The Former President and All the Former Presidents Men

Diverse — Drokles on November 21, 2017 at 7:05 am

Jeg kan kun anbefale  at se eller gense Allan J Pakula og Robert Redfords All The Presidents Men, fra en tid, hvor også venstrefløjen var skeptisk overfor ‘deep state’. Men med Trump har de kastet alle hæmninger over bord og nogle har ligefrem håbet at efterretningstjenesterne ville foretage et kup, for at forsvare demokratiet (retteligt republikken). Og det håb falder ifølge Ed Klein ikke for døve ører.

Ifølge Klein er behandlingen af Trump helt uden fortilfælde “Even the Watergate episode and the anti-Nixon hurricane that came from the press is nothing like what Donald Trump is facing”. Trump bliver angrebet fra alle sider, ikke blot Demokraterne, men næsten hele pressen og dele af sit eget parti. Men mere end det, rystende mere

And then there is this underground operation that’s taking place throughout the country, fueled by former Obama and Clinton advisers and hangers-on. He’s getting it from all sides, and it’s been dirty, and it’s been disrespectful of the office of the presidency as well as of the president himself.”

Klein said All Out War includes “a secret FBI report that I’ve reproduced in full – it’s never been seen before – in which FBI agents infiltrated, undercover meetings of the Deep State in church basements in Washington, DC, and reported to the director of the FBI.”

“What they saw were these rogue elements in the federal bureaucracy meeting in these church basements and being instructed by union organizers and community organizers and other left-wing groups in how to obstruct the president’s agenda – by, for instance, losing files on purpose, deleting files from their computer, slow-walking regulations, leaking to the press, and doing everything they can to bollox up, obstruct, and reverse the orders that are coming down from the executive branch to do what they’re actually paid to do. They’re doing just the opposite,” Klein charged.

Det er Kleins anonyme kilder, der giver ham den historie, men vi kan måske sandsynliggøre det med observationer udefra, ved at se på, hvorledes FBI gebærder sig alt efter, hvem der har med at gøre. Trumps tidligere valg-kampagnerådgiver Paul Manafort blev anholdt og sigtet for en række forhold, som ikke vedrører Trump eller hans kampagne på nogen måde. Sigtelserne var af en art, som FBI normalt ikke besværer sig med, og Manafort havde allerede indvilliget i at samarbejde og overdraget alle relevante dokumenter til efterforskerne. Alligevel blev han anholdt og under grotesk dramatiske omstændigheder, hvor FBI agenter med trukne skydevåben bryder ind i hans hus midt om natten, hvor han og han kone ligger og sover. Konen bliver endda visiteret for våben, mens hun ligger i sit nattøj i sin seng. Og det fortsætter, skriver Andrew C McCarthy i et must-read på National Review

Mueller succeeded in convincing a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and Gates to provide grand-jury testimony against them. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, just as the charges against these defendants were announced with great fanfare, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., quietly unsealed a ruling compelling the testimony of the lawyer — who, though not referred to by name in the decision, has been identified by CNN as Melissa Laurenza, a partner at the Akin Gump law firm.

Interestingly, the jurist who rendered the 37-page memorandum opinion is Beryl A. Howell, who served for years as a senior Judiciary Committee adviser to the fiercely partisan Democratic Senator Pat Leahy (of Vermont) before being appointed to the bench by President Obama.

FBIs behandling af Hillary Clinton og hendes stab af medsammensvorne? Noget anderledes,

Lest we forget, President Obama had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, his former secretary of state and his party’s nominee, to be president. Moreover, Obama had knowingly participated in the conduct for which Clinton was under investigation — using a pseudonym in communicating with her about classified government business over an unsecure private communication system.

Obama prejudiced the emails investigation. Long before it was formally ended, he publicly pronounced Clinton innocent. He theorized that she had not intended to harm the United States. Even if true, that fact would be irrelevant — it is not an element of the statutory offenses at issue, under which several military officials, who also had no intent to harm our country, have nevertheless been prosecuted. (It also had nothing to do with her quite intentional destruction of thousands of emails, many relating to government business — also a serious crime.)

As night follows day, the FBI and the Justice Department relied on Obama’s errant and self-interested rationale in dropping the case against Clinton and her accomplices. What did Obama’s subordinates do after he patently interfered in the investigation? Well, then-FBI director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended — i.e., before over a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself, had been interviewed. Indeed, it has now been reported that Comey’s draft initially declaimed that Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in handling classified information — an assertion that tracked the language of one of the statutes Clinton violated. Later, in the statement he made publicly on July 5, 2016, Director Comey instead used the term “extremely careless” — substantively indistinguishable from “grossly negligent,” but the semantic shift appeared less tantamount to a finding of guilt.

In the aftermath, we extensively examined the Clinton investigation’s hyper-sensitivity to the attorney-client privilege.

Note that the lawyer for Manafort and Gates was forced to testify against her clients based on the theory that she had participated — however unwittingly — in their scheme to cover up their lobbying efforts on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. Aggressively, Mueller’s team contended that even if the lawyer had not intended to help her clients mislead the government, their use of her services was intended to dupe the government. That, Mueller argued, brought their communications with the lawyer under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Chief Judge Howell agreed. As a result, the lawyer’s communications with Manafort and Gates lost their confidentiality protection, such that Mueller could compel her to reveal them to the grand jury.

Compare that with the Justice Department’s treatment of the lawyers representing Mrs. Clinton and her accomplices. Actually, I shouldn’t really put it that way because . . . Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers were her accomplices.

As we’ve previously explained, the Justice Department refused to invoke the crime-fraud exception to explore what advice Clinton lawyers gave her information technology contractor before he supposedly took it on himself to delete and destroy her emails.

Forleden foretog jeg en lettere forceret analogi til The Rumble In The Jungle og hvis man skal fortsætte det billede, må man imponeres over Trumps rope-a-dope, hvor han blot lader dem slå i sikker forvisning om at deres tid er forbi og deres sidste kræfter snart vil slippe op.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress