Skip to content
Advertisements

Is Donald Trump facing impeachment and indictment for illegal campaign contributions?

December 9, 2018

  This might be the understatement of the year but Friday was not a good day for the President despite the spin his supporters tried to put on it. On Friday it was revealed that Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted that candidate Trump directed  hush money payments to be made to a couple of his alleged mistresses.

  Democrats (who did not care when Barack Obama was fined for violating campaign finance laws to the tune of nearly $2 million but watched gleefully as Dinesh D’Souza admitted to violating laws and was sent to jail) were quick to pounce on this news, claiming the President could be both indicted or impeached.

  Here is more:

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.

“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Schiff’s comments come after federal prosecutors said in a legal filing Friday that referred to Trump as “Individual-1” that Trump during the 2016 campaign directed his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to make illegal payments to two women claiming they had affairs with Trump. It was the first time prosecutors made those accusations against Trump.

  Meanwhile, other Democrats were looking a little less into the future and were talking about impeachment, here is more on that:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that it would “certainly” be an impeachable offense if it’s proven that President Trump directed illegal payments during his campaign.

“They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they’d be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

  Representative Nadler said it would have to be determined if this impeachable offence is worthy of pursuing impeachment. That seems like an odd statement to make if he truly believes this would be an impeachable offense after the Democrats have been threatening impeachment over much less. I also do not believe the Democrats would wait for proof before moving on impeachment, we have seen that in today’s America a person is guilty until proven innocent and there is no reason to think it will be different in this case.

  If I had to bet I would say the House of Representatives is going to impeach the President, however I see no way the Republican controlled Senate will vote to remove him from office so that means the Democrats will have to wait until he is out of office and then hope “justice” is served with an indictment and conviction. And with this being the news New York has been waiting for I expect the liberal state to move on it as soon as possible.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements

Sunday, December 9th open thread: ‘Sail Away’

December 9, 2018

“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)

  open-threadHere is the open thread for Sunday, December 9th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.

 You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. 

  Here is David Gray performing “Sail Away” live in Luzern:

Did Ocasio-Cortez break the law by threatening to subpoena Donald Trump Jr?

December 8, 2018

  One of the charges the left loves to throw around about Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian-in-waiting. Mostly these charges revolve around the mainstream media with the claim he is eventually going to throw them in jail for disagreeing with him, but we have heard he was going to do the same with leftist politicians as well. (The irony of the left making this claim while at the same time trying to criminalize his entire Presidency and those on the right who disagree with their agenda is not lost on many of us.)

  With that in mind I am wondering how these same people feel about their new icon, Alexandria  Ocasio-Cortez, and the possibility she is in criminal violation of threatening a private citizen with Congressional retribution.

  In case you have not heard the story: The other day Donald Trump Jr shared a meme that has been going around on the internet which showed the new Representative from New York asking why people were afraid of socialism, with Donald Trump answering because Americans want to walk their dogs not eat them. (Personally I think the President’s family should lay off the trolling but that is neither her nor there for the sake of this post.)

 The thin-skinned Ocasio-Cortez, who has no problem attacking the right, took offense to this and decided it was a “large brain” idea to hit back at Donald Trump Jr by threatening to use Congress’ subpoena power against him if he kept on attacking her. Here is what she tweeted in response:

  After hearing complaints about this she took to Twitter again and claimed this was not a threat because she individually does not have subpoena power and she implied those who believe she can act on this must be stupid. However, where did she come up with the idea of subpoenaing a person with whom she disagrees? It is obvious to me this is the game plan of the  left and this is what has been talked about in private. This was obviously a threat and she intended to try to persuade the Congress to subpoena Donald Trump Jr if he did not leave her alone. And it appears as if this could indeed be a criminal act:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

Here is what the Democrats are saying about this:

 

  That’s right, they are silent. What a shock! I guess we are going to have to wait to see if any ethics charges are brought against Ocasio-Cortez but I doubt it. Actually it might be a better plan to let this go so she keeps on talking…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Judge reopens part of Hillary Clinton email investigation

December 7, 2018

  It looks like we have not heard the last of the Hillary Clinton email scandal just yet because according to this story a judge has ordered the State Department and the Justice Department to reopen part of the investigation. Here is more:

a federal judge ordered additional fact-finding into whether Clinton’s use of the private email system was a deliberate effort to thwart the Freedom of Information Act.

In a scathing opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said that despite FBI, inspector general and congressional investigations into Clinton’s use of a private account for all her email traffic during her four years as secretary of state, the conservative group Judicial Watch should be permitted to demand documents and additional testimony about the practice.

He blasted Clinton’s email practices as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA and hoodwink this court.”

Lamberth wrote he took no pleasure in “questioning the intentions of the nation’s most august” Cabinet departments, but said it was necessary when their response “smacks of outrageous misconduct.”

  The judge also went on to say the Trump administration (read Jeff Sessions here) did not do anything about it and actually made it worse:

Lamberth added that despite President Donald Trump’s repeated campaign attacks against Clinton for not making her emails public, “the current Justice Department made things worse,” by taking the position that agencies are not obliged to search for records not in the government’s possession when a FOIA request is made.

  I could not agree more with Judge Lamberth about everything he wrote, and that includes Jeff Sessions, but unfortunately I am not sure much is going to change because we are learning that Donald Trump with his new choice to head the Justice Department has decided to dive into the swamp instead of draining it.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Did Robert Mueller withhold exculpatory evidence?

December 4, 2018

  Yesterday we learned that Jerome Corsi has filed an ethics and criminal complaint against Robert Mueller for allegedly trying to threaten and intimidate him into making false statements under oath and today we are learning, in this story, that Robert Mueller is being accused of withholding exculpatory evidence for Donald Trump.

  Here is more:

The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. 

The article continues:

On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.

But wait, there’s more:

Page 2 of the same criminal information document holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.” This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.

Also notable, Mueller did not challenge Cohen’s statement that he “ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”

“Though Cohen may have lied to Congress about the dates,” one Hill investigator said, “it’s clear from personal messages he sent in 2015 and 2016 that the Trump Organization did not have formal lines of communication set up with Putin’s office or the Kremlin during the campaign. There was no secret ‘back channel.’”

“So as far as collusion goes,” the source added, “the project is actually more exculpatory than incriminating for Trump and his campaign.”

  As bad as yesterday’s news was for the integrity of the investigation this news might be even worse. If these two stories are true it shows us that Robert Mueller had come to a conclusion before the investigation and is now trying to manipulate the evidence by creating the evidence it needs while hiding the evidence that does not support the predetermined outcome.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

 

Jerome Corsi files ethics complaint against Robert Mueller

December 3, 2018

  Last week it had been reported that Jerome Corsi had reached a plea deal with Robert Mueller admitting he lied to the investigation and would now cooperate with the investigation. It was reported that this was bad news for Roger Stone and for the President because he was going to spill the beans.

  However it is now being reported here that Jerome Corsi has filed an ethics complaint against Robert Mueller and the investigative team because he claims he was threatened and intimidated to providing false information. Here is more:

Attorneys representing Jerome Corsi filed an ethics complaint Monday accusing prosecutors in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office of pressuring their client to provide “false testimony” against Republican operative Roger Stone and President Trump.

“Dr. Corsi has been threatened with immediate indictment by Mueller’s prosecutorial staff unless he testifies falsely against Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, among other false testimony,” Corsi’s lawyers, Larry Klayman and David Gray, said in a complaint submitted to acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker.

Prosecutors working on behalf of special counsel Robert Mueller offered Corsi a plea deal that would require him to admit to making false statements about his communications with Stone, but Corsi says he rejected the deal because he does not believe he knowingly misled prosecutors.

  This is certainly an interesting and unexpected twist to this ongoing saga and now it is on to the Justice Department where under Jeff Sessions complaints like this went to die. Hopefully it will be different with Jeff Sessions gone and  Matt Whitaker in charge.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Sunday, December 2nd open thread: ‘Natural’

December 2, 2018

“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)

  open-threadHere is the open thread for Sunday, December 2nd. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.

 You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. 

  Here is Imagine Dragons performing “Natural” live from earlier this year, enjoy: