theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Sunday, September 24, 2017


Judeo-Christian values and traditional norms are disappearing with the happy support of school administrations. Schools may not lead students in prayer, but they are allowed to lead students into paths of sexual expression.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig

As we reflect on law and policy, it is often useful to see how changes play out in the practical, nitty-gritty of everyday life. For example, we can consider how progressives have, over time, separated love, sex, and marriage. Divorce has skyrocketed during the post-WWII years, out-of-wedlock children have come into existence by the millions, sexually transmitted disease has become rampant,cohabitation is becoming more and more popular with each passing year, the porno industry has captured the time, money, and imaginations of tens of millions of men on the Internet, and there is a gossip feeding frenzy regarding the immoral habits of celebrities. Pedophilia is being publicly defended as a legitimate activity, and being HIV positive is something, according to signs on NYC subways, that can be handled by partnering with one’s doctor and various city agencies.

The “new morality” is manifesting in many ways in our public high schools. Judeo-Christian values and traditional norms promoting integration of love, sex, marriage, modesty, and self-restraint are disappearing with the happy support of school administrations. Schools may not lead students in prayer, but are allowed to lead students into paths of sexual expression.

When this writer was teaching in the New York City public high schools, the sexual revolution expressed itself through sex education classes where the teachers instructed students on how to unroll and stretch a condom onto bananas and/or cucumbers. This was and is standard fare in “health ed” classes throughout NYC public high schools. However, in one high school where I taught, a unique a health center was created. There, students could have a 15-20 minute conversation with a “counselor,” and then be referred for an abortion without a parent’s consent (in New York State, parental consent is not required). When I had the audacity to rebuke one of the counsellors about her mission, she defended herself by stating that the students referred by her came from dysfunctional homes, and that the babies being aborted were being saved from entering those same environments.

While covering a class for an absent health education teacher, a sex ed textbook lay open on the desk. It stated that some people still prefer to wait until marriage to have sexual intimacy, and that these people should be tolerated. This was to show the magnanimity in the progressive mindset. The unity of love, sex, and marriage is no longer treated as a goal, but as a sub-species of intimacy merely to be tolerated.

A different chapter in the book had a comment about the male sex organ, and stated that many believe that there was a relation between size of said organ and pleasure in the sex act. However, the reader was cautioned that this was an urban legend, and that studies had shown that there was in fact no such connection. It was a relief to know that our teens were being disabused of this misconception.

On one occasion, a directive was issued that all history teachers would on a certain date pick up a lot of condoms and distribute them to the students in their classes to whomever requested them. Since I did not believe that part of my educational duties was to promote teenage fornication, and since condoms were readily available in corner grocery stores or pharmacies, I began thinking of creative ways to evade completing this assignment. One of the “ways” was prayer. The prayer was answered, and on the day before distribution, the assigned project was taken away from the history teachers, and given to a special condom office in the school.

As early as the late nineties, a new student club was formed, The Gay and Straight Alliance. The group’s sponsor, a young lady history teacher, knew about my Christian beliefs, and taunted me by swirling around the history department office and mockingly repeating, “I don’t have a soul. I don’t have a soul.” Notices announcing the club’s meetings were regularly put on walls throughout the school. It was clear that this club was not just to be a safe haven for same-sex attracted students but was to be a place for recruiting straight students into the homosexual lifestyle. The teen years with its many identity stresses is a fertile field for recruitment. The principal received a note from me asking him to imagine hallways with boys holding hands, hugging, and kissing. The exhortation was that he do all in his power to sabotage the club. However, there was no reply from the principal’s office, and my letter was quietly placed in my personnel file.

At one of the faculty meetings, the topic of student sexual harassment came up. The head of the Guidance Department was asked if boys hanging around the doors of the girls’ bathrooms was being considered “sexual harassment.” The principal leaped to his feet, and answered the question even before the Assistant Principal could get the words out of his mouth. “Absolutely not!” he replied. Here, lack of male respect for the female students was seen as perfectly innocent and normal.

Another custom at one of the high schools was Senior Cross Dressing Day. Under this rubric, senior males voluntarily dressed as females with dresses, bras, high heels, wigs, lipstick, nail polish or fake nails, and pranced around the school and attended classes in drag. Many of the males doing this were actually making fun of transvestites, but the school authorities saw this as innocent fun. However, when one teacher activist questioned this student activity to the administration, the parents, and teachers at a committee formed to form policies for student life, the reaction was overwhelmingly that they were just kids having fun. When the same teacher suggested that this could be traumatic if viewed by younger, 9thgrade students, and that all the major religions have scripture specifically rejecting men wearing women’s clothing, his presentation was scoffed at as taking the entire matter too seriously.

At the same high school in New York City, there was a regular Mr. and Ms. High School Contest. Photos of six or seven male students flexing their muscles and dressed only with jock straps was hung on the wall in the student cafeteria. Alongside the photo was another of girl contestants posing in skimpy bikinis. Additionally, in the same school, as is common in many high schools in New York City, there was one-day-a-year entitled Pajama Day. On that day, students of any year – freshmen through seniors – were invited to wear nightwear to school. Virtually all types of nightwear were present in the hallways and classrooms, from pajamas and bedroom shoes, to more revealing shorts and nighties. This too was considered part of the upbeat progressive, liberated model.

All of the above events flew directly in the face of the school’s dress code. But clearly the dress code was just there for window dressing. It was for prudes who still have an idea that schools are operating in loco parentis and are not just loco. Parents are not asked to give permission for their teenage children to participate in any of these events. Rather, the events themselves are expressions that the sexual revolution and sexual liberation is part and parcel of life without restrictive Judeo-Christian morality. These are but a few examples of how the disintegrating morality of society is expressing itself in our public education.


Donald Trump: Deliciously impolite

A North Korean defector holds a banner as police officers stand guard during a rally against South Korean government's policy against the North in front of the Government Complex in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, Sept. 22, 2017. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, in an extraordinary and direct rebuke, called U.S. President Donald Trump "deranged" and said he will "pay dearly" for his threats, a possible indication of more powerful weapons tests on the horizon. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

Cheryl K. Chumley

Politeness is so overrated.
President Donald Trump’s naysayers have come out in full force in recent days to blast his tough-talk speech to the United Nations as bombastic, and his Twitter firings at North Korea’s Kim Jong Un as dangerous.
But the truth is: Keeping the world powers on their collective toes is good for America. It makes those with less-than-honorable power-grabbing aims think twice and wonder, will this White House actually bomb us?
That’s a real strength-through-peace philosophy. After all, if America’s enemies think Trump is just crazy enough to carry through on his threats, well then, those are some enemies who are forced to rethink their own acts of aggression.
Nobody ever really worried when Barack Obama threatened anybody. Nobody really ran scared when Obama talked up the military as if he planned to use them in Syria. And even when Obama did act — even when he did use the military for something more than a social-engineering experiment for the transgender cause — he did it by telecasting his intents to the world, under the watchful nanny nods of his UN globalists-in-arms, politely giving our enemies plenty of time to prepare.
Trump, on the other hand, is wildly impolite to America’s enemies. He threatens them all the time.Moreover, so do his top-ranking administration folk. And that doesn’t just anger the left. It leaves the world powers in a total state of confusion.
Deliciously so.
“Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!” Trump tweeted, a couple of days after he delivered the UN speech that fired up his naysayers.
One can only imagine Kim huddling frantically with his top military brass, trying to discern what exactly Trump means when he says “tested.” How discourteous of Trump to fail to define. But then again, what a scenario of weakness for the regime. Yes? Quite yes.
Leftists, take a memo. Mocking Kim is not a gasp-worthy moment. It’s not an act that will rouse Kim to destroy America. He already wants to do that.
Let’s remember: Trump’s speech at the United Nations, which included references to Kim as a “rocket man” as well as threats to “totally destroy North Korea,” came on the heels of growing aggressions from the regime — not out of the blue, not without cause, as the left would like it painted.
Kim responded to Trump’s UN  speech by calling Trump a “frightened dog” and a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard.” Didn’t hear the left calling out Kim for his non-diplomatic talk, though, did we? Nope.
Well, two can play that game.
This White House doesn’t worry about the so-called improprieties of tough talk.
Trump hit back once again at Kim’s insults in kind, slamming the despot as a “madman” and then imposing new economic sanctions that put governments and companies that do business with North Korea in a rock and a hard place.
The gist: Pick — do you want to do business with the America the Giant or with the North Korea the Midget?
Obviously, this White House means business. There is a walk that follows the talk.
For Kim and his minions, coming off eight White House years of diplomacy at all costs, this must be a baffling time. But for America? The left may howl about the vulgarities of this president’s rhetoric. But let ‘em.
Polite talk has its place in foreign policy. But so does bluntness and boldness, backed by actual action. And in the end, anybody who thinks Kim’s going to be calmed and soothed by sweet talk and soft statements is simply living the life of a dreamer, trying to impose a dangerous foreign policy that showcases America as weak.
Thank goodness this White House isn’t playing that game.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

College Students SUPPORT Violence, Shouting To STOP Free Speech

That so many Americans are merely transactional citizens ignorant of fundamental facets of the American identity is not just a sign but a root cause of our current social disintegration.

Poll: High Rates Of U.S. College Students Support Violence, Shouting To Stop Free Speech

Joy Pullmann

It’s not just crazy places like the University of California at Berkeley where surprisingly large numbers of U.S. college students believe that violence and shouting are acceptable methods to prevent people from saying things. Fifty-one percent of all U.S. college students believe shouting is an acceptable response to free speech, and one in five (19 percent) believe violence is an acceptable response, according to results from a national survey of 1,500 students in 49 states and DC.

Fifty-three percent of survey respondents said colleges should “create a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people” rather than “create an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people.”

The poll’s preliminary results were published by the left-leaning Brookings Institution this week while the full results undergo peer review for publishing in an academic journal. The polling took place in August 2017.

“Today’s college students are tomorrow’s attorneys, teachers, professors, policymakers, legislators, and judges,” writes study author John Villasenor, a professor of law, politics, and technology at the University of California at Los Angeles. “If, for example, a large fraction of college students believe, however incorrectly, that offensive speech is unprotected by the First Amendment, that view will inform the decisions they make as they move into positions of increasing authority later in their careers.”
Breaking Down the Poll Results

Men were far more likely than women to know basics about the First Amendment, the portion of the U.S. Constitution that explicitly protects free speech, but also far more likely to condone aggression in response to hearing things they don’t like. While Republican-identified students were generally more supportive of free speech than Democrat-identified students, they were still remarkably likely to support restrictions on free speech and violent responses to it.

See some of the breakdowns from the poll results below.

“[T]he fraction of students who view the use of violence as acceptable is extremely high,” Villasenor writes. “While percentages in the high teens and 20s are ‘low’ relative to what they could be, it’s important to remember that this question is asking about the acceptability of committing violence in order to silence speech. Any number significantly above zero is concerning. The gender difference in the responses is also notable.”

A different poll last year found that, although 54 percent of college students think their peers don’t say what they really believe because others might find it offensive, on average they also think the vast majority of college students (71 percent) “respect free speech for all.”

This Problem Is Widespread and Starts Long Before College

As Catherine Rampell points out at the Washington Post, other research shows that students arrive on campus already inclined to shut down speech they don’t agree with. A study last year of 141,189 freshman at 200 public and private colleges around the country found even worse dispositions towards tolerance for politically incorrect or even just different views. The highest percentage on record — higher than even the Vietnam era — said they expected to participate in political protests while on campus, and 43 percent supported banning “extreme” speakers.

Seventy-one percent of these freshmen supported banning “racist” and “sexist” speech on campus. That might sound entirely reasonable until one considers that opinions of what comprises racism or sexism vary considerably, and some are outright ludicrous. A sampling of what some Americans think is racist: Saying “the Sooner State,” Oklahoma’s motto; saying “all lives matter“; wood paneling; having the name “Becky“; speaking positively about marriage; the Electoral College; being born with blonde hair; and not sending your kids to public school.

“One last freshman survey finding of interest,” Rampell writes about the 2016 survey: “The highest share of students since 1973 now consider themselves left of center. And the highest share of college freshmen ever (or at least since this question was first asked in 1970) call themselves ‘far left.'”

It’s not just First Amendment rights American students know little about. It’s almost every other major feature of American governance and history. Pick a survey, and they all show this to be true. For example, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute for several years surveyed Americans and college students with questions from national civics exams and the U.S. citizenship exam, finding abysmal things like less than half of Americans can name all three branches of government, two in five think the president can unilaterally declare war, and two-thirds don’t know the Constitution prohibits the United States from establishing a national religion.

Fifty-two percent of U.S. college graduates think “a wall of separation between church and state” is in the U.S. Constitution (it’s in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson). One in five college graduates “cannot name a single right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Until the Obama administration decided to stop administering national civics tests to fourth and twelfth graders, it was typically the test on which U.S. students performed most poorly. In 2010, the last time the test was given, “Less than half the eighth-graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights, and only 1 in 10 could pick a definition of the system of checks and balance.”

America No Longer Assimilates Its Own Citizens

In short, Americans are deeply ignorant about the fundamental workings of their own country. This is an existential problem, because the United States is designed entirely unlike the traditional national designations formed by common ethnicity and history. America only works if its people know and cling to what America is about: certain core political ideas that transcend “blood and soil.” America’s political ideals are unique, and they, not race or geography or anything else, are what hold America together.

These political ideals include the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Obviously, respect for the free exchange of ideas and rights of others to hold differing opinions is not innate to humanity. It is one of the strange hallmarks of these United States, and it is clearly something that must be taught if it is to survive. We no longer do that. Some of the cause for that is lazy neglect from American parents and politicians; some is a deliberate program by those who hate America’s distinctive ideals so have co-opted its own institutions to slowly erase them.

The National Association of Scholars published earlier this year a landmark reportdetailing how the dominant schemes of what currently poses as “civic education” at U.S. colleges (which train America’s K-12 teachers) are utterly antithetical to American ideals. They are quite literally designed to train political activists to dismantle the United States rather than citizens loyal to making America the best version of itself for posterity. America’s kids are not randomly behaving like little Marxists. They are being trained to behave like little Marxists in programs that employ American tax dollars to destroy America.

The fact that so many Americans are merely transactional citizens rather than true heirs to the ideas that keep America alive is not just a sign but a root cause of our current social disintegration. If not soon reversed in a project of deliberate national restoration that must include ending our curricular monopolies prone to ideological capture, our failure as a society to require of our children and newcomers the knowledge of and adherence to the ideals that make America itself will mean the death of “the last best hope of earth.”


OpEd: PIMPING the Presidency

theodore  M I R A L D I.

Just when you think we are finally over the Arrogance of Obama and his Social Engineering Henchman the other shoe drops. Obama's shoe closet at this point must be the size of Imelda Marcos' 
walk in closet. This is what the American Public has had to endure for his entire tenure as President.

Now finally the Hens are coming home to roost. and I do mean Hens. Many of Obama's strident supporters are now under the microscope. 

What is it about Obama that promoted seemingly intelligent women to act so badly? This giddy bunch of cheerleaders that did his bidding Where-Ever they served with a smile and wink from their Savior. 

The B-List of enchanted Public Servants included the likes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett. Gina McCarthy, Lisa Jackson, Lois Lerner, Wassermann Schultz and Samantha Power, the Unmasker. Obama surrounded himself with women, how unfortunate none were truly independent of his insidious behaviors. Once in his circle, pleasing Obama became Job One.

Forgive my association, but it reminds me of a Pimp and his Ladies. Power, Fear and some narcissistic belief that he was their man. For all intent and purpose, Obama Pimped America!

These women, God Bless their little hearts were willing to institute the political chicanery Obama informed us that he would do. And who better than political figures that the media, and the opposing party would not vilify...for fear of being called called a myriad of Democrat Buzz words...Haters.

The fear by the opposition to demand equal Justice for Women and Minorities has created the model that Obama and the BIAS Baiters have used to force cash out of  the Public and Private sectors for decades.

Not one women caught in the act of corrupting her position has been prosecuted. Obama used his considerable skills honed in Chicago, the city of corruption to nearly take down America's Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional Professor...Ironic, or well planned?

I think we are finally Uncovering the Facts.

It can no longer be coincidental that the Amateur and Chief has left bread crumbs everywhere. The FBI, NSA, DNA, CIA, STATE and a host of other acronym Agencies Government wide has been seriously compromised.

This was a Silent Coup to weaken the TRUST Americans must have from government. Obama wanted to replace that trust with Dependency. Hence, Healthcare, Over-Regulation and a Stagnant Economy, no Job Growth and massive unemployment rates.

The Perfect Storm. 

Destroying the Middle Class was essential to his Plan. It's the Middle Class that is the engine of the nation and the Moral Warrior that Obama needed to Vanquish. There is no fear of the poor, or the rich, after all Government will take care of you from cradle to grave, and the rich only get richer.

The middle Class must be forced to accept concepts that are either an affront to their Religious Beliefs or sense of citizenship and civility.

It is with a sense of disbelief that nearly half of the voting population was brainwashed by Obama.

Once elected Obama used the Deep Pockets of American Taxpayers to buy loyalty from his constituents, Bad Actor and Foreign Governments that despised American Power. He bowed to World Leaders in his disingenuous attempt to win support for his One-World-Order Agenda. He praised countries with numerous Human Rights Abuses and coward from action for fear of disapproval.

Obama PIMPED America to anyone, anywhere all of the time.

His detractors were the enemy to be vanquished. And right up until Trump's Inauguration Obama was still involved laying his deceit throughout the Intelligence Community hoping that disseminating false facts an Dossiers he could somehow injury an incoming president.

Obama PIMPED America to Bring Us Down to His Level of Corruption. 


Why ‘making America great again’ must begin with fixing immigration

Trump's Door and Wall Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times
Trump’s Door and Wall Illustration by Greg Groesch

Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon

What does it mean to ‘Make America Great Again’? That’s a seemingly simple question with no simple answer, but an important part of it is certainly fixing our broken systems.
Our immigration system is among the most broken. The United States no longer controls its own borders, does too little to vet those who enter the country and less to track them once they arrive. Criminal gangs smuggle people into the U.S., treat them as virtual slaves, then set them “free” to require assistance, drag down wages or engage in crime. Cities and states attempting to nullify federal immigration law seem more and more like the segregationist Southern Democrats who fought the federal push for civil rights.
Nor do we ask the questions that made America a great nation of great immigrants: Are we attracting the best people? Are we embracing those who embrace the American ideals of freedom and free enterprise? Are we helping those who dream of becoming Americans? Do we teach them English, civics and American history? Are we availing ourselves of the useful skills, diverse wisdom and productive passions they import from around the world?
President Trump campaigned against a corrupt and counterproductive immigration system that has long answered “no” to each of those questions. His illustrative imagery made the abstract concrete: a “wall” with a “big beautiful door” in the middle.
Anti-immigrant activists and the anti-Trump press talked up the wall while ignoring the door. The wall served their narrative of xenophobia and isolationism; the door did not. Those who took Mr. Trump’s metaphors literally, rather than seriously, now insist that anything short of a Mexican-funded physical wall running the length of our southern border is a betrayal. They say the same about anything other than a mass deportation of every single person in the country illegally.
Much of Mr. Trump’s support base, however, has always been smart enough to take the president very seriously rather than literally. They understand that Mr. Trump is exactly who he claimed to be: a dealmaker. When you back a dealmaker, you understand the difference between an opening offer and a closing deal. And you don’t get upset when your President deals with the other party. After all, that’s what you hired him to do.
America needs a functioning immigration system — not a construction project. A system that lets us keep undesirables out — a wall — while inviting desirables in — a door. An improved physical barrier — already underway — is but one of many important steps toward that goal.
Those who take the president literally rather than seriously should reconsider what it means to have a world-class dealmaker in the White House. What if Mr. Trump always embraced the door as much as the wall? What if he understood both sides of the immigration debate; that a secure America is a generous America, but that security must come first?
The folks romanticized as “Dreamers” pose the ultimate conflict of American values. They entered the country illegally, as minors, frequently as small children in care of their illegally-entering parents. As a nation of laws, America should not reward that illegality. As a compassionate people, Americans should embrace these child arrivals. Where is the national interest capable of resolving this dilemma? Maybe it’s the solution that Mr. Trump has been touting for two years: wall plus door.
Who should we invite through that door first? It’s not hard to see the case for Dreamers. They may be the most carefully vetted group of noncitizens in history. They already think of themselves as Americans. They have shown the ability to excel in the American system, in many cases while contributing to it in significant ways. They have shown that they can face hardship without resorting to crime, and without developing a strong sense of entitlement. Notwithstanding the exceptions that exist in every group, the Dreamers are disproportionately the new Americans we most desire — and need.
Combatants tend to hear what they want to hear. It served some of Mr. Trump’s most voluble supporters and most vehement antagonists to paint his wall as evidence of a one-dimensional ideologue. Rather than marking a betrayal, however, Mr. Trump’s willingness to work with Democrats seems to reinforce another central theme of his campaign: he can “fix it” where others have failed. That’s a commitment on which large swaths of the president’s support base have always focused. Frustrated with Washington’s status quo, it may even have been the central reason for their support.
The need to fix immigration has been clear for decades. It seems that Mr. Trump is trying to nudge congressional leaders toward a common-sense deal capable of generating broad bipartisan support: dramatically increased border security coupled with an embrace of those whom we have already vetted carefully.
Strength plus compassion. Security plus legalization. Wall plus door. It’s a combination that could indeed Make America Great Again.

NY’s Chief Judge Pushes IMMIGRATION HYSTERIA From the Bench

Post Editorial Board

Janet DiFiore, the chief judge of New York, this week used her office to push the left’s politically correct talking point that President Trump is out to deport every single immigrant.
At a Court of Appeals hearing on providing legal services to the poor, DiFiore slammed the legal profession for not doing enough to help illegal immigrants survive the Trump era.
“With the heightened focus on immigration, there are many thousands of individuals being held and facing deportation without the assistance of counsel,” she said.
“Members of our profession have a moral and ethical obligation to respond to this growing crisis and to find ways to provide effective assistance of counsel to this very vulnerable population.”
DiFiore says the shifting “values of the current federal administration” pose a massive threat to thousands of New Yorkers. But no crisis is actually even on the horizon.
To the extent that Trump has ramped up enforcement, it’s been on the border and against those illegal immigrants who’ve committed crimes here in America, including gangs like MS-13.
Yes, he announced he’s ending the (unconstitutional) Obama policy on the “Dreamers”— but only while practically begging Congress to send him a bill to grant them actual legal protection. He’s even eager to strike a deal with Democrats, if that’s what it takes.
The top jurist in New York should be sticking to the facts — not feeding lefty fantasies.

Friday, September 22, 2017

BRASS KNUCKLE Tactics Used Against Manafort by Mueller

Maybe these are the Tactics that the New Administration should use on Team Obama...tmiraldi

Image result for Mueller team under fire for 'brass-knuckle' tactics in bid to squeeze Manafort

Christopher Wallace

When a report surfaced that federal agents picked the lock on Paul Manafort’s front door for a surprise raid over the summer while the former Trump campaign chairman was in bed, it was also a wake-up call for prominent Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall.
“Here is a United States citizen where the FBI is coming in, picking his lock, and raiding his home in the early morning, over what? It doesn’t matter which side you’re on. It’s just crazy. We’re not the Soviet Union. It’s appalling,” said Kirkendall, who has worked on cases involving one of the special counsel’s key investigators, Andrew Weissmann.
The intensity of the focus on Manafort is widely seen as a potential effort by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to pressure him into providing information on others, possibly President Trump himself, in the Russia probe.
But the “brass-knuckle” tactics have raised eyebrows in the legal community.
The Manafort investigation has been the subject of numerous leaks, including new details about the so-called FISA warrant reportedly used to eavesdrop on his calls last year. Warrants issued by a FISA court, which stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are supposed to be highly secret. 
“It is not at all common” to reveal a FISA warrant publicly, former attorney general Michael Mukasey told Fox News. “FISA warrants are obtained for the purpose of gathering intelligence, a purpose that obviously would be defeated by revealing a warrant publicly.”
The leaks could be coming from any number of sources due to the multiple ongoing investigations on Capitol Hill as well as the special counsel probe – in addition to the dissemination of sensitive information by Obama administration figures in its final days.
But former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said he “wouldn’t be the least bit surprised” if some of the leaks were coming from the special counsel.
“Look, they clearly went out of their way to intimidate Manafort with the brass-knuckle way they did the search of his Virginia home,” McCarthy said. “They are trying to squeeze him, so I would not put it past them to use leaks if they think that might help increase the pressure on Manafort to flip. But we don't have slam-dunk evidence that they are behind the leaks.”
There are other signs of unusually aggressive tactics in this investigation.
'They clearly went out of their way to intimidate Manafort.'
- Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
The New York Times, which reported on how agents picked the lock during the July raid, also said Mueller followed up with a warning that his prosecutors planned to indict him.
Fox News reported last month that the raid lasted 10 hours and involved a dozen federal agents, who seized documents labeled “attorney-client,” according to a source close to the investigation.  
While Mueller has assembled a large team, one of its most prominent investigators is former U.S. attorney Weissmann, who had overseen a series of controversial prosecutions that ultimately resulted in dismissed convictions and formal allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
FILE- In this June 21, 2017, file photo, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed door meeting in Washington. A grand jury used by Mueller has heard secret testimony from a Russian-American lobbyist who attended a June 2016 meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son, The Associated Press has learned. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
FILE- In this June 21, 2017, file photo, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed door meeting in Washington. A grand jury used by Mueller has heard secret testimony from a Russian-American lobbyist who attended a June 2016 meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son, The Associated Press has learned. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)  (Associated Press)
For example, when Weissmann was leading the Enron Task Force, he sent former Merrill Lynch executive William Fuhs to a maximum-security prison in Oklahoma, 700 miles from his wife and two small children in Denver.
Fuhs spent the next year behind bars before being released on bail. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that he violated the law, and his conviction was vacated.
When contacted by Fox News, Fuhs and his attorney refused to be quoted on the case, citing the anxiety caused by the experience. But Kirkendall told Fox News, “It’s déjà vu with what’s happening against Mr. Manafort. Fuhs and his family lost a year of their lives because of a completely misguided prosecution.”
Weissmann also helped prosecute Anderson Consulting, which led to a conviction of the firm, its eventual closure and the loss of 28,000 thousand employees. In a highly unusual unanimous decision, the Supreme Court later overturned and dismissed that conviction as well.
“That was a tremendous example of horrifying prosecutorial misconduct,” Kirkendall said. Weissmann, at the time, denied there had been any intimidation of witnesses. ''There is no factual basis'' to the allegation, he said in 2002. ''It is just not true.''
Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell was so outraged after a case involving Weissmann that, in 2012, she filed a formal complaint of prosecutorial misconduct with the Texas bar and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The complaint alleged witness threatening, withholding exculpatory evidence, and the use of “false and misleading summaries.” After reviewing the complaint, the Obama administration’s OPR found no ethical violations
Now a defense attorney in Asheville, N.C., she wrote a book about the experience, called “Licensed to Lie.” She still maintains Weissmann and his task force “made up a crime,” alleging the team gave the defendants “false and misleading summaries of what witnesses had told the government.”
Powell sees similar tactics with the Manafort probe. “They will do whatever it takes to nail him. Instead of investigating crimes, they’re trying to pin stuff on him,” she said.
The special counsel’s office declined to comment, when asked by Fox News about the concerns over the tactics in the Russia investigation as well as over Weissmann's past cases. 

Harvard REVOLT Over Murderer and Traitor Snubs

Harvard faculty, alumni in revolt over snubs of Michelle Jones, Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning has received support from Harvard professors and alumni after having a fellowship withdrawn.

Lukas Mikelionis

More than 150 Harvard professors are in open revolt against the university's administration after it rescinded a Ph.D. program offer to ex-inmate Michelle Jones and withdrew a fellowship invitation to convicted leaker Chelsea Manning.
Alumni of the Ivy League school also are voicing opposition to the recent decisions regarding Jones and Manning.
“Harvard has prioritized political expediency over scholarly values,” reads a “We are Educators Not Prosecutors” petition, signed by more than 150 faculty members. “The decisions in these cases have been made not by following standardized procedure, but by reacting in an ad hoc manner to a climate of anxiety and intimidation.” 
Michelle Jones, a Ph.D. candidate at N.Y.U., was released from prison in August after serving 20 years.

Jones was sentenced to 50 years in prison in the 1990s after admitting she beat her 4-year-old son, left him alone for days, and then found him dead. She buried the child without telling police, the child’s father or his family. She was released after 20 years based on good behavior and scholarly achievements.
According to the Times, however, the decision was reached out of concern that admitting Jones to Harvard would prompt a backlash among other rejected candidates, parents of students and conservative media.
Manning, meanwhile, has seen her fellowship offer rescinded following outrage from former CIA officials, who've branded the convicted WikiLeaks leaker as a “traitor.”
Some Harvard alumni have, in response, called for the withdrawal of offers issued to President Donald Trump’s former aides Sean Spicer and Corey Lewandowski, Fox News reported.
The petition demands that the university not discriminate based on “criminal history,” invest in prison reform research and invite Manning to speak on LGBTQ issues at the institution.
“These steps will go some distance towards ensuring that, in the future, our University does not allow a misguided and moralistic notion of indelible stigma — or a fear of media controversy — to divert us from our core values,” the petition reads.
“In each case, the administration appears to have allowed the fear of public opinion and political interference to determine its actions,” it adds, emphasizing that “we are educators committed to the open, critical exchange of ideas.”