This Went Much Farther Than What We Have Been Told

Real Clear Investigations posted an article today that reveals an aspect of the surveillance on the Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and Trump presidency that has not really been talked about much. The article deals with the surveillance by people the FBI placed (or attempted to place) within the campaign. I would just like to mention that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less than what the government was doing during the 2016 election. We have no idea how high up the shenanigans went, but I suspect we will eventually find out. That may be the reason Attorney General Barr is being attacked so fiercely.

The article reports:

Baker (former FBI general counsel James Baker being interviewed by CNN host John Berman) then seemed to switch the question from whether spying occurred to its intent, saying: “There was no intention by myself or anybody else I’m aware of to intrude or do activities with respect to the campaign.” Then he continued his sentence with a clause that significantly modified even that claim. There was no intrusion of the Trump campaign, he said, done “in order to gather political intelligence to find out what the political strategies were.” The FBI was only interested in what the campaign was up to regarding Russia.

There’s a very big difference between saying “I didn’t spy” and saying “I didn’t spy for inappropriate reasons.” The former is a denial, the latter is all but an admission. Baker asserted there was no spying done to gather information on Trump’s campaign strategies. Which could very well mean there was spying, just not any for the narrow reason given.

After a while you learn that you just have to parse some people’s statements to determine what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

The article includes testimony Trisha Anderson gave last Aug. 31 to the House Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight:

Later in her testimony Anderson let slip another piece of information undermining claims that the FBI isn’t in the spy game. The shop where she worked at the bureau is in charge of giving legal guidance for FBI activities. She was asked about whether she or her fellow lawyers in the general counsel’s office were involved in decisions about when confidential human sources had to be let go. “I’m not aware of any such instances,” Anderson said. And then she elaborated perhaps longer than intended: “Our office might and actually routinely provided legal advice on uses, investigative uses of sources overseas, for example, on double-agent operations is a good example of a circumstance that might implicate legal considerations.”

“You mentioned double-agent operations,” said the Republican staff lawyer. “It sounds like your office might give legal advice when an issue arose from an actual operational issue?”

“Correct,” Anderson said.

So for all the denials that the FBI uses spies, the truth seems to be that the bureau not only runs secret agents, but double agents.

Given the difficulties of double agent operations, success with them should be a source of pride, not shame. As long, that is, as they are not done for political purposes.

The average person is truly at a disadvantage in trying to piece together exactly what went on during the 2016 presidential campaign. The media is very careful and very selective in what it reports. Our only hope is that when the investigations are done, those guilty of using the government for their own personal spying operations will be held accountable. I am also hoping that the results of all investigations into the investigators will be made public.

The Fix Was In At The Beginning

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported that Congressman Collins from Georgia had released the transcript of Peter Strzok’s testimony before Congress.

The article reports:

Peter Strzok told then-Majority General Counsel Zachary Somers that the Department of Justice made a deal with the FBI not to search for, or investigate Clinton Foundation emails.

Mr. Somers asked Peter Strzok if the Clinton Foundation was on Hillary’s private server to which Strzok replied, ” I believe on one of the servers, if not others.”

When asked if the FBI was given access to Clinton Foundation emails as part of the investigation into Hillary’s private server, Strzok said, “We [FBI] were not. We did not have access.”

The article concludes:

This is a clear example of the two-tiered justice system that is infecting this country — Hillary Clinton’s attorneys were allowed to “negotiate” with the feds to make sure they didn’t find her Clinton Foundation emails which would show she was peddling influence and power in a pay-to-play scheme while she was the head of the Department of State.

In contrast, the FBI, guns drawn, breaks down the doors of Trump associates in pre-dawn raids and violates attorney client privilege without fear of reprisal.

According to reports, the FBI is currently investigating the Clinton Foundation.

The Clintons aren’t the only ones who are guilty of corruption — everyone who worked to protect Hillary Clinton and the criminal Clinton Foundation should be investigated and prosecuted.

The article includes a screenshot of the exact testimony. I wonder if this information had been available to the public before the November 2018 election if it would have changed anything.

 

Playing Politics With The National Labor Relations Board

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about Lafe Solomon, the former acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from 2011 through 2013. Evidently his service violated the law that applies to federal appointments.

The article reports:

Solomon, a long-time board lawyer, was appointed acting general counsel by Obama in June 2010 and officially nominated to the position, which requires Senate approval, the following January. However, the Senate, then under Democratic control, never held a vote on his nomination. Solomon continued to serve through November 2013, when the current general counsel, Richard Griffin, was confirmed by the Senate.

That same year, SW General, Inc., an Arizona-based ambulance company, challenged a NLRB complaint against it, alleging that Solomon was serving in violation of 1998 law called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The law says that once the president nominates someone for a position that requires Senate confirmation, that nominee cannot serve until they are confirmed. It includes an exception if the nominee had previously been “first assistant” to the last person to hold the office. On Friday, the federal court sided with the company and against the board.

“Because Solomon was never a first assistant and the President nominated him to be General Counsel on January 5, 2011, the FVRA prohibited him from serving as Acting General Counsel from that date forward,” the court found.

Lafe Solomon was the person behind the NLRB’s move against Boeing when they built a plant in South Carolina.

The article comments on the Boeing case:

The case prompted loud complaints from business groups and Republican lawmakers, who argued the board was trying to make a business decision to locate in a right-to-work state like South Carolina itself evidence of a labor rights violation. The NLRB complaint was withdrawn after Boeing and the union reached a settlement in 2011.

President Obama has not been the President of the entire country. He has been the President of the special interest groups he likes–among them big labor. Remember that in the bailout of Chrysler, he favored retired union workers over secured bond holders. (rightwinggranny.com). The only hope for the survival of America is to elect a President who will faithfully uphold the Constitution and follow the law. There are a few candidates who fit that description, and hopefully the American people will realize the danger their country is in and elect one of them.

More Ridiculousness

Hold on to your hat–the government is attempting to shut down God. The Daily Caller reported yesterday that the Priests who are in government service or are under contract to the military have been threatened with arrest if they celebrate Mass on Sunday.

The article reports:

“With the government shutdown, many [government service] and contract priests who minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide are not permitted to work – not even to volunteer,” wrote John Schlageter, the general counsel for the Archdiocese for the Military Services USA, in an op-ed this week. “During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to minister on base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do so.”

According to its website, the Archdiocese for the Military Services “provides the Catholic Church’s full range of pastoral ministries and spiritual services to those in the United States Armed Forces.”

The article points out that this ruling on the part of the Obama Administration is not in accordance with the First Amendment rights of the American military. This is not something the government of a free country should do.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does The Supreme Judicial Court In Massachusetts Care About The Law ?

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent statements by Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. Within a few hours after William Jacobson reported on his website, Legal Insurrection, that Elizabeth Warren was practicing law without a license, Mr. Fredrickson gave an interview defending Elizabeth Warren.

The article reports:

That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren.  After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously?  Even The Boston Globe has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.

Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged.

Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.

Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice….

This is the press release from the Republican Party, including the letter to Chief Justice Ireland:

Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”

Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108

October 8, 2012

RE: Michael Fredrickson

Dear Chief Justice Ireland:

I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:

• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,’ Fredrickson says. ‘But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).

• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.

In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.

Respectfully,

Bob Maginn

cc:
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair

This is an issue that needs to be investigated.

Enhanced by Zemanta