[Washington Examiner] A charity run by the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings received millions from special interest groups and corporations that had business before her husband’s committee and could have been used illegally, according to an IRS complaint filed by an ethics watchdog group.
Cummings, 68, a Maryland Democrat, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. His wife, Maya Rockeymoore, 48, is the chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party and briefly ran in the state's gubernatorial race last year. The couple married in 2008. Cummings was once heavily in debt ‐ in part due to hefty child support payments to his first wife and two other women he had children with ‐ but his financial situation has improved considerably over the past decade.
Rockeymoore runs two entities, a nonprofit group called the Center for Global Policy Solutions and a for-profit consulting firm called Global Policy Solutions, LLC, whose operations appear to have overlapped, according to the IRS complaint filed by watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center on Monday. The complaint states that the arrangement may have been used to derive "illegal private benefit."
[Washington Times] In the burgeoning controversy about the FBI investigation of Donald Trump, one thing is clear: The decision by Andrew McCabe as acting FBI director to open a counterintelligence probe targeting Mr. Trump after he fired FBI Director James Comey was based on false pretenses.
In his book "The Threat," Mr. McCabe says he opened that investigation and urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel based almost entirely on Mr. Trump’s comment to NBC’s Lester Holt that he thought about "this Russia thing" when he decided to fire Jim Comey as FBI director in May 2017.
Mr. McCabe interpreted those meandering words to mean that Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey because the director was pursuing the ongoing FBI investigation into interference in the election and Mr. Trump wanted to stop it. But as noted in my book "The Trump White House," Mr. Trump went on to say twice to Mr. Holt that he recognized that by firing Mr. Comey, he was probably prolonging the investigation and that he wanted it "to be absolutely done properly." It was the exact opposite of attempting to obstruct an investigation.
If Mr. McCabe had cited the rest of what Mr. Trump said, he would have exposed as baseless his own rationale for starting an investigation of Mr. Trump. But Mr. McCabe did not. Instead, in his book Mr. McCabe deliberately and dishonestly omitted the rest of what Mr. Trump said to Mr. Holt about his dismissal of Mr. Comey probably lengthening the Russia investigation.
Mr. McCabe went on to cite parenthetically the fact that in a "demeaning and dismissive way," Mr. Trump had referred to the ongoing FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election ‐ which included the possibility of collusion by the campaign ‐ as a "witch-hunt." So now defending yourself is reason to open an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against you.
[FOX] Florida congressman Matt Gaetz revealed Monday night that "most compelling" evidence in the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is days, if not weeks away.
According to Gaetz, R-Fla., secret unreleased transcripts involving former Trump aide George Papadopoulos reveal that he denied there was an illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia and that intelligence officials did not present that information to the FISA court.
"I believe we are days if not weeks aways for the most in compelling evidence in the biggest political scandal in American history," Gaetz said on "Hannity" Monday.
"There was western intelligence sent to spy on Papadopoulos and there's a recording and transcript of the conversation. And there, Papadopoulos denies any illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. So, they had evidence presumably that was against Papadopoulos and for him. What they will wont be able to defend is that they never presented that evidence to the FISA court."
Former congressman Trey Gowdy made mention of such transcripts during an appearance on Fox News' “Sunday Morning Futures,” suggesting it is likely the FBI would have transcripts of discussions between informants and Papadopoulos and calling them game-changing if made public.
Gaetz said that this information is what Attorney General William Barr spoke about last week with Fox News' Bill Hemmer.
"This is what Attorney General Barr means when he talks about them putting their thumb on the scale. The government has an obligation before a secret court with no defense attorney to present all of the exculpatory evidence that they are provided, all of the exculpatory evidence," Gaetz said.
[JudicialWatch] Judicial Watch announced that a U.S. District Judge in California awarded Judicial Watch $22,000 in legal fees in a case filed by an Antifa organizer in an effort to block Judicial Watch from obtaining information about her activities.
Yvette Felarca, a middle school teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), and two co-plaintiffs were ordered to pay Judicial Watch $22,000 in attorney’s fees and $4,000 in litigation costs. Felarca had sued the BUSD in federal court to keep the school district from fulfilling its legal obligation to provide Judicial Watch with records of their communications mentioning: Felarca, Antifa, and/or BAMN. Judicial Watch also asked for Felarca’s personnel file.
Felarca is a prominent figure in By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), a group founded by the Marxist Revolutionary Workers League that protests conservative speaking engagements. In 2016, Felarca and two of her allies were arrested and charged with several crimes, including felony assault, for inciting a riot in Sacramento. Earlier this year, Felarca was ordered to stand trial for assault.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, Northern District of California, who had previously ruled that Felarca’s lawsuit was “entirely frivolous,” wrote in his ruling awarding legal fees to Judicial Watch that Felarca and her co-plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were “premised on the obviously baseless assumption” that the First Amendment condemns the speech of some while condoning the ideological missions of others.
Judge Chhabria added that “The plaintiffs also mischaracterized the documents under review” and that the plaintiffs “failed to grapple with the role Ms. Felarca played in making herself a topic of public discourse through her physical conduct at public rallies and her voluntary appearance on Fox News.”
Judge Chhabria’s order also states that “a significant portion of the documents the plaintiffs initially sued to protect from disclosure had been publicly disclosed months earlier in another suit brought by Ms. Felarca against BUSD, where she was represented by the same counsel. (See generally Felarca v. Berkeley Unified School District, No. 3:16-cv-06184-RS). The plaintiffs, therefore, had no reasonable argument to protect those documents from disclosure.”
Along with Felarca’s $20,000 payment, co-plaintiffs Lori Nixon and Larry Stefl were ordered by Judge Chhabria to pay Judicial Watch $1,000 each (Yvette Felarca, et al., v. Berekely Unified School District, et al. (No. 3:17-cv-06282-VC)).
Remember if the average IQ is 100 you are going to have a lot of people who are dumber than that who inherit money, positions , power, and etc. Look for people who wear bow ties and wear baseball caps sidewise and backwards all the time.
There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981 : Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may pork be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.
[Townhall] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is once again struggling to maintain control over her new majority's caucus -- even battling dissension among her own leadership team. Pelosi has already faced multiple rank-and-file insurrections on GOP-led motions to recommit, caved to pressure and lost a battle over condemning a freshman member's anti-Semitism, decided to ignore her chamber's budgeting requirements in order to sidestep endless intra-party spending battles, and recently watched as her party was forced to shelve (since revived) DREAM Act legislation due to internal squabbling over extending amnesty to people with criminal records. Her latest headache is on impeachment, which she's opposed for months on tactical grounds.
Her rhetorical fence-straddling has been awkward and strained at times (what does this mean?), and now it appears as though there's a growing chance that her delicate balancing act could be heading toward a breaking point (see update). In a closed-door meeting yesterday, top House Democrats reportedly clashed over the issue of pursuing impeachment against President Trump. Though Pelosi did not abandon her opposition to the idea, her stance came under siege from some typical allies:
[Washington Times] Attorney General William P. Barr on Tuesday railed against federal courts issuing nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump from implementing his policies, saying they wield "unprecedented power."
In a speech before the American Law Institute, Mr. Barr said such injunctions block politicians of all stripes from enacting the voters’ will.
"One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen," he said. "No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the president. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power."
Mr. Barr pointed the finger squarely at the American Law Institute for contributing to the problem. He blamed a 2010 commentary it published saying individual cases are the same as aggregate litigation because in both cases the relief would apply to one or several individuals.
That’s wrong, Mr. Barr said, because it ignores prior legal precedent.
I just watched Frontline "Supreme Revenge".
Senator Mitch McConnell saved us conservatives from a coup by the Democrats through the Supreme Court.
Since Mitch thwarted the Democrats takeover of the Supreme Court the Democrats are now attempting a coup (supreme revenge) by nationwide injunctions by judges and by impeaching the President.
The Democrats must not be allowed to succeed.
If you were taught US history before Howard Zinn invaded the curriculum, you learned about the three branches of government and checks and balances. The notion that the courts have the final say is not what the Founders intended.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/22/2019 7:45 Comments ||
So, as I understand it, there is a lot of these federal judges - get another one to issue a counter-injunction
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.