world, that the Chinese people get to hear about and see, unfiltered by the CCP, through the eyes of fellow family-member Chinese — and that may or may not contradict the CCP narrative, it’s propaganda and does of course, contradict their outright lies.

For example: Xi is a dictator. Dictators start wars.

Xi must see that if Taiwan survives and continues talking credibly to the rest of China, then his first move, will by necessity — be against Taiwan, not for the money, the prestige, the land, to heal the country,; no, none of that jazz — he’s going to invade them to shut them up. Exactly what Hillary would have done to Brazille if she could have.

Posted in Donna Brazile situation illustrates why China plans to invade Taiwan, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary represented a serious constitutional problem for America

Hillary represented a serious constitutional problem for America

The American public knew what it was doing. They knew she was dirty – they knew she rigged the primary, they knew she was a constitutional crisis in the making.

Now only about half of Democrats (!) and only 1/3 of the general population say they; “think Clinton won her party’s nomination fairly.”

Rasmussen skews left, so, this is awful news for the Democratic Party.

Rasmussen Reports — Among all likely voters, just 32% now think Clinton won her party’s nomination fairly. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the Democrats’ electoral system was rigged against Sanders. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.

Rigging an election is not only a crime; it’s a special type of crime. Elected officials, who rigged an election, are not allowed to serve out their elected terms — for the elected office – that the rigging was demonstrated to have had a substantive effect on.

This is a Federal law and this was a Federal election. Hillary fits the bill of particulars here very nicely, and if was Black voters that had been substantively marginalized, instead of Bernie supporters, she would already be in court.

The hopes of the Democratic Party at this point; come to down to one possible narrative, that one-half of the party still believes — that the Podesta brothers are honest, that the “Russia Dossier” is real, that the POTUS took “golden showers” with packs of Russian hookers and was taped doing it, and the dossier has such real dirt, it just never got out, the media suppressed it. They consider the other possibility, a Democratic Party conspiracy, as the extreme long shot.

The other narrative, which looks likely to the other 2/3rds of the country, is that Hillary used all her influence, ethical and otherwise, to cover-up her poor decision to use a personal email server while Secretary of State. That she also used that high office, to drive money into the Clinton Foundation, money she then used to run for President, Furthermore, that she secured the D nomination using an illegal funding agreement with the DNC — one that functionally precluded any other outcome than a Clinton victory — and that she may have participated even further then — in a final desperate scheme to smear the Trump campaign — with a fake Russian dossier, through the offices of the DNC’s own law firm, the Podesta Group, and some intelligence folks who either dreamed-up/discovered this dossier and/or were paid to have it created.

So here is the $64,000 question. Which tale is correct?

I don’t trust either party apparatus — and I don’t trust Comey; the FBI, or the media.

There’s only One American, that I know of, who has the access to tell me what really happened — and who I TRUST to do that without question, to the best of his abilities, and that man is — Senator Chuck Grassley. If people are allowed to be atheists, communists, non-gender, neo-Nazi anti-fascists, I’m allowed to think there is a God – and thank him today, for our great veterans — and for Senator Chuck Grassley.

Posted in Hillary represented a serious constitutional problem for America, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump’s brilliant achievement is under the radar

Trump’s brilliant achievement is under the radar

If the media in America wasn’t so busy lying about Trump, they could be reporting some great stuff.

Like this headline; Trump Averts War

How did he do this you say?

Well, he pushed North Korea, South Korea, China and everybody else in the world – into facing this NK nuclear crisis — and now — the Chinese (Yes!) have officially recognized South Korea with full diplomatic rights — and are going to COOPERATE with SOUTH KOREA – on a solution to the North Korean problem.

This represents such a HUGE switch in position for the Chinese — and such a giant loss of face for Kim – it means he will fall (75% probability) within MONTHS.

This is a bold prediction, but I’m comfortable here now that the Chinese have switched sides. I know their end goal of course isn’t to stabilize the peninsula, as stated, but to cozy up to the South Koreans — and get THEM to switch their position on THAAD, the real thorn in China’s side, but either way, this is good news.

I wouldn’t WANT to trade THAAD for a de-nuclearized North Korea (because we really need that radar’s deep look into China), but it’s not a BAD deal if it works out that way.

Posted in Trump’s brilliant achievement is under the radar, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump meets Putin, Karl Guesses

Trump meets Putin, Karl Guesses

No official word yet about whether these two have agreed to anything, but if I had to guess (and isn’t that what blogs are for?) I would venture that Putin and Trump do meet and agree to do 3 things, 3 things that BOTH of them want, and that could have far reaching implications.

The headline will be ISIS centered. Both of these men want to stomp out ISIS and they will agree to do that – but there will be conditions, and that condition list is the red meat.

The biggest change will be Trump’s decision to abandon regime change ambitions against Assad. Trump does not think it’s a good idea to do this anything, so in his mind; he’s trading away nothing for something. Putin will stop using his military to support Assad, something he wants to do anyway, and so — in his mind — he is pulling a Trump, on Trump, trading nothing for something.

This mean all parties, the Russian, the Syrians, the Saudis’ (Yes!) and everybody in Geneva I, Geneva II and Geneva III, will pick up where Geneva III left off. This is great for the United States and her allies and will mark the moment when the tide began to really run out on the remaining financial, governmental and even psychological support for ISIS and militant Wahabbism throughout the Middle East.

This Geneva III group also already includes the PYK Kurds — unless one of the details Trump agrees to is the exclusion of this group, if that has happened, this is bad news.

I think Trump will get some kind of a private re-commitment from Putin on the Minsk Agreement. Things will quiet down in Ukraine if I’m right about this.

I think in a few months, Putin will drop his fake “embargo” of the West, and re-start trade where not prohibited by sanctions, which if Putin upholds his commitments, Trump will then support dialing back.

The Israeli’s should jump in here, and support a plan for a Druze homeland near Druze Mountain, this will solve the Hader issue and will split the Druze from Assad, something not allowable if regime change is a U.S. goal, but if we aren’t attacking — and Russia has withdrawn militarily — Assad’s battle internally will still have it’s own ups and downs, and the opportunity here – is to get the Druze out of that equation permanently.

Furthermore, if any of this right, this represent a real chance to make progress on the Kurdish issues.

They should re-open Geneva III to both sides of the Kurdish population — Erdogan will not BE HAPPY about this — but if he’s smart, he’ll see this as a chance to permanently solve this problem for Turkey as well. I know Erdogan is smart, BUT the problem here is – are his new Brotherhood friends and his Kurdish paranoia – too much for him to overcome domestically, AND MAKE a deal on the Kurds?

Posted in Trump meets Putin, Karl Guesses, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Xi is a dictator, plain and simple…

Reuters A billboard which reads “Advance solidly to execute the strategy of loving the people and enforcing the border. Police and citizens collectively build a harmonious and civilized Wukan”, is shown on a main road leading to Wukan village in China’s Guangdong province October 31, 2017. REUTERS/James Pomfret Reuters By James Pomfret WUKAN, China (Reuters) – […]

via In China’s ‘democracy village’, no one wants to talk any more — Peace and Freedom

Posted in Uncategorized, Xi is a dictator, plain and simple... | Leave a comment

NYT Credibility Continues to Crumble

NYT Credibility Continues to Crumble

Sad, Grey, fading old lady fires Democratic super lawyer David Boies

I’ve said all along the NYT was a lying, leftist, loony tunes newspaper that had lost it’s way, it’s objectivity, and all common sense — and todays news story, peppered with shock and indignation, tells you just how corrupt, biased and for sale they are.

As you read this account from The Daily Caller below, remember 3 facts which shed light on their objectivity as a news source.

  1. This lawyer they are firing, represents one side of the political spectrum in America. This creates so many ethical conflicts for the newspaper, it should never have even been considered as an appropriate professional relationship.
  2. This scheme this lawyer had going was not just some little ethical lapse, it was a criminal conspiracy and the NYT was a co-conspirator! They will claim unwillingly, but I doubt we have all the facts yet, and we sure won’t be getting them from the unbiased NYT!
  3. The hypocrisy of their position will never be acknowledged by NYT because it goes to how biased their leadership is – right to the top. They’ll cry victim (Liberals do this instinctively) and pout with outrage – but will they call for the lawyers of this country, that create documents which suppress knowledge of — and/or aid and abet — in the cover-up or furtherance of crime — be guilty of accessory to those crimes? When they do that, (and write something nice about Trump), I’ll know they’ve finally cleaned out the C-suite.

This wonderful piece is from Thomas Pippen at The Daily Caller

TDC — The New York Times has terminated its relationship with the law firm of Democratic mega-donor David Boies after reports that he worked to prevent NYT reporters from covering sexual assault allegations against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

“We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm’s lawyers were representing us in other matters,” the NYT said in a statement Tuesday evening. “We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe. It is inexcusable and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies.”

“We never contemplated that the law firm would contract with an intelligence firm to conduct a secret spying operation aimed at our reporting and our reporters. Such an operation is reprehensible,” NYT spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “Whatever legalistic arguments and justifications can be made, we should have been treated better by a firm that we trusted.”

Boies has donated millions to Democratic candidates and causes over the years, including a donation of more than $1 million to former President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, and hosted a fundraising dinner for Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 election.

Boies personally signed off on a July 2017 contract that directed private intelligence firm Black Cube to uncover information that would prevent NYT from publishing a story on Weinstein’s sexual abuses, according to a report by Ronan Farrow for The New Yorker Monday.

Black Cube would get $300,000 for providing “intelligence which will directly contribute to the efforts to completely stop the Article from being published at all in any shape or form,” Farrow reported.

Boies said he did not oversee Black Cube’s work directlly, and regretted the decision to contract with the intelligence firm.

“We should not have been contracting with and paying investigators that we did not select and direct,” Boies told The New Yorker. “At the time, it seemed a reasonable accommodation for a client, but it was not thought through, and that was my mistake. It was a mistake at the time.”

“All I will say is that at the time Mr. Boies was doing this he was also hectoring and lecturing us on ethics as we investigated his client,” NYT executive editor Dean Baquet told The Daily Beast.

Follow Thomas Phippen on Twitter

BOIES RESPONDS

Wow. You have to hand it to these liberal scumbags like BOIES, they have no shame whatsoever, here he is laughing at — and defending — his criminal conspiracy to protect a rapist by betraying the trust of his other client, a newspaper — entrusted with printing the truth. What a $1,650 per hour maggot this David Boies is.

From the Daily Beast:

In an interview, Boies disputed the charge that he acted improperly, noting that he didn’t choose or direct the activities of Black Cube, but hired the company at Weinstein’s behest as what he considered at the time—but in retrospect, mistakenly—was a “reasonable accommodation for a client.”

Yet in a defensive memo to colleagues, he argued that his law firm’s retainer agreement with the Times explicitly permits the firm “to represent clients adverse to the Times on matters unrelated to the work we were doing for the Times.”

He continued in the memo, “I told Mr. Weinstein that we would not represent him in this matter,” even though he was aggressively making Weinstein’s case to the Times, and added that “because I perceived the investigators’ work as trying to ascertain the exact charges against Mr. Weinstein and to develop facts that would prove the charges untrue, I thought at the time that was an appropriate endeavor.”

In an acknowledgement of what he portrayed as an honest mistake, however, Boies told his colleagues: “Had I known at the time that this contract would have been used for the services that I now understand it was used for, I would never have signed it or been associated in any way with this effort.

“I have devoted much of my professional career to helping give voice to people who would otherwise not be heard and to protecting the rights of women and others subjection to oppression. I would never knowingly participate in an effort to intimidate or silence women or anyone else, including the conduct described in the New Yorker article. That is not who I am.”

Boies had few defenders in the legal community Tuesday. Two of his prominent friends, famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams and former Solicitor General Ted Olson (who, along with Boies, helped win the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage), both declined interview requests.

A third prominent media lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said “he definitely should have disclosed what he was doing” to the Times.

“What’s shocking is a lack of common sense,” said former Bloomberg LLP global media counsel Charles Glasser, an adjunct professor of media ethics and law at New York University Journalism School. “It’s stunning for such a high-profile lawyer to take an adverse position to a client like the New York Times. It’s unthinkable. I don’t blame Dean Baquet for being pissed off.”

In his interview with The Daily Beast, Boies cheerfully acknowledged that he was being tried and perhaps even convicted in the court of public opinion and occasionally punctuated his comments with laughter (although later on, after the phone call ended, a spokesperson for Boies declined to put him on again to specifically answer demands for his disbarment, saying the very notion is “absurd.”)

“I think the nature of the media business today, and the nature of social media, is that when something like this happens, it turns into a kind of feeding frenzy and I think sometimes important points get obscured,” Boies said. “On the other hand,” he added, “I think in the main, the media is focusing on an entirely legitimate problem—what is the right role for investigators so they don’t cross the line…I think most people say it’s not appropriate to try to intimidate or pressure people, although that happens both from time to time by investigators and by reporters, for that matter.”

Meanwhile, Boies criticized Times deputy general counsel McGraw’s broadside, saying, “I don’t think that statement was well thought out. It may have been he reacted without actually thinking about some of the facts that were published in the New Yorker, and without looking at the retention agreement.”

When the Times retained Boies’s law firm years ago, Boies said, “it was absolutely clear that we had to be free to continue to represent people who theNew York Times was investigating or reporting about.”

While Boies’s law firm has, until recently, represented the now-collapsing Weinstein Company, Boies said that as of Monday, he had only billed five hours, at his usual rate of $1,650 per hour, to help the disgraced movie mogul counter the mushrooming accusations, which now reportedly include the likelihood that he will soon be indicted by Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance in two alleged 2010 rapes of Boardwalk Empire actress Paz de la Huerta.

Boies complained that no one at the Times, notably McCraw, bothered to contact him for his explanation of his conduct before issuing their harsh statement Monday night; he added that what Baquet described as his “hectoring and lecturing” was in response to the paper’s refusal to interview him—not as Weinstein’s attorney but as someone familiar with the facts—for its investigation of the mogul’s abuses.

“It was the first time I ever experienced the situation in which [there was] the person with knowledge, and they had no interest in talking to them,” Boies said, noting that he received several letters from the Times declining his interview offer—one in August saying it was too early in the reporting process for such a session, and another in September saying it was too late. “I had facts related to the subject of the matter they were investigating that I thought they might be interested in, and I had Mr. Weinstein’s permission to talk to them.”

Boies added: “What Dean [Baquet] refers to as ‘hectoring’ was my writing him and saying, ‘It’s hard for me to understand how, if you’re really interested in finding out the truth, you don’t want to talk to somebody who has some knowledge.’ After all, they’re free not to publish what I say, but it was just surprising to me that they didn’t even want to listen.”

Asked his response, Baquet fired back: “I say that he is utterly unqualified to lecture on journalism ethics. And the proof was in the New Yorker piece.”

 

 

Posted in NYT Credibility Continues to Crumble, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Face of and tactics of America’s true enemy — Xi style communism

By Bill Gertz November 8, 2017 Tweets, TV preferences, business deals scrutinized by secret unit code-named Skyheart President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping / Getty Images Hundreds of Chinese government analysts worked nonstop for months studying every detail on President Trump in preparation for his state visit to China this week. The […]

via Chinese Studied Trump’s Every Move Prior to State Visit — Peace and Freedom

Posted in The Face of and tactics of America's true enemy -- Xi style communism, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Judicial Watch Tightens the Noose on Comey

Judicial Watch Tightens the Noose on Comey

Former FBI Director James Comey is very dirty, he is the living embodiment of the need for a new law forbidding the use of the same FBI agent – to repeatedly investigate the same person of suspected crimes! Each time Comey was assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, he moved up the chain of command at the FBI (or outside of it) and each time Hillary came up — you guessed it – innocent.

This last favor he attempted to do for her though, the whitewash of her bleaching episode, was one bridge too far, and Judicial Watch PLUS Senator Chuck Grassley are both closing in on her — and Comey — from two directions. Here is Judicial Watch’s latest release:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Justice Department is now comparing former FBI Director James Comey to WikiLeaks. After Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, he gave the New York Times a February 14, 2017, memorandum written about a one-on-one conversation he had with President Trump regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Judicial Watch is asking a federal court to order the release of all Comey’s unclassified memoranda about his one-on-one conversations with the president.

Comey testified under oath before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he authored as many as nine such memos about his one-on-one conversations with President Trump. He also admitted, regarding the “Flynn” memo, “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times] … I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.

On June 16, 2017, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a May 16 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01189)). Judicial Watch seeks:

FBI Director James Comey’s February 14, 2017 memorandum…memorializing an Oval Office conversation he had with the President on that date regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

In its lawsuit Judicial Watch refutes the Justice Department’s claim of exemption for law enforcement purposes:

Ex-Director Comey plainly did not use the February 14 Memo for any recognized or legitimate law enforcement purpose. He used it to settle a score with the President, who had just fired him.

Judicial Watch argues that if disclosure of the “Flynn” memo would harm the Russia investigation, then the Justice Department should have taken steps to “address Ex-Director Comey’s removal of the memo from the FBI, leaking of the memo to the media, and subsequent testimony about the memo, to the extent that testimony was unauthorized and not coordinated with [the Justice Department], the FBI, and/or Special Counsel Mueller. Removal of government records is a federal offense.” While the Justice Department compares Comey to WikiLeaks, it makes no claim to have addressed Comey’s misconduct. Judicial Watch points out that its “failure to do so further undercuts any claim of harm” to an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

On September 7, 2017, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a June 9 FOIA request (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01830)). The lawsuit seeks:

All unclassified memoranda authored by former FBI Director James Comey that contemporaneously memorialized his discussions with President Donald Trump and his aides [during] the time frame…November 8, 2016 to May 9, 2017.

In the Daily Caller News Foundation suit Judicial Watch argues that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department prevented Comey from testifying, nor do they dispute anything he said. Comey is not under investigation for violating any non-disclosure agreements or removing records from the FBI when he was fired. “Their silence and inaction speak volumes,” Judicial Watch argues.

Judicial Watch further debunks the notion that Comey wrote the memos for law enforcement purposes:

[Director Comey] explained, “I knew that there might come a day when I would need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and – and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigation.” … He authored the records not for law enforcement purposes but for administrative and institutional purposes. His testimony could not be clearer.

Judicial Watch argues in both filings against withholding the memoranda under the guise of a national security exemption. The FBI fails to demonstrate that material contained in the memoranda was classified through proper procedures.

In its court filing opposing the release, the Justice Department also asserts that some of the Comey memos contain classified material.

“The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give the American people access to the records its government keeps,” said Neil Patel, publisher and CEO of the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This access is fundamental in a democracy like ours. Today, when so many Americans feel detached from a government that they feel often doesn’t serve their interests, this sort of access is more important than ever. When the Daily Caller News Foundation made a reasonable request for access to FBI Director Comey’s memos we were completely stonewalled. Our request is legally sound and completely within the public interest so with the help of our friends at Judicial Watch we are fighting in court to see it through.”

“We now have Justice Department confirmation that Comey was wrong to have leaked records to the media to settle a score with President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How can this Justice Department defend its position that memos written for pernicious purposes to target a sitting president with a criminal investigation should remain secret? Mr. Mueller may have an interest in protecting Comey, but the public’s interest demands transparency about Comey’s vendetta against President Trump.”

Both cases have been consolidated in Cable News Network, Inc., v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-01167).

 

Posted in Judicial Watch Tightens the Noose on Comey, Uncategorized | Leave a comment