THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH HER THEORY IS THAT TRUMP NEVER OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA'S 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE ...
BUT KAM IS A HACK POLITICIAN ON THE MAKE, SO FACTS FOR HER MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER ...
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
"Kamala Harris: ‘No choice’ other than prosecuting Trump"
Tal Kopan
June 12, 2019 Updated: June 12, 2019 9:03 a.m.
WASHINGTON — California Sen. Kamala Harris says the Justice Department under her presidency would “have no choice” but to prosecute President Trump for obstructing the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference.
The 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful and former San Francisco district attorney told NPR it would be the right thing to do in the wake of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference and possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said when asked whether the Justice Department should pursue an obstruction case against Trump under her presidency.
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
Harris said she believes Mueller was clear in his report that the only reason Trump was not charged with a crime was because of a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.
Mueller said the policy precluded his team from reaching a conclusion on whether Trump’s actions were enough to charge him, and he focused instead on laying out the evidence and legal questions.
Harris said that what Mueller laid out is enough to go forward with a case.
“The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads,” she said.
If Harris were elected president, Trump would no longer be protected by the policy that Mueller said tied his hands.
Harris’ comments come after sources told Politico that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that she wants to see Trump serve time.
“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to the sources.
Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan
Tal Kopan is the Washington Correspondent for The San Francisco Chronicle. Previously, she was a political reporter for CNN Politics, where she covered immigration, cybersecurity and other hot-button issues in Washington, including the 2016 presidential election.
Prior to joining the network, Kopan was a reporter for POLITICO in Washington, D.C., where she reported for their breaking news team and policy verticals, including a special focus on the Department of Justice, courts and cybersecurity.
Kopan started her career working in Chicago with local media outlets ABC7 Chicago and Fox Chicago News.
Her work has earned her awards and fellowships from the Atlanta Press Club; National Press Foundation; Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; and the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Kopan graduated with honors from the University of Chicago with a bachelor's degree in “law, letters and society.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/ar ... 971225.php
KAMALA HARRIS
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
CNBC
"Kamala Harris’ complicated history with Wall Street will come under scrutiny in the 2020 race"
Carmin Chappell
Published Sat, Jan 26 2019 • 5:00 PM EST
* Sen. Kamala Harris, the latest candidate to join the 2020 race, has a history of squaring off with the banking industry. But she has also been criticized for not going far enough.
* Harris made waves in 2011 as California attorney general after pulling her state out of national negotiations with big banks, later negotiating a $25 billion settlement for foreclosed households.
* Still, critics point to her refusal to prosecute OneWest Bank’s then-CEO Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud.
Sen. Kamala Harris’ history with Wall Street and the banking industry is about to come under scrutiny in a big way as the California Democrat joins what is expected to be large group of candidates seeking to topple President Donald Trump in 2020.
Harris, of California, has a history of squaring off with the banking industry.
The senator, who is under fire from the left over her track record on criminal justice matters, has also been criticized for not going far enough against Wall Street.
With the Democratic base moving further to the left since President Donald Trump’s election, the party’s 2020 presidential candidates’ relationship with big business and Wall Street are being subjected to intense scrutiny.
“There is definitely a group of caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters that are always going to have an issue when they hear ‘Wall Street’,” said Gillian Rosenberg Armour, a Democratic political strategist who worked on Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who said earlier this month that she would run for president, has voted for increased regulation of the financial industry, has received criticism from the left for taking money from big money interests and gauging the support of Wall Street financiers.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering whether to jump into the 2020 race, has deep, long-held ties to the banking industry.
In a crowded Democratic primary field, Harris will be vying for liberal voters against potential candidates who have made cracking down on Wall Street their personal brand.
Elizabeth Warren went from a prominent bankruptcy law scholar to creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before she became a Massachusetts senator.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is considering whether he should run again, proposed breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks, introducing a bill to do just that in October.
“How [Harris] frames her record is really going to be the deciding factor,” Armour said.
Negotiations with big banks
Harris served as district attorney in San Francisco and as California attorney general for six years each before being elected to the Senate in 2016.
As attorney general, Harris made waves in 2011 after pulling California out of national negotiations pursuing a monetary settlement from major banks for foreclosed households during the financial crisis.
She believed she could do better for her state.
In her new book, “The Truths We Hold,” the senator recounts a tense phone conversation with J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, persuading him to provide more settlement money.
The two yelled at each other “like dogs in a fight,” she wrote.
A spokesperson from J.P. Morgan declined to comment on the conversation.
Harris later reached a $25 billion settlement deal from J.P. Morgan and other banks, much higher than the $2 billion to $4 billion initially on the table.
California homeowners received over $18 billion in mortgage relief as a result of the deal, according to a report by the attorney general’s office.
“This outcome is the result of an insistence that California receive a fair deal commensurate with the harm done here,” Harris said in a statement at the time.
Harris later backed the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, a package of legislation to protect homeowners during the foreclosure process.
The legislation also extended the statute of limitations to prosecute mortgage fraud from 1 to 3 years.
In 2017, her first year as a U.S. senator, she introduced a bill alongside fellow Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Dianne Feinstein targeting executives at big banks.
The bill, entitled the “Accountability for Wall Street Executives Act,” would allow state law enforcement to issue subpoenas when investigating bank fraud.
Missed opportunities?
Still, liberal critics allege that in many cases, Harris was too restrained when going after the financial industry.
People who supported Sanders in the 2016 primary have been especially skeptical of Harris’s values.
After negotiating the $25 billion settlement deal, Harris also introduced a special task force to prosecute mortgage and foreclosure fraud.
However, the team, known as the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, only processed three cases in 10 years, according to a report by the East Bay Express.
In 2012, the California Department of Justice found in an investigation that OneWest Bank participated in “widespread misconduct” when foreclosing on homes, recommending that Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank.
However, Harris declined to prosecute OneWest or its then-CEO, Steven Mnuchin, despite the department’s recommendation.
A spokesman for Mnuchin called the allegations “garbage.”
The OneWest issue was resurfaced in 2017 when Mnuchin was nominated to serve as Treasury secretary.
She was also the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Mnuchin during the 2016 elections, according to FEC records.
Still, she voted against his confirmation as Treasury secretary.
In a 2017 interview with The Hill, Harris pushed back against criticism of her decision.
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made,” she said.
“There was no question One West conducted predatory lending, and Senator Harris believes they should be punished,” Ian Sams, national press secretary for Harris’s campaign, told CNBC in an email.
“Unfortunately, the law was squarely on their side and they were shielded from state subpoenas because they’re a federal bank.”
The California Justice Department’s memo noted that “the investigation was hampered by our inability to subpoena OneWest,” but that would not have prevented Harris from filing a civil enforcement action against the bank if she chose to do so.
Shunning corporate PACs while courting Wall Street donors
Harris has pledged to not accept money from corporate PACs for her campaign, falling in line with a trend that gained steam in the 2018 midterms.
“This campaign will not take a dime from corporate PACs,” she tweeted.
“We don’t have to accept a system that drowns out your voice.”
In the first 24 hours of the campaign, Harris raised over $1.5 million with an average contribution of $40.
Still, there are signs that Harris plans to fund her presidential run with more than small-dollar donations.
Her campaign organization received at least $765,000 from the securities and investment industry over the past two years.
In addition, before she announced her campaign, Harris reached out to Wall Street executives, who could be big donors down the line.
Armour, the former Obama strategist, pointed out that Harris has done a “really good job” so far positioning her extensive experience as a prosecutor as an asset to a progressive platform instead of a liability.
If Harris can frame her Wall Street ties in a similar fashion, “I wouldn’t rule anyone out,” Armour said.
“There’s a pathway for everyone.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/26/kamala- ... treet.html
"Kamala Harris’ complicated history with Wall Street will come under scrutiny in the 2020 race"
Carmin Chappell
Published Sat, Jan 26 2019 • 5:00 PM EST
* Sen. Kamala Harris, the latest candidate to join the 2020 race, has a history of squaring off with the banking industry. But she has also been criticized for not going far enough.
* Harris made waves in 2011 as California attorney general after pulling her state out of national negotiations with big banks, later negotiating a $25 billion settlement for foreclosed households.
* Still, critics point to her refusal to prosecute OneWest Bank’s then-CEO Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud.
Sen. Kamala Harris’ history with Wall Street and the banking industry is about to come under scrutiny in a big way as the California Democrat joins what is expected to be large group of candidates seeking to topple President Donald Trump in 2020.
Harris, of California, has a history of squaring off with the banking industry.
The senator, who is under fire from the left over her track record on criminal justice matters, has also been criticized for not going far enough against Wall Street.
With the Democratic base moving further to the left since President Donald Trump’s election, the party’s 2020 presidential candidates’ relationship with big business and Wall Street are being subjected to intense scrutiny.
“There is definitely a group of caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters that are always going to have an issue when they hear ‘Wall Street’,” said Gillian Rosenberg Armour, a Democratic political strategist who worked on Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who said earlier this month that she would run for president, has voted for increased regulation of the financial industry, has received criticism from the left for taking money from big money interests and gauging the support of Wall Street financiers.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering whether to jump into the 2020 race, has deep, long-held ties to the banking industry.
In a crowded Democratic primary field, Harris will be vying for liberal voters against potential candidates who have made cracking down on Wall Street their personal brand.
Elizabeth Warren went from a prominent bankruptcy law scholar to creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before she became a Massachusetts senator.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is considering whether he should run again, proposed breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks, introducing a bill to do just that in October.
“How [Harris] frames her record is really going to be the deciding factor,” Armour said.
Negotiations with big banks
Harris served as district attorney in San Francisco and as California attorney general for six years each before being elected to the Senate in 2016.
As attorney general, Harris made waves in 2011 after pulling California out of national negotiations pursuing a monetary settlement from major banks for foreclosed households during the financial crisis.
She believed she could do better for her state.
In her new book, “The Truths We Hold,” the senator recounts a tense phone conversation with J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, persuading him to provide more settlement money.
The two yelled at each other “like dogs in a fight,” she wrote.
A spokesperson from J.P. Morgan declined to comment on the conversation.
Harris later reached a $25 billion settlement deal from J.P. Morgan and other banks, much higher than the $2 billion to $4 billion initially on the table.
California homeowners received over $18 billion in mortgage relief as a result of the deal, according to a report by the attorney general’s office.
“This outcome is the result of an insistence that California receive a fair deal commensurate with the harm done here,” Harris said in a statement at the time.
Harris later backed the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, a package of legislation to protect homeowners during the foreclosure process.
The legislation also extended the statute of limitations to prosecute mortgage fraud from 1 to 3 years.
In 2017, her first year as a U.S. senator, she introduced a bill alongside fellow Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Dianne Feinstein targeting executives at big banks.
The bill, entitled the “Accountability for Wall Street Executives Act,” would allow state law enforcement to issue subpoenas when investigating bank fraud.
Missed opportunities?
Still, liberal critics allege that in many cases, Harris was too restrained when going after the financial industry.
People who supported Sanders in the 2016 primary have been especially skeptical of Harris’s values.
After negotiating the $25 billion settlement deal, Harris also introduced a special task force to prosecute mortgage and foreclosure fraud.
However, the team, known as the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, only processed three cases in 10 years, according to a report by the East Bay Express.
In 2012, the California Department of Justice found in an investigation that OneWest Bank participated in “widespread misconduct” when foreclosing on homes, recommending that Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank.
However, Harris declined to prosecute OneWest or its then-CEO, Steven Mnuchin, despite the department’s recommendation.
A spokesman for Mnuchin called the allegations “garbage.”
The OneWest issue was resurfaced in 2017 when Mnuchin was nominated to serve as Treasury secretary.
She was also the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Mnuchin during the 2016 elections, according to FEC records.
Still, she voted against his confirmation as Treasury secretary.
In a 2017 interview with The Hill, Harris pushed back against criticism of her decision.
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made,” she said.
“There was no question One West conducted predatory lending, and Senator Harris believes they should be punished,” Ian Sams, national press secretary for Harris’s campaign, told CNBC in an email.
“Unfortunately, the law was squarely on their side and they were shielded from state subpoenas because they’re a federal bank.”
The California Justice Department’s memo noted that “the investigation was hampered by our inability to subpoena OneWest,” but that would not have prevented Harris from filing a civil enforcement action against the bank if she chose to do so.
Shunning corporate PACs while courting Wall Street donors
Harris has pledged to not accept money from corporate PACs for her campaign, falling in line with a trend that gained steam in the 2018 midterms.
“This campaign will not take a dime from corporate PACs,” she tweeted.
“We don’t have to accept a system that drowns out your voice.”
In the first 24 hours of the campaign, Harris raised over $1.5 million with an average contribution of $40.
Still, there are signs that Harris plans to fund her presidential run with more than small-dollar donations.
Her campaign organization received at least $765,000 from the securities and investment industry over the past two years.
In addition, before she announced her campaign, Harris reached out to Wall Street executives, who could be big donors down the line.
Armour, the former Obama strategist, pointed out that Harris has done a “really good job” so far positioning her extensive experience as a prosecutor as an asset to a progressive platform instead of a liability.
If Harris can frame her Wall Street ties in a similar fashion, “I wouldn’t rule anyone out,” Armour said.
“There’s a pathway for everyone.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/26/kamala- ... treet.html
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
HuffPost
"Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin"
08/01/2017 03:10 pm ET | Updated Aug 03, 2017
Kamala Harris has been deemed the democratic party establishment’s next big thing.
They’re pushing her as the figure head of the resistance, the anti-Trump: a staunch, strong progressive who relies on her intelligence and empathy to combat the authoritarian belligerence of the current administration.
While Harris is certainly poised and intelligent, her progressive credentials are fuzzy and her past is punctuated boldly by her decision to not prosecute OneWest Bank and the “foreclosure king” who ran it, current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank were, according to a memo obtained and reported on by The Intercept, guilty of “widespread misconduct” in the form of over 1,000 legal violations.
The memo was the result of a year-long investigation and it asserts that OneWest Bank operated to intentionally boost foreclosures.
The Campaign for Accountability called for a federal investigation of Mnuchin and OneWest Bank claiming they used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes.”
Yet despite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute.
She’s never given an explanation for her decision and Mnuchin later donated $2,000.00 to Harris’ campaign.
It was his only donation to a democratic candidate.
Her only direct acknowledgment of the memo uncovered by The Intercept was when speaking to The Hill the day after the story was published.
It was a non-answer that simply restated already established facts:
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made[.]"
"[W]e pursued it just like any other case."
"We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”
The Democratic party is a fractured entity.
The anti-establishment, anti-corporatist, anti-centrist, anti-plutocratic wing of the party is growing every day and they are unwavering and passionate about their ideals.
Harris, who met with Clinton donors last month and is against party purity tests, has certainly failed to impress those pining for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
In addition to an array of progressive moves as AG which included her opposition to Prop 8 and the death penalty, as well as founding the “Back on Track” program which reduced recidivism by providing job-training and schooling for low-level drug offenders, Harris made a few particularly troubling decisions.
She opposed legislation that would’ve made it mandatory for the California DOJ to independently investigate all police shootings, she did not support the use of body cameras on all police state-wide, and she once attempted to block a court ruling granting gender reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.
Moreover, she has yet to publicly endorse single-payer health care, which may end up being a litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates.
For the most part, Harris aims to stay in the middle, but by all accounts, centrism is dead.
While she may be able to distance herself from some earlier mistakes, the one looming specter from which she cannot escape is Steve Mnuchin.
If she wants to be considered as a viable Democratic candidate, she needs to appeal to the Sanders/Warren wing of the party.
And to do this, she must provide an adequate justification for this glaring omission, or, at the very least, admit she made a terrible error.
Voters on both sides of the aisle have grown tired of the corporatist model.
This issue will not go away, she had myriad reasons to prosecute a man who brazenly and illegally exploited the citizens of her state and failed to do so.
Simply stating “it’s a decision my office made” is not enough.
Originally published on The Overgrown.
FOLLOW:: @jmechanic | LIKE:: @JesseIanMechanic
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-h ... 6HA0tfmxth
HOWEVER, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY INCLUDING HILLARY CLINTON, STEVE MNUCHIN WAS ABOVE THE LAW AND WAS NEVER HELD TO ACCOUNT BY KAMALA HARRIS …How bogus those false charges were can be readily determined from this transcript of a dialogue in Rensselaer County Court on November 30, 1992, which transcript, incidentally, is also in your files as Poestenkill Town Supervisor, between Rensselaer County Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer and Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally who had been hounding me through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence after Mr. Tomaselli bowed out of maliciously prosecuting me after learning that I intended to vigorously defend myself:
MCNALLY: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in myopinion!
JUDGE: That is your position?
MCNALLY: That is my position!
JUDGE: Then you consent to the dismissal?
MCNALLY: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!
JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?
MCNALLY: Very!
JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?
MCNALLY: It was the Court's opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there is not other evidence on which to base a prosecution and the court ruled the evidence that was presented insufficient.
JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?
MCNALLY: No further evidence, Judge!
JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!
end quote
The evidence that was insufficient, of course, consisted of perjured testimony of my assailant which sailed right through Poestenkill Town Court with no questions asked by the Court of the Town of Poestenkill, which was complicit in the cover-up of the vehicular assault on me by another politically-connected and protected person in the Town of Poestenkill.
That is why Judge Dwyer barred the Court of Poestenkill from entertaining further malicious prosecutions against me by moving the matter out of the Town of Poestenkill, where it was quite obvious to Judge Dwyer, from the evidence, that I would not be able to get any kind of fair trial in Poestenkill.
AND DEMOCRATS DON'T NEED PROOF TO BRING SOMEONE TO TRIAL …
LIES AND FALSEHOODS WORK VERY WELL FOR THEM IN THAT REGARD AS THE ABOVE TRANSCRIPT CLEARLY SHOWS …
And so ...
NPR
"Harris: Justice Dept. 'Would Have No Choice' But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency"
Scott Detrow
June 12, 2019·5:00 AM ET
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she's elected president, her administration's Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
"I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes," Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller's report detailed without making a determination as to whether the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
"There has to be accountability," Harris added.
"I mean look, people might, you know, question why I became a prosecutor."
"Well, I'll tell you one of the reasons — I believe there should be accountability."
"Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law."
The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general said she wasn't dissuaded by the prospect of a former American president facing trial and a potential prison sentence.
"The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads," she said.
"I do believe that we should believe Bob Mueller when he tells us essentially that the only reason an indictment was not returned is because of a memo in the Department of Justice that suggests you cannot indict a sitting president."
"But I've seen prosecution of cases on much less evidence."
Referencing the Supreme Court Building's façade, Harris said, "On one side etched in the marble are the words 'equal justice under law.'"
"It doesn't say 'except for the president.'"
"There you go."
Potential criminal charges against Trump were just one of several topics addressed during the half-hour interview.
At a time when many of the other Democrats in the presidential race are starting to make more explicit arguments against former Vice President Joe Biden's positions, Harris declined to criticize Biden for his abrupt shift against his prior support for the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding for abortions.
"Listen, I'll speak for myself," Harris said.
"The bottom line on the Hyde Amendment is that it is directly, in effect, targeting poor women and women who don't have money."
The NPR Politics Podcast episode is the fourth in an ongoing series of interviews with presidential candidates.
The Harris interview took place in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in the midst of the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame Celebration, an event that drew 19 White House hopefuls on Sunday.
Harris had just finished her five-minute speech to the room of Democratic officials, volunteers and activists.
It ended with a call for Democrats to "prosecute the case," politically, against the Trump presidency.
Harris cited Trump's attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and his repeated dismissal of the U.S. intelligence community's concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election, among other things.
Trump insists that the strong economy will top all those issues in next year's election.
In the interview, Harris dismissed that view.
"There are pretty much two indicators for this president of the supposed greatness of his economy."
"The stock market," said Harris.
"Well, that's fine if you own stocks."
"Or the jobless numbers, the unemployment numbers."
"Well, yeah, people are working in our country."
"You know what?"
"They're working two and three jobs, and in our America, people should not have to work more than one job to be able to put food on the table and have a roof over their head."
"And so when we talk about the lives of real people in our country, they're not doing better under this president and his policies."
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/73094138 ... presidency
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
ROLL CALL
"Harris Was Only 2016 Senate Democratic Candidate to Get Cash From Mnuchin - And she voted against him for Treasury secretary"
Eric Garcia @EricMGarcia
Posted Feb 14, 2017 2:59 PM
In the 2016 election cycle, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin donated to only one Democratic Senate candidate.
But it wasn’t Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the only Democrat who voted to confirm him for the position Monday night and who is up for re-election next year.
It was freshman Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who has her own history with the new Cabinet official and voted against Mnuchin’s nomination.
Mnuchin gave Harris’ campaign $2,000 last year, according to records from the Federal Election Commission, making her the only Democrat who ran on the national level to receive money from him that cycle.
Tyrone Gayle, Harris’ press secretary, questioned the idea that a campaign contribution would influence her vote.
“Sen. Harris thoroughly evaluates each nominee based on their record and confirmation hearing — nothing else,” Gayle said in an email.
“Sen. Harris believes Secretary Mnuchin’s record of profiting off of the misfortune of thousands of families who lost their homes during the U.S. mortgage meltdown made him unqualified to manage our nation’s finances and advocate for working people.”
Harris came under scrutiny for her relationship to Mnuchin after it was revealed in a story by The Intercept that Harris, as California attorney general, had declined to file a civil enforcement action against OneWest, the bank for which Mnuchin served as CEO, over foreclosures.
Harris told The Hill after the story emerged that her office “went and followed the facts” about OneWest.
She also said the conduct of the state attorney general’s office was “a very separate point” from how a senator should approach Mnuchin.
Mnuchin served as finance chairman for President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.
Documents show he gave $25,000 to Team Ryan, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, and $425,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account, Trump Victory.
Mnuchin also donated extensively to state Republican Party committees in New Jersey, West Virginia, Arkansas, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and Connecticut.
During the last election cycle, Mnuchin also gave to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who still had leftover campaign debt from his aborted presidential run, and to Democrat Michael Wildes, the former mayor of Englewood, New Jersey, who served as first lady Melania Trump’s immigration lawyer.
Like the president, Mnuchin had previously given extensively to Democrats.
He donated to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer in 1998, 1999 and 2002.
He gave to former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s two Senate campaigns, and to former President Barack Obama’s 2004 Senate run.
On the presidential level, he gave to both Obama and Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2007, and former Sen. John Edwards and former Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaigns.
Outside of Schumer and Harris, the only other Democratic senator who voted on Mnuchin’s nomination and also received a donation from him was Maria Cantwell.
Washington’s junior senator, who voted “no” Monday night, received a $1,000 donation from him in 2006.
https://www.rollcall.com/politics/harri ... om-mnuchin
"Harris Was Only 2016 Senate Democratic Candidate to Get Cash From Mnuchin - And she voted against him for Treasury secretary"
Eric Garcia @EricMGarcia
Posted Feb 14, 2017 2:59 PM
In the 2016 election cycle, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin donated to only one Democratic Senate candidate.
But it wasn’t Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the only Democrat who voted to confirm him for the position Monday night and who is up for re-election next year.
It was freshman Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who has her own history with the new Cabinet official and voted against Mnuchin’s nomination.
Mnuchin gave Harris’ campaign $2,000 last year, according to records from the Federal Election Commission, making her the only Democrat who ran on the national level to receive money from him that cycle.
Tyrone Gayle, Harris’ press secretary, questioned the idea that a campaign contribution would influence her vote.
“Sen. Harris thoroughly evaluates each nominee based on their record and confirmation hearing — nothing else,” Gayle said in an email.
“Sen. Harris believes Secretary Mnuchin’s record of profiting off of the misfortune of thousands of families who lost their homes during the U.S. mortgage meltdown made him unqualified to manage our nation’s finances and advocate for working people.”
Harris came under scrutiny for her relationship to Mnuchin after it was revealed in a story by The Intercept that Harris, as California attorney general, had declined to file a civil enforcement action against OneWest, the bank for which Mnuchin served as CEO, over foreclosures.
Harris told The Hill after the story emerged that her office “went and followed the facts” about OneWest.
She also said the conduct of the state attorney general’s office was “a very separate point” from how a senator should approach Mnuchin.
Mnuchin served as finance chairman for President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.
Documents show he gave $25,000 to Team Ryan, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, and $425,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account, Trump Victory.
Mnuchin also donated extensively to state Republican Party committees in New Jersey, West Virginia, Arkansas, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and Connecticut.
During the last election cycle, Mnuchin also gave to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who still had leftover campaign debt from his aborted presidential run, and to Democrat Michael Wildes, the former mayor of Englewood, New Jersey, who served as first lady Melania Trump’s immigration lawyer.
Like the president, Mnuchin had previously given extensively to Democrats.
He donated to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer in 1998, 1999 and 2002.
He gave to former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s two Senate campaigns, and to former President Barack Obama’s 2004 Senate run.
On the presidential level, he gave to both Obama and Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2007, and former Sen. John Edwards and former Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaigns.
Outside of Schumer and Harris, the only other Democratic senator who voted on Mnuchin’s nomination and also received a donation from him was Maria Cantwell.
Washington’s junior senator, who voted “no” Monday night, received a $1,000 donation from him in 2006.
https://www.rollcall.com/politics/harri ... om-mnuchin
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JUNE 16, 2019
Op-Ed:”‘I’LL LOCK UP TRUMP,’ SAYS DEM KAM HARRIS!”
Special opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Back in 2016, when America’s Most Perfect Person Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president against Bernie Sanders, Bernie managed to score some points against Hillary, his opponent, with the staid Wall Street Journal article entitled “Bernie Sanders Supporters Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ in Philadelphia Protest Against Clinton” by Byron Tau on July 24, 2016, where we, the American people were informed as follows:
PHILADELPHIA — It’s not just Republicans that want presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in prison.
At a lively Sunday march in support of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, chants of “lock her up,” “Hillary for Prison” signs and t-shirts and calls for indictment were common among the most ardent supporters of Mr. Sanders.
end quotes
Today, in a bid to steal some of Bernie’s previous thunder before he himself unleashes it, and needing to distinguish herself from the huge pack of Democrats all vying to be the Democrat who gets to take on and take down Trump, Democrat California Senator Kamala Harris is now for running president of the United States of America with her platform consisting of a pledge to prosecute Trump once he is out of office and put him in jail, where Democrat congresswoman from San Francisco Nancy Pelosi wants him.
This we are told not in the Wall Street Journal, but in her hometown paper the San Francisco Chronicle in the article entitled “Kamala Harris: ‘No choice’ other than prosecuting Trump” by Tal Kopan on June 12, 2019, as follows:
WASHINGTON — California Sen. Kamala Harris says the Justice Department under her presidency would “have no choice” but to prosecute President Trump for obstructing the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference.
end quotes
And stop right there, people, because that is HORSE**** pouring forth from out of the mouth of Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris, as we can see from the following guidelines on prosecuting felonies from the Department of Justice, and my goodness, you would have thought some real smart lawyer like Kamala Harris with her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1989, would be aware of these things, when she obviously is not, to wit:
Office of the United States Attorneys
The United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
Charging
After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury.
end quotes
Now when the Democrat political hack and presidential contender Kamala Harris tells us her DOJ would “have no choice” but to prosecute President Trump for obstructing the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference, she appears to be eliminating the grand jury from the process, which would seem very much like she is running for president based on a pledge to her fellow Democrats to deny Trump due process of law.
Getting back to Justice 101, a class Kamala Harris must have slept through:
For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury.
Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members.
The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime.
A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury.
All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom.
The grand jury is a constitutional requirement for certain types of crimes (meaning it is written in the United States Constitution) so that a group of citizens who do not know the defendant can make an unbiased decision about the evidence before voting to charge an individual with a crime.
end quotes
And there is the due process and protection of law that Kamala Harris is pledging to strip from Trump if they will elect her president, which is obscene in the extreme, and which takes us back to the San Francisco Chronicle, for more drivel from Democrat Kamala Harris as follows:
The 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful and former San Francisco district attorney told NPR it would be the right thing to do in the wake of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference and possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said when asked whether the Justice Department should pursue an obstruction case against Trump under her presidency.
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, Kamala, in an ideal world, everyone really should be held accountable, but this is not an ideal world, Kamala, so people like Hillary Clinton are indeed above the law, along with many, many others, Kamala, and Kamala, when it comes to holding people to account, many, many people are still wondering why you did not hold Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank accountable for mortgage fraud as we all were informed in a CNBC article entitled “Kamala Harris’ complicated history with Wall Street will come under scrutiny in the 2020 race” by Carmin Chappell published Jan. 26 2019 as follows: Still, critics point to her refusal to prosecute OneWest Bank’s then-CEO Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud.
What’s up with that, Kamala?
According to CNBC, in 2012, the California Department of Justice found in an investigation that OneWest Bank participated in “widespread misconduct” when foreclosing on homes, and it recommended that Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank.
However, Harris declined to prosecute OneWest or its then-CEO, Steven Mnuchin, despite the department’s recommendation.
So much for holding people accountable and no one being above the law, which is a crock of crap.
Kamala Harris is a politician and she uses the law as a political tool to reward some, like Steve Mnuchin, and harm others, like she intends to do with Trump, which again takes us back to the SF Chronicle. to wit:
Harris said she believes Mueller was clear in his report that the only reason Trump was not charged with a crime was because of a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.
Mueller said the policy precluded his team from reaching a conclusion on whether Trump’s actions were enough to charge him, and he focused instead on laying out the evidence and legal questions.
Harris said that what Mueller laid out is enough to go forward with a case.
“The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads,” she said.
end quotes
And that statement about the facts and evidence taking the process where it leads takes us to a HuffPost article entitled “Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin” on Aug. 03, 2017, where we had her saying just about the same thing with respect to not prosecuting Mnuchin, as follows:
Kamala Harris has been deemed the democratic party establishment’s next big thing.
They’re pushing her as the figure head of the resistance, the anti-Trump: a staunch, strong progressive who relies on her intelligence and empathy to combat the authoritarian belligerence of the current administration.
While Harris is certainly poised and intelligent, her progressive credentials are fuzzy and her past is punctuated boldly by her decision to not prosecute OneWest Bank and the “foreclosure king” who ran it, current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank were, according to a memo obtained and reported on by The Intercept, guilty of “widespread misconduct” in the form of over 1,000 legal violations.
The memo was the result of a year-long investigation and it asserts that OneWest Bank operated to intentionally boost foreclosures.
The Campaign for Accountability called for a federal investigation of Mnuchin and OneWest Bank claiming they used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes.”
Yet despite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute.
She’s never given an explanation for her decision and Mnuchin later donated $2,000.00 to Harris’ campaign.
It was his only donation to a democratic candidate.
Her only direct acknowledgment of the memo uncovered by The Intercept was when speaking to The Hill the day after the story was published.
It was a non-answer that simply restated already established facts:
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made[.]”
“[W]e pursued it just like any other case.”
“We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”
end quotes
Getting back to the SF Chronicle:
If Harris were elected president, Trump would no longer be protected by the policy that Mueller said tied his hands.
Harris’ comments come after sources told Politico that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that she wants to see Trump serve time.
“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to the sources.
end quotes
And going to the source of her comments in the NPR article entitled “Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency” by Scott Detrow on June 12, 2019, where we have this incredible statement from Democrat Kamala Harris, to wit:
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she’s elected president, her administration’s Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed without making a determination as to whether the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
“There has to be accountability,” Harris added.
“I mean look, people might, you know, question why I became a prosecutor.”
“Well, I’ll tell you one of the reasons — I believe there should be accountability.”
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general said she wasn’t dissuaded by the prospect of a former American president facing trial and a potential prison sentence.
“The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads,” she said.
“I do believe that we should believe Bob Mueller when he tells us essentially that the only reason an indictment was not returned is because of a memo in the Department of Justice that suggests you cannot indict a sitting president.”
“But I’ve seen prosecution of cases on much less evidence.”
end quotes
Yes, Kamala, and I personally have seen Democrats prosecute on NO evidence at all, as we clearly see from this transcript of a dialogue in Rensselaer County Court in the State of New York on November 30, 1992 between Rensselaer County Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer and Democrat Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally who had been hounding me through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence to protect a political enforcer who botched a hit-and-run assault on myself to stop me from investigating political corruption in Rensselaer County, to wit:
MCNALLY: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in my opinion!
JUDGE: That is your position?
MCNALLY: That is my position!
JUDGE: Then you consent to the dismissal?
MCNALLY: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!
JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?
MCNALLY: Very!
JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?
MCNALLY: It was the Court’s opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there is not other evidence on which to base a prosecution and the court ruled the evidence that was presented insufficient.
JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?
MCNALLY: No further evidence, Judge!
JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!
end quote
And nobody was ever held to account for those false charges based on perjured testimony and false sworn statements, nor was anyone ever held to account for the hit-and-run assault, because the political enforcer was above the law.
Bottom line: we do not need as president of the United States of America someone vindictive like Kamala Harris who is going to misuse the law like a cudgel to beat Donald Trump with, just because a pack of Democrats think it is the right thing to do.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s/#respond
Op-Ed:”‘I’LL LOCK UP TRUMP,’ SAYS DEM KAM HARRIS!”
Special opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Back in 2016, when America’s Most Perfect Person Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president against Bernie Sanders, Bernie managed to score some points against Hillary, his opponent, with the staid Wall Street Journal article entitled “Bernie Sanders Supporters Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ in Philadelphia Protest Against Clinton” by Byron Tau on July 24, 2016, where we, the American people were informed as follows:
PHILADELPHIA — It’s not just Republicans that want presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in prison.
At a lively Sunday march in support of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, chants of “lock her up,” “Hillary for Prison” signs and t-shirts and calls for indictment were common among the most ardent supporters of Mr. Sanders.
end quotes
Today, in a bid to steal some of Bernie’s previous thunder before he himself unleashes it, and needing to distinguish herself from the huge pack of Democrats all vying to be the Democrat who gets to take on and take down Trump, Democrat California Senator Kamala Harris is now for running president of the United States of America with her platform consisting of a pledge to prosecute Trump once he is out of office and put him in jail, where Democrat congresswoman from San Francisco Nancy Pelosi wants him.
This we are told not in the Wall Street Journal, but in her hometown paper the San Francisco Chronicle in the article entitled “Kamala Harris: ‘No choice’ other than prosecuting Trump” by Tal Kopan on June 12, 2019, as follows:
WASHINGTON — California Sen. Kamala Harris says the Justice Department under her presidency would “have no choice” but to prosecute President Trump for obstructing the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference.
end quotes
And stop right there, people, because that is HORSE**** pouring forth from out of the mouth of Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris, as we can see from the following guidelines on prosecuting felonies from the Department of Justice, and my goodness, you would have thought some real smart lawyer like Kamala Harris with her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1989, would be aware of these things, when she obviously is not, to wit:
Office of the United States Attorneys
The United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
Charging
After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury.
end quotes
Now when the Democrat political hack and presidential contender Kamala Harris tells us her DOJ would “have no choice” but to prosecute President Trump for obstructing the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference, she appears to be eliminating the grand jury from the process, which would seem very much like she is running for president based on a pledge to her fellow Democrats to deny Trump due process of law.
Getting back to Justice 101, a class Kamala Harris must have slept through:
For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury.
Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members.
The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime.
A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury.
All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom.
The grand jury is a constitutional requirement for certain types of crimes (meaning it is written in the United States Constitution) so that a group of citizens who do not know the defendant can make an unbiased decision about the evidence before voting to charge an individual with a crime.
end quotes
And there is the due process and protection of law that Kamala Harris is pledging to strip from Trump if they will elect her president, which is obscene in the extreme, and which takes us back to the San Francisco Chronicle, for more drivel from Democrat Kamala Harris as follows:
The 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful and former San Francisco district attorney told NPR it would be the right thing to do in the wake of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference and possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said when asked whether the Justice Department should pursue an obstruction case against Trump under her presidency.
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, Kamala, in an ideal world, everyone really should be held accountable, but this is not an ideal world, Kamala, so people like Hillary Clinton are indeed above the law, along with many, many others, Kamala, and Kamala, when it comes to holding people to account, many, many people are still wondering why you did not hold Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank accountable for mortgage fraud as we all were informed in a CNBC article entitled “Kamala Harris’ complicated history with Wall Street will come under scrutiny in the 2020 race” by Carmin Chappell published Jan. 26 2019 as follows: Still, critics point to her refusal to prosecute OneWest Bank’s then-CEO Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud.
What’s up with that, Kamala?
According to CNBC, in 2012, the California Department of Justice found in an investigation that OneWest Bank participated in “widespread misconduct” when foreclosing on homes, and it recommended that Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank.
However, Harris declined to prosecute OneWest or its then-CEO, Steven Mnuchin, despite the department’s recommendation.
So much for holding people accountable and no one being above the law, which is a crock of crap.
Kamala Harris is a politician and she uses the law as a political tool to reward some, like Steve Mnuchin, and harm others, like she intends to do with Trump, which again takes us back to the SF Chronicle. to wit:
Harris said she believes Mueller was clear in his report that the only reason Trump was not charged with a crime was because of a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.
Mueller said the policy precluded his team from reaching a conclusion on whether Trump’s actions were enough to charge him, and he focused instead on laying out the evidence and legal questions.
Harris said that what Mueller laid out is enough to go forward with a case.
“The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads,” she said.
end quotes
And that statement about the facts and evidence taking the process where it leads takes us to a HuffPost article entitled “Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin” on Aug. 03, 2017, where we had her saying just about the same thing with respect to not prosecuting Mnuchin, as follows:
Kamala Harris has been deemed the democratic party establishment’s next big thing.
They’re pushing her as the figure head of the resistance, the anti-Trump: a staunch, strong progressive who relies on her intelligence and empathy to combat the authoritarian belligerence of the current administration.
While Harris is certainly poised and intelligent, her progressive credentials are fuzzy and her past is punctuated boldly by her decision to not prosecute OneWest Bank and the “foreclosure king” who ran it, current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank were, according to a memo obtained and reported on by The Intercept, guilty of “widespread misconduct” in the form of over 1,000 legal violations.
The memo was the result of a year-long investigation and it asserts that OneWest Bank operated to intentionally boost foreclosures.
The Campaign for Accountability called for a federal investigation of Mnuchin and OneWest Bank claiming they used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes.”
Yet despite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute.
She’s never given an explanation for her decision and Mnuchin later donated $2,000.00 to Harris’ campaign.
It was his only donation to a democratic candidate.
Her only direct acknowledgment of the memo uncovered by The Intercept was when speaking to The Hill the day after the story was published.
It was a non-answer that simply restated already established facts:
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made[.]”
“[W]e pursued it just like any other case.”
“We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”
end quotes
Getting back to the SF Chronicle:
If Harris were elected president, Trump would no longer be protected by the policy that Mueller said tied his hands.
Harris’ comments come after sources told Politico that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that she wants to see Trump serve time.
“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to the sources.
end quotes
And going to the source of her comments in the NPR article entitled “Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency” by Scott Detrow on June 12, 2019, where we have this incredible statement from Democrat Kamala Harris, to wit:
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she’s elected president, her administration’s Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed without making a determination as to whether the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
“There has to be accountability,” Harris added.
“I mean look, people might, you know, question why I became a prosecutor.”
“Well, I’ll tell you one of the reasons — I believe there should be accountability.”
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
The former San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general said she wasn’t dissuaded by the prospect of a former American president facing trial and a potential prison sentence.
“The facts and the evidence will take the process where it leads,” she said.
“I do believe that we should believe Bob Mueller when he tells us essentially that the only reason an indictment was not returned is because of a memo in the Department of Justice that suggests you cannot indict a sitting president.”
“But I’ve seen prosecution of cases on much less evidence.”
end quotes
Yes, Kamala, and I personally have seen Democrats prosecute on NO evidence at all, as we clearly see from this transcript of a dialogue in Rensselaer County Court in the State of New York on November 30, 1992 between Rensselaer County Court Judge M. Andrew Dwyer and Democrat Assistant Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally who had been hounding me through the criminal courts of Rensselaer County since 1990 on false testimony and manufactured evidence to protect a political enforcer who botched a hit-and-run assault on myself to stop me from investigating political corruption in Rensselaer County, to wit:
MCNALLY: I have no position, other than to say, the Court, in its previous position, left me without any recourse other than to not oppose a Motion to Dismiss, in my opinion!
JUDGE: That is your position?
MCNALLY: That is my position!
JUDGE: Then you consent to the dismissal?
MCNALLY: I do, Judge, based upon the fact that the Court, in its previous Decision, left me with an untenable position at trial!
JUDGE: How closely did you read the decision?
MCNALLY: Very!
JUDGE: The District Attorney consented?
MCNALLY: It was the Court’s opinion at trial that there was other evidence out there, and I can affirm that there is not other evidence on which to base a prosecution and the court ruled the evidence that was presented insufficient.
JUDGE: And you take the position that you have no further evidence, at all?
MCNALLY: No further evidence, Judge!
JUDGE: Then it is dismissed!
end quote
And nobody was ever held to account for those false charges based on perjured testimony and false sworn statements, nor was anyone ever held to account for the hit-and-run assault, because the political enforcer was above the law.
Bottom line: we do not need as president of the United States of America someone vindictive like Kamala Harris who is going to misuse the law like a cudgel to beat Donald Trump with, just because a pack of Democrats think it is the right thing to do.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s/#respond
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN AMERICA, MAYOR PETE, WHO ARE CLEARLY ABOVE THE LAW AND HILLARY CLINTON IS ONE OF THEM …
SO STOP TRYING TO PULL OUR LEGS HERE …
WE'RE NOT STUPID, YOU KNOW ...
CNN
"Buttigieg: My DOJ, not White House, would determine whether to prosecute Trump for obstruction"
By Caroline Kelly, CNN
15 JUNE 2019
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg says that if elected, he would not direct his Department of Justice to prosecute the President over possible obstruction of justice charges outlined in the Mueller report.
CNN's Jake Tapper asked Buttigieg in an interview set to air Sunday on "State of the Union" whether he agreed with fellow 2020 hopeful California Sen. Kamala Harris' assessment that her Justice Department would have no choice but to go forward with obstruction of justice charges against President Donald Trump.
Buttigieg replied that his Justice Department would "be empowered to reach its own conclusions," and the less he would be involved as president, "the better."
"Two things are true and clear," the South Bend, Indiana, mayor said.
"One: Nobody is above the law."
"And two: The prosecutorial process should have nothing to do with politics."
"The less this has to do with the President, the better."
The redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report did not make a decision on obstruction, but the 448-page report said that investigators also could not clear Trump of obstruction of justice and outlined several potential instances of obstruction.
Mueller said publicly late last month that indicting Trump while in office was "not an option we could consider," adding, "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
Harris has said that she anticipates the Justice Department prosecuting Trump should she or any Democrat beat him in 2020.
"I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes."
"There has to be accountability," Harris said when asked on the NPR Politics podcast released Wednesday morning if she would want the Justice Department to go forward with obstruction of justice charges against Trump after he leaves office.
Buttigieg argued that while Trump's behavior would likely prompt legal prosecution on its own merits, the Justice Department, not the White House, should make that determination.
"Right now, we have a President who seems to think that the president can just dictate what the DOJ is going to do, call for political opponents to be jailed," Buttigieg told Tapper.
"I believe that the rule of law will catch up to this President."
"It doesn't require the Oval Office putting any kind of thumb on the scale."
He added: "I trust the DOJ to make the right determinations, at least the DOJ that I would appoint and set up."
"And the less that has to do with directives coming out of the White House, the better."
When pressed on whether he disagreed with Harris, Buttigieg said he was "just speaking to how I view the issue."
"But, again, I think we can maintain these two principles: that nobody is above the law, and that prosecution decisions should have nothing to do with politics and should come from the DOJ itself, not from the Oval," he said.
Harris' national press secretary, Ian Sams, responded on Twitter to Buttigieg's characterization of his stance in comparison to Harris,' pointing to Buttigieg's comments to The Atlantic earlier this week that appeared to back an investigation of Trump.
"To the extent that there's an obstruction case, then yes, DOJ's got to deal with it," Buttigieg told The Atlantic, adding, "I would want any credible allegation of criminal behavior to be investigated to the fullest."
While the comment appeared at odds with what the mayor told Tapper, the Atlantic later wrote in that same article that "Buttigieg said he'd be wary of actively directing his attorney general to pursue charges against the president."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
SO STOP TRYING TO PULL OUR LEGS HERE …
WE'RE NOT STUPID, YOU KNOW ...
CNN
"Buttigieg: My DOJ, not White House, would determine whether to prosecute Trump for obstruction"
By Caroline Kelly, CNN
15 JUNE 2019
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg says that if elected, he would not direct his Department of Justice to prosecute the President over possible obstruction of justice charges outlined in the Mueller report.
CNN's Jake Tapper asked Buttigieg in an interview set to air Sunday on "State of the Union" whether he agreed with fellow 2020 hopeful California Sen. Kamala Harris' assessment that her Justice Department would have no choice but to go forward with obstruction of justice charges against President Donald Trump.
Buttigieg replied that his Justice Department would "be empowered to reach its own conclusions," and the less he would be involved as president, "the better."
"Two things are true and clear," the South Bend, Indiana, mayor said.
"One: Nobody is above the law."
"And two: The prosecutorial process should have nothing to do with politics."
"The less this has to do with the President, the better."
The redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report did not make a decision on obstruction, but the 448-page report said that investigators also could not clear Trump of obstruction of justice and outlined several potential instances of obstruction.
Mueller said publicly late last month that indicting Trump while in office was "not an option we could consider," adding, "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
Harris has said that she anticipates the Justice Department prosecuting Trump should she or any Democrat beat him in 2020.
"I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes."
"There has to be accountability," Harris said when asked on the NPR Politics podcast released Wednesday morning if she would want the Justice Department to go forward with obstruction of justice charges against Trump after he leaves office.
Buttigieg argued that while Trump's behavior would likely prompt legal prosecution on its own merits, the Justice Department, not the White House, should make that determination.
"Right now, we have a President who seems to think that the president can just dictate what the DOJ is going to do, call for political opponents to be jailed," Buttigieg told Tapper.
"I believe that the rule of law will catch up to this President."
"It doesn't require the Oval Office putting any kind of thumb on the scale."
He added: "I trust the DOJ to make the right determinations, at least the DOJ that I would appoint and set up."
"And the less that has to do with directives coming out of the White House, the better."
When pressed on whether he disagreed with Harris, Buttigieg said he was "just speaking to how I view the issue."
"But, again, I think we can maintain these two principles: that nobody is above the law, and that prosecution decisions should have nothing to do with politics and should come from the DOJ itself, not from the Oval," he said.
Harris' national press secretary, Ian Sams, responded on Twitter to Buttigieg's characterization of his stance in comparison to Harris,' pointing to Buttigieg's comments to The Atlantic earlier this week that appeared to back an investigation of Trump.
"To the extent that there's an obstruction case, then yes, DOJ's got to deal with it," Buttigieg told The Atlantic, adding, "I would want any credible allegation of criminal behavior to be investigated to the fullest."
While the comment appeared at odds with what the mayor told Tapper, the Atlantic later wrote in that same article that "Buttigieg said he'd be wary of actively directing his attorney general to pursue charges against the president."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 17, 2019 at 8:09 pm
Paul Plante says:
And what we are looking at here is a presidential candidate, namely Kamala Harris, campaigning on a promise to institute a malicious prosecution against Donald Trump in the event that she should be elected president, and God help the Republic if that were ever to happen.
In other words, she is running for president on a promise to pervert the law and use the law as a club to punish Donald Trump for having bested Hillary Clinton in 2016, because this whole sick show is about Hillary Clinton.
Which takes us back to the NPR article “Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency” by Scott Detrow on June 12, 2019, where we had the following:
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she’s elected president, her administration’s Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed without making a determination as to whether the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
end quotes
And notice that she does not say, “the justice department under my administration,” rather she frames it as “her administration’s Department of Justice,” which implies that it is she who will be in charge of the Justice Department as a political weapon with which to punish her enemies.
Getting back to malicious prosecution, FindLaw tells us as follows:
Criminal and civil cases that lack sufficient evidence usually aren’t pursued.
However, occasionally criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party.
Such actions are referred to as malicious prosecution, whether it’s an unscrupulous prosecutor filing false charges against a political rival or a corporation suing a small business in order to put the competition out of business.
end quotes
I myself have been the “victim” of a malicious prosecution to intimidate, harass, defame, and otherwise injure me, and even though the charges were false, still I was robbed of three years of my life defending myself, and that is what Kamala Harris intends for Trump should she get elected president.
And that takes us back to the Mullet and his report and who he was reporting to, and what it was he was tasked to investigate, as follows:
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
DATE: 5/17/17
Signed: Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General
end quotes
Now, focus on (iii)(c) which states that the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
And that takes us to 28 CFR § 600.1 – Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel, where we have as follows:
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and –
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
end quotes
So there we have the legal basis for Rod Rosenstein appointing the Mullet as special counsel, which raises the question of exactly what conflict of interest Rod Rosenstein had here, or the Department of Justice, so that it supposedly was in the “public interest” for Rosenstein, who worked for Obama in his Department of Justice, where he was running political cover for Hillary Clinton, keeping the hush on Hillary’s dirty dealing with the Russians while she was Hussein Obama’s secretary of state, to need a special counsel to investigate the so-called Russian meddling which was already OLD NEWS by December of 2016.
That makes no sense at all.
So Rosenstein selected the Mullet, who also worked for Obama, who had as big a conflict of interest as did Rod Rosenstein, which takes us to 28 CFR § 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General, as follows:
When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter.
If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.
end quotes
And that in turn takes us to 28 CFR § 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel, as follows:
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.
The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.
Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues.
A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
end quotes
And there is where a ball was quite obviously dropped here, with respect to a detailed review of the conflicts of interest issues pertaining to the Mullet having been Hussein Obama’s FBI head.
The other thing we clearly make note of is the fact that as special counsel, the Mullet was a confidential employee of the Department of Justice, not the House of Representatives.
As to the Mullet’s jurisdiction as special counsel, we go to 28 CFR § 600.4 Jurisdiction, as follows:
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General.
The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.
The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
(b)Additional jurisdiction.
If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction.
If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action.
A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.
end quotes
As to the authority and powers of the Mullet as special counsel, we go to 28 CFR § 600.6 Powers and authority, as follows:
Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.
Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
end quotes
That then takes us to 28 CFR § 600.7 Conduct and accountability, to wit:
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.
He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures.
Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department.
However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel.
If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice.
Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.
The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
end quotes
So there we see in 28 CFR § 600.7(b), “the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued,” that the special counsel is not the end-all-and-be-all here, but in fact is under the attorney general, in this case now, Bill Barr, who has chosen to follow the law as the Mullet’s superior pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.7(b), by stating that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence at all, that Trump obstructed justice, which is his decision as attorney general, not the Mullet’s as special prosecutor.
So what Kamala Harris is clearly saying here is that if she should become president, that she will step outside of the law and have her attorney general overrule Barr so that she can then prosecute Trump in retaliation for him having defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.
And that takes us to the Mullet’s report, which is covered by 28 CFR § 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel, as follows:
(a)Budget.
(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice.
Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General’s review and approval.
Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel.
The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.
(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year.
The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.
(b)Notification of significant events.
The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.
(c)Closing documentation.
At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
end quotes
And there we have in 28 CFR § 600.8(c) proof that the Mullet Report is indeed CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to federal law, and that the report was to go to the attorney general, Bill Barr, and not the House of Representatives or Nancy Pelosi or smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, the Democrat congressman from Hollywood, California, which takes us to 28 CFR § 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General, as follows:
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action –
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality.
At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.
All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
end quotes
So there is the law as written, or rather the federal regulations that apply to the Mullet as special counsel and his relationship to the United States Attorney General, and in turn, the relationship of the attorney general to Congress, and specifically the Judiciary Committees, not Nancy Pelosi nor Adam Schiff, nor Kamala Harris, for that matter, and what those regulations clearly show is Kamala Harris would have no grounds to prosecute Trump, period, although I doubt that would stop her, as rabid to prosecute Trump as she seems.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153472
Paul Plante says:
And what we are looking at here is a presidential candidate, namely Kamala Harris, campaigning on a promise to institute a malicious prosecution against Donald Trump in the event that she should be elected president, and God help the Republic if that were ever to happen.
In other words, she is running for president on a promise to pervert the law and use the law as a club to punish Donald Trump for having bested Hillary Clinton in 2016, because this whole sick show is about Hillary Clinton.
Which takes us back to the NPR article “Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency” by Scott Detrow on June 12, 2019, where we had the following:
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she’s elected president, her administration’s Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed without making a determination as to whether the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
end quotes
And notice that she does not say, “the justice department under my administration,” rather she frames it as “her administration’s Department of Justice,” which implies that it is she who will be in charge of the Justice Department as a political weapon with which to punish her enemies.
Getting back to malicious prosecution, FindLaw tells us as follows:
Criminal and civil cases that lack sufficient evidence usually aren’t pursued.
However, occasionally criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party.
Such actions are referred to as malicious prosecution, whether it’s an unscrupulous prosecutor filing false charges against a political rival or a corporation suing a small business in order to put the competition out of business.
end quotes
I myself have been the “victim” of a malicious prosecution to intimidate, harass, defame, and otherwise injure me, and even though the charges were false, still I was robbed of three years of my life defending myself, and that is what Kamala Harris intends for Trump should she get elected president.
And that takes us back to the Mullet and his report and who he was reporting to, and what it was he was tasked to investigate, as follows:
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
DATE: 5/17/17
Signed: Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General
end quotes
Now, focus on (iii)(c) which states that the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
And that takes us to 28 CFR § 600.1 – Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel, where we have as follows:
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and –
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
end quotes
So there we have the legal basis for Rod Rosenstein appointing the Mullet as special counsel, which raises the question of exactly what conflict of interest Rod Rosenstein had here, or the Department of Justice, so that it supposedly was in the “public interest” for Rosenstein, who worked for Obama in his Department of Justice, where he was running political cover for Hillary Clinton, keeping the hush on Hillary’s dirty dealing with the Russians while she was Hussein Obama’s secretary of state, to need a special counsel to investigate the so-called Russian meddling which was already OLD NEWS by December of 2016.
That makes no sense at all.
So Rosenstein selected the Mullet, who also worked for Obama, who had as big a conflict of interest as did Rod Rosenstein, which takes us to 28 CFR § 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General, as follows:
When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter.
If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.
end quotes
And that in turn takes us to 28 CFR § 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel, as follows:
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.
The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.
Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues.
A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
end quotes
And there is where a ball was quite obviously dropped here, with respect to a detailed review of the conflicts of interest issues pertaining to the Mullet having been Hussein Obama’s FBI head.
The other thing we clearly make note of is the fact that as special counsel, the Mullet was a confidential employee of the Department of Justice, not the House of Representatives.
As to the Mullet’s jurisdiction as special counsel, we go to 28 CFR § 600.4 Jurisdiction, as follows:
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General.
The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.
The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
(b)Additional jurisdiction.
If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction.
If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action.
A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.
end quotes
As to the authority and powers of the Mullet as special counsel, we go to 28 CFR § 600.6 Powers and authority, as follows:
Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.
Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
end quotes
That then takes us to 28 CFR § 600.7 Conduct and accountability, to wit:
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.
He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures.
Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department.
However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel.
If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice.
Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.
The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
end quotes
So there we see in 28 CFR § 600.7(b), “the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued,” that the special counsel is not the end-all-and-be-all here, but in fact is under the attorney general, in this case now, Bill Barr, who has chosen to follow the law as the Mullet’s superior pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.7(b), by stating that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence at all, that Trump obstructed justice, which is his decision as attorney general, not the Mullet’s as special prosecutor.
So what Kamala Harris is clearly saying here is that if she should become president, that she will step outside of the law and have her attorney general overrule Barr so that she can then prosecute Trump in retaliation for him having defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.
And that takes us to the Mullet’s report, which is covered by 28 CFR § 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel, as follows:
(a)Budget.
(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice.
Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General’s review and approval.
Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel.
The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.
(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year.
The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.
(b)Notification of significant events.
The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.
(c)Closing documentation.
At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
end quotes
And there we have in 28 CFR § 600.8(c) proof that the Mullet Report is indeed CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to federal law, and that the report was to go to the attorney general, Bill Barr, and not the House of Representatives or Nancy Pelosi or smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, the Democrat congressman from Hollywood, California, which takes us to 28 CFR § 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General, as follows:
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action –
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality.
At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.
All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
end quotes
So there is the law as written, or rather the federal regulations that apply to the Mullet as special counsel and his relationship to the United States Attorney General, and in turn, the relationship of the attorney general to Congress, and specifically the Judiciary Committees, not Nancy Pelosi nor Adam Schiff, nor Kamala Harris, for that matter, and what those regulations clearly show is Kamala Harris would have no grounds to prosecute Trump, period, although I doubt that would stop her, as rabid to prosecute Trump as she seems.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153472
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO BE ABLE TO LITERALLY CRIPPLE A PRESIDENT THEY DON'T LIKE WHILE RULING THROUGH A CAMPAIGN OF FEAR AND INTIMIDATION AND COERCION ...
FOX NEWS
"Dems want to nuke DOJ policy barring presidential prosecutions"
Alex Pappas
17 JUNE 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller said last month that charging President Trump with a crime “was not an option we could consider” because of the Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of sitting presidents.
Democrats are now talking about finding a way to change that.
“Congress should make it clear that presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, recently proposed.
And other congressional Democrats have since said they are considering whether the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memorandum against charging a sitting president should be revoked -- though no legislation has been introduced just yet.
“It's fair to say that one of the options we should consider is revisiting that Department of Justice rule so you don't have a rogue and lawless president immunized from criminal prosecution,” New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told The Hill.
Another lawmaker, Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, suggested that a measure revoking the policy could be included in some sort of spending package or authorization bill.
“I guarantee you it will be a topic of discussion,” Connolly told The Hill.
While Mueller in his report said his investigation found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, the special counsel declined to issue a conclusion in the report about whether Trump obstructed justice through his comments and actions related to the investigation.
The president repeatedly referred to the probe as a "witch hunt" and allegedly sought to have Mueller removed -- but he never did, and Trump has recently disputed that he even sought the special counsel's ouster.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during his public statement last month, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
After the release of the Mueller report, Attorney General Bill Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, but Democrats have argued Trump would have been charged with obstruction had he not been president.
Republicans, meanwhile, have countered that Trump could not have been charged with obstruction since Mueller determined there was no underlying crime of conspiring with the Russians.
The fresh chatter about upending the DOJ guidance amounts to the latest Democratic bid to reexamine federal policy toward alleged wrongdoing of sitting presidents.
Last month, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and other Democrats introduced the “No President Is Above the Law Act.”
The sponsors said in a news release at the time that it would pause the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president and “ensure that presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American and not use the presidency to avoid legal consequences.”
"No person can be permitted to evade accountability for their actions just because they happen to be president," Nadler said.
"I have concerns with the Justice Department interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but if that is the policy, a president who commits a crime before or during their term in office, could exploit this loophole and avoid prosecution just because the statute of limitations has run out."
"This is unacceptable."
"The presidency is not a get-out-of-jail-free card."
Even though Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, several Democratic presidential candidates are now indicating on the campaign trail that they would support a DOJ investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice if they win the White House in 2020.
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris said last week she believes the only reason Mueller didn’t recommend prosecuting Trump was because of the Justice Department’s policy.
In an interview with NPR, Harris said that once out of office, Trump would be subject to charges – and she suggested the Justice Department in a Harris presidency would pursue them.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said.
Another 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, said last week that if elected president, he could also support a Justice Department criminal investigation into Trump.
“To the extent that there’s an obstruction case, then yes, DOJ’s got to deal with it,” Buttigieg said in an interview with The Atlantic published Thursday.
Trump, during an interview that aired Sunday night on ABC News, denied being worried about being prosecuted once he leaves office.
“Did nothing wrong,” Trump said.
“There was no collusion.”
Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
FOX NEWS
"Dems want to nuke DOJ policy barring presidential prosecutions"
Alex Pappas
17 JUNE 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller said last month that charging President Trump with a crime “was not an option we could consider” because of the Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of sitting presidents.
Democrats are now talking about finding a way to change that.
“Congress should make it clear that presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, recently proposed.
And other congressional Democrats have since said they are considering whether the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memorandum against charging a sitting president should be revoked -- though no legislation has been introduced just yet.
“It's fair to say that one of the options we should consider is revisiting that Department of Justice rule so you don't have a rogue and lawless president immunized from criminal prosecution,” New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told The Hill.
Another lawmaker, Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, suggested that a measure revoking the policy could be included in some sort of spending package or authorization bill.
“I guarantee you it will be a topic of discussion,” Connolly told The Hill.
While Mueller in his report said his investigation found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, the special counsel declined to issue a conclusion in the report about whether Trump obstructed justice through his comments and actions related to the investigation.
The president repeatedly referred to the probe as a "witch hunt" and allegedly sought to have Mueller removed -- but he never did, and Trump has recently disputed that he even sought the special counsel's ouster.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during his public statement last month, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
After the release of the Mueller report, Attorney General Bill Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, but Democrats have argued Trump would have been charged with obstruction had he not been president.
Republicans, meanwhile, have countered that Trump could not have been charged with obstruction since Mueller determined there was no underlying crime of conspiring with the Russians.
The fresh chatter about upending the DOJ guidance amounts to the latest Democratic bid to reexamine federal policy toward alleged wrongdoing of sitting presidents.
Last month, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and other Democrats introduced the “No President Is Above the Law Act.”
The sponsors said in a news release at the time that it would pause the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president and “ensure that presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American and not use the presidency to avoid legal consequences.”
"No person can be permitted to evade accountability for their actions just because they happen to be president," Nadler said.
"I have concerns with the Justice Department interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but if that is the policy, a president who commits a crime before or during their term in office, could exploit this loophole and avoid prosecution just because the statute of limitations has run out."
"This is unacceptable."
"The presidency is not a get-out-of-jail-free card."
Even though Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, several Democratic presidential candidates are now indicating on the campaign trail that they would support a DOJ investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice if they win the White House in 2020.
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris said last week she believes the only reason Mueller didn’t recommend prosecuting Trump was because of the Justice Department’s policy.
In an interview with NPR, Harris said that once out of office, Trump would be subject to charges – and she suggested the Justice Department in a Harris presidency would pursue them.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said.
Another 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, said last week that if elected president, he could also support a Justice Department criminal investigation into Trump.
“To the extent that there’s an obstruction case, then yes, DOJ’s got to deal with it,” Buttigieg said in an interview with The Atlantic published Thursday.
Trump, during an interview that aired Sunday night on ABC News, denied being worried about being prosecuted once he leaves office.
“Did nothing wrong,” Trump said.
“There was no collusion.”
Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 18, 2019 at 5:58 pm
Paul Plante says:
And while we are on this subject of many, many people in this country who, like America’s Most Pure and Holy Person Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Woman Scorned, will never be held to account because they are above the law, whether or not Trump might be, by the kind of fortuitous and serendipitous happenings associated with the proximity of the Cape Charles Mirror’s energy field with that of the meterorite buried deep in the earth somewhere down there, perhaps merely sleeping, a post in a previous edition of the Cape Charles Mirror in 2017 anticipated someone like Democrat Kamala Harris coming out with the preposterous proposition that NOBODY in this country is above the law by talking about people in this country who clearly are very much above the law, and won’t be held to account, to wit:
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... ent-153608
Paul Plante says @ May 6, 2017 at 5:00 pm:
tkenny, as we read about people in your neighboring state of North Carolina having their most basic human rights stripped from them by the state of North Carolina which is allowing pig **** and urine to be sprayed on them to boost the profits of the corporate hog producers in that area, which may prove to be an elegant solution to the looming problem of what you do with all the chicken**** in Accomack County on Cape Charles, Virginia; and children in Hoosick Falls in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York having to drink water laden with the carcinogen PFOA because of intentional negligence and denial of honest services to those children by the County of Rensselaer and the state of New York, and children in Flint, Michigan, who had to drink lead-tainted water, because of negligence by the EPA and government officials in Michigan, coupled with denial of honest services, which is a constant theme here in America, anymore, profits before people, because we have too many people, we can afford to lose some along the way, while making some big bucks off of them, their families and insurance companies as they decline, while we can never have enough profits, for who can live comfortably on only a million dollars today, I personally would like to thank you on behalf of a grateful nation for bringing this discussion back around to where it really needs to be, and that is some serious and in-depth discussion on the important existential question of what exactly Stuart Bell meant when he said that people feel that they cannot call out behavior that is not conductive to the society, which in and of itself is a topic that should be of great importance to every person alive not only in the United States today, but in the candid world as well, where the military might of the United States is projected, too often by people with small brains and scattered wits, but even more importantly, when we hear about Sonia Sotomayor, now a United States Supreme Court Justice, burying evidence and changing facts while a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC in 2005 to prove her political reliability to be a Supreme Court Justice, what is conduct not conductive to society in the first place?
What society, tkenny?
end quotes
Now, right here, on international internet, I am going to give a SHOUT-OUT to Kamala Harris, and I am asking her to come in here and address what I am documenting in here and tell us that in her administration, with her department of justice which is going to prosecute Trump as a criminal, these human rights abuses by people in this country who are above the law who aren’t held accountable will cease, which takes us back to that prior post, as follows:
You call out Stuart Bell for having an “attitude” definitely not conductive to society, and perhaps in some circles or places, that would be deemed to be so, but what of these people in North Carolina who protect their profits by spraying pig **** and urine on other people in North Carolina?
Where does “society” fit in there, tkenny?
And what of the attitudes of those people who are doing that spraying?
Because they are good capitalists who are producing a goodly profit for the shareholders, and members of the government in North Carolina, or those who take their money anyway, to “carry their water” for them in the North Carolina legislature, are their attitudes about spraying pig **** and urine on people conductive to the society?
Which takes us back to what the hell society is that then, that benefits when one group of people, the ones with political power and clout, get to spray pig **** and urine on people without political power and clout.
And what of Sonia Sotomayor, tkenny?
By your system of calculus, does her action of burying evidence and changing facts to protect endemic public corruption in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt ****hole of New York to gain a political benefit for herself stem, do you think, from an attitude that is conductive to the society?
And if not, why aren’t you calling her out for condemnation, as you are calling out Stuart Bell, and him for only having an opinion and an attitude that you don’t like, whereas the actions of Sotomayor in 2005 are responsible for God alone knows how much harm in New York state thanks to her embrace of public corruption in this state for which she will never be held accountable?
end quotes
Calling Kamala Harris: Kamala, if you are within the sound of my voice, please come in here on the above, and especially the part about Sonia Sotomayor, who your justice department should investigate with an intent to impeach her.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153614
Paul Plante says:
And while we are on this subject of many, many people in this country who, like America’s Most Pure and Holy Person Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Woman Scorned, will never be held to account because they are above the law, whether or not Trump might be, by the kind of fortuitous and serendipitous happenings associated with the proximity of the Cape Charles Mirror’s energy field with that of the meterorite buried deep in the earth somewhere down there, perhaps merely sleeping, a post in a previous edition of the Cape Charles Mirror in 2017 anticipated someone like Democrat Kamala Harris coming out with the preposterous proposition that NOBODY in this country is above the law by talking about people in this country who clearly are very much above the law, and won’t be held to account, to wit:
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... ent-153608
Paul Plante says @ May 6, 2017 at 5:00 pm:
tkenny, as we read about people in your neighboring state of North Carolina having their most basic human rights stripped from them by the state of North Carolina which is allowing pig **** and urine to be sprayed on them to boost the profits of the corporate hog producers in that area, which may prove to be an elegant solution to the looming problem of what you do with all the chicken**** in Accomack County on Cape Charles, Virginia; and children in Hoosick Falls in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York having to drink water laden with the carcinogen PFOA because of intentional negligence and denial of honest services to those children by the County of Rensselaer and the state of New York, and children in Flint, Michigan, who had to drink lead-tainted water, because of negligence by the EPA and government officials in Michigan, coupled with denial of honest services, which is a constant theme here in America, anymore, profits before people, because we have too many people, we can afford to lose some along the way, while making some big bucks off of them, their families and insurance companies as they decline, while we can never have enough profits, for who can live comfortably on only a million dollars today, I personally would like to thank you on behalf of a grateful nation for bringing this discussion back around to where it really needs to be, and that is some serious and in-depth discussion on the important existential question of what exactly Stuart Bell meant when he said that people feel that they cannot call out behavior that is not conductive to the society, which in and of itself is a topic that should be of great importance to every person alive not only in the United States today, but in the candid world as well, where the military might of the United States is projected, too often by people with small brains and scattered wits, but even more importantly, when we hear about Sonia Sotomayor, now a United States Supreme Court Justice, burying evidence and changing facts while a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC in 2005 to prove her political reliability to be a Supreme Court Justice, what is conduct not conductive to society in the first place?
What society, tkenny?
end quotes
Now, right here, on international internet, I am going to give a SHOUT-OUT to Kamala Harris, and I am asking her to come in here and address what I am documenting in here and tell us that in her administration, with her department of justice which is going to prosecute Trump as a criminal, these human rights abuses by people in this country who are above the law who aren’t held accountable will cease, which takes us back to that prior post, as follows:
You call out Stuart Bell for having an “attitude” definitely not conductive to society, and perhaps in some circles or places, that would be deemed to be so, but what of these people in North Carolina who protect their profits by spraying pig **** and urine on other people in North Carolina?
Where does “society” fit in there, tkenny?
And what of the attitudes of those people who are doing that spraying?
Because they are good capitalists who are producing a goodly profit for the shareholders, and members of the government in North Carolina, or those who take their money anyway, to “carry their water” for them in the North Carolina legislature, are their attitudes about spraying pig **** and urine on people conductive to the society?
Which takes us back to what the hell society is that then, that benefits when one group of people, the ones with political power and clout, get to spray pig **** and urine on people without political power and clout.
And what of Sonia Sotomayor, tkenny?
By your system of calculus, does her action of burying evidence and changing facts to protect endemic public corruption in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt ****hole of New York to gain a political benefit for herself stem, do you think, from an attitude that is conductive to the society?
And if not, why aren’t you calling her out for condemnation, as you are calling out Stuart Bell, and him for only having an opinion and an attitude that you don’t like, whereas the actions of Sotomayor in 2005 are responsible for God alone knows how much harm in New York state thanks to her embrace of public corruption in this state for which she will never be held accountable?
end quotes
Calling Kamala Harris: Kamala, if you are within the sound of my voice, please come in here on the above, and especially the part about Sonia Sotomayor, who your justice department should investigate with an intent to impeach her.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153614
Re: KAMALA HARRIS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 19, 2019 at 8:44 pm
Paul Plante says:
Dear Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris, with respect to your specious statement that nobody in America is above the law, and everybody is held accountable, which is pure hogwash and malarkey, to make that point incandescently clear to you in language that you as a lawyer will readily comprehend, let me take you to the March 31, 2005 Findings of Fact of federal district court judge Gary Sharpe, a Hillary Clinton/Charley “Chuck” Schumer district court judge in the Northern District of New York in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, a federal civil rights matter, as follows:
III. Facts
On May 22, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier (Pelletier) was issued a sewage system construction permit by the Town of Rensselaer.
On July 7, Plante conducted an investigation of Defendants Aiken (Engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.
During Plante’s investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9, defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veteran’s Service) warned Plante to back off the Pelletier investigation because he was a “protected person” in the county.
end quotes
Yes, Kamala, in America, there is no justice precisely because there are people who are “protected persons” in America, like Jeffrey Pelletier in that court case, “protected persons” who are above the law, and because of that, cannot be held to account, nor in that case, because of their “protected person” status, which was honored not only in federal district court for the Northern District of New York, but by Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals as well, were they, which makes it very official that we do have people in America who are above the law.
And how do people become “protected persons” such that they are immune from prosecution in a federal civil rights lawsuit as was Jeffrey Pelletier, Kamala?
And that answer is simple – they buy that status because it is for sale to those with the coin to afford it, just like the protection the Mafia sells, except better, since this protection can be used in federal court as a get-out-of-jail-free card while the protection the Mafia sells might not be.
So Kamala, don’t try to bluff us with your tough talk about Trump not being above the law when your own party, the Democrats, are selling protection to people like Jeffrey Pelletier so that he had Democrat New York State Attorney General Eliot “The Steamroller” Spitzer acting as his defense counsel and a federal district court judge making his motions for him while he sat there and smiled.
We’re not that stupid, Kamala, so please don’t treat us as if we were – it’s insulting to our intelligence as American citizens who know better.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153817
Paul Plante says:
Dear Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris, with respect to your specious statement that nobody in America is above the law, and everybody is held accountable, which is pure hogwash and malarkey, to make that point incandescently clear to you in language that you as a lawyer will readily comprehend, let me take you to the March 31, 2005 Findings of Fact of federal district court judge Gary Sharpe, a Hillary Clinton/Charley “Chuck” Schumer district court judge in the Northern District of New York in Paul Plante, Plaintiff, v. Bechard et al, Defendants, 1:03-CV-753, a federal civil rights matter, as follows:
III. Facts
On May 22, 2001, Jeffrey Pelletier (Pelletier) was issued a sewage system construction permit by the Town of Rensselaer.
On July 7, Plante conducted an investigation of Defendants Aiken (Engineer) and McGrath’s “deliberate falsification of inspection data and fraudulent submissions” resulting in the issuance of the Pelletier permit.
During Plante’s investigation, Pelletier assaulted him.
On August 9, defendant Reiter (Rensselaer County Director of Veteran’s Service) warned Plante to back off the Pelletier investigation because he was a “protected person” in the county.
end quotes
Yes, Kamala, in America, there is no justice precisely because there are people who are “protected persons” in America, like Jeffrey Pelletier in that court case, “protected persons” who are above the law, and because of that, cannot be held to account, nor in that case, because of their “protected person” status, which was honored not only in federal district court for the Northern District of New York, but by Sonia Sotomayor as a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals as well, were they, which makes it very official that we do have people in America who are above the law.
And how do people become “protected persons” such that they are immune from prosecution in a federal civil rights lawsuit as was Jeffrey Pelletier, Kamala?
And that answer is simple – they buy that status because it is for sale to those with the coin to afford it, just like the protection the Mafia sells, except better, since this protection can be used in federal court as a get-out-of-jail-free card while the protection the Mafia sells might not be.
So Kamala, don’t try to bluff us with your tough talk about Trump not being above the law when your own party, the Democrats, are selling protection to people like Jeffrey Pelletier so that he had Democrat New York State Attorney General Eliot “The Steamroller” Spitzer acting as his defense counsel and a federal district court judge making his motions for him while he sat there and smiled.
We’re not that stupid, Kamala, so please don’t treat us as if we were – it’s insulting to our intelligence as American citizens who know better.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-153817