June 3, 2019
Surface Sea Temperature Map (click here) of the tropical Atlantic and the northwest Atlantic Ocean
Below is NOAA's Hurricane Prediction Center's reporting of a tropical disturbance that can result into a hurricane. The first of the season.
If there are ruffled feathers in Ireland and/or Northern Ireland, there are few people able to discuss that except Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister and the delegation he lead.
He is currently in Israel and has made comments about anti-semitism in the Labour Party. In expanded comments, the former Prime Minister Blair believes Jeremy Corbyn is unaware of the anti-semitic content of such comments.
June 5, 2019
Tony Blair (click here) has told an Israeli audience that some of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s comments cannot be construed as anything other than “antisemitic”
The former British prime minister was speaking at Bar-Ilan University’s Board of Trustees Gala this week and was asked about Brexit, Theresa May, Labour, Zionism, and how the technological revolution “is going to change everyone’s lives....
The Special Counsel did not cite law because he wanted to impress anyone. He cited law because the law of the USA has been broken. The current Attorney General William Barr is obstructing justice by undermining the Rule of Law of the United States of America.
Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus
obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or
contemplated official proceedings....
Currently, Donald J. Trump is interrupting the proceedings of US Congressional proceedings. He is directing personnel present or past not to not cooperate with Congress. He is breaking the law.
...No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the
provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections
1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision
in Section 1512(6) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication
to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime.
Constitutional defenses.
As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status
as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts
have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the
framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The
Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is
subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury
because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the
President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the
Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his
authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
These are not "IF" or "MAYBE" statements. These are the laws the president has broken to the point his own council recognizes the fact he has conducted himself unlawfully.
HIS OWN COUNCIL RECOGNIZES TRUMP'S LAWLESSNESS.
I can just hear Guiliani, "I recognize the president is a bit of a lawbreaker, but, look Bob, he is a good guy."
Guilani is not a lawyer, he is a saleman.
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers.
The President of the United States of America is not above the law.
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source.
Got that? No, let me repeat it.
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.
No one has to put up with a lawbreaker or a person that seeks to corrupt the government of the USA. No one is above the law. The Special Counsel did not use the word corrupt lightly. THE WORD WAS CORRUPT.
We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission.
Any method that would to prohibit corrupt acts does not undermine the President's abilities for a CONSTITUTIONAL MISSION. In other words, when Congress acts to obtain documents and/or testimony it does not impress power on the Executive Branch so much that it changes the mission or the power or the law that the Executive Branch enjoys.
The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
What was that? Oh. Others have rights besides Trump. That means others, such as Guilliani and Barr, have free will to carry out lawful acts even though Trump is demanding a loyalty pledge and unlawful acts. I guess that's why James Comey was fired. He didn't sign on to a loyalty pledge to carry out unlawful acts. Firing James Comey was a big mistake by Trump. James Comey did nothing wrong regardless of the hideous idea of a Deep State.
Trump lives the mythology of a Deep State and to him anyone else that doesn't believe in his mythology where he is god is not worthy. Trump is a maniacal lawbreaker that creates FEASIBLE fantasy and expects everyone else to abide by it. He is currently involved with Barr to imagineering a Deep State to justify Trump's lawlessness. Trump has broken so many laws he can't find a way out of them so he is creating his own world whereby everyone else is the lawbreaker and he is the victim.
The Special Counsel outlines below the fact investigation or acts to end corruption does not change the presidency.
A preclusion of"corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
There is no doubt there is a separation of powers in the USA. That separation of powers is in full display these past few days. The president is in Europe for the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day, while the US Congress continues to carry out it's responsibilities in asking for documents and testimony to fulfill their constitutional duty to the people of the USA.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct.
They didn't exactly determine they not to carry out traditional prosecutorial judgment. They were forced to set aside an indictment of the president because of a stupid opinion that should be challenged in court that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him
we would so state
we would so state
we would so state
Tell me how many times this has to be stated before people finally hear it?
we would so state
we would so state
we would so state
The Special Counsel did not exonerate Trump. Barr decided to exonerate Trump because he was loyal to the president. Barr decided to not only exonerate Trump from lawbreaking in the face of evidence otherwise he drew up a four page falsified document to obstruct a Congressional investigation. I remind, the release of the redacted Special Council report came AFTER Robert S. Mueller wrote a two page letter to Barr to provide at least the Introduction and Executive Summary of both volumes to Congress and the public. Barr has no intention of allowing Trump to be held responsible for his lawbreaking. If we are to follow the thinking of the Special Counsel, the lawbreaking is not an isolated issue as when it is allowed to exist it encourages more lawbreaking. It seems obvious to me that is true as Trump continues to obstruct justice after Barr so willingly did as well.
continued in later entry.
Trump's lawyers are simply carrying out strategies regardless of whether they are possible or not just to do it. This is that same stupid stuff that happens with Trump. Evidently, Sessions and McGahn were the only ones with a strong enough character to stand their ground and let the president know he will have their resignations rather than give in to his hideous demands.
Everyone else is either willing to break the law with him or sufficiently fearful of him to maintain their own legal stature. Now, we have an Attorney General that the American people can't count on to protect the country from a maniacal president.
Barr, after reading the Special Counsel report, should have insisted Congress carry out the impeachment while providing every bit of evidence possible to allow it to happen. Robert Mueller has absolutely no problem stating the president is a criminal. It is here in the report and his words upon closing the office of the Special Counsel were clear on that fact. Barr is covering up the truth and attempting to undermine The Rule of Law all over again by CONTINUING the assault on the upper echelons of the FBI and the Special Counsel that Trump started.
THE DEEP STATE IS POLITICAL RHETORIC not a reality TV show!
Statutory defenses.
Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes, we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2)
18 U.S. Code § 1512.(b)Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (click here)
(3)
hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
...ls an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings. No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury,
(c)
(2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
18 U.S. Code § 1503.Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally (click here
(a)
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
18 U.S. Code § 1505.Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (click here)
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—
There are laws.
continued in next entry
This was the last paragraph i read and it is rather important so I am going to repeat it.
Third,
many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with
the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That
circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the
obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony,
the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.
Trump is continuing to obstruct justice before our very eyes. He is telling witnesses to the US Congress to disobey subpoenas. That is a continuance of a behavior and abuse of power throughout the entire investigation into Russia's assault on the USA election system.
The obstruction of justice Trump carries out is in public view. it is still in public view. There is just no doubt he commits these crimes, but the real issue is political. By carrying out crimes in public view he confuses the electorate and today is proof of his maniacal mind and CALCULATED influence.
Interestingly enough, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is aware of these acts by Trump and is fully aware of the influence this confusion carries out on the electorate. To go forward with very appropriate measures to impeach will result in adverse opinions of the Democrats of the US House. This is why Congresspersons need to return to their districts and hold town hall meetings and push back on the effects of Trump's disruption of the people in understanding that crime is wrong.
...no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws.
This is probably the most important statement in the Executive Summary of Volume II of the Special Counsel's report. The Special Counsel validated that even though the public act of crimes is a strange occurrence, the fact they have happened does not preclude them from being crimes.
Donald J. Trump is a criminal. He publically encouraged thinking he would provide pardons to his comrades and helpers and fixers that committed crimes with him, but, are not immune as he is because of one and only one reason, the DOJ has a rule that must be challenged in court. Donald J. Trump is a criminal and currently ABOVE THE LAW.
If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.
Donald J. Trump ACTIVELY assaults the rule of law. There is no doubt he wants the US House to impeach. It serves his maniacal purpose.
I DO BELIEVE TRUMP IS MANIACAL.
It would be political suicide to launch into impeachment without the knowledge, understanding and consent of the Amerian people. The people believe in their democracy and they need to be aware of the problems, understand the profound severity of obstruction in relation to the rule of law and what the rule of law means to the American democracy.
When looking across the timeline that is Trump's life he has always been maniacal. He has left financial carnage for every dollar he claims to have earned. This is not a man to be trusted in any way.
It is wrong to not impeach, but, it is a greater harm to impeach and not have the country understand and consent. I think Congress is on the right track to educate their constituents and bring them along on this journey. I would think law students could help with political campaigns to educate the people to the ills within this presidency.
THE US HOUSE MUST NOT DO MORE HARM TO THE USA ELECTORATE.
The Rule of Law must prevail and that is paramount to protecting our democracy.
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts,...
The Special Counsel has accounted for acts by the president that are factual and realized. He goes on to state there is an overall pattern of conduct that drew the attention of the Special Counsel.
the overall pattern of
the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's
acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated
can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first
phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Corney through the President's
firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally
under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel,
however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an
obstruction-of-justice inquiry....
Up to the point and I think this is very important, when Trump began obstructing justice he was not at all under investigation.
GOT THAT.
Trump, for his own reasons, began obstructing justice. I think this entire "Pledge of Loyalty" statements by Trump carry a great deal of weight with him. Where he has no pledge of loyalty, he is paranoid about others and begins to defend from it carrying out obstruction in every way possible.
In that, Trump broke his oath of office. He cannot be demanding pledges of loyalty when he himself pledged to the office of the USA presidency. There is a specific pledge he made and it was to the country and not his own ideas of loyalty.
"The Oath of Office: 35 Words that are Harder than the Look" (ciick here)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
"Best of my abilities" is not an excuse to depart from the oath of office. He would not and still today does not honor the fact there are laws in the USA that are to be adhered to, including providing whatever evidence the branches of government demand of the Executive Branch. There is absolutely no provision anywhere in the rule of law that states a president can derail his oath of office to embark on demanding others take an additional pledge to him.
Any pledge federal officials, elected or otherwise, take is to the country and not a maniacal man engaged in his own priorities within the powers of the USA.
Trump is a criminal that seeks to criminalize others.
At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct,
involving public attacks on the inve~tigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both
public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about
the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the
evidence.
The investigation into Donald J. Trump's obstruction of justice is based in far more than one or two acts. The EVIDENCE of his crimes is based on multiple and repeated acts of criminality in public view.
By attacking the very AGENCY of law enforcement by attacking the personnel it brings incredible injustice to the Rule of Law. The very people that enforce the law at the highest levels of justice were to be dismantled and ridiculed beginning with the then Director of the FBI, James Comey. The people involved in Trump's raid on the US Justice Department continued and involved the highest level of the Department. When firing James Comey didn't work to end the investigation into the invasion of Russia into the USA elections of 2016, Trump continued to demonize and fire highly qualified and long-established officials of the FBI.
Today, that same ranting public behavior continues BECAUSE IT WORKS IN HIS FAVOR, not in the favor of the USA.
Trump is amoral and only abides by behaviors that benefit him regardless of the best interests of the country. If a war with Iran will provide the political uptick he is looking for he will do it regardless of the truth or the best interests of the country.
While in Great Britain he attacked yet another major company in the USA, AT&T. He fully expects those words to matter and cause harm to AT&T. That is the second company to be adversely effected by Trump, the first being GM with his draconian tariff structure regarding Mexico.
Trump continues to build instability in the USA and global economy and he continues to build danger within the stability and any potential peace within the international community.
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
The President's counsel (his lawyers, including Guiliani) raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible
obstruction-of-justice analysis (abuse of power) of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those
legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts.
The Special Counsel, in consideration of the president's lawyers, attempt to end the investigation carried any merit and the investigation continued.
continued in next entry
