Month: May 2018

Posted on

Security Expert Tony Shaffer: The Question of Why Flynn Pleaded Guilty Is Now Clear – He Was Lied to By Mueller

Security Expert Tony Shaffer: The Question of Why Flynn Pleaded Guilty Is Now Clear – He Was Lied to By Mueller

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
May 5, 2018

Earlier this week The New York Times published a list of 40 questions Dirty Cop Robert Mueller wants President Trump to answer under oath in connection to the ongoing Russia-collusion witch hunt.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) a former judge then posted his own 40 questions for Special Counsel Robert Mueller in response at Lifezette.

Here are a few of the questions:

Regarding Your Trump “Investigation”
1.) Why did you hire only lawyers with backgrounds as Democratic Party donors for your investigative team? Were there no Establishment Republicans willing to help railroad President Trump?

2.) Peter Strzok was removed from your team after more than 10,000 texts between him and fellow team member Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. These texts were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming president and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected. Did they ever speak this way about Donald Trump in your presence? Why were you so determined to have people with outright hatred of Donald Trump on your special counsel team?

3.) Andrew Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election-night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. Not to mention his vast history of prosecutorial abuses.

Both of you were involved in the investigation into Russia’s illegal efforts to obtain U.S. uranium. Did either of you alert the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to the crimes being committed? The plea deals? Did either of you profit in any way from the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation or from those who benefited from the sale of U.S. uranium that would ultimately end up in the hands of Russian owners? Do you consider this to be a potential conflict of interest to the current investigation?

4.) What efforts have you undertaken to identify the leakers in your team who’ve revealed investigative details to the media? Were the leaks done with your permission or encouragement? When do you believe the statutes of limitations would run on possible prosecutions of you or your team for any such criminal leaks?

Security expert Tony Shaffer believes he now understands why Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Shaffer believes Michael Flynn was lied to.

he Department of Justice released the requested unredacted documents to to the House Intelligence Committee on the investigation of Donald Trump and the interview of Michael Flynn by corrupt agents Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok.

The newly unredacted portion of the House Intel Report revealed Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn did not detect any deception.

Months later Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents.

Tony Shaffer believes Flynn was lied to.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

Study: Those most concerned about climate change least likely to take individual action

A year-long study of 600 Americans placed them into three distinct categories—”believers,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptics”—based on their self-stated level of concern over climate change. Not surprisingly, believers were most likely to support federal policies to address the problem while skeptics were least likely to support such policies. But the researchers also found a result which seemed counter-intuitive. From Pacific Standard:

While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.

This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”

Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.

Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We’ve “earned” points in our own mind. So if you’ve pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.

This idea of “moral licensing” is very interesting. That link in the quote above goes to a 2010 story at the Washington Post which has a bit more on the phenomenon:

“We have these internal negotiations going in our heads all day, even if we don’t know it,” said Benoît Monin, a social psychologist who studies moral licensing at Stanford University. “People’s past behavior literally gives them license to do that next thing, which might not be good.”…

From a theoretical perspective, the research has shown that “it’s like we can withdraw from our moral bank accounts,” Monin said. “It’s a lens through which you see the rest of your behavior. But it may not even be conscious.”…

University of Toronto behavioral marketing professor Nina Mazar showed in a recent study that people who bought green products were more likely to cheat and steal than those who bought conventional products. One of Mazar’s experiments invited participants to shop either at online stores that carry mainly green products or mainly conventional products. Then they played a game that allowed them to cheat to make more money. The shoppers from the green store were more dishonest than those at the conventional store, which brought them higher earnings in the game.

The thing that immediately came to mind when I read this story wasn’t Al Gore or Sting or any of the other people preaching about climate change while flying around the world in private jets, the first thing that came to mind was Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein has been accused of sexual assault and rape by dozens of women around the world. And yet, his profile in Hollywood was as an outspoken progressive who had a lot to say about women’s rights. If you had asked him, I’m sure he’d have said he was a male feminist. Meanwhile, he was a monster who made abusing women the center of his lifestyle.

Remember when the first story about Weinstein’s behavior broke, he put out a statement which made a pretty clear connection between his “demons” and his progressive campaigning. Here’s a bit of that:

I so respect all women, and regret what happened. I hope that my actions will speak louder than words and that one day we will all be able to earn their trust and sit down together with Lisa to learn more. Jay Z wrote in 4:44 “I’m not the man I thought I was, and I better be that man for my children.” The same is true for me. I want a second chance in the community, but I know I’ve got work to do to earn it. I have goals that are now priorities. Trust me, this isn’t an overnight process. I’ve been trying to do this for 10 years, and this is a wake-up call. I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt, and I plan to do right by all of them.

I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party. One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC.

At the time, this seemed like a pretty strange juxtaposition of bad behavior and politics, but when viewed in light of “moral licensing” it makes a lot of sense. Weinstein was basically saying ‘look, I took a lot out of the progressive bank account but I’m going to put a lot back in if you let me.‘ A few weeks later, there was a report from Page Six saying Weinstein had concluded he was destined to be a martyr for needed public change. He had realized he wasn’t coming back from this. His career was dead. But even then he was thinking about his situation as a passion play in which he would die to bring change to the world. It was still about moral licensing, just on a much grander scale.

Anyway, that’s just one example but it seems to me this probably applies to a lot of similar cases of hypocrisy in politics, not just with regard to climate change. The study itself is here. You have to pay to read it but the abstract is available and matches the description above.

The post Study: Those most concerned about climate change least likely to take individual action appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

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

Posted on

HAH! Trump-Appointed Judge REJECTS Dirty Cop Mueller’s Request For Delay in Junk Russian Bot Case

HAH! Trump-Appointed Judge REJECTS Dirty Cop Mueller’s Request For Delay in Junk Russian Bot Case

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
May 5, 2018

Dirty cop Robert Mueller got smacked down by another judge and we couldn’t be happier.

It has been a bad week for Mueller.

First his prosecutors were raked over the coals by Judge Ellis, now his request for delay on the junk Russian bot case has been DENIED.

As previously reported, Robert Mueller’s team was seeking a delay in the first court hearing in a criminal case against one of the companies charged in Mueller’s Russian bot investigation.

Concord Management and Consulting is requesting documents from the Mueller witch hunt team and now they’re balking.

They never expected one of the alleged Russian bot companies to call their bluff.

Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians and three companies involved in so-called ‘Russian interference’ was a publicity stunt to justify his salary. He wasn’t expecting to actually have to fight any of them in court.

In fact, Fox News cited The Gateway Pundit’s report on a scoop that Mueller’s indictment was one big publicity stunt:

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry spoke with a veteran FBI official who said the Russians named in the indictment are in Russia and will never be arrested or incarcerated; the indictment was all a public relations stunt.

According to Sperry, a veteran FBI agent said the 13 indictments by Mueller are moot and it was done for show to solely justify the Special Counsel’s existence and salary.

Well, now one of the companies wants to play and Mueller is running scared.

It gets better….

The judge denied Mueller’s request for a delay.

Politico reported:

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.

[…]

The Concord lawyers said Mueller’s attorneys were seeking “to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case.

Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Dabney Friedrich was appointed by President Donald Trump in December of 2017.

Finally honest judges are standing up to Mueller and calling him out for the dishonest, corrupt liar he is.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

John Kerry ‘colluding’ with Iranians to foil Trump on Iran deal

Remember the Logan Act? That ancient (1799) law that has never seen a conviction bans unauthorized persons from negotiating with foreign governments over a dis0utew with the United States. But when the Deep Staters wanted to squeeze General Michael Flynn, Sally Yates resurrected it to threaten him over his perfectly proper meeting with the Russian Ambassador while President Obama was still in office as a lame duck.


Now, it appears that former Secretary of State John Kerry is in technical violation of the Logan Act, something we know thanks to a report in the Boston Globe by Matt Viser:



John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.


He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.


The irony is not lost  on Devin Nunes:


 



 



In the terms favored by the witch hunters out to reverse the 2016 election, Kerry clearly is “colluding” with our enemies. The New York Sun editorializes, making the case that this is not the first time Kerry has colluded with our enemies:


What a duplicitous duo. The Globe says the meeting was to “strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration.” The paper uses the word “stealthy” to describe their mission to preserve the deal and says that Mr. Kerry has been “using his deep lists of contacts gleaned during his time as the top U.S. diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.”


This has been Mr. Kerry’s modus operandi since, as a young lieutenant just out of the Navy and in the middle of a war, he began freelancing foreign policy. Back then, he snuck off to Paris and met with, among others, representatives of our active wartime enemy, the Viet Cong. Then he came back to America and plumped for their talking points. Later, he testified against American troops before the Senator Foreign Relations committee.


That’s how Mr. Kerry’s career was launched. Now he’s using the same modus operandi to treat with Mr. Zarif to save a deal that even the New York Times concedes was opposed “overwhelmingly” by the United States Congress. And that was tested in the recent election.



John Kerry with Iranians Hossein Fereydoun and Javad Zarif in Vienna (via US State Dept)


I don’t expect the Logan Act to be enforced, but it would be absolute;y delcisious to seesuch an attempt, given the bullying that General Flynn endured. Of course, thanks to his second wife’s fortune, Kerry woud not have to sell any of his multiple luxurious houses to pay the legal bills.


But I would not be surprised in the least for President Trump to call Kerry out, maybe today when he arrives in Ohio. Perhaps he will use a word beginning wit the letter “t” in describing Kerry’s actions. I mean “treachery,” because “treason” would be a much harder sell to the public and especially in court.


Remember the Logan Act? That ancient (1799) law that has never seen a conviction bans unauthorized persons from negotiating with foreign governments over a dis0utew with the United States. But when the Deep Staters wanted to squeeze General Michael Flynn, Sally Yates resurrected it to threaten him over his perfectly proper meeting with the Russian Ambassador while President Obama was still in office as a lame duck.


Now, it appears that former Secretary of State John Kerry is in technical violation of the Logan Act, something we know thanks to a report in the Boston Globe by Matt Viser:


John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.


He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.


The irony is not lost  on Devin Nunes:


 



 



In the terms favored by the witch hunters out to reverse the 2016 election, Kerry clearly is “colluding” with our enemies. The New York Sun editorializes, making the case that this is not the first time Kerry has colluded with our enemies:


What a duplicitous duo. The Globe says the meeting was to “strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration.” The paper uses the word “stealthy” to describe their mission to preserve the deal and says that Mr. Kerry has been “using his deep lists of contacts gleaned during his time as the top U.S. diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.”


This has been Mr. Kerry’s modus operandi since, as a young lieutenant just out of the Navy and in the middle of a war, he began freelancing foreign policy. Back then, he snuck off to Paris and met with, among others, representatives of our active wartime enemy, the Viet Cong. Then he came back to America and plumped for their talking points. Later, he testified against American troops before the Senator Foreign Relations committee.


That’s how Mr. Kerry’s career was launched. Now he’s using the same modus operandi to treat with Mr. Zarif to save a deal that even the New York Times concedes was opposed “overwhelmingly” by the United States Congress. And that was tested in the recent election.



John Kerry with Iranians Hossein Fereydoun and Javad Zarif in Vienna (via US State Dept)


I don’t expect the Logan Act to be enforced, but it would be absolute;y delcisious to seesuch an attempt, given the bullying that General Flynn endured. Of course, thanks to his second wife’s fortune, Kerry woud not have to sell any of his multiple luxurious houses to pay the legal bills.


But I would not be surprised in the least for President Trump to call Kerry out, maybe today when he arrives in Ohio. Perhaps he will use a word beginning wit the letter “t” in describing Kerry’s actions. I mean “treachery,” because “treason” would be a much harder sell to the public and especially in court.




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

Busted! FBI-DOJ caught using redactions of House Intel Committee Report to protect their posteriors

The release of a less redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee Report on Russian active measures (AKA “collusion”) has exposed abuse of the redaction process to protect the bureaucrats at the FBI and Department of Justice.


In theory, redacting of official documents prior to public release is supposed to be solely to protect confidential sources, or protect ongoing prosecutions, or otherwise serve legitimate government interests.  Redactions to prevent embarrassment or potentially illegal activities on the part of federal officials is not legitimate.



Yet that is clearly what happened when the House Intelligence Committee report was first redacted by the DOJ and FBI.  Rick Moran noted at the time of the first release that Republicans were angry at what they saw as totally unnecessary redactions and demanded release of a more complete version.


Now that a less redacted version has been released, Americans can see that James Comey lied and that General Michael Flynn was railroaded.  Sean Davis has produced an extended Twitter thread that documents the deceptions.  It is so good that Devin Nunes has retweeted it:



Here is the original:







 


 



He concludes:


It’s clear that DOJ/FBI demanded significant redactions not to protect national security or sources/methods, but to protect potentially corrupt officials from accountability for their actions before and after Trump’s election.


The Flynn redactions appear to have been done to protect a false statements case with no evidentiary basis.  Others were done to hide apparent conspiracy to spy on and leak against Trump officials out of spite over the election results.


In one section, initially redacted material suggests an investigation against Flynn that, per Comey, should have been closed was kept open because he may have *thwarted* Obama admin plans to provoke Russia into disproportionately attxkinf [sic] the U.S.


With that context in mind, additional redacted material suggests that the illegal leaks against Flynn were done entirely to justify continuing an investigation against him that the FBI had already determined was without basis.  This is not how the rule of law works.


It is now clear beyond dispute that the agents of the Deep State are afraid of exposure and are abusing the powers of their offices to prevent their perfidy from being exposed.


 


 


The release of a less redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee Report on Russian active measures (AKA “collusion”) has exposed abuse of the redaction process to protect the bureaucrats at the FBI and Department of Justice.


In theory, redacting of official documents prior to public release is supposed to be solely to protect confidential sources, or protect ongoing prosecutions, or otherwise serve legitimate government interests.  Redactions to prevent embarrassment or potentially illegal activities on the part of federal officials is not legitimate.


Yet that is clearly what happened when the House Intelligence Committee report was first redacted by the DOJ and FBI.  Rick Moran noted at the time of the first release that Republicans were angry at what they saw as totally unnecessary redactions and demanded release of a more complete version.


Now that a less redacted version has been released, Americans can see that James Comey lied and that General Michael Flynn was railroaded.  Sean Davis has produced an extended Twitter thread that documents the deceptions.  It is so good that Devin Nunes has retweeted it:



Here is the original:







 


 



He concludes:


It’s clear that DOJ/FBI demanded significant redactions not to protect national security or sources/methods, but to protect potentially corrupt officials from accountability for their actions before and after Trump’s election.


The Flynn redactions appear to have been done to protect a false statements case with no evidentiary basis.  Others were done to hide apparent conspiracy to spy on and leak against Trump officials out of spite over the election results.


In one section, initially redacted material suggests an investigation against Flynn that, per Comey, should have been closed was kept open because he may have *thwarted* Obama admin plans to provoke Russia into disproportionately attxkinf [sic] the U.S.


With that context in mind, additional redacted material suggests that the illegal leaks against Flynn were done entirely to justify continuing an investigation against him that the FBI had already determined was without basis.  This is not how the rule of law works.


It is now clear beyond dispute that the agents of the Deep State are afraid of exposure and are abusing the powers of their offices to prevent their perfidy from being exposed.


 


 




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

Iowa Bans All Abortions After Point of Detection of Fetal Heartbeat

Iowa Bans All Abortions After Point of Detection of Fetal Heartbeat

fetal heartbeat

GENT SHKULLAKU/AFP/Getty Images

by Dr. Susan Berry4 May 20180



Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Friday that bans all abortions after six weeks, from the time a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

“I believe that all innocent life is precious and sacred, and as governor, I pledged to do everything in my power to protect it,” the Republican governor said. “That is what I am doing today.”

The law becomes the most restrictive abortion measure in the country.

Extra security was called in at the Iowa Capitol as Reynolds invited supporters of the legislation into her office as she signed the bill into law, reports the Des Moines Register.

The law goes into effect July 1. It requires physicians to perform an ultrasound test for a fetal heartbeat on any woman seeking an abortion, and bars abortion if a heartbeat is detected.

Iowa Rep. Steve King (R) celebrated the new law on Twitter:

Reynolds said she anticipated that lawsuits would be filed to stop the law from going into effect.

“I understand and anticipate that this will likely be challenged in court, and that courts may even put a hold on the law until it reaches the Supreme Court,” she said. “However, this is bigger than just a law. This is about life. I am not going to back down from who I am or what I believe in.”

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said Friday they would file a lawsuit to stop the law from becoming effective:

“It’s shameful that when Planned Parenthood heard lawmakers were introducing legislation to ban abortion, we were outraged — but we weren’t surprised,” said Suzanna de Baca, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, reports the Register. “But I think many of us still never expected that Governor Reynolds would so swiftly jump to sign a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional.”

Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life applauded Reynolds and said the law “will not only save lives,” but also “reminds us that abortion stops a beating heart.”

“We thank Iowa for recognizing that every life is a gift and that personhood has inherent dignity from the moment of conception,” Mancini added.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

House releases unredacted Russia report — and it catches James Comey square in a lie on Mike Flynn

Newly unredacted portions of the House Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russia were released on Friday and they contain a bombshell relating to what former FBI Director James Comey’s told lawmakers about the bureau’s investigation into Michael Flynn.

What are the details?

According to Fox News, the documents show Comey told lawmakers the FBI did not believe Flynn intentionally lied about his contacts with Russian diplomats.

“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,’” the report states.

However, as the report also states, then FBI-deputy director Andrew McCabe called the Flynn case a “conundrum” because even though they knew Flynn wasn’t deceptive, his statement contradicted what they knew from a wiretapped conversation Flynn had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Dec. 2016.

“The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case,” McCabe told the House Intel Committee.

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI last year, which reportedly caught many lawmakers off guard given Comey’s testimony.

The new unredacted portion of the report raises a number of questions about the Flynn investigation, including why the House Intel report originally redacted the portion detailing that McCabe told lawmakers the FBI basically had no case against Flynn.

Wait, didn’t Comey say something else publicly?

Following the release of his book, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey hit the media circuit where he was pressed on the Flynn investigation. During multiple interviews, he denied telling lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied.

“No. And I saw that in the media. I don’t know what — maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that, and didn’t say that,” he told Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

“I don’t know where that’s coming from. That — unless I’m — I said something that people misunderstood, I don’t remember even intending to say that. So my recollection is I never said that to anybody,” Comey similarly told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the Washington Examiner noted.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

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

Posted on

Mueller forced to delay court case alleging Russian interference after two lawyers call his bluff

FBI special counsel Robert Mueller is seeking to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case alleging Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller has brought charges against three Russian companies and 13 Russians for the alleged interference.

The delay comes after two attorneys representing one of the Russian entities began challenging Mueller’s evidence in the case.

What are the details?

According to Politico, the 13 Russians and three companies — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering — were expected to ignore the indictments since they are outside U.S. jurisdiction.

However, that’s not what happened. Last month, two lawyers representing Concord Management — Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly — surfaced. Mueller told the court Friday the lawyers made a series of discovery requests demanding nonpublic information about Mueller’s case. As attorneys representing one of the defendants, they are allowed to make such requests.

Politico reported that “the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.”

More from Politico:

Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week.

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.

And despite the fact that Mueller’s team provided Dubelier with a copy of the summons, Dubelier told Mueller’s team this week it was “defective.”

The delay will allow the court to determine if Dubelier’s client was properly served a summons, but it will also allow Mueller’s team to provide Dubelier and Seikaly with the requested evidence.

According to Politico, Mueller’s team proposed both sides file briefs with the court to determine if Concord Management was properly summoned. Mueller’s team said they would file by May 25, while giving Concord’s attorneys until June 15.

How did the judge rule?

Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in December to serve in the District of Columbia, did not immediately issue a ruling or postpone the arraignment.

She instructed Concord’s attorneys to respond to prosecutor’s request to delay by Monday.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

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

Posted on

British Schools Are Replacing Analog Clocks Because Students Can’t Read Them

We’re doomed.

Via Fox2Now:

Most of us learned to tell time using an analog clock.

But some schools in the U.K. are removing the old school clocks from test rooms because students are having a hard time reading them.

According to the London Telegraph, students are being raised on digital clocks and can’t figure out what time it is on the analog clock, causing them to stress about the time running out during tests.

“The current generation aren’t as good at reading the traditional clock face as older generations,” Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the U.K.’s Association of School and College Leaders, told The Telegraph.

via Weasel Zippers

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

Posted on

Trump Critic on MSNBC: ‘Partisan,’ ‘Illogical’ Not to Credit President for North Korea

Appearing on MSNBC Live With Velshi & Ruhle on Friday to promote his new book, Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism, foreign policy expert and Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer, a frequent critic of President Trump, went out of his way to credit the President for the major diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea. He even admonished those refusing to give credit where credit was due.

“Ian, I want to start with North Korea. Because it was you last week who said we’ve got to give President Trump credit for making the progress we have thus far,” noted co-anchor Stephanie Ruhle at the top of the segment. Bremmer reiterated that sentiment: “There’s no question that if it wasn’t for Trump we don’t have this opening with the North Koreans.”

 

 

A week earlier, Bremmer took to social media to hail the President for the start of the historic Korean peace process, even proclaiming: “Trump, Xi, Moon and Kim together get my vote for the Nobel Peace Prize.”  

On MSNBC, he proceeded to explain how Trump got the North Koreans to the negotiating table:

A lot of people are saying, “Oh, is it about his tweets? Is it about ‘fire and fury’?” It’s not. It’s about him pressing the Chinese, it’s about him sitting down with Xi Jingping in Mar-a-Lago, doing that first summit, and saying if – “I got elected on the back of, you know, beating on the Chinese, and that’s what I’m prepared to do. Unless you help me on North Korea, I’m going to make it a priority.” And the Chinese, who are less happy with the North Koreans, actually started really ramping up sanctions. 90% of North Korea’s economy is China. If it wasn’t for that implementation, we don’t get this movement, period.  

Ruhle seemed frustrated that such progress could not have happened under the Obama administration: “Can I just ask why now? Because the sanctions existed during the Obama administration. Why didn’t the Obama – why was the Obama administration unsuccessful in pushing China to make these moves?” Bremmer bluntly replied: “It wasn’t a priority.”

Moments later, Bremmer again praised Trump, while acknowledging that he has been one of the President’s biggest critics:

But we have to give him credit. Look, as you know, I’ve been critical of President Trump probably 90% of the foreign policy decisions he’s made since he’s become president. Not the whole administration, but certainly stuff he said. But on this issue, on North Korea, the only way you say that Trump isn’t part of it is if you’re just a partisan, if you’re just being illogical. And that’s not – I mean, I understand that that’s good for eyeballs, but it’s not good for our country.

Surprisingly, even Ruhle agreed: “Good point.” Bremmer added: “It’s not useful.”

When someone like Bremmer can freely credit Trump for a foreign policy success and even get a liberal MSNBC host to agree, that’s pretty remarkable.

Here is a transcript of the May 4 exchange:

11:49 AM ET

STEPHANIE RUHLE: Ian Bremmer, president and founder of The Eurasia Group, his latest book, you’ve got to get it, titled, Us Vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism.

ALI VELSHI: It’s a great book, by the way. This is one of those must reads.

RUHLE: Ian, I want to start with North Korea. Because it was you last week who said we’ve got to give President Trump credit for making the progress we have thus far.

IAN BREMMER: Yeah, I am hearing from the Trump administration that they have confirmation that we’re going to get those three hostages actually released, so that looks good. There’s no question that if it wasn’t for Trump we don’t have this opening with the North Koreans.

A lot of people are saying, “Oh, is it about his tweets? Is it about ‘fire and fury’?” It’s not. It’s about him pressing the Chinese, it’s about him sitting down with Xi Jingping in Mar-a-Lago, doing that first summit, and saying if – “I got elected on the back of, you know, beating on the Chinese, and that’s what I’m prepared to do. Unless you help me on North Korea, I’m going to make it a priority.” And the Chinese, who are less happy with the North Koreans, actually started really ramping up sanctions. 90% of North Korea’s economy is China. If it wasn’t for that implementation, we don’t get this movement, period.  

RUHLE: Can I just ask why now? Because the sanctions existed during the Obama administration. Why didn’t the Obama – why was the Obama administration unsuccessful in pushing China to make these moves?

BREMMER: It wasn’t a priority, right? I mean –  

RUHLE: Why?

BREMMER: Number one, because I think President Obama didn’t want – or President Bush –  didn’t want to open that box. They recognized that that’s a risk-acceptance strategy. You’re going to start pushing the Chinese, the Chinese can push you back. It’s like why didn’t Obama want to whack Syria after he said the red line on chemical weapons? Because, well, potentially you’ll kill some people and how much is it going to accomplish? None of them wanted the potential, even if it was a small percent, of starting confrontation with either the Chinese or with the North Koreans.

And President Trump has been un – he’s not as concerned about that. There was potential downside here, there was real risk. We could be sitting here and saying, “Dammit, he’s gotten us in this trouble and we’re at the brink of war. Instead, there’s a greater likelihood of a breakthrough.

But we have to give him credit. Look, as you know, I’ve been critical of President Trump probably 90% of the foreign policy decisions he’s made since he’s become president. Not the whole administration, but certainly stuff he said. But on this issue, on North Korea, the only way you say that Trump isn’t part of it is if you’re just a partisan, if you’re just being illogical. And that’s not – I mean, I understand that that’s good for eyeballs, but it’s not good for our country.

RUHLE: Good point.

BREMMER: It’s not useful.

(…)

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

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