Below is my column in the New York Post on the growing attacks on those who are challenging the alleged abuses by the FBI and the censorship system on social media.
Here is the column:
“The Democratic Party [is] the bedfellow of international communism.” Those words from Sen. Joe McCarthy captured the gist of the Red Scare and the use of blacklists and personal attacks to silence critics. The Democrats this week appear to have taken up the same cudgel in labeling opponents and critics Russian sympathizers and fellow travelers in opposing government involvement in a massive censorship system.
The Red Scare is back and it is going blue.
I testified this week in Congress on the Twitter Files and how they suggest what I have called “censorship by surrogate” or proxy.
The files show dozens of FBI and government employees actively seeking the censorship of citizens and others for their viewpoints. In my testimony, I warned that this was reminiscent of the McCarthy period where the FBI played a role in the establishment of blacklists for socialists, communists, and others. I encouraged Congress not to repeat its failures from the 1950s by turning a blind eye to such abuse.
This view was amplified by former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who became persona non grata for her anti-war sentiments in Congress. She was later labeled a “Russian asset” by Hillary Clinton, who has refused to support that scurrilous claim against a former member.
For years, the Democrats pushed a Russian collusion theory that collapsed. It was later disclosed that the Clinton campaign hid and then lied about funding the infamous Steele Dossier. Nevertheless, people like Carter Page were falsely accused of being Russian agents and critics of the investigation labeled as Russian apologists. Ironically, the FBI was warned that the dossier appeared to be the result of Russian disinformation and relied on a presumed Russian agent.
If anything, my warning of McCarthy-like attacks and measures seemed to be taken more as a suggestion than an admonition by some. Soon after the end of the hearing, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill appeared on MSNBC to denounce the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers.
She exclaimed, “I mean, look at this, I mean, all three of those politicians are Putin apologists. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard loves Putin.” (For the record, she also attacked me as not being “a real lawyer.”)
What was most striking is the level of attacks on those seeking an investigation into possible FBI abuses. The Democratic Party was once the greatest defender of free speech, the greatest critic of corporate power, and the greatest skeptic of the FBI. It is now opposing the investigation into the FBI’s involvement in a massive corporate-run censorship system.
In the 1950s, it was easy for politicians to avoid discussing underlying views by just labeling their opponents as fellow travelers. We are watching the same use of personal attacks today as a way to evade the troubling disclosures in the Twitter Files.
While some like McCaskill yell “Russians!” others use more modern labels, such as “conspiracy theorists.” That notably includes the FBI itself.
When criticized for the role FBI agents played in secretly targeting citizens for censorship, the FBI called critics “conspiracy theorists . . . feeding the American public misinformation.” It is something that you might expect from a pundit or politician. It is far more menacing when this attack comes from the country’s largest law enforcement agency.
Where the Hoover FBI would call dissenters “Communist sympathizers,” the Wray FBI labels them “conspiracy theorists.”
Alternatively, various Democrats portrayed anyone criticizing Twitter for censorship as supporting insurrections against the government. Member after member suggested that seeking to investigate the government’s role in censorship was to invite or even welcome another Jan. 6.
Thus, when Thomas Baker, a former FBI agent, testified on his extensive writings about changes in the FBI, he was attacked by freshman Congressman Dan Goldman (D-NY) who asked him if he had any experience investigating extremist groups. He didn’t get the answer he hoped for. When Baker responded, “Yes,” and tried to explain his prior experience, Goldman immediately cut him off and accused him of trying to sell a book.
For my part, I got off light. I was not accused of being a Russian mole or fellow traveler of insurrectionists. After responding to a question on the specific content of the files (released and confirmed by Twitter itself), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), denounced me for offering “legal opinions” without actually working at Twitter. It is like saying that a witness should not discuss the content of Pentagon Papers unless one worked at the Pentagon. (By the way, the content of the Pentagon papers as well as the Twitter Files are facts. The implication of those facts are opinions. I was asked about both the factual content of the files and their constitutional implications).
It is all tragically familiar. The effort this week was to attack witnesses rather than address what appears to be the largest censorship system in the history of this country. It is, of course, ironic that those seeking to check such government-supported censorship are the ones being called Putin lovers. Putin loves censorship and likely stands in awe at the success of the left in using the FBI and corporations to regulate speech on social media.
Putin and other authoritarian countries have long feared the Internet and social media. They have struggled to gain the very level of censorship carried out by Twitter and other executives with the support of politicians and pundits.
We now know that members like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) secretly sought censorship of critics, including a columnist. Their success would make Putin blush.
However, Democrats have insisted that freedom is tyranny. Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian when he previously dismissed calls for free speech in social media and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.”
He then added bizarrely of uncensored social media: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”
Indeed, it is a nightmare, but a familiar one.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
Prof. Turley
My ONLY complaint about your colum is that you are only NOW really grasping the depth and breadth of the problem.
We did not wake up yesterday to the realization that in the past week the left had gained totalitarian control of information.
We have gotten here Gradulally over decades.
You note that democrats used to be the party of free speech or FBI suspicion, of suspicion of corporate power.
Yet, most of the country new even in the 60’s that Much of the Media – particularly TV leaned left.
That problem has gradully worsened over time, though it came to a head in 2013 when the leading edge of the Social Media generation hit Colleges. And the effect was devastating. Left leaning administrations were under attack by their own even farther left leaning student bodies.
This moment was the End of the association of the left with actual tolerance.
We were told that as this generation hit the work place – that the realities of life would bring trhem under control.
They hit the work place in 2017 and it is the workplace that changed. Our campuses are intolerant and hateful.
The most hateful people being those ranting about all the invisible haters out their.
Like during the culture revolution the children seek out capitalist roaders to villify, to put dunce caps on, pummell with insults and to coerce into confession and re-education.
Fortunately we live in the most tolerantr and free country in the world in the most tolerant and free moment in history,
And willing victims for this modern cultural revolution are rare.
Regardless, the problems you are noting are not new, they have merely accelerated in the past decade.
Regardless, the left has sufficient control of the public square that you only have two choices – go woke, or get red pilled.
There is no middle ground.
So we are clear – it is not the right polarizing the country. Outside the left most of use can tolerate those with views we disagree with.
We can even tolerate MOST of their conduct. There are few redlines outside the left. Don’t perve the kids. Dont force your views on the rest of us and we will get along.
Look arround – who are the prime targets of the left ? The most powerful attacks and forces towards conformity are MOSTLY targeted at actual liberals such as yourself. It is the Gabbards, the Rowlings, the Navartolovas, that must be made to toe the line, to recant, reducate, and chagrined return to the fold.
What is disturbing is that so many like you only NOW grasp how serious the problem is.
We have been facing the new MacCarthy era for a decade.
From the moment Der Sturmer was driven off the internet.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
The victims have changed. The game is the same.
This is not just the new MacCarthism, this is not just the new red scare,
this is the real rise of authoritarianism in the US
Dear Commenter Niemoller …Mr. Turley has been commenting and making valuable legal analysis of the situation for quite some time. Perhaps you don’t read as widely as some of us. That being said…the things that you both point out are true and are happening all around us. Thank God some bright light is beginning to shine on the situation.
I have been here for years. I have read Turley for years.
He is on the same journey a slowly increasing number of “liberals” have followed.
The gradual recognition that there is no parity between the dangers of the right and left at this moment in time.
The greatest threat to this country, to the world is from the modern progressive left. In two decades maybe we will need to worry about the right – though the fundimental nature of conservatism inherently makes it ALWAYS less dangerous even when wrong.
Regardless Turley is among a large group of liberals and civil libertarians who are slowly getting red pilled and becoming either actual libertarians or sometimes calling themselves classical liberals or in some cases even becoming conservatives.
The driving factor behind this is the increasing hostility of the left to any concept of individual rights.
Turley has been writing about this for many years. He has consistently championed individual rights.
But for much of that time, he has tried to claim parity in threat for both the right and the left.
The right has many problems. They are not the bastion of protection for individual liberties they sometimes claim.
But they are also not the danger that the left poses.
Turley has always been a wise advocagte for individual rights. But increasingly he is grasping that the only consequential threat is from the left.
I agree the new red scare is real….but we the people got took over a long time ago….by the cartels both russian…Chinese and mexican. For a fact I saw the missing me Calvert at the state hockey tournament with his wife in Colorado in 2008. And the spy knows it. And played pink house Mellon camp anyway! Via their jesuits. We’ve been at war a whiile….it’s just who is going to launch the first nuke?. Do I want wwiii? No one logical does. Yet here we are on the precipice of not logical. Which by the 100 monkey theorem can’t last much longer!
Demotalitarians are becoming truly desperate. They’ve gone “full retard,” and they know their days are drawing to a close. A reckoning is coming.
Dims are scared to death they will lose their power over us and will say or do anything to retain it, thus these idiotic lies.
Jim, you’re so scared of the truth you just commented under 3 different names.
Thinkthrough’s Article Is Full Of Clues..
Explaining Trump’s Russia Taint
Thinkthrough, our most prolific commentator, posted a link here yesterday to a four part article entitled, “The Press Versus The President” by Jeff Gerth for the Columbia Journalism Review.
The article in question sets out to illustrate how wrong the mainstream media was sticking Donald Trump with all those Russia allegations. Yet the article contains many references to words and actions by Trump that either stoked or confirmed suspicions.
Like these 2 paragraphs below:
Early on a Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that his predecessor, Barack Obama, “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” before the election. The claim was quickly denied by spokespersons for Obama and the federal government, and a new line of attack against Trump was opened.
Trump says he based his tweet on something he saw on Fox News that morning. “I was watching Bret Baier Saturday morning,” he said in an interview, referring to an episode that ran the night before, “and he had used the words spying on my campaign.” Trump thought the tweet “was innocuous” until an aide told him, “Sir, the lines are lit up.”
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
………………………………………………………………………………………….
These 2 paragraphs tell us all we need to know about Donald Trump. He sees something on Fox News and promptly sends an inflammatory Tweet concerning his predecessor, Barack Obama. How brainless can you get?!
An experienced politician, worthy of the presidency, would have had that Fox News story thoroughly investigated by the most qualified officials. A president has to be certain he knows all the facts before making serious allegations about any individual or institution.
But Donald Trump had no political experience. Trump seemed to think the presidency was just a reality show. And in reality shows you have to keep shocking the audience to keep them engaged.
Throughout Jeff Gerth’s four part article, Donald Trump comes across as a man who keeps shooting his mouth off at inappropriate moments. It was exactly that kind of behavior that got Trump tagged as a stooge for Putin. Trump has only himself to blame.
“Thinkthrough’s Article Is Full Of Clues..”
You are clueless and said nothing.
Here’s a clue for “Anonymous” it’s time to scrape the Biden/Harris bumper sticker off your Prius.
….except McCarthy was correct with his accusations. Read “American Betrayal” by Diana West, among other publications confirming the veracity of McCarthy’s accusations.
The NY Times wins awards for false reporting.
The NY Post gets censored for truthful reporting.
The NY Post. I would use that paper in the bottom of the bird cage.
And I would use the NYT, WaPo, Huff, and if CNN, NPR, MSNBC made a print paper, to line the bottom of a bird cage.
I take that back . . . I would not want my birds to read that propaganda and get dumber for it. My birds are smarter than woke Leftists. They also contribute more to society and the environment than woke Leftists with their eggs and manure. Something woke Leftists cannot claim. Their manure is worthless. Just like they are.
Wally, your breath smells like the bottom of a birdcage.
We need not be afraid of these demons…not give them another second of our lives. We have hired a dod who knows exactly what lajes 86 545499a means. They’ll either perform….or lay treasonous. But it’s desparate…they don’t want an open court for their treason!.. . So they’ll avoid court. If course no one can sue them……they have immunity. Only confess can hail them to demonstrate. It’s up to the ppl to demand more. By witness of their infidelity and finally action. And they know this hence their preemption parents at al. Trying that sick route to shut down america. But it won’t work for them….because we rural have the troops they need to raise….all we have to do is forbid and hold the line. Like Donald said “economic wars are easy to win’…..here we don’t even have to conspire to hold back troops..their policy does it itself! Like they boys they would have raised don’t know how to be self reliant? They do and see a spade to call. They will have to draft….expectedly rural america will only give their percent to any draft. 15%…..not the 50% you all have come to rely on! For the dod. They will have to draft…..all their illegals et. al. by the officers side arm…because they won’t be drafting us rurals. If that logic makes us suffers of Putin’s logic…so be it.
Only after my litterbox supply of NY times and and DC rag runs out. What miller points out is oddly factual. Imagine that NY post slaps out soem truth and the NY slimes runs cover for the leftist tribe.
Except Joe McCarthy was telling the truth.
“The NY Post. I would use that paper in the bottom of the bird cage.”
That is your choice, Wally. You should carpet your floors with whatever you choose. At least one thing will be intelligent in that home, the flooring.
Heard a good one today. The first thing that the founding fathers said was you can say anything you want. The second thing they said was you better get a gun.
Yet here and now is a great big standing army ready to shut you up! On all fronts! And you don’t have an f16 or nuke…. per biden!
We have a left wing poster on this blog known as Anonymous who continues to tell us that Trump is a Putin stooge even after the MSM has published redactions to their disinformation. The Columbia School of Journalism lays out the timeline of the deception. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php. The sad thing is that neither the MSM or Anonymous have issued any apology for the damage to the nation that they caused based on information that they peddled that was untrue. Ah yes. Just True patriots doing there best to save Our Democracy. I am waiting for a report that tells us that they have given back their Pulitzer prize rewards for journalism.
Jeff Gerth is not being a good journalist. A real journalist points out why.
“In Part One of this series, I noted that Jeff Gerth couldn’t make it through his first sentence without making an error (two errors, if you’re a hard grader). In Part Three, I noted that the fact set Gerth draws on is not the Mueller investigation itself or even the underlying Russian hack-and-leak campaign, but the investigations into that investigation.
That’s how Gerth came to rely on a Russian intelligence report of uncertain reliability to make claims about Hillary Clinton’s motives without actually disclosing he was doing it.
Gerth’s reliance on people like Lindsey Graham and Sidney Powell and John Durham and a host of angry men who post highlighted screen caps on Twitter is a problem, because they’re not reliable. They’re the obvious source of many of his outright errors.
Gerth falsely claimed the DOJ IG Report vindicated Devin Nunes’ memo – but he didn’t check that (I did). He applauded retractions based off John Durham claims that couldn’t withstand the scrutiny of a jury. At least twice, he falsely claimed that investigations – the SSCI investigation’s findings about Konstantin Kilimnik, Mueller’s investigations about Prigozhin’s ties to the Russian government – showed no evidence rather than that much of it remains classified.
These are just a few of a host of smaller errors that would have been caught in any robust fact check.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/02/11/jeff-gerth-declares-no-there-where-he-never-checked/
“The Columbia Journalism Review blew off one or another clear error – errors that came from people like Sidney Powell! – by claiming the actual facts were mere “editorial notes.”
And along the way, Gerth declared that details about plans for a meeting with Putin’s office in September 2016, foldered emails about carving up Ukraine, coordination with Mar-a-Lago on Flynn’s calls about sanctions with Sergey Kislyak, $400K in suspicious payments from a Russian oligarch, and proof that Stone was lying about contact with WikiLeaks amounted to “no there there.”
CJR claimed that it “has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail.” This review has shown how ridiculous that claim is. What it did, in the name of scolding other journalists while misrepresenting their work, was create the “Russiagate” narrative they defined the entire project by. They did so by skipping key events of 2016, ignoring the vast majority of the NYT and WaPo reporting they claimed to review, substituting the dossier for actual media coverage, and passing off a Russian intelligence product with no notice. To prove they found the “Russiagate” narrative they had dishonestly created, they simply parroted the work of people from their same “Russiagate” bubble, all the while ignoring vast swaths of contradictory evidence in the documentary record.
CJR invented a Russiagate narrative via omission and factual error. Then they boasted that they had found what their own journalistic failures created.”
Marcy Wheeler dissected Gerth’s “investigative” piece and found a plethora of errors and just plain sloppy journalism. Not surprising it was a poor attempt at pushing a narrative that deflects from the facts.
Svelaz, you fail to tell us that Jeff Gerth was a reporter for that conservative paper known as The New York Times. He is also a pulitzer prize winner for his reporting. When someone doesn’t agree with your assessment you try to destroy their reputation even when they have been people of the left. Did you think that we wouldn’t look up their history. You loved them when they were lapdogs but now you kick them to the curs to the curb. Nice fellow.
Estovir, you are constantly dissing the NYT. So why are you impressed that Gerth worked for them? If you were totally consistent, you’d reject Gerth’s piece.
Svelaz, now you even throw The Columbia School of Journalism under the bus. The list of graduates of tThe Columbia School of Journalism includes a great number of graduates who became reporters for the left wing press. Even The Huffington Post. If you scroll down you will see high lighted in blue what media outlets they have reported for. Now when this great school is reporting the truth of what happened you don’t want to hear it. The question that should arise is should I listen to an article from The Columbia school of Journalism or to you. The answer is easy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Columbia_University_Graduate_School_of_Journalism_people.
The simple truth. Russia had little involvement in the 2016 election. $200,000 of facebook ads. The did not over shadow the $2 Billion spent by all compaigns together.
“Svelaz, now you even throw The Columbia School of Journalism under the bus. The list of graduates of tThe Columbia School of Journalism includes a great number of graduates who became reporters for the left wing press.”
Nope. Mueller’s report included evidence that russian hackers were involved. Muller indicated a whole group of them on evidence his investigation uncovered.
Tit,
“Svelaz, now you even throw The Columbia School of Journalism under the bus. The list of graduates of tThe Columbia School of Journalism includes a great number of graduates who became reporters for the left wing press.”
That doesn’t change the fact that they did not fully verify what they were publishing. Wheeler’s analysts goes into every detail and it makes the case that they indeed make a lot of errors in their story. Just because one has a Pulitzer doesn’t mean they can screw up.
You are cutting and pasting from some one. An honest person would give proper attribution.
All I see are claims but zero details.
What did Nunnes get wrong. We know Schiffs report was the opposite. Scoring proves Schiffs report full of lies.
Iowan2, I posted the link to the author of the analysis. All you have to do is read the whole thing if you want details.
Thank goodness for the empty wheel. One empty vessel filling another’s empty head.
Yes, in the 1970s there were still left-wing looms claiming that J. Edgar Hoover had a counterfeit typewriter built to frame Alger Hiss.
Lots of words, but nothing to actually support any of them.
In your whole post can you cite a claim that you have actually backed up with FACTS ?
One ?
Thinkthrough:
From Part 4 of your posted link:
Trump, in July 2018, finally had a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin, the man he mistakenly claimed in 2015 to have met years earlier and his supposed puppet master, according to Steele’s dossier.
In advance of the summit, Trump met with his national security adviser, John Bolton, to discuss how to deal with Russian meddling. The president “remained unwilling or unable to admit any Russian meddling because he believed doing so would undercut the legitimacy of his election and the narrative of the witch hunt against him,” Bolton wrote in his 2020 memoir The Room Where It Happened.
At a press briefing, the final question was whether US intelligence or Putin should be believed with regard to meddling in the 2016 election. After going on a tangent about the server at the DNC, Trump said, “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia that did it. Then, a bit later in his answer, he expressed “great confidence in my intelligence people.”
The first remark received all the attention. Some outlets, like the Times, didn’t include his comments about “great confidence” in US intelligence in their stories, while others, such as the Post, did.
……………………….
One can see again and agin throughout this 4 part piece that Trump’s lack of political experience is what got him tagged with Russia. Trump continually said the wrong things at the wrong times.
Anonymous, that would be what you and the rest of the parrots would say. Trump didn’t say the wrong things, the left and the media lied. The Russia Hoax was a complete lie and in order to perpetrate it, the FBI lied as did former CIA agents. You have to be forgiven for not knowing this because it might take you a decade to get caught up. By that time you won’t remember what you said.
No need to reply. We already recognize your disabilities.
Biden says thge wrong things at the wrong times.
Clinton says the wrong things at the wrong times.
Given that the allegedly best politicians in the country are no better and often much worse than Trump
I do not think we are dealing with a problem of political inexperience.
TiT,
They, MSM and Anonymous, will not.
They cannot. Then they would be admitting they were not only wrong, but complicit in promoting a lie. A lie to which this day, they continue to promote.
Yeah. And when will the NYT give back Durantys pulitzer.
McCarthy was right about everything.
He said the greatest threats ame from Hollywood and the media. Crazy, right?
It is extremely disturbing that MacCarthy was right about the threats.
Yopu forgot teachers, he was right about that too.
OT: Yet another ‘flying object’ is destroyed:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/12/us-military-shoots-down-fourth-flying-object-over-north-american-airspace
Said to be octangonal this time…
Our esteemed Pentagon just said it was not ruling out aliens. Astonishing incompetence.
Chinese are aliens until naturalized. So are Russians and Canadians.
Daniel,
Are they expecting Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and Randy Quaid to save us?
This has been going on for at least 2 years, DoD has not done much of anything with the knowledge. No wonder it just keeps increasing.
But for some civilians with long lenses, there is little doubt Biden would have approved any of these take downs
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones-are-spying-on-the-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos
Professor Turley Writes:
“For years, the Democrats pushed a Russian collusion theory that collapsed”.
***
Here Professor Turley repeats, for the thousandth time, a threadbare, Fox News talking point we are supposed to accept as ‘fact’. ..But is not..!!
Recently The New York Times ran an in depth examination of John Durham’s probe and found that the entire inquiry resembled, you guessed it, a ‘weaponization of government’.
Below is an excerpt:
In early December, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, completed his own report on the origins of the Russia investigation.
The inspector general revealed errors and omissions in wiretap applications targeting a former Trump campaign adviser and determined that an F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email in a way that kept one of those problems from coming to light. (Mr. Durham’s team later negotiated a guilty plea by that lawyer.)
But the broader findings contradicted Mr. Trump’s accusations and the rationale for Mr. Durham’s inquiry. Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. And he concluded that the investigation’s basis — an Australian diplomat’s tip that a Trump campaign adviser had seemed to disclose advance knowledge that Russia would release hacked Democratic emails — had been sufficient to lawfully open it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html
……………………………………………….
The truth is that Robert Mueller’s probe was far more credible than John Durham’s. What’s more, Robert Mueller NEVER ‘cleared’ Donald Trump.
The real ‘weaponization of government’ came when William Barr aggressively misrepresented Mueller’s report. John Durham’s probe then became an even more aggressive effort to reverse not only Mueller’s findings, but Michael Horowitz’s as well.
Exactly why did the FBI open a counter intel investigation? Why did the FBI keep the investigation open after Jan 4,2017 when the FBI concluded in a letter to Comey, there was no derogatory evidence. What exactly did Mueller investigate? Because Durham has exposed huge gaps in Muellers “investigation.
Barr did nothing but use the report handed to him, with no omissions and no embellishment.
Barr also ordered Muller to present a summary ready to release to the public. Muller filled the summary with classified material so it took weeks to release
Barr also ordered Muller to make any criminal charges recommendations, along with all the evidence to support all required elements. Muller lacked evidence to fulfill the order.
This is weaponization of the FBI
“Bank of America, claiming they did the data mining on their own intititive, sorted out all people that bought plane tickets to DC Around Jan 6 and ever bought a gun,giving that data to FBI DC
“But the Washington Field Office runs wide open, KGB-style, doing whatever must be done to advance the fundamental transformation of America. So the FBI comrades sorted the names by region and sent out directives to the outlying field offices.
Boston handles four states — Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island. Seven BOA customers here had purchases that identified them to the American Gestapo as enemies of the state.
The Boston field office was instructed to open an investigation into the BOA Seven.
The Boston guys, God bless ‘em, pushed back. What exactly were the “predicate acts?” The Democrats in D.C. didn’t care about no stinkin’ rights. Just ask the owners of Betsy Ross flags, or Catholics who attend Latin Masses. They too have been deemed subversives by the FBI.”
The briefers in Washington said, in effect, just open the cases and we’ll find out if they did anything.”
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/02/11/howie-carr-a-rare-salute-to-the-boston-fbi-for-refusing-jan-6-improper-investigations-on-citizens/
Lois Lerner 2.0? IRS chilling dissent with interrogation of nonprofit: election integrity activist</strong?
""The thought police have found a home in the Biden administration," Kline said, lamenting the enlistment of IRS enforcement muscle in the curbing of dissent. "
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/lois-lerner-20-irs-meets-disinformation-targeting-nonprofit-seeking-tax
Anonymous, one FBI agent to another. “He won’t become President will he? No we will stop it. This one statement makes your overly long post about no government involvement into a laughing stock. Once again I must remind you that the mainstream media now admits that the Hunter Laptop story was withheld from public view at the influence of the FBI and the CIA and it effected the outcome of an election. Why do you insist on escaping reality? You can spin it in your head but you can’t spin it in ours.
Mueller’s investigation was illegal and unconstitutional from the start.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated – including by the IG report,
But as well by Durham the FBI KNEW by Early Jan 2017(IG) and Oct. 2016 (Durham).
That there was ZERO evidence of Russian Collusion and no foundation for an investiation.
That the steele dossier was garbage, the alpha bank scheme was a hoax, and that papdoulous was not talking to Andrew Downer about hacking the DNC.
Crossfire Huricane was DOA. The FBI KNEW there was no There There.
The appointment of a Spcial Counsel therefore LACKED any substanitive basis as required by law.
In the unlikely even Mueller was not aware of this when he was appointed – he could not have avoided learning of it within days.
At which point he was Constitutionally and legally obligated to STOP.
As to your nonsense regarding Barr – what part of Barr’s summary was innaccurate ?
Barr has testified, and it is well documented that
Mueller was told that his report HAD to be publication ready the moment he turned it over to Barr.
That means NO GJ material could be in the report.
Mueller failed to do so – and admitted as much.
Providing Barr with a report the public was demanding immediately and had a right to know, and that Barr could not legally make public.
The Summary was the best he could do immediately under the circumstances.
The report itself was made public AFTER the GJ material was removed as required by Law.
This is a problem of Meuller making – or more likely his staff as it was self evident at Muller’s house testimony that he was clueless and suffering from dementia.
There are very few differences between Horowitz and Durham thus far.
First Durham – unlike Horowitz had access to FORMER government officials, as well as those outside of govenrment.
As a result Durham was able to push back the date at which CrossFireHuricane became obviously dead to early Obctober 2016 rather than Early Jan 2017.
Beyond that Durham has been able to much more effectively demonstrate the political biases of the agents involved.
Hasn’t Turley heard the news?! We’re in the middle of an invasion of the Martians from China and Russia.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawmakers-demand-accountability-biden-admin-4th-flying-object-shot-down-military
This is no time to doubt the authorities. This is a time to band together, obey instructions, stop asking questions, and worship the government — no matter how corrupt and stupid and illegitimate (aka the Joetard hat trick) it may be.
Little tip – because there are those here who won’t realize – an indication that you are turning sarcasm off at the end of the comment is a clue for those whose Sherlock antennae aren’t functional.
File all of this under “NOT watching the Stupid Bowl.”
REPRISE
“The Democratic Party was once the greatest defender of free speech, the greatest critic of corporate power, and the greatest skeptic of the FBI. It is now opposing the investigation into the FBI’s involvement in a massive corporate-run censorship system.”
************************************
When discussing the cancer that destroys societies, Aristotle observed that republics devolve into democracies which, in turn, devolve into depostisms. And what causes that political rot? Well, a hint is that it goes by the eponymous initials, DIE. No society survives diversity of goals and values very long. Indeed, it is the crowning achievement of the Christian faith that its strictures formed a cohesive internal bond among the Western nations uniting disparate factions even as those same nations pursued outright mayhem against each other. Even Madison had no compelling defense to the cancer of factions in Federalist 10, relying on republican form of government to ward off the corrosive effects of “selfishism” which is the prime motivator of factions. Madison forgot about Aristotle but societal degradation didn’t.
We’re in a bad way and the fault lies ironically at the feet of the same people who had much of it right for decades. Liberal principles have been cheaply sold by the Dims for that fraudulent, tantalizing, pathological and ephemeral delusion of all tyrants – total power. They will receive their comeuppance to be sure — as every despot in history has — but the collateral damage to the rest of the body politic is the real concern.
Welcome to Stage 3.
Attribution: Mespo
“[T]he crowning achievement of the Christian faith that its strictures formed a cohesive internal bond . . .”
You mean like the Christian tyrant Constantine — who razed pagan art, who forcibly suppressed free speech, who banished and jailed and tortured dissenters, who torched libraries, who buried ancient Greek culture, who transformed Rome into a theocracy, who ushered in the Dark Ages.
I’ll grant you that that is, for Christianity, a “crowning achievement.” Which is why any civilized person should be horrified at the thought of repeating that “achievement.”
(I know, I know. Somehow, this time it will be different, because you have fresh faces. Said every socialist since forever.)
Sam:
“You mean like the Christian tyrant Constantine — who razed pagan art, who forcibly suppressed free speech, who banished and jailed and tortured dissenters, who torched libraries, who buried ancient Greek culture, who transformed Rome into a theocracy, who ushered in the Dark Ages.”
********************************
I guess English is your fourth language. I clearly said that Christianity served as an internal bond for “Western Nations” even as they ravaged each other. Constantine was a Roman emperor and specifically of the Eastern Empire so of course no rational person could think I was referring to him. Nations hadn’t even been born at that time. Try again, Sam.
“I guess English is your fourth language.”
And I guess learning from history is your fifth.
Same ideology. Same consequences.
With few exceptions, gov ernments have no business on a web site owner’s refusal to remove content.
Misinformation®™ is not one of those few exceptions.
“Is the Red Scare Going Blue? Democrats Accuse Government Critics of Being ‘Putin Lovers’ and Supporting Insurrectionists”
– Professor Turley
______________
It was not a Red Scare, it was a Red Total Conquest.
Can you say ubiquitous censorship of speech, the exercise of governmental dominion over private property, a repressive FBI/CIA, aka KGB/GRU/Gestapo, and wholly unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.?
Have you read Article 1, Section 8, wherein Congress is provided the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure, aka “general Welfare,” the 5th Amendment wherein individuals are provided the absolute, exclusive and unqualified right to private property – to “claim and exercise” dominion – and, again, Article 1, Section 8, wherein Congress is provided the enumerated power to regulate ONLY money, commerce, and land and naval Forces?
Look around you. Do you, or do you not see:
– Central Planning (mandated solar panels, electric cars, windmills, ESG, “fake” “reparations” not paid by African tribal leaders who sold their citizens, etc.)
– Control of the Means of Production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation)
– Redistribution of Wealth
– Social Engineering
For crying out loud, stop the obfuscation and the mitigation of what has happened to once-free America – a nation that was free for merely 71 years.
Name calling is the height of intellect at present. A sorry state of affairs, but not unexpected given a deeply illiterate and highly inattentive population.
So you noticed the the lack of harmony of the ingredients and the discordant intermixture of the population?
That they have had an injurious tendency.
Whatever would America be without the extensive and expensive extant compulsory political emulsifiers forcibly facilitating the aforementioned “discordant intermixture?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“[There was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration] except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions. The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
– George Washington
The enlightened minds who founded our nation understood well the primate legacy of mankind (propensity to ignite “us” vs. “them” passions and then bend reality to signal tribal loyalty). This is why they were resolutely opposed to political parties and the inevitable factionalization of political life.
The US has been engaged in a low-level info-war between left and right since the 1930s, but with the internet, social media, and anyone-can-publish in this century, editorial judgment has been removed as a constraint on what can be claimed in public.. The “truth” takes a back seat to the infowarrior’s mindset of striking first and strongest, and then doubling down when facing “incoming”. Truth is for weaklings once war breaks out.
Some of us who are moderate centrists and hoping to preserve meritocratic, fact-based dialog as the core of our public decisionmaking — so that we can make smart, informed policy decisions — are feeling irrelevant now that the war is on….the pressure to take sides as things intensify overtakes the calming voice of the negotiator — reconcilation begins to look like escapism.
Yet, it’s only 20% (the two 10% “loudest voice” fringes) who have forsaken comity and goodwill. The media craves conflict theatrics as infotainment and thus amplifies the strident illiberal’s rant. Centrists would have to get much tougher reigning in extremists, and reassert norms of publishing to reverse the course.
In other words, to save American democracy, the moderate center must take up war against both left and right fringes. Only by redefining the two camps this way can civil war and authoritarianism be averted. The task is to come up with some red lines that put divergent thinking with goodwill on the acceptable side, and deceitful infowarfare based on factional identity on the unacceptable side. Laws regarding media responsibility and accountability need a tune-up.
Otherwise, we’ll have either leftist revolutionaries or rightist fascists emerge as the winners, neither of whom has any coherent plan to replace the system we live under.
Professor Turley Writes:
Sen. Claire McCaskill appeared on MSNBC to denounce the member witnesses as “Putin apologists”. She also attacked me as not being “a real lawyer.”
…………………………………
Let’s be honest here, these ‘Weaponization Of Government’ hearings are a ‘weaponization of government’. The Republicans on this committee are all Trump acolytes seeking to expunge Trump’s Putin-friendly taint.
These hearings are essentially a made-for-Fox event to generate rightwing talking points under ‘the color of authority’; that authority being a congressional committee.
But outside the rightwing bubble, these hearings are widely regarded as a circus of hypocrisy. No one has forgotten Trump’s deferential tone every time Vladimir Putin came up in conversation.
No one has forgotten that Trump tried to force Ukraine’s Zelensky to parrot Putin lies. No one has forgotten that Trump had extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs.
So when Claire McCaskill dismisses Johnathan Turley as “not a real lawyer’, she is more than likely referencing Turley’s tireless efforts on behalf of Fox News. McCaskill knows that Johnathan Turley will say almost anything to buttress Fox News narratives.
What TOTAL BS.
This is a stupid fallacy.
You are making the typical stupid error of the left by claiming that all efforts to undo the Mistakes you have made are themselves the same mistakes.
This is illogical.
This is like saying that police are criminals because they sometimes have to use force to stop the violence of others.
Those of you on the left repeat versions of this fallacy constantly.
NOw it is not Weaponizing Government to try to stop the weapoonization of government.
Congrsss has legitimate constitutional authority to investigate constitutional violations of those in the executive.
As several Witnesses noted – this should be a BIPARTISAN effort.
Our executive branch can NOT constitutionally target ordinary people over politics.
“But outside the rightwing bubble, these hearings are widely regarded as a circus of hypocrisy. No one has forgotten Trump’s deferential tone every time Vladimir Putin came up in conversation.”
His observation isn’t wrong. The hearings have turned into a show of grievances and whining that only exposed republicans ignorance of the law and the sad reality that they have become victims of their own conspiracy theories. They have not shown that twitter has done what they have claimed. What has been shown is the hypocrisy. Boebert raging at former twitter executives for the audacity of enforcing their policies and MTG for ignorantly claiming her 1st amendment rights were violated by a private company. There was one republican promising they would be jailed for their crimes without mentioning what crimes they have committed. It’s a clown show meant to provide their gullible constituents with the illusion of doing what they promised to do. Give them a show, not a real investigation.
Typical left wing BS.
Yes, Lots of people – many of them Republican are agreived over the immoral conduct of Democrats.
The willingness to allow the ends to justify the means to acheive power.
Rather than fixate on the emotional and make idiotic arguments about emotion.
Why not address the FACTS and the PROBLEM
Neither the FBI nor any part of the executive may use government power to restrict speech.
Not directly, Not indirectly.
Not for political reasons.
Not because of alleged misinformation or disinformation.
Not even to quash the speech fo dangerous lunatics that are wrong.
That this was political done to influence an election just makes it all the worse.
That it was also done to silence oposition on health issues – where the oposition turned out to be far more right than the government – just makes it all worse.
That you are not agreved over this is evidence of your own stupidity.
watergate was just democrats getting wildly upset over a minor botched burglary.
Please identify a right wing conspiuracy theory of consequence that has not proven to be True ?
Even stupid Qanon nonsense like the cabal of peodophiles at CIA actually proved to be true – over abotu a Decade CIA quietly dismissed without prosecuting a number of analysts for having Child porn on Govenrment computers – there was an IG report on this.
Democrats, the DNC, and the Biden campaign actively sought to coerce the media to censor stories critical of them, and to silence critics.
This is legal, but incredibly immoral.
It is a part of a growing body of evidence of the corrupt tactics that Democrats are willing to employ to gain power.
Such as Clinton’s Steele Dossier Hoax, and the Alpha Bank Hoax.
It is reasonable to question whether those prepared to take highly immoral actions – such as those, are not also willing to engage in massive illegal ballot harvesting, as well as all kinds of other election fraud.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott
Separately the FBI and other Alphabet agencies were involved in censorship.
That is illegal and unconstitutional as well as immoral.
You ranted for years over Fraudulent claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
There is ZERO DOUBT that the FBI and other alphabet agencies HEAVILY interfered in the 2020 and subsequent elections.
Only a moron would fail to understand that is far WORSE than actual Russian interference.
You no longet have represenative government, when the government itself influences the outcome of the elections that provide govenrment with its legitimacy.
This is the pneulitimate self licking ice cream cone.
Yes, alot of people are “agreived”.
If you are not – then what is wrong with you ?
Do you have no shame ?
The law itself is relevant here only to the extent that those who have actually committed specific crimes – and that could be alot of people, should be prosecuted.
But Congress is not a prosecutorial body. You say cogress is ignorant of the law. Neither True nor relevant.
If the law proves to be insufficient to stop this misconduct – then we need new law – and that IS Congresses province.
Unlike FBI and DOJ congress does not have to stop investigation when they find conduct that is immoral and unconsitutional but not illegal.
In fact probing the specific areas of whether the existing laws are sufficient is absolutely their domain and a CLEAR legislative purpose.
Contra your idiocy it is NOT congresses job to know ahead of time what the law is – that is part of why they have witnesses.
But it absolutely is their job to determine whether the law is sufficient to assure constitutional conduct by those in the executive branch.
When the law proves insufficient to protect constitutional rights – Congres MAKES THE LAW.
Obviously you are ignorant of the facts.
First Twitter did NOT enforce their policies – that has been exposed by the Twitter files, and openly addmitted by Twitter executives.
Time and time again Twitter acted – either motivated by left wing nuts in its management or at the suggestion, prodding and sometimes coercion of those in government, and the democratic party, and it acted in VIOLATION of its own policies.
You also ignore the possibility that SM polices themselves could be illegal or unconstitutional, or that as they are applied might require congress to change the law.
SM media companies receive what I ebelive to be unconstitutional protection from defamation claims in return for providing a platform for free speech.
It is within the comain of congress to determine whether that grant of protection is justified, or whether the law needs to be changed either to eliminate that grant of protection or to qualify that it is in return for complying with government standards on constraint of free speech.
We already determined long ago that because universities accept government funds, that they are therefore subject to the same contraints as government regarding Free speech. It is therefore ALREADY established as constitutional that Government can bind private actors to the same free speech constraints as Government is subject to. There is a clearer case regarding Social media companies. They receive govenrment protection from expensive Defamation lawsuits that they would lose and would be very expensive. it is clear in the law that is in return for free speech. It is NOT clear in the law that it is in return for complying with the same free speech constraints as Government must adhere to.
Regardless, you seem to beleive that because you like the results of the status quo – that everything is honky dory.
It is not.
“They have not shown that twitter has done what they have claimed. ”
They have, but they did not need to.
That has been proven multiple ways.
By the testimony of Twitter executives,
By the Twitter files.
By the evidence from ongoing lawsuits in the 5th circuit I beleive.
By actual reality. We KNOW that Twitter constantly violated their own policies – they have admitted that under oath and in their own internal communications.
WE KNOW that in myriads of instances Actual TRUTH was censored and those presding it were banned.
Whether that is regarding Covid, or election related information.
What is the remedy for SM companies failing to adhere to their own policies ? Whether you like it or not that has been proven beyond any doubt.
Is that acceptable ? Is it false advertiosing ? Is it fraud ?
In NY they are trying to prosecute Trump for criminal campaign finance violation for paying Stormey for an NDA.
Democrats directed SM to silence 10’s of thousands of people as part of efforts to win an election – haw is that not far worse ?
IKs it the DNC ? The Biden Campaign ? or Social Media that is violating the law that you claim Trump is ?
Trump atleast paid Daniels for her silence – she had a choice – take the money and be silent or speak out.
Democrats got an incredibly valuable campaign contribution – the silence of tens of thousands, and they did not even have to pay for it.
Further those silenced had no choice.
Absolutely people should be upset.
YOU should be upset – Why aren’t you ?
If SM were silencing those on the left for posting the absolutely stupid nonsense they have posted that is obviously false – you would be livid.
The hypocracy is yours.
Serious; Trump tried to get Zelensky to Parrot Putin’s lies ?
Do you have ANY neurons at all in your cranium ?
Zelensky brought the subject up – Not Trump, Read the Transcript.
Like the Collusion Delusion, The Hamilton 68 and all other left wing nut claims regarding Putin – there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind that Putin has any meaningful involvement in US politics.
Further – Why is it that you left wing nuts always presume that Putin is out to get YOU ?
The most moronic thing about the collusion delusion was the stupid beleif that Putin would prefer Trump to Clinton.
Your idiotic beleif that Putin would prefer Trump to Biden is even more absurd.
Biden demanded the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin – The man investigating Burisma the RUSSIA Affilitated energy Company that employed Biden’s son.
Why on earth wout Putin want to have Biden investigated ? Do you ever think about the nonsense you spray before posting it ?
Democrats have been doing Putin’s Bidding right up to the moment Putin inveaded Ukraine.
Putin inveaded Ukraine because Biden had done nearly everything in his power to message Putin that he was Putin’s buddy.
Biden constrained US Energy,
Allowed Nordstream II to move forward.
Muddled the Withdraw from afghanistan.
And frankly stood back until it was clear that Ukraine was not going to be rolled over in 96 hours as predicted.
Are you actually forgetting that What Trump wanted investigated was Biden’s Threat to end over a Billion in Aide in Ukraine’s defense against Russia.
I would further note that whiile there was more than enough evidence of Malfeasance ont he part of Biden in 2020 and 2019, and 2015 and every prior time this has come up – Clinton BTW was the Original Source – Not Putin.
Regardless, do FACTS actually matter to you ?
The Biden’s are HEAVILY tied to RUSSIAN Oligarchs. What Trump sought to have Zelensky Investigate was Bidn’s abuse of Ukraine at the request or Russian’s.
In what World would Putin look to trigger investigations that would lead to Himself ?
Wow talk about BS. John you really laid it on thick.
“Like the Collusion Delusion, The Hamilton 68 and all other left wing nut claims regarding Putin – there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind that Putin has any meaningful involvement in US politics.”
False. Mueller indicted russian hackers associated with the russian government. He did provide proof that Putin’s government was indeed involved in the hacking and exposing the Hillary Clinton campaigns emails.
“Biden demanded the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin – The man investigating Burisma the RUSSIA Affilitated energy Company that employed Biden’s son.”
False. It wasn’t just Biden. It was the EU, state department and even Ukrainian officials trying to purge corruption. It was the prosecutor who was corrupt. He was one of the many individuals who were being facilitated by Paul Manafort who often laundered money thru russian and Ukrainian entities.
“Are you actually forgetting that What Trump wanted investigated was Biden’s Threat to end over a Billion in Aide in Ukraine’s defense against Russia.”
False. Trump wanted Biden investigated to look for “dirt” just prior to the election. Trump withheld aid to Ukraine to pressure President Zelensky’s to investigate Biden. He was trying to extort Ukraine for political reasons. That is why he got impeached the first time.
“Democrats have been doing Putin’s Bidding right up to the moment Putin inveaded Ukraine.”
False, you have no basis for that claim.
“The most moronic thing about the collusion delusion was the stupid beleif that Putin would prefer Trump to Clinton.”
Putin DID prefer Trump over Clinton. Putin desperately wanted the sanctions imposed by Obama removed because it was hobbling his and his allies ability to finance their personal endeavors and military agenda. Remember that infamous meeting in Trump tower? It was not about “adoption” it was about ending the sanctions that were a problem for Putin. Hillary was NOT going to grant Putin the relief he wanted, but Trump, being the friendly idiot he was to Putin, was the one who would be more open to ending the sanctions. THAT is why Putin worked hard to make sure Trump won the election. Trump had many development projects in Moscow with Putin allies who were eager to exploit Trump’s stupidity to their advantage. Their mistake was relying on Trump’s unpredictable and incompetent behavior.
“The Biden’s are HEAVILY tied to RUSSIAN Oligarchs. What Trump sought to have Zelensky Investigate was Bidn’s abuse of Ukraine at the request or Russian’s.”
Pure hogwash. Trump is the one who was heavily tied to Russian oligarchs. Trump has numerous development deals with russian Oligarchs to build hotels and apartments in Moscow. Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort was directly implicated in corruption and money laundering schemes with Russian oligarchs that’s why Trump’s demands to investigate Biden were merely a deflection from his own involvement in Russian oligarchs and corrupt officials.
Nearly all of your claims are unsubstantiated and not corroborated by facts which you have not provided at all.
“He did provide proof that Putin’s government was indeed involved in the hacking and exposing the Hillary Clinton campaigns emails. ”
The only thing this BS indicates is that Hillary IS a criminal and that our press is complicit in hiding the fact, like they did with the biden laptop 4 years later.
Face it, you are either a spokesmodel for the criminal organization – DNC, or simply willfully ignorant.
This is the best part: “Mueller indicated”…”Nearly all of your claims are unsubstantiated and not corroborated by facts” lolol. They always project.
He did provide proof that Putin’s government was indeed involved in the hacking and exposing the Hillary Clinton campaigns emails.
The FBI NEVER did an independent investigation of the DNC emails. The Used the Crowd Strike “draft conclusions”
Crowd Strike CEO testified under oath to Congress, the Emails were never transmitted over the internet. ie; not ‘hacked’
“False. Mueller indicted russian hackers associated with the russian government. He did provide proof that Putin’s government was indeed involved in the hacking and exposing the Hillary Clinton campaigns emails.”
Mueler indicted 3 US companies with ties to Russia, he indicted no Russian hackers.
He tried to take the case to trial. He eventually dropped the case in NY because the judge required that he provide atleast some evidence for the claims and charges that he was making. Mueller was unable to provide ANY evidence and so withdrew the charges.
There is ONE SINGLE Russian who has been successfully prosecuted for anything.
That is a russian student who was hanging arround with people in the NRA.
Mueller locked her up for months in Solitary until she plead guilty to a minor infranction and had her visa canceled and was deported.
She has ZERO connection with the Trump campaign or the GOP more broadly or even the election.
Her involvement was with the NRA and she was a known gun rights advocate in Russia before coming to the US.
The only false “conspiracy theories” are YOURS.
A US Attorney can indict a pizza. That means little. Being forced to withdraw for lack of evidence is DAMNING.
The standard of evidence to START a Criminal trial is about the same as an indictiment – all that is required is SOME evidence of each element of the charged crime – not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, not even evidence that is likely true. Complete garbage evidence is sufficient to get to trial.
Mueller did not have that. That is the only Indictment against Russians that Mueller made and though it went to court, it did not go to trial.
Because it was garbage.
YOU are the one completely unfamiliar with the FACTS.
“False. It wasn’t just Biden. It was the EU, state department and even Ukrainian officials trying to purge corruption. It was the prosecutor who was corrupt. He was one of the many individuals who were being facilitated by Paul Manafort who often laundered money thru russian and Ukrainian entities.”
There is no disagreement that Ukraine was and still is one of the most corrupt contries in the world.
We know that massive amounts of current US aid to Ukraine is lining the pockets of Ukrainians – and others – possibly even russians – cettainly europeans, and definitely US defense contractors.
There is zero doubt there should and will be massive investgations of that – as well as the corruption involving covid funds.
As their should be.
There is a legitimate question as to whether that corruption is sufficient that we should not send aide or have provided the Covid money.
MOST would answer that the aide should be provided but more effort should be made to root out corruption.
Regardless, the POINT is that no one desputes corruption in Ukraine.
That said Goldman had his ass handed to him in the hearings for EXACTLY the claim you are making.
Conflating general corruption in Ukraine – including Prosecutors Before and After Shokin with stupid claims that Shokin was corrupt,
And that Others such as the EU and UK were working to get rid of him.
I am going to addres Shokin specifically in more detail is there is no question at all that lots of people were complainign about Corruption in Ukraine – including by Both Shokin’s predecessor and succsessor.
You hae made vague claims tha Shokin was corrupt – without evidence.
All the claims that Shokin wa scorrupt originate with one of two sources:
VP Joe Biden or the FBI task force on Ukraine corruption that he ran
A George Soros funding NGO.
That is IT.
There is plenty of outcry over Ukrainian corruption generally – but not Shokin specifically.
Contra your claim – while again the State department WAS compalining about ukrainian corruption generally – it was not complaining about Shokin.
And in FACT none other than Victoria Nuland who shows up in just about ever state department related scandal,
Was warning the Office of the VP that Hunter Biden’s involvment in Ukraine and his efforts to get Shokin removed were creating problems and the appearance of corruption for Biden and the Obama administration.
Letters, emails, and memo’s from Nuland – and Hunter Biden and his law firm and his investment firm and the VP’s office were all obtained by John Solomon via FOIA requests years ago – BEFORE the Hunter Biden laptop surfaced.
So lets make this Clear for you. Hunter Biden was ACTIVELY trying to get the State department to intervene on Burisma’s behalf in Ukraine and THWART Shokin. The State Department did NOT do that and instead told VP Biden to reign his son in before he caused a scandal for the Obama administration.
Pretty much the OPPOSITE of your claims.
As Joe said “Nobody messes with a Biden”.
Shokin was not corrupt, he just went after the worng corrupt Russian oligarch – one protected by the Biden’s.
Todate there is ZERO evidence of Corruption by Shokin.
He is not affiliated with any oligarchs, or other powerful people – either before or after.
He is quietly retired and lives very modestly.
He has also testified under oath and there is a record of it regarding all of this.
As have numerous other ukrainians and others.
The Corrupt parties are Not Shokin, But the Biden’s and Burisma.
If you have ACTUAL evidence to the contrary – not idiotic claims that someone said he was corrupt.
But real evidence. The standard is low – I do not need bank receipts, but at the very least you should be able to identify Que Bono ? Who benefited ? You should be able to link Shokin to some powerful figures
The Bidens can be linked to powerful and corrupting figures all over the world by the dozens.
And it is likely the House will ultimate get the bank deposits.
Do you have a FRACTION of the evidence that Shokin was corrupt ?
Not just nebuous claims that people said he was – WHO ? Specific People – naming Shokin and providing SOME evidence ?
“Putin DID prefer Trump over Clinton. Putin desperately wanted the sanctions imposed by Obama removed because it was hobbling his and his allies ability to finance their personal endeavors and military agenda.”
The sanctions were mostly put in place AFTER the election.
Russian Sanctions were NOT an election issue in the US. There is no evidence that either Trump or Clinton would have behaved fdifferently regarding them.
I would note that only a year or two earlier the Obama administration – including Clinton approved the Urainium One deal.
The Obama adminsitration made SEVERAL efforts to develop better relations with Russia – which despite some corrupt aspects is otherwise a LAUDIBLE goal.
“Remember that infamous meeting in Trump tower? It was not about “adoption” it was about ending the sanctions that were a problem for Putin. ”
It was actually about adoption.
“Trump Jr. said that despite assurances that Veselnitskaya would come bearing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton in their 2016 meeting, the topic quickly shifted to the Magnitsky Act and U.S. adoptions from Russia.”
That has been confirmed by everyone else in the meeting incluiding testimony under oath, including from the Russians in the meeting.
Veselnitskaya BTW has been a relentless cursader for Russian adoptions she has no ties to Putin.
The Magnitsky Act BTW is a Bipartsian Law passed by congress it is still in place and can not be repealed by any president.
The U1 deal took place AFTER the Magnitsky Act.
And AGAIN After the passage of the Magnitsky Act
” In their joint statement to reporters here, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke carefully about continuing discussions on the sensitive issues of European missile defense.
But in an unscripted moment picked up by camera crews, the American president was more blunt: Let me get reelected first, he said; then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president — and outgoing prime minister — Vladimir Putin.
“Yeah, I understand,” Medvedev replies, according to an account relayed by an ABC News producer, who said she viewed a recording of the discussion made by a Russian camera crew. “I understand your message about space. Space for you . . .”
“This is my last election,” Obama interjects. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev, who last week demanded written proof that Russia is not the intended target of U.S. missile defense efforts, responded agreeably.
“I understand,” he told the U.S. president. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.””
“The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.”
So WHY is it that you think Putin was going to prefer Trump ?
It certain not because of his close ties to the Obama Administration – including Hillary Clinton specifically,
And the massive amounts of money that Russia provided to the Clinton’s – just beforfe the election.
“Hillary was NOT going to grant Putin the relief he wanted”
Correct – Clinton can not repeal a law. Neitehr can Trump.
Regardless, Democrats have ALL the ACTUAL ties to Putin.
“but Trump, being the friendly idiot he was to Putin, was the one who would be more open to ending the sanctions. ”
So your whole argument is based on your gut feeling that Trump who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, would be more friendly to Russian than Clinton, Obama and Biden who had already been repeatedly freindly to russia and Putin and had actually porfited from it.
So in Svelaz world something is true merely because you want it to be – not because of any facts ?
“THAT is why Putin worked hard to make sure Trump won the election.”
And yet there is ZERO actual evidence of that.
Even the CIA beleived Putin thought Trump was dangerous to Russian interests, and that Clinton was someonePutin could work with.
“Trump had many development projects in Moscow with Putin allies who were eager to exploit Trump’s stupidity to their advantage.”
False, there was one project – a Trump tower Mosow which never got anywhere at all.
Contra to YOUR claims – no one in Russia was interested. If Putin wanted influence with Trump, Trump Tower Moscow would have been proceding rathert than never going anywhere at all.
John, you have decimated every one of Svelaz’s cut-and-paste arguments. He doesn’t understand the facts, so when he pastes using his own words, he becomes confused. He will not show where you are wrong because the talking points don’t address solid facts.
In another thread he says “Influence peddling is not illegal” but as soon as he is asked questions he runs away. He can’t defend his position.
I am waiting for Svelaz to respond to the questions raised by his cut and paste. The questions and some laws were printed on the same page making it easy for him to defend what he said, but cut and paste doesn’t provide the intellectual abilities required.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/12/is-the-red-scare-going-blue-democrats-accuse-government-critics-of-being-putin-lovers-and-supporting-insurrectionists/comment-page-3/#comment-2262987
Just to be clear, it would be my GUESS that but for the collusion delusion nonsense which made any efforts with Russia politically impossible,
That Trump – Like Obama, and Bush and Clinton would have sought to improve relations with Putin and Russia.
That was in the US interests.
There are myriads of geopolitical analysts over the past 3 decades who have noted the U Failure to bring Russia into the West after the collapse of the USSR.
Russia is a Natural part of the West. Continuing a hostile relationship with Russia through that time period was a huge mistake.
One ever president before Trump sought to rectify and failed.
In addition to the Abraham accords but for YOUR Russia, Russia Russia nonsense. we could have an improved relationship with Putin and the Ukraine war would never have hapened.
“There are myriads of geopolitical analysts over the past 3 decades who have noted the U Failure to bring Russia into the West after the collapse of the USSR.”
Many analysts felt Russia was a natural ally to the west decades before the USSR broke apart. When Russia fell, our foreign policy failed us. As you say, with strength, Trump tried to rectify the problem, and the left destroyed the ability of the US and Russia to deal peacefully. Ukraine is an example of how by forcing America to overstep its bounds, the left has brought us close to a world war that should never have occurred.
I would remind those on the Left that the US has many allies that are far from the best people – Turkey, Suadi Arabia.
Russia and Putin would be no worse an ally than Erodigan and Turkey or MBS and Saudi Arabia.
It is also likely that a better relationship with Putina dn Rusia would have given us more power to constrain SOME of Putin’s misconduct.
It is difficult be the US has been know to “stand up to its allies” when they are wrong.
It is my position – and that of a great deal fo geopolitical analysts that the Russian Invasion of Ukraine was not inevitable.
The more hostile the west has been to Russia the more that Russia seeks to “defend” itself.
As one analst noted the current western boundary of Russia is infamous for being overrun by invading forces.
The more Russia feels threatened the more it looks to the mountains to the west as the defensible border.
Trump has no ties at all to ANY Russian oligarchs.
He has a freindship with a Russian Pop Singer.
Trump Tower Moscow never got beyond the words Trump tower Moscow, because Trump had ZERO influence in Russia.
The Biden’s and Clinton’s have ACTUAL ties to multiple Russian Oligarchs.
Manifort is not even alleged to have ties to Russian Oligrachs.
The money he “allegedly” laudered was Fees he was paid for running political campaigns in Ukraine that he stashed legally in foreign bank accounts. Some of which he then Loaned himself as a LEGAL means to avoid taxes. But he Failed to document the loan properly and he Failed to make any effort to repay it.
That became Tax evasion. That never should have been criminal tax evasion. Manafort had previsiously settled the issue with the IRS.
But Manaforte was on the wrong side of politics and facing a DC jury that hated Trump and punished Manafort. You have far more “money laundering” and criminal tax evasion with Hunter Biden than Manafort.
Hunter had to “borrow” 2.5M to pay the tax bill on his foreign earnings that he too “moeny laundered” into the US without paying taxes.
There is no difference between what Hunter did and what Manafort did EXCEPT.
Manafort was dealing with LESS money, and he made the pretense of loaning himself the money – which is legal.
Hunter who is supposed to be so smart – did NOTHING to make the foreign transfers legal.
If you would BOTHER to instead of making dozens of unsupported and ludicrously stupid claims actually provide SOME evidence for any of the claims you made. You might realize – you have none.
And not clutter up the site with mutliple rebutal posts disproving each and every claim you made.
There was nothing wrong with what Trump did.
There is no successfull prosecution by Mueller of a single Russian – except the pro gun college student whop was hanging arround the NRA and had nothing to do with the election.
Mueller did not even get to court against a single Russian – Mueller withdrew charges because the court threatened him with sanctions if he continued to prosecute where he had ZERO evidence.
The only BS here is
YOURS
BTW just about everything I have said can be corroborated – in most cases in the NYT.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal judge approved U.S. prosecutors’ request on Monday night to dismiss the criminal case against a Russian firm accused of funding a propaganda operation to meddle in the 2016 presidential election to sway it in President Donald Trump’s favor.”
“A left-wing think tank erroneously claiming to track Russian online activity was responsible for thousands of bogus stories asserting the nation’s influence in US politics, according to the latest batch of Twitter Files.
The Hamilton 68 “dashboard” was the brainchild of former FBI special agent and MSNBC contributor Clint Watts and operated under the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a think tank founded in 2017 — shortly after former President Trump took office.
The ASD Advisory Council included such figures as top Clinton ally John Podesta, Obama-era acting CIA Director Michael Morell, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former conservative activist Bill Kristol.”
“False. It wasn’t just Biden. It was the EU, state department and even Ukrainian officials trying to purge corruption. It was the prosecutor who was corrupt. He was one of the many individuals who were being facilitated by Paul Manafort who often laundered money thru russian and Ukrainian entities.”
John Solomon has provided via FOIA request the State Department communications regarding this.
NO The State Department was not Trying to get righ of Shokin.
They were trying to stop Hunter From meddling.
No the EU was not out to get Shokin.
No Shokin was not Corrupt.
Yes, it is the Bidens tied to Russian Oligarchs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/unraveling-tale-hunter-biden-35-million-russia/
Daily Mail
“Hunter Biden was paid $3.5 million by Russian oligarch – when Joe was VP – to open doors for her construction business in America”
“Hunter Biden is connected to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is involved in former FBI official Charles McGonigal’s recent indictment for violating U.S. sanctions by agreeing to provide services to Deripaska.”
“A real estate company with ties to first son Hunter Biden received more than $100 million from a Russian billionaire for property investments across the US that date back a decade, sources have told The Post.
The hefty cash injections into Rosemont Realty came from Elena Baturina — one of Russia’s wealthiest women, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, and a close ally of Moscow tyrant Vladimir Putin, the sources said.
In one portfolio deal, Baturina paid at least $40 million to Rosemont to invest in office buildings across the country, according to a source with knowledge of the transactions.”
Post
“Hunter Biden in 2011 offered to “provide Alcoa with statistical analysis of political and corporate risks, elite networks associated with Oleg Deripaska (OD), Russian CEO of Basic Element company and United company RUSAL,” reveal documents on the laptop he abandoned at a MacBook repair shop in Delaware in April 2019. RUSAL is a Russian aluminum company.”
Post
“Former National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz said Wednesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin actually favored Hillary Clinton In 2016.”
“Fleitz says House Intelligence Committee staff members discovered exactly the opposite and told him that there is ample evidence that Russia may have interfered in the 2016 election, but not necessarily on behalf of Trump”
“More gravely, they said that [then-] CIA Director John Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.”
“The former NSC chief of staff further stated that “Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.”
“Fleitz suggested that Brennan relied upon “low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win … ”
Please provide any evidence that Shookin had any links to Manafort at all.
Or any links to any Russian Oligarch’s.
As to Manafort – he was involved in Political campaigns in Ukraine for Yanukovych who was the Kremlin’s prefered Ukrainian.
Running a political campaign is legal.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department/
“In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.”
Here is the transcript of the Trump Zelensky call from cnn.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
Nowhere does it say “get dirt on Biden”.
Trump asked Zelesky for a favor – He asked him to look into Crowdstrike.
Below is the ONLY references to Biden in the entire conversation.
“The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Will that transcript have any impact on Svelaz’s comments that regard that conversation. None whatsoever. Svelaz doesn’t respond to fact or logic.
You note a major problem in dealing with the left.
They latch on to a narative – usually early, and no amount of facts, or evidence alters their belief in that narative.
The Russia interfered in US elections to aide Trump narative is about as dead as is possible.
The only party colluding with Russians were Democrats – anjd they were actually coluding to Frame Trump.
It was NEVER rational to beleive that Putin favored Trump.
While it is near certain that but for the complete idiocy of the democrats Trump would have sought and likely made progress towards an improved relationship with Russia, Unlike Democrats he would not have done so at the expense of US Security, jobs or interests.
It is also near certain that there would be no proxy war with Russia but for the rigged 2020 election.
Yet so many like Svelaz can not let go.
The Steele Dossier was a HOAX, there was no secret server at Trump tower communicating with Putin – another Democrat Hoax.
The Hamilton 68 “russian bots” turn out to be Real US Citizen’s expressing views the left did not like.
The Mueller investigation was a criminal farce. How many minutes after his appointment was it before Mueller learned that EVERY claim regarding Trump was not only already disproven – but infact the FBI knew they were frauds BEFORE they started investigating.
When an honest person discovers they have been duped and lied to about the misconduct of someone else, they IMMEDIATELY focus their investigation on the liar, not their target. One of the most damning things about the Durham investigation is that we needed a 2nd special counsel. It Was Muellers job to investigate the Collusion Delusion HOAX the moment he found out about it and that would not have been long after his appointment.
And on and on and on.
Svelaz is still fixated on Kilminick – this despite the fact that FOIA released documents from the US State State department establish that Kilminick was a US Asset.
Those on the left are STILL debating whether the Hunter Biden laptop is real – when there was more than enough evidence to investigate Biden Crime Family misconduct in Ukraine and elsewhere in 2015.
Trump Tower Moscow Was never anything of consequence.
If Trumkp had the slightest influence with Putin or any Russian Ologarchs it would have ahppened.
It did not. No one in Russia of any influece gave a Schiff about Trump prior to his winning the 2016 election.
You keep ranting about Obama’s Sanctions – This is nonsense.
Obama had an on again off again relationship with Russian and Putin.
You seem to forget that the Uranium One Deal was a Obama administration deal.
You seem to forget that Russian Oligarchs gave the Clinton foundation $140M dollars, that Bill Clinton was paid 500K to speek in Moscow.
Most of the Russian Sanctions were put in Place because of stupid claims of Russian interferance AFTER Trump won the election.
You can not have Putin Favoring Trump to remove Sanctions that had not yet been put in place.
Regardless, assorted Sanctions were in place through the entire Trump administration – and Yet somehow Putin managed to build up enough fiscal reserves to Invade Ukraine and keep the Russian economy together despite what are now the most draconian sanctions ever imposed anywhere.
Except even now – just as in 2016 – Energy is completely exempt from Sanctions – and Energy is Russia’s primary export.
Further there were (and are) no sanctions on Russian fertilizer, or Russian grains – not even now.
So what are these magical sanctions that you think are so important ?
I would note that the Uranium One Deal under Obama was going on right up through 2015.
What are these crippling sanctions and why is it that anyone thinks Trump would have been better for Russia ?
You do not seem to understand that Trump’s energy policy alone was more damaging to Russian than all sanctions – including those today.
Biden is only able to manage to Keep Europe in the Ukraine War because of Trump’s energy policy.
It takes years to build the LNG fascilities that are keeping Europe from freezing and keeping its factories open.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/business/natural-gas-europe-us.html
“Natural Gas Shipments, Mostly From U.S., Ease Europe’s Energy Crunch
As Russia squeezes supplies, a parade of tankers carrying liquefied natural gas is coming to Europe’s rescue.”
But for Trump’s energy policy – Europe would be begging Russia to end this right now.
The Trump tower meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya was based on the promise of Dirt on Clinton.
Nothing was provided and Natalia Veselnitskaya spent 15 min discussing adoption while Manafort, Kushner and Trump Jr. mostly ignored her and texted others.
From Testimony – that was confirmed by All other participants.
“MR. TRUMP JR.: Again, the majority was really split up between – really started off as Russian adoption, which was sort of the, you know, what I perceive to be sort of the feelgood segue to probably lobbying for something as it related to that Act. So, you know, I’d say we spent less than, you know, 5 minutes of the 20 minutes, again, speaking through a translator about the quote/unquote “dirt”, and the rest was a quick segue, bait-and-switch, whatever you want to call it, to speak about Russian adoption and the Magnitsky Act.”
Trump tried to force Ukraine’s Zelensky to parrot
“parroting” is right next to Treason in the federal criminal code.
No one has forgotten that Trump had extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs.
Ohhh! Business dealings! That were going on for decades since the fall of the USSR and doing business internationally was encouraged.
Color of Authority6
That sounds sinister.
We could compare these hearings, taking public testimony in a basement room in the capital with no public access, and the only information was that leaked by Democrats.
Or the Jan 6 farce. All the testimony recorded in secret. Then edited, produced and spoon fed to cluless voters.
“No one has forgotten that Trump had extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs.
Ohhh! Business dealings! That were going on for decades since the fall of the USSR and doing business internationally was encouraged.”
That’s why Hunter Biden was doing, business dealings. Nothing illegal about that, right? If Trump could do it so could Hunter. Glad you agree.
“That’s why Hunter Biden was doing, business dealings.”
Here, again, a chapter from the Left’s playbook: How to deceive by playing games with words.
HB was not selling a product or service. He was peddling policial influence — special favors (via JB) for the communist Chinese.
Influence peddling is not illegal. Trump’s business dealings also invoked influence peddling. He was asking for special favors from Putin. In exchange for allowing Trump to build hotels in Moscow. Tump would talk nice and promote Putin as a great leader. We all know how effusively Trump showered Putin with compliments.
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Anonymous, McDonnell v. United States clarifies that influence peddling is not illegal.
“Governor McDonnell, in contrast, contends that statutory context compels a more circumscribed reading, limiting “official acts” to those acts that “direct [ ] a particular resolution of a specific governmental decision,” or that pressure another official to do so. Brief for Petitioner 44, 51. He also claims that “vague corruption laws” such as § 201 implicate serious constitutional concerns, militating “in favor of a narrow, cautious reading of these criminal statutes.” Id., at 21.
Taking into account the text of the statute, the precedent of this Court, and the constitutional concerns raised by Governor McDonnell, we reject the Government’s reading of § 201(a)(3) and adopt a more bounded interpretation of “official act.” Under that interpretation, setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an “official act.” The text of § 201(a)(3) sets forth two requirements for an “official act”: First, the Government must identify a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” that “may at any time be pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. Second, the Government must prove that the public official made a decision or took an action “on” that question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy, or agreed to do so. The issue here is whether arranging a meeting, contacting another official, or hosting an event—without more—can be a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” and if not, whether it can be a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.”
The first inquiry is whether a typical meeting, call, or event is itself a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The Government argues that nearly any activity by a public official qualifies as a question or matter—from workaday functions, such as the typical call, meeting, or event, to the broadest issues the government confronts, such as fostering economic development. We conclude, however, that the terms “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” do not sweep so broadly.
The last four words in that list—”cause,” “suit,” “proceeding,” and “controversy”—connote a formal exercise of governmental power, such as a lawsuit, hearing, or administrative determination. See, e.g., Crimes Act of 1790, § 21, 1 Stat. 117 (using “cause,” “suit,” and “controversy” in a related statutory context to refer to judicial proceedings); Black’s Law Dictionary 278–279, 400, 1602–1603 (4th ed. 1951) (defining “cause,” “suit,” and “controversy” as judicial proceedings); 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) (using “proceeding” to refer to trials, hearings, or the like “before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer”). Although it may be difficult to define the precise reach of those terms, it seems clear that a typical meeting, telephone call, or event arranged by a public official does not qualify as a “cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.”
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcdonnell-19
Getting a no show board membership that pays you $50K a month, The paying your VP father rent of $50K a month. IS SELLING influence. The emails show that was buying classified information brought home by the VP
You ignore the crime and scream about something no else is claiming
“Getting a no show board membership that pays you $50K a month, The paying your VP father rent of $50K a month.”
What exactly is illegal about it?
“The emails show that was buying classified information brought home by the VP
You ignore the crime and scream about something no else is claiming”
LOL!! and yet…..you don’t show us these alleged emails. Meaning you’re making stuff up.
Influence peddling has never been illegal as it is part of politics. Prove to us that Hunter didn’t violate the above offenses or at least doesn’t deserve an investigation.
Do you understand what influence peddling is? No. By itself, it was never a crime. Do you know why the McDonnell decision was reversed? No. Do you know what an official act is? No. Do you know what the instructions of the judge must include when giving the jury instructions? No. Do you know the elements necessary to convict? No.
All you know is that influence peddling is legal, something known to all, but you don’t understand what the Supreme Court said.
All you are capable of is cut and paste, but that has nothing to do with knowledge or understanding.
You proved your ignorance when you said:
“Influence peddling is not illegal. Trump’s business dealings also invoked influence peddling. He was asking for special favors from Putin. In exchange for allowing Trump to build hotels in Moscow. “
Firstly, Trump wasn’t looking for an illegal deal, but let’s assume it was Biden looking for an illegal deal. Biden would be found innocent because the deal was never made. Your own example proves your own ignorance.
Svelaz, before you continue your ignorant rantings, respond to what already exists. You say “Influence peddling is not illegal.” Alone it isn’t. Laws involving the process of influence peddling are posted above. Read them. Stop with the cut and paste because you have difficulty putting the pieces together. Answer the questions below.
Influence peddling has never been illegal as it is part of politics. Prove to us that Hunter didn’t violate the above offenses or at least doesn’t deserve an investigation.
Do you understand what influence peddling is? No. By itself, it was never a crime. Do you know why the McDonnell decision was reversed? No. Do you know what an official act is? No. Do you know what the instructions of the judge must include when giving the jury instructions? No. Do you know the elements necessary to convict? No.
All you know is that influence peddling is legal, something known to all, but you don’t understand what the Supreme Court said.
All you are capable of is cut and paste, but that has nothing to do with knowledge or understanding.
You proved your ignorance when you said:
“Influence peddling is not illegal. Trump’s business dealings also invoked influence peddling. He was asking for special favors from Putin. In exchange for allowing Trump to build hotels in Moscow. “
Firstly, Trump wasn’t looking for an illegal deal, but let’s assume it was Biden looking for an illegal deal. Biden would be found innocent because the deal was never made. Your own example proves your own ignorance.
I’m not certain why Svelaz is telling everyone that SCOTUS ruled “influence peddling is not illegal.” SCOTUS said no such thing.
The cited decision merely stated that the federal bribery statute’s definition, 18 U.S.C. § 201, makes it a crime for a public official to “receive or accept anything of value” in exchange for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” SCOTUS narrowly defined what was, and was not, an “official act.” End of story.
(Indeed, S. Meyer is more correct than Svelaz in that the real takeaway from that case was likely directed more toward correct jury instructions than anything else.)
10% for the Big Guy
Glad you got off relatively easy. Wonder who McCaskill considers to be a real lawyer.
If those people controlled the House now, I’m sure there would be an Alien and Sedition Act 2.0 in committee somewhere