Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
DOJ Rejects Andrew McCabe’s Appeal To Avoid Charges
The Justice Department has denied Andrew McCabe’s appeal to avoid charges for lying to investigators about approving leaks to the media, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen informed the former FBI deputy director by email that he will reject McCabe’s appeal against charges recommended by Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.
A source familiar with the probe told The Daily Caller News Foundation that line prosecutors and Liu recommended charges against McCabe over false statements he allegedly made to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department inspector general’s office.
“The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office,” the Justice Department wrote in an email to McCabe on Thursday, according to Fox News.
A source close to McCabe confirmed the accuracy of the Fox News report to the DCNF.
The decision paves the way for an indictment against McCabe. The Justice Department declined comment regarding any potential indictments.
The New York Times reported on Aug. 26 that McCabe and his lawyers met with Rosen and Liu as part of a last-ditch effort to argue against charges. The Justice Department was investigating McCabe over false statements he allegedly made to the FBI and Justice Department inspector general regarding disclosures of information to the press in October 2016 regarding an investigation of the...
Things You Can Kiss Goodbye If Dems Get Their Green Deal...
The Green Deal Would Destroy The Economy, There Would Be Food Shortages, Rioting In The Streets, Disease And Death Everywhere.
Judge Napolitano explains why Loretta Lynch could be facing 5-10 years in prison: 'It's a felony
Former FBI Director James Comey testified under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month that while his bureau was in the midst of their investigation into Clinton, Lynch, who at the time was the attorney general, instructed him to publicly refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” instead of an investigation.
According to Napolitano, whose comments came on Fox Business, that "terminology may be indicative of a mindset on the part of Attorney General Lynch that she was going to do whatever she could to prevent Mrs. Clinton from getting indicted."
"There is enough evidence here, just on the basis of the little snippets given to the Senate Intelligence Committee by former FBI Director Jim Comey, that Mrs. Lynch was either conflicted or working at odds with the Justice Department and in behalf of Mrs. Clinton's campaign and the DNC when she told them to use different terminology for the investigation,” Napolitano explained.
Comey admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Lynch’s request made him feel “queasy.” Lynch’s request also led to one of Comey’s closest aides to quip that he was now the director of the “federal bureau of matters,” according to earlier reports.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a letter Friday stating that Lynch is now a focus of their investigation over concerns she may have impeded the FBI’s Clinton investigation.
It is also alleged that Lynch was in contact with then-Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) to improperly discuss the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. If such a document exists, Napolitano said it would amount to “misconduct in office."
"It is alleged, this document has not seen the light of day if it exists, that there is one or several emails between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Loretta Lynch concerning the behavior that Loretta Lynch will take to further the DNC interests while Mrs. Lynch was the attorney general,” Napolitano explained. “That, if it happened, would be misconduct in office."
“It’s a felony,” he said. “Depending on...
Debunking Income-Inequality Research
Indeed, couched in language like “not everyone is sharing in this prosperity” (Sen. Amy Klobuchar) and “the economy … is working for a thinner and thinner slice at the top” (Sen. Elizabeth Warren), the subject received its fair share of attention at last week’s Democratic debates.
Such high political stakes make it even more concerning that the majority of income inequality research is so misleading.
Snapshot in Time
Most income inequality data represent merely a snapshot in time. Of course, people move about income levels through the duration of their lifetime. Today’s “low-income” individual may be a recent college grad from an upper middle-class family merely working an entry-level job on her way to a lucrative career. Or consider a retired couple with pension plans, savings, investments, a paid-off house and other assets. They may have little “income,” but they have enough wealth to afford a comfortable lifestyle.
Conversely, today’s “high-income” earner may be a small business owner who struggled for decades and finally had a successful year. Indeed, according to Tufts University economist Gilbert Metcalf, “higher-annual-income groups are likely to contain some people at the peak of their age-earnings profile for whom peak earnings are a poor measure of annual ability to consume.” That is, someone may put together a few years of high earnings that don’t reflect his or her long-term well-being.
In short, the people captured in the “low-income” category at a given moment in time may not necessarily be poor, and vice versa. Snap-shot income measures in no way tell us anything about the financial well-being over the lifetimes of the people being studied.
For instance, University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry examined US census data to confirm that “more than 3 out of 4 households in the top fifth of (income-earning) households are in their prime earning years between 35-64 years old.” He continued, “The lowest quintile households are more than 1.5 times as likely to be younger (under 35) as the highest quintile households, and more than three times as likely to be old (65 and over).”
In other words, younger, less experienced workers earn less than their older, more experienced counterparts. Should this type of “inequality” be considered “the defining challenge of our time”?
In sum, simple “income” statistics often provide a misleading snapshot of citizens’ financial well-being, and thus provide an extremely poor indicator upon which to base policy.
Most income inequality data represent merely a snapshot in time. Of course, people move about income levels through the duration of their lifetime. Today’s “low-income” individual may be a recent college grad from an upper middle-class family merely working an entry-level job on her way to a lucrative career. Or consider a retired couple with pension plans, savings, investments, a paid-off house and other assets. They may have little “income,” but they have enough wealth to afford a comfortable lifestyle.
Conversely, today’s “high-income” earner may be a small business owner who struggled for decades and finally had a successful year. Indeed, according to Tufts University economist Gilbert Metcalf, “higher-annual-income groups are likely to contain some people at the peak of their age-earnings profile for whom peak earnings are a poor measure of annual ability to consume.” That is, someone may put together a few years of high earnings that don’t reflect his or her long-term well-being.
In short, the people captured in the “low-income” category at a given moment in time may not necessarily be poor, and vice versa. Snap-shot income measures in no way tell us anything about the financial well-being over the lifetimes of the people being studied.
For instance, University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry examined US census data to confirm that “more than 3 out of 4 households in the top fifth of (income-earning) households are in their prime earning years between 35-64 years old.” He continued, “The lowest quintile households are more than 1.5 times as likely to be younger (under 35) as the highest quintile households, and more than three times as likely to be old (65 and over).”
In other words, younger, less experienced workers earn less than their older, more experienced counterparts. Should this type of “inequality” be considered “the defining challenge of our time”?
In sum, simple “income” statistics often provide a misleading snapshot of citizens’ financial well-being, and thus provide an extremely poor indicator upon which to base policy.
Rich Getting Richer and Poor Getting Poorer?
Rarely left out of income inequality “analysis” by progressives is the alleged observation that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.
This proclamation, however, also suffers in large part due to a static view of the data.
As Russ Roberts, economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution wrote in this 2018 article, “the biggest problem with the pessimistic studies is that they rarely follow the same people to see how they do over time. Instead, they rely on a snapshot at two points in time.”
A far better measure is to measure the same people over time, rather than aggregate figures.
“When you follow the same people over time, you get a very different story from the standard one,” Roberts discovered.
Indeed, “When you follow the same people over time, the largest gains over time often go to the poorest workers; the richest workers often make no progress,” he wrote.
Roberts cites a study published by the Pew Charitable Trusts that examined the Panel Study of Income Dynamics which tracked data on the same people from the late 1960’s up to 2002 that showed “children raised in the poorest families made the largest gains as adults relative to...
Grief-Stricken Father Jailed for Social Media Posts Criticizing Court System After Son Dies in Mother’s Care
A grieving father, robbed of his now deceased son by the notoriously unjust family court system, is being held in a Michigan jail for making social media posts about a judge he believes put his baby boy in harm’s way.
Jonathan Vanderhagen lost a custody battle for his son over two years ago, and his son died shortly after while in his mother’s custody. He had warned the court about the mother’s history of unstable behavior, but his pleas were ultimately ignored by the female judge and court referee.
Deborah Vanderhagen, Jonathan’s mother, is raising awareness about what she feels is a grave injustice that is being committed against her son.
“His lawyer said something is going to happen to this child. You need to get him away from the mother. There are too many red flags. And the judge said, oh that is in the past,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.
A police report filed following the untimely death of two-year-old Killian cleared his mother from liability in his death, but the Vanderhagen family disagrees strongly with that assessment. They feel that if Killian was taken care of properly, he may be alive today.
“He was so full of life,” Deborah Vanderhagen said while recalling memories of her beloved grandson. “I am trying not to cry.”
Jonathan Vanderhagen was vocal about his anguish on social media, assigning blame toward Judge Rachel Rancilio for granting sole custody of Killian to his mother. As a result, Rancilio complained about her safety, and the Macomb County Sheriff’s office charged Jonathan with malicious use of telecommunications services as a result.
He refused to be muzzled despite the court infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights. He went back on social media and continued to raise public awareness about corruption the court following his arrest.
“Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet,” Jonathan wrote in a social media post after he posted bond.
As a result, a judge determined that Jonathan Vanderhagen violated his bond conditions. He was placed in jail on an astronomical half a million dollars bond, more than what is recommended in for rapists and murderers in many cases.
“He just wants justice. He don’t want to kill anybody. He don’t want anybody physically hurt. He wants them to acknowledge what they’ve done and get justice,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.
Jonathan’s attorney, Nicholas Somberg, believes that this is an egregious case of government overreach meant to silence a public opponent of judicial tyranny and scare away...
Black Americans Are Doing Great Under Trump
The August jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed more great news for all Americans. And particularly for black Americans.
The nation’s unemployment rate of 3.7% puts it near the lowest ever in the last half-century.
Black unemployment is at an all-time low at 5.5%.
Also at an all-time low is the gap between black and white unemployment. With white unemployment at 3.4%, the gap is 2.1 percentage points. Put in other terms, black unemployment stood 62% higher than white unemployment.
A few years ago, the Pew Research Center looked at BLS unemployment data back to 1954, the first year the data was broken down by race. From 1954 to 2013, white unemployment averaged 5%, and black unemployment averaged 9.9%.
So going back as far as we have data, the black-white unemployment gap averaged a difference of 4.9 percentage points, compared with 2.1 points now. The black rate averaged 100% higher than the white rate compared with 62% now.
This is good news for everyone except those who are more unhappy that Donald Trump is president than they are happy that blacks are working.
CNN’s Don Lemon told blacks that their vote should be influenced more by what is, according to him, Trump’s “racist behavior” than by the strong economy.
According to the BLS report, there were 349,000 more blacks employed in August 2019 compared with August 2018.
So these 349,000 black Americans now working, who weren’t working a year ago, should be thinking when they go to the voting booth that Don Lemon, whose net worth, according to various online sources, is somewhere between...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)