President Trump is obstructing the US Congress from investigating any conflict of interest because he says there is no legitimate legislative purpose?
That is just about the most arrogant and stupid wordplay I have ever heard in my life.
First, Trump is addressing the US Congress as if it is an unnecessary body of government. It is not Trump's right to define the purpose of the legislature of the USA.
Second, "legitimate legislative purpose" would mean any legislative effort can go forward with "writing the words" without an investigation. "Writing the words" is the least of any legislation the US House passes. What does Trump think happens when legislation is written? Does he think a US House Representative simply sits down and writes words down out of an idea that occurred as if the light bulb came on?
The legislation written in the US Congress, House and/or Senate, is based in multiple disciplinary efforts to accumulate all the facts that will impact the "words on the paper." The USA legislature requires STUDY of a subject including what it will take to PROTECT that legislation from exploitation in a way it was never intended.
THAT MEANS THE US CONGRESS INVESTIGATES THE PRESIDENT IF THERE IS ANY INDICATION IT NEEDS TO. That need does not have to be approved by the Executive Branch.
The Executive Branch under Trump are nothing more conmen. Lock them up!
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
It is theocracy, not democracy. She spews rhetoric. This legislation is not based in sound science.
The US Government should never cross the wall between church and state, but, it has anyway while conservative presidents have been in the White House. The entire mess is directly related to political rhetoric. This Alabama law will only embolden the violent pro-life activists. There is no sound reason to even write the legislation, yet alone pass it.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is a direct assault on women's health.
An embryo or fetus has no constitutional rights.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the fetus' only inherent constitutionally protected right is the right to be born, overturning a High Court ruling that a fetus additionally possessed the children's rights guaranteed by Article 42A of the Constitution.
"Right to be born" is not about embryos, it is about a fully formed baby or a viable neonate making it out of the womb.
The passage of this bill is about elections and money for elections. That is all this is.
An embryo or fetus has no constitutional rights.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the fetus' only inherent constitutionally protected right is the right to be born, overturning a High Court ruling that a fetus additionally possessed the children's rights guaranteed by Article 42A of the Constitution.
"Right to be born" is not about embryos, it is about a fully formed baby or a viable neonate making it out of the womb.
The passage of this bill is about elections and money for elections. That is all this is.
May 15, 2019
By Amanda Arnold
In August 2015, (click here) when Ivey was Alabama’s lieutenant governor, she and Representative Terri Collins — who sponsored Alabama’s extreme anti-abortion bill — called for the “immediate defunding of Planned Parenthood by Congress” and the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. (The bill, which has passed the House multiple times but never the Senate, would make most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy illegal.)
Since becoming sworn in as governor in April 2017, following the resignation of Robert Bentley, Ivey’s stance predictably has not changed. In January 2018, when the Trump administration established regulations that made it easier for religious doctors to discriminate against women seeking abortions, and for states to cut Medicaid funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood, Ivey celebrated the news as “a big win for states to ensure that tax dollars are not used to fund abortion or abortion-related services.” And, just last August, Ivey renewed what she calls her “steadfast commitment to protect the lives of the unborn” after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision to strike down a bill banning “dismemberment abortions."...
Alabama and Georgia need to leave their theocracy in their Bibles on Sunday. Alabama's maternal death rate has increased by 20 percent in two years. The rate was 10 maternal deaths per 100,000 in 2016 and increased to 12 maternal deaths per 100,000 women.
California has 4.5 per 100,000 women and Georgia has 46 per 100,000.
Alabama has a difficult time keeping people alive, especially if they are minorities. Chambliss, the idiot that thinks nothing of mixing government and religion, states this is about human rights. Liar. He can't even keep the kids born alive.
May 15, 2019
By Ashley Reese
In Alabama, (click here) a state that just passed a total ban on abortion, more than a quarter of children live in poverty; 30 percent of those children are under the age of five.
Only half of Alabama’s 67 counties have an obstetrician.
Infant care for a single child in Alabama takes up an average of 11 percent of a family’s income. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, child care costs are unaffordable when they exceed 7 percent of a family’s income.
Single mothers in Alabama spend 29 percent of their income on childcare costs.
Child care costs for families with two children—an infant and a four-year-old—cost 28 percent more than the average rent in the state.
About 88 percent of Alabama’s rural hospitals are operating “in the red.”
Alabama has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country.
Alabama rejected the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, despite support for the expansion from the Alabama Hospital Association.
More children are living in poverty in Alabama now than they were almost 20 years ago, and the state has the fifth highest child poverty rate in the country.
Alabama’s child food insecurity rate is 22.5 percent. The national average is 17.5 percent.
There are no maternity leave or family leave laws in the state of Alabama.
Alabama is the sixth poorest state in the country, its most impoverished regions are predominantly black.
Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss, who sponsored the abortion bill, characterized the legislation as a necessary government intervention to protect human rights. “When God creates the miracle of life inside a woman’s womb, it is not our place as human beings to extinguish that life,” Chambliss said.
The law will cause to many problems. Heck, viability is not considered possible until 26 weeks outside the uterus. I have seen neonates at 21 weeks in NICUs, but, as to whether they survived, I don't know. The entire idea that an embryo is a citizen is not intelligent.
Periviability, also referred to as the limit of viability, is defined as the stage of fetal maturity that ensures a reasonable chance of extrauterine survival. With active intervention, most infants born at 26 weeks and above have a high likelihood of survival, and virtually none below 22 weeks will survive. The chance of survival thus increases dramatically over these few weeks, and this crucial time window may be considered the period of periviability.
I think Alabama needs to work on quality of life of it's citizens before it places more hardship on them.
Alabama's 2017 median household income grew by almost 2 percent over the previous year, according to recently released Census Bureau estimates. The median income in Alabama was $48,123, up from $47,221 the previous year.
Alabama legislators have a long way to go in moral content before they even try to make a theocracy out of the state.
Alabama and Georgia need to leave their theocracy in their Bibles on Sunday. Alabama's maternal death rate has increased by 20 percent in two years. The rate was 10 maternal deaths per 100,000 in 2016 and increased to 12 maternal deaths per 100,000 women.
California has 4.5 per 100,000 women and Georgia has 46 per 100,000.
Alabama has a difficult time keeping people alive, especially if they are minorities. Chambliss, the idiot that thinks nothing of mixing government and religion, states this is about human rights. Liar. He can't even keep the kids born alive.
May 15, 2019
By Ashley Reese
In Alabama, (click here) a state that just passed a total ban on abortion, more than a quarter of children live in poverty; 30 percent of those children are under the age of five.
Only half of Alabama’s 67 counties have an obstetrician.
Infant care for a single child in Alabama takes up an average of 11 percent of a family’s income. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, child care costs are unaffordable when they exceed 7 percent of a family’s income.
Single mothers in Alabama spend 29 percent of their income on childcare costs.
Child care costs for families with two children—an infant and a four-year-old—cost 28 percent more than the average rent in the state.
About 88 percent of Alabama’s rural hospitals are operating “in the red.”
Alabama has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country.
Alabama rejected the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, despite support for the expansion from the Alabama Hospital Association.
More children are living in poverty in Alabama now than they were almost 20 years ago, and the state has the fifth highest child poverty rate in the country.
Alabama’s child food insecurity rate is 22.5 percent. The national average is 17.5 percent.
There are no maternity leave or family leave laws in the state of Alabama.
Alabama is the sixth poorest state in the country, its most impoverished regions are predominantly black.
Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss, who sponsored the abortion bill, characterized the legislation as a necessary government intervention to protect human rights. “When God creates the miracle of life inside a woman’s womb, it is not our place as human beings to extinguish that life,” Chambliss said.
The law will cause to many problems. Heck, viability is not considered possible until 26 weeks outside the uterus. I have seen neonates at 21 weeks in NICUs, but, as to whether they survived, I don't know. The entire idea that an embryo is a citizen is not intelligent.
Periviability, also referred to as the limit of viability, is defined as the stage of fetal maturity that ensures a reasonable chance of extrauterine survival. With active intervention, most infants born at 26 weeks and above have a high likelihood of survival, and virtually none below 22 weeks will survive. The chance of survival thus increases dramatically over these few weeks, and this crucial time window may be considered the period of periviability.
I think Alabama needs to work on quality of life of it's citizens before it places more hardship on them.
Alabama's 2017 median household income grew by almost 2 percent over the previous year, according to recently released Census Bureau estimates. The median income in Alabama was $48,123, up from $47,221 the previous year.
Alabama legislators have a long way to go in moral content before they even try to make a theocracy out of the state.
Continued from previous entry
The end of the sited paragraph from page 9 had "Harm to Ongoing Matter" at the end. I think it is obvious what the ongoing matter is. It is the Russians indictments. It isn't appropriate, when reading this document, to stop thinking because the words "Harm to Ongoing Matter" appears in the document. It is easy to know what the topic is being discussed at that point. What we don't know is the content of that section. The methods used by the Special Council in including those words provide for containment of the knowledge of the public. But, the public doesn't have to go brain dead because of those words.
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
"...was not sufficient..." is the dominating understanding of that paragraph. Many of the members of the Trump Campaign have been charged with other crimes. Just because these particular crimes weren't charged doesn't mean there were no crimes. There were plenty of crimes.
"...was not sufficient..." IS NOT AN INNOCENT FINDING.
I might add, in not charging those crimes, there is still plenty of room down the road to charge people with crimes should there be more evidence or a repeat of the crimes. By not charging crimes at this time PRESERVES the evidence the Special Council found in case it could be helpful in the future.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia (among other things), the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton .in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
And in Febraury 2019, the US District Court of Columbus found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
Be clear, Konstantin Kilimnik was discussing plans for the future of Ukraine and in that understanding, polling data was provided to Kilimnik. Kilimnik wasn't anybody. He brought no special skills to the election. He wasn't a paid staffer. He was a Russian tied to Putin. Isn't everyone in Russia tied to Putin? There was no particular reason for Kilimnik to have these discussions to win over confidence with Manafort about Ukraine. Ukraine had a peace plan which Vladimir Putin ended with Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea.
Got that?
Crimea was a sovereign state and an important part of Ukraine and Russia stole it. The elections in Crimea were bogus. The people of Crimea never had a valid vote on Russia's annexation. Russia stole an entire state of Ukraine illegally. Simply took it because it could, not because it should. Even with all those facts staring Manafort in the face, Kilimnik became a trusted person to share campaign data with to effect the elections.
Got that?
The information passed on to Kilimnik effected the outcome of the USA elections of 2019. There was no other reason for Kilimnik to have that information and it had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine. Supposedly, the reason for the corruption into the election of 2016 was that ONLY Donald Trump could bring peace to Ukraine. That hasn't happened and it won't happen. There have been peace treaties brokered by other COUNTRIES to end the violence/civil war in Ukraine. Every treaty was violated by Putin in never ending the civil war at Russia's border with Ukraine. PUTIN NEVER ENDED the conflict in the face to a signed peace treaty. Instead, he continued to fuel the civil war with munition supplies to the insurgents in Eastern Ukraine. There is every indication, Putin had no intention to actually honor the peace treaties.
***
The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.
There was non-substantive use of information about anything Russia in the face of meetings with the Russian Ambassador. Trump gave two speeches which would include the way he saw foreign policy under a Trump administration. In those two speeches, there was nothing monumental, significant or respectful. In other words, in the face of meetings with the Russian Ambassador, there was nothing in the speeches that followed indicating the conversations with that ambassador were helpful, new or earth shaking to bring about a good opinion of Trump. There was nothing that would reveal a new peace plan for Ukraine. There was nothing in the speeches that would bring an understanding Trump was able to be a stateman over and above what anyone in the public would know.
THEREFORE, what were the meetings about? It sure wasn't about the state of the world or proposals Trump could expect to be accepted by Putin. That was never going to happen. Trump has no influence with Putin. So, why the meetings? Nothing comes out of his meetings with Putin even today.
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g. , JusticeManual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. (click here) Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.
That is really cute. The evidence sought by the Special Counsel was held out of reach in other countries. These people are not innocent. Their actions are very nefarious. They were simply out of the reach of USA law because the evidence was withheld in countries the USA could not access.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
These people are not innocent, they are slick. They knew what they were doing in destroying evidence.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
The Special Counsel was hobbled in being able to complete a thorough investigation that would no doubt bring about more indictments and convictions.
This ends the Executive Summary of Volume I. When these documents were contested in their handling by Bill Barr, Robert Mueller himself stated at least provide the Introduction and Executive Summaries to the American public.
I will conclude here and will continue at another time in reading the Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume II, BEFORE, I continue reading the rest of the redacted Special Counsel report to the American people.
Thank you for your interest. This is our country. We need to understand it and in that how to best protect it from deceptive people that place themselves above the law because they are wealthy and/or powerful.
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
"...was not sufficient..." is the dominating understanding of that paragraph. Many of the members of the Trump Campaign have been charged with other crimes. Just because these particular crimes weren't charged doesn't mean there were no crimes. There were plenty of crimes.
"...was not sufficient..." IS NOT AN INNOCENT FINDING.
I might add, in not charging those crimes, there is still plenty of room down the road to charge people with crimes should there be more evidence or a repeat of the crimes. By not charging crimes at this time PRESERVES the evidence the Special Council found in case it could be helpful in the future.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia (among other things), the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton .in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
And in Febraury 2019, the US District Court of Columbus found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
Be clear, Konstantin Kilimnik was discussing plans for the future of Ukraine and in that understanding, polling data was provided to Kilimnik. Kilimnik wasn't anybody. He brought no special skills to the election. He wasn't a paid staffer. He was a Russian tied to Putin. Isn't everyone in Russia tied to Putin? There was no particular reason for Kilimnik to have these discussions to win over confidence with Manafort about Ukraine. Ukraine had a peace plan which Vladimir Putin ended with Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea.
Got that?
Crimea was a sovereign state and an important part of Ukraine and Russia stole it. The elections in Crimea were bogus. The people of Crimea never had a valid vote on Russia's annexation. Russia stole an entire state of Ukraine illegally. Simply took it because it could, not because it should. Even with all those facts staring Manafort in the face, Kilimnik became a trusted person to share campaign data with to effect the elections.
Got that?
The information passed on to Kilimnik effected the outcome of the USA elections of 2019. There was no other reason for Kilimnik to have that information and it had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine. Supposedly, the reason for the corruption into the election of 2016 was that ONLY Donald Trump could bring peace to Ukraine. That hasn't happened and it won't happen. There have been peace treaties brokered by other COUNTRIES to end the violence/civil war in Ukraine. Every treaty was violated by Putin in never ending the civil war at Russia's border with Ukraine. PUTIN NEVER ENDED the conflict in the face to a signed peace treaty. Instead, he continued to fuel the civil war with munition supplies to the insurgents in Eastern Ukraine. There is every indication, Putin had no intention to actually honor the peace treaties.
***
The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.
There was non-substantive use of information about anything Russia in the face of meetings with the Russian Ambassador. Trump gave two speeches which would include the way he saw foreign policy under a Trump administration. In those two speeches, there was nothing monumental, significant or respectful. In other words, in the face of meetings with the Russian Ambassador, there was nothing in the speeches that followed indicating the conversations with that ambassador were helpful, new or earth shaking to bring about a good opinion of Trump. There was nothing that would reveal a new peace plan for Ukraine. There was nothing in the speeches that would bring an understanding Trump was able to be a stateman over and above what anyone in the public would know.
THEREFORE, what were the meetings about? It sure wasn't about the state of the world or proposals Trump could expect to be accepted by Putin. That was never going to happen. Trump has no influence with Putin. So, why the meetings? Nothing comes out of his meetings with Putin even today.
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g. , JusticeManual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. (click here) Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.
That is really cute. The evidence sought by the Special Counsel was held out of reach in other countries. These people are not innocent. Their actions are very nefarious. They were simply out of the reach of USA law because the evidence was withheld in countries the USA could not access.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
These people are not innocent, they are slick. They knew what they were doing in destroying evidence.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
The Special Counsel was hobbled in being able to complete a thorough investigation that would no doubt bring about more indictments and convictions.
This ends the Executive Summary of Volume I. When these documents were contested in their handling by Bill Barr, Robert Mueller himself stated at least provide the Introduction and Executive Summaries to the American public.
I will conclude here and will continue at another time in reading the Introduction and Executive Summary of Volume II, BEFORE, I continue reading the rest of the redacted Special Counsel report to the American people.
Thank you for your interest. This is our country. We need to understand it and in that how to best protect it from deceptive people that place themselves above the law because they are wealthy and/or powerful.
Given the high level of corruption brought to the Special Counsel investigation by the DOJ, I didn't get very far on page 8.
I do mean corruption. There were revised decision making rules introduced into the Special Counsel Investigation and then there is the memo that has no place in decison making rules. It has never been included in any process at the DOJ before Trump's administration. The manual and memo are highly corrupted. It was grossly inappropriate for the DOJ to enter a new decision making manual to the Special Counsel investigation
Every one of these issues, be it the new decision making manual or the memo are all ethics violations.
This continues from Page 8 to Page 9 of the report. It is page 17 of the PDF.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election-the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and the have been so char ed. See United States v.Ne ksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 D.D.C .. (click here)
Harm to Ongoing Matter
This is not included to the public release of the redacted Special Counsel report. There is a site that claims to have some of the supporting documents to the Special Council report (click here). This website accumulated these documents from the trials that have come out of the Mueller investigation so far. This is NOT complete. The links to these documents are not on this webpage. I try to keep links and use of cyberspace on "Blogger" to a minimum. For accuracy please to the website to view these documents. Thank you.
Litigation Documents
Every one of these issues, be it the new decision making manual or the memo are all ethics violations.
This continues from Page 8 to Page 9 of the report. It is page 17 of the PDF.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election-the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and the have been so char ed. See United States v.Ne ksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 D.D.C .. (click here)
Harm to Ongoing Matter
This is not included to the public release of the redacted Special Counsel report. There is a site that claims to have some of the supporting documents to the Special Council report (click here). This website accumulated these documents from the trials that have come out of the Mueller investigation so far. This is NOT complete. The links to these documents are not on this webpage. I try to keep links and use of cyberspace on "Blogger" to a minimum. For accuracy please to the website to view these documents. Thank you.
Litigation Documents
- U.S. v. Michael D. Cohen
- U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn
- U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (District of Columbia)
- U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (Eastern District of Virginia)
- U.S. v. Internet Research Agency LLC, et al
- U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik
- U.S. v. Paul J Manafort, Jr (District of Columbia)
- U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr (Eastern District of Virginia)
- Paul J. Manafort, Jr v. U.S. Department of Justice
- Andrew Miller v. U.S.
- U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho
- U.S. v. George Papadopoulos
- U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al
- Sealed v. Sealed (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)
- U.S. v. Roger J. Stone, Jr.
- U.S. v. Alexander van der Zwaan
Considering the findings regarding the election with Bill Nelson, the Special Counsel investigation should be expanded.
All Republican.
To the left sitting is the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He is a high ranking communist.
Sen Steve Daines (R-MT) (Elected in 2014, re-election 2020)
Rep Kay Granger (R-TX, 12th Dist) (Elected in 1996 - re-election every 2 yrs) Sen John Hoeven (R-ND) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022) Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022) Sen John Kennedy (R-LA) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022) Sen Jerry Moran (R-KS) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022) Sen Richard Shelby (R-AL) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022) Sen John Thune (R-SD) (Elected 2016 - re-elected 2022)
Two Florida voting results were compromise by Russia.
A year and a half after the 2016 presidential election more and more information regarding the extent Russia threw the election to Trump is still coming to the surface.
THIS IS MORE THAN MEDDLING.
The Russian RIA and government agents weren't looking for Clinton emails in Florida. The government agents from Russia is known as the GRU. The GRU agents are former Soviet military intelligence agents.
Kilimnik passed on the Trump campaign data to Putin and ultimately the IRA and GRU. The Russian government carried out cyber warfare against the USA during the 2016 elections.
THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
I do not believe for one minute the election results were not effected.
Florida was won by Trump. Find two counties not expected to go to Trump by the narrowest of margins and those are most likely the ones hacked. Why did Manafort EVEN HAVE THE ELECTION INFORMATION FROM TRUMP? Manafort freely handed election data to a Russian operative with ties to Putin. End of discussion.
"Florida Governor Says Russian Hackers Breached 2 Counties in 2016" (cick here)
Jefferson County went to Trump by with less than 500 votes. (click here) Duval County, Monroe County, Pinellas County, Seminole County and St. Lucia County were won by Trump by small percentages. For the most part where Clinton won there were large margins.
The Former Clinton Campaign has a right to the information regarding Russian espionage and the impact on the Florida vote.
January 10, 2019
By Sue Halpern
On Tuesday, (click here) when news broke that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort had shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate with ties to Russian intelligence, the through line between the campaign and the Kremlin began to look incontrovertible. The revelation came in an inadvertently unredacted court document, which was filed by Manafort’s lawyers in response to charges made by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that Manafort had lied to investigators. According to the Times, some—but not all—of the data was already in the public domain. The rest came from the campaign’s own polling operation.
Trump, who famously eschewed polling in the early days of his campaign and told the “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd that pollsters were a waste of his money, eventually had five polling firms working to get him elected. All were hired after Manafort joined the campaign, in March, 2016, without pay. Five months later, he was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his work as a foreign agent on behalf of pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine. Since then, of course, Manafort has been convicted of multiple counts of financial fraud....
THIS IS MORE THAN MEDDLING.
The Russian RIA and government agents weren't looking for Clinton emails in Florida. The government agents from Russia is known as the GRU. The GRU agents are former Soviet military intelligence agents.
Kilimnik passed on the Trump campaign data to Putin and ultimately the IRA and GRU. The Russian government carried out cyber warfare against the USA during the 2016 elections.
THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
I do not believe for one minute the election results were not effected.
Florida was won by Trump. Find two counties not expected to go to Trump by the narrowest of margins and those are most likely the ones hacked. Why did Manafort EVEN HAVE THE ELECTION INFORMATION FROM TRUMP? Manafort freely handed election data to a Russian operative with ties to Putin. End of discussion.
"Florida Governor Says Russian Hackers Breached 2 Counties in 2016" (cick here)
Jefferson County went to Trump by with less than 500 votes. (click here) Duval County, Monroe County, Pinellas County, Seminole County and St. Lucia County were won by Trump by small percentages. For the most part where Clinton won there were large margins.
The Former Clinton Campaign has a right to the information regarding Russian espionage and the impact on the Florida vote.
January 10, 2019By Sue Halpern
On Tuesday, (click here) when news broke that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort had shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate with ties to Russian intelligence, the through line between the campaign and the Kremlin began to look incontrovertible. The revelation came in an inadvertently unredacted court document, which was filed by Manafort’s lawyers in response to charges made by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that Manafort had lied to investigators. According to the Times, some—but not all—of the data was already in the public domain. The rest came from the campaign’s own polling operation.
Trump, who famously eschewed polling in the early days of his campaign and told the “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd that pollsters were a waste of his money, eventually had five polling firms working to get him elected. All were hired after Manafort joined the campaign, in March, 2016, without pay. Five months later, he was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his work as a foreign agent on behalf of pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine. Since then, of course, Manafort has been convicted of multiple counts of financial fraud....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)