Thursday, May 10, 2018

The Rise of Hitler.

During the hyperinflation in Germany of the 1920s, the country's currency, the mark, went crazy. Money became worthless. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death. Just like what's happening today in Socialist Venezuela. The stupid ones were those who had nest eggs: the thrifty, holders of government bonds, but primarily the country's pensioners. Large sections of the middle classes saw themselves stripped of their assets, losing almost everything they had set aside for years. Banks, savings banks, and insurance companies suffered huge losses and were left with nothing but their paper money. As a result, they had to start the majority of their businesses over from scratch. It's an era that is still part of the national psyche today in Germany. This is how Adolf Hitler came to power. He promised to save the Germans who were losing everything and were starving to death in the 20's. He painted the Jews as the villian, and used them as a scapegoat, and the root of all the world's problems. As has been done for 2,000 years. He aligned himself with the Muslim world to spread hate against Jews in the name of saving the German people. I don't understand why nobody is ever told this part of the story.
If one word could describe Germany, in 1919, during the immediate aftermath of World War I, it would be "starvation." Even after an armistice ended World War I, the victors continued a devastating blockade of Germany. While some 900,000 German men, women and children were starving to death, the American and British public knew nothing about it, deliberately caused by the continuation of a wartime British naval blockade. Britain's post-war naval blockade of food to Germany in 1919 matched the then current blockade of news by the American and British press. Even today, only a few non-Germans know the truth, and American and British historians, for the most part, have participated in the coverup of this most appalling crime. The guilt of the world press in covering up the atrocity is compounded by the fact that the American and British public were told of the starvation itself, but were kept ignorant of the policies of the Allies which produced it.
Newspapers carried stories of relief efforts to rescue the starving. The most famed of these efforts was directed by Herbert Hoover, later to become the 31st president. John Maynard Keynes wrote about Herbert Hoover's mission to help the starving in Germany:
"You think this is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces, with large, dull eyes, overshadowed by huge puffed, rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema. "You see this child here," the physician in charge explained, "it consumed an incredible amount of bread, and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the actual pangs. Meanwhile, elderly German women search through piles of garbage for something to eat in Berlin in 1919."
Meanwhile, the armistice terms dictated by the Allies at Versailles would assure that Germany could not recover economically even to the point of providing a subsistence livelihood for the majority of its citizens. France was to get Alsace-Lorraine outright; she would occupy all German territory west of the Rhine for 15 years and she would take possession of the rich coal mines of the Saar district, which was to be governed by the League of Nations. Poland would get the important industrial region of Upper Silesia, most of Posen Province and West Prussia, thus establishing a "Polish Corridor" to the sea and cutting off East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Denmark and Belgium would slice off several border regions and the League of Nations would take charge of Germany's African colonies. If Germany did not sign, the Allies were ready to invade and occupy the country. After a number of resignations, the German government at Weimar agreed to the "unheard-of injustice" of the Treaty of Versailles.1
Immediately following the war, Germany was wracked with insurgencies, coups and counter-coups. The Bolsheviks attempted a takeover similar to the revolution in Russia. The Allies, meeting in Versailles, celebrated the unrest and destruction. And the people - particularly the American people - were kept in the dark about the continuing blockade. Communist agents, sent by the Bolshevik regime in the fledgling USSR, were fomenting revolutions throughout the prostrate country.
"Hitler was born at Versailles. While the murder of defenseless civilians was carried out in Bavaria, the delegates at the Paris Peace Conference had their first meeting. Far from being horrified at such massacres, the Allies could not contain their glee. The Bavarian bloodbath was a gift from the gods, which meant that Germany would be split and more Germans would be killed. They offered food and money to bolster their opposition to Berlin. Although the war had ended, Germany was still under Allied blockade, which was ruthlessly enforced. The first state of Germany to benefit from a lifting of the blockade would be communist-controlled Bavaria."
"The Allied peace terms turned out to be extremely severe, far exceeding the worst fears of the German government. The peace treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest were declared invalid and the food blockade around Germany was to continue. Thus Germany's capitulation was accomplished and an end set to four years of enormous bloodshed. The effectiveness of the blockade, initiated years before the entry of the United States into the war, and which led to the sinking of the Lusitania, has been well documented."
"It was the blockade that finally drove the Central Powers to accept defeat. At first mild in its application, the blockade's noose gradually tightened until, with the American entry, all restraint was cast aside. Increasingly deprived of the means to wage war, or even to feed her population, the violent response was insurrection; apathy and demoralization the mute consequence of dashed hopes and thin potato soup."
Berliners exchanged potato peelings for firewood. Soup kitchens were everywhere. As the grip of the Allied blockade tightened, waste materials became valuable commodities to be processed and reused. The Allies clearly intended to starve the German people to death, foreshadowing the Morgenthau Plan of the latter days of World War II - a plan that actually went into operation to starve and exterminate one third of the German population.
After confiscating the German merchant navy, the Allies proceeded to confiscate German private property all over the world, contrary to all precedent from previous wars when private property had been held in escrow until the ratification of peace treaties, when it would revert to its legitimate owners. The Allied powers reserved the right to keep or dispose of assets belonging to German citizens, including companies they control. This wholesale expropriation would take place without any compensation to the owners. And, Germany remained responsible for the liabilities and loans on the assets that were taken from them. Profits, however, remained in the hands of the Allies. Thus, private German property and assets were confiscated in China, Thailand, Egypt, Liberia, and in many other countries.
Germany was also precluded from investing capital in any neighboring country and had to forfeit all rights "to whatever title it may possess in these countries." The Allies were given free access to the German marketplace without the slightest tariff while products made in Germany faced high foreign tariff barriers. As Germany was experiencing near famine conditions. It was at this moment the Allies decided to confiscate a substantial part of what was left of Germany's livestock.
"The Germans were made to deliver cattle, horses, sheep, goats. A strong protest came from Germany when dairy cows were taken to France and Belgium, thus depriving German children of milk. Food shortages were such that 60,000 Ruhr miners refused to work overtime unless they were paid, even in the form of butter. When it became obvious that Germany would not be able to deliver the coal ordered by the treaty, the Allies lowered the amount from 43 million tons to 20 million tons. The virtual confiscation of German coal production led to the deaths of German children for lack of fuel for heat."
In his biography of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur Walworth says that the British command in Germany reported that food shortages raised a specter of anarchy.
"Herbert Hoover, who had gone abroad after the armistice eager to use American surpluses to feed the hungry of Europe, soon had found that the idealistic professions of individuals at London and Paris did not square with their actions as officials of electorates that were swayed by war hatred and economic necessity. Shipments had been delivered to Allies and to neutrals, but British officials had refused to break their blockade to let cargoes go into Germany. Moreover, Germany had failed to act on an agreement to turn over merchant ships before receiving food and showed no desire to pay for shipments in gold - a possibility that French financiers were thought to be opposing so that their nation might get what gold there was as indemnity.
There is evidence that Wilson actually thought the European powers would accept his "14 Points" and feed starving Germans now that the war was over. But, of course, that was not the case as discovered by Wilson's humanitarian point man, Hoover. England's Lloyd George, meanwhile, thought that the starvation was being ameliorated. He favored - although quietly - feeding his ex-enemy.
Frustrated by apathy and obstruction, Hoover was brought on the carpet by [British Prime Minister] Lloyd George, who was inclined to brush him off as 'that Salvation Army man.' The prime minister, distressed by reports of famine in Germany, wanted to know why Hoover had not done his job. At this the American let him have the bitter truth. Lloyd George, feeling that tact was not one of Hoover's great qualities, asked him to give the council an expurgated version of his remarks. This was done, and a stormy and wordy session ensued."
The food blockade was not terminated until July 12, 1919. On May 7 of that year, Count von Brockdorf-Rantzau had indignantly referred to this fact in addressing the Versailles assembly. "The hundreds of thousands of noncombatants," the German chief delegate had stated, "who have perished since November 11, 1918, as a result of the blockade, were killed with cold deliberation, after our enemies had been assured of their complete victory."
The murderous Allied blockade, which continued for eight months after the end of the war, was one reason why a German war veteran who decided to go into politics a decade later was able to revive the seared memory of a German nation which had suffered greatly and vault himself to absolute power. His name, of course, was Adolf Hitler.
From 1922-1923, hyperinflation plagued Germany and helped fuel the eventual rise of Adolf Hitler. You could say journalist Eugeni Xammar had a stroke of reporter's luck when the Barcelona daily La Veu de Catalunya sent him to Berlin in the fall of 1922, a pivotal moment in the country's history. In the months that followed, it was the most exciting place in the world to report from. Germany's financial structures collapsed, and the mark began its descent into near worthlessness.
"The price of tram rides and beef, theater tickets and school, newspapers and haircuts, sugar and bacon, is going up every week," Xammar wrote in February 1923. "As a result no one knows how long their money will last, and people are living in constant fear, thinking of nothing but eating and drinking, buying and selling. There is only one topic on everyone's lips in Berlin: the dollar, the mark, and prices. Have you seen this? For heaven's sake, stop! I've just bought a six-week supply of sausages, ham, and cheese."
Nearly every day the journalist sent home new stories of the hyperinflation he was witnessing; reports of everyday insanity in a country whose currency was going crazy. In 1914, at the start of World War I, the dollar was worth 4.20 marks. From then on the German currency steadily declined, and in the fall of 1922 it went into freefall. By November 1923 the dollar was at 4.2 trillion marks. The nightmare came to an end shortly thereafter, and the dollar was back at 4.20 again, albeit against the new incarnation of the currency: the rentenmark.
Few people understood what had happened. Even today, three generations later, much of it sounds pretty incredible. Take for example the family that sold its house to emigrate to America. On arrival at the port of Hamburg, they found that the money wasn't enough to pay for their crossing -- in fact, it didn't even pay for their tickets back home. Then there was the man who drank two cups of coffee at 5,000 marks each, only to be presented with a bill for 14,000. When he asked why this was he was told he should have ordered the coffees at the same time because the price had gone up in between. And then there's the story about the couple that took a few hundred million marks to the theater box office hoping to see a show, but discovered it wasn't nearly enough. Tickets were now a billion marks each.
At the height of the crisis, the inflation rate was in the tens of thousands -- per month, that is. And this in the era before the invention of the pocket calculator.
"The effect of the devaluation of the German currency was like that of a second revolution, the first being the war and its immediate aftermath. Deep-seated faith was being destroyed and replaced by fear and cynicism. What was there to trust, who could you rely on if such were even possible?"
It is true to say that nothing seemed safe anymore -- all semblance of order went out of the window, and with it faith in the Weimar Republic, in democracy, indeed in the future itself. After all, what was there to look forward to? Most people had seen their life savings wiped out while the state was able to shrug off its debts. "Inflation took the basic law-and-order principles of loyalty and trust to the extreme."
The hyperinflation left behind a national trauma that can be felt to this day. The experiences of 1923 have etched themselves into the German psyche. Fear of inflation is widespread, and German economists feel more duty-bound than others to vouchsafe economic stability.
But did it all really have to go so far? Could the catastrophe have been averted? And if so, how? The seeds of the problem were sown many years earlier. Indeed the ball was first set in motion by World War I, during which Germany spent an estimated 160 billion marks on its men and machinery; an unimaginably large sum. The only way the state could finance this was to acquire money by unconventional means.
On August 4, 1914, just three days after the Reich had declared war on Russia, parliament passed a series of currency acts that would have a fundamental impact on the country's money markets. The new legislation suspended the standard of backing cash with gold "until further notice," claiming that an "exceptional increase in unbacked paper notes" was an "economic necessity" in times of war. In other words, the Reich intended to pay for its war effort by printing more and more money.
The sheer volume of banknotes increased dramatically. Whereas there were just 13 billion marks in circulation in 1913, this had jumped to 60 billion by the end of the war. Unfortunately this still wasn't enough to cover the state's expenditures. "As things stand, the only way to finance the cost of fighting the war is to shift the burden into the future through loans," economist Karl Helfferich said in 1915.
The Reich thus racked up huge debts with its own people, repeatedly issuing government bonds; a total of almost 100 billion marks in all. At first Germans bought these bonds almost unthinkingly, secure in the belief that victory was in sight. The national debt shot up from 5 to 156 billion marks.
"There is a point at which printing money affects purchasing power by causing inflation," warned socialist Eduard Bernstein in 1918. But his words and those of others went unheeded. The mountain of bank notes continued to grow, while the volume of goods gradually declined.
It was a classic constellation. Too much money and too few goods could lead to only one thing: Inflation. A government decree setting a maximum price for important consumables such as grain and coal didn't help either. Such artificial limits simply dammed up inflation, causing the liquidity glut to flood the market with even greater devastation when the economy collapsed after the end of the war.
So although the Weimar Republic was not bankrupt from the outset, its creditworthiness was restricted, and inflation saddled the fledgling state with a congenital defect that would have dire consequences.
Ironically, the monetary depreciation in its milder form initially helped stimulate the economy. With its comparatively low value against the dollar, sterling and the French franc, the cheap mark boosted German exports in the early days of the Weimar Republic. Industrial output increased by 20 percent within a year, unemployment fell to below 1 percent in 1922, and real wages rose significantly. The "lubricant of inflation," as economic historian Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich put it, breathed new life into the private sector.
The post-war boom was all the more remarkable because the rest of the world economy was sinking into a deep recession. The United States and Britain stabilized their currencies even though it put up to a fifth of their respective working population out of work. The governments of the Weimar Republic took the opposite approach, buying themselves an economic upswing and full employment at the cost of catapulting the mark to dizzying heights. Although it would probably be unfair to suggest the politicians in Berlin deliberately drove inflation forward, they didn't exactly try very hard to rein it in. For a while the strategy proved convenient. But they were playing with fire, as soon became apparent.
The huge budget deficit and growing interest payments restricted the state's freedom of movement considerably. The enormous war reparations that Germany had been saddled with were especially hard on the young republic.
Even before the final figure had been agreed upon, German delegates at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference complained that the proposed reparations would "crush all creative urges, the will to work and all entrepreneurial spirit in Germany forever." However, the row over the size of the reparations only broke out in earnest later.
In 1921, the Allies set Germany's reparations at 132 billion goldmarks (pegged at the value of the mark in 1913). From then until 1932 an estimated 26 billion goldmarks was paid out in cash and goods, corresponding to an annual 10 percent of national income. In other words, although the burden was considerable, it was more-or-less affordable.
It was less the size of its reparations than continued uncertainty about them that destabilized the Weimar economy. The mood was especially vitriolic within the Reparations Commission, with the French --- keen to exact revenge for their military defeat in 1871 -- proving completely intransigent.
It therefore took just a relatively minor delay in the delivery of wood, coal and telegraph poles to escalate the conflict, and in January 1923 France marched 100,000 soldiers into Germany's Ruhr valley, seized control of the mines, and confiscated the coal. "This was a fatal blow to German industrial production," Holtfrerich says.
An entire region ground to a halt, and an important source of tax revenues dried up. Because the Ruhr valley was no longer permitted to deliver coal, Germany was forced to obtain its fuel elsewhere -- often from abroad at great cost, depleting its much-needed foreign currency reserves.
At the same time, millions of Germans were living in abject poverty. "Never in my life have I seen such swarms of starving people wandering about," wrote Franz Geyer, the future mayor of the Ruhr valley city of Bochum. Many young children suffered from deficiency diseases such as rickets, and at times tuberculosis reached almost epidemic proportions. In Mannheim, lung disease was reported in 43 families in one 220-household street alone.
Public opinion was unanimous as to the source of this misery, pinning the blame for all Germany's woes firmly on France and its uncompromising stance. As bitterness turned into open resistance, shopkeepers refused to serve French people, and Germans crossed the street to avoid meeting Frenchmen.
"The enemy is among us," wrote the Hildesheimer Allgemeine newspaper, appalled at the occupation of the Ruhr. "He has crept into the heart of the German economy to suck out our life-blood and destroy our very existence as a nation." A 10,000-mark note issued the year before was nicknamed the "vampire bill" because it depicted a man who appeared to have a bite-mark on his neck.
But the vertiginous descent of the mark began in 1922, before the French occupied the Ruhr -- and the drama took its course. Creeping inflation (i.e. currency devaluation of up to 50 percent a year) gave way to galloping inflation (more than 50 percent a year) and eventually became hyperinflation (more than 50 percent a month), and with it the state lost all financial control.
The depreciation of the mark can hardly be explained in terms of quantifiable causes. As so often in economics, expectations played a decisive role. The nerve-wracking wrangling over Germany's reparations had completely undermined faith in the country's economic prospects. Holtfrerich believes the hyperinflation could not have come about without a "collapse in faith in the currency" which in turn prompted a slump in "expectations about the future development of the internal and external value of the mark."
One clear sign of this lack of faith was the almost overnight retreat by foreign creditors from the German money market, selling their government bonds on a massive scale as they went.
By the time German Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau was assassinated on June 22, 1922, all hope of a return to economic stability had been lost. And yet the exchange rate didn't go into freefall until the early summer of the following year. The mark had now forfeited all three of the functions that characterized a currency: It served as neither a mathematical unit nor a form of payment -- let alone as a tool for preserving value. "The mark was already dead in the water in October 1922," observed historian Helmut Kerstingjohänner.
In December 1922, the dollar was still worth 2,000 marks. Within four months this had jumped to 20,000 marks, and by August 1923 it stood at more than a million. The Weimar Republic was "teetering on the edge of the abyss," as the then Interior Minister Wilhelm Sollmann put it. "Even the most courageous among us must get dizzy in light of the fragility of the bridge and the distance to the safety of the far shore," he said.
In addition to the state printing office, more than 130 companies were commissioned to print banknotes, and as long as paper was readily available a total of 1,783 presses churned out the nation's bills. Employees brought rucksacks to work on payday to stash their money - and then spent it immediately.
At the Junkers plant in Dessau the company gave its workers the equivalent of the day's price of three-and-a-half loaves of bread at 9am every morning. Their wives, who were waiting at the factory gates, took the money and dashed off to the shops before the new dollar exchange rate was published at around midday.
Many doctors insisted on being paid not in cash but sausages, eggs, coal, and the like. Because of the constant increase in prices, shops stopped displaying them in their windows. And when the Prussian authorities forced them to do so nonetheless, it drove prices even higher because traders simply took prospective increases into account.
Even cremation became too expense for many because the price was pegged to that of coal. So the dead were buried in the conventional manner again. But here too there were opportunities to cut costs, and a 50 centimeter-high coffin dubbed the "nose-squasher" proved particularly popular.
People lived in a strange kind of tension. On the one hand there was the daily fight for survival, for food, and for heating fuel. "If we more-or-less manage to prevent the city of Cologne from collapsing completely, I shall get down on my knees and thank my Maker," the city's mayor, Konrad Adenauer, said.
Bizarrely enough, goods were no longer in short supply. There was simply no stable currency to buy them with. As the later Chancellor Hans Luther noted in 1923, Germany threatened to "starve with full barns."
On the other hand it was also a time of phenomenal wastefulness. The people were gripped by the urge to panic-buy. They squandered their money, and lived from one day to the next. "We're drinking away Grandma's house" proclaimed one popular tune of the day.
The only objects of real value were tangible assets: diamonds and coins, antiques, pianos and art. The works of contemporary artists like Lyonel Feininger, Paul Klee, Max Pechstein and Karl Schmidt-Rottluff were in especially high demand. And if you had foreign currency, you lived like a king.
One senior mail inspector gained notoriety when it was revealed he had intercepted letters containing foreign banknotes: 1,717 dollars, 1,102 Swiss francs, and 114 French francs - enough to buy two houses for himself and a piano for a friend, with enough left over for an indulgence-like donation to the church.
In fact petty crime in general increased in leaps and bounds. Potato fields were plundered, bakeries raided, shop windows smashed. Prices weren't the only thing that went out of control. All values seemed to have been corrupted. Dance halls and strip bars opened up in the cities, and cocaine sales skyrocketed. People lived as if there were no tomorrow. Economist Joseph Schumpeter noted the "disorganizing effects of the collapsing currency on the national character, on morals, and all branches of cultural life."
Given that the mark had been discredited, many cities and even companies began creating their own currencies and printing emergency money. One firm in southern Germany issued a 50,000-mark bill featuring the clever aphorism "If coal is even more expensive, feel free to use me as fuel."
It was clear a radical monetary change was needed to halt the permanent depreciation and return to a more ordered state of affairs. In mid-November 1923 the government began issuing rentenmarks, claiming the new currency was backed by mortgages on industrial and agricultural land. This was of course fictitious. If push came to shove, no industrialist or farmer would have agreed to exchange his land for money. But after years of nerve-racking inflation the German people were so desperate for stability they were prepared to trust the new currency unquestioningly.
History may hail "the miracle of the rentenmark," but in reality it constituted an admission that the German Reich was bankrupt. And as always, it was the populace that picked up the tab.
The stupid ones were those who had nest eggs: the thrifty, holders of government bonds, but primarily the country's pensioners. In other words, those who received money without having to work for it, who lived on their pensions or the interest on their savings. Large sections of the middle classes saw themselves stripped of their assets, losing almost everything they had set aside for years. Banks, savings banks, and insurance companies suffered huge losses and were left with nothing but their paper money. As a result, they had to start the majority of their businesses from scratch in 1924.
By perverse contrast, the winners of the hyperinflation were those with massive debts; first and foremost the state, but also private individuals who had borrowed money to buy houses, construction land or farmland, and whose loans were slashed by the switch to the rentenmark.
Some industrialists made huge gains from the period of hyperinflation. Hugo Stinnes, whom Time magazine crowned "Germany's new Kaiser," built up an immense corporate empire comprising heavy industry, newspapers, ships and hotels -- all based on a mountain of debt. As late as the summer of 1922, Stinnes was recommending that people continue capitalizing on "the weapon of inflation." Indeed manufacturers and craftsmen in general profited from the crisis since they possessed plants and buildings -- that is, tangible assets that outlived the currency switch.
Most farmers also did extremely well. "They had money to burn, and spent it willy-nilly," writer Lion Feuchtwanger recalled. Some bought themselves entire stables of racehorses, others expensive cars. "Farmer Greindlberger drove from the grimy village street of Englschalking to Munich in an elegant limousine complete with a liveried chauffeur, while he himself was dressed in a brown velvet jacket and a green chamois-tufted hat," Feuchtwanger wrote of the rural rich.
Never before had Germany witnessed such a fundamental redistribution of wealth, and many of the winners were those who had previously been wealthy.
Much should have been done differently between 1914 and 1924 to avoid this disaster. Firstly, Germany should have had more powerful institutions, namely governments backed by the people that placed greater emphasis on prudent budgeting and could have reached a better deal with the Allies. At the same time foreign countries -- especially France -- should have been more sensitive to deeply indebted Germany's needs and taken greater account of the predicament it was in. Most importantly, however, the Allies should have been clearer about the size of Germany's war reparations much sooner. In the absence of this, the Reich descended into a kind of fiscal anarchy.
Disillusioned, many Germans chose to withdraw from the bitter reality of their lives, and simply left the country. In 1923, the authorities counted three times as many emigrées as the year before. Some sought refuge in sects, others committed suicide. Millions more became radicalized.
It's no coincidence that Adolf Hitler's inexorable rise to power began in November 1923, the highpoint of Germany's inflation, when he organized the abortive Beer Hall Putsch in Munich.
Catalan Germany correspondent Eugeni Xammar witnessed the spectacle at close quarters, having recently conducted an interview with "the future ex-dictator of Germany." In this interview Hitler claimed the high cost of living was Germany's biggest problem, promising "We intend to make life cheaper." To this end he demanded that shops -- many of which were in Jewish hands -- be brought under state control. And he stressed, "We expect all kinds of miracles of these national stores."
The journalist from Barcelona wasn't shy about stating what he thought of his interviewee. Hitler was, Xammar wrote, "the stupidest person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting." Tragically, most Germans were soon to have a very different opinion of him.

425,000 Mormon Boys Leaving the PC Boy Scouts.

Ouch! I guess the Boy Scouts' politically correct decision that it is no longer a boys-only organization, and that they were welcoming transgenders and girls, was too much for the Mormon Church. They're done with the Boy Scouts. Or, as it's now ridiculously called, Scouts BSA. Another feminist assault on toxic masculinity. Destroying men at all costs.
Mormon boys who will be leaving the Boy Scouts represent nearly 20 percent, or 425,000 boys, of the 2.3 million young boys enrolled in the organization. The Mormon Church will be placing its 425,000 boys into a gospel-focused youth program that is being developed. Good for them. Enough BS.

The Iran Deal. About Nukes? Or Energy for China and Europe?

The geopolitical situation with Iran has little to do with nukes, right? The Iran Nuclear deal was more about opening up Iran to provide energy to China and Europe than trying to control their nuclear aspirations, right? Isn't the alliance between Communist China and Iran the one Trump really needs to keep at bay to protect the United States? Communist China is the real threat. Its goal to be the world's military and economic superpower by 2050...it needs Iran to make that happen, right? It always comes down to energy and resources, doesn't it? Here's an old article about the dynamic between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Europe, China and Syria. Food for thought. I don't pretend to know much about this - but would love to hear from those who do.
Right now, China has a very close relationship with Iran. The Saudis have tried for years to supplant that - to no avail. Why? Because Iran has brought assets to the table that Saudi Arabia lacks: a large population, an industrial base, resources, a battle-hardened military, a deep-rooted culture, a history of empire and a geography that makes it a crossroads.
Saudi Arabia’s traditional assets – including custodianship of the Muslim holy cities, Mecca and Medina, and money, lots and lots of money, may still not be enough to compete.
Iran’s strategic advantage is critical to Eurasia’s energy. Iran is pivotal to the success of China’s trans-continental, infrastructure-focused One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative in ways that Saudi Arabia is not.
Gas supplies from Iran and Turkmenistan, two Caspian Sea states, rather than Saudi oil, will determine which way the future Eurasian energy architecture tilts: Will it be in the direction of China, the world’s third-largest LNG importer, or in that of Europe? In that context, it matters greatly to China that Iran has the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves and its fourth-largest oil reserves. These were significantly enhanced with the lifting in 2015 of international sanctions by the Iran Nuclear deal.
“Iran, within five years, will likely have 24.6 billion cubic meters of natural gas available for annual piped gas exports beyond its current supply commitments. Not enough to supply all major markets, Tehran will face a crucial geopolitical choice for the destination of its piped exports.”
Further, Iran will be able to export piped gas to two of the following three markets:
1. European Union (EU)/ Turkey via the Southern Gas Corridor centering on the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP)
2. India via an Iran-Oman-India pipeline, or
3. China via either Turkmenistan or Pakistan.
“The degree to which the system of energy relationships in Eurasia will be more oriented toward the European Union or China will depend on the extent to which each secures Caspian piped gas exports through pipeline infrastructure directed to its respective markets.”
In other words, to determine the balance of power in Eurasian energy and establish One Belt, One Road as the key determinant of Eurasia’s energy architecture, China would need to position itself as the main recipient of Iranian and Turkmen gas.
That, in turn, would enhance China’s growing economic influence in Central Asia, and further extend it to the Caucasus and the eastern Mediterranean. China has already many of the building blocks needed to make that a reality:
1) close and long-standing relations with Iran
2) significant investment in Turkmen gas production and pipeline infrastructure
3) the construction of Pakistan’s section of the Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
4) Hooking the pipeline to One Belt, One Road would allow China to receive Iranian gas not only by sea on its eastern seaboard, but also in its land-locked, troubled north-western province Xinjiang.
However, Iran’s geo-political strengths are however not wholly dependent on aligning the Islamic republic with China.
With the development of Iran’s Indian-built Chabahar port and the undersea Iran-Oman-India pipeline that would potentially create an alternative Asia-to-Europe energy corridor, Iran is, well-positioned to play both ends against the middle.
In addition, it can adopt a key role in the trans-Atlantic community’s effort to strengthen relations with India as an antidote to the rise of China.
Contrary to some assumptions, Iranian cooperation with Russia in Syria and elsewhere is opportunistic and unlikely to prove sustainable, rather than a sure thing Russia can count on for preferential economic treatment:
– Iranian-Russian competition is already visible in the Caucasus and Central Asia, which ironically mitigates in Europe’s rather than China’s favor.
– Iran is likely to deepen energy cooperation with Turkey. The intent here is two-fold: First, it is a bid to enhance its influence in that country. Second, it would help curtail Russian inroads in the Islamic republic’s northern neighbors – Azerbaijan; Turkmenistan, which is China’s principle gas supplier as well as Armenia (where Russia’s state-owned Gazprom has invested in an Iran-Armenia gas pipeline).
All of this positions Iran to be a very choosy supplier and negotiator. In Beijing and beyond, Iran still holds far more of the good cards. For now. Until somebody puts sanctions back in place and takes Iran off the table. Who might that be? President Trump.

Is the European Islamic Invasion Conscription for EU Army?

I've long thought that the real motive behind the mass Islamic migration of young men into Europe was to populate an EU army. Millions of fighting age men conscripted into an army for the European Union Defense. They don't have enough fighting age men in Europe. They need warrior bodies from the Middle East and North Africa. Two years ago, Nigel Farage tweeted: "Pro-EU establishment not telling the truth. European Union pushing for a full EU army." 
All of this is being done without voter consent or awareness. The targets? Russia for energy, Israel tor the Caliphate and Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary who refuse to fund the mass migration game. Now you know why Europe disarmed its citizens. So they can't fight back. Rome tried this once. Brought in the barbarian hordes. What happened? Rome fell. History repeating itself.
PS: Many don't know that LBJ's "civil rights" movement was a sneaky way of drafting young black men into the military for his Vietnam war. He lowered the educational requirements, under the guise of "human rights," so that more black boys would qualify to die in Vietnam. I kid you not.

VP Pence Tells Mueller to Wrap It Up.

Vice President Mike Pence to Robert Mueller: Wrap it up!
"In the interests of the country, I think it's time to wrap it up. I would very respectfully encourage the special counsel and his team to bring their work to completion. It's been a year now since this investigation began. Our adminstration has fully cooperated' with Mueller’s probe, including turning over more than 1 million documents," said Pence on the Today Show.
Anti-Trumper Andrea Mitchell tried as hard as she could to trash Trump and diminish the return of the 3 American hostages from North Korea, but Pence wasn't playing. She looked like she was going to cry again, just like she did on election night.

Dennis Miller LIVE

Now, this is funny stuff. Powerful stuff. Dennis Miller LIVE:
"Democrats, if you’re going to be the cool kids, you cannot be hysterical every day. If you’re saying Trump is Hitler-like or he’s a hooker junky, you’re missing the point. Because eventually the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome takes over and people go ‘Geez, it seems to me that Trump won on November 8th and every single day it’s the end of the world. And I just looked up and the unemployment rate is 3.9% and 6.6% in the black community.'
I just think the American people, the people in the middle, are starting to say, ‘Wait a second. Settle down for a second. Can I at least see if he can pull the North Korea/South Korea thing off? Because if he does, you might want to take a break on this he’s Adolf Hitler thing.'
But just because Democrats are on to the flaws in their doomsday messaging, don’t expect a Democrat or prominent liberal to be the first guy who walks in and says, ‘We’re screwing this up.' Because guess what. They’re going to feed on you for a while, you’re the one who’s going to get your head handed to you. The Left and the Democrats run a very tight ship over there, as far as lockstep goes. They make the North Korean troops look like improvisational artists.
I think Trump looks at the House and says, ‘Whatever. I’m in here fighting everyday. You want to make me fight more? You want to put Pelosi back in and make her be the face of an impeachment campaign?' You talk about driving people away from your cause. It’s just not going to work.
But right now, you can’t wake up everyday and say he had an affair with a porn star and a playmate and that’s why he needs to be impeached. That doesn’t work since Bill Clinton. Believe me, I’m socially as liberal as they come but I’d like to keep half my money and I don’t trust radical Islamists as far as I can throw them. I've moved on from the liberal side on certain things. Trump is doing a good job.
Two years ago, I thought Hillary would win. But she so-mismanaged it and seemed so presumptuous and she didn’t seem like a good candidate. Trump was refreshing to hear somebody just talk with that degree of candor. Now he won and I thought, ‘Well, they’re going to try to destroy him now.’ And they’ve spent a year and a half — but he’s kind of rope-a-doped. It’s like Ali in that fight in Zaire. He’s taken six rounds of punches. And I almost think now that for the first time, indeed I am, if not optimistic, I can see a path for thriving under Trump.
If I was Trump, I’d tell the guys in the House to start impeachment right now. “I say you’ve got nothing. I say you’re not going to impeach me. I say you’re going to play this up until the midterms and you’re going to act like it’s coming, and it’s not coming.”
Then I'd take a billion dollars of my fortune and come in with a forklift one day and a hardhat on and I have it all in currency and I’d just drop it in front of Congress and I’d say, ‘Here, here’s my billion — start the wall.”
Listen, I live in California. The more the merrier. Come on over from Mexico — but just sign the guest book on the way in. That’s all I’m asking. What are we doing? Whenever I see people making comments about borders in Congress I always think they’re in a clearly delineated room, in a secure building that is blocked off — they have so many lines of demarcation between them and the people they’re ruling over. And why should the people who hear this, way down in Arizona or Texas on the border, why should they not have any border protection? It just seems crazy to me. The people who are always making pronouncements on the border always seem bordered off from the people that they’re making pronouncements about.
If there is one sentiment that is more prescient than Warhol’s 15 minute admonition, it was Andrew Breitbart saying politics are downstream from culture. That was an absolutely brilliant observation. I do think that kids now are reaching this odd point in where the gospel, through socialism, of subsidized self-reliance is not going to play for these kids. They might parrot it when they’re on campus because they don’t want to be heckled in the library or the student union or shouted down or called a hater. If I was a kid right now and they asked me why I don’t want to practice socialism, I’d use their own language to get out of it; I’d say, ‘You know why I don’t want to practice socialism, because I don’t want to culturally appropriate Venezuela.”

Mueller's Fake Russian Indictment

Remember when Robert Mueller announced back in February that he was indicting 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for waging “information warfare” in the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election, and conspiracy to defraud the United States?
Mueller generated HUGE headlines with the February indictment, safe in the knowledge the Russians were beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, there would be NO trial — only sensational, breathless Russian collusion accusations hurled at President Trump for the sheep to lap up.
Well, now, Mueller may have to try the case. The Russian lawyers for one of the companies, Concord, intends to invoke “discovery” to obtain U.S. intelligence about what they knew.
“I guess Mueller thought it was a freebie, for sure. He thought it could make this association of Russian collusion and it would never be challenged in court. Mueller made an unforced error. One thing you never want to do is to indict in a case that you’re not prepared to try," Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor said.
Mueller tried to delay the trial. U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich said no, agreed with Concord, and rejected Mueller’s request for a delay in the trial without comment. The case will resume July 9.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

Who Is Rudy Giuliani?

In 1989, when Rudolph Giuliani stepped down after six years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, he was perhaps the most famous law enforcement official in the United States. He left a legacy of successful prosecutions of leaders of New York’s “Commission” of organized crime families, the Mafia’s international heroin and cocaine ring in the “Pizza Connection” case, as well as high-profile political corruption and Wall Street criminal cases.
As mayor of New York for eight years, Giuliani made sweeping changes to law enforcement policies that reduced crime in the city by more than 50 percent and calmly shepherded the city and nation through the catastrophic 9/11 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center.
Giuliani was born in Brooklyn to parents who were the children of Italian immigrants. He grew up with a father who reviled ethnic Italians who tarnished their community by turning to organized crime. His father noticed that there were no federal judges of Italian extraction in New York in the mid-1960s and encouraged his son to enter law enforcement. The younger Giuliani graduated from Manhattan College and later, right out of New York University’s law school in 1970, landed a job as an assistant U.S. attorney in the city’s Southern District. By age 30, he was the office’s third-highest-ranking prosecutor.
One of the federal cases Giuliani prosecuted in the 1970s came after he and his colleagues convinced New York Police detective Robert Leuci to work undercover within the force to report back about police corruption. Leuci’s story was told by Robert Daley in the nonfiction book Prince of the City that later became an acclaimed 2001 movie by the same name. Fifty-two New York cops were indicted on corruption-related allegations based on the evidence. Giuliani also won a conviction against Brooklyn area U.S. Congressman Bertram Podell, a Democrat who served several months in federal prison for accepting a $41,000 bribe.
Giuliani’s star rose. A recommendation from a federal judge he clerked for in law school got him in as assistant to President Gerald Ford’s Attorney General Harold Tyler in 1975. After Ford lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, in 1976, Tyler took Giuliani in as a partner in a corporate firm in Manhattan. Giuliani stayed there until 1981 after GOP presidential candidate Ronald Reagan defeated Carter. Giuliani changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican and through contacts was appointed associate attorney general, the third-highest spot in the Justice Department, under William French Smith. Giuliani’s next big step was becoming U.S. attorney for the Southern District two years later in June 1983.
Giuliani announced that his top priority as U.S. attorney was to defeat organized crime in New York, where the chiefs of the so-called “Five Families” lived and operated. He read Mob boss Joseph Bonanno’s 1983 memoir A Man of Honor, in which Bonanno described meetings with bosses of the other four families — Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Lucchese — a national ruling body referred to as “the Commission.” The Commission, going back to 1931, met secretly to settle differences, consider new members, approve murders and dole out money earned through racketeering. Giuliani received permission from Washington to pursue a case against the Commission. By 1984, 350 FBI agents and 100 New York Police detectives were investigating the Mob. At the time, an estimated 1,000 “made” men and 5,000 Mob associates lived in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and elsewhere.
Giuliani’s probe included the placement of court-allowed recording devices in 1984 in places such as the Palma Boys Social Club in New York, where Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno held court, Paul Castellano’s home on Staten Island, an automobile used by a Colombo family member and a Jaguar car used by Lucchese family associate Sal Avellino to chauffeur various mobsters. From hundreds of hours of recorded conversations, investigators heard the gangsters talk about the Commission, narcotics sales and the contract murder of Bonanno figure Carmine Galante in 1979.
Giuliani decided to prosecute the leaders of the families and their upper-level cohorts together under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, for allegedly conspiring to commit felonies including contract murders, loan sharking, extortion, labor racketeering and drug trafficking. It was the first time RICO, passed by Congress in 1970, was employed to prosecute a major federal case.
He argued the case before a federal grand jury and in February 1985 obtained indictments against a laundry list of New York’s Mob leaders and their lieutenants: Bonanno family boss Phil Rastelli and capo Anthony Indelicato; Colombo boss Carmine Persico and member Ralph Scopo; Gambino boss Paul Castellano; Genovese boss Anthony Salerno and member Gennaro Langella; Lucchese boss Anthony Corallo, underboss Salvatore Santoro and consigliere Christopher Furnari. Soon afterward, Castellano was shot and killed outside a restaurant in Manhattan and Rastelli was tried in a separate RICO case.
Giuliani assigned federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff to take the Commission case to trial. The government called 207 witnesses. Giuliani arranged for his star witnesses, Cleveland Mob underboss Angelo Lonardo, to testify, then the highest-ranking mobster to agree to serve as a witness. The case brought to light the Concrete Club, a scheme where Castellano and other mobsters demanded and received kickbacks on the cost of cement for building projects in New York in exchange for peace from Mob-controlled labor unions. In November 1986, the mobster defendants – including family leaders Salerno, Persico and Corallo – were convicted in the 21-count indictment and made to serve sentences of 40 to 100 years in prison, a crippling blow to the decades-old New York Mafia.
Giuliani also won racketeering indictments in 1986, during the Commission trial, in a separate case against Salerno and mobsters Vincent Cafaro, John Tronolone and Milton Rockman. The grand jury alleged that Genovese boss Salerno and the others conspired to engineer the selection of Jackie Presser for president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in 1983 to control him and obtain union loans and jobs. Lonardo testified in the case, saying that he and Rockman met with Mob leaders in Chicago and with Salerno in New York to gather support for putting Presser in as head of the Teamsters. He also stated that the Mafia had controlled induction of the previous Teamsters president, Roy Williams.
This time, the jury acquitted Salerno and the others of rigging Teamster elections for Presser and Williams. Meanwhile, in May 1988, Giuliani’s office got guilty verdicts on Salerno, Genovese family member Matthew Ianniello and two others in a RICO case alleging extortion, union fraud and rigging bids for $30 million in cement work at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York.
The following month, Giuliani filed suit in New York to force the Teamsters to hold free elections and institute other reforms to eliminate organized crime influence in its locals. “The government’s complaint alleges that organized crime has deprived union members of their rights through a pattern of racketeering that includes 20 murders, a number of shootings, bombings, beatings, a campaign of fear, extortion and theft,” Giuliani stated.
In October 1988, a federal judge sentenced Salerno, who was already serving a 100-year sentence in the 1986 Commission case, to an additional 70 years for his conviction in the Javits center bid-rigging.
Another major Mafia case that came to Giuliani’s office was the famous “Pizza Connection” caper, in which the former chief of the Sicilian Mafia, Gaetano Badalamenti, and Bonanno crime family member Salvatore Catalano were charged as leaders of a $1.6 billion international heroin and cocaine smuggling and sales operation using pizza restaurants in New York as fronts since 1979. The 18 defendants were convicted in 1987. “It is a tremendous victory in the effort to crush the Mafia,” Giuliani stated in the Washington Post. “Five years ago nobody would have thought it possible to convict the head of the Sicilian Mafia and the head of a major part of an American Mafia family. The impact on the Mafia of these cases has been devastating. If this continues, there’s not going to be a Mafia.”
Before leaving office in January 1989, Giuliani also successfully prosecuted cases of alleged illegal insider trading on Wall Street and corruption in New York political circles. In 1987, Ivan Boesky, a Wall Street arbitrager who amassed $200 million investing in companies about to be taken over or bought out, was convicted of conspiring to file false documents, served two years in prison and was fined $100 million. In 1988, Giuliani then focused on a Boesky associate, Michael Milken, known as the “king” of selling unsecured “junk” bonds to raise funds for businesses. Milken was indicted on 98 counts including racketeering, insider trading and securities fraud, went to prison for nearly two years and paid $900 million in fines. Giuliani prosecuted and won racketeering convictions against Bronx Democratic leader Stanley Freidman and others in a bribery scheme involving the city’s parking meter violations agency. In 1988, four executives of the defense contractor firm Wedtech pleaded guilty to federal charges filed by Giuliani in illegal payoffs to public officials in exchange for no-bid contracts. The case also ended with the conviction of Congressman Mario Biaggi, a New York Democrat, for extorting payoffs from Wedtech.
His years as a “Mob buster” over, Giuliani entered electoral politics and ran for mayor of New York in 1989. He won the Republican nomination but narrowly lost to Democrat David Dinkins in the general election. Giuliani worked as a private attorney and ran for mayor again in 1993, defeating Dinkins. He won re-election in 1997.
While mayor, Giuliani sought to reduce crime in a city regarded as the nation’s crime capital. He implemented a “broken windows” policy: a no-tolerance stance toward petty crimes such as vandalism and panhandling. His administration is credited with reducing serious crime in New York by 56 percent during his eight years in office, including a 66 percent drop in murders and 70 percent decline in shootings. He ordered police sweeps to rid low-level drug dealers from Lower Manhattan.
In September 2001, in the final three months of his last term, Giuliani became the national face of New York after terrorists flew airliners into the World Trade Center’s iconic Twin Towers, causing both skyscrapers to collapse and killing nearly 3,000 people. Giuliani visited the site, kept residents informed regularly about rescue efforts as hope for the missing dwindled with each day and vowed that the city would rebuild and not be intimidated by terrorists. Time magazine selected him as its Person of the Year for 2001.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Who leaked the questions?



President Trump says it's "disgraceful" that a list of proposed questions from special counsel Robert Mueller was "leaked" to the news media. Special counsel Robert Mueller is interested in asking President Donald Trump a variety of questions. The New York times said the list of questions was "provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump's legal team." Hmm. I wonder who that would be? My guess? Trump leaked Mueller's questions himself. Showing America just what Robert Mueller and the clown car is up to. Who would sit down for that interview? Nobody. One big perjury trap.
1) What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?
2) What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?
3) What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn?
4) How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?
5) After the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?
6) What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?
7) What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?
8) What was your reaction to Mr. Comey’s briefing that day about other intelligence matters?
9) What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?
10) What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?
11) What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017?
12) What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.
13) What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?
14) What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?
15) What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?
16) What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?
17) Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?
18) What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?
19) What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?
20) What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?
21) What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?
22) What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?
23) What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?
24) What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?
25) What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?
26) Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?
27) What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?
28) Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’s resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?
29) What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?
30) What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?
31) What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?
32) When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?
33) What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?
34) During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
35) What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
36) What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?
37) What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?
38) What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?
39) During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?
40) What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?
41) What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?
42) What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?
43) What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?
44) What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Mueller Threatens Subpoena

Donald Trump’s current team of lawyers lacks the security clearances needed to discuss sensitive issues related to a possible presidential interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, according to Bloomberg anonymous sources.
Trump’s former lead lawyer John Dowd had been the only member of the president’s personal legal team with a security clearance. When Dowd quit in March over disagreements with Trump on legal strategy, Jay Sekulow became the lead lawyer on the investigation and is still waiting for his clearance.
Dowd also faced criticism over his handling of the response to the guilty plea of Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who became the first Trump administration official to face charges in Mueller's investigation. Dowd landed himself and the President in hot water after a tweet he says he authored suggested Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI in January, reviving questions of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice when he allegedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies," the tweet on Trump's account said. The tweet led Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to note that the committee is investigating obstruction of justice and said: "What we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice."
In a testy exchange with CNN, Dowd said he authored the tweet, but then suggested it was incorrect, claiming that "at the time of the firing no one including Justice had accused Flynn of lying." He declined to answer additional questions, saying: "Enough already. I don't feed the haters."
The Washington Post reported that Mueller suggested in a March 5 meeting that he could subpoena Trump to appear before a grand jury if he refused an interview. Before Dowd resigned, Mueller’s prosecutors reportedly made it clear to Trump’s lawyers that Mueller would consider a presidential subpoena if Trump refused to participate in an interview, Dowd told Bloomberg.Mueller made it clear to Trump’s lawyers before Dowd left that the special counsel would consider a subpoena compelling the president to testify before a grand jury if he refuses to participate in a voluntary interview, Dowd said.
Mueller believes he has legal standing to subpoena a sitting president, even though such a move has never been fully tested. Unlike an interview, Trump couldn’t bring his lawyers into a grand jury room. If Trump agrees to an interview, the topics that could require security clearance for the president’s lawyers include a meeting he had with Russian officials the day after the president fired FBI Director James Comey. The leak of the questions, which were reported by the New York Times, could disrupt the negotiations over a Trump interview, which have been going on since last year. Several Trump advisers are opposed to having Trump meet with the special counsel.
Sekulow has continued talking with Mueller’s team since Dowd’s departure. Giuliani joined in a session last week. The lawyers have been trying to negotiate ways to narrow the scope of a possible interview. Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer handling requests from Mueller, has a security clearance. But Cobb’s role is to represent the office of the presidency, not Trump personally, and he hasn’t been directly involved in discussions with Mueller about an interview.
Trump’s legal team is well-aware Mueller could issue a subpoena, a possibility they have calculated in their strategy on negotiating an interview, according to anonymous sources. They have discussed a possible defense against a subpoena, including citing a 1990s ruling involving President Bill Clinton that set a standard for when a president can invoke executive privilege. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that the president isn’t a target of the Mueller investigation or of a separate probe into Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen. But the questions published on Monday make clear that Mueller is still examining the president’s conduct.
In response to publication of the questions, Trump wrote on Twitter that “it would be very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened” and that Mueller was investigating a “made up, phony crime.”
It’s common practice for prosecutors to inform defense attorneys about the subjects they plan to pursue during a voluntary interview and for defense lawyers to try to limit the extent of questioning.
From the start, Trump’s legal team has been out-manned by Mueller’s. About a month after Dowd’s departure, Sekulow said Giuliani would be joining the legal team, along with Florida-based white-collar defense lawyers Martin and Jane Raskin.
1. Can Trump fire Mueller?
Sarah Huckabee Sanders raised eyebrows on April 10 by saying "we’ve been advised" that Trump "has the power to make that decision." Trump certainly could fire Mueller, or anyone else in the executive branch, and then see what happens. But special counsels -- lawyers named by the Justice Department to take over sensitive investigations -- answer to the Justice official who appoints them, according to the 1999 rules that guide the role. Usually that’s the Attorney General. In Mueller’s case, it’s the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, because Attorney General Jeff Sessions, having advised and supported Trump’s 2016 campaign, recused himself from overseeing the inquiry.
2. So only Rosenstein can fire Mueller?
That’s the most literal reading of the special-counsel rules, which also say Mueller could be fired only upon a finding of “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest" or "other good cause.” As long as Sessions is Attorney General, and recused from the probe, that judgment is up to Rosenstein. Hypothetically at least, Trump could order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, then fire Rosenstein if he refuses, and then repeat the order to the official who steps in for Rosenstein.
3. Who would that be?
For most of Trump’s presidency the answer was Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. But she resigned in February to take the top legal job at Walmart; she denied a report that she departed in part because she didn’t want to be forced to oversee the Russia probe. Until a new Associate Attorney General is named and confirmed by the Senate, the next in line to fill Rosenstein’s role is the solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco.
4. What if he, too, declined to dismiss Mueller?
Trump could fire him as well and repeat the process through the line of succession until someone does as he says. This is largely what happened in the "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973, when President Richard Nixon ordered three Justice Department officials to fire the Watergate special prosecutor until one finally agreed.
5. Does Trump have any other options?
A draft of articles of impeachment of Rosenstein has been prepared by Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, and other members of the House Freedom Caucus. Rosenstein could be impeached by Congress and replaced.
Other than firing Rosenstein, Trump could fire Sessions, with the expectation that Sessions’s successor would seize control of the case from Rosenstein. Or Trump could order the repeal of the special-counsel regulations, in hopes that would clear a legal path to fire Mueller himself. There also are ways Trump could defang the Russia probe short of getting Mueller fired. For instance, under the rules, Rosenstein -- or his successor in overseeing Mueller’s work -- could reel in the investigation by finding one of its strategies or techniques "so inappropriate or unwarranted under established departmental practices that it should not be pursued."
6. Would firing Mueller end the Russia investigation?
Not necessarily. The investigation predated Mueller’s appointment as special counsel and already has some prosecutions underway.
7. Is anyone trying to protect Mueller?
That effort has picked up of late. In the U.S. Senate, two Republicans and two Democrats have consolidated their separate bills to protect Mueller into a single piece of legislation that would, according to the sponsors, ensure that the special counsel can only be fired for “good cause” and give the person in that role the ability to seek an expedited judicial review of any dismissal.
8. What would happen if Mueller were fired?
He could try to challenge the grounds for his dismissal in court. Beyond that, much of the fallout would depend on Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress, who hold majorities in the House and the Senate. Democrats could be expected to express their outrage by offering proposals to reinstate Mueller and to remove Trump as president, on grounds that he had obstructed justice. But Democrats couldn’t accomplish that on their own. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned in January that if Trump tries to fire Mueller, "it would be the end of his presidency." More recently, Republican senators John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley have sounded similar cautions. But some other Republicans have been far more critical of the Russia probe -- which they say was tainted early on by anti-Trump bias -- than they are protective of Mueller.
9. Could Trump be impeached for firing Mueller?
Since removing a president is a political process, not a legal one, that question would be up to Congress, and the political calculus may change if Democrats gain control of one or both houses in the November midterm elections. The Constitution says the president (and vice president and judges and members of the cabinet) "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The key phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" has been defined by Congress through the years to include exceeding or abusing the powers of the presidency or misusing the office for improper purpose or gain.
I never did understand how Mueller could be Special Counsel when his law firm worked for Manafort and Ivanka Trump. Is this how Trump and Sessions set up Mueller and Rosenstein?
Before he became Special Counsel, Robert Mueller was a partner at the law firm WilmerHale, which had both Paul Manafort and Ivanka Trump/Jared Kushner as clients. Mueller quit WilmerHale to become Special Counsel and brought over several associates with him. Manafort fired WilmerHale after his house was raided.
Now, Federal government insiders believe that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not have the authority to legally appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel, due to this major glaring conflict of interest in the case. Rosenstein's DOJ signed a waiver for Mueller on May 18th. Nobody understands why.
Robert Mueller still worked for WilmerHale — the very firm representing Paul Manafort — when Rod Rosenstein contacted Mueller to give him the go-ahead to investigate Manafort for suspected Russia ties. That should have come up in any fair (and legally required) background check that Rosenstein should have done on Mueller. Manafort was still being represented by WilmerHale when his house was raided by federal authorities in August 2017, at which time he dropped WilmerHale as his representation.
“Acting AG Rod Rosenstein did not follow the law established to appoint a special counsel. This was made clear when he and the special counsel on Monday filed a response to Paul Manafort’s motion to dismiss. In the CFR (600.3) for special counsel it states “to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues“.
That’s where the entire Rosenstein-Mueller team runs into trouble.
“In the Prosecutions response to Manafort’s motion to dismiss, they provide as evidence Attachment “A” the letter from Rosenstein dated 05/17/2017 appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel. They also provide Attachment “B” the 08/02/2017 Memorandum from Rosenstein to Mueller referencing the scope of investigation and definition of authority. In the “Memorandum” Rosenstein list Manafort as a prime target “Allegations that Paul Manafort: Committed ….”!”
“Mueller was working at the WilmerHale law firm when picked as special counsel. Manafort has and was using WilmerHale as his law firm. The prosecution’s response to the motion to dismiss reveals that Rosenstein did not follow the law otherwise the background would have initially disqualified Mueller or any staff from WilmerHale or at the least would have disqualified them once Rosenstein issued the Memorandum in August revealing that Mueller’s Firm’s client Manafort as a target. Part of the Memorandum is redacted and the further question exists: is Jared Kushner in the redacted section because the fact that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are and have been client’s of Mueller’s law firm should have been reason to disqualifiy “WilmerHale insiders” during the required background check of Mueller and his staff."

Obama Stonewalled Immigration Processing



A great example of how the Obama administration opened the flood gates and then stonewalled, lollygagged and just kicked the immigration can down the road for Trump. The Trump administration inherited 1,022,000 open or pending cases in US immigration courts, a number that has doubled since 2012 and tripled since 2009.
James McHenry, who heads the office in the Department of Justice (DOJ) that oversees the nation’s immigration judges, said that the Trump administration has made much progress, most of it behind the scenes.
“We’re doing sort of a top-to-bottom review inside the agency. All of our policies, and all of our guidance, all of our regulations — everything that we do — every process that we have, has been subject to a strict review over the past six months to a year. We’re looking for ways to be able to be more efficient. Obviously, we safeguard due process, but the two are not mutually exclusive.”
His department remains far below the level needed to begin cutting through the backlog. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report last year faulted the agency for taking too long to hire judges and process cases. What’s more, the office remains one of the last in the federal government that still processes cases using paper files stored in blue paper binders. Productivity declined significantly during the Obama administration, based on raw statistics. In fiscal year 2006, immigration judges completed an average of 1,356 cases; that number had dropped nearly 50% to 807 by fiscal year 2015.
Among the most controversial steps undertaken has been to hold judges to a goal of resolving at least 700 cases per year. The directive, which will take effect in October, has drawn fire from the government employee union that represents immigration judges. Immigrant advocacy groups also have warned that focusing on efficiency could result in an erosion of quality. In other words, they want the backlog. It slows down deportation.
To address the old technology, McHenry said the agency plans to pilot an electronic filing system in five courts this summer, with an anticipated national rollout next year.
McHenry said the agency has hired 56 new immigration judges in the past year and a half and anticipates four new judges starting this month and 40 to 50 by the end of the fiscal year in September. The omnibus spending bill passed earlier this year by Congress authorizes the administration to hire an additional 150 judges, which would bring the total to 484.
At that level, McHenry said, judges would begin to complete cases faster than new ones get filed. He added that Trump proposed a budget last fall that would bring the total to 700 judges. He said there would be a “significant reduction” in the backlog at that level.
The GAO also report noted that it took Obama's administration an average of 742 days — more than two years — to complete the hiring of a new judge. McHenry said the administration has managed to drive that time down 50% to about a year. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April last year announced a streamlined hiring process.