Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Friday, October 11, 2019
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #771
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Trump Issues Executive Orders Designed to Deconstruct the Deep State While Dems Focus on Impeachment
President Donald Trump signed executive orders Wednesday afternoon that are designed to take much of the sting out of what conservatives believe is an out-of-control administrative state.
The orders will limit the use of a tool the Trump administration believes short-circuits the rule-making process. They take aim at federal guidance, which agencies can use to explain how they intend to implement policy. The Wall Street Journal reported on the orders Tuesday.
The orders are expected to dramatically reduce the impact a key element of the country’s regulatory infrastructure has on businesses and Americans, according to White House spokesman Judd Deere.
Trump is signing “two EO’s protecting the rights of American families and small businesses against bureaucratic abuse as he continues to hold government agencies accountable to the taxpayers,” Deere told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement ahead of the order.
“Many Americans learn of the rule only when agents come knocking on their door,” Trump said Wednesday at the White House of federal guidance rules. “Americans will no longer be subject to hidden rules.”
The president has long throttled what he believes to be the deep state, or the idea that agencies often make their own rules without oversight from Congress.
The order gives Americans the opportunity to express their opinion before being targeted with fines and regulations. It will be the agency’s duty to inform Americans of any new rules that might affect their lives and businesses, the president noted.
Federal guidance can be created quickly, unlike regulations, which are subject to lengthy reviews.
Critics frequently cite examples where past administrations leaned on federal guidance for end-around policy creation. For instance, the Treasury Department delayed the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate in 2013 and the tax penalty for non-compliance without public comment.
Trump’s decision to sign the order comes as the Democrats begin their impeachment inquiry into the...
6 Ways The Salem Witch Trials Were Fairer Than Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry
Attorney Greg Jarrett recently wrote, “It is Pelosi and Schiff who are abusing the power of impeachment in their latest ‘witch hunt.’” This is wildly historically inaccurate. Jarrett should immediately apologize to the memory of the prosecutors of the 17th-century Massachusetts witch trials.
This is because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff are currently running their Ukraine impeachment farce with far less due process than the superstitious and backwards legal system offered the “witches” of Salem.
Below are a few examples of how Jarrett has unfairly slandered the jurisprudence of 16th-century Massachusetts.
1. The Right to Be Informed of the Nature of an Accusation
In 1692, the “witches” were tried under the Witchcraft Act of 1604, or, in long-form, “An Act Against Conjuration, Witchcraft and Dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits,” a felony. Then-President Nixon stood accused of “payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses,” in violation of federal witness tampering statutes. President Bill Clinton stood accused of perjury, lying under oath.
What law is President Trump accused of violating during the Ukraine phone call? The accusations against Trump are far vaguer and never seem to relate to any statute, law, or provision of the Constitution. What little explanation there is for the “law” the president broke is extremely vague.
One fanciful theory is that the president violated 52 U.S.C. §30121 prohibiting a candidate from “soliciting” from a foreign entity a “thing of value” (meaning dirt on a political opponent) in connection with a federal election. This is the same ridiculous argument that was made in the Russia collusion hoax when Donald Trump Jr. supposedly solicited Russians for dirt on Clinton (never mind the “Russians” were in partnership with the firm Clinton hired to frame Trump).
That argument failed in the Russia hoax for the same reason it’s wrong now: Asking for information is never a “thing of value” for purposes of election law.
Witches in 1692 knew exactly what law they stood accused of violating because New England witch hunters respected this principle of due process more than Schiff and Pelosi do. The president’s counsel noted this deficiency in this letter, indicating that among the many unfair aspects of the procedures, the committee failed to observe “the right to be informed of the law of the charges against you.”
2. The Right to Public Hearings
We have reason to believe the witch prosecutors held public trials because a man by the name of Cotton Mather recorded accounts of many of the trials. In contrast, as noted by the Wall Street Journal, Schiff is attempting to conduct “secret” hearings to cherry-pick and leak evidence (often with much exaggeration).
Schiff used a similar technique during the Russia collusion hoax, claiming (falsely) that he had seen direct (but secret) evidence that the president colluded with Russians. It’s highly problematic when the chairman of the House intelligence committee smears the president by making a non-factual claim about secret intelligence.
3. The Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses
It’s not clear that the accused witches ever had the chance to cross-examine their accusers. So on that front, Jarrett’s comparison might be appropriate. However, the historical record indicates that the accused were present during the trial and given the opportunity to listen to what was being said about them.
In contrast, Schiff is running a sort of kangaroo court in which the public is only allowed to hear third-hand accounts of secret witnesses. The identity of both leakers remains secret even as their allegations are being aired in the public. Again, Schiff is using procedures that witch hunters in the 1600s would consider unfair.
Other complaints include: Denying witnesses the right to counsel, denying the president the opportunity to be represented by an attorney at the proceedings, and denial of the right of the minority to cross-examine witnesses or call their own witnesses.
In 1692, the “witches” were tried under the Witchcraft Act of 1604, or, in long-form, “An Act Against Conjuration, Witchcraft and Dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits,” a felony. Then-President Nixon stood accused of “payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses,” in violation of federal witness tampering statutes. President Bill Clinton stood accused of perjury, lying under oath.
What law is President Trump accused of violating during the Ukraine phone call? The accusations against Trump are far vaguer and never seem to relate to any statute, law, or provision of the Constitution. What little explanation there is for the “law” the president broke is extremely vague.
One fanciful theory is that the president violated 52 U.S.C. §30121 prohibiting a candidate from “soliciting” from a foreign entity a “thing of value” (meaning dirt on a political opponent) in connection with a federal election. This is the same ridiculous argument that was made in the Russia collusion hoax when Donald Trump Jr. supposedly solicited Russians for dirt on Clinton (never mind the “Russians” were in partnership with the firm Clinton hired to frame Trump).
That argument failed in the Russia hoax for the same reason it’s wrong now: Asking for information is never a “thing of value” for purposes of election law.
Witches in 1692 knew exactly what law they stood accused of violating because New England witch hunters respected this principle of due process more than Schiff and Pelosi do. The president’s counsel noted this deficiency in this letter, indicating that among the many unfair aspects of the procedures, the committee failed to observe “the right to be informed of the law of the charges against you.”
2. The Right to Public Hearings
We have reason to believe the witch prosecutors held public trials because a man by the name of Cotton Mather recorded accounts of many of the trials. In contrast, as noted by the Wall Street Journal, Schiff is attempting to conduct “secret” hearings to cherry-pick and leak evidence (often with much exaggeration).
Schiff used a similar technique during the Russia collusion hoax, claiming (falsely) that he had seen direct (but secret) evidence that the president colluded with Russians. It’s highly problematic when the chairman of the House intelligence committee smears the president by making a non-factual claim about secret intelligence.
3. The Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses
It’s not clear that the accused witches ever had the chance to cross-examine their accusers. So on that front, Jarrett’s comparison might be appropriate. However, the historical record indicates that the accused were present during the trial and given the opportunity to listen to what was being said about them.
In contrast, Schiff is running a sort of kangaroo court in which the public is only allowed to hear third-hand accounts of secret witnesses. The identity of both leakers remains secret even as their allegations are being aired in the public. Again, Schiff is using procedures that witch hunters in the 1600s would consider unfair.
Other complaints include: Denying witnesses the right to counsel, denying the president the opportunity to be represented by an attorney at the proceedings, and denial of the right of the minority to cross-examine witnesses or call their own witnesses.
4. A Legal Predicate
History records that when an individual was accused of witchcraft, her case would be heard by a duly appointed local magistrate with jurisdiction. Later, the colony governor authorized a specially created Court of Oyer and Terminer.
In contrast, in the Ukraine farce, the House intelligence committee (which does not have obvious jurisdiction) is leading an inquiry not authorized by the House. The president’s attorney points to the absence of a vote on impeachment by the full House as a basis for challenging the jurisdiction of the inquiry. But it’s actually far worse than that.
The House has voted on whether to impeach this president, and three times (December 6, 2017, January 19, 2018, and July 17, 2019). The House voted “no” on each of these attempts to impeach the president. In other words, the House three times voted against what Schiff is currently doing. And he’s doing it anyway.
History records that when an individual was accused of witchcraft, her case would be heard by a duly appointed local magistrate with jurisdiction. Later, the colony governor authorized a specially created Court of Oyer and Terminer.
In contrast, in the Ukraine farce, the House intelligence committee (which does not have obvious jurisdiction) is leading an inquiry not authorized by the House. The president’s attorney points to the absence of a vote on impeachment by the full House as a basis for challenging the jurisdiction of the inquiry. But it’s actually far worse than that.
The House has voted on whether to impeach this president, and three times (December 6, 2017, January 19, 2018, and July 17, 2019). The House voted “no” on each of these attempts to impeach the president. In other words, the House three times voted against what Schiff is currently doing. And he’s doing it anyway.
5. The Presumption of Innocence
Most of the accused witches were found not guilty. Of the approximately 200 people who were accused, 19 were found guilty. While the best result would have been...
Most of the accused witches were found not guilty. Of the approximately 200 people who were accused, 19 were found guilty. While the best result would have been...
Sex, Leaks, Lies and Spies: Trump Takes Down Intelligence Community Leakers
This comes in the wake of a top-ranking congressional intelligence committee staffer facing similar charges of leaking last year and sets the stage for a larger fight between Trump and intelligence community leakers.
The nature of these intelligence community leakers’ deeply personal relationships with the reporters to whom they were leaking — both cases involved romantic relationships — seems more like a House of Cards episode than real life.
But the federal law enforcement charges against each casts the intelligence community as a whole in a deeply negative light, as Democrats on Capitol Hill begin to rely on these spooks for their increasingly partisan impeachment efforts against Trump.
The case of the leaker ensnared on Wednesday showed how anti-Trump intelligence officials are using their relationships with the media to risk their careers to leak classified information embarrassing to the Trump administration.
Henry Kyle Frese, an employee with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was charged with two counts of leaking classified information to two journalists identified by journalist Matthew Keys and later the Wall Street Journal as CNBC’s Amanda Macias and NBC News’s Courtney Kube. Frese and Macias were romantically involved.
The complaint against Frese said, in or about mid-April to May 2018, he accessed an intelligence report unrelated to his job duties “on multiple occasions.” A week after he accessed the report a second time, “Journalist 1” — believed to be Macias, asked him to speak to “Journalist 2” — believed to be Kube. Frese told Journalist 1 he was “down” to help Journalist 2 if it helped her because he wanted to see her “progress.”
Frese would later search on a classified U.S. government computer system for terms related to the topics contained in the intelligence report. A few hours after searching those terms, he spoke with Journalist 1 for seven minutes, and spoke to Journalist 2 for over half an hour. About half an hour after he spoke with both journalists, Journalist 1 published an article through her outlet, which contained classified information from the report. After Journalist 1 tweeted the article, Frese retweeted it.
In September 2019, Frese accessed two additional intelligence reports, and texted Journalist 2 to tell her to call him. During the call, he transmitted classified information.
The Justice Department said in a statement that Frese “was caught red-handed disclosing sensitive national security information for personal gain.”
“The unauthorized disclosure of top secret information could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the United States,” it said.
Prosecutors said Macias published eight articles containing classified defense information between May and July 2018, according to the Guardian. Frese was arrested Wednesday when he showed up for work and was due to appear later that day in U.S. district court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Frese, like the intelligence official who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump asked Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 elections, has a background in Russia and...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)