Christian video on marriage removed from YouTube when Google employees object

Google employees on an internal company listserv complained when a Christian video on marriage appeared as an advertisement on several YouTube channels. A Google vice president agreed that it was “offensive” and had the video taken down.

What was so “offensive” about it?

Daily Caller:

Christian radio host Michael L. Brown argues in the video that gay people are welcome as Christians but that, like every other person, they are called to follow Christian teachings on sex and marriage.

Brown has spoken out in the past against “homo-hatred” and “ugly rhetoric” directed at gay and lesbian people by fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

In the video, he describes same-sex relationships as “like other sins, but one that Jesus died for.”

The belief that sex is meant to take place in the context of a male-female marriage — as argued by Brown — is central to most major Christian denominations’ marital teachings.

Google HR highlighted in the listserv a “representative” comment from an employee who took offense that Brown’s video had appeared as an advertisement on channels operated by gay and lesbian YouTubers, the documents show.

“I cannot see how this can be allowed when the specific idea of LGBT videos is to allow the creators to feel free to share their content and be comfortable that anti-LGBT advertisers would not be attached to their content,” the employee wrote. “This seems very counter to our mission, specifically around PRIDE 2018 timeframe.”

Google’s vice president for product management and ads, Vishal Sharma, agreed that the video was too offensive to air as an advertisement.

Nobody likes to be told they’re a “sinner,” but viewing a message that gently reminds gay people of Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage is hardly “offensive” using any objective criteria. No one at Google is worried about “offending” Christians who might be as uncomfortable viewing pro-gay content as gays are at viewing what they see as anti-gay content.

This is why we have free expression. But when that “freedom” is only available to one side of a question, and “hate” is used as an excuse to silence those who might disagree, everybody loses.

Being opposed to gay marriage is not a “fringe” position. It’s as mainstream as apple pie – especially in communities of faith. There is no room in America for those who would do violence to people for their   sexual orientation, but neither is there room in the US for those who would feign being ”offended” by something inoffensive in order to interfere with their right to express their views. 

 

Google employees on an internal company listserv complained when a Christian video on marriage appeared as an advertisement on several YouTube channels. A Google vice president agreed that it was “offensive” and had the video taken down.

What was so “offensive” about it?

Daily Caller:

Christian radio host Michael L. Brown argues in the video that gay people are welcome as Christians but that, like every other person, they are called to follow Christian teachings on sex and marriage.

Brown has spoken out in the past against “homo-hatred” and “ugly rhetoric” directed at gay and lesbian people by fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

In the video, he describes same-sex relationships as “like other sins, but one that Jesus died for.”

The belief that sex is meant to take place in the context of a male-female marriage — as argued by Brown — is central to most major Christian denominations’ marital teachings.

Google HR highlighted in the listserv a “representative” comment from an employee who took offense that Brown’s video had appeared as an advertisement on channels operated by gay and lesbian YouTubers, the documents show.

“I cannot see how this can be allowed when the specific idea of LGBT videos is to allow the creators to feel free to share their content and be comfortable that anti-LGBT advertisers would not be attached to their content,” the employee wrote. “This seems very counter to our mission, specifically around PRIDE 2018 timeframe.”

Google’s vice president for product management and ads, Vishal Sharma, agreed that the video was too offensive to air as an advertisement.

Nobody likes to be told they’re a “sinner,” but viewing a message that gently reminds gay people of Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage is hardly “offensive” using any objective criteria. No one at Google is worried about “offending” Christians who might be as uncomfortable viewing pro-gay content as gays are at viewing what they see as anti-gay content.

This is why we have free expression. But when that “freedom” is only available to one side of a question, and “hate” is used as an excuse to silence those who might disagree, everybody loses.

Being opposed to gay marriage is not a “fringe” position. It’s as mainstream as apple pie – especially in communities of faith. There is no room in America for those who would do violence to people for their   sexual orientation, but neither is there room in the US for those who would feign being ”offended” by something inoffensive in order to interfere with their right to express their views. 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Elizabeth Warren’s call to abolish the electoral college is part of a pernicious pattern

Unlike, say, Beto O’Rourke, who offers nothing upstairs, or Kamala Harris, who flits with the wind with regard to what she’s in favor of, Elizabeth Warren is a Democratic presidential candidate with some specific ideas.

And they’re not good ones. 

Here’s what’s probably her worst, from Twitter:

 

 

It’s a programmatic call from the worst of the Democratic electoral operatives’ dream-book, to wipe out the constitution and replace it with riggings for Democrats. With Warren, it’s now coming into the mainstream as a respectable idea.

It’s also awful, an idea clothed in the California-style slogan of ‘count all the votes,’ which is the rationale used for the open practice of ballot-harvesting there. “Count all the votes.” “Every vote matters…”

What it is is a bid to second-guess and smash up the wisdom of the founding fathers for the sole reason that Democrats don’t like losing. Call it the Democrat Pacifier for Permanent Power Act of 2020.

Sounds so nice, who could be against it? But what we have here is a proposed dismantling of a founding constitutional pillar of our country, which is that every state matters. If the electoral college is abolished, not every state is going to matter, just the big ones are. End the electoral college and candidates will adjust their platforms to advocate for the interests solely of large states. If tiny Vermont needs something, too bad. Democrats will campaign to scarf up the California and New York vote, and not bother to go to … Wisconsin. And with the large number of Democrats over the age of 70 now running for president, that’s convenient, given the energy required for campaign travel. 

There is a recent argument that as things stand now with the electoral college, candidates actually spend most of their trip time in swing states rather than tiny states, but it still proves that size isn’t necessarily the determinant – the competition of ideas (read: purple states), combined with the winner-take-all system is. Purple states won’t matter if the electoral college is abolished, either.

Democrats acutally benefit from one aspect of the electoral college as it is, given that in a state like California, its sizable number of electoral college votes (their numbers inflated by the fact that a quarter of the nation’s illegal immigrants live in the state) all go to the leftist candidate of the majority, despite the fact that a sizable minority voted for the Republican. Every vote count? Well, not exactly. My vote as a conservative for President Trump or some other Republican is always translated into a blue electoral college vote for a Democrat, and close to half of California voters’ votes are, given the winner take all system, which is how it goes. But the state representaton elsewhere remains, which is why our republic works and why we see political back and forth. Were California and New York to become the only games in town, there would be no pendulum swing, just a Mexican PRI-style rigged one-party “perfect dictatorship.”

That was why the electoral college was put there to compensate for the tyranny of the majority, something seen in every third world hellhole calling itself a ‘democracy. It’s important that smaller states and their interests matter, too.

Here’s another thing about the electoral college worth noting: At the U.S.’s founding, the college came as the result of a deal. The smallest of the 13 colonies, such as New Jersey, were squarely against joining the union, because they knew their interests would be swallowed up by much larger New York. The electoral college was instituted in a compromise deal crafted by the founding fathers to get those smaller states into the union. So if the deal is broken with the abolition of the electoral college, and the U.S. goes to a tyranny-of-the-majority model, those states would have a reasonable legal case to secede, given the bargain that was struck.

Now, I get what Democrats are upset about – it’s got to be tough to lose when the absolute popular majority of votes for president goes to a Democrat, while the presidency is won by a Republican – it’s happened at least twice in our lifetimes. Maybe a cleanout of the near-million illegal votes which is now Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton’s estimate, would show a truer picture. But even if every vote were cast legally, what the results show is that Democrats fail to campaign for the interests of the small states that vote against them. Their problem is one of failure to appeal to enough regions, despite wanting to rule the entire region – they want to rule Iowa as if its interests were identical to coastal California. They’re unhappy because they’ve lost out by not working on their appeal to more than just a narrow slice of hip, coastal voters. Instead of changing their platforms to something less odiously socialist, they want to double down and marginalize North Dakota’s sentiment as irrelevant.

Is this a pattern?

I think so. They lose a lot, so they want to change the rules.

They don’t like the electoral college.

They want 16 year olds to vote.

They want non-citizens to vote.

They favor ballot-harvesting in California.

They are trying to nullify the Supreme Court by stacking it with their own.

They are all in for selective prosecutions of political opponents and censorship on social media to silence opponents.

It’s as if they are at odds with all of the founding principles of how the republic works, from the First Amendment to the last. Warren’s grim determination to destroy the electoral college is just the latest of a bad pattern. The tyanny of the majority model is not only a PRI model, it’s a Venezuela model. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez destroyed the integrity of the electoral system long before his country went into its current disastrous slide. Socialist meddling in the electoral apparatus is hell on a republican democracy. Elizabeth Warren is just promoting it with her latest bad idea.

Image credit: Barry Kronenfeld. via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 4.0

Unlike, say, Beto O’Rourke, who offers nothing upstairs, or Kamala Harris, who flits with the wind with regard to what she’s in favor of, Elizabeth Warren is a Democratic presidential candidate with some specific ideas.

And they’re not good ones. 

Here’s what’s probably her worst, from Twitter:

 

 

It’s a programmatic call from the worst of the Democratic electoral operatives’ dream-book, to wipe out the constitution and replace it with riggings for Democrats. With Warren, it’s now coming into the mainstream as a respectable idea.

It’s also awful, an idea clothed in the California-style slogan of ‘count all the votes,’ which is the rationale used for the open practice of ballot-harvesting there. “Count all the votes.” “Every vote matters…”

What it is is a bid to second-guess and smash up the wisdom of the founding fathers for the sole reason that Democrats don’t like losing. Call it the Democrat Pacifier for Permanent Power Act of 2020.

Sounds so nice, who could be against it? But what we have here is a proposed dismantling of a founding constitutional pillar of our country, which is that every state matters. If the electoral college is abolished, not every state is going to matter, just the big ones are. End the electoral college and candidates will adjust their platforms to advocate for the interests solely of large states. If tiny Vermont needs something, too bad. Democrats will campaign to scarf up the California and New York vote, and not bother to go to … Wisconsin. And with the large number of Democrats over the age of 70 now running for president, that’s convenient, given the energy required for campaign travel. 

There is a recent argument that as things stand now with the electoral college, candidates actually spend most of their trip time in swing states rather than tiny states, but it still proves that size isn’t necessarily the determinant – the competition of ideas (read: purple states), combined with the winner-take-all system is. Purple states won’t matter if the electoral college is abolished, either.

Democrats acutally benefit from one aspect of the electoral college as it is, given that in a state like California, its sizable number of electoral college votes (their numbers inflated by the fact that a quarter of the nation’s illegal immigrants live in the state) all go to the leftist candidate of the majority, despite the fact that a sizable minority voted for the Republican. Every vote count? Well, not exactly. My vote as a conservative for President Trump or some other Republican is always translated into a blue electoral college vote for a Democrat, and close to half of California voters’ votes are, given the winner take all system, which is how it goes. But the state representaton elsewhere remains, which is why our republic works and why we see political back and forth. Were California and New York to become the only games in town, there would be no pendulum swing, just a Mexican PRI-style rigged one-party “perfect dictatorship.”

That was why the electoral college was put there to compensate for the tyranny of the majority, something seen in every third world hellhole calling itself a ‘democracy. It’s important that smaller states and their interests matter, too.

Here’s another thing about the electoral college worth noting: At the U.S.’s founding, the college came as the result of a deal. The smallest of the 13 colonies, such as New Jersey, were squarely against joining the union, because they knew their interests would be swallowed up by much larger New York. The electoral college was instituted in a compromise deal crafted by the founding fathers to get those smaller states into the union. So if the deal is broken with the abolition of the electoral college, and the U.S. goes to a tyranny-of-the-majority model, those states would have a reasonable legal case to secede, given the bargain that was struck.

Now, I get what Democrats are upset about – it’s got to be tough to lose when the absolute popular majority of votes for president goes to a Democrat, while the presidency is won by a Republican – it’s happened at least twice in our lifetimes. Maybe a cleanout of the near-million illegal votes which is now Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton’s estimate, would show a truer picture. But even if every vote were cast legally, what the results show is that Democrats fail to campaign for the interests of the small states that vote against them. Their problem is one of failure to appeal to enough regions, despite wanting to rule the entire region – they want to rule Iowa as if its interests were identical to coastal California. They’re unhappy because they’ve lost out by not working on their appeal to more than just a narrow slice of hip, coastal voters. Instead of changing their platforms to something less odiously socialist, they want to double down and marginalize North Dakota’s sentiment as irrelevant.

Is this a pattern?

I think so. They lose a lot, so they want to change the rules.

They don’t like the electoral college.

They want 16 year olds to vote.

They want non-citizens to vote.

They favor ballot-harvesting in California.

They are trying to nullify the Supreme Court by stacking it with their own.

They are all in for selective prosecutions of political opponents and censorship on social media to silence opponents.

It’s as if they are at odds with all of the founding principles of how the republic works, from the First Amendment to the last. Warren’s grim determination to destroy the electoral college is just the latest of a bad pattern. The tyanny of the majority model is not only a PRI model, it’s a Venezuela model. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez destroyed the integrity of the electoral system long before his country went into its current disastrous slide. Socialist meddling in the electoral apparatus is hell on a republican democracy. Elizabeth Warren is just promoting it with her latest bad idea.

Image credit: Barry Kronenfeld. via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 4.0

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Trump Hits Back at World’s Worst Husband ‘Loser’ George Conway After Latest Atrocious Attacks

For over a year George Conway, the husband of Kellyanne, has attacked President Trump on Twitter.

This is while his wife continues to serve the GOP President as his White House counselor.
George Conway doesn’t care.
And he puts his wife in a horrible situation.

On Monday George Conway hit the president in a series of nasty attacks.

On Tuesday Trump hit back.
The president retweeted campaign manager Brad Parscale’s tweet hitting back at the loudmouth.

The post Trump Hits Back at World’s Worst Husband ‘Loser’ George Conway After Latest Atrocious Attacks appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Democrats Fight To Extend Voting Rights To Stupid Kids [Satire]

The following is satirical.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says the voting age should be lowered to sixteen. In a speech to a mop closet she mistook for a feminist rally, Pelosi said, “Democrats need to get kids involved when they’re totally ignorant and half out of their minds on hormones or we’ll never get elected again.” Pelosi then realized she was talking to a bunch of mops, and said they should have the right to vote as well.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Revealed: Hannity and Sara Carter Disclose “Five Buckets” of Crimes that Deep State Is “So Afraid of” Being Unearthed

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Last night on Hannity, Sara Carter shared that she understands that the reason the Deep State FBI and DOJ went to such extreme measures to bring down candidate and then President Donald Trump was related to five major buckets.

Last night President Trump tweeted a portion from the Hannity Show on FOX where Sara Carter mentioned that the Deep State has five major ‘buckets’ of crimes that they tried to cover up. 

They attempted to get rid of President Trump so that their crimes would go unidentified.

Carter shared in response to Sean Hannity:

So not only will those five buckets be extraordinarily important Sean, but once they dig in deep, into all of this, and I’m talking about the DOJ as the investigation continues, I think they’ll be discovering so much more maleficence within the FBI and DOJ that went far beyond even Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the 2016 election.  Remember a lot of other things are going to be unearthed because of this and this is what they were so afraid of!

President Trump gave us all a hint of what is coming by retweeting this segment from Hannity.

Who only knows what Deep State is so afraid of being uncovered that they would attempt a coup to overthrow the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump?  It must be big, very big!

The post Revealed: Hannity and Sara Carter Disclose “Five Buckets” of Crimes that Deep State Is “So Afraid of” Being Unearthed appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Suspect in Critical Condition After Meeting Homeowner with Baseball Bat Defending His Home: Report

Commentary Culture

Suspect in Critical Condition After Meeting Homeowner with Baseball Bat Defending His Home: Report

A generic burglary picture, left; a basball bat leaned against a wall, right.ShutterstockA burglary suspect in California got more than he bargained for when a homeowner used a baseball bat to defend his property on March 10. The burglary suspect was taken to a local hospital in critical condition after the encounter. (Shutterstock)

It’s a popular saying when it comes to criminals who get their comeuppance in the act of committing a crime: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

A suspect in a California break-in has, unfortunately for him, won a very stupid prize: A trip to the hospital where he was in critical condition.

According to KTXL-TV, the unidentified 33-year-old man was beaten by a homeowner with a baseball bat after he tried to burgle a home on March 10.

The homeowner in Turlock, California — a city of roughly 70,000 about an hour-and-a-half’s drive southeast of Sacramento — reportedly left the suspect “bloodied, bruised and fighting for his life.”

Details are sketchy at the moment and neither the name of the homeowner nor of the suspect have been released, although the former usually isn’t made public.

TRENDING: The Excuses Spoiled AOC’s Using for Her Diving Poll Numbers Are Embarrassing

What is known is that the homeowner awoke to find an intruder in his house.

Armed with a baseball bat, he was able to overpower the alleged burglar during a fight, KTXL reported.

A female resident, meanwhile, ran from the house and over to a neighbor’s. From there, the station reported, she called 911.

Do you think this burglar deserved what he got?

Another resident of the area, Sheila Barrios, said the neighborhood is rife with break-ins and that, even with cameras and other security equipment, residents are mostly left to fend for themselves.

“I think we’re all just tired of it and people are taking their actions into their own hands,” Barrios told KTXL.

“Even (with security features), we still get a lot of people coming through, looking into the cars,” she added.

No arrests or charges have yet been made in the case as of a Monday update.

The burglar is apparently still in critical condition.

RELATED: Build the Wall: Family Begs for Justice After Illegal Immigrant Decapitates Son in Hit-and-Run

I don’t take pleasure in anyone’s pain nor do I endorse vigilantism. However, if you break into someone’s home, this is what could happen.

Criminals accept a certain risk for illegal behavior. Ideally speaking, law enforcement officers are the ones who stop them.

When it comes to home invasions, however, homeowners can’t take that risk. An instant could be the difference between life or death and physical force is sometimes the only way to ensure one’s survival.

Thus, if you’re going to invade someone’s home, you’re accepting this risk. You’re accepting the fact you could end up in a hospital in critical condition — or worse. And if you’re a homeowner in a neighborhood like this one in Turlock, you unfortunately need to be prepared for this tragic possibility.

We hope that this alleged burglar pulls through, just as we hope that he’s held to account for his crimes.

If he doesn’t, however, let’s face facts: He’ll have been the author of his own demise, and won one of the stupidest prizes possible.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Huckabee Turns Beto’s Own Words Against Him, Uses Them To Bury Leftist Narrative on Voting Age

Ever since the 1972 presidential election, when far-left North Dakota Sen. George McGovern got landslided back into the Stone Age, the Democrats have long pretended to be the party of moderation when it comes to the quadrennial contest for 1600 Pennsylvania.

Even when the nominee or the general temperament of the party was well to the left of center, the Democrats always pretended to be the party of the everyman. They’re not proposing anything extreme, they say. Main Street, not Wall Street. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. That sort of thing.

Well, in 2020, the pretense is gone, and the Democrats are partying like it’s 1972.

Court-packing! Tax-hiking! Green New Deals! And now, 16-year-olds voting!

That idiot concept got new traction last year, when student activism in the wake of the Parkland shooting convinced everyone — and by everyone, what I mean is the media — that people who aren’t adults and are five years away from being able to legally take a drink are somehow responsible enough to vote. The reason Democrats think this bad idea should be pursued, of course, is that most of them will vote Democrat.

TRENDING: The Excuses Spoiled AOC’s Using for Her Diving Poll Numbers Are Embarrassing

This idea has been kicking around for some time now and getting endorsements from minor Democrat functionaries. This past week, however, the concept got an endorsement from arguably the most powerful Democrat in America: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“I, myself, personally — I’m not speaking for my caucus — I, myself, have always been for lowering the voting age to 16,” Pelosi said during her weekly news conference Thursday, according to Fox News.

“I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school, when they’re interested in all of this, when they’re learning about the government, to be able to vote.”

Yes, “capture.” I’m sure Speaker Pelosi didn’t mean it to sound so opportunistic or inadvertently truthful, but, well, there you go.

Do you think 16-year-olds should vote?

Also, I love the fact that she’s “always been for” minors voting when it just became an issue last year, and not even a serious one until the whole presidential rigamarole started at the beginning of this year.

So, now 16-year-olds voting is going to be a thing for the remainder of the process. However, as the perceptive Mike Huckabee reminded us in a tweet, another presidential candidate managed to provide the perfect counterpoint to Pelosi’s support of 16-year-old voting.

The former Arkansas governor was referring, of course, to Robert “Beto” O’Rourke. The former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential hopeful, in case you missed it, was revealed to be a teenage hacker in a recent story by Reuters.

RELATED: Mike Huckabee Uses Brilliant Meme To Ruthlessly Call Out Dems’ ‘Obsession With Baby-Killing’

And, not only was he a member of one of the most notorious hacker groups in the early days of the internet, he also wrote, um, interesting fiction that he posted on his personal bulletin board system.

“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles…. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams,” Beto wrote in one particularly troubling short story.

“As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”

The Reuters story also noted that Beto had stolen phone service to connect to bulletin boards, a potential felony if he racked up over $1,500 in charges.

“I’m mortified to read it now, incredibly embarrassed, but I have to take ownership of my words,” O’Rourke said Friday, according to the Chicago Tribune. “Whatever my intention was as a teenager doesn’t matter, I have to look long and hard at my actions, at the language I have used, and I have to constantly try to do better.”

“It’s not anything I’m proud of today, and I mean, that’s — that’s the long and short of it,” he added.

“All I can do is my best, which is what I’m trying to do. I can’t control anything I’ve done in the past. I can only control what I do going forward and what I plan to do is give this my best.”

Now, none of this really seems to have damaged Beto much — and, in fairness, it’s a bit difficult to definitively say that this should be held against him. Why? He was a minor.

However, the same logic cuts both ways. If you can’t necessarily be held fully responsible for your actions under the law, you also can’t be fully responsible for electing those who make the laws.

The Washington Examiner’s Logan Hall probably had the funniest take on this:

Now, granted, that’s not writing fiction about killing children. There are also adults who probably do both of these things, but democracy can’t account for the addlepated.

It can account, however, for the immature — by demanding that Americans be adults to vote.

As Mike Huckabee pointed out, if we can excuse someone because of their age, we can also note that they shouldn’t be part of the governing process.

My guess is that kind of wisdom is going to get lost in the 1972 retro party that the Democrats seem to be having — but American voters who aren’t aligned with Nancy or Beto might find that logic a bit more appealing at the voting booth.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Lefty Journalist Hill Tweets That the Electoral College Preserves Slavery

Jemele Hill just can’t help her race-baiting self, as yet another episode of open mouth, insert foot unfolds. The world-class race-baiter added yet more notoriety to her one-track career Monday morning, again via Twitter. This time she outrageously claimed the purpose of the Electoral College is outdated and was intended to "preserve slavery." Oddly enough, this time the politico she was disagreeing with was none other than a Democrat.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Hmmm: Mueller got search warrants for Cohen almost immediately

Robert Mueller’s team of investigators raided Michael Cohen’s office and residence in April of last year, but that was hardly the beginning of his interest in Donald Trump’s fixer. Redacted warrants released today as part of a FOIA demand shows that Mueller got search warrants for Cohen’s communications almost a full year earlier. That might revive some discussion about attorney-client privilege and the special counsel’s investigation — as well as speculation as to why redactions conceal allegations of campaign-finance violations:

Special counsel Robert Mueller first obtained search warrants for three of Michael Cohen’s email accounts starting in the summer of 2017, long before Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney was raided by FBI agents in April 2018 for campaign finance crimes, according to partially redacted search warrant materials released Tuesday morning.

The documents, which number hundreds of pages, were released as a result of a ruling from federal Judge William Pauley partially granting a request from various media organizations, including CNN, to unseal documents related to the raid on Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. The materials related to the campaign finance contribution scheme are entirely redacted in the documents.

Recall at the time of the raid that Trump and others objected to seizure of Cohen’s work on the basis of privilege. Alan Dershowitz declared attorney-client privilege “dead” in the United States after the raid. Mueller and the courts set up a blind review intended to separate legitimately privileged material from evidence of corrupt acts by Cohen on behalf of clients.

After Cohen became a reluctant cooperator, that issue largely dropped off the radar screen, but one has to wonder whether it will re-emerge now. Privilege attaches to the client, not the attorney, and anything captured by prosecutors before the raid might well have been privileged. In fact, it’s almost a certainty. Did they hold all of that material for the special master? Was it also vetted — and if so, how, and to what standard?

Of course, Mueller stopped taking an interest in Cohen after a few months, transferring the case off to the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Cohen cooperated with Mueller afterward, unimpressively according to their sentencing recommendation, but he’s also cooperating with SDNY to this day. This tells us that Mueller’s still unlikely to develop anything through Cohen, but SDNY looks veeerrrrryyyyy interested in picking Cohen’s brain to this day. The need to redact everything under the heading “The Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme” strongly suggests that prosecutors are actively pursuing a case against someone other than Cohen to this day.

NRO’s Andrew McCarthy has written repeatedly that the SDNY investigation presents a far greater threat to Trump than Mueller’s. This release provides more evidence of that potential threat to Trump, or at least those associated with the fundraising for the campaign. It may still come to nothing, but at the very least we know it hasn’t yet come to nothing.

The post Hmmm: Mueller got search warrants for Cohen almost immediately appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com