BOMBSHELL: Democrats Used ‘Similarly Deceptive Tactics’ in Senate Race as Russians Used in 2016 Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daily Wire. A new bombshell report released on Wednesday night alleges that Democrats used “similarly deceptive tactics” in the Alabama Senate race last year as Russia used in the 2016 elections.

“The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore,” The New York Times reported.

The Times notes that the methods implored by Democrats concern some who fear that they “taint elections in the United States.”

“The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore,” The Times continued. “It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.”

The New York Times obtained an internal report on the Democrat’s operation, which stated it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.” (Read more from “BOMBSHELL: Democrats Used ‘Similarly Deceptive Tactics’ in Senate Race as Russians Used in 2016 Election” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

By The New York Times. As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Read more from “Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oh, Please: U.S. Added to List of Most Dangerous Countries for Journalists

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a move that is motivated by everything political and nothing factual, the United States has been listed among the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, according to NBC News.

In its annual report, the free-press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders lists the United States among countries like Mexico, India, Syria, India, and Afghanistan for being one of the most dangerous for journalists based on the number who died in the U.S. in 2018. Not one of the deaths they listed, however, had anything to do with the U.S. government. Four of the six deaths listed stemmed from the Capital Gazette shooting (performed by a crazed lunatic who had a beef with the newspaper); the other two were killed while covering a storm in North Carolina.

“The United States joined the ranks of the world’s deadliest countries for the media this year, with a total of six journalists killed,” the group reports. “Four journalists were among the five employees of the Capital Gazette, a local newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, who .were killed on 28 June when a man walked in and opened fire with a shotgun. He had been harassing the newspaper for six years on Twitter about a 2011 article that named him. It was the deadliest attack on a media outlet in the US in modern history. Two other journalists, a local TV anchor and cameraman, were killed by a falling tree while covering Subtropical Storm Alberto’s extreme weather in North Carolina in May.”

Thought Reporters Without Borders does not explicitly state it, the media has incessantly blamed President Trump’s rhetoric toward the media for the Capital Gazette shooting this past summer.

“We won’t forget being called an enemy of the people,” the Capital Gazette editorial staff said following the shooting. “No, we won’t forget that. Because exposing evil, shining light on wrongs and fighting injustice is what we do.” (Read more from “Oh, Please: U.S. Added to List of Most Dangerous Countries for Journalists” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Winner of CNN’s ‘Journalist of the Year’ Award Admits He Made up Reports

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daily Wire. A recent winner of CNN’s “Journalist of the Year” has admitted to fabricating reports for years “on a grand scale” while at Der Spiegel, a German publication, which warned his other media organizations may have been affected.

“Claas Relotius, a reporter and editor, falsified his articles on a grand scale and even invented characters, deceiving both readers and his colleagues,” Der Spiegel reported. “This has been uncovered as a result of tips, internal research and, ultimately, a comprehensive confession by the editor himself.”

The publications said that suspicions grew after a November report by Relotius “about an American vigilante group that patrols the border between Mexico and the United States.”

A co-author on the report said that he observed Relotius’ behavior and grew distrustful, then reported what happened, which led to the publication confronting him.

“Claas Relotius committed his deception intentionally, methodically and with criminal intent,” Der Spiegel continued. “For example, he included individuals in his stories who he had never met or spoken to, telling their stories or quoting them. Instead, he would reveal, he based the depictions on other media or video recordings. By doing so, he created composite characters of people who actually did exist but whose stories Relotius had fabricated. He also made up dialogue and quotes.” (Read more from “Winner of CNN’s ‘Journalist of the Year’ Award Admits He Made up Reports” HERE)

______________________________________________

Poll: 77 Percent Say Major News Outlets Report ‘Fake News’

By Politico. President Donald Trump is not alone in thinking media outlets spread “fake news.”

More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation.

Among those, 31 percent said they believe those media outlets spread “fake news” regularly, and 46 percent said it happens occasionally.

The findings also showed Americans diverging on what constitutes “fake news,” with 65 percent saying it applies broadly to the editorial decisions outlets make over what topics to cover and 25 percent more narrowly defining it to apply only to the spread of factually incorrect information. (Read more from “Poll: 77 Percent Say Major News Outlets Report ‘Fake News'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Opponents of the Cotton Amendment to ‘Prison Reform’ Bill Exposed the Whole Lie

/0 Comments/in , /by

“There is no compassion in allowing drug dealers, gang members, and felons to prey on innocent people.” ~President Donald J. Trump, August 16, 2016

On the same day the Trump administration unilaterally and retroactively banned gun accessories for law-abiding gun owners, in violation of the Second Amendment and the Takings Clause, his jailbreak bill, which releases scores of gun felons, passed the Senate overwhelmingly. On the very same day Trump caved on his final budget fight over the border, he helped pass a bill that will release thousands of criminal alien drug traffickers (who enter through the border) from federal prison to home confinement, where they will disappear. In the very same era when everyone is claiming to get tough on sexual crimes, most Republicans joined every single Democrat in supporting a bill that offers early release for 1,466 child molesters.

These are the times we live in.

The swampiest parts of the Swamp are all celebrating the first “reform” of criminal justice in decades. In reality, they did nothing for victims, public safety, or law enforcement. Not a single thing.

In addition, there is nothing in this bill that is even libertarian. It doesn’t eliminate a single statute or devolve issues to the states. It doesn’t address any of the overcriminalization of nebulous regulatory crimes that, as conservatives and libertarians, we all want to see reformed. It doesn’t contain mens rea reform. The impetus for criminal justice reform, as laid out by people like Ed Meese in his 2011 testimony before the House, was all about cleaning up the duplicative provisions in the federal code and promoting more uniformity.

As Meese explained in 2015 while opposing just the sentencing portion of this bill (before it even had early release attached), he never signed on to letting out drug traffickers, much less armed robbers and child molesters. “This bill would also give repeat drug conspirators – who arguably poison thousands of people a year with their illegal products – far less severe sentence,” lamented Meese at a time when the drug crisis wasn’t nearly as bad as it is today. He wanted to promote uniformity in the federal code, and this bill actually will make sentencing more random than ever, with defense attorneys now pleading down to the random crimes that were given early release over the others that weren’t, for no rhyme or reason but political optics.

Nothing was done in this bill or broader agenda to better pursue justice for the 6,013 murder cases, 79,310 rape cases, 206,091 robbery cases, and 349,190 aggravated assault cases that were uncleared in 2017 and pretty much every single year. Nothing was done to stop the liberal judges from increasingly releasing burglars and sex offenders from prison and from deportation (in the case of criminal aliens), thanks to the court’s assault on the crime of violence statute. And nothing was done to go after those responsible for the death of 60,000-70,000 Americans a year thanks to those who traffic the deadliest substances for the most evil drug cartels.

Well, actually, I take that back. A lot was done for those people. Just not the victims. You see, Trump promised in New Hampshire just a few months ago to fulfill a campaign promise “to get tough on those people [drug traffickers]” who “will kill thousands of people during their lifetime — thousands of people — and destroy many more lives than that.” He bemoaned the existing light sentences and promised life in prison or the death penalty when appropriate because “if you kill one person, you get the death penalty or you go to jail for life.”

Trump was the last man standing between our safety and the bipartisan elitist leniency movement. Yet, last night, thanks to his support, the Senate overwhelmingly voted for a bill that will allow reduced sentencing and multiple avenues for early release for most of the worst repeat offender cartel and gang members on the most common drug and gun charges prosecutors are typically able to convict them for after pleading down.

As Ed Meese warned on the original bill, “No one should be fooled into believing that at the federal level, prosecutors have charged and judges have sentenced thousands of defendants to years in prison for committing ‘minor’ drug offenses.” Again, that is truer than ever three years later, with the drug crisis deadlier than ever and driven by transnational cartels more than ever.

This is the big lie about low-level, first-time, nonviolent offenders. This bill, by definition, is not dealing with those people because it allows roughly 78 percent of the entire federal prison population to get early release, together with sentencing reductions.

Who is in federal prison and why do federal prosecutors use certain common federal statutes to pursue them?

Those remaining in federal prison today are the ones that even Obama declined to release. And most certainly, the new ones entering the system serving long sentences are among the worst gang members, very often working with transnational gangs and drug cartels based in Mexico killing tens of thousands with the deadliest drugs as well as fueling street violence in cities like Chicago.

The fact that they are in the federal system demonstrates they have significant criminal records in the state system and most often plead down from the original charges. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 72.8 percent of those convicted in the federal system in 2016 had prior convictions; 39.5 percent had violent ones, with the average number of convictions being 6.1 for those with prior convictions. Those are not arrests or charges, but convictions. Most of them have even longer rap sheets with a history of plea deals. Yet these are the people who will benefit from the leniencies.

But this takes too many brain cells for our political class to understand. Instead, Sen. Tom Cotton made it very simple for them. Even though most federal drug traffickers and gun felons are inherently violent and usually committed other violent crimes and were often convicted of those crimes in the state system, his amendment would not have touched the early release for those people. He explicitly targeted only those convicted of sex crimes and violent crimes for the current federal sentence they are serving; 62 percent of the federal prison population would still have been eligible for early release. Yet 14 Republicans joined with every Democrat (except Gary Peters) to defeat the amendment. They also voted down a provision to simply notify victims when their assailants are released and establish a quarterly report detailing the recidivism of anyone released, which was supposedly the entire point of the bill.

But here’s the kicker: Once the amendments were defeated, that means that the final bill unambiguously released violent felons, even according to their convoluted definition. Yet only 12 Senate Republicans were willing to oppose the bill. Meaning, 24 Republicans who voted for the Cotton amendment are now on record as having no problem voting for a bill that lets out the worst sex offenders and violent career criminals graduating to the federal system.

There was no transparency in the process, and they didn’t want any way for the public or for victims to find out who is released, because they know they will commit terrible crimes upon release. They begged for a random debate over crime for the first time in decades in middle of a border and budget crisis, but then only spent 24 hours. The House will probably pass it without debate. If they know that every single Democrat supports this, why won’t they wait until after Christmas and debate this like human beings and from all angles – Left, Right, and nonpartisan changes to the system? Why the rush? Why, as the final act of the GOP Congress, did leadership pick the one thing that Democrats gladly support anyway? Are they trying to save the Democrats’ time for impeachment? Because they sure don’t want transparency and a protracted debate.

For those who feel dejected by the political elites, take heart in the fact that even with unanimity of opinion among the bipartisan political Swamp, it took them four years to pass this. They spent millions to promote it and have thousands of staffers doing work on this issue, while victims’ rights groups, prosecutors, and law enforcement didn’t spend a penny on PAC ads. Proponents only succeeded by taking a major issue and slamming it on the floor with less than 24 hours of debate right before Christmas in middle of a budget fight. Speed and stealth were the two most important ingredients.

Yet thanks to Sen. Cotton and a handful of people, proponents only got a fraction of what they originally intended to pass, and even what they succeeded in passing, they could only pass by lying to the public that this is for nonviolent offenses.

Fortunately, Cotton has now exposed their true intentions for the future – they indeed want to abolish incarceration for everyone, including violent felons. Even as they were promoting the “nonviolent, low-level, first-time offender” lie to the public, a group of phony “conservative” groups sent a letter to senators opposing the Cotton amendment. They finally admitted the truth after all these years. They bemoaned the fact that Cotton’s amendment “would make virtually all federal prisoners ineligible for earned time credits, with the exceptions of low-level drug offenders and white-collar criminals.”

For a decade, they have built a movement to the left of McGovern and Dukakis while the public was sleeping. To the extent that the public heard about this agenda, they figured it was for low-level offenders and some overcriminalized white-collar offense. Now it is clear that the faux conservative groups are all about dismantling the already weak system to deter the worst violent criminals, including the “animals” for whom Trump wanted the death penalty. This is the number-one agenda item of Soros, and its end game is to abolish prisons.

They had one shot to fire before waking up the public, and they missed most of their target. Now, it’s time to have a true comprehensive debate and discussion on all aspects of criminal justice while everyone is watching. This is a discussion I embrace and will rigorously pursue in the coming year.

As Ed Meese said, “Congress needs to worry less about producing a compromise, politically expedient criminal justice reform bill. … Only through substantive hearings with experts, particularly those from law enforcement … might our lawmakers and the public understand how this bill will impact both convicted felons and an apprehensive citizenry.” (For more from the author of “Opponents of the Cotton Amendment to ‘Prison Reform’ Bill Exposed the Whole Lie” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shocker: The Woman Who Tried to Pass Herself off as Native American Isn’t Doing Well With Progressives

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 2020 Democratic field is going to be an epic clown show. Everyone is jumping in—and it’s going to be a delicious festival of who can out-crazy the other. It’s going to be a contest for who can say is more for open borders, higher taxes, more regulations, and who is the most woke. It’s going to be a cacophony of insanity. And sadly, it seems the usual suspects are not rising to the top. Beto O’Rourke is a work in progress, but no doubt you’ll see his figures rise, unless he just totally drops the ball. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has long been a prod member for the far left wing of the Democratic Party. The problem is that her stock took a hit when she revealed that she was, indeed, a white woman. For years, she’s peddled this racial hoax that she was part of the Cherokee nation. She recently released a DNA test showing that she’s…1/1024thNative America. By these standards, I’m also a Native American…and I have zero blood ties. Warren finally admitted she was just a white womanat a recent commencement address at Morgan State. The truth will set ye free, but the fact remains is that Warren thought she could culturally appropriate the Cherokee Nation and get away with it because she was a liberal. She committed one of the cardinal sins of American liberalism, and progressives appear to be moving on from her (via Politico): . . .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has seen her stock slide among the group‘s members, according to the poll released Tuesday and obtained first by POLITICO. The Massachusetts senator, whose success in similar polling four years ago propelled DFA to help organize a massive but ultimately unsuccessful effort to draft her into the 2016 presidential campaign — was running fourth.

(Read more from “Shocker: The Woman Who Tried to Pass Herself off as Native American Isn’t Doing Well With Progressives” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pittsburgh Moves To Eviscerate Second Amendment Rights

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Well, this was expected. After the horrible shooting at Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh last October, the city is now moving to ban assault-style rifles, ban certain types of ammunition, and allow courts to ban gun ownership for people who are deemed dangerous. The city has suffered a terrible tragedy when vicious anti-Semite Robert Gregory Bowers shot and killed 11 people. He wounded six others, including four police officers. Police shot bowers after a gunfight. He eventually surrendered to police. Bowers deserves everything he gets in the court of law.

Yet, as with most reactions to these tragedies by liberal America, it’s knee-jerk. All three proposals represent a dangerous encroachment on constitutional rights. The Steel City is following Boulder, Colorado, which also banned so-called assault weapons (i.e. AR-15s) within the city limits. There is a grandfather clause, however, permitting current owners who had already owned these rifles to keep them as long as they receive a certificate by the local sheriff’s office. It’s not a registry, but it sure sounds like a rest run for one.

The only provision that could prevent future tragedies is the law that would permit authorities to ban gun ownership to individual deemed dangerous, but what are the criteria? This law, along with the many being proposed, is something that both sides could come together on to debate, especially if the language and protocols were thoroughly hashed to prevent abuse. On paper, it’s common sense—and it could serve the public interest, but loose phrasing is highly subjective. Laws like these should be a long, tedious, and hyper-analytical process to avid government denying Americans’ constitutional rights to gun ownership, which you know happens in these deep-blue corners of America.

The Pittsburgh proposals are arguably unconstitutional and local gun rights groups have also noted Pennsylvania state law barring localities from enacting stricter gun control laws than those already on the statewide books. (Read more from “Pittsburgh Moves to Eviscerate Second Amendment Rights” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George Soros Named Financial Times’ ‘Person of the Year’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Liberal megadonor George Soros on Thursday was honored by the Financial Times by being named the publication’s 2018 “Person of the Year.”

“The Financial Times’s choice of Person of the Year is usually a reflection of their achievements,” the editorial board of the London-based newspaper wrote Wednesday. “In the case of Mr. Soros this year, his selection is also about the values he represents.”

Soros, 88, is best known for his work with his grant-giving network, Open Society Foundations. However, the billionaire hedge-fund-manager-turned-philanthropist’s influence in Democratic politics has made him a divisive figure on the Right.

Soros, who was among the liberal targets who were mailed a pipe bomb in October, was born in Hungary in 1930 to a Jewish family. He and his family survived Nazi occupation “by securing false identity papers, concealing their backgrounds, and helping others do the same,” according to his website. (Read more from “George Soros Named Financial Times’ ‘Person of the Year'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Did Michael Cohen Plead Guilty to Campaign Finance Crimes That Aren’t Campaign Finance Crimes?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Wednesday, a district court judge in Manhattan accepted Michael Cohen’s guilty plea to political crimes and sentenced him to three years in the American gulag. But if the two campaign finance crimes to which he pleaded guilty are not really crimes, why did he plead guilty to them? And what precedents does this case establish that can be used against political enemies in the future?

On Monday, the president tweeted that the Democrats are shifting their focus from Russian collusion “to a simple private transaction, wrongly call[ing] it a campaign contribution.”

Then, on Thursday morning, Trump refined his messages: “Cohen was guilty on many charges unrelated to me, but he plead [sic] to two campaign charges which were not criminal[.]”

As usual, either Trump is right or he’s crazy. Did Cohen plead guilty to a non-crime? The liberal media and law professors automatically assume anyone who would work with Trump is guilty, even referring to the president as an “unindicted coconspirator.” But their conclusions are based more on wishful thinking than on critical analysis of federal election law.

Cohen, as President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, has pleaded guilty to two campaign finance violations, claiming he did so at the direction of Donald Trump. Assuming that the facts of what Cohen has admitted to are true, do they actually constitute a violation of federal campaign finance law? Professor Laurence Tribe thinks so, having sacrificed his critical thinking when he tweeted:

WOW: The Dec 7 filing in SDNY on Michael Cohen’s sentencing charges that President Trump (aka “Individual 1”) directed a criminal conspiracy with his attorney Cohen to violate the federal election laws in order to increase his odds of winning the presidency by deceiving voters.

Some Trump-supporters argue that Trump did not know that the action he supposedly directed Cohen to take was a federal crime, therefore he himself cannot be convicted because he did not possess the requisite mental state for a campaign finance crime – “knowingly and willfully.” But few have shown the desire or spent the time to take a critical, objective look at federal election law to see how it applies to Cohen’s actions.

The campaign finance violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty relate to two payments from Cohen to a tabloid to suppress two news stories about allegations of infidelity by Donald Trump. For one payment Cohen made, he was reimbursed by the Trump Organization, and that is the basis for the allegation of an illegal corporate contribution. Cohen was not reimbursed for the other payment, and that is the basis for the allegation of an excessive personal campaign contribution.

Both of these illegal contributions charges depend on the Federal Election Campaign Act’s technical definition of a “contribution.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office never explained how expenditures made to suppress news stories meet the definition of a “contribution.” It was just assumed.

The FECA defines a “contribution” as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING any election for Federal office” (52 USC §30101[8][A][i]). Similarly, an “expenditure” is “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING any election for Federal office” (52 USC §30101[9][A][i]). Obviously, the money used to make the two payments meet the first half of these definitions. And if an “expenditure” is made at the direction of a candidate, then it is treated as a “contribution.”

The trickier question is whether the payments were made “for the purposes of influencing” the presidential election. The publication of the stories of the type that Cohen paid to suppress might have an influence on the election. But the payment was for not publishing the stories.

It is generally understood that the campaign finance laws were designed to regulate money being spent to affect federal elections – including ads and organizing designed to encourage voter support for a certain election. It has not been generally understood to apply to money that is spent not to influence public communication. Indeed, not publishing a story cannot logically be “for the purpose of influencing” an election. Instead, it does not influence an election. (It’s sort of like a “Schrödinger’s campaign expenditure” – both influencing and not influencing an election at the same time.)

The irony in this case is that if the stories that Cohen paid for had been published – i.e., had actually influenced the election – there would have been no required reporting to the FEC before the election. The media exemption protects such publication from the purview of federal campaign finance law. Only not publishing it, according to the government’s theory, converts the payment into a campaign contribution. The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that it had reached a non-prosecution agreement with the National Enquirer, so every media outlet – including Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post – is now on notice that choosing not to publish information that could influence an election should be considered a campaign contribution, unprotected by the media exemption.

Cohen was never charged with making an actual “contribution,” as defined by law. Instead, as to the first payment, he was charged with making it for the “principal purpose … to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election” (Cohen Information, para. 30).

With respect to Woman-2, the charging document says the opposite: “Cohen … caused and made payments … in order to influence the 2016 presidential election” (para. 35). The reasoning is the same. The payment to suppress the story about Woman-2 was made to prevent it from influencing the election.

When the FECA was enacted, the Supreme Court had to grapple with the limits that the First Amendment imposes on the FECA, including on the definition of “expenditure.” In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court determined that there had to be some limits placed on what could be considered “for the purposes of influencing” an election and thus determined it could be applied only to electoral statements that urged voters to expressly advocate for or against a candidate. If statements did not have those words of express advocacy – clear statements of support or opposition to named candidates – then they cannot be considered expenditures. Not publishing a story has no content – it cannot contain express advocacy – and thus cannot be an expenditure subject to the FECA.

Furthermore, no federal court has ruled that not influencing an election constitutes influencing an election. The federal government tried that theory once before, when Senator John Edwards had help supporting his mistress to keep his affair quiet and prevent it from hurting his political aspirations. He was charged with four campaign finance violations but was acquitted on one charge, and the other charges were later dropped. Thus, this creative legal theory by the prosecutors has never previously been successfully used against anyone during FECA’s 45-plus years in existence.

Finally, there is also a question about whether the so-called contributions to which Cohen pleaded guilty could have been paid for by the Trump Campaign. Election law expert Mark Fitzgibbons explains that hush payments are not legitimate campaign expenditures and would have been prohibited as “personal use” – a prohibited use of campaign funds. (See “Fitzgibbons: Trump’s Alleged Payment to Stormy Daniels Was Perfectly Legal.”) Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith agrees.

Assuming that Cohen’s attorneys are not unaware of these facts, why would they allow Cohen to plead? Cohen probably took the plea bargain because he was threatened with a long prison sentence and financial impoverishment on the many financial and tax charges unrelated to any dealings with President Trump. On Wednesday, Cohen was sentenced to three years, which was a pittance compared to the likely threatened decades of imprisonment.

Even after he leaves office, prosecutors would never charge Trump, because then they would be forced to defend their bizarre interpretation of federal campaign finance law. It would likely be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which tends to interpret the criminal portions of election law more strictly than its civil provisions. But for now, the TV commentators who would not know the FEC from the FCC will continue to push the narrative that Trump is an “unindicted co-conspirator,” so the charge would hang over Trump’s head like a dark cloud. Federal courts are barred from accepting pleas to non-crimes. This plea should have been rejected, but it wasn’t, which is unfortunate for everyone – except the NeverTrumps.

Jeremiah Morgan practices constitutional law and election, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C., Vienna, Virginia. E-mail [email protected], visit www.lawandfreedom.com, or follow www.Twitter.com/JeremiahMorgan.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Polar Vortex to Bring Bone-Chilling Cold to Much of Nation This Winter, Scientists Warn

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .North Carolina, which doesn’t see much snow, got 20 inches last week, leaving two dead and thousands without power. While the Old Farmer’s Almanac offers some good news in a forecast predicting an El Niño will bring warmer temperatures across most of North America this winter, some scientists are saying just the opposite. . .

Judah Cohen, a researcher from Atmospheric and Environmental Research, says a polar vortex will blast across the East Coast later this month and into January, bringing lots of snow and bone-chilling temperatures, The Washington Post reported.

A polar vortex happens when the stratosphere, the upper part of Earth’s atmosphere, warms up suddenly. That brings strong winds, which then splits the vortex, drawing cold air from the north into the south.

“When the vortex, perched some 60,000 feet high in the atmosphere, is stable, winter conditions over the United States and Europe tend to be rather ordinary. Winter is still winter, with the normal mix of storms, cold snaps and thaws,” the Post writes. “But when the vortex is disrupted, an ordinary winter can suddenly turn severe and memorable for an extended duration. ‘[It] can affect the entire winter,’ Cohen said in an interview.”

(Read more from “Polar Vortex to Bring Bone-Chilling Cold to Much of Nation This Winter, Scientists Warn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White House Going Wobbly on Border Wall Shutdown? Trump Needs to Keep His Promise

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday morning on Fox News, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders gave President Donald Trump a way to save face should he cave to Democrats on funding for a border wall.

Democrats have so far refused the president’s demands for $5 billion in wall funding, a compromise from the $25 billion needed to complete construction of wall on the southern border. Congress must pass a spending bill by midnight Friday to keep the government fully operational and Democrats have only agreed to fund $1.6 billion as part of a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels.

Sanders suggested that if Congress refuses to appropriate the full $5 billion, the president can look elsewhere for those funds and sign a bill that will keep the government open.

“We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion that we will work with Congress if they will make sure that we get a bill passed that provides not just the funding for the wall, but there is a piece of legislation that’s been pushed around that Democrats voted 26-5 out of committee that provides roughly $26 billion in border security, including $1.6 billion for the wall,” Sanders said. “That’s something that we would be able to support as long as we can couple that with other funding resources that help us get to the $5 billion.”

She did not get specific about those “funding resources.” In truth, the administration’s ability to move money around is limited without congressional approval, which Trump will be hard pressed to receive once the Democrats assume control of the House of Representatives.

Yet Sanders said the president is committed to border security and does not want to shut the government down.

“We don’t want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border from illegal immigration, from drugs coming into this country, and make sure we know who’s coming and why they’re coming, and that’s what the president is focused on,” Sanders added later.

That statement contradicts President Trump, who last week proclaimed he would be “proud” to shut down the government for border security. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republican leaders have been urging the president to avoid a government shutdown. Possibly, Trump is acquiescing to the demands of Republican congressional leaders.

Here’s the deal: If Trump signs a spending bill without the full downpayment on wall funding to avoid a government shutdown, he breaks repeated promises to fight for border security but he’ll blame the failure on Democrats and claim his administration is working around Congress. Going this route likely means no wall funding before the 202o election. If Trump keeps his promise, the government will shut down this weekend and Republicans and Democrats will continue negotiations as the media hysterically reports on the government being “shut down” while in reality less than 10% of the government stops working.

To score a win Trump and the GOP need to make a unified argument for border security. Trump should deliver an address to the nation on the hundreds of thousands of criminal convictions of illegal immigrants made in FY2018 and on the illicit drug crisis fueled by international drug cartels taking advantage of our weak borders. Trump ought to demonstrate how a wall works and how Democrats are threatening public safety by refusing to fund the wall. Trump should follow through with the shutdown threat and spend every single day of the shutdown single-mindedly hammering the Democrats until they either give in or keep the government closed indefinitely.

Short of this strategy, what exactly will change in the next two years? A Democratic House will not approve wall funding, or any other of Trump’s priorities. If the case is made to the American people that Republicans should be in control of the House again and Trump is reelected with a GOP majority in 2020, how will anything be different from the past two years of GOP control with no wall funding? Trump has repeatedly given in to demands from Congress to keep the government open and so far he has nothing to show for it. Enough is enough.

If Trump wants the wall, it’s shutdown or bust. If he’s unwilling to fight, he should tell the American people he can’t win and let them find someone else who will. (For more from the author of “White House Going Wobbly on Border Wall Shutdown? Trump Needs to Keep His Promise” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.