In 2018 GOP Primaries, Anti-Establishment Means Pro-Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s a popular meme in conservative political Twitter: “Establishment Always Wins.” Observing the results of recent primary elections, including Tuesday’s contests in eight states, it is apparent that at this moment, the meme is true and the Republican establishment is prevailing over more conservative candidates.

So far in the 2018 primary cycle, only one incumbent House Republican with a moderate voting record has been defeated by a conservative primary challenger. Most GOP incumbents, even the ones who voted for atrocious pieces of legislation like the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, are sailing through Republican primaries unscathed. The pattern held Tuesday night, as no incumbent Republican was defeated in a primary — though Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., was forced into a runoff election because she did not win 50 percent of the vote in her first-place finish.

Conservatives are faring slightly better in open primaries, but only slightly. The Texas delegation is poised to shift to the right, as House Freedom Caucus-friendly candidates like Chip Roy have won Republican primaries in safe districts where more moderate Republicans are retiring. Last night, Freedom Caucus-endorsed candidate state Rep. Yvette Herrell won her primary in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. But in New Jersey, conservative Steve Lonegan lost to self-described “moderate” John McCann. In past primaries this year, conservatives lost in two open House seats in Indiana, two open seats in Ohio, and the open seat in West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District vacated by Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va. (F – Liberty Score® ).

There is, sadly, nothing like a Tea Party wave to knock out incumbent Republicans with conservative challengers in 2018 — a fact that may seem surprising after President Donald Trump’s dominating anti-establishment 2016 presidential campaign. Where are the voters who decided to block establishment figures like Jeb Bush from the 2016 GOP nomination?

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told the New York Times his theory is that “people are starting to realize that the anti-establishment thing is kind of a luxury we can’t afford right now.” However, Congress’ abysmal approval rating and the prevalence of Republicans running on Trump’s “drain the swamp” message seems to show voters are as fed up as ever with the Washington status quo. So why are Republican incumbents winning primaries when they are a part of this failing status quo? Counterintuitively, it’s because Donald Trump is the president.

Trump, as president, is the de facto head of the Republican Party. Whenever he uses his bully pulpit to declare that his administration wants to drain the swamp, the perception he creates among Republican voters is that the whole party is trying to drain the swamp. In politics, perception is reality. If a Republican running for Congress declares support for the president (virtually all of them have), then the perception among voters is that this candidate wants to drain the swamp.

In this way, in Republican primary contests in 2018, voters are identifying the anti-establishment candidates as the candidates who are most pro-Trump or the ones Trump supports.

Tuesday’s election results bear this out. The one Republican incumbent in trouble, Roby, is facing backlash because during the 2016 election, she declared she would not vote for Trump in the general. In the race where conservative Lonegan lost, his moderate Republican opponent deployed a brutal ad accusing Lonegan, a 2016 Cruz supporter and “free the delegates” activist during the Republican National Convention, of being anti-Trump. The ad featured clips of the president referring to Lonegan as a “loser.”

The big surprise of the night happened in New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District, where 69-year-old attorney Seth Grossman came out of nowhere to win a four-man race with an underfunded campaign. Grossman ran an unabashedly pro-Trump campaign, adopting the president’s positions on immigration, supporting repeal of Obamacare’s mandates, teaching “what made America great in our schools again,” and stopping “obstruction and fake impeachment charges” against Trump. Running as the most pro-Trump candidate worked, and he shocked observers by winning the primary with double digits over the closest runner-up.

Republican primary voters are not looking for conservatives to challenge the GOP establishment in this cycle. They are looking for candidates who support President Trump’s agenda, because that agenda is perceived as the anti-establishment agenda.

The danger here lies in the fact that moderate and liberal Republican incumbents are being re-nominated in GOP primary contests even though they do not support Trump’s mission of draining the swamp. And disappointingly, President Trump continues to endorse failing-grade Liberty Score® incumbents like Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who have spent their careers in Washington D.C. creating the status quo voters elected Trump to disrupt. (For more from the author of “In 2018 GOP Primaries, Anti-Establishment Means Pro-Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Analysis: Supreme Court’s Gay Cake Decision Just Kicks the Can Down the Road in the Conflict Between Religious Liberty and Homosexual “Dignity”

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of cake maker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision for the Court, joined by six other justices, both liberal and conservative. Justices Gorsuch and Alito concurred, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred, Kagan and Breyer concurred, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

There is very little principled analysis in any of the Court’s five opinions except for that of Justice Thomas, who concluded that Phillips was denied his freedom of speech.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion focused mainly on the despicable treatment Phillips received in front of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In particular, Justice Kennedy noted that the Commission ruled against Phillips for his refusal to bake a pro-gay cake, but ruled in favor of three other bakers who refused to bake anti-gay cakes.

The significance of the majority opinion is nicely summed up in its last paragraph: “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

In other words, this decision is essentially confined to his facts — ruling for Jack Phillips because the Colorado commission was openly hostile towards Phillips’ religious beliefs. Every future case involving such a state “public accommodations” law, however, will be a balancing act, conducted by federal judges, pitting homosexual “dignity” against sincere religious beliefs.

Justices Kagan and Breyer, though joining the majority, wrote separately to state their belief that there were good legal reasons for the state Commission to have reached different opinions in the pro-gay and anti-gay cake cases. Justices Gorsuch disputed that notion.

Next, Justice Thomas wrote separately to address Phillips’ Free Speech claim, since the majority had resolved the case solely on a Free Exercise basis. Thomas claimed that wedding cake baking is an inherently expressive activity, and to force someone to bake a certain wedding cake forces them to express themselves in ways they may find offensive. Importantly, Justice Thomas challenges the notion that the most important thing in the case is the protection of the “dignity” of homosexuals. He noted that “Concerns about ‘dignity’ and ‘stigma’ did not carry the day when this Court affirmed the right of white supremacists to burn a 25-foot cross … conduct a rally on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday … or circulate a film featuring hooded Klan members who were brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the n….’”

Finally, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor wrote espouse their apparent belief that the most important bedrock principle in American law is the tenet that “Gay persons may be spared from ‘indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.’”

In essence, the Supreme Court kicked the can down the road in its failure to provide a clear ruling whether the First Amendment prohibits the application of a state law prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation to a Christian cake baker or other businessman who refuses service celebrating same-sex marriage.

It was good to see that Justice Kennedy gave the radical homosexual political movement a dose of their own medicine of Romer v. Evans, reversing the ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against a Christian baker on the ground that the Commission was motivated by overt hostility to the baker’s Christian faith. In an opinion that only Justice Kennedy could have written was the lesson that Thumper’s mother taught — “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” One wonders how the case would have come out if the Colorado Commission had not been overtly hostile to Jack Phillips.

Indeed, the several opinions issued by the Court in this case are written self-consciously nice. In contrast to the bloody battlefield of Obergefell, the justices collectively held back their ammunition, calling for tolerance, fairness, and neutrality, hoping by their surface collegiality to inspire a gentler spirit within which to paper over an unresolvable conflict that the Court itself has created and imposed upon the American people. The Court’s call for “neutrality” however, abandons its duty to say what the law is.

The best can be said about this decision was what Justice Thomas noted in conclusion, “it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day.” However the Masterpiece decision certainly provides little guidance for how future cases will be decided. The decision does not even resolve the Arlene’s Flowers case, which remains pending on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Vindictive Gay Couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Richly Deserved to Lose

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I wish I could say the ruling was a huge win for the First Amendment. All I can say is that it was not necessarily a loss for the First Amendment. A win would have been a decision affirming an individual’s right to operate his business, and create art, in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs. The 7-2 decision passed down by the Court this morning does not offer any precedent so sweeping or important as that. Instead it finds, in this specific case, that the baker’s rights were violated because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed open hostility to Phillips’ religious convictions. But what if they were more subtle in their hostility? What if a Christian business owner is targeted by cleverer bullies? What about all of the other Christian business owners who have been legally penalized for refraining from participating in gay weddings? This decision has nothing to say on any of those questions. This salvo from the fascist gay Left was blocked, but there is nothing stopping them from firing another round. And then another. And then another. The fight continues.

But even if the Court basically punted on the broader questions, it is still good to pause and appreciate the fact that the innocent victim won in this case and the vindictive bullies lost. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission clearly bullied Phillips and sought to punish him for his religious views, even at one point comparing his cake refusal to the Holocaust. They have now been thoroughly humiliated, and I imagine they will face considerable backlash from their fellow liberals for squandering a golden opportunity. This is all worth celebrating. . .

Remember that Jack Phillips was well known for his devout Christian beliefs before that fateful day when Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Phillips would regularly refuse to create customized cakes for events he found morally problematic. Yet, of all the bakers in the area, these two gay men just so happened to seek the services of the one baker who was so orthodox that he wouldn’t even make Halloween cakes. It does not take much of a logical leap to see that this was quite intentional.

It is said that Phillips “refused to serve” Mullins and Craig. That’s not true. He offered to sell them any item in the store. He would have even sold them a wedding cake. The only thing he would not do — could not do – was customize one. So, the gay men could have simply purchased a standard wedding cake. Or they could have left the store and gone to literally any other bakery in the state. Decent human beings would select either of those two options. But Mullins and Craig are not decent human begins. They opted for option three: set out on a years-long process to utterly destroy Jack Phillips, take down his business, and impoverish his family. (Read more from “The Vindictive Gay Couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Richly Deserved to Lose” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Constitution Party Scores Incredible Victory in North Carolina; Focused on Wisconsin, Next

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In a historic first, the Constitution Party effort to gain ballot access in North Carolina exceeded the required number of registered voter signatures to qualify for ballot access in 2018 and 2020. News of the Constitution Party’s success was picked up by major media, including US News and World Report, a leading newspaper in Raleigh, other papers, and radio.

Before North Carolina, the Constitution Party also added Hawaii to the states it has ballot access in. These recent efforts have brought more publicity to the national party than any other activity undertaken in an off-year election. Why? The public is starting to understand that the Constitution Party is serious about building a viable political party.

What North Carolina’s Constitution Party accomplished is nothing short of amazing. In all, volunteers turned into the county clerks a total of over 16,300 signatures. Of that number, 15,938 have been processed to-date and 12,537 have been determined as valid. That’s validity rate of 78.6%, a remarkable accomplishment. With its submission, Constitution Party has a significant cushion – well-over 600 signatures – beyond what state law requires. And all of this was accomplished in less than five months.

This is the first time ever that the Constitution Party has qualified for ballot access in North Carolina. When the Constitution Party’s efforts began this past December, most observers thought qualification would be impossible. They were wrong.

The Constitution Party is next focusing on Wisconsin. Although the party already has ballot access in that state, it must run at least one statewide candidate this year who then acquires at least one percent of the vote. There are at least two potential candidates who wish to run under the Constitution Party banner but, in order for them to run, each candidate must first collect the signatures of 2,000 Wisconsin residents who are at least 18 years old. Importantly, state law does not require the signatories to be registered voters, they simply must be Wisconsin residents.

This is where you can help. If you are as disgusted as we are with the corrupt, fundamentally broken two party system, then help the two Wisconsin Constitution Party candidates get on the ballot. Andrew Zuelke is seeking the office of State Treasurer and Terry Larson is seeking the office of Attorney General. Each of them must submit their 2,000 signatures no later than June 1, less than two weeks away.

Consequently, if you live in Wisconsin or have like-minded family or friends in that state, please have them contact Mr. Zukelke at [email protected] or call him at 920-748-7296, immediately.

Again, if you are sick and tired of the failed political system, do something to restore leadership to, and confidence in, the Republic. Establishing a viable third party with ballot access may be the only way to confront the Oligarchs who own most of the elected leaders of both major political parties. Wisconsin is key. But if 2,000 signatures are not turned in by the first of June, the Constitution Party will lose ballot access there. So please act immediately if you want to save this country; time is of the essence.

Restroom Slayer Could Sue Us If We Turned Him Away Today

/0 Comments/in , /by

Twenty one years ago, an 18-year-old man entered a women’s restroom at a business where I worked. If I had seen him enter the ladies’ room, I would have been expected to confront him and drive him out.

Nowadays, in certain jurisdictions, he could sue me and my employer for expelling him from a room where women and girls pull their panties down. He might be able to recruit government prosecutors to punish us, without hiring a lawyer of his own. And the policy of several faddish corporations is to leave such men to choose whichever restroom they prefer, no questions asked.

That man’s name is Jeremy Strohmeyer, and there is no reasonable prospect of him suing me in the future, because he is currently serving life without parole in a state penitentiary for the crimes he committed in that restroom on May 25, 1997.

He was preceded in the ladies’ room by seven-year-old Sherrice “Sherry” Iverson. She was mischievous and unsupervised, a handful. Her nearby father and teenage brother had no interest in following her around to protect her. Neither did anybody else. Strohmeyer was interested enough to follow her into the restroom, but not to protect her.

He raped her, strangled her in a stall and, when she nevertheless showed some signs of life, went back and snapped her neck. He stuffed her tiny body between the commode and the wall, and left her there for my co-worker to discover in the morning.

She would have been 28 this year, perhaps a young mother in the prime of life. Instead, there is no trace of her. Her father died within a few years of her murder. When a big-city newspaper published an article on the 20th anniversary of her killing, reporters couldn’t find her mother, and couldn’t find anybody who knew what became of her. She was surrounded by community organizers for a few years, stood in front of a few television cameras, then disappeared from the South Central Los Angeles ghetto in which she raised Sherry for seven years. And so there is nobody left to speak for Sherry, or about her.

Security personnel reconstructed the sequence of the crime later, based on video recorded by a surveillance camera mounted outside the ladies’ room. But there was an eyewitness inside, too. Strohmeyer’s traveling companion David Cash followed him into the ladies’ room and peered over a partition into the stall where Strohmeyer was muscling Sherry and stifling her screams by clenching her mouth.

When Strohmeyer seemed too preoccupied to engage in chitchat with Cash, he (Cash) left the restroom without intervening. He never notified security or police of the assault in progress. After Strohmeyer came out of the restroom and rejoined Cash, he told Cash he had killed the little girl. Cash never reported his friend to police.

Strohmeyer is spending the rest of his life in prison, but Cash never suffered any legal penalty for his indifference to the victimization of Sherry Iverson. Prosecutors said there was no law against what Cash failed to do. That has changed, but too late to prosecute him. Cash is apparently having a great life. He was accepted into Berkeley’s nuclear engineering program, graduated, and has had some very nice jobs in his native California, mostly in the public sector. He’ll be 40 next year.

There was considerable public outrage about the impunity of a man who casually shrugged off the horrific rape and murder of a child he could and should have protected. But how different are corporate executives and government officials who empower the potential Strohmeyers of 2018 enter women’s public restrooms at will? Like David Cash, they act on extravagant personal loyalty to friends and allies, and are utterly indifferent to the victimization of strangers. It was just Sherry Iverson’s tough luck that she lived outside Cash’s orbit of friendships, and it’s too bad for women and children that Target and Walgreen corporate executives and Liberal politicians are unmoved to protect them during their most vulnerable moments on company premises.

If a corporation wants to build lockable unisex restrooms for customers and staff, I have no firm opinion about that. I would rather not pay higher retail prices to fund the accommodation of sexual pathology, but at least it would protect women and girls from the menace of voyeurs and assailants. It’s a reasonable judgment call by management. That’s different from the reckless proposition of inviting men to share restrooms with women and girls, immunized against any intervention or questioning by security or retail staff.

“Sexual crimes are often crimes of opportunity,” wrote Christian activist Andy Parrish. “Allowing grown men in the girls bathroom increases the opportunity for sexual crimes. I choose my daughters’ safety over the convenience of shopping at Target.”

Over 1.4 million people have pledged to honor the American Family Association’s boycott against Target. But why do any Christians shop at Target or Walgreens anymore? It suggests that we have been compromised by materialism. In other words, we have subordinated our Christian values to our consumption, not vice versa. But it’s also because Liberals have been successful at framing the issue as a matter of compassion for pathetic transgenders.

When Christian activists published a list of 21 incidents in which male intruders victimized women and girls in public restrooms, Liberals replied that none of the 21 assailants and voyeurs were transgendered people. Even if we concede this is true, it would only vindicate the harmlessness of transgendered people in unprotected restrooms. It would not vindicate the safety of permitting adult or adolescent males to enter women’s and girls’ restrooms. The 21 incidents remain serious with or without absolutely autonomous transgenders circulating among the restrooms.

It may be true that transgenders are innocent of most violent attacks and voyeurism in ladies’ restrooms. But they and their Liberal allies are not innocent of making common cause with rapists and voyeurs in seeking restroom policies of mutual benefit. Of this, they are guilty.

My hat is off to Christian activist groups like One Million Moms and the American Family Association. But I don’t think U.S. consumer behavior is going to be shaped by inoffensive people following Marquess of Queensberry rules. Target and Walgreens and ilk need to face enormous photographs of young Sherry Iverson at their entrances every May 25. Bullhorns should greet stockholders as they arrive their annual meetings. Do you know how and when to request that your governor declare an annual Sherrice Iverson Day every May 25? If not, can you afford to hire a lawyer or a lobbyist to request it for you? It would be an opportunity to remember young Sherry, but also to remember Jeremy Strohmeyer and David Cash.

The depraved constituency for unprotected restrooms should have to earn it every year. An annual Sherry Iverson memorial would keep the issue fresh and correctly focused. The transgender restroom activists share David Cash’s indifference to unknown victims, and they should be identified as his disciples, year after year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqTdXOQmXrc

Whenever a municipal or state body takes up a proposal to give adult men free access to women’s restrooms, opponents should always refer to it as Strohmeyer’s Law. This would properly frame it as an issue of women’s and girls’ safety. Whenever officials or commentators are dismissive of safety concerns in deregulated women’s restrooms, they should be challenged to distinguish their position from David Cash’s position. What comes first for these people – their friendships and alliances with sexually confused men, or the protection of physically vulnerable women and girls?

Should men like Strohmeyer and Cash be allowed to enter your daughters’ restroom unchallenged? Liberals may hedge, but their policies most emphatically say yes.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The American Dream Is Dead

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .Most of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 0.1%. Inequality is now approaching the extreme level that prevailed prior to the Great Depression. . .

In fact, inequality is so high that a third of the population has no wealth at alland the top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%.

Raw statistics are perfect tools for transmitting the truth of facts but they lack the emotional baggage that a story can deliver. There’s nothing better than tears, blood and immersive storytelling to mobilise people.

I’m unfortunately not very good at that, but I can still rephrase the statistics: if the US was a village of 1000 people, there’s 1 guy that has more money than 900 other villagers combined…

We can manipulate numbers and discuss hypotheses as much as we’d like: the reality is staggering. Research centers, in their vast majority and coming from all political backgrounds, have drawn the very same conclusion: the US is — by far — the most unequal society in the developed world. And things are getting worse every year. . .

Now a lot of us can cope with that if there are good chances of improving our situation. If my household’s finances are better than my parents’, the society I’m living in would have enhanced my well-being.

That’s actually one of the cornerstones of modern capitalism: inequalities are accepted as long as the possibility of betterment exists. We tolerate unfairness as long as there are good chances of improving our condition. (Read more from “The American Dream Is Dead” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U2 Betrays Babies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Like a lot of generation Xers, I’m a huge U2 fan. They’re the closest thing my generation has to The Beatles. That’s why I was tremendously disappointed to see the popular band, which has Christian roots and whose lead singer even appeared on “Focus on the Family” a few years ago to share his faith, come out and urge voters in their native Ireland to repeal the nation’s pro-life law.

For a band that has been open about Christianity in song and deed, fighting for the downtrodden worldwide in numerous causes while infusing song lyrics with Christian themes and imagery over the years, it’s inexcusable for the band to urge Ireland to reject basic human rights for the most vulnerable among us — unborn children in the womb.

One of the band’s first hit songs, “Pride (In the Name of Love),” refers to Jesus Christ being “betrayed with a kiss.” Now the band has betrayed innocent children from their native country with a tweet in support of state-sponsored ritualistic killing. This has prompted some swift and harsh responses by their legions of pro-life fans who feel the band betrayed them as well.

Daniel Darling of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention put it this way: “After having poured out his voice for the vulnerable, [U2 frontman Bono] is turning his back on those precious souls who have no voice.”

Lest anyone think my associating the band with Christianity is another example of believers desperate for mainstream cultural acceptance so that they glom onto any celebrity who says something spiritual once, one website cited 79 specific Biblical/religious references in the band’s music catalogue. U2 also isn’t a case of some up-and-coming band whom people pinned some subtle religious hopes upon; the group just wrapped up the 30th anniversary tour of perhaps their greatest album, “The Joshua Tree,” in 2017.

Two of that album’s most famous songs are titled “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and “Where the Streets Have No Name.” They have lyrics with explicit Scripture references like “I have spoken with the tongues of angels” (1 Corinthians 13:1) and been “beaten and blown by the wind” (James 1:6).

So this is not a band ignorant of the Word of God. Far from it. Given U2’s immense popularity as one of the most successful bands of all time, it could be argued the group has dropped more Bible verses than anyone not an explicit evangelist worldwide over the years. Therefore, I don’t think we should treat them as just another rock band that signs up for total depravity. We should treat them as Christ commands us to treat the brethren who have lost their way. I pray there is someone in their inner circle who can go to them. If not, perhaps clergy they hold themselves accountable to who will confront them.

I certainly haven’t wholly agreed with the band’s politics over the years, but this is an example of directly contradicting the Word of God they have used to inspire much of their best and most profitable music for decades. And since long before I became a believer, they shared the Scripture with me when I first fell in love with “The Joshua Tree” when I was 14 years old, now, as a believer, allow me to return the favor to them:

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. ~Proverbs 6:16-19

(For more from the author of “U2 Betrays Babies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Deep State Desperate, According to Clinton Pollster

/0 Comments/in , /by

The “deep state” is in a deep state of desperation. With little time left before the Justice Department inspector general’s report becomes public, and with special counsel Robert Mueller having failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying, they know a reckoning is coming.

At this point, there is little doubt that the highest echelons of the FBI and the Justice Department broke their own rules to end the Hillary Clinton “matter,” but we can expect the inspector general to document what was done or, more pointedly, not done. It is hard to see how a year-long investigation of this won’t come down hard on former FBI Director James Comey and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who definitely wasn’t playing mahjong in a secret “no aides allowed” meeting with former President Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac.

With this report on the way and congressional investigators beginning to zero in on the lack of hard, verified evidence for starting the Trump probe, current and former intelligence and Justice Department officials are dumping everything they can think of to save their reputations.

But it is backfiring. They started by telling the story of Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat, as having remembered a bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. But how did the FBI know they should talk to him? That’s left out of their narrative. Downer’s signature appears on a $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation. You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the FBI to complete the loop. This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.

In no way would a fourth-hand report from a Maltese professor justify wholesale targeting of four or five members of the Trump campaign. It took Christopher Steele, with his funding concealed through false campaign filings, to be incredibly successful at creating a vast echo chamber around his unverified, fanciful dossier, bouncing it back and forth between the press and the FBI so it appeared that there were multiple sources all coming to the same conclusion. (Read more from “Deep State Desperate, According to Clinton Pollster” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the FBI’s Raid on Michael Cohen Sets a Dangerous Precedent

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .It has been long recognized that, for the right to counsel to have any value, clients must have absolute confidence in their ability to communicate confidentially with their lawyers, whether in person, by phone, or on email. That is what is known as the attorney-client privilege, and it is indispensable to the practice of law. After recent events, however, only a fool would place any trust in it.

Like most folks with day jobs, I do not generally follow the ins and outs of the special counsel investigation. But no attorney in America could possibly have missed last month’s news. The FBI, on referral from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, raided the office, home, and hotel room of Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, and hauled off “thousands if not millions” of pages of documents. In court filings, the feds further revealed that, for weeks prior to the search, they had been secretly reading Cohen’s emails as he was sending them.

Moreover, prosecutors apparently convinced a federal magistrate to issue this warrant on the flimsiest of pretenses—the so-called “crime-fraud exception” to the attorney-client privilege. If media reports are to be believed, Cohen is being investigated for one or more payoffs to old Donald Trump paramours, payments that, because they theoretically benefitted a candidate for president, could be deemed an unreported “in-kind” campaign contribution.

Folks my age and older will remember the ‘90s edition of Mueller, another budding Inspector Javert named Ken Starr. Starr was originally tasked with investigating a shady Clinton land deal but ended up stinging a White House intern into confessing an illicit relationship with the president. He then produced a salacious report that needlessly humiliated and traumatized a young woman, who still seems not to have fully recovered.

But even Starr never raided a law office. At least not that of a living lawyer. He did try to grab the privileged communications of a deceased one: Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. At some point, Starr moved beyond the land deal and took to investigating President Clinton’s firing of the White House’s travel staff, a ridiculous endeavor if ever there were one. When the investigation began, Foster turned to the law firm of Swidler Berlin for legal advice. Nine days later, he took his own life, launching a decade’s worth of conspiracy theories. Starr then tried to subpoena Foster’s privileged communications. (Read more from “Why the FBI’s Raid on Michael Cohen Sets a Dangerous Precedent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Goes off on Russia Probe, Drops Bomb on Mueller

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Reuters. A federal judge said Special Counsel Robert Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in probing ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, and accused Mueller of using criminal cases to pressure Trump’s allies to turn against him.

At a tense hearing in a federal court in Virginia on Friday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III sharply questioned whether Mueller exceeded his authority in filing tax and bank fraud charges against Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

Ellis said the indictment appeared to be a way for Mueller to leverage Manafort into providing information about Trump . . .

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” the judge said. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead to Mr. Trump” and his eventual prosecution or impeachment.

“It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants,” Ellis, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing on Manafort’s motion to dismiss the Virginia charges. (Read more from “Judge Goes off on Russia Probe, Drops Bomb on Mueller” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Memo to Trump: Defy Mueller at Every Turn

By WND. If Donald Trump does not wish to collaborate in the destruction of his presidency, he will refuse to be questioned by the FBI, or by a grand jury, or by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his malevolent minions.

Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.

The goal of Mueller’s prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions – to which they already know the answers – any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge . . .

For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge – that Trump’s team colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC . . .

Trump’s lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no matter what subpoena he draws up, or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: Impeach me and be damned. (Read more from “Memo to Trump: Defy Mueller at Every Turn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.