That explains the goofy look on the Halfrican's face as he greeted the president elect.
The dirt Hillary was supposed to sweep under the rug is now in the hands of the man they tried to destroy.
Posted on 12/20/2018 7:54:31 PM PST by bitt
Tweets are not enough.
Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and “lock her up”. When is he going to get started on that?
Obamoa couldn’t orchestrate a pillow party.. It’s his henchmen that can. (And “cankles”)
SOURCE: TruePundit | Jan 23, 2018 | Thomas Paine / FR Posted on 12/16/2018 by sourcery
Was Trump’s Campaign ‘Set Up’?
The Wall Street Journal | 17 May 2018 | by Kimberley A. Strassel
FR Posted on 5/17/2018, 9:18:14 PM by Meet the New Boss
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appearing on “Fox & Friends” provided a potentially explosive hint at what’s driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump-Russia probe. “If the campaign was somehow set up,” he told the hosts, “I think that would be a problem.”
—snip—
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands—one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials—all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI—and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected—and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee’s recent Russia report.
In “late spring” of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House “National Security Council Principals” that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29.
—snip—
It’s long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that’s the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
This remains ignored by the DS in DC.
It is BEYOND time for 200 million Americans to descend
upon the criminal swamp.
thefederalist.com
FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign: Under John Brennan, the CIA operated as an opposition research outfit for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It appears from leaked news stories in the British press that Brennan’s oafish spying on Trump began around April 2016, right after Trump’s biggest primary victories.
As it became urgently clear to Brennan that Trump was going to face off against Hillary, Brennan turned to “intelligence partners” in Europe for dirt on Trump.
But they didn’t have any, save some pretty skimpy material on “contacts” between Trump campaign officials and Russians…
That explains the goofy look on the Halfrican's face as he greeted the president elect.
The dirt Hillary was supposed to sweep under the rug is now in the hands of the man they tried to destroy.
Call me when they are all headed for jail and Obama and Hillary are the last standing and making in their pants
We need a DOJ or a special counsel who will actually file charges, and then we need a Maximum John Sirica to encourage cooperation. As it is, Mueller and the dems are monopolizing the scorched earth tactics, and no one on our side is on offense. At this point, we're already within the stall range of the next election. Even if charges were brought tomorrow, there would be no resolution of any of them until after 2020. A Democratic president would pull the plug on anything not already in the final stages in a courtroom.
We need to micromanage the issues......and pick out the things we can nail.
FOR EXAMPLE: MISUSE OF POSITION AND GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
SOURCE https://www.justice.gov/jmd/misuse-position-and-government-resources
MISUSE OF POSITION AND GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
Misuse of Position | Use of Official Title | Personal Use of Government Property | Use of Non-Public Information | Use of Official Time | Disclosing Procurement Information | Letters of Recommendation on Official Stationery
An employee may not use his official position, including information learned by virtue of his position, for his personal benefit or for the benefit of others.
MISUSE OF POSITION---- An employee may not use his public office for his own private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which he is associated personally. An employee's position or title should not be used to coerce; to endorse any product, service or enterprise; or to give the appearance of governmental sanction. An employee may use his official title and stationery only in response to a request for a reference or recommendation for someone he has dealt with in Federal employment or someone he is recommending for Federal employment.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 (see Subpart G - Misuse of Position; Use of Public Office for Private Gain)
USE OF OFFICIAL TITLE Generally, an employee engaging in teaching, speaking or writing in his personal capacity may not use his official title or position to identify himself in connection with the activity or to promote any book, seminar, course, program, etc. The two exceptions to this rule are as follows:
1. An employee may allow the use of his title if it is included as part of several other biographical details and the title is given no more prominence than other information; and
2. An employee may allow the use of his title in connection with an article published in a scientific or professional journal provided there is an appropriate disclaimer.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(b) (see Subpart H - Outside Activities; Teaching, Speaking and Writing)
An employee engaging in fundraising in his personal capacity is also prohibited from using his official title, position or authority. In addition, he cannot solicit funds or other support from a subordinate or from any person that has business with his component.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.808(c) (see Subpart H - Outside Activities; Fundraising activities)
PERSONAL USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY An employee should recognize her responsibility to protect and conserve government property and resources, and to make an honest effort to use official time and government property only for official business. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704 through .705 Use of Government property, and Use of official time. An employee may not use the official time of another employee for anything other than official business. The use of any government property, including computers and the Internet, for any partisan political activities is always prohibited.
Department of Justice employees are generally authorized to make minimal personal use of most office equipment and library facilities where the cost to the Government is negligible and on an employee's own time. 28 C.F.R. § 45.4. This is the Department's de minimis use policy, and would permit an employee to send a short, personal electronic message to another individual. However, personal messages sent to large groups of people and messages sent to disseminate information on non-Governmental activities, such as charitable events and causes, commercial activities such as personal businesses, and religious observances, are prohibited.
If an employee of the Department of Justice has questions about the Department's rules covering the limitations on personal use of government equipment and resources, or questions about whether planned personal use of office equipment is permitted, she should consult with her supervisor, or her ethics official.
USE OF NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION An employee may not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information nor allow the use of such information to further his private interests or those of another. Nonpublic information is information an employee gains on the job which has not been made available to the general public and is not authorized to be made available upon request.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.703 (see Subpart G - Misuse of Position; Use of Non-public Information)
USE OF OFFICIAL TIME An employee shall use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. Generally, personal activities should not be conducted during duty hours.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.705 (see Subpart G - Misuse of Position; Use of official time)
DISCLOSING PROCUREMENT INFORMATION An employee is prohibited from disclosing contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information to any person other than one authorized to receive such information. 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-4-5
LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION ON OFFICIAL STATIONERY An employee may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title and office letterhead in response to a request for an employment recommendation or character reference for someone provided it is based on his personal knowledge of the ability or character of the person. In addition, the individual must be someone with whom the employee has dealt with in the course of his Federal employment or someone he is recommending for Federal employment.
cont
cont
MISUSE OF GOVT POSITION
5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(b) (see Subpart G - Misuse of Position; Use of public office for private gain).
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.
(a)Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
Example 1: Offering to pursue a relative’s consumer complaint over a household appliance, an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission called the general counsel of the manufacturer and, in the course of discussing the problem, stated that he worked at the SEC and was responsible for reviewing the company’s filings. The employee violated the prohibition against use of public office for private gain by invoking his official authority in an attempt to influence action to benefit his relative.
Example 2:-—An employee of the Department of Commerce was asked by a friend to determine why his firm’s export license had not yet been granted by another office within the Department of Commerce. At a department-level staff meeting, the employee raised as a matter for official inquiry the delay in approval of the particular license and asked that the particular license be expedited. The official used her public office in an attempt to benefit her friend and, in acting as her friend’s agent for the purpose of pursuing the export license with the Department of Commerce, may also have violated 18 U.S.C. 205.
(b)Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. When teaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, he may refer to his official title or position only as permitted by § 2635.807(b). He may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for Federal employment.
Example 1:——An employee of the Department of the Treasury who is asked to provide a letter of recommendation for a former subordinate on his staff may provide the recommendation using official stationery and may sign the letter using his official title. If, however, the request is for the recommendation of a personal friend with whom he has not dealt in the Government, the employee should not use official stationery or sign the letter of recommendation using his official title, unless the recommendation is for Federal employment. In writing the letter of recommendation for his personal friend, it may be appropriate for the employee to refer to his official position in the body of the letter.
(c)Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:
(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or
(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency’s mission.
Example 1:——A Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission may not appear in a television commercial in which she endorses an electrical appliance produced by her former employer, stating that it has been found by the CPSC to be safe for residential use.
Example 2:——A Foreign Commercial Service officer from the Department of Commerce is asked by a United States telecommunications company to meet with representatives of the Government of Spain, which is in the process of procuring telecommunications services and equipment. The company is bidding against five European companies and the statutory mission of the Department of Commerce includes assisting the export activities of U.S. companies. As part of his official duties, the Foreign Commercial Service officer may meet with Spanish officials and explain the advantages of procurement from the United States company.
Example 3:——The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may sign a letter to an oil company indicating that its refining operations are in compliance with Federal air quality standards even though he knows that the company has routinely displayed letters of this type in television commercials portraying it as a “trustee of the environment for future generations.”
Example 4:——An Assistant Attorney General may not use his official title or refer to his Government position in a book jacket endorsement of a novel about organized crime written by an author whose work he admires. Nor may he do so in a book review published in a newspaper.
(d)Performance of official duties affecting a private interest. To ensure that the performance of his official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, an employee whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity shall comply with any applicable requirements of § 2635.502.
(e)Use of terms of address and ranks. Nothing in this section prohibits an employee who is ordinarily addressed using a general term of address, such as “The Honorable”, or a rank, such as a military or ambassadorial rank, from using that term of address or rank in connection with a personal activity.
(HAT TIP CORNELL LAW SCHOOL)
“He (OBAMA) will never be called to account because he should never have been sworn in.”
“Taking down Obama would take down the entire government, both parties colluded to violate the Constitution.”
You are right. There are enough clues to show the Political and Governmental aspects not only helped and participated in the rise of Obama to power, but also the protection to keep him out of harms way.
The FBI (Comey, McCAbe, Struck, etc.) blocked the path to Obama by removing his private email which he used to communicate with Hillary on her private server.
Also, Nancy Pelosi, signing the statement of O’s eligibility to the Secretary of State to get him on the ballot initially, along with Brennan going into the Passport office computers to change O’s passport.
The swearing in of Obama brings the Pub’s into the mess.
These not only lead to Obama, but also to his protectors.
The FBI should have been disbanded for what it did in Waco.
It's encouraging to see that printed somewhere besides this forum.
I agree with you that the outrage of the Sandy Burger document theft, written off at the time as just so much more Clinton, exposed the unequal justice system that the FBI was part of. And the important part the Clinton arrogance exposed was how the justice system in this country is fundamentally flawed if a single administration can tilt the table so publicly and brazenly.
Obama came into power if not the country illegally and everyone knew it. Transferring corruption from the FBI to the marshals would likely make the marshals corrupt if they're not already. So if you're not going to punish and make an example of corrupt officials from the top down, and renaming a corrupt organisation isn't likely to help what do we do?
1) Take extraordinary measures to protect whistleblowers.
2) Move the FBI out of Washington DC
================================================
The FBI’s unprecedented criminal efforts to steer a presidential election and frame a newly elected president serves as Exhibit A for MISUSE OF POSITION AND GOVERNMENT RESOURCES------a govt employee may not use his official position, including information learned by virtue of his position, for his personal benefit or for the benefit of others. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, Ohr, Yates, Priestap — there are more---took unlawful action — were negligent or complicit with a clear goal: get Hillary elected by stopping candidate Trump. The FBI willfully and corruptly faked a counter-intelligence investigation to smear and destroy Trump.
The FBI on Friday sent a classified letter to House GOP officials disclosing whether the agency used top-secret confidential informants in the Trump campaign prior to opening an investigation into Russian election meddling, Fox News has learned. Congressional Republicans had formally demanded an explanation from the FBI after numerous former Trump officials said they suspected the agency had attempted to infiltrate the campaign. In a letter to House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, R-Calif., obtained by Fox News, the FBI says its confidential explanation outlines whether the "FBI utilized confidential human sources prior to the issuance of the Electronic Communication initiating that investigation."
-----------------------------------
In-kind contributions----FEC.com
An in-kind contribution is a non-monetary contribution;when an entity pays for services, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person or entity in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate. The value of an in-kind contribution—the usual and normal charge—counts against the contribution limit as a gift of money does. Additionally, like any other contribution, in-kind contributions count against the contributor’s limit for the next election, unless they are otherwise designated.
Reporting on candidate forms House and Senate committees report in-kind contributions from individuals on Form 3, Line 11(a). In-kind contributions from party committees are reported on Line 11(b), and in-kind contributions from PACs are reported on Line 11(c). When determining whether to itemize an in-kind contribution, treat it the same as a monetary contribution. In-kind contributions from other committees are itemized regardless of the amount. In-kind contributions from individuals are itemized if the contributions from the source aggregate over $200 during the election cycle. The amount of an in-kind contribution must also be included in the committee’s total operating expenditures on Line 17 in order to avoid inflating cash on hand. It is itemized as an operating expenditure on Schedule B, supporting Line 17, only if it has to be itemized as a contribution on Schedule A.
I cannot imagine Samatha Powers not having the FBI report on Trump being read to her by Cass Sunstein while she Lewinsky him.
To state the blindingly obvious, if wire service journalism were a tenth as interested in pursuing wrongdoing by Democrats as they are pursuing wrongdoing by Republicans . . .The First Amendment was composed and ratified to assuage fears that the people’s access to political opinions would be compromised by the new federal government. The famous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 1964 SCOTUS decision vindicated that protection of journalism from unification by government. The decision was unanimous and - given the facts before the court - could not have been different.
But application of Sullivan as an exemplar of all cases where politicians are criticized by newspapers (or broadcasters) is very wide of the mark. Mr. Sullivan, the plaintiff, was a Southern Democrat - in 1964, a very unpopular thing to be. Republicans weren’t going to be sympathetic to him, and the national Democrat Party was moving away as well (recall the Dixiecrat split in 1948). So if anything, the judges in his case had a bias against the plaintiff. The case was weak in the sense that the Times printing an advertisement - in which the plaintiff was not criticized by name. The principle that people have a right to print opinions which are not provable and perhaps are wrong is however unexceptionable. Who could evade censorship on FR - how could FR evade censorship - without that principle?
The trouble with Sullivan is that it takes no account of the possibility of (as Adam Smith would put it) “a conspiracy against the pubic” among all major journalistic institutions. And that condition prevails. It prevails when, although there are two major political parties, of roughly comparable strength in America, major journalism institutions are essentially unanimous in proclaiming evils real and imaginary of one particular party and scarcely at all of the other. Applying Sullivan to that situation is as tyrannical as any evil which would have sprung from a contrary result in Sullivan.
The First Amendment is right, and the attempt to vindicate it in Sullivan was also right. The trouble is that a conspiracy of private parties has arisen with the clout to accomplish what the First Amendment exists to prevent the government from doing. Worse, that conspiracy is powerfully influential in government. The result is that although the government doesn’t censor the access of the people to varied opinions, the government is controlled by people who do.
The conspiracy against the public which has achieved that position must be brought to heel. The Associated Press, its membership, and all other wire services have produced this conspiracy, and they should be subjected to ruinous damages under antitrust law.
Trump must first get past this bogus collusion crap! Thereafter, clean out the DOJ and FBI, and launch hundreds of investigations, indictments of the deep state cabal.
passed
They are the very reason we must insist upon TERM LIMITS, so none of them are there long enough to amass power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.