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

Friday, May 31, 2019

OpEd: SHAME Of NEW YORK'S LEFT!!


This is the ultimate DISGRACE by the New York Left who openly disrespect New Yorkers each and everyday have sunk to a level of sub-human behavior. Cuomo and De Blasio should be driven from this city as quickly as possible. This place is now filthy with the stink of a Third-World City. There are poor people begging everywhere, sleeping on the streets, urinating in subway stations. The Democrats have done this everywhere they are in Power from Coast to Coast. They would rather House, Feed, and offer Medical Care to Illegals than take care of its citizens.

These two Cowards wouldn't equal one First Responder!

theodore miraldi

Geraldo: AG Barr Interview Should Have Comey, Clapper, Brennan 'QUAKING' In Their Boots

Geraldo: Comey, Clapper, Brennan should be 'quaking in their boots' over AG's probe




Anna Hopkins

Fox News correspondent at-large Geraldo Rivera is warning several Obama-era intelligence chiefs that they should be worried after Attorney General William Barr aired his concerns about the origins of the Mueller investigation in a new interview.
During an appearance on "Fox & Friends" Friday, Rivera said it's clear Barr wants to get to the bottom of the Russia probe's origins and that he has "his target" on some of the biggest names associated with it.
"If I were James Comey right now or James Clapper right now or John Brennan right now, I would be quaking in my boots," Rivera said.
"Why? Because the attorney general of the United States has set his target on you,” he said.
Barr has previously stated that he believes there was "spying" on the part of the FBI into the Trump campaign, using verbiage which has drawn criticism from former FBI director James Comey.
"The FBI does not 'spy,' we investigate," Comey said in response during an interview earlier this month.
Rivera highlighted a number of questions he believes are likely being raised by Barr and others assisting in "investigating the investigators."
“How long did you sustain that investigation of the Trump candidacy, the Trump transition, the Trump administration? What tools were employed? What foreign assets were employed?" he asked.
"What spies, indeed, were employed to, for you to have this investigation of the president into whether or not the president of the United States was a spy, was a Russian asset, was a traitor to his nation? This is big stuff," he said.
Barr, in his own interview, said that in his research he has only been left with more questions than answers.
“I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are, well, satisfactory," Barr said. "And, in fact, I probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that, that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

LA Public Health In 'COMPLETE BREAKDOWN': 'No City On Earth Tolerates This'

'No city on Earth would tolerate this,' Dr. Drew says of this city's public health



 Bradford Betz

The public health situation in the nation's second-largest city is in "a complete breakdown," Dr. Drew Pinskysaid Thursday night on "The Ingraham Angle."
“We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now,” Pinsky told host Laura Ingraham. “We have the three prongs of airborne disease, tuberculosis is exploding, (and) rodent-borne. We are one of the only cities in the country that doesn’t have a rodent control program, and sanitation has broken down.”
“We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now.”
— Dr. Drew Pinsky
Pinsky’s comments followed news that Los Angeles police officer had contracted typhoid fever, a rare and life-threatening illness that fewer than 350 Americans contract each year.
Los Angeles had a typhus outbreak last summer and will likely have another this summer, Pinsky said. Meanwhile, bubonic plague – a pandemic that killed tens of millions of people during the 14th century – is “likely” already present in Los Angeles, Pinsky added.
Dr. Drew Pinsky (Getty Images)
Dr. Drew Pinsky (Getty Images)
“This is unbelievable. I can’t believe I live in a city where this is not Third World. This is medieval,” Pinsky said. “Third World countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on Earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk.”
“Third World countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on Earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk.”
— Dr. Drew Pinsky, referring to a public health crisis in Los Angeles
California can’t handle the current situation, let alone allow tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with no health records to flood its major cities, Pinsky added.
“[T]he government is somehow insisting that housing is the problem when in fact we have chronic mental illness, we have addiction, we have people who don’t want to leave the streets,” Pinsky said. “They literally won’t take the housing if we give it to them. And that’s the population that’s vulnerable, and is going to get so ill this summer. It scares me for their well-being.”
Asked why the liberal politicians aren’t doing more to alleviate these conditions, Pinsky said they are “disgustingly negligent.”

North Korea EXECUTES 5 Officials Over Failed Kim-Trump Summit

Failed Trump summit leads to 5 officials' executions, one grim method revealed: report



Frank Miles

North Korea has executed five officials for their part in the failed second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, according to a South Korean newspaper.
Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., was executed by firing squad in March for being "won over by the American imperialists to betray the supreme leader", according to the Chosun Ilbo.
The paper also claimed that four other North Korean Foreign Ministry officials were executed that same month because of the breakdown of the February summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, but did not provide details.
Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., and four other North Korean foreign ministry officials, were executed because of the breakdown of the February North Korea-U.S. summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. (REUTERS, File)
Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., and four other North Korean foreign ministry officials, were executed because of the breakdown of the February North Korea-U.S. summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. (REUTERS, File)
Seoul's spy service said it could not confirm the report, while the presidential Blue House said that "it's inappropriate to make hasty judgments or comments."
Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, told reporters in Berlin that he had seen the reports and the U.S. was "doing our best to check it out."
Trump’s much-anticipated summit with Kim ended abruptly and without the two leaders signing any agreements over nuclear disarmament.
Kim aide Kim Yong Chol is reportedly undergoing hard labor for his role in the breakdown. (REUTERS, File)
Kim aide Kim Yong Chol is reportedly undergoing hard labor for his role in the breakdown. (REUTERS, File)
Top Kim aide Kim Yong Chol is reportedly undergoing hard labor for his role in the breakdown.
President Trump meeting with Kim Yong Chol this past January 18 in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo)
President Trump meeting with Kim Yong Chol this past January 18 in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo)
He even was seen in photos with President Trump at the White House over the past year, delivering letters from the North Korean dictator.
Kim Yong Chol has been North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator and the counterpart of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo since Kim entered nuclear talks with the U.S. early last year.
Since the Hanoi nuclear summit between Trump and Kim ended in failure, North Korea has again tested weapons and boosted its belligerent rhetoric toward American and South Korean officials.
Fox News' Bradford Betz and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Dershowitz: SHAME On Robert Mueller For EXCEEDING His ROLE

Image result for Dershowitz Robert Mueller

ALAN DERSHOWITZ
The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”
Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.

Mueller Just PROVED His Entire Operation Was A Political HIT JOB That Trampled The Rule Of LAW

At a hastily arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law



Sean Davis


If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.

At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”

“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.

The contradictions and double standards didn’t stop there, though.

“It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him. Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.

If they actually believed that, then the 240-page volume II of their report on their obstruction investigation of the president would never have been authored. After all, according to Mueller’s own statement, such an operation would be patently unfair. And if it’s unfair to air dirty laundry against a target who was never charged, surely it’s doubly unfair to do so in writing and on camera during a press conference whose mere existence refutes the very claims of its host.

Mueller revealed himself as little more than a clone of James Comey—the smarmy, scheming politician who replaced Mueller as the head of the FBI. Recall that it was Comey who assumed for himself powers that did not belong to him by law when he declared at a 2016 press conference no “reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton with criminal wrongdoing in her mishandling of classified information and unsanctioned use of a secret, private email server to evade public records laws. Just as Mueller did in his report and Wednesday press conference, Comey followed up his declaration that Hillary would not be charged with statement after statement after statement of all the awful things Hillary Clinton did.

“There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said of Clinton. He excoriated her for repeatedly sending and receiving top secret information on her unsecured server which had never been authorized to process classified information. He even said it was possible, due to her “extreme” carelessness, that hostile foreign actors had penetrated her system and obtained highly classified information about U.S. national security programs.

Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, Comey’s display at that press conference was an embarrassment. He did an extreme disservice to the nation and the rule of law by unilaterally declaring himself the primary arbiter of prosecutorial decisions in the federal government when that authority belongs solely to the Department of Justice. And he did an extreme disservice to Clinton herself by dragging her through the mud in such a manner that clearing her name would be impossible.

In fact, DOJ guidelines expressly prohibit the actions of both Comey and Mueller in naming and shaming individuals who were never formally charged with any wrongdoing.

“As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,'” states DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions.

Nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Mueller’s display during Wednesday’s press conference.

“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” states Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.

Multiple federal agents and prosecutors reached out to The Federalist after Mueller’s press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director’s behavior.

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

“I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons: keep your mouths shut unless you’re referring a case for prosecution,” Jeff Danik, a retired FBI supervisor, said during a phone interview with The Federalist on Wednesday.

Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus. Mueller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes he charged against Republicans. Paul Manafort was charged with unregistered lobbying for foreign governments, while Mueller left alone long-time Democrat donor Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators, while Clinton campaign cronies Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele’s false statements to Congress and the FBI were ignored. Trump’s nonexistent Russian connections were plumbed while a dubious Clinton campaign-funded dossier sourced directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock-solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin.

Mueller claimed his report spoke for itself, then put together a completely unnecessary press conference more than a month after his report’s public release, in which he not just spoke for the report, but expounded on the new legal standards he created to govern its conclusions.

These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative. None of this is any surprise to anyone who has followed Mueller’s tenure in government. As FBI director, Mueller repeatedly misused and abused the authority granted to him by Congress.

Mueller and Comey utterly bungled the federal investigation into the 2001 Anthrax attacks, resulting in a $5.8 million judgment against the government after the two men falsely accused an innocent man of being behind the attacks.

Even after the court judgment against him, Mueller was defiant.

“I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” Mueller said afterward. He then doubled down and said it would be wrong to say there were any mistakes in how he handled the investigation.

Then there was Mueller’s handling as FBI director of a case in which FBI agents framed innocent men of murders the FBI knew had been committed by their own informants. One of the innocent men died in prison awaiting justice for a crime he never committed.

Then, as special counsel to investigate Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign, Mueller promptly hired partisan Democrats to run his investigation. He tapped as investigators FBI personnel who openly discussed their hatred of Trump and his voters, as well as their plans to keep him out of office.

There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

Source>https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Louisiana Governor, A DEMOCRAT, Poised To Sign 'HEARTBEAT' Abortion Ban Into LAW

Louisiana’s governor, a Democrat, poised to sign ‘heartbeat’ bill into law
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, said he will sign the legislation. (AP Photo/Melinda Deslatte, File)


Gregg Re

Louisiana's state legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a so-called "heartbeat" pro-life bill, becoming the latest in a slew of states to enact strict new restrictions on abortion that many conservatives have hoped will end with the Supreme Court revisiting its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, has said he will buck the national party establishment and sign the measure into law. Another Democrat, state Sen. John Milkovich, sponsored the bill -- underscoring the deep pro-life culture in Louisiana, even among liberal politicians.
The bill, which cleared the Louisiana House by a 79-23 vote, requires an ultrasound to be conducted prior to any abortion procedure being performed. If a fetal heartbeat is detected, the bill bans abortion unless, under penalty of perjury, the abortion provider declares the procedure necessary "to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
The bill also includes an exemption in the case that a physician certifies that the "unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth."
The text does not include an exception for rape or incest, but it includes penalties only for abortion providers, and not women seeking abortions. Doctors breaking the law could face up to two years in prison and lose their medical license.
In a statement posted on Twitter shortly after the vote, Gov. Edwards emphasized that "being pro-life means more than just being pro-birth," touted his criminal justice reform and foster care initiatives, and vowed to sign the bill into law.
"I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me -- and I respect their opinions," Edwards wrote. "As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone."
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar heartbeat bills, which generally restrict abortion as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Missouri lawmakers, meanwhile, approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama has gone further, outlawing virtually all abortions.
None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges.
Louisiana's prohibition, by its explicit terms, would take hold only if neighboring Mississippi's law is upheld by a federal appeals court. A federal judge temporarily blocked the Mississippi law Friday.
In that respect, the new law is somewhat similar to a 2006 "trigger law," signed into law by then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat. That law effectively would ban all abortions, except where the mother's health is in jeopardy, immediately if the Supreme Court ever reversed Roe, the seminal case that established a constitutional right to privacy and prescribed a limited right to an abortion that the high court has later refined.
Pro-choice women protest at the Louisiana Capitol, where lawmakers passed bill that would ban abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy, on Tuesday, May 21, 2019, in Baton Rouge, La. (AP Photo/Melinda Deslatte)
Pro-choice women protest at the Louisiana Capitol, where lawmakers passed bill that would ban abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy, on Tuesday, May 21, 2019, in Baton Rouge, La. (AP Photo/Melinda Deslatte)
On Tuesday, in a 20-page concurring opinion in an abortion-related case on fetal remains in Indiana, Justice Clarence Thomas previewed what is likely to become an all-out legislative and judicial brawl over the topic in the coming years.
Thomas openly likened abortion to birth control and eugenics, citing the statistics of minorities affected by abortion, and argued that the dissenting opinion by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "makes little sense."
"Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation," Thomas wrote, "the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana's."
Ginsburg shot back that one of Thomas' footnotes "displays more heat than light."