SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (1175120)11/1/2019 8:23:14 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571338
 
koanie the only thing your posts prove is that you are a cowardly anonymous putin worshiping troll asshole.



To: koan who wrote (1175120)11/1/2019 8:28:04 PM
From: RetiredNow1 Recommendation

Recommended By
D.Austin

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571338
 
Putin loves Hillary and the Democrats love Communism. Bernie was a former Communist and now has rebranded himself a Socialist. All of the Democrats are Socialist, just like the United Socialist Soviet Republic. They are all in bed with Putin, who was a former KGB agent of the USSR.

The GOP is for Capitalism and Democracy. The Democrats are for Socialism, Communism, and the overturning of the will of the people through a coup.

-----------
Impeachment Inquiry Rules Skewed Heavily Against the President

theepochtimes.com

Under pressure from the public and the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives has voted to formally authorize its continuing impeachment inquiry. The House resolution also opens the previously secret hearings of the House Intelligence Committee.

But the resolution prescribes procedures heavily and deliberately skewed against the president.

As I have explained, there are at least two reasons the House needs to honor due process standards in its impeachment hearings. The first is that President Donald Trump is entitled to the same kinds of protections afforded other Americans. The second is to ensure the inquiry is careful and complete. Otherwise, the decision that emerges may not be well grounded in law and fact. After all, impeachment of a president is very serious business. Impeachment and removal results in overturning an election, upsetting the legislative/executive balance, aggravating political divisions, potentially damaging America’s foreign policy, and diverting congressional time and energy from other priorities.

Unfortunately, the new House rules fall far short of even minimal due process standards. They prescribe the kind of “hearing” you expect in authoritarian countries, rather than in the United States of America.

The House resolution is divided into four sections. The first authorizes existing committee impeachment inquiries to proceed. The second lays down rules for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The third authorizes committees to transfer information to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). The fourth section prescribes a few rules for the Judiciary Committee.

Here is an analysis of each section in turn:

Section 1In impeachment inquiries, the House Judiciary Committee usually takes the lead. But Section 1 authorizes no fewer than six committees to run separate investigations.

Why?

The obvious goal is to force the president’s team to fight a six-front war and thereby overwhelm the defense. But the six-committee approach serves another purpose as well: Because the president and his defense team must respond to six different committees coming from six different directions, the administration will have to divide the work among many defenders. In the natural course of things, each defense group is likely to differ somewhat in strategies, tactics, and factual understandings: After all, lawyers seldom agree entirely on how to handle a case. When differences surface, they will give pro-impeachment forces—and their media allies—opportunities to trumpet those differences as “inconsistencies.” Pro-impeachment forces also may try to play off defense groups against each other.

Most Americans are unfamiliar with legal proceedings and many will be unaware of how the impeachment inquiry is structured. They may take the “inconsistencies” charge at face value.

Incidentally, Section 1 characterizes the six committee proceedings “as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry.” In other words, they can add other committees and proceedings as well—just in case six aren’t sufficient!

Section 2Among the six committees investigating the president, the Democratic majority apparently sees Schiff’s Intelligence Committee as the most important. Section 2 lays down rules for that committee. Are they fair? You be the judge:

The rules grant the president no right to have counsel present during hearings. They grant him no right to cross-examine. They grant him no right to call witnesses in his own defense.The Intelligence Committee normally limits each witness’s testimony to five minutes. But in the impeachment inquiry Schiff can unilaterally increase that time. Thus, he can give more play to witnesses whose testimony he likes and less play to those whose testimony he doesn’t like.Similarly, the new rules allow Schiff to unilaterally increase time for questioning witnesses to as long as 90 minutes. Although the Republicans receive equal time to question, the rule enables Schiff to further manipulate public exposure according to the nature of the testimony.If the Republicans do get a chance to interrogate for more than five minutes, only one GOP congressman may ask the questions: the ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). If the Republicans think another in their group is more qualified to interrogate a particular witness, that’s just too bad—he or she is barred from doing so. This parallels life in some authoritarian countries, where a defendant is denied the right to choose his own legal counsel.The Democratic majority has full power to issue subpoenas and interrogatories. The Republicans have no such power unless Schiff or the Democratic majority agree to each subpoena or interrogatory issued.In hearings that follow due process, a person may call whatever witnesses he deems best. In this inquiry, the Democratic majority has full power to summon witnesses. But Republicans have no right to call a witness unless Schiff or the Democratic committee majority consents.In seeking permission to call a witness, Republicans must submit “a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony.” Even if consent is granted, the “justification” requirement gives pro-impeachment forces advance notice, and thus a chance to prepare. They can use that time to investigate the witness, formulate ways to discredit him, develop a cross-examination strategy, and otherwise manipulate the proceedings. Republicans have no corresponding right.Republicans must file their “justification” “within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing.” In other words, after the first three days—no matter what happens—they may not even apply for permission to call a witness. Ever.Schiff is authorized to make transcripts of depositions public, but not required to do so. He can make some evidence more available, and some less available, as he chooses.Section 3This section authorizes all other committees to share information with the Judiciary Committee. You have to wonder why, since the Judiciary Committee is not given its traditional role of leading the impeachment inquiry.

Section 4This section prescribes certain minimal rules for the Judiciary Committee.

Unlike in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee is to “allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.” But the rules give him no right of cross-examination and no right to call witnesses.

And as in the Intelligence Committee, Democrats may subpoena witnesses and evidence at will—but Republicans may do so only with the consent of the Democratic chairman or the Democratic majority.

Republicans claim that the Democratic majority is running a corrupt kangaroo court, with a pre-determined outcome. The content of the House rules seems to confirm that assessment.

Rob Natelson served as a law professor for 25 years and is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” and numerous scholarly and popular articles on impeachment and other constitutional subjects.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.



To: koan who wrote (1175120)11/1/2019 8:36:32 PM
From: RetiredNow1 Recommendation

Recommended By
D.Austin

  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1571338
 
Here's the reality. The Democrats are about to get a whole host of indictments thrown at them for their criminal conspiracy to take down Trump, including their FISA Court abuses and fraud. The Steele dossier was thoroughly discredited by FBI agents, but then used by Comey and others to justify their criminal assault on and harassment of Trump.

----------------
Criminal Indictments Could Be Coming in ‘Russiagate’

theepochtimes.com

Inspector General’s Report on FISA AbusesDepartment of Justice ( DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in a letter to House and Senate leaders on Oct. 24 that he would shortly release his much-awaited report on possible Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses by Obama-era officials against the Trump campaign ahead of the 2016 election.

He also said that he expected the report would be released to the public with “few redactions.”

Horowitz’s investigation began in early 2018, after lawmakers and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions questioned whether the FBI had misled the FISA court when it sought to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign volunteer, in 2016 in relation to the “Russia collusion” probe.

The collusion probe was proved to be a hoax after the exhaustive nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Partially redacted versions of the FBI’s FISA warrant application to surveil Page revealed that the FBI relied on the largely discredited dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, while working for Fusion GPS, a research company that had been hired and paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) to dig up dirt on Trump. The FBI apparently hid from the FISA court that the Clinton campaign and DNC had ordered and paid for the Fusion GPS report, and therefore, indirectly, the dossier itself.

Worse, the FBI apparently vouched for the dossier’s allegations surrounding Page, even though the FBI had already verified that Steele’s allegations concerning Page were false.

For example, while the dossier had reported that Page, during a July 2016 trip to Moscow, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin—Rosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin—as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, the FBI’s investigation revealed that Page only met with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister. This was far cry from the tale spun by Steele’s dossier, as investigative journalist John Solomon reported in a July 2019 article published by The Hill.

Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return” if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow. According to Solomon, “That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.”

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen—who would eventually “flip” on Trump after facing substantial prison time for charges brought against him by Mueller including for tax and bank fraud unrelated to his work for Trump—admitted (and apparently his passport proved) he was not in Prague in the summer of 2016, when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election.

Steele also identified former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as among the alleged Russian co-conspirators inside the Trump campaign. That proved to be false as well, although, like Cohen, the falsity of Steele’s charges against Manafort didn’t immunize him from criminal charges by Mueller predating and unrelated to his work for Trump.

Mueller, after his exhaustive two-year-long investigation, didn’t confirm, or provide, any evidence for any of the claims made in the Steele dossier, including the salacious claim that Russians controlled Trump because they possessed incriminating sex tapes showing Trump had engaged in depraved acts with Russian prostitutes.

The FBI knew, long before the Mueller report, and even before submitting the dossier to the FISA court to surveil Page, that the dossier was false. According to Solomon, the FBI had prepared an extensive spreadsheet on the dossier, either affirmatively disproving or noting the FBI’s inability to verify its central claims.

Even after developing their extensive spreadsheet disproving or failing to verify the dossier’s claims, the DOJ not only submitted information contained in the dossier to the FISA court, stating contrarily (i.e., falsely) that the FBI vouched for the Page-related claims, but also added that it “did not believe” Steele was the source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion. Instead, the FBI used that September 2016 article by Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff as independent corroboration of the dossier before the FISA court.

However, UK court documents showed that Steele had briefed Yahoo News, as well as other reporters, at the direction of Fusion GPS in the fall of 2016.

Separately, a troublesome conflict of interest has emerged between the DOJ and Fusion GPS. As Solomon reported last May, Nellie Ohr, while working for Fusion GPS at the time, funneled her research to her DOJ-prosecutor husband, Bruce Ohr.

Tom Fitton, head of Judicial Watch, whose Freedom of Information Act request led to the disclosure of the Ohr–Ohr emails, claims they raise serious questions of a conflict of interest. According to Fitton: “The documents show that Nellie Ohr had extraordinary access to the Justice Department. Nellie Ohr may as well as have had a desk at DOJ.”

Horowitz’s forthcoming report on FISA abuses by the DOJ and the FBI, will likely conclude serious FISA abuses, as the information already in the public realm suggests strongly that the FISA court was intentionally deceived by the DOJ and the FBI.

Durham’s Probe Becomes Criminal InvestigationIG Horowitz’s findings on FISA abuses are what likely, at least in part, led to the recent revelation that John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the investigators, has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation, with the power to issue subpoenas, convene grand jury proceedings, and recommend federal charges.

Besides the potential FISA abuses, a source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham went to Rome recently, where, while sitting in a secure conference room, they were played a taped deposition of Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor who allegedly told then-Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. In addition to the Steele dossier, the Russia-collusion investigation was largely predicated on Misfud’s alleged statements to Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained Clinton’s emails.

Papadopoulos has said he was introduced to Mifsud as part of an entrapment orchestrated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

One America News Network (OANN) reporter Jack Posobiec on Oct. 25 reported that Barr and Durham had “flipped” former FBI general counsel James Baker to cooperate with them on the Mifsud situation.

If Mifsud, whose cell phones were recently acquired by Durham, was really an FBI or CIA asset, then, instead of being able to say that a minor Trump campaign volunteer was told by a Russian asset that the Russians had Clinton’s emails, the truth would be that Obama-era officials used their own asset, who initiated contact with that low-level volunteer.

If true, that’s proof of one of the greatest scandals in modern U.S. politics.

Fox News reports that its sources said Durham is “very interested” to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan.

‘Sisters Have Begun Leaking Like Mad’On Oct. 23, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, wrote to Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, asking whether he had opened an investigation into the frequent, national-security damaging leaks—averaging one leaked story per day during Trump’s first 18 weeks in office—by the intelligence community aimed at disrupting the Trump presidency.

The letter included some never-before-revealed texts and emails including a Dec. 15, 2016, text by since-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok to his FBI lawyer paramour, Lisa Page, in which Strzok said: “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they are kicking into overdrive.”

The senators want to know who the “sisters” are—presumably other intelligence agencies, including the CIA.

Flynn’s Counsel Claims FBI Notes Were Altered
Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, was charged and pleaded guilty to having made false statements to the FBI during their questioning of him, as part of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the president.

Although many people don’t realize it, audio recordings or stenographic transcripts of FBI interviews—while they form the basis of charges such as the one against Flynn—aren’t always made. Instead, the government relies on the FBI agents’ notes, supposedly contemporaneous, of the questions and answers at the subject’s interview summarized in an FD-302 form.

Flynn’s star counsel is now Sidney Powell, an accomplished former U.S. attorney, who worked at the DOJ for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine U.S. attorneys from both political parties. In a blockbuster 37-page motion, a minimally redacted copy of which is available online, Powell charges that the FBI conducted an ambush interview of Flynn that wasn’t for the purpose of investigating any crimes he may have committed.

Indeed, a Jan. 30, 2017, internal joint DOJ and FBI memo, less than a week after his interview, exonerated Flynn of being an agent of Russia, according to Powell.

Instead, Powell charges that the Jan. 24, 2017, interview—four days after Trump’s inauguration and two weeks after BuzzFeed had published the Steele dossier—was arranged as if a mere meeting among colleagues, after FBI top brass, including then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page, and then-FBI general counsel James Baker, decided upon a strategy of entrapping Flynn into making a false statement. According to Powell, McCabe himself made the call to Flynn, breaking FBI protocol, to set up the perjury trap interview, a move approved—she said—by then-FBI Director James Comey. As noted above, OANN’s Posobiec said that Baker has been “flipped” by Barr and Durham.

According to Powell’s filing, the FBI also altered the FD-302 form of Flynn’s interview to create, “from whole cloth,” statements that have no basis in the handwritten notes.

At issue are supposed false statements by Flynn regarding what he “said or did not say” about then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, getting back to him on how Russia would react to his requests about a U.N. vote and about President Barack Obama’s expelling of 35 Russian diplomats for Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election.

There’s no mention of Kislyak’s response in the handwritten notes, Powell said.

The notes do indicate that Flynn denied making the requests to Kislyak in the first place. Those statements were immaterial, Powell argued, since they had nothing to do with the FBI’s Russia probe and “policy discussions by the incoming National Security Adviser were none of the FBI’s business.”

Powell also charges that the Flynn 302 writeup laid in a “deliberative” state in FBI hands for an inordinately extended period.

The FBI had transcripts of the Flynn–Kislyak calls, which they had wiretapped, so they knew what had been said between Flynn and Kislyak, and had no legitimate basis to investigate Flynn about them (again the purpose was solely a perjury trap). In fact, after a transcript of the Flynn–Kislyak calls was leaked—with the consent of then-FBI general counsel Baker, Powell charges—to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius on Jan. 10, 2017, DNI Clapper told Ignatius to “take the kill shot” on Flynn, or words to that effect, according to Powell.

In her motion, Powell asks the court to make the DOJ prosecutors explain why they shouldn’t be held in contempt of court, to produce the original draft 302 notes and other exculpatory documents, and to dismiss the case against Flynn (despite his previous guilty plea and before he is sentenced) because it involves “outrageous government conduct” that is “repugnant to the American criminal system.”

Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, but he did so, according to Powell, based on a fraudulently altered 302, after exculpatory evidence was improperly withheld from him, and while his then-defense counsel, Covington and Burling LLP, was laboring under an intractable conflict of interest, as they had worked with the government to prepare and file for Flynn the very same Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) papers that the government then used to threaten him with a FARA violation charge.

In addition, Powell asserts that texts show that the federal judge who initially presided over the case, Rudolph Contreras, who was recused from the case shortly after accepting Flynn’s plea, was a friend of Strzok, and that exculpatory correspondence from Obama’s then-attorney general, Sally Yates, has been hidden.

In her motion, Powell refers to Mifsud as a CIA “asset” and charges former FBI top officials Comey and McCabe with having run a politically driven campaign to convict Flynn as part of a larger attempt to oust Trump.

Are Criminal Indictments Forthcoming?All this suggests criminal deception of the FISA court, coordinated criminal leaks of classified information by U.S. intelligence agencies to disrupt the Trump presidency, the secret use of an asset by U.S. intelligence agencies to entrap a low-level Trump campaign aide, and the entrapment of Flynn, coupled with the criminal alteration of an FBI 302 to at least partially fabricate federal crimes against him.

All this, as I wrote in February of last year, was part of a politically motivated and highly coordinated effort by upper-echelon Obama-era officials to use the vast power and machinery of the federal government to oust Trump, based on the entirely fabricated charge that Trump had colluded with the Russians, which itself began as an Obama-era narrative to excuse Clinton’s historic loss to Trump in 2016.

In other words, a silent coup.

Americans are appalled at the unimaginable level of corruption at these formerly revered U.S. institutions—the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA. Obstruction of justice also includes framing the innocent. Besides criminal leaking of classified information and perjury, the coup attempt is arguably treasonous.

Don’t believe the liberal media damage-control spin that Barr is just doing Trump’s dirty work, in an attempt to ensure the president’s reelection. The mainstream media are deeply complicit and have a vested interest in preserving the false narrative they’ve been peddling for years.

Barr’s motivation is apolitical: He knows that the vast damage these Obama officials have done to the reputations of the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA can only be repaired with convictions and meaningful jail time for the bad actors. Obama’s top brass knows this, and that’s why they are now lawyering up. It remains to be seen how high the corruption goes, including whether Obama will be implicated.

Stephen Meister is a founding partner of Meister, Seelig & Fein LLP, a law firm headquartered in New York; a published author; and an opinion writer. Twitter @StephenMeister. Opinions expressed here are his own, not his firm’s.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.



To: koan who wrote (1175120)11/7/2019 7:57:12 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1571338
 
The middle class will certainly feel the tax burden of 'Medicare for All'

Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has a plan for everything, including how to finance a health care spending increase of more than $20 trillion, supposedly without raising taxes on middle class families. Her plan on paper does not raise taxes on middle class families. But in the real world, although middle class families would receive benefits from the plan by Warren, they would not be immune from the burden of its tax increases.

Her proposal would hike or impose an assortment of taxes. Wealth tax? Create one. Financial transaction tax? Levy one. Corporate income tax? Raise it. Capital gains tax? Increase it to ordinary income tax rates and make it due each year for certain taxpayers. The list goes on. While many of the taxes Warren proposes to raise fall more heavily on those with high incomes, such as capital gains and corporate income taxes, the burden of these types of taxes on the middle class cannot be ignored. Even if middle class families do not sign the check to pay the bulk of these taxes, they still suffer when jobs are not created and when their incomes are lower.

Raising the corporate income tax, enacting an entirely new surtax on businesses, and changing the way that businesses get to deduct their investment costs for tax purposes, all of which Warren proposes to do, would discourage people from investing and make the United States a less competitive place to do business. With less investment in productive capital, such as new machinery and factories, worker productivity would suffer along with output and wages, leaving all Americans worse off.

The plan also seeks nearly $9 trillion in new government payments from employers. Warren has defined this as a contribution, but calling it by another name does not change the underlying economics. These new employer payments, in the form of a flat contribution for each employee in place of the insurance premiums, amount to a payroll head tax. Any economist will tell you this type of tax is ultimately borne by employees. Employers write the checks, and money that could have been used as compensation for employees would instead go toward the government.

Even her Democratic rivals understand that these “Medicare for All” tax increases in her plan would affect the middle class. Bernie Sanders said of the employer contribution, “I think that that would probably have a very negative impact on creating those jobs, or providing wages, increased wages, and benefits for those workers.” Joe Biden said more broadly, “Her plan would create a new tax on employers of almost $9 trillion that would come out of workers pockets, a new financial transaction tax that would impact investments held by middle class Americans, and a new capital gains tax that would affect far more people” than Warren has claimed.

We can debate the extent to which middle class families will truly feel the negative economic impact of the different taxes in her proposal, but we cannot pretend that they will be magically unaffected. While we should give credit to Warren for developing a detailed plan to fund her proposal, it is simply false to say that the middle class will not be burdened by these tax increases required to fund her health care program. Whether people would be better off under this plan is a serious policy question to explore, but there is little use in pretending there will be no consequences. Middle class families will feel the burden of $20 trillion in new taxes either way.

Erica York is an economist with the Tax Foundation based in Washington.