BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi

The mainstream media has been breathlessly running headlines like this one from The Chicago Times, “Trump signed improper charity check supporting Florida attorney general,” alleging that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bribed Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (another Republican) in order to avoid prosecution. For three years now, zealous reporters have tried to find a smoking gun revealing impropriety in Trump’s campaign donation.

Now The New York Times says there’s almost certainly no smoking gun to find.

A Matter of Days

The US Supreme Court recently held in the landmark public corruption case, McDonnell v. U.S., that bribery requires that the person giving the donation get something for it. According to the Federal Code (18 U.S. Code § 201), not only must something of value have been offered to a public official, but it must be shown to have influenced that public official’s behavior for the contributor’s benefit.

The train of events began when several attorneys general filed complaints against Trump a few years ago, claiming that he fraudulently marketed Trump University’s real estate and wealth-building seminars. On September 13, 2013, a Florida newspaper published the story that Bondi’s office was investigating Trump and might join the other attorneys general in a suit.

Four days after that, Bondi’s PAC received $25,000 from Trump. (Several months later, Trump threw a $3,000 a plate fundraiser for her at Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and she’s become a prominent supporter.)

Complaints were filed with local authorities and the FBI’s public corruption unit alleging bribery to stop Bondi’s office from investigating him too. But after Bondi’s office released 8,000 documents in response to a public records request, even The New York Times admitted that the check had been written and signed four days before the story broke in the media that Bondi’s office was considering investigating Trump University.

Additionally, the Times reports about Trump’s donations in Florida that “he has contributed at least $375,000 to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own.” Bondi said she personally solicited the donation from Trump, who had already contributed $500 to her campaign in July.

The Times isn’t giving Trump a clean bill of health, however. The press had reported in 2010 that “the attorneys general of Florida and Texas had gotten complaints from Trump University students. “His contribution, therefore, could have been a pre-emptive investment to discourage Ms. Bondi from joining the New York case.”

No Evidence of Bribery

In the article , the Times said it could find no evidence in the released records that Bondi herself even was aware of the initial review being done by her office. This was not unusual. Most of the complaints came to her predecessor, who said he had not known about them, the Times reported, as did his two top deputies and others in the consumer protection division.

In fact, the chief of the consumer protection section wrote in an internal email in 2011 that the office was holding off on any investigation of Trump University. When Mark Hamilton, a lawyer in the consumer protection division, heard about the media outcry in 2013, he advised the office that any lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General against Trump University would apply to Floridians, so there was no need for the Florida AG to duplicate the work.

Now, Trump did make a mistake in writing the check from his charitable organization, not his personal account, which he blamed on a staff clerical error, and reimbursed his charity with $25,000 in personal funds. He also paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS over the mistake.

Mac Stipanovich, who the Times describes as “a longtime Florida Republican strategist and lobbyist who disdains Mr. Trump and has never worked with Ms. Bondi,” observed, “The optics are terrible even though there is not a shred of evidence that Pam Bondi solicited a bribe or that Donald Trump provided one.”

Although the Times has (mostly) cleared Trump, most of the rest of the mainstream news outlets are still claiming he behaved improperly and they are exaggerating the seriousness of the check confusion. Fortunately for Trump, the top newspaper in the country, which is left-leaning, has told a different story. (For more from the author of “BOMBSHELL: The New York Times Dispels 3-Year-Long Accusation That Trump Bribed Fla. AG Bondi” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is George H.W. Bush Planning to Vote for Hillary Clinton?

Former President George H.W. Bush, a veteran Republican, plans to cast his ballot for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Election Day, according to a daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

According to several reports, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, a Democrat, posted a photo to her private Facebook account Monday of her shaking hands with the former commander in chief, along with the caption, “The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”

Bush, 92, has remained largely silent on the presidential election since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for president, beating his son, Jeb Bush, and several other competitors in a bruising primary battle.

In a phone interview with Politico, Townsend confirmed the report, telling the outlet she met with the elder Bush in Maine earlier Monday, where she said he revealed his choice for president.

“That’s what he said,” Townsend, who served as Maryland’s lieutenant governor for eight years, told Politico. (Read more from “Is George H.W. Bush Planning to Vote for Hillary Clinton?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Suspect in New York, New Jersey Bombings Charged With Shooting Officer, Awaits Federal Charges

The Afghan immigrant who authorities believe planted bombs in New Jersey and New York this weekend was captured Monday after a dramatic gun battle with police that sparked when officers found him sleeping in the doorway of a bar.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28, was charged late Monday in Union County with five counts of attempted murder of a police officer. He was being held on $5.2 million bail and remained at a hospital. It wasn’t known if Rahami had an attorney, as messages left with phone numbers listed for family members by the Associated Press weren’t returned. Federal charges in the bombings have yet to be filed.

Rahami is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was identified as the primary person of interest in the Saturday night blast in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood, an explosion in New Jersey’s Seaside Park on Saturday morning and a foiled bomb attack Sunday night near a train station in Elizabeth, NJ.

The hunt for the alleged bomber turned out to be brief. A bar owner in Linden, NJ spotted a man sleeping in his doorway Monday morning and called police. An officer confronted the man around 10:45 a.m., and soon recognized the person as Rahami, officials said. Rahami pulled out a gun and shot the officer, identified by the Linden mayor’s office as Angel Padilla, in the abdomen. Padilla was wearing a bulletproof vest.

A second police officer, identified as Investigator Pete Hammer, had a bullet graze his head. Both officers were expected to be okay. (Read more from “Suspect in New York, New Jersey Bombings Charged With Shooting Officer, Awaits Federal Charges” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Wrongly Granted Citizenship to Hundreds Facing Deportation

More than 800 illegal immigrants from countries of concern who were set for deportation were mistakenly granted U.S. citizenship because the Department of Homeland Security didn’t have their fingerprints on file, according to an internal audit released Monday.

The Homeland Security Department’s inspector general found the immigrants used different names or birthdates to apply for citizenship with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration. In the case of 858 immigrants from “special interest countries or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud,” the discrepancies weren’t caught because their fingerprints were missing from government databases.

A few even managed to get aviation or transportation worker credentials, though they were later revoked. One became a law enforcement officer.

The findings were released, incidentally, as authorities were investigating a string of weekend attacks, allegedly connected to foreign-born suspects.

The inspector general report could further fuel warnings about immigration security. The report warned that when immigrants become naturalized, “these individuals retain many of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, including serving in law enforcement, obtaining a security clearance, and sponsoring other aliens’ entry into the United States.” (Read more from “Feds Wrongly Granted Citizenship to Hundreds Facing Deportation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Minor Candidates: The Libertarian Gary Johnson

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate refers to himself as a classical liberal — but even then, he’s not a typical classical liberal. Gary Johnson is known for provocative statements, such as calling Social Security a ponzi (pyramid) scheme, but also for not knowing what Aleppo is. He favors cutting taxes and regulation and legalizing marijuana — and indeed ran a company called Cannabis Sativa Inc. He is also the only presidential candidate ever to have climbed Mt. Everest.

All that may help explain how as a Republican he twice got elected governor of New Mexico, a light blue state that has voted Democratic in five of the last six presidential elections.

His running mate did the same. Former Massachusetts Republican governor Bill Weld is known for being a very moderate Republican, fiscally conservative but pro-choice — he even opposes banning partial-birth abortion — and pro-gay marriage.

A successful businessman, Johnson started a mechanical contracting company, Big J Enterprises, and turned it into one of New Mexico’s leading construction companies worth millions. He is a triathlete and lives in a home he built himself in Taos, New Mexico. He has climbed the tallest mountains on all seven continents. A widower, he is currently engaged to a real estate agent he met at a bike race.

Johnson’s Record

As a two-term governor — he was elected in 1994 and by a bigger margin in 1998 — Johnson’s record stood out for reducing the size of government. He had run on the slogan “People Before Politics” and for him that meant reducing the size of state government. After assuming office, he halted the 10 percent annual growth in the budget and eliminated 1,200 state employee jobs. He never raised taxes and instead cut them 14 times.

Former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett described Johnson’s style this way: “Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with.”

Some of his positions are the same as or close to mainstream Republican positions. (The Johnson/Weld platform can be found here.) He supports the FairTax and if elected president would abolish the Federal Reserve. As governor he tried (unsuccessfully) to implement school vouchers statewide.

However, many of Johnson’s other positions would not resonate well with Republicans.His campaign website claims that “Legalizing and regulating marijuana will save lives and make our communities safer by eliminating crime and creating an industry that can legitimately participate in America’s economy.” In addition to his support for legalizing marijuana use, he supports same-sex marriage, and believes federal law should prohibit businesses from refusing service for same-sex weddings. He boasts of promoting “marriage equality” before any of the Democrats.

Abortion, God, and the Wall

He says that abortion is a woman’s personal choice and should not be limited by the government, although as governor he supported efforts to ban late-term abortions and his campaign website says he “believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.” The website summarizes his view as “Appreciate Life. Respect Choice. Stay Out of Personal Decisions.” He had been more definite in a 2012 interview, declaring “I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose.”

Johnson does not consult God for advice in politics and does not believe religion has any role in politics. In the 2012 interview, he said “I don’t seek the counsel of God. God doesn’t speak to me on what I should or shouldn’t do.” He hasn’t gone to church since being confirmed in the Lutheran church.

Johnson’s views of foreign policy are more similar to Green candidate Jill Stein’s than to either of the major candidates, condemning most foreign involvements as “our meddling in the affairs of others.” This has hurt the United States much more than it has helped, he says. He vows to cut the military’s budget by 43 percent. He does not believe Iran is a threat, and would intervene to stop Israel from attacking Iran.

Rejecting one of Donald Trump’s signature policies, Johnson would not build a wall between the U.S. border and Mexico. Instead, he wants to make entering the country legally “simpler and more efficient” and to encourage immigrants to “assimilate with our diverse society.”

Johnson’s Campaigns

He ran for president in 2012, first as a Republican but then switched to the Libertarian party and got that party’s nomination. He received .99 percent of the vote (almost 1.3 million votes) in the general election, appearing on 48 state ballots. While running as a Republican candidate, he participated in one of GOP primary debates and made the memorable statement, “My next-door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this administration.”

When asked in 2014 whether he would run as a Republican or Libertarian for president in 2016, he responded, “I would love running as a Libertarian because I would have the least amount of explaining to do.” (For more from the author of “The Minor Candidates: The Libertarian Gary Johnson” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Obama Continues to Divide Americans

It is no secret that America is deeply divided today, due in no small part to the words and actions of our president. Unfortunately, rather than drawing us together as we approach the 2016 elections, President Obama continues to divide us.

First, there was his appeal to African Americans, insinuating that if they didn’t get out and vote (meaning for Hillary Clinton) it would be a personal insult to him and a blemish on his legacy.

Next, there was his claim that the only reason Americans would not vote for Hillary was that they were sexist, not wanting a woman to lead the country, a woman who, in his eyes, was infinitely more qualified to be president than Donald Trump.

As reported by the UK’s Independent, “During an impassioned speech to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, an organisation that carries out research on issues affecting African-Americans, Mr Obama said it would be an ‘insult to his legacy’ if the black community voted for Donald Trump — or refrained from voting at all — in the upcoming election.”

The president said, “I will consider it a personal insult — an insult to my legacy — if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election.

“You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote.”

So, black Americans who choose not to vote because they cannot, in good conscience, back either candidate, or worse still, black Americans who have had it with Democratic policies and feel that Trump is their better choice, are personally insulting the president.

And what about the many black Americans who are disillusioned with the president himself? Perhaps they’re not thinking about a sendoff. Perhaps they’re thinking about change. And perhaps the insult is in the president’s comments, as if this is all about race, not policy, as if Americans need to vote based on skin color rather than character and policy. How utterly divisive.

Viewed in that light, President Obama’s comments are borderline racist (or even blatantly racist).

Shades of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” category!

As for dividing on gender lines, Breitbart reports that, “President Barack Obama suggested at a New York fundraiser that American society is sexist, which is why Hillary Clinton is struggling to beat Donald Trump in the polls.”

He said, “There’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president — that we as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women. And it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly, and that expresses itself in all sorts of ways.”

And in the president’s judgment, while the election looks to be close, it ought not be, since Hillary is so much more qualified than Trump: “She’s been in the room where it happens, repeatedly. And her judgment has been unerring, and she has been disciplined, and she has been extraordinarily effective in every job that she’s had.”

Once again, this is a divisive tactic and a slam on the American people. Of course there are abundant reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of course there are abundant reasons to distrust her integrity, to question her honesty, to lack confidence in her ability to lead — and none of this has anything to do with her being a woman. It has to do with who she is (or is perceived to be) as a politician, as a leader, as a human being.

We could just as easily argue that the reason people hate Trump is because he’s a man. After all, look at all the deals he has made! Why would anyone vote against him unless they were sexist? That would be an equally ridiculous argument, yet it is an argument (in reverse) that the president is making.

And does President Obama really believe that if we had the equivalent of a Margaret Thatcher running against the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter that Americans would not overwhelmingly vote for Thatcher just as they voted for Reagan?

The reality is that many Americans of all colors and sexes have strong reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton (or even to sit out the presidential election entirely). It is a terrible shame that our president chooses to make this a matter of race and sex.

He is, sadly, proving to be divisive to the end. (For more from the author of “President Obama Continues to Divide Americans” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pandering in a Pantsuit: Clinton Promises Socialism to Millennials

Hillary Clinton doubled down on socialism and the pandering to special snowflakes in her speech at Temple University in Philadelphia, Monday.

Speaking to an audience mostly comprised of millennials, the Democratic presidential candidate lauded their generation as “the most inclusive, progressive, and entrepreneurial generation we’ve ever seen.”

As such, she blasted her Republican opponent Donald Trump as a racist hate-monger and circus-like act. Taking a shot at Trump’s recent statement on birtherism, Clinton said, “This election isn’t a reality TV show. It shouldn’t be about birth certificates, or name-calling, or stunts to get on the cable news.”

“The next 50 days will shape the next 50 years,” she reminded the audience. “We can’t get distracted when the media or my opponent turns this election into a circus.”

Clinton then proposed a litany of socialist policies to uproarious applause from her college-age audience.

Among her promises were connecting every household to broadband internet by 2020, investing in half a billion solar panels and “green jobs,” and, of course, she touted a plan she developed with Bernie Sanders to make “public college tuition free for working families and debt-free for everyone.”

The Democratic nominee also pledged to institute a “living wage”; ensure that “affordable quality healthcare” was a right for every man, woman, and child in America; guarantee equal pay for women; and also to secure paid leave for parents.

Clinton noted that though she does not share her former rival Sanders’ appeal to millennial voters, she — in her telling — remains a vastly superior candidate to Donald Trump.

“I do spend a lot of time on the details of policy,” she said, “like the precise rate of your student loan right down to the decimal!”

Clinton accused Trump of promoting hate speech, and of inciting “hatred and violence unlike anything we have seen before.”

“[Trump] led the birther movement to delegitimize our first black president … we have to stand up to this hate, we cannot let it go on,” she said to loud cheers and applause from the safe-space sensitive students.

Clinton concluded her remarks by galvanizing her young audience to “register everyone you know” to vote. According to the Democratic candidate, millennials have a responsibility to “reject prejudice and paranoia” in this election. (For more from the author of “Pandering in a Pantsuit: Clinton Promises Socialism to Millennials” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite Weekend Terror Attacks, Obama Wants to Increase Syrian Refugee Resettlement

With the nation reeling from three terrorist attacks this weekend in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, President Obama will host a “Leaders’ Summit on Refugees” Tuesday at the United Nations. In June, the White House gave a preview of what Obama plans to ask for:

“[A]t least a 30 percent increase in financing for global appeals and international humanitarian organizations; to double the global number of resettled refugees and those afforded other legal channels of admission; and to increase the number of refugees worldwide in school by one million, and the number of refugees granted the legal right to work by one million.”

At the refugee summit on Monday — the U.N. General Assembly’s first-ever summit on “Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants” — the Associated Press reports, “[A]t least 45 countries are expected to make pledges that are in line with U.S. goals of increasing humanitarian aid by $3 billion, doubling resettlement and increasing access to education for 1 million youngsters and access to employment for another million of the displaced.”

Just last week, the Obama administration proposed to increase the number of refugees — particularly from Syria — into the United States next fiscal year, CNSNews.com reported.

The administration is set to surpass its target number for Syrian refugees this year by about 3,000, for a total of about 13,000 refugees from Syria. More than 98 percent of the Syrian refugees let into the United States this year are Sunni Muslim, while the massively underrepresented Christian community makes up just 0.4 percent. (For more from the author of “Despite Weekend Terror Attacks, Obama Wants to Increase Syrian Refugee Resettlement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7 Weeks Before Election, Republicans Help Advance Another Obama Judicial Nominee

As President Barack Obama’s time in office nears its end, the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced another one of his judicial nominees toward a lifetime post. She may not get to the finish line, though.

While the Senate has entered that part of the political calendar when confirmations traditionally halt, the Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted 13-7 to advance the nomination of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The cadence of judicial nominations customarily follows what’s known as the Thurmond-Leahy rule. The rule, a longstanding gentleman’s agreement among senators, prohibits confirmations of new judgeships in the months before a presidential election.

Even though Koh has advanced out of committee, it’s not clear the Californian will receive a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. Republicans could be sending the nomination out of committee halfheartedly, in an effort to appease the left while running out the clock before the Nov. 8 elections.

Still, Democrats seem intent on getting Koh confirmed regardless of the Thurmond rule.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has shepherded Koh’s nomination from the beginning. Before Thursday’s vote, the California senator heralded the judge as “a nominee with very strong, impeccable credentials, and a distinguished track record.”

But when a Republican was last in the White House, Democrats demanded observation of the Thurmond rule. Insisting the rule was apolitical, they pushed to apply it before both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

“Not reflecting on any single judicial nominee or that person’s qualifications,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in October of 2004, “it has been a practice and tradition in the Senate that in a presidential election year, we suspend the approval of federal judges after the nominating convention of a major party.”

This year’s Republican National Convention ended July 21.

Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted to advance Koh’s nomination. Three Republicans joined them: Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

While Koh’s nomination is out of committee, she is not guaranteed a confirmation vote on the floor before the next president enters the White House on Jan. 20.

Before voting for Koh, Grassley made clear his support was only to “move her nomination out of this committee” and was without “any commitment about a floor vote.”

“Passing out of committee is only a first step,” a GOP Senate aide said of Koh’s prospects for confirmation, telling The Daily Signal that “it remains to be seen what, if anything, will happen.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a committee member who opposed the nomination, predicted a floor vote isn’t on the horizon.

“I don’t think we will see any more [judicial] confirmations this fall, certainly not before recess,” Sessions told The Daily Signal. “That’s just the way it’s always been. We will let the election move forward, and then confirmations will move depending on the outcome.”

Koh, the first federal district judge of Korean descent, is the fourth of Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals still awaiting a confirmation vote in the Senate.

The committee advanced another nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Donald Schott, by a nearly identical 13-7 vote June 16. Like Koh, he has not been added to the Senate’s calendar for a vote.

If confirmed, Koh would be another feather in Obama’s already-bristling judicial cap. In almost eight years, Obama has transformed the federal judiciary, appointing two Supreme Court justices, 55 appeals court judges, and 268 district court judges.

But after a bruising confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, it would be difficult for Koh to add her name to that list. The judge’s judicial philosophy opened her up to broadsides from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., as well as Grassley.

While attending Harvard Law School, Koh wrote in its Women’s Law Journal that “minority judges still need to maintain the disguise of ‘objectivity’” in order to be taken seriously in the legal world.

“Yes, [a minority judge] is going to identify with [minorities’] experiences,” Koh wrote in 1991, “but she can’t ‘admit’ this. We’ve got to get more clever and say, look, we’re just as neutral as any 60-year-old white man.”

Pushed by Grassley for an explanation of that statement, Koh, 48, said she no longer subscribes to those views and that her experience after law school taught her that judges “must be fair and impartial to all parties in all cases.”

“I made that statement as a first-year law student 26 years ago,” she said. “I completely disagree with it.”.

After graduating law school in 1993, Koh worked as a public prosecutor and in private practice before Obama appointed her in 2010 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Senate confirmed her unanimously for that post.

Koh’s track record could prove a stumbling block, though.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, opposed Koh’s nomination because of her decision in a 2015 case involving the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. She ruled that the government must get a warrant before collecting data generated by mobile devices.

Ahead of the committee’s vote, Cornyn criticized her decision as “an example of judicial activism” that contradicted established law.

“Judges should not be policymakers,” Cornyn said, “substituting their views for those of the elected representatives of the American people—that would be Congress—and the written Constitution.” (For more from the author of “7 Weeks Before Election, Republicans Help Advance Another Obama Judicial Nominee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Was the First ‘Birther’?

Donald Trump was wise not to take the advice of some of his staff and political allies by apologizing to Barack Obama for questioning his eligibility for the presidency and, yes, even whether he was born in the U.S.

Trump was hardly the first “birther.” Neither was I. Nor was my colleague Jerome Corsi. And neither was Hillary Clinton.

That honor belongs to one person and one person alone – Barack Obama.

Obama went to extreme lengths to conceal his past. And, indeed, if he was born in the U.S. and was eligible to serve as president, he certainly did his best to create the mystery that led to the question being asked.

Years earlier, he billed himself as having been born in Kenya. (Read more from “Who Was the First ‘Birther’?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.