1. PORK, looking at the political landscape today, where are
2. AG Bill Barr and
3. attorney John Durham and
4. attorney John Huber?
5. BARREL, I don’t know.
6. Haven’t heard from them.
7. PORK, it seems to me given the fact that the democrats consistently accuse POTUS Trump of exactly what they have already done or are doing, it is time to hear from Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham and Mr. Huber now. These accusations have drawn on for way too long. Who started all this POTUS Trump Russian Collusion and Obstruction of Justice nonsense anyway?
8. If Hillary Clinton
9. and if former POTUS Bill Clinton,
10. and if Joe Biden and his son
11. and John Kerry and his son
12. and former POTUS Obama
13. and James Comey
14. and James Clapper
15. and John Brennan
16. and Andy McCabe
17. and Debbie Wasserman Schultz
18. and the DNC
19. and others
20. are guilty of conspiring with each other to take out a sitting POTUS or otherwise or
21. collusion with the Russians or Chinese or others
22. or with obstruction of justice
23. by destroying evidence emails or documents or using fake FISA warrants or the like
24. or with corruption including
25. corruptly exonerating the guilty or
26. corruptly enriching themselves or violating campaign finance rules
27. using their government offices or political influence,
28. then indictments need to be issued
29. now not later.
30. If not,
31. then these people and others
32. need to be freed from the albatross
33. of public opinion
34. and threat of criminal action
35. or civil action.
36. If so, then those guilty should be held accountable.
PORK, what have the democrats done to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS since POTUS Trump took office ?
Nothing, BARREL. Absolutely nothing. They did spend $30 million on the Mueller witch hunt. They have embroiled the country in fake controversy day after day after day. All the while POTUS Trump has been fending them off and keeping more than 300 of his campaign promises.
What’s to be done about it PORK?
Grin and bear it, BARREL. This too is already boomeranging on Nancy and Chuck and the democrats. I predict Trump in a landslide in 2020. We told Nancy and Chuck how to win. They don’t believe us.
Remind me, PORK.
BARREL, we have said several times. The democrats can win if they focus on helping we the people be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS. Not until.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the democrats are still playing in the minor leagues and have boomerang stepped in it again and have egg on their faces, PORK. Only this time, POTUS TRUMP played for keeps. There is “no collusion” and “no obstruction” and “no corruption” and he is vindicated once again and Joe Biden is political toast and Warren will be the nominee. It’s a done deal.
How so, BARREL? Sounds like Nancy Pelosi is working for POTUS Trump.
She is, PORK. Instead of having her ducks in a row they are all drowning.
“If you have not learned by now, … every Conservative “scandal” in recent memory has been nothing more than leftists projecting their own personal problems onto their political opponents.
“Sexism and abuse against women? Meet Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.
“Racism? Meet the blackface donning Gov. Ralph Northam and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
[Collusion with the Russians? Meet Hillary Clinton and her cronies and collaborators.]
[Obstruction of Justice? Meet Hillary and Comey and their cronies and collaborators.]
“Trump pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election? Meet the Democrats in May 2018.
“Yes, the very same Democrats who are now supposedly aghast that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe Biden’s family corruption [wherein Joe and Hunter banked $1.5 billion],
“[yes, the very same Democrats] actually sent Ukraine a letter saying “U.S. assistance” was at stake unless the Ukrainian government complied with the bogus special counsel Robert Mueller investigation and conducted their own investigation into the president and his former aid Paul Manafort.
“Marc Theissen of the Washington Post brought this up yesterday, and after seeing what the president actually said to his call to the newly elected president Volodymyr Zelensky, it looks like the Democrats have nothing but egg on their face [AGAIN].
8. “Here’s what Theissen reported Tuesday:
9. “It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe.
10. “In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake.
11. “Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
12. “So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s [hypocritically] not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?
13. ” … The letter clearly shows they were threatening to withhold assistance unless the Ukrainian government did as they demanded. Between this uncovered letter and former Vice President Joe Biden bragging about intimidating the Ukrainian prosecutor, this whole thing is boomeranging on the Dems. Here comes Trump 2020, folks, steamrolling into the White House (again).
16. “FLASHBACK to 2018 byYouTubing Joe Biden bragged about bribing Ukraine with $1 BILLION to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter Biden’s company.
If that’s not corruption, I don’t know what is, PORK.
1. BARREL, is Senator Lindsey Graham going to come to the party and take the initiative and investigate and issue subpoenas?
2. I hope so, PORK. I want to know, did Joe Biden misuse his office to enrich his son and family?
3. Did Joe Biden force the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor looking into the company Biden’s son was part of and then admit his perfidy and corruption and laugh about it?
4. Isn’t it obvious to the nation that the Democrats are undone because once again the boomerang smacks them with all of the scandals that are in their camp?
5. So Lindsey, are you going to investigate and validate that there is a set of massive Democrat scandals like Peter Schweizer and Mark Levin say?
6. Is the Biden family corrupt?
7. Did the Biden family obstruct justice?
8. Did Joe Biden blackmail the Ukrainian government and withhold military aid in order to get that prosecutor removed in order to protect his son and protect his future running for President?
9. Did Joe come into office poor and leave rich with money from China and elsewhere – in other words, how did a career politician do just that?
10. Did Hunter Biden and John Kerry’s son and Joe Biden and John Kerry walk away with $1.5 billion from China?
11. Is it accurate that there really is no whistle-blower just somebody who thought it up?
12. By the way, who leaked and committed a crime by leaking President Trump’s conversation with foreign leaders?
13. Lindsey, are you going to come to the party and take some initiative and appoint a special counsel and look into Biden and his son and John Kerry’s son and John Kerry?
14. Where are you Lindsey Graham? Where is your backbone? You stood up for Kavanaugh. Isn’t it time for you to stand up for POTUS Trump and help him fight the battle and not let this Democrat charade continue.
15. So Senator Lindsey Graham, isn’t it time to take the gloves off and if there is corruption on the part of the Bidens and others stand up and be counted and deal with it?
1. PORK, what are your thoughts following the third debate?
2. Has Biden fallen apart?
3. Has he lost the democrat primary?
4. Yes, BARREL.
5. The democratic leadership and electorate need to wake up and pay attention.
6. At the third primary debate he produced 9 gaffes, lies, and awkward moments — adding to the growing list.
7. Examples – he referred to Bernie Sanders as “president.”
8. He couldn’t keep his false teeth straight.
9. He was lost in time.
10. He rambled.
11. He referred to himself as Congressman when he never served.
12. Keep in mind, Joe is a loser.
13. He lost in 1988.
14. He lost again in 2008.
15. Using an oxymoron, he says if elected his first priority will be to beat Donald Trump.
16. He forgot Baraak Obama’s name.
17. He dissed all Blacks. Called Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate, bright and clean.”
18. Told an inaccurate war story.
19. He owns all of Obama’s failed policies and programs including giving Iran a billion in cash. He misused his office re the Chinese fiasco with his son and the Ukrainian fiasco with his son.
20. List his erratic responses and behaviors and Las Vegas heavy odds should now be that he is hopelessly lost in 2019.
21. Looking beyond primaries, most importantly for the past years since POTUS Trump took office, Joe and the democrats just spent 40 million on the Mueller report to no avail – no collusion with the Russians – no obstruction. Now Joe and Jerry Adler are up to their ears continuing a foolish and wasteful investigation.
22. All the while it was Hillary and Joe colluding with the Russians. It was Hillary obstructing justice. It was Joe obstructing justice. He and then POTUS Obama knew about the FISA warrant debacle and the fake dossier. The Adler democrat impeachment thrust is a smokescreen to cover up their bad acting.
23. But even if you were to forget all of the above and sweep it under the rug, please find me one democrat who has done anything to-date of great value to help us be free, safe, and prosperous and I will think about voting democrat.
PORK, what are your thoughts following the third debate? Has Biden fallen apart and lost the democrat primary?
Yes, BARREL. The democratic leadership needs to pay attention. He produced 9 gaffes, lies, and awkward moments just in this 3rd primary debate. 5 Examples – he referred to Bernie Sanders as “president,” couldn’t keep his false teeth straight, was lost in time, rambled, referred to himself as Congressman when he never served. He lost in 1988. He lost in 2008. List and catalogue his erratic responses and behaviors and Las Vegas heavy odds are now that he is hopelessly lost in 2019.
Looking beyond primaries, and most importantly, for the past years since POTUS Trump took office, the democrats have done nothing to help us be free, safe, and prosperous. All they have done is criticize and find fault when in fact it was Hillary who colluded with the Russians and obstructed justice in several ways.
PORK, of course he will. No president in history has done more for the common man than POTUS Trump. Besides the networks whether for or against POTUS Trump are making billions off him. They won’t permit him to lose.
1. So BARREL, who is responsible – who is accountable –
for the many murders in Baltimore – 171 from January to July 11, 2019.
2. PORK, obviously those who commit them are responsible. They are the arch criminals.
3. Notwithstanding, Elijah Cummings and the governor of Maryland and the mayor and city council of Baltimore and the police forces of same are also responsible. They are accountable.
4. How so? Isn’t it racism to say so, BARREL.
5. No way, PORK. This isn’t about racism.
6. This is about the simple truth. Those who have oversight for the city – in this case primarily democrats – are responsible for the lack of law and order in the city. They are the ones who are accountable. They are the watchmen and watchwomen on the tower who are not doing their jobs and cracking down – who are not solving the poverty and other issues that tend to drive crime.
I think the following stats are correct.
2009 = 238 murders
2010 = 223
2011 = 196
2012 = 218
2013 = 233
2014 = 211
2015 = 344
2016 = 318
2017 = 343
2018 = 309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Baltimore
The crime in Baltimore is out of control. Much is in high poverty neighborhoods.
So BARREL, what would you do if you were Elijah Cummings?
Well, I would stop all this racism nonsense and get all the help I could get. I would hold a meeting
tomorrow and I would hold that meeting with POTUS Trump and the governor and mayor and put together a joint initiative to clean up the city of crime and poverty within the next ten days.
BARREL, this video of Steve Jobs says it all. Steve speaks from beyond the veil of death to us. He really describes what POTUS Trump is doing and Steve says to the democrats and equally to the republicans where their focus ought to be if they are to be relevant in this world.
So everybody chill out and take a good look at what Steve says and how he responds to an insult and overlay this on the current approach of so many people in dealing with and misunderstanding POTUS Trump.
BARREL, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying to the naysayer critics in both parties, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well to any who are obvious communists and socialists, as well to all of the media, Hannity, Carlson, Maddow, CNN anchors, MSNBC anchors, Fox News anchors, Drudge, Breitbart, WSJ, New York Times, Infowars, the list goes on and on, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying is:
“HELP US AMERICANS BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!”
So, BARREL, think about how important eradicating mosquitoes will be?
Think about how democrats and republicans should and could be focused on helping us be free, safe, and prosperous instead of wasting time and energy and money castigating POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump?
1. A breakthrough technique harnessing two methods to target disease-carrying mosquitoes was able to effectively eradicate buzzing biters in two test sites in China, according to research published on Thursday.
2. The mosquitoes targeted are a type that is particularly difficult to control called Aedes albopictus—more popularly known as the Asian tiger mosquito—which are a major vector for diseases including Zika and dengue.
3. The study “demonstrates the potential of a potent new tool”, wrote Peter Armbruster, a professor at Georgetown University’s department of biology, in a review of the work.
4. Researchers harnessed two population control methods: the use of radiation—which effectively sterilises mosquitoes—and a strain of bacteria called Wolbachia that leaves mosquito eggs dead on arrival.
5. They conducted a two-year trial at two sites on river islands in Guangzhou, where Asian tiger mosquitoes are to blame for the highest dengue transmission rate in China.
6. The results were “remarkable”, wrote Armbruster: the number of hatched mosquitoes eggs plunged by 94 percent, with not a single viable egg recorded for up to 13 weeks in some cases.
7. And the average number of female mosquitoes—which transmit disease to humans when they bite—caught by traps fell by between 83 and 94 percent.
8. In some cases, none were detected at all for up to six weeks.
9. The results were also borne out by a decline of nearly 97 percent in bites suffered by locals—which in turn shifted attitudes among residents, who were initially sceptical of the project’s plan to release more mosquitoes into the local area.
10. Radiation and bacteria
11. The research builds on two existing methods: radiation-based sterile insect technique (SIT) and incompatible insect technique (IIT).
12. SIT works by releasing radiation-sterilised male mosquitoes into an environment to mate with wild female mosquitoes, reducing the size of the population over time as females fail to reproduce.
13. But irradiation of male mosquitoes tends to reduce both their mating competitiveness and their survival rates, undermining the technique’s effectiveness.
14. The IIT method involves a bacteria called Wolbachia. When males infected with it mate with female mosquitoes that aren’t infected, their eggs don’t hatch.
15. The technique doesn’t work if the female mosquitoes are infected with the same Wolbachia strain, and successful mating by mosquitoes that both carry the bacteria undermines the technique by producing more female mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia that are resistant to the process.
16. Preventing the release of Wolbachia-infected female mosquitoes is difficult, with sex-sorting techniques usually resulting in a “female contamination rate” of about 0.3 percent.
17. To overcome that, researchers decided to subject their Wolbachia-infected lab-reared mosquitoes to low-level irradiation, which rendered the females sterile but left the males able to reproduce.
18. This allowed the team to avoid the onerous sex-screening process and meant they could release significantly more mosquitoes at a time: in some cases more than 160,000 male mosquitoes per hectare, per week.
19. ‘Striking results’
20. Lead researcher Zhiyong Xi, a professor at Michigan State University’s department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, compared the technique to “producing insecticide”.
21. “Our goal is to use this technique to build a protected area that is disease vector-free,” Xi told AFP.
22. Armbruster, in a review commissioned by the journal Nature that published the research on Thursday, said the study produced “striking results”.
23. That the trial “almost eliminated notoriously difficult-to-control vector mosquitoes from the test sites is remarkable,” he wrote.
24. The results weren’t a universal success—populations in areas with more traffic, near construction or roads, shrank less than those in isolated zones, likely as mosquitoes migrated in from elsewhere.
25. But Xi said the technique still holds promise if “natural barriers” like highways are used to limit the arrivals of outside mosquitoes.
26. And he said it could be used against mosquitoes that carry disease, including malaria.
27. The next steps will involve developing a “highly effective and practical release strategy” suited for urban settings,” he said.
PORK, I can’t agree more. This kind of work is millennial in nature.
2. While television viewers across the country bask in the excitement of #SkharkWeek, the truth is that sharks are far from the world’s most dangerous creatures.
3. That distinction belongs to the tiny mosquito.
4. Packing a laundry list of dangerous diseases, these miniscule pests outrank all other animals in their threat to human life.
5. They might not seem as terrifying as sharks at first glance, but their stealthy bite is far more deadly.
6. The fact is, no other animal is responsible for more human suffering than the mosquito.
7. HOW DOES THE KILLER KILL?
8. While shark attacks are violent, terrifying and send beach goers scrambling to shore, here in the United States mosquito bites are usually just a minor annoyance.
9. However, in the developing world, those itchy red bumps can harbor a menace far deadlier than all the world’s sharks combined.
10. The list of mosquito-transmitted diseases is a long one, but malaria remains the primary threat for many of the world’s most vulnerable, especially children.
11. Worldwide there were an estimated 214 million Malaria cases resulting in 438,000 deaths in 2015 alone.
12. Malaria is far from the only weapon in the mosquito’s arsenal.
13. Yellow fever, dengue,
14. West Nile virus,
15. chikungunya,
16. Zika
17. and a variety of other maladies
18. all cause untold amounts of suffering throughout the world.
19. Think about this:
20. THE TRUE MENACE TO SOCIETY
21. Films like Jaws and Sharknado have incited shark phobia for generations of moviegoers.
22. In truth, the odds of being killed by a shark attack are a miniscule 1 in 3,748,067.
23. Meanwhile, for individuals living in Sub-Saharan Africa, the chance of contracting a mosquito-borne disease like malaria might be as high as 1 in 5 depending on location!
24. Not only can malaria be deadly if not properly treated, it often takes a huge economic toll on the communities it invades.
25. As T. H. Weller, a Nobel laureate in medicine, noted,
26. “It has long been recognized that a malarious community is an impoverished community.”
27. Both individuals and governments are burdened with expensive medical care, loss of work and education hours and the high cost of preventative programs and premature death.
28. Altogether it’s estimated to cost at least $12 billion a year.
29. Economic growth is stunted by the disease and tourism dollars move elsewhere.
30. Think about this!
31. STANDING UP TO THE BULLY
32. Fifty years ago, deadly mosquitoes were thought to be best controlled by chemical agents like DDT.
33. However, these tricky little creatures grew more resilient and resistant, rendering the dangerous chemicals ineffective and no longer worth the many risks such as cancer, infertility, miscarriage, developmental delay and damage to the nervous system and liver.
34. Today, prevention focuses on fogging insecticides, repellants, bed nets and removing standing water where mosquitoes can breed. While these techniques can reduce the mosquito threat, better methods are still needed to control their population long term and stop the deadly illnesses they carry in their tracks.
35. As we move into the future, the best methods of mosquito eradication will likely be biological ones.
36. Operation Blessing first utilized mosquito larvae eating fish as a means of battling mosquitoes in post-Katrina New Orleans.
37. After the hurricane, thousands of swimming pools across the city had been abandoned, creating the perfect mosquito breeding ground.
38. Operation Blessing placed larvae eating fish in the pools, drastically reducing the mosquito population and averting further crisis.
39. New Orleans would later credit Operation Blessing with preventing epidemics of West Nile virus and St. Louis encephalitis from breaking out.
40. Since then we have continued our biological mosquito control research around the globe with mosquito-eating fish, juvenile turtles and small crustaceans called copepods, creating our “Bug-Busters Dream Team.”
41. Operation Blessing conducted a pilot study in Honduras to test the effectiveness of these animals and to help establish the first ever mosquito control department in the country.
42. Now, we’re taking all that we learned and applying to new communities to help protect vulnerable families.
43. All of these creatures are powerful weapons against mosquitoes, devouring their larvae before they can grow into deadly adults.
44. Unlike chemical agents with their dangerous side effects these animals can be safely introduced into human environments.
45. In fact, copepods have nearly eradicated the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes that were responsible for spreading dengue fever in Vietnam—the same mosquito behind the current Zika outbreak in Latin America.
46. Operation Blessing and our Bug-Busters team are now working to perfect these biological mosquito control methods and put an end to the mosquito’s worldwide reign of terror.
47. Sources: WHO, CDC, Weller, TH. Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: William Bennet; 1958. Tropical medicine; pp. 495–497, Oxford Journals, www.mosquitoworld.net.
6. I think push comes to shove and Harris is way ahead.
7. Like everyone thought Hillary was ahead of POTUS Trump.
8. Proved not to be so.
9. All this tells me Joe’s lead has evaporated.
10. He is on a downward trajectory heading once again for a 3rd or 4th time toward failure to obtain the nomination.
11. Keep in mind that nothing fails like failure.
12. So all this tells me he hasn’t got momentum.
13. His age.
14. His multiple gaffes.
15. His rambling inability to think.
16. The left leaning Democratic party will not let him carry the torch.
17. Why?
18. Because he is a disaster not just waiting to happen. He is a disaster that is in the midst of happening.
19. His responsibility for the many failed Obama initiatives.
20. His Russia misuse of his office connection.
21. His China misuse of his office connection.
22. His multiple failures to secure the nomination in the past.
23. His flip flopping on policy.
24. Again, his gaffes.
25. His negatives cannot be overcome.
26. So, PORK, I’m going to walk out on a limb and say: Senator Kamala Harris will secure the nomination for President.
27. Julian Castro or Cory Booker will be Vice President.
28. A woman and a Hispanic or Black is the democratic dream team.
29. Kamala Harris alone has the good looks.
30. She has the youth.
31. She has the brains.
32. She has the no non-nonsense take no prisoners chutzpah to stand up to POTUS Trump and not just give him a run for his money in debate but also along the campaign trail.
[And while you are at it, lock up the bad actors who colluded with the Russians and created the Russians did it narrative and trashed the country for the last two years.]
[And while you are at it, lock up the bad actors who colluded with the Russians and created the Russians did it narrative and trashed the country for the last two years.]
[And while you are at it, lock up the bad actors who colluded with the Russians and created the Russians did it narrative and trashed the country for the last two years.]
A. BARREL, is AG Barr or Mr. Huber or someone else in the FBI, DOJ, Inspector General, or media taking the time to ask the question “Are there accessories to the various crimes that appear to have been committed against the nation and against POTUS Trump?
B. PORK, what do you mean?
C. Well, BARREL, if you read Peter Sweizer’s investigative journalism and listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh and others, it looks to me like some of the politicians and media owners and journalists and company owners have committed serious crimes and others are accessories to those crimes?
Here are only a few questions: when did
– Chuck Schumer and or
– Nancy Pelosi and or
– Paul Ryan and or
– Mitch McConnell and or
– Peter Strok and or
– Lisa Page and or
– Brennan or
– McCabe or
– Comey or
– Lynch or
– Rice or
– Hillary or
– Brazile or
– Wasserman-Schultz or
– Podestas or
– then POTUS Obama or
– Biden or
– Holder or
– Bill or
– CNN or
– MSNBC or
– the New York Times or
– Washington Post or
– any of the media personalities
– and media owners and management and outlets or
– any of the Senators or
– any from the House know about:
– the Russian collusion fake narrative and
– the fake dossier and
– the FISA warrant scam and
– Uranium One and
– all the Pay to Play money from foreign countries and
– Pay to Play money from Chinese and Russian corporations and
– Email-gate and
– Tech transfers to the Chinese and Russians and
– A billion in cash to the Caliphate, and
– Conspiracy to marginalize a duly elected POTUS?
In other words, did one or more of these folks either know and fail to step forward, or aid and abet, or actually participate, and in the process, and did they enrich themselves at the public trough?
2. BARREL, an accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
3. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
4. The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latinfor “guilty mind”), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus(Latin for “guilty act”).
5. If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose).
6. The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.
15. In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way.
16. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed.
17. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way.
18. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
19. Relative severity of penalties
20. The punishment … for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history.
21. In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime).
22. In others accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal.
23. In some times and places accessories before the fact (i.e., with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (e.g., those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself).
24. Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties.
25. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.
26. Conspiracy
27. In some situations, a charge of conspiracy can be made even if the primary offense is never committed, so long as the plan has been made, and at least one overt act towards the crime has been committed by at least one of the conspirators.
28. For example, if a group plans on forging bank checks, and forges the checks but ultimately does not attempt to cash the checks, the group might still be charged with conspiracy due to the overt act of forgery.
29. Thus, an accessory before the fact will often, but not always, also be considered a conspirator.
30. A conspirator must have been a party to the planning of the crime, rather than merely becoming aware of the plan to commit it and then helping in some way.
31. A person who incites another to a crime will become a part of a conspiracy if agreement is reached, and may then be considered an accessory or a joint principal if the crime is eventually committed.
32. In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an “accessory before the fact”.
33. A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an “accessory after the fact”.
34. A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an “accessory before and after the fact”, but this usage is less common.
35. Criminal facilitation
36. In some jurisdictions, criminal “facilitation” laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability.
37. These include state statutes making it a crime to “provide” a person with “means or opportunity” to commit a crime, “believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime.”[1]
38. Knowledge of the crime
39. To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed.
40. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape.
41. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
42. Usage
43. The term “accessory” derives from the Englishcommon law, and been inherited by those countries with a more or less Anglo-American legal system. The concept of complicity is, of course, common across different legal traditions. The specific terms accessory-before-the-fact and accessory-after-the-fact were used in England and the United States but are now more common in historical than in current usage.
44. United States
45. U.S. jurisdictions (that is, the federal government and the various state governments) have come to treat accessories before the fact differently from accessories after the fact.
46. All U.S. jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the distinction between accessories before the fact and principals, either by doing away with the category of “accessory before the fact” entirely or by providing that accessories before the fact are guilty of the same offense as principals.
47. The Model Penal Code’s definition of accomplice liability includes those who at common law were called accessories before the fact; under the Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals.
48. It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.[2]
53. However, modern U.S. jurisdictions punish accessories after the fact for a separate criminal offense distinct from the underlying crime and having a different (and less severe) punishment.
54. Some states still use the term “accessory after the fact”; others no longer use the term, but have comparable laws against hindering apprehension or prosecution, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, harboring a felon, or the like.
55. Such crimes usually require proving
56. (1) an intent to hinder apprehension or prosecution and
57. (2) actual aid in the form of either
58. (a) harboring the criminal,
59. (b) providing specified means (such as a disguise) to evade arrest,
60. (c) tampering with evidence,
61. (d) warning the criminal of impending arrest, or
62. (e) using force or deception to prevent the arrest.[3]
63. Federal law has followed both these trends.
64. The U.S. Code effectively treats as principals those who would traditionally have been considered accessories before the fact at common law:[4]
65. Whoever
66. aids,
67. abets,
68. counsels,
69. commands,
70. induces or
71. procures
72. the commission of an offense,
73. is punishable as a principal.
74. Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.
75. However, federal law treats accessories after the fact differently from principals.
76. Accessories after the fact face a maximum of only half the fine and half the prison time that principals face.
77. (If the principal faces the death penalty or life imprisonment, accessories after the fact face up to 15 years’ imprisonment.)
78. Federal law defines accessories after the fact as persons who provide criminals with certain aid in order to hinder a criminal’s apprehension or prosecution:[5]
79. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed,
80. receives,
81. relieves,
82. comforts or
83. assists the offender
84. in order to
85. hinder or
86. prevent
87. his apprehension,
88. trial or
89. punishment,
90. is an accessory after the fact.
So Mr. Barr and Mr. Huber, here are only a few questions:
When did
– Chuck Schumer and or
– Nancy Pelosi and or
– Paul Ryan and or
– Mitch McConnell and or
– Peter Strok and or
– Lisa Page and or
– Brennan or
– McCabe or
– Comey or
– Lynch or
– Rice or
– Hillary or
– Brazile or
– Wasserman-Schultz or
– Podestas or
– then POTUS Obama or
– Biden or
– Holder or
– Bill or
– CNN or
– MSNBC or
– the New York Times or
– Washington Post or
– any of the media personalities
– and media owners and management and outlets or
– any of the Senators or
– any from the House know about:
– the Russian collusion fake narrative and
– the fake dossier and
– the FISA warrant scam and
– Uranium One and
– all the Pay to Play money from foreign countries and
– Pay to Play money from Chinese and Russian corporations and
– Email-gate and
– Tech transfers to the Chinese and Russians and
– A billion in cash to the Caliphate, and
– Conspiracy to marginalize a duly elected POTUS?
In other words, did one or more of these folks either know and fail to step forward, or aid and abet, or actually participate, and in the process did they misuse their offices and enrich themselves at the public trough?
SINCE POTUS TRUMP TOOK OFFICE, BARREL, WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE FOR BLACK, HISPANIC, LATINO, JEWISH, CAUCASIAN, ASIAN AMERICANS?
PORK, All the democrats have done during the same time frame is criticize and investigate POTUS Trump.
That’s all.
BARREL, Since he took office, what has POTUS Trump done? For Black, Hispanic, and Latino Americans? Jewish Americans? Native Americans? Asian Americans? Caucasian Americans?
PORK, he has already kept most all of his several hundred campaign promises.
1. Freedom of Religion. He is helping us worship how, where, or what we pleases so long as we do not infringe on rights of others.
2. Freedom of Speech and Education. He is helping us speak without censure of political correctness. Helping us receive all education possible.
3. Freedom to bear arms. He is helping us to protect self, family, and community.
4. Safety. He is improving our military. He is reducing threat and actual terrorism and wars.
5. Safety. He is improving wall and other security at the borders together with a call for more immigrants to come through the front door.
6. Safety. He is improving security by bolstering police forces cross country.
7. Safety. He is protecting against democrat abortion. 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies and 50,000,000+ surgically and 200,000,000+ Native American, Jewish American, Asian American, Caucasian American unborn babies have been chemically killed since democrat Roe v Wade in 1973. NO BLACK OR HISPANIC OR LATINO OR NATIVE AMERICAN OR JEWISH AMERICAN OR ASIAN AMERICAN OR CAUCASIAN AMERICAN, NO ONE, WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT UNTIL THEY JETTISON THEIR HATE CRIME GENOCIDE CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY CRIMINAL POLICY OF KILLING OUR UNBORN CHILDREN.
8. Prosperity. He is generating millions of jobs and a robust economy with fewer regulations and manufacturing in the U.S.
9. Prosperity. He is lowering taxes
10. Prosperity. He is increasing wages and income significantly.
What have democrats done to help us be free? Answer. Nothing.
What have democrats done to help us be safe? Answer. Nothing.
What have democrats done to help us be prosperous? Answer. Nothing.
BARREL, it looks to me that Will Smith hasn’t done his homework. He apparently is funding and pushing the democrat agenda.
Yes, PORK. He apparently doesn’t know that 50,000,000+ unborn Black babies, and 50,000,000+ unborn Hispanic Latino babies, and 200,000,000+ unborn Jewish, Native American, Asian American, Caucasian babies have been surgically and chemically murdered, ripped apart, dismembered, dissolved, poisoned, sold for body parts, flushed, sent to land fills since Democrat Roe v Wade. And now some democrats are extending this same genocide, ultimate hate crime, crime against humanity policy to those unborn babies who are just born.
BARREL, I agree. No one who understands this can vote democrat until the democrats jettison this horrific policy of killing our unborn.
BARREL, take a few minutes and read Richard Linford’s letter to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood’s Chairman Naomi Aberly and President Dr. Leana Wen. It is titled:
ABORTIONS – AMERICA’S UNBORN BABY KILLING FIELDS AND MILLSTONES.
It reads:
The 300,000,000+ unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade tipping point has been reached.
IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.
300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been killed surgically and chemically since Liberal Democrats sponsored Roe v Wade – 50,000,000+ were Black babies. 50,000,000+ were Hispanic babies. 200,000,000+ were Jewish, Native American, Asian American, and Caucasian babies. THE TIPPING POINT LONG AGO WAS REACHED. IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES. Here is how we must do so.
A letter to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and
I served as state chairman and national board member of The National Conference of Christians and Jews [and Muslims]. (NCCJ).
IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES. Here is how we must do so.
Dear Nancy, Naomi, and Leana,
1. 300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been killed (50,000,000+) surgically and (250,000,000+) chemically during the 46 years since 1973 Roe v Wade.
2. 6,521,739+unborn American babies have been killed surgically and chemically on average per year during the 46 years since 1973 Roe v Wade – the equivalent in numbers of a Jewish holocaust per year.
3. 50,000,000+of the 300,000,000 killed were Black babies.
4. 50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000 killed were Hispanic/Latino babies.
5. 200,000,000+of the 300,000,000+ killed were Asian, Caucasian, Jewish, and Native American babies.
6. The 50,000,000+ surgical abortion number was taken from Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute abortion website.
7. 250,000,000+ is the approximate number of babies aborted chemically. Add 50,000,000+ to 250,000,000+ and we have the number 300,000,000+. “* The Guttmacher footnote reads: The [number of] abortions [shown] in the “up-dated daily” counters on this site are almost all “surgical abortions”. We [meaning the Guttmacher Institute and or Planned Parenthood] have made no attempt to tally the totals for “chemically-induced abortions” here [in the counters]. The Pharmacists for Life organization estimates that there have been approximately 250 million babies aborted chemically since 1973 in the USA.http://www.pfli.org/” See http://www.numberofabortions.com/* The abortion numbers for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos were extrapolated.
8. 1,522,802,735+ IS THE NUMBER OF SURGICAL ABORTIONS WORLDWIDE SINCE 1980 according to Guttmacher Institute detail. http://www.numberofabortions.com/
9. THESE NUMBERS ARE CONSERVATIVE.The World Wide abortion counter text says that it gives one of the more conservative estimates of the number of abortions world-wide since 1980.
33. This Wall Street Journal op ed states that in New York City thousands more black babies are aborted each year than are born alive,
34. Jason quotes Jesse Jackson as saying at the time of Roe v Wade in 1973, Abortion is “murder.”
35. Jesse Jackson also said: “[W]e [blacks] used to look for death from the man in the blue coat and now it comes in a white coat.”
36. Blue coat is law enforcement officers. White coat is doctors and nurses who perform abortions.
37. “In the intervening decades, [Jesse’s] views allegedly shifted. “Mr. Jackson [who labors to personify ‘civil rights’] [according to Jason] “abandoned the pro-life ship to run for president in 1984.”
38. Jason states, “leaders of black civil-rights organizations [I add, like Jessee] today are joined at the hip with abortion-rights proponents such as Planned Parenthood.”
39. The killing rate among black mothers is more than three times higher than it is for white mothers.
40. Once again, and paraphrasing, in New York City thousands more black babies are killed by Democrat liberal policies than are born alive each year.
41. Why is this so? Is the truth the fact that Planned Parenthood has placed a number of its abortion clinics in close proximity to the Black community, if not directly in Black neighborhoods, because Black women are more easily talked into having abortions?
42. Is the truth that there has been and still is a conscious Margaret Sanger eugenics genocidal/crime against humanity prejudice against blacks and a concomitant ongoing effort to control the black population? And the Hispanic Latino population?
43. Is it true that Planned Parenthood is “joined at the hip” with and funding Black civil rights organizations, which would obviously facilitate Planned Parenthood’s ability to access the Black community, retain a political climate favoring abortion, while talking Black women into having abortions?
44. Not as an aside, ostensibly to curry favor and gain influence, Planned Parenthood gave Hillary Clinton the Margaret Sanger award, and today, as presciently observed by POTUS Trump during his 2016 debates with Hillary, we see an ever increasing concerted effort to push for abortion on demand, late term abortion, and even efforts to permit infanticide killing of the just born infant.
45. Continuing from Jason and the Wall Street Journal: “Nationally, black women terminate pregnancies at far higher rates than other women.
46. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population.
47. – The [never] discussed flip side of “reproductive freedom” is that
48. – abortion deaths far exceed those via cancer,
49. – abortion deaths far exceed those from violent crime (e.g. Chicago and Baltimore),
50. – abortion deaths far exceed those from heart disease,
51. – abortion deaths far exceed those from AIDS and
52. – abortion deaths far exceed those from accidents.
53. “Racism, poverty and lack of access to health care are [three] typical explanations for these disparities.
54. “… Black women have much higher abortion rates even after you control for income.
55. One argument used to explain away the higher number of Black abortions reads: “The more plausible explanation [has] to do with marriage. Unmarried women are more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, and black women are less likely than their white, Asian and Hispanic counterparts to marry.”But are they?
56. A QUESTION FOR NANCY PELOSI. WHY THE FOCUS ON THE FEW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND LACK OF FOCUS ON THE MILLIONS OF OUR UNBORN WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED NEEDLESSLY?
57. “Why is the Liberal media [and the Democratic Party] more concerned about the children of illegal immigrants and not [at all] concerned about the vast number of unborn Black and Hispanic and other babies who are being killed unceremoniously?
58. Is it true that the Democratic Party has this policy/attitude because the implementation of a policy of favoring illegal immigration holds out the prospect of more democratic votes?
59. Is it true, Nancy, that you and your Democrat colleagues are receiving vast sums of campaign financing money from Planned Parenthood and others with like agendas? Hence your reluctance to rock the Planned Parenthood gravy train?
60. Is the truth also that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are making egregious sums of money from the government for the abortions they perform, not to mention the many sterilizations?
61. Is it true, Nancy, that you received huge campaign financing from Planned Parenthood and this is the reason you invited Dr.Leana Wen, President of Planned Parenthood, to POTUS Trump’s State of the Union address as your guest.
62. If we conducted an audit of your campaign finances Nancy would we find out that you owe Leana in return?
63. Notwithstanding the answers to these questions, what does happen when we interview women who have had an abortion and we ask them about their remorse years later?
64. Do all if not most women regret killing/murdering/aborting their unborn babies? Jason says the answer is YES.
65. What happens when we “Interview fathers who never got to meet their child”? Is there serious regret on their part? The answer again is probably YES for most if not all.
66. Judging from what is done as well by what is said, Nancy, and paraphrasing Jason’s words, are “Democrats and Millennials … being led by the nose by Progressive Liberals [down the abortion trail] and [it is] time to stop the group think [and rethink this whole killing fields 300,000,000+ tipping point matter]?”
67. Reaching the number of 300,000,000+ killings of our unborn constitutes a horrific tipping point!
68. It is time for Democrats to jettison their abortion platform position altogether!
69. YES IT IS.
70. 300,000,000+ killings of our unborn since Roe v Wade means it is finally time for Planned Parenthood to “cut the baby in half” and give up its abortion practice altogether and focus on adoption instead of the killing fields of abortion!
71. YES it is.
72. NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA, WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT OR NOT ABORTION – THE KILLING OF 300,000,000+ OF OUR UNBORN BABIES SINCE ROE v WADE, NOT RUSSIA, NOT NORTH KOREA, NOT IRAN, NOT JOBS, NOT MANUFACTURING, NOT INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT THE BORDER WALL, NOT THE DIVERSIONARY INVESTIGATIONS, IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM OUR NATION FACES.
73. With that in mind, I am asking you, Nancy, Naomi, Leana, and all Democrats, to do an about face, jettison your policy of killing the unborn, and go forward championing the right to life of the unborn plus adoption of those babies who are “not wanted for whatever reason.”
74. BLACKS AND HISPANICS/LATINOS.
75. POTUS Trump has repeatedly promised to help Black American communities.
76. Yet, helping Black Americans is much more than jobs and employment.
77. Evidence is overwhelming that the press and the Liberal Left including most if not all Democrats are far more interested in giving illegal immigrants unfettered access to America than in the immense abortion genocide crime against humanity [and now infanticide] that has plagued our country from its inception.
78. This discussion is not about trimesters and viability, this discussion is about preservation of the Black family.
79. This discussion is about preservation of the Hispanic and Latino family.
80. It is about preservation of all families.
81. This discussion is about Roe v Wade which is the seminal case that triggered the American abortion epidemic which has resulted in the killing of 300,000,000+ of our unborn babies..
82. Given this devastation and destruction caused to Black and Hispanic and Latino and other American families, it does not take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that a fundamental tenet of the Democrat Left is the socialist subordination and final destruction of the family and all social institutions and their replacement with Government — with the socialist globalist elitist agenda being accomplished in large measure by abortion killing on demand and illegal immigration through open borders.
83. Looking at what has been done and what has been said to destroy Black and Hispanic and other families by Democrat liberal policies, it is not hard to conclude with Jason Riley that the destruction of American churches and civic associations and families is an undergirding tenet of the Left as well.
84. I agree with Jason Riley.
85. To the Left it would appear that the all too apparent abortion eugenics genocidal crime against humanity – the destruction of the Black and Hispanic/Latino cultures and communities — is unimportant.
86. While the media and politicians and special counsels divert us voters with their endless investigations, added Black and Hispanic and Latino and other unborn babies are killed.
87. The Democrat Left has this same plan for non-Black and non-Hispanic families as well – my family included as well as yours.
89. THINK ABOUT IT NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA. There are just over 37 Million Black Americans today. Since your Liberal Democrat Roe v Wade abortion policy, 50,000,000+ Black unborn girl and boy babies have been Dismembered/dissolved/killed/murdered/flushed/sent to landfills/used in bizaar experiments/had their spines severed/aborted.
90. Since Democrat Roe v Wade 50,000,000+ Hispanic/Latino unborn girl and boy babies have likewise been killed/murdered/aborted.
91. 50,000,000+ is more than the current Black population in America.
92. 50,000,000+ is barely short of the current Hispanic/Latino population in America.
93. Regardless of any rationalization by you and your Democrat Liberal Left, 300,000,000+ aborted/killed/murdered unborn babies by any stretch of the imagination is a eugenics/genocide/ crime against humanity/and now infanticide – i.e. Virginia; it is a crime or series of crimes against the unborn and now against the just born, at the grossest, most wicked levels, a crime justified in today’s society only by your so-called Democrat liberal Roe v Wade socialist values.
94. Every honest parent or grandparent ought to weep over the unwritten obituaries of the myriad unborn whose lives Liberal Democrat Socialist policies have in secret and unceremoniously snuffed out.
95. Killing of our children is not just a tragedy, Nancy, Naomi, and Leana, murdering our children is criminal activity of the highest order.
96. Such is much, much worse than the plethora of murders in Chicago and Baltimore.
97. All it takes is one look at one photograph of an aborted baby and no person in or out of the Black or Hispanic communities, for that matter in her or his right mind, can rationalize away this corruption of morals and decency.
98. It is inconceivable that a thinking Black, Hispanic, Latino, or person of any other group would vote Democrat until a Democrat Statesman or Stateswoman steps forward within the Democratic party and altogether eliminates this Liberal Democrat abortion policy and initiative.
99. THE CONTROVERSY.
100. On its surface, this controversy swirls around what you have conveniently named “reproductive rights” or “a woman’s right to choose.” What is on the abortion operating table though is the “reproductive wrongs” not the “reproductive rights.”
101. What is at stake is the unborn baby’s right to life not a woman’s right to pleasure or comfort or “her own body.” Even more than this, what is at stake is the future of our nation.
102. What is at stake is the right of the Black Community not to be destroyed by this continuing eugenics genocide/crime against their humanity/and now infanticide.
103. What is at stake is the right of the Hispanic and Latino Community, the right of all peoples, not to be destroyed in like fashion.
104. THINK ABOUT YOUR PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROPAGANDA DRIVEN AGENDA AND ECONOMICS.
105. Abortion providers including Planned Parenthood take in more than a billion dollars annually and multi-billions of dollars of revenue over time and in the main for performing abortions.
106. By simple definition, you are killing babies for money.
107. Horrific forced and so-called voluntary sterilization of ethnic communities also generates part of your revenue and is another discussion altogether and not included as part of this discussion.
108. The subject of Sterilization in America awaits a courageous set of New York Times or Fox News or for that matter CNN journalists.
109. The U.S. government provides multi-millions of dollars annually and billions over time to abortion providers including those of you at Planned Parenthood.
110. From your annual report, Naomi, which you signed, and which is online, we read: “After 102 years, Planned Parenthood’s mission remains the same: to provide care, no matter what. Last year, our more than 600 health centers provided that care – which includes birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, safe and legal abortion, and so much more – to 2.4 million people across the country.”
111. First, although an abortion may in certain jurisdictions and under certain conditions be “lawful,” there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.
112. Second, you write “We will continue building a world where all people have access to “Care.” No matter what.”
113. Is this prevarication? Yes it is. The word prevarication is a fancy way to say lie.
114. Let’s be truthful. What you are saying is that you will continue building a world where all people have access to abortion on demand. No matter what.
115. Third, you pitch a second propaganda lie that 12 million Americans are in favor of killing, murdering, selling or donating body parts, flushing, sending to land fills, splitting of spinal cords, of our unborn.
116. Your report then obfuscates in stating that “Medication abortion [is] available in 357 health centers.
117. Ladies, there is no such thing as “Medication abortion.”
118. You and or your PR handlers made up this phrase “Medication abortion.”
119. Use of the phrase “Medication abortion” is propaganda and obfuscation.
120. There is no such thing as “Medication abortion” and you know it.
121. This is prevarication at its finest.
122. Your Planned Parenthood report further documents its initiative to “expand reproductive rights in Latin America and into Africa.
123. The Planned Parenthood world-wide agenda is to foster abortion on demand throughout all nations thereby expanding the abortion genocide crimes against humanity killing fields exponentially.
124. The code words you use are “access to care.” That phrase as you use it primarily and simply means “access to kill an unborn baby on demand.”
125. You characterize yourself and your constituents as “Defenders.”
126. Again, this is smokescreen propaganda.
127. You aren’t defending anything except what can only be construed as your billion dollar gravy train.
128. Your policies and actions have resulted in the murder, killing, abortion of 300,000,000+ of our unborn baby girls and boys.
129. At the same time you have banked amazing wealth.
130. All the while the Democratic Party is influenced by your campaign contributions.
131. Another lie, and one no doubt set to galvanize your funding support base, is that people like Judge Kavanaugh and others are in the business of denying legitimate health care. Not so.
132. No one is in the business of denying legitimate health care.
133. You have redefined the words “legitimate health care” by conflating abortion with healthcare.
134. Abortion is not “health care.”
135. Abortion is killing the unborn for an annual revenue sum of $1,665,000,000.
136. Abortion is killing unborn babies, all the while diverting us with discussions about ethereal points along the gestation continuum, and unending investigations, for money.
137. Your report shows annual revenues of $1,665,000,000 at minimum, more than a third of which came from “Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants.”
138. Yes, ladies, as you well know, that is a billion and a half dollars.
139. Notwithstanding your 501 C3 and 501 C4, anyone who suggests that your abortion industry and the abortion industry in general is an eleemosynary charity and not big business is lying or has his or her head in the sand not wanting to do or acknowledge or handle the truth. And obviously you do provide some added services to women.
140. To protect and augment your government and privately funded gravy train, your report shows that you spent:
141. $45,000,000 for Public Policy, [Looks like lobbyists are making huge sums from your abortion initiatives.]
142. $13,000,000 to engage communities [Looks like an excuse to fund local abortion initiatives and organizations], and
143. $76,000,000 for Advocacy, [Looks like law and accounting firms are making huge sums from abortion.]
144. $193,500,000 for management and general, [Looks like you and your board and your management are making serious salaries and vast sums from your abortion initiatives] plus
145. $102,000,000 for fundraising and at the end of the day you had
146. $244,000,000 of excess revenue over expenses, just in one year, which you banked or turned over to investment bankers who manage your portfolio.
147. IS THERE CAUSE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND CLASS ACTION CIVIL SUITS?
148. I think so. Yes, there is. Complete with attendant auditing and deep discovery.
149. I am an attorney at law and I think I know a set of potential winnable cases when I see them.
150. Given the 300,000,000+ number, it is not difficult at all to conclude that Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party and those supporting and performing and funding abortions may well be guilty of the evil crimes of Genocide, the grossest Crimes Against Humanity, and now even Infanticide – all actions that warrant criminal prosecution and civil class actions.
151. Given the 300,000,000+ number, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that pro-abortion legislators and judges, and abortion providers including Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party, yourselves included, and some misguided persons and companies who provide you with funding, including no doubt a number of closet liberal republicans, may be individually and collectively guilty of these same crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity – and now even infanticide crimes [i.e. Virginia] against the just born – not to mention the crimes for harming women who have been talked if not conned into having an abortion – again, it is not difficult to suggest the need for the DOJ to take a hard look at possible criminal prosecution and for law firms across the country to take a hard look at filing civil class actions.
152. It took years for the government and nation to get the act together so as to focus on the tobacco industry.
153. At some point there was a tipping point and Ladies 300,000,000+ is tipping point.
154. The ordinary meaning of genocide is murder of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.
155. Has the government or Planned Parenthood fostered and funded the murder of ethnic, racial, or religious groups? Looks like both have done so.
156. Can government officers and the Planned Parenthood Board and officers hide behind any shield when it comes to genocide and crimes against humanity and infanticide? I think not.
157. Does killing 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies since Roe v Wade in 1973 constitute a eugenics driven genocide crime against the Black community? Probably does.
158. How about 50,000,000+ Hispanic/Latino unborn babies? Likewise.
159. How about 200,000,000+ Jewish, Native American, Asian, Caucasian unborn babies? Looks like it.
160. How many deaths, how many murders, how many killings of our unborn children and grandchildren is enough to reach the tipping point so as to generate a formal repudiation of all abortion and formal criminal charges and massive class action civil lawsuits?
161. Are 300,000,000+ killings enough? Absolutely.
162. Are 50,000,000+ killings enough? Yes.
163. Are 200,000,000+ killings enough? Absolutely.
164. Should the FBI and Department of Justice take on the abortion industry like they took on the Tobacco industry and investigate the abortion industry carefully and work together to issue indictments? Yes they should.
165. THE TIPPING POINT WAS REACHED LONG AGO.
166. Notwithstanding, the tipping point has now been reached what with 300,000,000+ killings.
167. I predict aggressive pro-life litigators will take on the task of digging up and harrowing these Planned Parenthood and other abortion killing fields to the tune of billions of dollars if not trillions.
168. Is it time for POTUS Trump and the DOJ to appoint a special counsel to investigate the abortion infanticide sterilization industry and its ties to the Democratic Party. The 300,000,000+ tipping point has been reached. Bring on the special counsel. I for one would welcome such an appointment.
169. LADIES, WHAT IS GENOCIDE AND WHAT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?
170. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people [babies], especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
171. Synonyms are
172. racial killing,
173. massacre,
174. wholesale slaughter,
175. mass slaughter,
176. wholesale killing,
177. indiscriminate killing,
178. mass murder,
179. mass homicide,
180. mass destruction,
181. annihilation,
182. extermination,
183. elimination,
184. liquidation,
185. eradication,
186. decimation,
187. butchery,
188. bloodbath,
189. bloodletting,
190. pogram,
191. ethnic cleansing,
192. Holocaust,
193. AMERICAN SKIRTS ARE NOT CLEAN CONSIDERING THE GENOCIDE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY KILLING FIELDS INVOLVING OUR NATIVE AMERICANS.
194. A few minute study and one is hard pressed to deny that America is charged with the largest genocide in world history – with the killing of several millions of Native Americans.
195. I ask you three ladies, what is the difference between killing off 70,000,000 indigenous Native American people and killing 300,000,000+ unborn babies – 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies and 50,000,000+ Hispanic and Latino unborn babies and 200,000,000+ Jewish, Native American, Asian American, Caucasian American unborn babies?
196. This same genocidal crime against humanity policy is continued today against Native Americans in the guise of Planned Parenthood and government sponsored abortions and sterilizations of Native Americans.
197. But again, forced or heavily encouraged sterilization is a discussion topic for another day and no doubt for litigation as well.
198. “Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginal population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history, and “there was, at last, almost no one left to kill.”[47] [Divide 76 million by 6 million and what do you get? You get 12.6 holocausts.]
199. “According to anthropologist Russell Thornton, for the American Indians “the arrival of the Europeans marked the beginning of a long holocaust, although it came not in ovens, as it did for the Jews.
200. “The fires that consumed North America Indians were the fevers brought on by newly encountered diseases, the flashes of settlers’ and soldiers’ guns, the ravages of “firewater,” the flames of villages and fields burned by the scorched-earth policy of vengeful Euro-Americans.”[61]
204. Does this genocidal crimes against humanity killing continue today in America, only in a different form and disguise?
205. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now [i.e. Virginia] that of infanticide of Native American babies?
206. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticide of Black American babies?
207. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticide of Hispanic and Latino American babies?
208. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticides of Jewish and Native American, and Indian, and Asian and Caucasian unborn babies?
209. Does it continue in the forced and heavily encouraged sterilizations, again a topic for another day?
210. Sure it does.
211. AMERICAN SKIRTS ARE NOT CLEAN CONSIDERING THE GENOCIDE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY KILLING FIELDS OF SLAVERY AND OUR BLACKS.
212. Historically, “estimates by Patrick Manning are that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic [slave] trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans … died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning’s estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[68]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll
213. LADIES, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE?
214. Article 6 of the Rome Statute defines the crime of “genocide” as any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or, religious group.
219. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
220. Murder;
221. Extermination;
222. Enslavement;
223. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
224. Imprisonment or
225. Other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
226. Torture;
227. Rape,
228. sexual slavery,
229. enforced prostitution,
230. forced pregnancy,
231. enforced sterilization [a topic for another day],
232. or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
233. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on
234. political,
235. racial,
236. national,
237. ethnic,
238. cultural,
239. religious,
240. gender as defined in paragraph 3,
241. or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law,
242. in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
243. Enforced disappearance of persons;
244. The crime of apartheid;
245. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing
246. great suffering,
247. or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
248. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
249. ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State [the USA] or organizational [Planned Parenthood and Democratic Party] policy to commit such attack;
250. Elements of a Crime against Humanity. According to Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity do not need to be linked to an armed conflict and can also occur in peacetime, similar to the crime of genocide.
251. This same Article provides a definition of the crime that contains the following main elements:
252. A physical element, which includes the commission of “any of the following acts”:
253. Murder;
254. Extermination;
255. Enslavement;
256. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
257. Imprisonment;
258. Torture;
259. Grave forms of sexual violence;
260. Persecution;
261. Enforced disappearance of persons;
262. The crime of apartheid;
263. Other inhumane acts.
264. A contextual element: “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” [against Blacks? Against Hispanics? Against Native Americans? Of course.]; and
265. A mental element: “with knowledge of the attack”
266. The contextual element determines that crimes against humanity involve either large-scale violence in relation to the number of victims –
267. [Does 300,000,000+ qualify? How about 50,000,000+? Sure they do.]
268. [Is this the tipping point? Of course it is.] –
269. or its extension over a broad geographic area (widespread),
270. or a methodical type of violence (systematic).
271. This excludes random, accidental or isolated acts of violence.
272. [No one can argue that abortion is a random, or accidental, or isolated act of violence.]
273. In addition, Article 7(2)(a) of the Rome Statute determines that crimes against humanity must be committed in furtherance of a State [USA] or organizational [Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party] policy to commit an attack.
274. The plan or policy does not need to be explicitly stipulated or formally adopted and can, therefore, be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.
275. In contrast with genocide, crimes against humanity do not [even] need to target a specific group.
276. [There is no question but what Blacks are targeted and Hispanics and Latinos are targeted. There is no question but what Native Americans are targeted.]
277. Instead, the victim of the attack can be any civilian population,
278. regardless of its affiliation or identity.
279. Another important distinction is that in the case of crimes against humanity, it is not necessary to prove that there is an overall specific intent.
280. It suffices for there to be a simple intent to commit any of the acts listed,
281. with the exception of the act of persecution, which requires additional discriminatory intent.
282. The perpetrator must also act with knowledge of the attack against the civilian population and that his/her action is part of that attack.
283. [1] For example, William Schabas, Unimaginable Atrocities – Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2012 – p. 51-53.
284. [2] For example, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999, p.62
285. SO LADIES, IT IS TIME.
286. THE TIPPING POINT HAS ARRIVED.
287. IT IS TIME TO PROHIBIT AND ELIMINATE ABORTION ALTOGETHER EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.
288. IT IS TIME TO RECOGNIZE ABORTION FOR WHAT IT IS – THE GENOCIDE AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND NOW INFANTICIDE KILLING AND MURDER OF OUR UNBORN?
289. YES IT IS.
290. IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THIS CANCEROUS TUMOR FROM AMERICA’S HEAD.
291. IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THIS ALBATROSS, THIS MILLSTONE, FROM AROUND THE NECKS OF THE BLACK AND HISPANIC AND OTHER COMMUNITIES?
292. It is time to do so:
293. Because it is the morally right thing to do.
294. Because it is the ethically right thing to do.
295. Because it is the legally and Constitutionally right thing to do.
296. Because it is the philosophically right thing to do.
297. Because it is the socially right thing to do.
298. Because it is the theologically/religiously right thing to do.
299. THE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED AND IT IS TIME TO CUT OUT THIS CANCER AND ELIMINATE THIS SCOURGE.
300. NOW IS THE TIME.
301. LADIES, THIS DISCUSSION WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE UNLESS I TAKE A MINUTE AND PUT IT IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF ITS THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS.
302. Whether you are a believer or not, the Holy Scriptures teach that you and I are daughters and sons of heavenly parents.
303. Scriptures teach that we lived with our heavenly parents prior to our mortality and that we have always had and always will have our same general appearance, identity and personality.
304. We did not just flare into existence at conception or at some time during our gestation prior to our physical birth.
305. The birth process is the DNA driven process by which we came and our unborn come from heaven into mortality.
306. Scriptures teach that every unborn child is a spirit child of God, and like it or not you are my sisters and I am your brother.
307. Your mortality is very short and usually too short, as is mine.
308. Mortality is your very short God given “out of His presence” individually designed test of your and my character.
309. As such, it is easy to conclude that if we are in favor of, and if we knowingly foster and promote and perform, the killing of our spirit sisters and brothers, if we are in favor of killing and in fact are engaged in killing our unborn babies, we are failing our mortal test badly at the moment.
310. Notwithstanding, we still have some time left in mortality before our death.
311. Scriptures testify that this life is the very short time to repent and prepare once again to meet our Heavenly Father and His Son when we die where we will be judged according to our thoughts, words, and actions.
312. Luke 17:2 reads “It were better for him [or her after mortality] that a millstone were hanged about his [or her] neck, and he [or she be] cast into the sea, than that he [or she] should offend one of these little ones.”
313. So how much does a millstone weigh? The weight of a biblical millstone is no light matter. It is as much as 1,500 kilograms or 3,300 pounds.
314. Jesus the Christ is saying if we harm a little unborn baby girl or baby boy the penalty is far worse than death by drowning with a millstone of 3,300 pounds hanged about our neck!
315. This thought is sobering and worth thinking deeply about as both moral construct and theological constraint.
316. This is also of consequence given the fact that for those who take time and have eyes to see it is increasingly apparent that end times are upon the world and Christ will descend from his throne in heaven and return in fearsome great glory and power in the not too distant future to judge you and me and the world.
317. Read Revelation 19 and Matthew 25 if you are not afraid of a “Come to Jesus” sobering read.
318. So because all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God, ladies, we would all do well to repent of our sins today.
319. So I ask you, Nancy, Naomi, and Leana, are you three women willing to leave as your legacy the fact that you and your liberal democrat policies and friends caused untold pain, suffering, and death to millions of unborn babies and their mothers and other family members and at the same time run the risk of having to explain your actions at the judgment bar of God when you die? I think not. I think you are smarter than that.
320. How many unborn baby killings/murders/deaths are we as a nation willing to stomach before we and your Liberal Democrat political party, and your Planned Parenthood Board, and your leadership officers and medical providers turn this around and eliminate altogether this 300,000,000+ scourge and 3,300 pound millstone around the neck of our nation altogether?
321. IN SUMMARY.
322. THE TIPPING POINT OF 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.
323. THE TIPPING POINT OF 50,000,000+ UNBORN BLACK BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.
324. THE TIPPING POINT OF 50,000,000+ UNBORN HISPANIC AND LATINO BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.
325. I predict serious criminal prosecutions and civil class action suits are waiting in the wings.
326. It is time to turn this matter around while there is still patience.
327. It is time to voluntarily cease and desist committing abortions altogether except in extreme instances.
328. It is time for great statesmen and stateswoman politicians and great lawyers and great law firms to stand up and be counted and take whatever government investigations, special counsels, criminal and civil case actions are necessary.
329. IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE THE SCOURGE OF ABORTION COMPLETELY.
330. THE 300,000,000+ TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED.
331. The horrific internet pictures and facts about abortion can no longer be kept in the closet.
332. We are long past the time when the Democratic Political Party of abortion and the Planned Parenthood organizational policies and complicit medical and pharmaceutical providers can get away with killing/murdering/ripping apart/sending to landfills/flushing/using tiny body parts in bizaar experiments/severing spinal cords/ selling body parts/committing abortions with impunity and behind closed doors.
333. 300,000,000+ IS THE TIPPING POINT, LADIES.
334. The abortion party and its gravy train is over whether you acknowledge this fact of unborn life or not.
335. THESE ARE RATIONAL SOLUTIONS!
336. IT IS PAST TIME for all Democrats if for no other reason than self-preservation to jettison their current abhorrent abortion policy and eliminate all abortion except in extremely rare cases.
337. IT IS PAST TIME for all Americans to ‘LOVE’ all of our unborn babies regardless of ethnicity, to “LOVE” our precious little ones who are incapable of protecting themselves.
338. IT IS PAST TIME for Planned Parenthood and all abortion providers to stop this abhorrent practice of abortion and instead focus their treasure and energies on adoption.
339. IT IS PAST TIME for POTUS to declare a national holiday of freedom and independence from abortion – to celebrate the freedom and right to life of our defenseless children, born and unborn.
340. IT IS PAST TIME for Congress to pass a WE LOVE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on these inalienable rights and principles:
340.1. We LOVE and TREASURE our CHILDREN, born and unborn.
340.2. Each of our children, born or unborn, is guaranteed her or his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
340.3. No person or organization may traffic in or harm our children, born or unborn without consequence.
340.4. No person may commit or perform an abortion or infanticide, or accept remuneration of any kind for an abortion or infanticide.
340.5. No abortion may be performed on our unborn children, except as agreed to by the mother in the case of incest, rape, or to protect the health of the mother.
340.6. Each and every child is to be brought to term and where the mother elects not to care for or is incapable of caring for the child, that child is to be placed for adoption.
341. IT IS PAST TIME for Congress to strengthen and approve criminal statutes making it illegal for anyone to traffic in children, or perform or take or give remuneration of any kind for an abortion except as approved by the mother, in the case of incest, rape, or to protect the health of the mother, under penalty of a fine of $X and imprisonment of not less than Y years.
THE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED, NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA.
IT IS TIME TO CEASE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.
Best personal regards, Richard W. Linford r.linford@comcast.net
Sarah Sanders, Barrel and I have been thinking about your press conferences. We suggest that you orchestrate your press conferences more often than not to focus on how POTUS Trump is solving real problems for BLACKS and HISPANICS and LATINOS and WOMEN and OTHERS – documenting specifically how POTUS Trump is keeping his promises to us – and in the process seldom call on Jim Acosta and those who carry a negative trash agenda. Why continue to give them an international forum so they can argue and bash you and POTUS Trump? Jim has opened his mouth enough already. Others are of the same ilk. You know who they are. We are tired of the democrat negative, negative, negative. Call on others. You are remiss to call on him. And while you are at it you can show on the visual counter
In the meantime while POTUS Trump is solving world problems and while you are keeping us up-date on how POTUS Trump is keeping his promises, let’s marinalize if not jettison Jim Acosta and any others like him who are trashing POTUS Trump.
POTUS TRUMP is a builder. He ought to take a look at this 3D house printing technology. Think of what this technology means in the aftermath of a major disaster. Think of what this means world-wide. Think about what this can mean to the homeless everywhere. Maybe the wall can be printed.
Again, how about using part of your press conference to focus on positive things we can do to solve the millennial problems that plague us, Sarah? Let’s make a difference?
Again, how about cutting Jim Acosta and others like him off at the pockets and not calling on them? Jim is one of the wolves in the wood pile. He is a light weight. His continual negative diatribes have been inane. He is wasting your time and ours. He has no credentials and no business monopolizing your time and that of the nation.
Let’s solve some problems and show the nation how POTUS Trump keeps his promises – including building the wall. Let’s be specific about promises kept. Let’s keep track of how many of them have been kept with a running visual counter.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
And while you are at it Sarah and POTUS Trump, keep in mind these facts about ABORTION and ELIMINATE IT. FOCUS ON ADOPTION.
IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS SINCE ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES KILLED.
OUR CRY SHOULD BE ADOPTION NOT ABORTION.
WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE DEMOCRAT, FOR THAT MATTER SPECIFICALLY WHY WOULD BLACKS AND HISPANICS VOTE DEMOCRAT AS LONG AS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR BLACK AND HISPANIC GENOCIDAL ABORTION POLICIES INCLUDING THEIR MOST RECENT LATE TERM ABORTION AND EVEN POST BIRTH ABORTION POLICIES? Richard William “Wilberforce” Linford.
BARREL, POTUS Trump is going to make a major announcement from the Oval Office on Saturday. What do you think he is going to say?
PORK, I don’t speak for POTUS Trump but I know what I hope he says.
What is that BARREL?
1. I hope he lays the blame for the deaths by illegals and the deaths from drugs coming across the border and the economic chaos and personal loss caused by illegals stealing jobs from Hispanics and Blacks especially and the immense cost to the nation that these illegals are costing the American tax payer squarely on the democrats and in particularly on Nancy and Chuck.
2. I hope he makes it clear that nobody, and I mean nobody, is against immigration as long as all who come into our country come in by the front door and are vetted and e-verified.
3. I hope he declares a military emergency to protect the country and tasks the Army Corps of Engineers to pull all stops and build the wall with help from contractors and have it completed within the next 3 months.
4. I hope he shares the statistics about what is happening, how many are coming across, how many are criminals, how many are trafficking in children and women, the rapes and injuries to so many women and children, the fact that the caravans are made up of young men mainly who make up a military force.
5. I hope he assigns the military to the border and seals the border as of Saturday afternoon.
6. I hope in all this he doesn’t even give Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi the time of day because of their perfidy. These are people who voted for closed borders in the past how many times and now will not provide him with a measly $6 billion to protect the country simply because he was elected and their flawed candidate was not.
7. I hope he reopens the government at the same time. The time for all negotiation is long past. The democrats have dug their own grave by failing to protect the country. Now they can lie in it.
BARREL, did Nancy lose? Yes she did, PORK, and big time. POTUS Trump pulled her plug and refused to let her and her entourage take military jets. Blocked them at the airport a hour before take off. A comeuppance for her amazingly rude behavior in trying to block POTUS from delivering his State of the Union message wherein he would lay all blame for the government shutdown and the deaths by illegal aliens and the drug deaths from drugs crossing the border off on Nancy and Chuck and the democrats. Prevented her from leaving before the second paycheck to government employees is due. Now she has no excuse for not negotiating a settlement. If she doesn’t perform and give POTUS Trump his wall, she will be hung with the responsibility for denying the government employees their paychecks. The American people are smart. They know she is the fly in the ointment.
PORK, POTUS Trump can deliver his State of the Union from the Senate. He can deliver his State of the Union on television and he will reach 50 million people with his message which is that the democrats do not care to protect the American people, that the democrats do not care for the government workers.
BARREL, Howard Stern and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer need to read this article which top notes the level of violence that further makes the case for a wall – and not a steel one that can be sawed through.
1. “In an area known for its gruesome violence, 20 bodies were found near the Mexican border city of Nuevo Laredo on Wednesday.
2. “Most all of them, 17, were burned.
3. “The discovery, reported by Reuters, marks the latest in grisly murders that have plagued the northern state of Tamaulipas – next to the U.S. border – in large part because of drug cartels.
4. “The city of Nuevo Laredo itself borders the Rio Grande, directly across the river from Laredo, Texas.
5. “Hundreds of bodies have been found in unmarked graves over the years. And while much of the crime is blamed on warring cartels, some of it also is believed to have occurred at the hands of the Mexican Marines.
6. “More than 200 Marines were dispatched to the area to try to control violence in the area.
7. “But after gunmen attacked three Marine patrols last year, the violence surged.
9. “Aside from the frequent discovery of mutilated bodies in the area, more than 5,000 people are missing in Tamaulipas, the newspaper reports.
10. “Violence in the area soared after the Sinaloa cartel, which had been led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, established its presence there to control smuggling routes between the Nueva Laredo region and U.S., a key drug trafficking spot along the border.
11. “But after Guzman was extradited to the U.S. in 2017 to stand trial in New York, the cartel split into factions that engaged in bloody battles to wrest control of the lucrative route.
12. “A 2018 Congressional Research Service report noted: “A new transnational criminal organization, Cartel Jalisco-New Generation, which split from Sinaloa in 2010, has sought to become dominant with brutally violent techniques.”
13. “The report added: “In 2017, Mexico reached its highest number of total intentional homicides in a year, exceeding, by some counts, 29,000 murders.
14. “In the 2017-2018 election period that opened in September 2017 and ran through June 12, 2018, 114 candidates and politicians were killed allegedly by crime bosses and others in an effort to intimidate public office holders.”
PORK, POTUS Trump made his case last night from the Oval Office. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are either lying or don’t know what they are talking about when they refuse to fund the wall. Walls work. Annually, the wall will prevent 200,000 to 1.7 million from invading the country. It will press all who want to enter to do so through the front door where they can be vetted and e-verified. Why should POTUS TRUMP declare an emergency and assign the military to build the wall today?
BARREL, he needs to do so today. Here are 24 clear and indisputable reasons why we need the wall immediately. Some of these reasons appear to be redundant. Not so. Each reason is rational and worthy of its own thoughtful explanation. The wall is for the safety of America. It does and will
1. Prevent crime.
2. Prevent drugs.
3. Prevent between 200,000 to 1,700,000 illegals from entering the U.S. annually.
4. Prevent the massive social services effort and expenses required to pay for illegals.
5. Prevent terrorists.
6. Prevent military and non-military invasion of the U.S.
7. Prevent abuse of the rule of law and order.
8. Prevent caravans from forming and moving to the border.
9. Prevent night or daytime illegal crossings hard to detect by border patrol.
10. Prevent women and children and families from making the horrific journey through deserts and cartel territories without food, shelter and security.
11. Prevent the raping of and other violence to women and children who are gulled by traffickers or their own misinformation into making the journey.
12. Prevent smugglers from lying and taking great sums of money and property from families and individuals to smuggle them across the border.
13. Prevent deaths and injuries and illness of those making the journey by discouraging dangerous migration.
14. Prevent the prosecution and separation of those coming to America by funneling them through ports of entry and U.S. embassies in their own countries.
15. Prevent human trafficking and prostitution of those making the journey.
16. Prevent infiltration of America by cartels, gangs, drug dealers, human traffickers. and non-U.S. military forces.
17. Prevent vehicles and trucks from crossing our borders illegally.
18. Prevent those coming, slowing them down, so border patrol has time to apprehend them.
19. Prevent bringing significant supplies and military equipment and dangerous materials into the U.S. covertly.
20. Prevent damage to the environment by vehicles crossing the border illegally.
21. Prevent pollution and littering and tearing up of plant life and disturbing drainage and harming wild and domestic animals.
22. Prevent invasion of private homes and property and businesses along the border.
23. Prevent harm, the ravages of theft and burglary and violence, to individuals and families and business owners and businesses and animals along the border.
24. Prevent criminal activity and violence, drugs and burglary and theft, from spilling over from the Mexico cities along the border which are ranked as the most dangerous cities in the world.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are either lying or don’t know what they are talking about when they refuse to fund the wall. Walls work. BARREL & PORK.
BARREL, I have come up with this three part description honoring POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump, and this same description is a blueprint for every country leader in the world.
What is it, PORK?
BARREL, if POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump continue on track, keeping their promises to us, building the wall, stopping the invasion, generating jobs, lowering taxes, prosecuting those who have abused their elected or paid offices, history will show that POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump are two of the greatest most honorable national and world leaders.
1. FREE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused [including a strong military] on helping us enjoy INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion – letting the people worship how where or what they may so long as they don’t force others to worship as they do.
2. SAFE. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us and our children and unborn be SAFE – safe from terrorism, safe from crime, safe from invasion, safe from war, safe from abortion, safe from human trafficking, safe from predator politicians, safe from physical or emotional or intellectual or sexual or other abuse.
3. PROSPEROUS. These two great and honorable leaders are focused on helping us be PROSPEROUS with adequate health care, education, entrepreneurial opportunities, manufacturing in country, minimal taxation, and jobs.
BARREL, every country should be free and independent. I have 52 REASONS Why the United Kingdom should leave the European Union and regain its “INDEPENDENCE,” “FREEDOM,” and “SOVEREIGNTY” AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, and if the current PM won’t or is incapable of making it happen, then vote in a new one who will help the people be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, BARREL.
ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. The British people are angry with David Cameron and Theresa May because they have not been firm in support of the INDEPENDENCE, SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, SAFETY, and PROSPERITY of the British people. Their compromises are problematic to say the least.
ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. Tensions among the British people are at a breaking point regarding the wave of asylum seekers and migrants invading from the Middle East and Africa.
CONTROL. Leaving most if not all onerous control by EU institutions is a primary reason for leaving the EU. Freedom to choose for oneself no matter the consequences is at the heart of BREXIT independence.
CONTROL. The idea that laws governing British citizens are decided by politicians from other nations is troubling at best. The EU polygamous relationships between the countries tends to be counterproductive.
COST OF BELONGING TO THE EU. The budget contribution for the EU is onerous and without commensurate benefits.
CUSTOMS. Remaining in the EU customs union is problematical given EU customs regulations.
ECONOMICS. Economics is a reason. Britain’s privileged position is under threat from Germany and France and others. Contrary to some opinions, competitiveness as between European “states” is often heightened and not mitigated by EU involvement.
ECONOMICS. Financial and economic regulations are onerous.
ECONOMICS. Non-euro currencies (e.g. the pound) are at risk.
ECONOMICS. There are limitations to an EU single market.
ECONOMICS. There is lack of financial control and autonomy.
EU BUREAUCRACY. The European Union’s excessive “German and Belgium and French” globalist bureaucracy is problematical and often antithetical to the values and interests of the UK.
EU CONTROL. The European Union is highly controlling.
EU CONTROLS FRONTIERS. Frontiers of the state of Britain, including fishing waters, are curtailed at a European level.
EU AS GLOBALIST INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES. UK National sovereignty is marginalized, minimized, jeopardized by globalist agendas. Nationalism is a virtue not a vice as globalists would have one believe.
EU DYSFUNCTION. The European Union is highly dysfunctional.
EU EURO. The common euro currency threatens the pound.
EU IS EXCESSIVELY BUREAUCRACTIC.
EU LACK OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. The European Union’s lack of democratic accountability is discomfiting.
EU SUPERSTATE. The British people are suspicious of a political union with the rest of Europe because the thrust and agenda is toward a “global” and “globalist” “European superstate” including an EU military, ostensibly to compete with the United States, or to counter threats from those within or without the EU.
EXPENSE. The expense of participation is onerous without commensurate benefits.
HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS. UK has historical connections with many other parts of the world from its past empire and commonwealth relationships and is quite capable of making its own treaties and trade arrangements.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Asylum seekers are not remaining in the first EU country they enter as promised.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration is increasing while paying lip service to its reduction. The immigration waves have all the earmarks of an invasion of the west.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration policy is unclear and favors open borders, and unvetted cross-country movement, each of which threaten Great Britain’s identity as a people.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Remaining in the EU Single Market and submitting to EU requirements mandating free movement of people from anywhere in the EU without careful vetting is extremely risky, causing more problems than it is worth and makes no sense.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The border-free Schengen area is problematic to say the least. It comprises 26 European states that have abolished passports and all forms of border control. With the movement of peoples unchecked this a recipe for terrorist and military disaster.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The idea and practice of free movement across borders throughout Europe is fraught with perils including conflicts with cultures and religions and economic interests.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The wave of asylum seekers – the EU’s open borders plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa – is disturbing and destabilizing.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. An invasion of vast numbers of people is moving uncontrolled without proper vetting or control across the continent, with the result that many are taking over enclaves in the UK.
IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Limits on the number of migrants are discussed but are not implemented.
INDEPENDENCE. Leaving the EU means the UK will jettison the globalist agenda and be more nearly independent and will take responsibility for its own economy, security, and laws.
LANGUAGE BARRIERS. Language difficulties are significant given the unchecked immigration/migration/invasion.
PRINCIPLES. No deal is indeed better than a bad deal. No deal, if it comes to that, simply means Great Britain will be independent.
REGULATIONS. Standardization of everything from labor regulations to the size of olive oil containers threatens Europe with persistent low growth and high unemployment.
REGULATIONS. Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty required official notification of the EU by the UK government, and PM May triggered the article on March 29, 2017.
REGULATIONS. Disentangling the UK from EU regulations though difficult is doable and contrary to some opinions is not a major problem in “settling the status of millions of UK citizens residing in the EU and non-EU citizens in the UK”and although it will require present and future UK-EU security cooperation, the final withdrawal deal approved “by a super majority of EU countries” has bearing on the EU and is irrelevant to the European Parliament.” Whoever permits the provision requiring a “super majority approval,” as an excuse for preventing Great Britain from withdrawing, deserves significant opprobrium.
REGULATIONS. EU laws and regulations are onerous. Independence, indeed separateness, and the common law, is a primary source of strength of Great Britain.
REGULATIONS. Opt-outs have failed to protect UK interests.
REGULATIONS. Reduction of EU regulations has not been forthcoming.
REGULATIONS. There is limited ability to negotiate with the EU.
SOVEREIGNTY. “Ever closer union with EU “states”” is antithetical to British independence and sovereignty.
SOVEREIGNTY. Destruction of national sovereignty by the globalist agenda has been a result of getting involved with the EU.
SOVEREIGNTY. Reclaiming independence and sovereignty is a primary reason for leaving the EU.
STATUS of the UK. The UK did not lose the first or second world war and was not invaded during the second world war either. The UK has a unique history having just recently ceded control over large areas of the world. With its penchant for industry, its economic system, and its common law system, it is destined for continued greatness, which is best realized by being independent and by not ceding its options to the EU governing board comprised of Germany, France, Belgium and others.
STATUS of the UK. The UK was not invaded during second world war.
STATUS of the UK. The UK was victorious in second world war. Now territorial ambitions of other actors, including those who lost the second world war, appear to be realized by so-called “peaceful migration” which by any other definition is simple invasion.
TERRORISM. EU nationals traveled to Syria to fight with the self-proclaimed Islamic State and now many have returned with their radical ideas and terrorist activities thereby making the UK vulnerable — jeopardizing the safety and security of British citizens.
TERRORISM. Knife attacks and car and truck attacks in Great Britain have increased in number and this increase can be traced to the immigration/migration/invasion policies of the EU.
TERRORISM. Terrorist attacks in Europe have not been eliminated as promised.
TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Coal and Steel Community.
TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Economic and Cultural Community. Again, BARREL, Great Britain, and for that matter each country, needs to be independent, sovereign, and free of entanglements.
PORK, what steps can POTUS Trump take to guarantee that he will be a one term president?
BARREL, I think POTUS Trump can guarantee that he will be a one term president if he fails to keep us FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, if he fails to clearly show the nation all the promises he has kept.
In particular, he can guarantee that he will be a one term president simply by taking all or some combination of the following five steps:
STEP 1. IMMIGRATION. Fail to control the border and stop the invasion and fail to build the wall as he promised.
STEP 2. ABORTION. Fail to protect the BLACK, HISPANIC, JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN AMERICAN unborn as he promised.**
3. JOBS AND TAXES. Fail to keep front and center the message to BLACKS and HISPANICS and ALL OTHER AMERICAS that he is helping them with jobs and tax breaks as he promised.
4. RULE OF LAW. Fail to indict and prosecute and bring to justice those including rich and famous who have aggrandized and enriched themselves by prostituting their elected or appointed offices as he promised.
5. MESSAGE. Fail to show and teach the nation’s Republican and Democrat WOMEN, MEN, YOUTH, BLACKS, HISPANICS, JEWISH AMERICANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, ASIAN AMERICANS, CAUCASIAN AMERICANS all of the promises he has kept and the immense good he has done during his term in office.
** Since democrat founded Roe v Wade in 1973 more than 300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been surgically and chemically murdered, killed, flushed, sent to land fills, sold for body parts, aborted: 50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000+ were BLACK babies. 50,000,000+ were HISPANIC babies.
To sponsor Richard W. Linford’s new book RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER? BARREL & PORK are giving away a free copy here below. An ebook copy can be purchased for $4.95 on amazon.com by clicking here:
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
Richard W Linford
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
Foreword. Some accept Jeff Sessions’ recusal at face value while such should not be the case. Judging Jeff Sessions’ recusal by what politicians and political groups did and do, by the effect of their votes and actions, not simplistically by what they say, suggests that AG Sessions’ recusal was engineered to the extreme harm of POTUS TRUMP. Acting AG Matthew Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself and POTUS Trump would be remiss to let him.
RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.
RECUSAL DEFINED?
“Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. “
Another definition. “The verb recuse is used in legal situations and means to remove someone from a position of judicial authority, either a judge or a member of a jury, who is deemed unacceptable to judge, usually because of some bias.” “The Latin recusare, meaning “to refuse” is the place to start in the history of recuse. You can recuse someone else, but also yourself.
Recusal “… means to disqualify oneself as a judge in a particular case. It means to remove oneself from participation in a situation in order to avoid a conflict of interest.”
A conflict of interest “is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Conflicts of interest involve dual relationships; one person in one relationship and a relationship in another situation.
Through recusal. Either a person recuses himself or herself, as in the U.S. Supreme Court justices, or a person can be compelled to recuse himself by virtue of administrative decree, edict, order, command, or injunction.
Through waiver. The opposition can waive any conflict of interest.
Through contract. Parties can agree to terms of a recusal.
Through insurance. The party with the alleged conflict of interest can provide a pledge or insurance guaranteeing he or she will not permit earlier or present conflicts to make a difference in decisions or actions.
The party with the alleged conflict of interest can refuse to accept a recusal, thereby setting the stage for litigation of the matter before a court of law or administrative judicial body.
WHAT ARE JUDICIAL EXAMPLES OF RECUSAL?
Clarence Thomas recused himself in a case involving Virginia because his son attended Virginia Military Institute.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner recused herself from participation in telecommunications cases. Why? Because she owned stock in telecommunications companies.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from participation in insurance related matters because of a connection he had to Lloyd’s of London.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself from several cases Arizona attorney James Brosnahan argued before the Supreme Court because James Brosnahan gave testimony against Justice Rehnquist during his confirmation hearing.
Three Supreme Court Justices – Scalia, Souter, and Thomas recused themselves in a death penalty appeal because they knew the victim’s son.
Justice Hugo Black did not recuse himself in the Jewell Ridge Coal case.
Even though in the past he opined that arrests were valid, Associate Justice Rehnquist refused to recuse himself in a case involving validity of certain arrests.
Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case involving VP Dick Cheney as a party even though Justice Scalia was a participant in a hunting trip with Mr. Cheney.
Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a Pledge of Allegiance-related case, notwithstanding Justice Scalia stated his view that a party’s claims had no merit.
There are a number of other federal cases where judges refused to recuse themselves, one involving federal judge Leon Higginbotham, one involving Paul Borman, one involving Michael Mukasey.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATION MR. SESSIONS RELIED UPON AS LEGAL SUPPORT FOR HIS RECUSAL?
He relied on Department of Justice regulation: Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.”
2(a) and (b) read:
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
( c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
DID MR. SESSIONS COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE REGULATION UPON WHICH HE RELIED? ANSWER: IT APPEARS THAT HE DID NOT.
Paragraph b) of the DOJ regulation reads: An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher.
Sessions was obligated to “report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor [POTUS Trump].” Did he do this? No he did not.
UNLIKE RECUSAL IN THE MATTER OF A SUPREME COURT OR OTHER JUDGE WHEREIN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WILL OR WILL NOT RECUSE THEMSELVES, WHOSE CHOICE WAS IT WHETHER MR. SESSIONS RECUSE HIMSELF OR NOT?
According to the DOJ regulation Mr. Sessions relied upon, the choice as to whether Mr. Sessions should recuse himself belonged to POTUS Trump.
Why? Because The DOJ regulation reads:
If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
Who was Mr. Sessions’ supervisor?
Answer: POTUS Trump.
Again, whose choice was it whether Mr. Sessions recuse himself?
Answer: POTUS Trump’s choice.
Session arbitrarily decided to and then announced that he was recusing himself.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DID MR. SESSIONS’ RECUSAL MAKE?
Sessions said it was “absurd” to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
Was it absurd to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
Was he in fact able to manage the Department of Justice?
The answer is no.
He was only able to manage a part of the Department of Justice.
For his work combating gangs, dealing with drug and immigration issues, and DOJ related matters other than “Russians involved in influencing the U.S. election,” Mr. Sessions is
He focused his administration on “rolling back the work of the Obama administration in liberalizing drug laws, reducing mass incarceration, and ending federal monitoring of troubled police departments.
With all the good work he did, however, did his recusal make it impossible for him to manage and direct matters pertaining to the “Russian interference in the 2016 election”?
Did his recusal make it –
(1) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to the democratic party including the Clintons and the Podestas? and
(2) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to Hillary Clinton including investigating whether she misused her office and colluded with the Russians and took vast sums of money from the Russians and others as campaign funds or otherwise in return for influence, whether she paid a million dollars for the “Russian dossier, “whether she took control of democratic party funds to the harm of Bernie Sanders, whether she colluded with others, including perhaps then POTUS Obama, to damage a sitting president POTUS Trump by using ill-gotten FISA warrants?
Did his recusal make it (3) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in the “Russian” elements of the Mueller investigation(s)?
His recusal made such impossible. There is no indication Mr. Sessions provided management and direction to matters pertaining to “Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
This was left to Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein who had oversight for the “Russian investigation.” Mr. Rosenstein apparently appointed and gave Mr. Mueller the investigative latitude he enjoys.
Today Matthew J. Whitaker serves as acting Attorney General. He has not recused himself and any recusal would be determined by POTUS Trump if there is a continued call for recusal.
Looking at the political landscape, what appears to a reasonable person, to a reasonable investigative journalist, to a reasonable special counsel, is this:
It would appear that the democrats manufactured the “Russians” did it narrative as a smokescreen to cover their own perfidy in dealing with the Russians.
To-date there is no indication the Russians colluded with POTUS Trump.
There is a reasonable conclusion that the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta and others, including the complicit media on the left, manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative.
If Mr. Sessions knew the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he is either a closet liberal and party to the elaborate, far reaching fraud on the Republican party and the nation, and his recusal was intentionally designed to hamstring POTUS Trump and prevent POTUS Trump from carrying out his duty as regards criminal actions, OR
If Mr. Sessions did not know that the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he has been deceived by the Democrats. In this case, Mr. Sessions’ recusal was misinformed.
Either way, as a consequence of the Democrat falsehood, and the subsequent Sessions recusal,
(1) we the American people are not just saddled with the multi-million dollar Mueller special investigation,
(2)We are saddled with a two tier justice system where the rich and famous commit felonies and escape grand jury indictment and subsequent arrest, prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SESSIONS RECUSAL?
To-date, after all this time, we the people still have no answers to critical questions.
Did the Democrats collude with the Russians?
Did the Democrats receive funds from the Russians?
Did the Democrats manufacture the “Russians interfered in the 2016 election” narrative?
Did they, including then Barack Obama, and closet or open liberals in the Republican Party, engineer Mr. Sessions’ recusal and the “Mueller special counsel” in order to marginalize a duly elected sitting president POTUS Trump?
Have they aggressively followed the Saul Alinsky principle of accusing your opponent of the very same thing you are guilty of?
Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign wrongfully confiscate millions of dollars of Democratic national committee funds to the great harm of Bernie Sanders and others?
Did Hillary Clinton with give or take a million dollars fund the fake “Russian” dossier denigrating POTUS Trump and do so through a Democrat law firm and fusion GPS and operatives?
Did Hillary Clinton use her private email and servers and Blackberries to knowingly, or unknowingly, transfer classified information to the Russians and Chinese and others? Either way, this is felonious conduct.
To what degree were the FBI leadership and other FBI persons complicit in activities that harmed and still harm POTUS Trump? Mr. Comey? Mr. Clapper? Media personalities? Others?
Had Mr. Sessions failed to “recuse himself,” had he adhered to the policy and given POTUS Trump his right to choose, would we have answers to each of these questions?
Is it reasonable to conclude that indictments would have been issued beyond the few seeming inconsequential indictments issued by Mr. Mueller to-date?
FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, MARK LEVIN, AMONG OTHERS, CALLED FOR JEFF SESSIONS TO RESIGN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
In April of 2018, MARK said: “The buck stops on the Attorney General’s desk, even if he recused himself as he did with the Russian matter. This is not the Russian matter. And the entire [Justice] Department is out of control now and its country first, over any politician, even if I’ve known that politician for a long, long time, his attorney general now.“I watch the president of the United States here now. He doesn’t deserve any of this. He didn’t do anything. He didn’t do anything. What do you think it is, Chappaquiddick?
“And so it’s time for the Attorney General to step aside and for the president of the United States, he can make a recess appointment, … [of] somebody … who’s going to take … charge over what’s going on in this country.
WHAT ABOUT MR. SESSIONS’ RESIGNATION AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
Sessions’ resignation was made according to Mr. Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
His letter of resignation reads:
“Dear Mr. President,
“At your request, I am submitting my resignation.
“Since the day I was honored to be sworn in as Attorney General of the United States, I came to work at the Department of Justice every day determined to do my duty and serve my country.
“I have done so to the best of my ability, working to support the fundamental legal processes that are the foundation of justice.
“The team we assembled embraced your directive to be a law and order Department of Justice.
“We prosecuted the largest number of violent offenders and firearm defendants in our country’s history.
“We took on transnational gangs that are bringing violence and death across our borders and protected national security.
“We did our part to restore immigration enforcement.
“We targeted the opioid epidemic by prosecuting doctors, pharmacists, and anyone else who contributed to this crisis with new law enforcement tools and determination.
“And we have seen results.
“After two years of rising violent crime and homicides prior to this administration, those trends have reversed – thanks to the hard work of our prosecutors and law enforcement around the country.
“I am particularly grateful to the fabulous men and women in law enforcement all over this country with whom I have served.
“I have had no greater honor than to serve alongside them.
“As I have said many times, they have my thanks and I will always have their backs.
“Most importantly, in my time as Attorney General we have restored and upheld the rule of law – a glorious tradition that each of us has a responsibility to safeguard.
“We have operated with integrity and have lawfully and aggressively advanced the policy agenda of this administration.
“I have been honored to serve as Attorney General and have worked to implement the law enforcement agenda based on the rule of law that formed a central part of your campaign for the Presidency.
Again, I for one praise Mr. Sessions for the good that he has done.
What is missing from his letter is any indication whatsoever that he helped resolve the serious issues raised by the above questions.
SHIFTING GEARS, WHAT OF MATTHEW J. WHITAKER’S APPOINTMENT AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL? WHAT OF THE CALL BY DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS FOR MR. WHITAKER TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM GIVING OVERSIGHT TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
POTUS Trump appointed Matthew J. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General and this despite the fact Rod Rosenstein was Assistant Attorney General.
POTUS Trump is authorized to make the appointment of Mr. Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General.
This document is also included herein as APPENDIX A.
One might have thought Mr. Rosenstein had a shot at being chosen to succeed Mr. Sessions but Mr. Rosenstein didn’t get the nod from POTUS Trump.
Why not?
Who knows for certain?
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was complicit in the appointment of Mr. Mueller.
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein has not helped resolve the issues set forth in the above list of questions.
Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was part of the problem not part of the solution.
The fact is “Mr. Rosenstein was not chosen by POTUS Trump.”
Matthew George Whitaker chosen.
Whitaker was born October 29, 2969 in Des Moines, Iowa.
He is an American lawyer and politician.
He is now Acting United States Attorney General, Appointed November 7, 2018 pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
He was appointed after resignation of then AG Jeff Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
Whitaker was appointed by POTUS Donald Trump.
At time of appointment, Mr. Whitaker was serving as Chief of Staff to AG Jeff Sessions.
Earlier he served as a U.S. Attorney during the Bush Administration.
He is a graduate of Ankeny High School and University of Iowa.
He holds these degrees –
a bachelor’s in communications,
an MBA, and
A Juris Doctorate Law Degree.
He played tight end for U of Iowa Hawkeyes football team.
He played in Iowa’s Rose Bowl game 1991.
Whitaker worked for regional law firms; served as corporate counsel for a national grocery company; was a small businessman; served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; served as managing partner of a law firm; served as chairman of several political campaigns; ran for U.S. Senate in Iowa; served as executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust; served as a CNN contributor; then he joined the Department of Justice.
He is an evangelical Christian.
He obviously got along well enough with POTUS Trump.
He does not support the Mueller investigation.
He is in favor of prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
He has no legal or ethical obligation or reason to step aside from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation or from prosecuting Mrs. Clinton.
As is to be expected, he has garnered his share of criticism.
The Wikipedia article about him is obviously a “left” biased hit piece designed to highlight all of Mr. Whitaker’s faults and establish in a public record the negative reasons why Mr. Whitaker should be rejected as Acting AG and AG and why he should recuse himself from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation.
A FEW CONCLUSIONS? Does investigative journalism and forensic evidence support the following? If so, the DOJ and Mr. Mueller need to indict and prosecute.
1) Was the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative manufactured by the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others as an excuse for their overwhelming, unexpected 2016 loss to POTUS Trump?
2) Following the classic Saul Alinsky Rule for Radicals which is to “attack your opponent for anything wrong you are doing,” have the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others including complicit media outlets and personalities manufactured and promoted the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative and foisted which is to say wrongfully imposed the same off on the nation and world? Was this a great lie created to cover up the actual felonious collusion by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and others including actors like John McCain with the Russians?
3) Was the Democrat false narrative and great lie created to cover up the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party collusion with and funding to and funding from the Russians? Did Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign people pay Russians give or take a million dollars for a false dossier denigrating POTUS Trump? Did the Clintons receive serious hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions in money from the Russians and other country representatives in return for influence including giving away 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russians? And if the latter is true, does such rise to the level of treason?
4) Have the Russians been attempting to influence our elections for years and is this an old accusation pre-dating POTUS Trump’s election, a Russian activity well known by then POTUS Obama and his administration? Did the Russians have any influence on the 2016 election? Is there any indication that votes were influenced by the Russians?
5) Did POTUS Trump collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton or was it the other way around? Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from POTUS Trump?
6) Did POTUS Trump work with the Russians and change the outcome of the 2016 election in his favor? Or is it just the opposite. Did Hillary Clinton and her operatives and the Democratic Party work with the Russians and promote the false “Russians influenced our elections and Donald Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative to the harm of POTUS Trump and the Republic Party and thereby cause the immense turmoil we have experienced in the country?
7) Did Jeff Sessions meet with the Russians in order to influence the election?
8) Was and on a continuing basis is still the tragic fallout from the Democrat false narrative the Jeff Sessions misinformed recusal? In other words, did the Democrats falsely engineer the Jeff Sessions recusal?
9) Did the Russians initiate the Assange Wikileaks hacking and leaking of emails? Or did Mark Rich or another inside the Democratic National Committee office offload hacked emails to Wikileaks?
10) As a consequence of Mr. Sessions’ recusal, are we the American people now saddled with a two tiered justice system? Have the rich and famous who allegedly did collude with the Russians and pay the Russians for a fake dossier and receive thousands if not millions of dollars from the Russians in return for influence and 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium, to-date, escaped indictment and prosecution for their felonies?
11) If it is true that the “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative was feloniously manufactured by the Democrats and disaffected Republicans and is overwhelmingly false, is it not then time for Acting AG Whitaker, and any new AG if Mr. Whitaker is not so appointed at a later date, and for Mr. Mueller, to unseal any additional indictments they may have from grand juries, assuming they have such indictments under seal, and answer these many questions and indict those including the rich and famous who have used their offices to enrich themselves, those who have lied to the nation, those who have feloniously enriched themselves and broken election laws to the tune of millions of dollars?
12) Is it true or false that Mr. Mueller has given the nation value for his work? Is it true or false that he has issued a few minor indictments to-date which in the grand political scheme are of little or no value and which suggests that his investigation may turn out to be a colossal boondoggle wherein he and high priced attorneys have banked serious millions of dollars while their work product to-date is not worth the fortune paid them?
13) In other words, will Mr. Mueller’s far reaching investigation uncover answers to the heretofore stated questions including those found in paragraphs 92 thru 103?
14) If Mr. Mueller’s work is in fact laudatory, which hopefully it is, is it possible we will soon be pleasantly surprised by an AG Whitaker and Mr. Mueller joint press conference wherein they disclose a number of indictments and arrests?
15) Is it possible that the grand jury has been called and has deliberated and all we are waiting for is the right time for Mr. Mueller and Mr. Whitaker to unseal and issue the indictments, make the arrests, and surprise us by letting the nation know which party and which individuals actually colluded with the Russians and committed felonies?
A CONCLUDING THOUGHT?
There are a great number of us Americans, who work hard at being law abiding and who labor to conduct their lives based on a fairness ethic, who are discouraged because of the lack of answers and the drawn out nature of matters.
We believe Mr. Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself.
We believe POTUS Trump would be remiss to permit such to take place.
As for recusal, by appointing Mr. Whitaker, we hope POTUS Trump is saying to the Democrats, “burn me once by engineering the Jeff Sessions AG recusal, fie on me.”
Burn me twice by once again trying to engineer an AG recusal, fie on thee.
Hopefully, recusal of Mr. Whitaker isn’t going to happen. Hopefully, there will be no recusal this time around.
Hopefully, those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the people, those who have feloniously broken election and other laws, will now be held accountable.
We believe POTUS Trump when he says he wouldn’t have picked Jeff Sessions as Attorney General had he known that Mr. Sessions was going to recuse himself.
Today the corollary is also true. We believe POTUS Trump would not have picked Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General if there were a hint that he would recuse himself.
Should there be any kind of a change of heart on the part of Mr. Whitaker, which is unlikely, keep in mind the Federal Regulation section (b).
Read paragraph (b) again. Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship” 45.2(b) which reads in full:
“(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph [in this situation Mr. Whitaker] (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher [in this situation POTUS Trump is Mr. Whitaker’s supervisor]. If the supervisor [POTUS Trump] determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
( c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
[Private individuals or organizations have no cause of action against Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump if Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump does not recuse Acting AG Whitaker.]
WHEN MUCH IS SAID AND LESS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO PROVIDE SERIOUS ANSWERS, PERHAPS THE WASHINGTON POST STATES IT BEST:
“Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special-counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.” (National Security, Acting attorney general Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from Russia probe, associates say, By Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotsky and Josh Dawsey, Washington Post, November 8, 2018.)
APPENDIX A
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530
November 14, 2018
S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington DC 20530
November 14, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR EMMET T. FLOOD
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
Re: Designating an Acting Attorney General
After Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions 111 resigned on November 7, 2018, the President designated Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to the Attorney General, to act temporarily as the Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. This Office had previously advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice official, such as Mr. Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General, and this memorandum explains the basis for that conclusion.
Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General accords with the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, because he had been serving in the Department of Justice at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year. See id. 3345(a)(3). The Department’s organic statute provides that the Deputy Attorney General (or others) may be Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy. See 28 U.S.C. 508. But that statute does not displace the President’s authority to use the Vacancies Reform Act as an alternative. As we have previously recognized, the President may use the Vacancies Reform Act to depart from the succession order specified under section 508. See Authority of the President to Name an Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208 (2007) (“2007 Acting Attorney General”).
We also advised that Mr. Whitaker’s designation would be consistent with the Appointments Clause of the US. Constitution, which requires the President to obtain “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” before appointing a principal officer of the United States. US. Const. art. 11, 2, cl. 2. Although an Attorney General is a principal officer requiring Senate confirmation, someone who temporarily performs his duties is not. As all three branches of government have long recognized, the President may designate an acting official to perform the duties of a vacant principal office, including a Cabinet office, even when the acting official has not been confirmed by the Senate.
Congress did not first authorize the President to direct non-Senate-confirmed officials to act as principal officers in 1998; it did so in multiple statutes starting in 1792. In that year, Congress authorized the President to ensure the government’s uninterrupted work by designating persons to perform temporarily the work of vacant offices. The President’s authority applied to principal offices and did not require the President to select Senate-confirmed officers. In our brief survey of the history, we have identified over 160 times before 1860 in which non-Senate-confirmed persons performed, on a temporary basis, the duties of such high offices as Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, and Postmaster General. While designations to the office of Attorney General were less
[page] 1
frequent, we have identified at least one period in 1866 when a non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General served as Acting Attorney General. Mr. Whitaker’s designation is no more constitutionally problematic than countless similar presidential orders dating back over 200 years.
Were the long agreement of Congress and the President insufficient, judicial precedent confirms the meaning of the Appointments Clause in these circumstances. When Presidents appointed acting Secretaries in the nineteenth century, those officers (or their estates) sometimes sought payment for their additional duties, and courts recognized the lawfulness of such appointments. The Supreme Court confirmed the legal understanding of the Appointments Clause that had prevailed for over a century in United States v. Eaton, 169 US. 331 (1898), holding that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time[] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. The Supreme Court has never departed from Eaton’s holding and has repeatedly relied upon that decision in its recent Appointments Clause cases.
In the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress renewed the President’s authority to designate non-Senate-confirmed senior officials to perform the functions and duties of principal offices. In 2003, we reviewed the President’s authority in connection with the Director of the Officer of Management and Budget who is a principal officer, and concluded that the President could designate a non-Senate-confirmed official to serve temporarily as Acting Director. See Designation of Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 27 Op. O.L.C. 121 (2003) (“Acting Director of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed non-Senate-confirmed officials in several lines of agency succession and actually designated unconfirmed officials as acting agency heads. President Trump, too, has previously exercised that authority in other departments; Mr. Whitaker is not the first unconfirmed official to act as the head of an agency in this administration.
It is no doubt true that Presidents often choose acting principal officers from among Senate-confirmed officers. But the Constitution does not mandate that choice. Consistent with our prior opinion and with centuries of historical practice and precedents, we advised that the President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General on a temporary basis did not transform his position into a principal office requiring Senate confirmation.
The Vacancies Reform Act
Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General comports with the terms of the Vacancies Reform Act. That Act provides three mechanisms by which an acting officer may take on the functions and duties of an office, when an executive officer who is required to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a). First, absent any other designation, the first assistant” to the vacant office shall perform its functions and duties. Id. 3345 Second, the President may depart from that default course by directing another presidential appointee, who is already Senate confirmed, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office. Id. 3345(a)(2). Or, third, the President may designate an officer or employee within the same agency to perform the functions and duties of
[page] 2
the vacant office, provided that he or she has been in the agency for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy, in a position for which the rate of pay is equal to or greater than the minimum rate for GS-15 of the General Schedule. Id 3345(a)(3). Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the statute imposes time limits on the period during which someone may act. Id. 3346. And the acting officer may not be nominated by the President to fill the vacant office and continue acting in it, unless he was already the first assistant to the office for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy or is a Senate-confirmed first assistant. Id. 3345(b)(1)-(2); see also Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. SW General, Inc, 137 S. Ct. 929, 941 (201 7).
The Vacancies Reform Act unquestionably authorizes the President to direct Mr. Whitaker to act as Attorney General after the resignation of Attorney General Sessions on November 7, 2018.1 Mr. Whitaker did not fall within the first two categories of persons made eligible by section 3345(a). He was not the first assistant to the Attorney General, because 28 U.S.C. 5 08(a) identifies the Deputy Attorney General as the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345.” Nor did Mr. Whitaker already hold a Senate-confirmed office. Although Mr. Whitaker was previously appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, he resigned from that position on November 25, 2009. At the time of the resignation of Attorney General Sessions, Mr. Whitaker was serving in a position to which he was appointed by the Attorney General.
In that position, Mr. Whitaker fell squarely within the third category of officials, identified in section 3345(a)(3). As Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor, he had served in the Department of Justice for more than 90 days in the year before the resignation, at a GS-15 level or higher. And Mr. Whitaker has not been nominated to be Attorney General, an action that would render him ineligible to serve as Acting Attorney General under section 3345(b)(l). Accordingly, under the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, the President could designate
__________
1 Attorney General Sessions submitted his resignation “[a]t [the President’s] request,” Letter for President Donald J. Trump, from Jefferson B. Sessions Attorney General, but that does not alter the fact that the Attorney General “resign[ed]” within the meaning of section 3345(a). Even if Attorney General Sessions had declined to resign and was removed by the President, he still would have been rendered “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” for purposes of section 3345(a). As this Office recently explained, “an officer is “unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” during both short periods of unavailability, such as a period of sickness, and potentially longer ones, such as one resulting from the officer’s removal (which would arguably not be covered by the reference to “resign[ation]. Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *4 (2017); see also Guidance on Application of Federal Vacancies Reform Act of1998, 23 Op. O.L.C. 60, 61 (1999) (“In floor debate, Senators said, by way of example, that an officer would be “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” if he or she were fired, imprisoned, or sick”). Indeed, any other interpretation would leave a troubling gap in the ability to name acting officers. For most Senate-confirmed offices, the Vacancies Reform Act is “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer. 5 U.S.C. 3347(a). If the statute did not apply in cases of removal, then it would mean that no acting officer – not even the first assistant – “could take the place of a removed officer, even where the President had been urgently required to remove the officer, for instance, by concerns over national security, corruption, or other workplace misconduct.
[page] 3
Whitaker to serve temporarily as Acting Attorney General subject to the time limitations of section 3346.
The Vacancies Reform Act remains available to the President even though 28 U.S.C. 508 separately authorizes the Deputy Attorney General and certain other officials to act as Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.2 We previously considered whether this statute limits the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to designate someone else to be Acting Attorney General. 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208. We have also addressed similar questions with respect to other agencies’ succession statutes. See Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. (2017) (“Acting Director of Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1. In those instances, we concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act is not the “exclusive means” for the temporary designation of an acting official, but that it remains available as an option to the President. We reach the same conclusion here: Section 508 does not limit the President’s authority to invoke the Vacancies Reform Act to designate an Acting Attorney General.
We previously concluded that section 508 does not prevent the President from relying upon the Vacancies Reform Act to determine who will be the Acting Attorney General. Although the Vacancies Reform Act, which “ordinarily is the exclusive means for naming an acting officer,” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 (citing 5 U.S.C. 3347), makes an exception for, and leaves in effect, statutes such as section 508, “[t]he Vacancies Reform Act nowhere says that, if another statute remains in effect, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used.” Id. In fact, the structure of the Vacancies Reform Act makes clear that office-specific provisions are treated as exceptions from its generally exclusive applicability, not as provisions that supersede the Vacancies Reform Act altogether.3 Furthermore, as we noted, “the Senate Committee Report accompanying the Act expressly disavows” the View that, where another statute is available, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used. Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 17 (1998)). That report stated that, “with respect to the specific positions in which temporary officers may serve under the specific statutes this bill retains, the Vacancies [Reform] Act would continue to provide an alternative procedure for temporarily occupying the office.” Id. We therefore concluded that the President could direct the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division to act as Attorney General under the Vacancies Reform Act, even though the incumbent Solicitor General would otherwise have served under the chain of succession specified in section 508 (as supplemented by an Attorney General order).
__________
2 Under 28 U.S.C. 508(a), in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, “the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of [the Vacancies Reform Act] the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General.” If the offices of Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are both vacant, “the Associate Attorney General shall act as Attorney General,” and “[t]he Attorney General may designate the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, in further order of succession, to act as Attorney General.” Id. 508(b).
3 One section (entitled “Exclusion of certain offices”) is used to exclude certain offices altogether. 5 U.S.C. 3349c. Office-specific statutes, however, are mentioned in a different section (entitled “Exclusivity”) that generally makes the Vacancies Reform Act “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer but also specifies exceptions to that exclusivity. Id. 3347(a)(l).
[page] 4
At the time of our 2007 Acting Attorney General opinion, the first two offices specified in section 508(a) and (b)”Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General” were both vacant. See 31 Op. O.L.C. at 208. That is not currently the case; there is an incumbent Deputy Attorney General. But the availability of the Deputy Attorney General does not affect the President’s authority to invoke section 3345(a)(3). Nothing in section 508 suggests that the Vacancies Reform Act does not apply when the Deputy Attorney General can serve. To the contrary, the statute expressly states that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5” the provision of the Vacancies Reform Act providing for the designation of an acting officer). 28 U.S.C. 508(a). It further provides that the Deputy Attorney General “may” serve as Acting Attorney General, not that he “must,” underscore that the Vacancies Reform Act remains an alternative means of appointment. 4 These statutory cross-references confirm that section 508 works in conjunction with, and does not displace, the Vacancies Reform Act.
Although the Deputy Attorney General is the default choice for Acting Attorney General under section 3345(a)(1), the President retains the authority to invoke the other categories of eligible officials, “notwithstanding [the first-assistant provision in] paragraph 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2), (3). Moreover, there is reason to believe that Congress, in enacting the Vacancies Reform Act, deliberately chose to make the second and third categories of officials in section 3345(a) applicable to the office of Attorney General. Under the previous Vacancies Act, the first assistant to an office was also the default choice for filling a vacant Senate-confirmed position, and the President was generally able to depart from that by selecting another Senate-confirmed officer. See 5 U.S.C. 3347 (1994). That additional presidential authority, however, was expressly made inapplicable “to a vacancy in the office of Attorney General.” See also Rev. Stat. 179 (2d ed. 1878). Yet, when Congress enacted the Vacancies Reform Act in 1998, it did away with the exclusion for the office of Attorney General. See 5 U.S.C. 3349c (excluding certain other officers).5
Our conclusion that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available, notwithstanding section 508, is consistent with our prior opinions. In Acting Director of OMB, we recognized that an OMB-specific statute, 31 U.S.C. 502(f), did not displace the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act. See 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1 (“The Vacancies Reform Act does not provide, however, that where there is another statute providing for a presidential designation, the Vacancies Reform Act becomes unavailable?). More recently, we confirmed that the President could designate an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFLPB”).
__________
4 We do not mean to suggest that a different result would follow if section 508 said “shall” instead of “may,” since as discussed at length in Acting Director such mandatory phrasing in a separate statute does not itself oust the Vacancies Reform Act. See 41 Op. O.L.C. *7-9 n.3, The point is that, in contrast with the potential ambiguity arising from the appearance of “shall” in the CFPB-specific statute, section 508 expressly acknowledges that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant but will not necessarily serve in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General. 5 When it reported the Vacancies Reform Act, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs contemplated that the Attorney General would continue to be excluded by language in a proposed section 3345(c) that would continue to make section 508 “applicable” to the office. See S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 13, 25; 144 Cong. Rec. 12,433 (June 16, 1998). But that provision “was not enacted as part of the final bill, and no provision of the Vacancies Reform Act bars the President from designating an Acting Attorney General under that statute.” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 n.1.
[page] 5
notwithstanding 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which provides that the Deputy Director of the CFPB “shall” serve as Acting Director when the Director is unavailable. See Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. We reasoned that the CFPB-specific statute should “interact with the Vacancies Reform Act in the same way as other, similar statutes providing an office-specific mechanism for an individual to act in a vacant position.” Id at *7-9 n.3. We noted that the Vacancies Reform Act itself provides that a first assistant to a vacant office “shall perform the functions and duties” of that office unless the President designates someone else to do so, 5 U.S.C. 3345(a), and that mandatory language in either the CF PB-specific statute or the Vacancies Reform Act does not foreclose the availability of the other statute. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *7-8.
Courts have similarly concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available as an alternative to office-specific statutes. See Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc. 816 F.3d 550, 55 5-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which has its own office-specific statute prescribing a method of filling a vacancy); English v. Trump, 279 F. Supp. 3d 307, 323?24 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the mandatory language in the CFPB-specific statute is implicitly qualified by the Vacancies Reform Act’s language providing that the President also “may direct” qualifying individuals to serve in an acting capacity), appeal dismissed upon appellant’s motion, No. 18?5007, 2018 WL 3526296 (DC. Cir. July 13, 2018).
For these reasons, we believe that the President could invoke the Vacancies Reform Act in order to designate Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General ahead of the alternative line of succession provided under section 508.
The Appointments Clause
While the Vacancies Reform Act expressly authorizes the President to select an
unconfirmed official as Acting Attorney General, Congress may not authorize an appointment mechanism that would conflict with the Constitution. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 883 (1991). The Appointments Clause requires the President to “appoint” principal officers, such as the Attorney General, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” U.S. Const., art. 11, 2, cl. 2. But for “inferior Officers,” Congress may vest the appointment power “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Id.
The President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General is consistent with the Appointments Clause so long as Acting Attorney General is not a principal office that requires Senate confirmation. If so, it does not matter whether an acting official temporarily filling a vacant principal office is an inferior officer or not an “officer” at all within the meaning of the Constitution, because Mr. Whitaker was appointed in a manner that satisfies the requirements for an inferior officer: He was appointed by Attorney General Sessions, who was the Head of the Department, and the President designated him to perform additional duties. See Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124-25. If the designation constituted an appointment to a principal office, however, then section 3345(a)(3) would be unconstitutional as applied, because Mr. Whitaker does not currently occupy a position requiring Senate confirmation.
[page] 6
For the reasons stated below, based on long-standing historical practice and precedents, we do not believe that the Appointments Clause may be construed to require the Senate’s advice and consent before Mr. Whitaker may be Acting Attorney General.
The Attorney General is plainly a principal officer, who must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1997); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670-72 (1988). The Attorney General has broad and continuing authority over the federal government’s law-enforcement, litigation, and other legal functions. See, e. g, 28 U.S.C. 516, 533. The Supreme Court has not “set forth an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between” inferior officers and principal officers. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 661. “Generally speaking, the term “inferior officer” connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President.” Id at 662. There is no officer below the President who supervises the Attorney General.
Although the Attorney General is a principal officer, it does not follow that an Acting Attorney General should be understood to be one. An office under the Appointments Clause requires both a “continuing and permanent” position and the exercise of “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2051 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Officers of the United States within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause, 31 Op. O.L.C. 73, 74 (2007). While a person acting as the Attorney General surely exercises sufficient authority to be an “Officer of the United States,” it is less clear whether Acting Attorney General is a principal office.
Because that question involves the division of powers between the Executive and the Legislative Branches, “historical practice” is entitled to “significant weight.” Nat’l Labor Relations Bd v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 2559 (2014); see also, e. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689 (1929). That practice strongly supports the constitutionality of authorizing someone who has not been Senate-confirmed to serve as an acting principal officer. Since 1792, Congress has repeatedly legislated on the assumption that temporary service as a principal officer does not require Senate confirmation. As for the Executive Branch’s practice, our non-exhaustive survey has identified over 160 occasions between 1809 and 1860 on which non-Senate-confirmed persons served temporarily as an acting or ad interim principal officer in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, judicial precedents culminating in United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898), endorsed that historical practice and confirm that the temporary nature of acting service weighs against principal-officer status. The Supreme Court in Eaton held that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time [ ] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. That holding was not limited to the circumstances of that case, but instead reflected a broad consensus about the status of an acting principal officer that the Supreme Court has continued to rely on in later Appointments Clause decisions.
[page] 7
Since the Washington Administration, Congress has “authoriz[ed] the President to direct certain officials to temporarily carry out the duties of a vacant PAS office one requiring Presidential Appointment and Senate confirmation] in an acting capacity, without Senate confirmation.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 934; see also Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2609 (Scalia J., dissenting in relevant part) (observing that the President does not need to use recess appointments to “fill vacant offices because “Congress can authorize “acting” officers to perform the duties associated with a temporarily vacant office” – “and has done that, in one form or another, since 1792”). Those statutes, and evidence of practice under them during the early nineteenth century, did not limit the pool of officials eligible to serve as an acting principal officer to those who already have Senate-confirmed offices. This history provides compelling support for the conclusion that the position of an acting principal officer is not itself a principal office.
In 1792, Congress First “authorized the appointment of ‘any person or persons’ to fill specific vacancies in the Departments of State, Treasury, and War.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935 (quoting Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 37, 8, 1 Stat. 279, 281). Although the statute expressly mentioned vacancies in the position of Secretary in each of those Departments, the President was authorized to choose persons who held no federal office at all – much less one requiring Senate confirmation. Although the 1792 statute “allowed acting officers to serve until the permanent Officeholder could resume his duties or a successor was appointed,” Congress “imposed a six-month limit on acting service” in 1795. Id. at 935 (citing Act of Feb. 13, 1795, ch. 21, Stat. 415). In 1863, in response to a plea from President Lincoln, see Message to Congress (Jan. 2, 1863), Cong. Globe, 37th Cong, 3d Sess. 185 (1863), Congress extended the provision to permit the President to handle a vacancy in the office of “the head of any Executive Department of the Government, or of any officer of either of the said Departments whose appointment is not in the head thereof.” Act of Feb. 20, 1863, ch. 45, 1, 12 Stat. 656, 656. The 1863 statute allowed the duties of a vacant office to be performed for up to six months by “the head of any other Executive Department” or by any other officer in those departments “whose appointment is vested in the President.” Id.
In 1868, Congress replaced all previous statutes on the subject of vacancies with the Vacancies Act of 1868. See Act of July 23, 1868, ch. 227, 15 Stat. 168. That act provided that, “in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the head of any executive department of the government, the first or sole assistant thereof shall . . . perform the duties of such head until a successor be appointed or the absence or sickness shall cease.” Id, 1, 15 Stat. at 168. In lieu of elevating the first or sole assistant,” the President could also choose to authorize any other officer appointed with the Senate’s advice and consent to perform the duties of the vacant office until a successor was appointed or the prior occupant of the position was able to return to his post. Id 3, 15 Stat. at 168. In cases of death or resignation, an acting official could serve for no longer than ten days. Id. The 1868 act thus eliminated the President’s prior discretion to fill a vacant office temporarily with someone who did not hold a Senate-confirmed position. Yet, it preserved the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant would serve as an acting head of an executive department.
[page] 8
Over the next 120 years, Congress repeatedly amended the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it never eliminated the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant could serve as an acting head of an executive department. In 1891, it extended the time limit for acting service in cases of death or resignation from ten to thirty days. Act of Feb. 6, 1891, ch. 113, 26 Stat. 733. In 1966, it made minor changes during the course of re-codifying and enacting title 5 of the United States Code. See S. Rep. No. 89-1380, at 20, 70-71 (1966); 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349 (1970). Congress amended the act once more in 1988, extending the time limit on acting service from 30 to 120 days and making the statute applicable to offices that are not in “Departments” and thus are less likely to have Senate-confirmed first assistants. Pub. L. No. 100-398, 102 Stat. 985, 988 (1988).
Accordingly, for more than two centuries before the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress demonstrated its belief that the Appointments Clause did not require Senate confirmation for temporary service in a principal office, by repeatedly enacting statutes that affirmatively authorized acting service – even in principal offices at the heads of executive departments – by persons who did not already hold an appointment made with the Senate’s advice and consent.
Not only did Congress authorize the Presidents to select officials to serve temporarily as acting principal officers, but Presidents repeatedly exercised that power to fill temporarily the vacancies in their administrations that arose from resignations, terminations, illnesses, or absences from the seat of government. In providing this advice, we have not canvassed the entire historical record. But we have done enough to confirm that Presidents often exercised their powers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes to choose persons who did not hold any Senate-confirmed position to act temporarily as principal officers in various departments. In the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson Administrations, other Cabinet officers (or Chief Justice John Marshall) were used as temporary or “ad interim” officials when offices were vacant between the departure of one official and the appointment of his successor. See, e. Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1 774497], at 13??14 (1971); see id at 12 (explaining that the list of Cabinet officers excludes “[s]ubordinates acting temporarily as heads of departments” and therefore lists only those who served ad interim after an incumbent’s departure).
President Jefferson made the first designation we have identified of a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve temporarily in his Cabinet. On February 17, 1809, approximately two weeks before the end of the Jefferson Administration, John Smith, the chief clerk of the Department of War, was designated to serve as Acting Secretary of War. See id. at 14; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the War Department (Feb. 17, 1809), Founders Online, National Archives, (“Whereas, by the resignation of Henry Dearborne, late Secretary at War, that office is become vacant. I therefore do hereby authorize John Smith, chief clerk of the office of the Department of War, to perform the duties of the said office, until a successor be appointed”). As chief clerk, Smith was not a principal officer. He was instead “an inferior officer . . . appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer.” Act of Aug. 5, 1789, ch. 6, 2, 1 Stat. 49, 50. The next Secretary of War did not enter upon duty until April 8, 1809, five weeks after the beginning of the Madison Administration. See Biographical Directory at 14.
[page] 9
Between 1809 and 1860, President Jefferson’s successors designated a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as an acting principal officer in a Cabinet position on at least 160 other occasions. We have identified 109 additional instances during that period where chief clerks, who were not Senate confirmed, temporarily served as ad interim Secretary of State (on 51 occasions), Secretary of the Treasury (on 36 occasions), or Secretary of War (on 22 occasions). See id. at 15-19; 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Before the Senate of the United States, on Impeachment by the House of Representatives for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 575?81, 585-88, 590-91 (Washington, GPO 1868); In re Asbury Dickins, 34th Cong, Sess., Rep. CC. 9, at 4?5 (Ct. C1. 1856) (listing 18 times between 1829 and 1836 that chief clerk Asbury Dickins was “appointed to perform the duties of Secretary of the Treasury” or Secretary of State “during the absence from the seat of government or sickness” of those Secretaries, for a total of 359 days).6 Between 1853 and 1860 there were also at least 21 occasions on which non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries were authorized to act as Secretary of the Treasury.7
We have also identified instances involving designations of persons who apparently had no prior position in the federal government, including Alexander Hamilton’s Son, James A. Hamilton, whom President Jackson directed on his first day in office to “take charge of the Department of State until Governor [Martin] Van Buren should arrive in the city” three weeks later. 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575; see Biographical Directory at 16. President Jackson also twice named William B. Lewis, who held no other government position, as acting Secretary of War. See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575. Moving beyond the offices expressly covered by the 1792 and 1795 statutes, there were at least 23 additional instances before 1861 in which Presidents authorized a non-Senate-confirmed chief clerk to perform temporarily the duties of the Secretary of the Navy (on 21 occasions), or the Secretary of the Interior (on 2 occasions).8
At the time, it was well understood that when an Acting or ad interim Secretary already held an office such as chief clerk, he was not simply performing additional duties, but he was deemed the Acting Secretary. We know this, because the chief clerks sometimes sought
__________
6 See also Act of July 27, 1789, ch. 4, 2, 1 Stat. 28, 29 (providing that the chief clerk in what became the Department of State was “an inferior officer, to be appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer”); Act of Sept. 2, 1789, ch. 12, 1, 1 Stat. 65, 65 (providing for an “Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury,” later known as the chief clerk, who “shall be appointed by the said Secretary”). The sources cited in the text above indicate that (1) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of State: Aaron Ogden Dayton, Aaron Vail (twice), Asbury Dickins (ten times), Daniel Carroll Brent (five times), Daniel Fletcher Webster, Jacob L. Martin (three times), John Appleton, John Graham, Nicholas Philip Trist (four times), Richard K. Cralle, William S. Derrick (fifteen times), William Hunter (seven times); (2) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of the Treasury: Asbury Dickins (eight times), John McGinnis, and McClintock Young (twenty-seven times); and (3) the following chief clerks (or acting chief clerks) served as ad interim Secretary of War: Albert Miller Lee, Archibald Campbell (five times), Christopher Vandeventer, George Graham, John D. McPherson, John Robb (six times), Philip G. Randolph (five times), Samuel J. Anderson, and William K. Drinkard.
7 See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 580-81, 590-91 (entries for William L. Hodge and Peter Washington); Act of Mar. 3, 1849, ch. 108, 13, 9 Stat. 395, 396-97 (providing for appointment by the Secretary of an “Assistant Secretary of the Treasury”).
8 See Biographical Directory at 14-17 (chief clerks of the Navy in 1809, 1814-15, 1829, 1831, and 1841); id. at 18 (chief clerk of the Department of the Interior, Daniel C. Goddard, in 1850 (twice)); In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 3, 12-13 (Ct. C1. 1857) (identifying 13 times between 1831 and 1838 that chief clerk John Boyle was appointed as Acting Secretary of the Navy, for a total of 466 days).
[page] 10
payment for the performance of those additional duties. Attorney General Legare concluded that Chief Clerk McClintock Young had a claim for compensation as “Secretary of the Treasury ad interim.” Pay of Secretary of the Treasury ad Interim, 4 Op. Att’y Gen. 122, 122-23 (1842). And the Court of Claims later concluded that Congress should appropriate funds to compensate such officers for that service. See, e. g, In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 9, 1857 WL 4155, at *4 (Ct. C1. 1857) (“The office of Secretary ad interim being a distinct and independent office in itself, when it is conferred on the chief clerk, it is so conferred not because it pertains to him ex officio, but because the President, in the exercise of his discretion, sees fit to appoint Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 16, 1856 WL 4042, at *3.
Congress not only acquiesced in such appointments, but also required a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as a principal officer in some instances. In 1810, Congress provided that in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Postmaster General, “all his duties shall be performed by his senior assistant.” Act of Apr. 30, 1810, ch. 37, 1, 2 Stat. 592, 593. The senior assistant was one of two assistants appointed by the Postmaster General. Id. When I Congress reorganized the Post Office in 1836, it again required that the powers and duties of the Postmaster General would, in the case of “death, resignation, or absence” “devolve, for the time being on the First Assistant Postmaster General,” who was still an appointee of the Postmaster General. Act of July 2, 1836, ch. 270, 40, 5 Stat. 80, 89. On four occasions before 1860, a First Assistant Postmaster General served as Postmaster General ad interim. See Biographical Directory at 17-19 (in 1841 (twice), 1849, and 1859).
On the eve of the Civil War in January 1861, President Buchanan summarized the Chief Executive’s View of his authority to designate interim officers in a message submitted to Congress to explain who had been performing the duties of the Secretary of War:
The practice of making . . . appointments [under the 1795 statute], whether in a vacation or during the session of Congress, has been constantly followed during every administration from the earliest period of the government, and its perfect lawfulness has never, to my knowledge, been questioned or denied. Without going back further than the year 1829, and without taking into the calculation any but the chief officers of the several departments, it will be found that provisional appointments to fill vacancies were made to the number of one hundred and seventy-nine . . . . Some of them were made while the Senate was in session, some which were made in vacation were continued in force long after the Senate assembled. Sometimes, the temporary officer was the commissioned head of another department, sometimes a subordinate in the same department.
Message from the President of the United States, 36th Cong, 2d Sess., Exec. Doc. No. 2, at 1-2 (1861) (emphases added).
When it comes to vacancy statutes, the office of Attorney General presents an unusual case, albeit not one suggesting any different constitutional treatment. The office was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, see Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 35, 1 Stat. 73, 93, and the Attorney General was a member of the President’s Cabinet, see Office and Duties of Attorney
[page] 11
General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. 326, 330 (1854). But the Attorney General did not supervise an “executive department,” and the Department of Justice was not established until 1870. See Act of June 22, 1870, ch. 150, 1, 16 Stat. 162, 162. Thus, the terms 0fthe 1792, 1795, and 1863 statutes, and of the Vacancies Act of 1868, did not expressly apply to vacancies in the office of the Attorney General.
Even so, the President made “temporary appointment[s]” to the office of Attorney General on a number of occasions. In 1854, Attorney General Cushing noted that “proof exists in the files of the department that temporary appointment has been made by the President in that office.” Office and Duties of Attorney General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. at 352. Because the 1792 and 1795 statutes did not provide the President with express authority for those temporary appointments, Cushing believed it “questionable” whether the President had the power, but he also suggested that “[p]erhaps the truer view of the question is to consider the two statutes as declaratory only, and to assume that the power to make such temporary appointment is a constitutional one.” Id Cushing nonetheless recommended the enactment of “a general provision . . . to remove all doubt on the subject” for the Attorney General and “other non-enumerated departments.” Id.
Congress did not immediately remedy the problem that Cushing identified, but Presidents designated Acting Attorneys General, both before and after the Cushing opinion. In some instances, the President chose an officer who already held another Senate-confirmed office. See Acting Attorneys General, 8 Op. O.L.C. 39, 40-41 (1984) (identifying instances in 1848 and 1868 involving the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary of the Interior).9 In other instances, however, non-Senate-confirmed individuals served. After the resignation of Attorney General James Speed, for instance, Assistant Attorney General J. Hubley Ashton was the ad interim Attorney General from July 17 to July 23, 1866. See id. at 41; Biographical Directory at 20. At the time, the Assistant Attorney General was appointed by the Attorney General alone. See Act of March 3, 1859, ch. 80, 11 Stat. 410, 420 Attorney-General is hereby[] authorized to appoint one assistant in the said office, learned in the law, at an annual salary of three thousand dollars[x]”).10
On other occasions between 1859 and 1868, Ashton and other Assistant Attorneys General who had not been Senate confirmed also signed several formal legal opinions as “Acting Attorney General,” presumably when their incumbent Attorney General was absent or otherwise
__________
9 This list is almost certainly under-inclusive because the published sources we have located identify only those who were Acting Attorney General during a period between the resignation of one Attorney General and the appointment of his successor. They do not identify individuals who may have performed the functions and duties of Attorney General when an incumbent Attorney General was temporarily unavailable on account of an absence or sickness that would now trigger either 28 U.S.C. 508(a) or 5 U.S.C. 3345(a).
10 In 1868, Congress created two new Assistant Attorneys General positions to be “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and specified that those positions were “in lieu of,” among others, “the assistant attorney-general now provided for by law,” which was “abolished” effective on July 1, 1868. Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71, 5, 15 Stat. 75, 75. A few weeks later, Ashton was confirmed by the Senate as an Assistant Attorney General. See 18 Sen. Exec. J. 369 (July 25, 1868). He was therefore holding a Senate-confirmed office when he served another stint as Acting Attorney General for several days at the beginning of the Grant Administration in March 1869, see Biographical Directory at 21, and when he signed five opinions as “Acting Attorney General” in September and October 1868.
[page] 12
See Case of Colonel Gates, 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 70, 70 (1864) (noting that the question from the President “reached this office in [the Attorney General’s] absence”). 11 In 1873, when Congress reconciled the Vacancies Act of 1868 with the Department of Justice’s organic statute, it expressly excepted the office of Attorney General from the general provision granting the President power to choose who would temporarily fill a vacant Senate-confirmed office. See Rev. Stat. 179 1st ed. 1875). There is accordingly no Attorney General-specific practice with respect to the pre-1998 statutes.
Well before the Supreme Court’s foundational decision in Eaton in 1898, courts approved of the proposition that acting officers are entitled to payment for services during their temporary appointments as principal officers. See, e. g. United States v. White, 28 F. Cas. 586, 587 (C.C.D. Md. 1851) (Taney, Circuit J.) often happens that, in unexpected contingencies and for temporary purposes, the appointment of a person already in office, to execute the duties of another office, is more convenient and useful to the public, than to bring in a new officer to execute the Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 17, 1856 WL 4042, at *3 (finding a chief clerk was entitled to additional compensation “for his services as acting Secretary of the Treasury and as acting Secretary of State”). Most significantly, in Boyle, the Court of Claims concluded that the chief clerk of the Navy (who was not Senate confirmed) had properly served as Acting Secretary of the Navy on an intermittent basis over seven years for a total of 466 days. 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 44, at 8, 1857 WL 4155, at *1-2 (1857). The court expressly addressed the Appointments Clause question and distinguished, for constitutional purposes, between the office of Secretary of the Navy and the office of Acting Secretary of the Navy. Id. at 8, 1857 WL 4155 at *3 (“It seems to us . . . plain that the office of Secretary ad interim is a distinct and independent office in itself. It is not the office of Furthermore, the court emphasized, the defining feature of the office of Secretary ad interim was its “temporary” character, and it must therefore be considered an inferior office:
Congress has exercised the power of vesting the appointment of a Secretary ad interim in the President alone, and we think, in perfect consistency with the Constitution of the United States. We do not think that there can be any doubt that he is an inferior officer, in the sense of the Constitution, whose appointment may be vested by Congress in the President alone.
When the Supreme Court addressed this Appointments Clause issue in 1898, it reached a similar conclusion. In United States v. Eaton, the Court considered whether Congress could authorize the President alone to appoint a subordinate officer “charged with the duty of temporarily performing the functions” of a principal officer. 169 US. at 343. The statute
__________
11 There were two additional opinions signed by Ashton as “Acting Attorney General” in 1864 and 1865 (11 Op. Att’y Gen. 482; 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 127); as well as four signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General John Binckley in 1867 (12 Op. Att’y Gen. 231; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 229; 12 Op. Att’y Gen 222; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 227); two signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Titian J. Coffey in 1862 and 1863 (10 Op. Att’y Gen. 492; 10 Op. Att’y Gen. 377); and one signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Alfred B. McCalmont in 1859 (9 Op. Att’y Gen. 389).
[page] 13
authorized the President “to provide for the appointment of vice-consuls . . . in such a manner and under such regulations as he shall deem proper.” Id. at 336 (quoting Rev. Stat. 1695 (2d ed. 1878)). The President’s regulation provided that case a vacancy occurs in the offices both of the consul and the vice-consul, which requires the appointment of a person to perform temporarily the duties of the consulate, the diplomatic representative has authority to make such appointment, with the consent of the foreign government . . . immediate notice being given to the Department of State.” Id. at 338 (quoting regulation). Pursuant to that authority, Sempronius Boyd, who was the diplomatic representative and consul-general to Siam, appointed Lewis Eaton (then a missionary who was not employed by the government) as a vice-consul-general and directed him to take charge of the consulate after Boyd’s departure. Id. at 331-32. With the “knowledge” and “approval” of the Department of State, Eaton remained in charge of the consulate, at times calling himself “acting consul-general of the United States at Bangkok,” from July 12, 1892, until a successor vice-consul-general arrived on May 18, 1893. Id. at 332-33. In a dispute between Boyd’s widow and Eaton over salary payments, the Court upheld Eaton’s appointment, and the underlying statutory scheme, against an Appointments Clause challenge. Id. at 334-35, 352.
The Constitution expressly includes “Consuls” in the category of officers whose appointment requires the Senate’s advice and consent. US. Const. art. ll, 2, cl. 2. The Eaton Court, however, concluded that a “Vice-consul” is an inferior officer whose appointment Congress may “vest in the President” alone. 169 US. at 343. The Court held that Eaton’s exercise of the authority of a Senate-confirmed office did not transform him into an officer requiring Senate confirmation:
Because the subordinate officer is charged with the performance of the duty of the superior for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions, he is not thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official. To so hold would render void any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency the duties of a superior officer, and the discharge of administrative duties would be seriously hindered.
The Court concluded that more than forty years of practice “sustain the theory that a vice-consul is a mere subordinate official,” which defeated the contention that Eaton’s appointment required Senate confirmation. Id at 344. In so doing, the Court cited Attorney General Cushing’s 1855 opinion about appointments of consular officials, which had articulated the parameters for that practice. See id.12 Significantly, the Court also made clear that its holding was not limited to vice-consuls or to the exigencies of Eaton’s particular appointment. Rather, the Court emphasized that the temporary performance of a principal office is not the same as holding that office itself. The Court feared that a contrary holding would bear upon “any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency.” Id at
__________
12 In the 1855 opinion, Attorney General Cushing explained that a vice-consul is “the person employed to fill the [consul’s] place temporarily in his absence.” Appointment of Consuls, 7 Op. Att’y Gen. 242, 262? (1855). He noted that consuls had to be Senate-confirmed, but vice-consuls were regarded as the “subordinates of consuls” and therefore did not require “nomination to the Senate.” Id. at 247.
[page] 14
343 (emphasis added). In View of the long history of such appointments, Eaton simply
confirmed the general rule. It did not work any innovation in that practice. .
The Court has not retreated from Eaton, or narrowed its holding, but instead has repeatedly cited the decision for the proposition that an inferior officer may temporarily perform the duties of a principal officer without Senate confirmation. In Edmond, the Court observed that “’inferior officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. But the Court also observed that there is no “exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers” and restated Eaton’s holding that “a vice consul charged temporarily with the duties of the consul” is an “inferior” officer. Id at 661. In Morrison, the Court emphasized that a subordinate who performed a principal officer’s duties “for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions” is not “thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official,” and explained that a Vice-consul appointed during the consul’s “temporary absence” remained a “subordinate officer notwithstanding the Appointment Clause’s specific reference to “Consuls” as principal officers.” 487 U.S. at 672-73 (quoting Eaton, 169 U.S. at 343)). Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Morrison similarly described Eaton as holding that “the appointment by an Executive Branch official other than the President of a “vice-consul,” charged with the duty of temporarily performing the function of the consul, did not violate the Appointments Clause.” Id. at 721 (Scalia, .. dissenting). Likewise, in his dissenting opinion in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667 (DC. Cir. 2008), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 561 U.S. 447 (2010), then-Judge Kavanaugh cited Eaton to establish that “[t]he temporary nature of the office is the . . . reason that acting heads of departments are permitted to exercise authority without Senate confirmation.” Id at 708 n.17 (Kavanaugh, J. dissenting). Notably, Judge Kavanaugh also cited our 2003 opinion, which concluded that an OMB official who was not Senate confirmed could serve as Acting Director of OMB. See id. (citing Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123).
In SW General, the Court acknowledged the long history of Acts of Congress permitting the President to authorize officials to temporarily perform the functions of vacant offices requiring Senate approval. 137 S. Ct. at 935. Although the Court’s opinion did not address the Appointments Clause, Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion suggested that a presidential directive to serve as an officer under the Vacancies Reform Act should be viewed as an appointment, and that such a direction would “raise [ ] grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.? Id. But Justice Thomas also distinguished Eaton on the ground that the acting designation at issue in SW General was not “special and temporary” because it had remained in place “for more than three years in offices limited by statute to a 4-year term.” Id. At 946 n. 1. Justice Thomas’s opinion may therefore be understood to be consistent not only with Eaton, but also with the precedents of this Office, which have found it “implicit” that “the tenure of an Acting Director should not continue beyond a reasonable time.” Status 0f the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1 Op. O.L.C. 287, 289-90 (1977). Even under Justice Thomas’s opinion, Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General, which was made one week ago, and which would lapse in the absence of a presidential nomination, should qualify as “special and temporary” under Eaton.
[page] 15
Executive practice and more recent legislation reinforces that an inferior officer may temporarily act in the place of a principal officer. In 1980, for instance, this Office raised no constitutional concerns in concluding (in the context of a non-executive office) that the Comptroller General was statutorily authorized to “designate an employee” of the General Accounting Office to be Acting Comptroller General during the absence or incapacity of both the Senate-confirmed Comptroller General and the Senate-confirmed Deputy Comptroller General. Authority of the Comptroller General to Appoint an Acting Comptroller General, 4B Op. O.L.C 690, 690-91 (1980).
Most significantly, in 2003, this Office relied on Eaton in concluding that, although “the position of Director [of is a principal office, . . . an Acting Director [of is only an inferior officer.” Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123. We did not think that that conclusion had been called into question by Edmond’s statement that an inferior officer is one who reports to a superior officer below the President, because in that case “[t]he Court held only that [g]enerally speaking” an inferior officer is subordinate to an officer other than the President,” and because Edmond did not deal with temporary officers. 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124 (citations omitted). Assuming that for constitutional purposes the official designated as acting head of an agency would need to be an inferior officer (and that the OMB official in question was not already such an officer), we further concluded that the President’s designation of an acting officer under the Act should be regarded as an appointment by the President alone” a constitutionally permissible mode for appointing an inferior officer. Id. at 125. Since then, Presidents George W. Bush and Obama each used their authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to place non-Senate-confirmed Chiefs of Staff in the lines of succession to be the acting head of several federal agencies.13 In three instances, President Obama placed a Chief of Staff above at least one Senate-confirmed officer within the same department.14 And, in practice, during the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations, multiple unconfirmed officers were designated to serve as acting agency heads, either under the Vacancies Reform Act or another office-specific
__________
13 See Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Social Security Administration, 71 Fed. Reg. 20333 (Apr. 17, 2006); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Council on Environmental Quality, 73 Fed. Reg. 54487 (Sept. 18, 2008) (later superseded by 2017 memorandum cited below); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Act as President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 76 Fed. Reg. 33613 (June 6, 2011); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Millennium Challenge Corporation to Act as Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 77 Fed. Reg. 31161 (May 21, 2012); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the General Services Administration to Act as Administrator of General Services, 78 Fed. Reg. 59161 (Sept. 20, 2013); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Office of Personnel Management to Act as Director of the Office of Personnel Management, 81 Fed. Reg. 54715 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Humanities, 81 Fed. Reg. 54717 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Arts, 81 Fed. Reg. 96335 (Dec. 23, 2016); Memorandum, Designation of Officers or Employees of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Act as Director, 82 Fed. Reg. 7625 (Jan. 13, 2017); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Council on Environmental Quality, 82 Fed. Reg. 7627 (Jan. 13, 2017).
14 See Executive Order 13612, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Agriculture, 77 Fed. Reg. 31153 (May 21, 2012); Executive Order 13735, Providing an Order Within the Department of the Treasury, 81 Fed. Reg. 54709 (Aug. 12, 2016); Executive Order 13736, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, 81 Fed. Reg. 54711 (Aug. 12, 2016).
[page] 16
15 Those determinations reflect the judgments of these administrations that the President may lawfully designate an unconfirmed official, including a Chief of Staff, to serve as an acting principal officer.
Congress too has determined in the Vacancies Reform Act and many other currently operative statutes that non-Senate-confirmed officials may temporarily perform the functions of principal officers. By its terms, the Vacancies Reform Act applies to nearly all executive offices for which appointment “is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a); see id (excluding only certain members of multi-member boards, commissions, or similar entities). And it specifically provides for different treatment in some respects depending on whether the vacant office is that of an agency head. Id 3348(b)(2). Moreover, the statute contemplates that non-Senate-confirmed officials will be able to serve as acting officers in certain applications of section 3345(a)(1) as well as in all applications of section 3345(a)(3), which refers to an “officer or employee.” The latter provision had no counterpart in the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it was not completely novel, because clerks, who were not Senate-confirmed, were routinely authorized to serve as acting officers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes.16
Congress has also enacted various statutes that enable deputies not confirmed by the Senate to act when the office of the Senate-confirmed agency head is vacant. See 12 U.S.C. 4512(f) (providing for an Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency); id 549l(b)(5) (providing for an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection); 21 U.S.C. 1703(a)(3) (providing for an Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy); 40 U.S.C. 302(b) (providing for an Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration); 44 U.S.C. 2103(c) (providing for an Acting Archivist). All of those provisions contemplate the temporary service of non-Senate-confirmed officials as acting
__________
15 For example, during this administration, Grace Bochenek, a non-Senate-confirmed laboratory director, served as Acting Secretary of Energy from January 20, 2017, until March 2, 2017; Tim Home, a non-Senate-confirmed Regional Commissioner, served as Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration from January 20, 2017, until December 12, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a GSA-specific statute); Phil Rosenfelt, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy General Counsel, served as Acting Secretary of Education from January 20, 2017, until February 7, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a statute specific to that department); Don Wright, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services from September 30, 2017, until October 10, 2017; Peter O’Rourke, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Staff, served as Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs from May 29, 2018, until July 30, 2018; and Shelia Crowley, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Operations, served, upon President Obama’s designation, as Acting Director of the Peace Corps from January 20, 2017, until November 16, 2017. During the Obama administration, Darryl Hairston, a career employee, served as Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration from January 22, 2009, until April 6, 2009, and Edward Hugler, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Labor from February 2, 2009, until February 24, 2009. During the Bush Administration, Augustine a non-Senate-confirmed Executive Associate Director served as Acting Director of OMB from June 10, 2003, until late June 2003, consistent with our opinion.
16 Echoing the movement in the early nineteenth century to chief clerks rather than Senate-confirmed officials from other departments, section 3345(a)(3) was reportedly the product of a desire to give the President “more flexibility” to use “qualified individuals who have worked within the agency in which the vacancy occurs for a minimum number of days and who are of a minimum grade level.” S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 31 (additional views of Sen. Glenn et id at 35 (minority views of Sens. Durbin and Akaka).
[page] 17
principal officers, and these statutes would appear to be unconstitutional if only a Senate-confirmed officer could temporarily serve as an acting principal officer. Similarly, other current statutes provide that, although the deputy is appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, the President or the department head may designate another official to act as the agency head, even though that official is not Senate-confirmed. See 20 U.S.C. 3412(a)( 1) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Education] shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 31 U.S.C. 502(f) (providing that the President may designate “an officer of the Office [of Management and Budget] to act as Director”); 38 U.S.C. 304 (providing that the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs serves as Acting Secretary “[u]nless the President designates another officer of the Government”); 42 U.S.C. 7132(a) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Energy] shall designate the order in which the Under Secretary and other officials shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 49 U.S.C. 102(e) (providing that the Secretary of Transportation shall establish an order of succession that includes Assistant Secretaries who are not Senate-confirmed for instances in which the offices of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy are vacant); 4O U.S.C. 302(b) (providing that the Deputy Administrator serves as Acting Administrator of General Services when that office “is vacant,” “unless the President designates another officer of the Federal Government”); cf 44 U.S.C. 304 (limiting the individuals whom the President may choose to serve as Acting Director of the Government Printing Office to those who occupy offices requiring presidential appointment with the Senate’s advice and consent).
Indeed, if it were unconstitutional for an official without Senate confirmation to serve temporarily as an acting agency head, then the recent controversy over the Acting Director of the CFPB should have been resolved on that ground alone – even though it was never raised by any party, the district court, or the judges at the appellate argument. On November 24, 2017, the Director of the CF PB appointed a new Deputy Director, expecting that she would become the Acting Director upon his resignation later that day. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *2 n. 1. The Director of the CFPB relied on 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which expressly contemplates that a non-Senate-confirmed official (the Deputy Director) will act as a principal officer (the Director). The President, however, exercised his authority under 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2) to designate the Director of OMB as Acting Director of the CF PB. See English, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 330. When the Deputy Director challenged the President’s action, we are not aware that anyone ever contended that the Deputy Director was constitutionally ineligible to serve as Acting Director because she had not been confirmed by the Senate. If the newly
installed Deputy Director of the CFPB could lawfully have become the Acting Director, then the
Chief of Staff to the Attorney General may serve as Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.
The constitutionality of Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General is supported by Supreme Court precedent, by acts of Congress passed in three different centuries,
and by countless examples of executive practice. To say that the Appointments Clause now
[page] 18
prohibits the President from designating Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General would mean that the Vacancies Reform Act and a dozen statutes were unconstitutional, as were countless prior instances of temporary service going back to at least the Jefferson Administration.
There is no question that Senate confirmation is an important constitutional check on the President’s appointments of senior officers. The Senate’s role “serves both to curb Executive abuses of the appointment power, and to promote a judicious choice of [persons] for filling the offices of the union.” Edmond, 520 US. at 659 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the “constitutional process of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation . . . can take time: The President may not settle on a nominee to fill an office; the Senate may be unable, or unwilling, to speedily confirm the nominee once submitted.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935. Despite their frequent disagreements over nominees, for over 200 years, Congress and the President have agreed upon the value and permissibility of using temporary appointments, pursuant to limits set by Congress, in order to overcome the delays of the confirmation process.
If the President could not rely on temporary designations for principal offices, then the efficient functioning of the Executive Branch would be severely compromised. Because most Senate-confirmed officials resign at the end of an administration, a new President must rely on acting officials to serve until nominees have been confirmed. If Senate confirmation were required before anyone could serve, then the Senate could frustrate the appropriate functioning of the Executive Branch by blocking the confirmation of principal officers for some time. See 144 Cong. Rec. 27496 (Oct. 21, 1998) (statement of Sen. Thompson) (noting that section 3345(a)(3) had been added because “[c]oncerns had been raised that, particularly early in a presidential administration, there will sometimes be vacancies in first assistant positions, and that there will not be a large number of Senate-confirmed officers in the government,” as well as “concerns . . . about designating too many Senate-confirmed persons from other offices to serve as acting officers in additional positions?). A political dispute with the Senate could frustrate the President’s ability to execute the laws by delaying the appointment of his principal officers.
The problems with a contrary rule are not limited to the beginning of an administration. Many agencies would run into problems on an ongoing basis, because they have few officers subject to Senate confirmation. Thus, when a vacancy in the top spot arises, such an agency would either lack a head or be forced to rely upon reinforcements from Senate-confirmed appointees outside the agency. Those outside officers may be inefficient choices when a non-Senate-confirmed officer within the agency is more qualified to act as a temporary caretaker. At best, designating a Senate-confirmed officer to perform temporary services would solve a problem at one agency only by cannibalizing the senior personnel of another.
It is true that these concerns do not apply to the current circumstances of the Department of Justice, which is staffed by a number of Senate-confirmed officers. Following Attorney General Sessions’ resignation, the President could have relied upon the Deputy Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or an Assistant Attorney General to serve as Acting Attorney General. But the availability of potential alternatives does not disable Congress from providing the President with discretion to designate other persons under section 3345(a)(3) of the Vacancies Reform Act. Nothing in the text of the Constitution or historical practice suggests that
[page] 19
the President may turn to an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate if, but only if, there is no appropriate Senate-confirmed official available.
The President’s designation to serve as Acting Attorney General of a senior Department of Justice official who does not currently hold a Senate-confirmed office is expressly authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(3). Mr. Whitaker has been designated based upon a statute that permits him to serve as Acting Attorney General for a limited period, pending the Senate’s consideration of a nominee for Attorney General. Consistent with our 2003 opinion, with Eaton, and with two centuries of practice, we advised that his designation would be lawful.
[Signed]
STEVEN A. ENGEL
Assistant Attorney General
[page]20
THIS WRITER?
Richard is an attorney at law, and has served as an advertising and marketing and operations executive, a copy and slogan and technical and fiction writer, an auditor, an educator, and as CEO, Executive Vice President, and Vice President of several companies, one of which was among the largest privately owned broadcasting companies in the world. He works at being an oil, acrylic, and watercolor artist, and more than 800 of his oil, acrylic, and watercolor paintings are found on fineartamerica.com or www.richard-w-linford.pixels.com. He has written more than 75 non-fiction and fiction books listed in this appendix to this small work, most of which are available on www.amazon.com (type Richard W. Linford.) He was co-producer of audio programs The World’s 100 Greatest Books, The World’s 100 Greatest People, and The World’s 50 Greatest Composers, their lives and their music. He served as state chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (and Muslims) and on NCCJ national board for 14 years, as chairman of a multi-county Red Cross, and on other non-profit boards. He currently serves as the representative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Utah State Volunteers Active in Disaster Board.
Most of Richard’s Writings are on Amazon.com. Type Richard W. Linford.
Following is a catalog of his book subjects and titles, most of which are found at amazon.com and which can be accessed by clicking on the link following a title below or by typing Richard W. Linford or Richard Linford in the amazon.com search box.
A Number of Articles and Papers, one of the most read Ensign articles from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is his 20 Ways to Make Your Good Marriage Great, Ensign 1983. He was responsible for writing and producing an earlier version of The Church Welfare Services Handbook and Essentials of Home Production and Storage and similar manuals. A Number of Talks, Poems, and Critical Reports. [Not found at amazon.com.]
WE BARREL & PORK ENDORSE RICHARD’S NEW BOOK “KILLING BILL O’REILLY” – How the LEFT tried to kill Bill’s career and failed. Bill is back with a vengeance. By Richard W Linford.
WE HONOR AND THANK POTUS TRUMP FOR HIS 314+ PROMISES KEPT AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING HIS FIRST 20 MONTHS IN OFFICE. Besides continuing those positive actions, these areas require added energy and focus:
SAFETY. Build the wall yesterday. Make all come through the front door and be vetted and e-verified.
PROSPERITY. Redo our infrastructure as promised and protect and augment our electrical, gas and oil, communications, and internet grids and capabilities.
FREEDOM. Relentlessly continue the fight against terrorism, indict and arrest those who have feloniously violated federal law, and tamp down any hint of domestic mobocracy and violence including efforts by anti-Americans to curtail Constitutional rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
NOW KNOWN FOR HIS RELENTLESS PROMISE-KEEPING, POTUS TRUMP DOES NOT RETREAT. HE IS RELENTLESS IN KEEPING HIS PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HIS WINNING STREAK IS OVER THE TOP. HE JUST KEEPS ON WINNING.
BARREL, what kind of a grade should I give Senator Susan Collins for her speech today?
PORK, give her an A+. She nailed it. She set forth Brett Kavanaugh’s excellent credentials. She documented that there is no corroborating testimony whatsoever for Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and allegations. Ended by saying she is voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court.
PORK, it is my conclusion that Christine Blasey Ford is a consummate liar and that her story is a calculated, fabricated effort to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a man with an unblemished record.
After 36 years, did she “remember” and claim that she drank only “one beer?” Yes. Could she remember the day of her alleged polygraph even though it was a couple of weeks earlier on her grandmother’s birthday? No.
After 36 years, did she “remember” music was playing in the room where allegedly she was assaulted? Yes.
Can she show us the house on a map? No.
Can she tell us how many people were there at the house? No.
Can she tell us how old she was? No. She said 17. Then she said 15.
Can she tell us how she got home? No.
Can she tell us the address where the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us the date of the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us the month the alleged party happened? No.
Can she tell us the place? No.
Can she tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us who drove her home? No.
Can she tell us who drove her to the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us who owned the house the alleged party was in? No. Can she drive us to the house? No. Can she tell us the color of the house or the landscaping? No.
Can she tell us how many persons were in the room where she was allegedly assaulted? No. First it was 4 and then 2.
Did she leave who her parents and brothers are off from her Wikipedia site? Yes.
Did she admit that she was drinking at the alleged party? Yes.
Did she explain why she is alleged in yearbooks and internet sites to have been a serious alcohol drinker during high school? No. Did she address whether she is currently an alcoholic? No.
Did she explain to us why she is a liberal activist? No.
Did she explain to us why she is anti-Trump? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to have written the words “Scalia-types must be banned from law” on her Facebook page in 2016? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to be portrayed in Holton Arms yearbooks as a binge drinker and a promiscuous wild party girl with multiple partners, as many as 54, during high school to college? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she asked that the letter not be disclosed and then personally disclosed the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and or her staff to create and leak the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II worked and still works for the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II was vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her grandfather was a key figure in the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she heads up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University? No.
Did she explain why she has now raised $750,000 off her story when her attorneys are allegedly working pro bono and travel at most costs a few thousand dollars? No. And did she explain that she is or soon will be a millionaire because she “came forward” like Anita Hill who became a millionaire writing books for Doubleday? No. And did she explain why her attorneys are now being investigated? No.
Did she explain why there are at least 14 serious errors in the letter she claims to have written, errors no PhD would make, errors that would be made by an inexperienced writer, perhaps an inexperienced writer from another country, or an old person of another generation like Senator Feinstein? No.
Did she state that she left the alleged party without telling anyone there were two rapists in the building? Yes.
Did she lie about being afraid to fly? Yes.
Did she fly long distances for vacations yet use the excuse of fear of flying to put off the hearing and buy the democrats added time? Yes.
Did she or her accomplices diligently try to scrub the internet of anything incriminating about her binge drinking and promiscuity as a teen? Yes.
Did she reveal her alleged harm to democrats only? Yes. Did she explain why she did not go to the police at any point? No.
Did she reveal herself to the anti-Trump Washington Post? Yes.
Did she state that she came forward because she saw Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list? Yes.
Was Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list at the time she alleges? No. It was added later so she would not have seen it and thus lied about it.
So did she lie about the reason she came forward? Yes.
Did she tell anyone at the time of the alleged incident? No.
Did she tell anyone there were two “rapists” in the house? No.
Did she tell her brothers? She says not
Did she tell her father? She says not.
Did she tell her mother? She says not.
Did she tell us why it is alleged that her brother Ralph Blasey III worked for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? No.
Did she tell us who her brothers are and what they do for a living and what they did when she was in high school? No. Did she tell us how many times her brothers drove her to parties or other places? No. Did she tell us her brothers’ involvement in such parties? No.
Did she tell us who her father is? No.
Did she tell us who her mother is? No.
Did she turn over her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee? No.
Did she withhold essential details about the alleged polygraph? Yes.
Does any person she lists as being at the alleged party confirm her story? No.
Does any witness from anywhere in the world corroborate any element of her story? No.
Does her life-friend support or deny her story? Denies.
Is her “little girl voice” demeanor during her testimony credible? No.
Is her lack of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her polygraph uncorroborated and as such is it worthless? Yes. Does she tell us who ordered her polygraph? No.
Is her Safeway reference credible? No.
Is her slight show of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her tucking of the head demeanor and tongue pushing during her testimony indicative that she was and is not credible? Yes.
Is she specific after 36 years that she locked herself in the bathroom? Yes. Has she explained why the two “rapists” did not follow her? No.
Is she an accomplice and shill of the far left? Yes.
Was she raped? No. Was she assaulted? May have been but it wasn’t by Brett Kavanaugh.
If she was Holton Arms High School promiscuous during her teenage years as alleged in immense detail in “her” school yearbooks, does this negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes. Has she explained the “erotic” details about Holton Arms High School girls alcohol binges to blackout and multiple sex partners and break beach parties/black out orgies even involving older men? No. Has she explained why two other men have come forward to say they assaulted her? No.
If she is tied to the CIA and the law firm that created the infamous “dossier” and the Clintons in multiple ways as alleged (Judge Kavanaugh called out the Clintons), if she colluded with the democrats as is apparent from the Kavanaugh Ford hearing, if she colluded with Senator Feinstein (who went out of her way to set herself apart with plausible denability, yet Senator Feinstein duplicitously withheld the alleged Ford letter from Senator Grassley and the committee, thereby obstructing justice, and if she colluded with Senator Feinstein’s staff, does even a fraction of such conduct negate her story that she was assaulted, that two men attempted to rape her? Yes.
Did she collude with others including Senator Feinstein, whose attempt at plausible deniability was blatant and whose intent and conduct was to obstruct justice, and did Mrs. Ford collude with Senator Feinstein’s staff, and others she refers to as friends in California? Yes.
Did she fabricate her story about Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
Is she responsible for the trauma caused to Judge Kavanaugh and his family including daughters and wife and others? Yes.
What happens now? Wait and see what the FBI reports and applaud Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate in the next few days. Although Mrs. Ford may have been assaulted sometime in the past, there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever that Christine Ford was assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh.
PORK, it is my conclusion that Christine Blasey Ford is a consummate liar and that her story is a calculated, fabricated effort to take down Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a man with an unblemished record.
Why do I say that? Because of the following:
After 36 years, did she “remember” and claim that she drank only “one beer?” Yes.
After 36 years, did she “remember” music was playing in the room? Yes.
Can she show us the house on a map? No.
Can she tell us how many people were there at the house? No.
Can she tell us how old she was? No. She said 17. Then she said 15.
Can she tell us how she got home? No.
Can she tell us the address where the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us the date of the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us the month the alleged party happened? No.
Can she tell us the place? No.
Can she tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
Can she tell us who drove her home? No.
Can she tell us who drove her to the alleged party? No.
Can she tell us who owned the house the alleged party was in? No.
Can she tell us how many persons were in the room where she was allegedly assaulted? No. First it was 4 and then 2.
Did she leave who her parents and brothers are off from her Wikipedia site? Yes.
Did she admit that she was drinking at the alleged party? Yes.
Did she explain why she is alleged in year books and internet sites to have been a serious alcohol drinker during high school? No.
Did she explain to us why she is a liberal activist? No.
Did she explain to us why she is anti-Trump? No.
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to have written the words “Scalia-types must be banned from law” on her Facebook page in 2016?
Did she explain to us why she is alleged to be portrayed in Holton Arms year books as a binge drinker and a promiscuous wild party girl with multiple partners, as many as 54, during high school to college? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she asked that the letter not be disclosed and then personally disclosed the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and or her staff to create and leak the letter? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II worked and still works for the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her father Ralph Blasey II was vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that her grandfather was a key figure in the CIA? No.
Did she explain why it is alleged that she heads up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University? No.
Did she explain why she has now raised $750,000 off her story when her attorneys are allegedly working pro bono? No. And did she explain why her attorneys are now being investigated? No.
Did she explain why there are at least 14 serious errors in the letter she claims to have written, errors no PhD would make, errors that would be made by an inexperienced writer, perhaps a writer from another country, or an old person of another generation like Senator Feinstein? No.
Did she state that she left the alleged party without telling anyone there were two rapists in the building? Yes.
Did she lie about being afraid to fly? Yes.
Did she fly long distances for vacations yet use the excuse of fear of flying to put off the hearing and buy the democrats added time? Yes.
Did she or her accomplices diligently try to scrub the internet of anything incriminating about her binge drinking and promiscuity as a teen? Yes.
Did she reveal her alleged harm to democrats only? Yes. Did she explain why she did not go to the police at any point? No.
Did she reveal herself to the anti-Trump Washington Post? Yes.
Did she state that she came forward because she saw Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list? Yes.
Was Judge Kavanaugh’s name on POTUS Trump’s list at the time she alleges? No. It was added later so she would not have seen it and thus lied about it.
So did she lie about the reason she came forward? Yes.
Did she tell anyone at the time of the alleged incident? No.
Did she tell anyone there were two “rapists” in the house? No.
Did she tell her brothers? She says not
Did she tell her father? She says not.
Did she tell her mother? She says not.
Did she tell us why it is alleged that her brother Ralph Blasey III worked for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? No.
Did she tell us who her brothers are and what they do for a living and what they did when she was in high school? No. Did she tell us how many times her brothers drove her to parties or other places? No. Did she tell us her brothers’ involvement in such parties? No.
Did she tell us who her father is? No.
Did she tell us who her mother is? No.
Did she turn over her therapist notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee? No.
Did she withhold dispositive details about the alleged polygraph? Yes.
Does any person she lists as being at the alleged party confirm her story? No.
Does any witness from anywhere in the world corroborate any element of her story? No.
Does her life-friend support or deny her story? Denies.
Is her “little girl voice” demeanor during her testimony credible? No.
Is her lack of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her polygraph uncorroborated as it is worthless? Yes.
Is her Safeway reference credible? No.
Is her slight show of emotion during her testimony credible? No.
Is her tucking of the head demeanor and tongue pushing during her testimony indicative that she was and is not credible? Yes.
Is she specific after 36 years that she locked herself in the bathroom? Yes.
Is she an accomplice and shill of the far left? Yes.
Was she raped? No. Was she assaulted? May have been but it wasn’t by Brett Kavanaugh.
If she was Holton Arms High School promiscuous during her teenage years as alleged does this negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes. Has she explained the “erotic” details about Holton Arms High School girls alcohol binges to blackout and multiple sex partners and break beach parties/black out orgies? No.
If she is tied to the CIA and the law firm that created the infamous “dossier” and the Clintons in multiple ways as alleged, and colluded with the democrats, including Senator Feinstein and her staff, does this also negate her alleged assault and attempted rape story completely? Yes.
Did she collude with others including Senator Feinstein, whose attempt at plausible deniability was blatant, and Senator Feinstein’s staff, and others she refers to as friends in California? Yes.
Did she fabricate her story about Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
Is she responsible for the trauma caused Judge Kavanaugh and his family including daughters and wife and others? Yes.
What happens now? Wait and see what the FBI reports and applaud Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate in the next few days. There is no evidence whatsoever that Christine Ford was assaulted.
I watched the Judge Brett Kavanaugh Dr. Christine Blasey Ford hearings with great interest and have several observations which some no doubt will criticize as being partisan, BARREL. The following is not partisan. It is a note to Senator Flake, Senator Grassley, Senator McConnell, and POTUS Trump. Democrats may read this if they have interest because I suspect they will be sorry they ever asked for an FBI probe. Having seen both accuser and then accused in living color, I ask these most basic questions regarding the Judge Kavanaugh Dr. Ford Senate hearing. The questions are:
Have 85 year old Senator Dianne Feinstein and her office and Dr. Ford and other Democrats links to the CIA so-called deep state including the Clintons, who Judge Kavanaugh called out during his impassioned defense, have these people orchestrated the Ford testimony in order to pull off the greatest felony fraud on the United States Senate and the American people in Senate history? It looks like it, BARREL, and before I get into the detail, is the following list of questions and answers some concocted conspiracy theory? No it is not. Something is totally rotten in the State of Denmark, Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act I, Scene IV, which is to say there is overwhelming political corruption on the part of some of the nation’s democrat political leaders.
PORK, I’m on the same page with you. So what are your questions.
BARREL, we know the answers to many of the following questions. A few of the questions still need answers. So think about the following, BARREL. Sounds like the FBI investigation is something the Democrats may not enjoy if the FBI investigation is carried out with integrity. Anyway, here are some serious questions and answers I ask and answer after watching the recent Ford-Kavanaugh testimonies.
Did Dr. Ford tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us the address? No.
Did Dr. Ford show us the house? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell anyone at the time of the alleged event? No.
Is there a single witness corroborating Dr. Ford’s story? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us the month? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us the day? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us how old she was at the time? No. She said 17 and then 15.
Did Dr. Ford tell us the grade she was in? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the party? No.
Was Dr. Ford drinking? Yes. She remembers specifically that she had just “one beer” at the party – no more.
With her “one beer” answer in mind, is the following true or is this fake news? “Christine Blasey Ford admitted she was an alcoholic back then, & regretted being so easy. She told her best friend she had 64 sexual partners between 11th grade thru college. She is also liberal activist who wrote on her FB [Facebook] in ’16 [2016], “Scalia-types must be banned from law!” or is this fake news? BOMBSHELL: Blasey-Ford’s HS Yearbooks Brag of Drunken Promiscuity, ’54 Sex Partners Before College’ [Continuing:]
September 20, 2018 They didn’t quite get it all scrubbed from cyberspace quickly enough. High School yearbooks from Holton Arms preparatory school (Bethesda, Maryland, 1982-1985) purportedly show Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford as a wild party girl in a wild party era, with yearbook passages by classmates bragging of spending the night with adult men during “Beach Week” and enjoying male strippers in G-strings for “Sweet 16” birthday parties. … As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s rape accuser today pulls back from an invited offer for Senate testimony, (saying through her attorney that a Friday deadline set by Republicans is quote, “arbitrary,”) the inevitable lev[ee] break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed [tiny child voice during the hearing] “church mouse” taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator. Even summarizing the totality of what the yearbooks contain is difficult, given that it paints a picture of hedonistic, debauched teenage behavior in which Christine Blasey-Ford is alleged to have not only indulged but promoted and led as an acknowledged focal point of American Pie, or Animal House-style fraternizing with eager young men, often in (by Holton Arms classmates’ descriptions) alcohol-saturated social settings that left participants unable to recall exactly what had taken place. One excerpt from a yearbook entry detailed the philosophy of binge drinking to memory loss as a necessity of the Holton Arms party scene: “Although these parties are unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene. Nothing emerges but a vague feeling of intense enjoyment when one tries to recall them. We were probably, you know, really tired and all.”
One friend, (identified briefly on social media) alleges Blasey-Ford (Holton Arms, Class of 1984) suffered no memory loss whatsoever in describing and bragging about her sexual conquests and paramours, identifying 54 sexual partners between her junior year of high school and enrollment in college. The social media post (below) claims Blasey-Ford previously allegedly admitted to being an alcoholic in high school and regretted, “being so easy,” in high school. She is alleged to have told the best friend that she had 54 sexual partners between 11th grade and enrollment in college. The post also identified Blasey-Ford as a liberal activist with an obvious sensitivity to Supreme Court ideology, once writing on social media, “Scalia-types must be banned from law!” [Is this fake news?]
“[A]s quickly as the images began to emerge on social media Monday, Blasey-Ford’s supporters worked this week to scrub them or have them taken down from various outlets. The entries describe wild drunken romps with boys, binge drinking blackouts, birthday parties with male strippers and the benefits of passing out drunk to avoid guilt and shame of alleged sexual activity. On one yearbook page, a passage is dedicated to artful description of a “Sweet 16” birthday party for one Blasey-Ford, Holton Arms classmate, complete with a male stripper wearing a gold G-string and dancing to the delight of the obviously underage attendees:
“The tenth grade taught us how to party also and Martha (redacted) [has the FBI interviewed Martha?] usually provided the circumstances in which to do so. Celebrating her sweet sixteen or just the weekend. Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality, her pool …, and her erotic male dancer, the latter in his gold G-string, being by far the most effective.”
“Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality…and her erotic male dancer, the latter, in his gold G-string being by far the most effective.”
“While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name and friends ][Has the FBI interviewed Ann and friends?]picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…” [Two men said they “assaulted Dr. Ford” not Judge Kavanaugh. Have they been interviewed by the FBI?]
Multiple Holton Arms yearbook entries show racy images purported to be Blasey-Ford in evocative clothing and sensuous repose, including photos of three minors dressed provocatively in Playboy Bunny and French maid costumes. (Redacted photos are allegedly much racier.) The caption describes underage high school girls dancing seductively in the middle of a highway during “Beach Week,” and then enticing some (adult?) men to come back to their apartment for binge drinking and a night of whatever libidinous fun might have transpired:
“Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…”
“Other passages hint at the dating habits and adventurous process of selecting boys for romantic interest and activity, indicating that some female members of the Holton Arms senior class preferred freshman and sophomore boys as their companions: “Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”
It’s not clear who began redacting the photos and entries and who spearheaded the scrubbing operation that became a race against independent outlets who snapped up the photos as soon as they became public knowledge. [Has the FBI figured this lead out?]
“What is known is that Blasey-Ford avoided public revelation of her accusations until the conclusion of Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and now, shows no interest in meeting a Friday deadline to testify under oath to her allegation of sexual assault against him, which in context, even if it were true, seems one of the tamer things that might ever happened in her high school career in what public yearbook accounts reveal as a WASP-ish, elitist East Coast, upper crust bacchanal scene in the 1980’s.
“Multiple reports Thursday (9/20/18) indicated that Blasey-Ford was demanding the meeting of undisclosed conditions to testifying before the U.S. Senate concerning her claims against Kavanaugh, and that her attorney had termed a Friday deadline for such testimony to be, “arbitrary.” [Was the delay to give the conspirators time to scrub the internet of the incriminating evidence? Again, one for the FBI.] And is this all fake news?http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3689760/posts
Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the alleged party [or should it read parties]? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her home from the alleged party [or should it read parties]? No
Did Dr. Ford tell us the names of her brothers? No.
Was one of her brothers or both brothers complicit and or were they the drivers – taking Dr. Ford to the PARTIES? Bringing her home? [Another one for the FBI.] Or did her father or mother drive her to and from her parties?
Did Dr. Ford tell one or both of her parents? She says not.
Was Dr. Ford raped? No. She does not allege rape.
Did Dr. Ford tell her best friend? No.
Did Dr. Ford tell any other student? No.
Dr. Ford says Leland Ingham Keyser, a lifelong friend, was at the party. Yes.
Does Leland Ingham Keyser confirm that there was in fact such a party? No. Leland Ingham Keyser denies that there was such a party.
Dr. Ford claims that Judge Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Do either confirm in any way Dr. Ford’s memory? No.
Is there any witness who corroborates any part of Dr. Ford’s story? No.
Are Dr. Ford’s immediate family members anywhere on record as backing her up? No. Isn’t it at all interesting to the FBI and Senate Republicans that there is not even a whiff of support from her immediate family? In fact, on her Wikipedia blurb, her parents and siblings are not listed. Why is that?
Is her immediate personal family – mother, father, siblings — even present in the equation? No.
Have we heard from her mother backing her up? No.
Have we heard from her father backing her up? No.
Have we heard from either of her brothers backing her up? No.
Who are her brothers? And again, were they complicit in the “PARTIES” scene? Were they the party Uber drivers?
Did Dr. Ford’s father Ralph Blasey II work and does he still work for the CIA. Was he vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations? Is there a deep state collusion regarding this effort to discredit Judge Kavanaugh? Looks like it. One for the FBI.
“WELL, BESIDES BEING A “PROFESSOR” AT THE OFF BRAND UNIVERSITY, SHE ALSO WORKS AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY DOWN THE STREET FROM PALO ALTO. SHE JUST SO HAPPENS TO HEAD UP THE CIA UNDERGRADUATE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
CHRISTINE BLASEY’S BROTHER, RALPH THE THIRD, USED TO WORK FOR THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM OF BAKER, HOSTETLER. THE FIRM CREATED FUSION GPS, THE COMPANY WHO WROTE THE RUSSIAN “DOSSIER”. THEY LATER ADMITTED IT WAS ONLY A COLLECTION OF FIELD INTERVIEWS.
“BAKER HOSTETLER IS LOCATED IN THE SAME BUILDING WHERE THE CIA OPERATES THREE COMPANIES CALLED:
RED COATS INC.
ADMIRAL SECURITY SERVICES AND
DATAWATCH
THEY ARE OPERATED BY RALPH BLASEY II. HE IS THE FATHER OF CHRISTINE AND RALPH III.
“CHRISTINE AND RALPH III’S GRANDFATHER WAS NICHOLAS DEAK. FORMER CIA DIRECTOR WILLIAM CASEY ACKNOWLEDGED DEAK’S DECADES OF SERVICE TO THE CIA.
Is this the greatest con-job on the Senate since Roman times? Answer: Looks like it.
It is my turn, PORK.
Did Leland Ingham Keyser know Judge Kavanaugh? No.
Did Leland Ingham Keyser’s lawyer tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, has no recollection of EVER being at a party or gathering where Judge Kavanaugh was present with or without Dr. Ford? Yes.
Is there a letter of support from a dozen relatives, all on her husband’s side of the family? Yes.
What does that letter do? It merely says they think she is honest. [But is she?]
Again, did her parents and brothers sign the letter attesting to her honesty and integrity? NO. They are strangely absent from her Wikipedia bio.
Did Dr. Ford try to reach old friends from school and college to “jog her memory?” Yes.
Could any old friend from school or college “jog her memory?” No.
Did Dr. Ford say and complain “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail?” Yes. [If even a small part of the bacchanal allegations against Dr. Ford is true, is it any wonder she is “trying to forget this all my life?”
Is Dr. Ford a Democrat? Yes.
Is Dr. Ford an anti-Trump marcher? Yes.
Despite having not one corroborating witness, did Democrat Dr. Ford with help of Senator Feinstein and her cronies and staff push forward with her bombshell charge, contacting the Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer recommended by Senator Feinstein and or her staff? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford contend that her therapist took notes in 2012? Yes.
Do those notes mention Judge Kavanaugh? No.
Did Dr. Ford say there were “four boys” in the bedroom? Yes.
Does Dr. Ford now say there were “two boys” in the bedroom? Yes.
Do the therapist notes say Dr. Ford said she was in her “late teens?” Yes.
Isn’t that a contradiction? Yes.
Does Dr. Ford now say she may have been only 15? Yes.
Does Dr. Ford shows up in the year book of Holton Arms, Class of 1984? Yes.
Is there clear evidence that some if not many of the young women, Dr. Ford included, were far from saints during high school – that they in fact were over the top promiscuous? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford tell the Washington Post she was upset when POTUS Trump won in 2016? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford say she was upset with POTUS Trump because he mentioned Judge Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court pick? Yes.
But wasn’t Judge Kavanaugh not added to POTUS Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court choices until November 2017, a full year later? Yes.
Isn’t this another of Dr. Ford’s contradictions? Yes.
After 36 years, has Dr. Ford remembered several very specific details? Yes. [Example – she says she only had “one drink.” Has any one of her “details” been corroborated? No.
Did Dr. Ford claim Mark Judge was present? Yes.
Did Mark Judge confirm that there was such a party? No. Mark Judge denies under penalty of perjury any recollection of attending such a party.
Did Patrick “P.J.” Smyth deny any recollection of attending such a party under penalty of perjury? Yes.
Did the Senate Committee take sworn statements “under penalty of perjury” from the persons Dr. Ford said attended the party and did those persons deny that there was such a party? Yes.
Do all witnesses Dr. Ford “recalls” deny that there was such a party? Yes.
Again, do the people Dr. Ford identified as attending the party, corroborate her story in any way? No.
Is there even one corroborating witness who supports Dr. Ford’s story that there was such a party as she alleges? Answer. NO. Not one.
Is Dr. Ford’s story a set of bare allegations with no corroborating witnesses? Yes.
Does Dr. Ford list persons by name who were allegedly present at the party? Yes.
Again, does any one of the persons she lists confirm that there even was such a party? Not one.
Is it correct that even the woman alleged to be a friend denies that there was such a party? Yes.
I repeat again, do the persons she lists deny that there was such a party? Yes. All of them.
Again, has Dr. Ford told us who took her to the alleged party? No.
Has Dr. Ford told us who took her home from the alleged party? No.
Did her brothers serve as her party Uber drivers? A task for the FBI.
Did Dr. Ford exhibit any emotion during her testimony? Little if any. She did lapse into her “little girl voice” and manifest strange behavioral mannerisms? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford hold herself out to be a “psychologist” during her testimony? Yes.
Did she use scientific jargon during her testimony as if to establish her credentials as a “psychologist” and her veracity? Yes.
Is it true she is not a licensed “psychologist” and has no legal right in the state of California or any other state to call herself a psychologist? Yes.
Is calling herself a psychologist a crime and the equivalent of a law student calling herself a lawyer when she has not passed the bar exam? Yes.
Has anyone else said they assaulted Dr. Ford? Yes. Two men have said that they NOT BRETT KAVANAGH assaulted Dr. Ford. Have these threads been unraveled? We don’t know. Senators allegedly interviewed them. One for the FBI.
Does Dr. Ford have a PhD? Yes.
Is Dr. Ford a published science author? Yes.
Is Dr. Ford a graduate of a major well respected university? Yes. Stanford.
Does Dr. Ford teach at Stanford? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford say she alone wrote the letter accusing Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “1980’s” in her alleged letter? Yes.
Is this a common grammatical error made by inexperienced or older writers? Yes.
Why no apostrophe? Because it indicates possession.
Does any PhD know that using “1980’s” makes no sense because to do so creates a possessive and 1980 cannot possess anything? Yes.
Is the conclusion that the letter was not written by a PhD and was probably written by Senator Feinstein’s staffer or Senator Feinstein herself or a combination of staffer or staffers and Senator Feinstein, with help from Dr. Ford perhaps? Yes.
Did Dr. Ford capitalize the phrase “High School” in her letter? Yes.
Why is high school not capitalized? Because high school is not a proper noun and so is not capitalized.
Is it correct that the phrase “High School” is only capitalized when the full name of the high school is in question? Yes.
So one conclusion again is that Dr. Ford did not write the letter? Yes.
Who wrote it? Although Dr. Ford says she wrote the letter and was the only one who wrote the letter, something is amiss. This letter was not written by a PhD and was probably written by Senator Feinstein’s staffer(s) or Senator Feinstein or both.
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “Both were 1-2 years older than me and other students at a local private school”? Yes.
How should the sentence read? It should read: “Both were 1-2 years older than myself and other students at a local private school.”
Again, who did write it? Answer: either Senator Feinstein or a poorly educated staff person with very little writing experience wrote this. A PhD did not write it.
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “I feared he may inadvertently kill me”? Yes.
What is wrong with this construction? There is verb tense disagreement.
How should it read? It should read “I feared he MIGHT inadvertently kill me.”
Who wrote the letter? Again, the conclusion is the letter was written by someone other than Dr. Ford who claims status as a PhD, published science author, and has a graduate degree from Stanford, as well a teaching responsibility at Stanford.)
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “drunken” in her letter? Yes. She says “From across the room, a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh …”
What difference does it make? The phrase should be “a very drunk Judge.” Answer: Only an inexperienced or old writer would use the phrase drunken.
Did Mrs. Ford use the phrase “… Judge said mixed words …”? Yes.
What difference does it make? “Mixed words” is a construct a non-native English speaker or very inexperienced old writer working a cover-up would write, not a highly trained PhD who went to Stanford.
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “the two scrapped with each other”? Yes.
Do Americans say “scrapped?” No. Only a Non-native English or an old speaker would use the word “scrapped.” No one uses the word “scrapped” today. “Scrapped” is archaic. The word is “fought.”
So who wrote the letter? Answer: Dr. Ford did not write this letter. A member of Senator Feinstein’s staff wrote it or Senator Feinstein is old enough to have written or edited it herself.
Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “opportune moment” in her letter? Yes.
What difference does it make? Answers: Low-level writers use sophisticated-sounding words that are “above their pay grade.” Or, someone who is old from an earlier generation might use that phrase. Senator Feinstein is 85 years old. “Opportune moment” and “the two scrapped” are phrases from her generation.
Who wrote the letter? Answer: Only a low-level writer or an old person from Senator Feinstein’s generation would use either one of these phrases.
Did Dr. Ford fail to capitalize the word “I”? Yes. She says “It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet i felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.” Again, the “i” is not capitalized. No PhD from Stanford would make such an error.
So who did write it? Answer: A low-information blogger or activist is likely to make such an error or an old person like Senator Feinstein might let such go as a cover-up. Failure to capitalize “I” is common among younger writers in their twenties.
Did Mrs. Ford use the phrase “yet i felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything”? Yes.
Isn’t that ok? No. This is a strange construct. The words “compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything” is poor sentence structure and shows lack of coherent thinking.”
Who wrote it? This is a construct you might find in the writing of an uneducated, inexperienced writer or an old writer like Senator Feinstein who was trying to make the letter sound like she didn’t write it. Think about it. Dr. Ford has written many published science papers. This letter was not written by Dr. Ford.
Shifting gears, did Dr. Ford say she is afraid to fly? Yes.
Did she lie and use this excuse to delay the hearing? Yes.
Was she caught in that lie during her testimony? Yes.
Is there more? Yes.
A close look at her letter says she is “vacationing in the mid-Atlantic until August 7th and will be in California after August 10th.” She is flying great distances for a vacation. Her online photos show her vacationing in Hawaii. Thus, the big lie. Take a vacation and she can fly anywhere. Called to testify and she is afraid of flying. She colluded with Senator Feinstein’s office and lied in order to help the democrats delay.
So what is the bottom line? Conclusion: The letter was not written by Dr. Ford. It was written by Senator Feinstein or a staffer or a staffer and Senator Feinstein – perhaps with Dr. Ford’s help by telephone.
Was the letter leaked? Yes.
Who leaked it? Didn’t Senator Feinstein say that “she” did not do it? Yes.
What is the effect of Senator Feinstein’s denial? Answer: She gave herself plausible deniability. The definition of PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY “is the effort by people (typically senior officials [in this situation Senator Feinstein] in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in their organizational hierarchy and this to establish a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even though they were responsible for the actions in question.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Overview)
So who leaked the letter? Answer: Given Dr. Ford didn’t write the letter and it was written by Senator Feinstein and her staff colluding, and even if by some stretch of the imagination Dr. Ford did write the letter, one of Senator Feinstein’s staff leaked the letter. It is illogical and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest Dr. Ford or California cronies of Dr. Ford leaked the letter. Dr. Ford was the one who allegedly asked that the letter not be leaked. Then again, Dr. Ford may have said “Don’t leak the letter,” then leaked the letter herself. Given CIA connections and it is not hard to find that she knows how to beat a polygraph. To-date, Dr. Ford has been unwilling to provide the foundation documents for the alleged polygraph.
Did Senator Feinstein dishonestly sit on the alleged letter throughout hearings and leak it contrary to Dr. Ford’s instructions and thereby obstruct justice? That is what the timeline and Dr. Ford’s testimony shows.
Again, can Dr. Ford state where the alleged assault took place? No.
Can Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the alleged party and who took her home? No. Probably one of her brothers.
Is there even one corroborating witness in support of Dr. Ford’s testimony? No.
Is Dr. Ford’s body language during the hearing when she goes into her little girl voice and ducks her head a dead demeanor giveaway indicating that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and her staff and perhaps even with the acquaintances she kept referring to with whom she says she had conversations? Looks like it. Who were those acquaintances? Her brother or brothers? Her father? CIA related? Her cronies with an objective of taking out POTUS Trump’s “conservative” recommendation for the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh? (One for the FBI.)
Has Judge Kavanaugh denied all accusations by the different women who allege sexual misconduct? Yes – under threat of felony perjury.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have impeccable personal and family credentials? Yes. Keep in mind he was vetted 6 times already by the FBI.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have corroborating evidence that he was not at any such alleged party? Yes. Multiple witnesses Dr. Ford identified while at the same time Dr. Ford has no corroborating witness, not one.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have a history of supporting women? Yes. In the law and otherwise.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have an impeccable record as a jurist? Yes.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have the knowledge, talent, background to sit on the Supreme Court and decide Supreme Court cases? Yes.
Would Judge Kavanaugh adjudicate fairly? Yes. This is not supposition. This is fact. His track record, the cases he has adjudicated, demonstrate and prove his fairness.
Do the Democrats have anything to fear in confirming Dr. Kavanaugh? No. At least they didn’t until they trashed his family and caused his wife and children to receive death threats.
Does Judge Kavanaugh have one of the finest legal minds in the nation? Yes.
Was Judge Kavanaugh forthright and emphatic in his testimony? Yes.
Did he fully answer all questions? Yes.
Again, does Judge Kavanaugh “unequivocably deny Dr. Ford’s allegations … under penalty of perjury?” Yes. Multiple times.
Have the Democrats tried and convicted Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault – even calling him an “out-and-out ‘rapist,” a “sexual predator,” a “child predator,” based on bald accusations, without any evidence – with no substantiation – with no corroborating witnesses? Yes.
Are the Democrats’ allegations anything but bare allegations? No. There is no evidence against Judge Kavanaugh. To the contrary, all evidence is for Judge Kavanaugh and the evidence is now mounting overwhelmingly against Dr. Ford.
Is Dr. Ford’s story credible? No. HER STORY HAS LITTLE OR NO CREDIBILITY. There are no corroborating witnesses supporting her story.
Has Dr. Ford now raised approximately half million dollars off her story? Yes.
Have the Democrats created this political and media confusion and “circus” to delay and possibly prevent Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Yes.
Is this a Democrat and according to Judge Kavanaugh Clinton coordinated set-up? Yes.
Did and does the Senate Committee have the complete authority “under penalty of perjury” to investigate and decide? Yes. Or, is there need for an FBI investigation? No there is no such need for an FBI investigation. Now that there is one, however, I predict that the democrats will rue the day they asked for one and their perfidy in trashing Judge Kavanaugh has turned the nation against them this fall and in 2020.
As a consequence of the Democrats’ actions, has Judge Kavanaugh’s family received death threats? Yes.
Does Judge Kavanaugh deserve to be confirmed a member of the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes.
Why? Because there is no shred of evidence against him and the presumption of innocence applies and because there is no shred of evidence for Dr. Ford.
BARREL, Brett Kavanaugh has now testified, and the attorney Rachel Mitchell has yet to say or question or do anything of substance, Mr. Kavanaugh comes across in the hearing just now as very sincere and truthful. Given Mr. Kavanaugh’s testimony, why should we confirm Brett Kavanaugh now, BARREL?
That’s easy, PORK. Two men have come forward and stated that they were the ones who assaulted Mrs. Ford.
Looks like the Democrats by their underhanded treatment of Brett Kavanaugh and his family have just turned the Black, Hispanic, Jew, Native American, Asian American, Caucasian American people against them and in the process democrats have lost both the midterms and 2020 in a landslide for republicans and POTUS Trump.
The uncorroborated bald allegations of the three accusers are that these events happened in high school early in the 1980s. For benefit of the doubt, let’s say 1985. That means that the events are alleged to have happened 33-36 years ago during which gap time these people did not step forward.
The accusers have flawed memories. No one, and I mean no one, can remember with precision back that far, and without corroborating witnesses, there is no controversy and no legal case of merit.
At the same time, those who were alleged by Mrs. Ford to have been present testify that they were not present at any such party and that such acts did not take place and that Brett Kavanaugh was not present if they did take place.
Brett Kavanaugh has now testified under oath, under penalty of felony perjury, that he was not present and he did not engage in such acts, and he has witnesses, those who allegedly were present according to Mrs. Ford and who corroborate his story that he was not present and did not commit such acts, and it is fair to say that any civil or criminal causes of action are long since tolled by statutes of limitations, and if for some reason they might be heard in a court of law there is no compelling corroborating evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations.
Regarding the new allegation from Ms. Ramirez, Brett testifies unequivocally that such did not happen and that Ms. Ramirez, and Mrs. Ford, has made “a false and uncorroborated accusation,” that such is part of the democrat “frenzy” to block his confirmation and part of a “coordinated effort to destroy his good name.” He goes so far as to state that the conduct of the democrats has destroyed his good name.
He states, and rightly so, that these allegations “debase our public discourse” and are a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country.”
He further says, “Such grotesque and obvious character assassination – if allowed to succeed – will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.”
He courageously said, “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process.”
Brett has an unblemished record on the courts where he served, an unblemished record working with women, has in the past been FBI vetted at least 6 times, and he has stood his ground well and has garnered an unblemished record during the hearings, having been subjected by democrats and others to a withering barrage of questions, all of which he has answered well.
There are many women who have worked with him for years who testify as to his good character, which is to say the preponderance of female testimony places in question the integrity of the women who allege that Brett committed such acts. He in no way denies that Mrs. Ford may have been subjected to sexual assault by someone, at some place, at some time, but he denies under oath that he ever at any time committed sexual assault against her in any way.
The Democrats had their chance during the hearings to raise these issues and they failed.
They now are engaged in last minute character assassination in their “frenzied” effort to prevent POTUS Trump from achieving the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
These reasons and the fact that his is eminently qualified are more than sufficient to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
That’s easy, PORK. Looks like the Democrats by their underhanded treatment of Brett Kavanaugh and his family have just turned the American people against them and lost both the midterms and 2020 in a landslide for republicans and POTUS Trump.
The uncorroborated bald allegations of the accusers are that these events happened in high school early in the 1980s. For benefit of the doubt, let’s say 1985. That means that the events are alleged to have happened 33-35 years ago during which time these people did not step forward.
The accusers have flawed memories. No one, and I mean no one, can remember with precision back that far and without corroborating witnesses, there is no controversy and no legal case of merit.
Those who were alleged to have been present further testify that such acts did not take place and that Brett Kavanaugh was not present if they did take place.
Brett Kavanaugh has testified under oath, under penalty of felony perjury, that he was not present and he did not engage in such acts, and it is fair to say that any civil or criminal causes of action are long since tolled by statutes of limitations and if for some reason they might be heard in a court of law there is no compelling evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations.
Regarding the new allegation, Brett testifies unequivocally that such did not happen and that Mz Ramirez has made “a false and uncorroborated accusation,” that such is part of the democrat “frenzy” to block his confirmation and part of a “coordinated effort to destroy his good name.”
He states, and rightly so, that these allegations “debase our public discourse” and are a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country.”
He further says, “Such grotesque and obvious character assassination – if allowed to succeed – will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.”
He courageously said, “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process.”
Brett has an unblemished record on the court and he has stood his ground well and has garnered an unblemished record in the hearings, having been subjected by democrats and others to a withering barrage of questions, all of which he has answered well.
There are many women who have worked with him for years who testify as to his good character, which is to say the preponderance of female testimony places in question the integrity of the women who allege that Brett committed such acts.
The Democrats had their chance during the hearings to raise these issues and they failed.
They now are engaged in last minute character assassination in their “frenzied” effort to prevent POTUS Trump from achieving the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.
These reasons are more than sufficient to confirm him to the Supreme Court.
BARREL, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE 6 US DEBT NUMBERS?
$13.3 TRILLION IS DEBT OF AMERICANS.
$9.00 TRILLION OF THE $13.3 TRILLION IS MORTGAGE LOANS.
$1.25 TRILLION OF THE $13.3 TRILLION IS AUTO LOANS.
$1.02 TRILLION IS CREDIT CARD DEBT.(Average US adult owes $6,000)
$1.5 TRILLION IS STUDENT LOANS.
$21.5 TRILLION IS US NATIONAL DEBT.
PORK, my initial thought has to do with the $1.5 trillion in student loans and my corollary opinion that education should be free and that the educational institutions should not be permitted to raise their tuition in order to take advantage of government or institutional student loans. There is good rationale for forgiving outright all student loans because 44 million persons carry $1.5 trillion in student debt and that $1.5 trillion in debt burdens the persons carrying the student debt as well the nation. That same $1.5 trillion in debt depresses the purchasing power and entrepreneurial spirit of 44 million persons, thereby making it inordinately difficult for them to invest in a home, buy a car, or start a family, and engage in many other consumer actions. In the Bible, the book of Deuteronomy chapter 15 verse 1 (KJV) reads “At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release” which is read by most as requiring that debts be forgiven every seven years no matter a person’s circumstances. Seems to me there is reason to do just that – forgive all student loans every seven years no matter a student’s ability to repay.
BARREL, SHOULD JULIAN ASSANGE BE HONORED WITH A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?
YES OR NO?
Julian Paul Hawkins. Now Julian Assange.
Advocate of information transparency.
Advocate of market libertarianism maximizing political autonomy which is maximum self-government, freedom of choice, freedom from external control and influence, independence, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, voluntary association, based on individual judgment.
Mission. Publish accurate secret information and news.
Born July 3, 1971. Born in Australia.
Home town Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Spouse Teresa Doe – married 1989 – divorced 1999.
Partners Sarah Harrison 2009 – 2012.
4 children.
Studied at Central Queensland University.
Studied at University of Melbourne.
Studied at University of Canberra.
Software developer. PostgreSQL. Surfraw.
Citizenship Australian and Ecuadorian.
At time of writing, lives in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by right of asylum.
Reason – prevent extradition for alleged criminal activity including publication of classified information to Sweden, U.S., U.K., or elsewhere.
Founder of WikiLeaks.
Title Director and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.
Deputy Director and editor Omar Todd.
Political party Independent.
Established the WikiLeaks Party 2013. Party abolished.
Awards:
2008 The Economist New Media Award.
2009 Amnesty International UK Media Awards.
2010 TIME Person of the Year, Reader’s Choice.
2010 Sam Adams Award.
2011. Free Dacia Award.
2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal.
2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism.
2011 Voltaire Award for Free Speech.
2012 Bib Brother Awards Hero of Privacy.
2013 Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People’s Choice.
2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts.
2013 New York Festivals World’s Best TV & Films Silver World Medal.
2014 Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize.
Rationale for not giving him a Nobel Peace Prize –
He was accused of sexually assaulting two women in Sweden.
Was and ostensibly still is under investigation by the U.S. for WikiLeaks publication of thousands of secret government documents including classified U.S. documents.
Was jailed in Britain for a time.
Was released on bond while case was pending.
He is innocent until proven guilty.
Rationale for giving him a Nobel Peace Prize –
He arguably contributed to the struggle for freedom values globally.
He served as WHISTLEBLOWER.
Exposed corruption.
Exposed dictatorships.
Exposed torture.
Exposed war crimes.
Promoted democracy.
Promoted freedom of speech.
Promoted human rights.
There is precedent in that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo in 2010.
There is precedent in that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to then POTUS Obama in 2009.
He affirms that his motive has been to work for the public interest of freedom of information.
SHOULD JULIAN ASSANGE BE HONORED WITH A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? YES OR NO? I’ll have to think about it until tomorrow, PORK.
PORK, what do you know about AI? About ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?
BARREL, a little bit.
Broadly spoken this is a definition of AI.
1.1. AI is capacity of coded and learning capable software as part of or not part of a machine to imitate or actually perform intelligent behaviors including learning and expression of that learning
1.2. AI is computer science dealing with simulation or real intelligent behaviors in computer software systems and machines
Admitting that there is much overlap, AI embraces a random list of concepts as disparate as
2.1. Alexa
2.2. Algorithms
2.3. AirBnB housing coordination
2.4. Analytlics and Advanced Analytics
2.5. Appraisals
2.6. Architectural drawings
2.7. Artificial neural networks
2.8. Augmented reality
2.9. Blockchain technology
2.10. Chatbots
2.11. Cloud computing
2.12. Computer programming
2.13. Computer Software and Hardware – e.g. IBM’s Watson
2.14. Computers
2.15. Construction coordination
2.16. Consumer intelligence
2.17. Contextual meanings
2.18. Credit card decline minimization
2.19. Credit score ratings and credit decisions
2.20. Criminal identification
2.21. Cryptocurrencies.
2.22. Deep learning
2.23. Deliveries including pizza to packages
2.24. Digital assistants
2.25. Drone technology
2.26. Echo
2.27. Education learning direct to brain downloads
2.28. Education grading.
2.29. Email categorization and spam filters
2.30. Embedded systems
2.31. Emotional recognition
2.32. Engineering plans
2.33. Expert systems – economics, law, medicine
2.34. Facebook applications
2.35. Facial feature lenses
2.36. Facial recognition
2.37. Finance applications in banking
2.38. Flight control – air traffic control
2.39. Flight simulation
2.40. Fraud detection and prevention
2.41. Game playing – Chess, Checkers, Go
2.42. Gestural computing – interpreting gestures
2.43. Google now
2.44. Handwriting deciphering
2.45. Human resources – recruiting
2.46. Industries affected – adtech, agriculture, education, finance, legal, manufacturing, medical, oil and gas, media/content, consumer finance, philanthropies, automotive, diagnostics, retail – actually it is fair to say all
2.95. Self driving cars, trucks, airplanes, and ships
2.96. Siri
2.97. Smart homes
2.98. Space exploration and control
2.99. Speech recognition
2.100. Technologies – mathematics, algorithms, hardware, data preparation, data collection, software
2.101. Testing
2.102. Text to voice
2.103. Traffic control – air, ground, water
2.104. Valuations
2.105. Virtual reality
2.106. Voice search
2.107. Voice to text
AI in one way or another dramatically impacts all
3.1. Business sectors.
3.2. Businesses.
3.3. Cities
3.4. Companies.
3.5. Counties
3.6. Financial dealings.
3.7. Homes
3.8. Individuals
3.9. Military
3.10. National, Regional, State, County, City, Home economies.
3.11. Nations
3.12. Political parties.
3.13. Security.
3.14. States
3.15. The balance of power between nations.
3.16. Workers.
AI dramatically impacts workers’
4.1. Economic well being.
4.2. Emotional resilience,
4.3. Physical well-being, ability and safety,
4.4. Safety and security.
4.5. Social interactions,
4.6. Spiritual well-being,
AI’s negative focus includes these among other ideas (I believe Russia’s President Putin said something to the effect that he who controls AI will control the world now and in the future.)
5.1. A negative world order dominance?
5.2. Business dominance?
5.3. Economic dominance?
5.4. Military dominance?
5.5. National dominance?
5.6. Political dominance?
5.7. State dominance?
5.8. Technological dominance?
AI’s positive millennial focus suggests the possibility to
6.1. Eliminate poverty.
6.2. Enhance culture. E.g. the arts.
6.3. Produce and distribute unlimited food, clothing, shelter.
6.4. Provide leisure living.
6.5. Provide “Open” education for all.
6.6. Increase opportunities for ministering service.
AI SUPERPOWERS today include but are not limited to:
7.1. The U.S. including Silicon Valley.
7.2. Some global form of New World Order.
7.3. Amazon.
7.4. Apple.
7.5. China.
7.6. Facebook.
7.7. Google.
7.8. Russia.
7.9. Tencent.
AI is fostering intense struggle for global dominance by
8.1. A group or groups of persons
8.2. A single person somewhere
8.3. China
8.4. Other countries
8.5. Russia
8.6. The United States including Silicon Valley
AI will effect humans by its
9.1. Focus on the role of a human.
9.2. Loss of job sectors.
9.3. Loss of jobs.
9.4. Reconfiguration of world, national, state, county, city, home, individual economies
9.5. Reorganization of societies.
Critical Questions about AI center on questions like
10.1. Who dominates and will dominate?
10.2. Who controls and will control the algorithms and other technologies germane to AI?
10.3. Who controls and will control the robotics?
10.4. Who is making and will make the money?
PORK, sounds to me like you know more about AI than most lay persons.
BARREL, I understand some of the Border Wall prototypes are flawed. Here are 25 questions about BUILDER POTUS Trump’s singular promise to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL.
What are those questions, PORK? I thought BUILDER POTUS TRUMP was making progress to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL.
In my judgment, BUILDER POTUS Trump has made but a very little token effort to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL. BUILDER POTUS TRUMP needs to pull out all stops today – this minute. Doing so will stave off the democrat attempts to gain control of the House and Senate.
Anyway, THESE ARE MY 25 QUESTIONS WRITTEN TO ENCOURAGE BUILDER POTUS Trump to get off the dime and BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL TODAY.
BUILDER POTUS Trump, don’t you think Congress has had its chance to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL?
Don’t you think Congress has failed to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and needs to be “fired?”
Don’t you think Congress, especially democrats, has failed and any responsibility to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and its funding needs to be removed from their oversight?
BUILDER POTUS Trump, in your business, if your employees were dragging their feet and failing to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALLwith speed, wouldn’t you fire them ALL promptly?
As an alleged great contruction person, BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, shouldn’t you personally take charge and BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL today?
Don’t you have the power to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you have plenty of money in the military budget to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you think it is time to pull all stops and BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL now? IT IS.
Don’t you think it is time to assign the Army Corps of Engineers to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL within the next couple of months? IT IS.
Doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers have the capacity to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL in war time? YES THEY DO.
Doesn’t the U.S. Military have the capacity to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL in war time in a couple of months? YES THEY DO.
BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, don’t you think we are at war with the drug cartels and other terrorist groups and even certain nations south of the border? YES WE ARE. DON’T YOU THINK WE NEED TO BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and cut those enemy groups off at the pockets? YES.
In any war time situation, BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, wouldn’t the Army Corps of Engineers and Military under General Mattis be called upon to move extremely fast and BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL in a few days? YES THEY WOULD.
Again, BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, are we not at war with the Mexican drug cartels and terrorists groups and even other South American “invading” nations and are they not killing thousands of our young and old with their illicit drugs and gang members? YES THEY ARE. SO, ONCE AGAIN, DON’T WE NEED TO BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL ASAP? YES WE DO!
Don’t you think the most humane treatment of all regarding those from whatever country who are trying to come to the U.S.A. is to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and put a complete end to illicit border crossings including shutting down the coyotes completely? YES IT IS. Haven’t the Israelis successfully built their wall for the same basic reasons? AND AREN’T THE ISRAELIS SUCCESSFUL IN PROTECTING THEIR NATION? YES.
BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, don’t you think it is humane and the right thing to do and way, way, way beyond time to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and seal the border and make everyone come in through the front gate and be vetted including E-verified? YES IT IS.
Don’t you think you have given the democrats and others in congress plenty of opportunity to rise to the occasion and protect our country and now they have failed in their sacred duty so it is time for you, BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, to give a very detailed progress report to the nation about why you have not and now will immediately BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and provide for the safety of the nation?
BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, isn’t your approval rating high – in our judgment 80% – 90% – not hovering at 40% to 50% as some would have us believe? Isn’t this true regardless of polls because you command 90% of the media attention in the nation and world? Cutting to the chase, WOULDN’T YOUR APPROVAL RATINGS GO THROUGH THE ROOF AND BE SOLIDIFIED FOR YEARS TO COME IF YOU ONLY DO ONE THING WHICH IS FOCUS TODAY AND BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL TODAY? YES THEY WOULD. Ann Coulter recognizes this. We, BARREL & PORK recognize this. We are sure you do do. You’ve just been waiting for the right moment to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and make Mexico pay for it, haven’t you?
Didn’t we vote for you, BUILDER POTUS TRUMP, because you said you would BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL and make Mexico pay for it? YES!
Don’t you think it is time to stop dancing around verbally with congress and make good on your promise to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL TODAY?
Don’t you think you ought to get out of your Oval Office chair and report on the wall to the nation and launch the greatest, most awesome, remarkable. successful, fast, no flaws, major BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL effort BEFORE THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS?
POTUS Trump, did you or did you not promise you would BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL, no excuses? YES YOU DID. And are you running out of time to do so? LOOKS LIKE IT. Every day that passes is a lost day to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL.The one thing your enemies and detractors do not want you to do is BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL because they know that will guarantee the GOP the House and Senate and it will guarantee you a second term.
Don’t you think it is time to REPORT TO THE NATION IN A SPECIAL TELEVISION SPECIAL ON FOX NEWS AND CSPAN AND ALL NETWORKS DETAILS ABOUT THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL NOW? And while you are at it, don’t you think it will be counterproductive to water down your message with a whole lot of stuff about immigration?
Don’t you think you ought to hire us, BARREL & PORK, or somebody like us with your best interests at heart, to put all of your promises on a grid so you can report daily and weekly to the American people about your progress in keeping your promises? Especially your promise to BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL?
Don’t you think top of your list should be BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT? We sure think so. Come on. How about getting up out of your oval office chair and launch the Army Corps of Engineers and General Mattis and BUILD THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER WALL TODAY.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
BARREL, IS BOB WOODWARD GUILTY OF FEARMONGERING? IS BOB A “FEAR” MONGER?
PORK, LOOKS LIKE IT. LOOKS LIKE BOB IS TRUMPED ON THIS ONE.
Fearmongering is “the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue. It is the intentional “spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.
A Fearmonger, in this case who would appear to be Bob Woodward, is thus defined as a person who engages in fearmongering.
Also, there is a Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, and Bob Woodward claims to be a professional journalist. Should he violate his Code of ethics, it looks like it is fair to determine that Bob Woodward is not a Professional Journalist.
In his recent “FEAR” mongering book, incidentally titled “FEAR,” Bob sets himself up as judge and jury of POTUS Donald J Trump by stringing together a series of interviews, some of which are “ANONYMOUS” which leads me to conclude that Bob’s “FEAR” BOOK is just like the “ANONYMOUS” LETTER PRINTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, except many pages longer.
Let’s take a few minutes and see if Bob adheres to his Code of ethics as a professional journalist.
Is Bob guilty of being a FEARMONGER?
Is his book “FEAR” simply a case of Bob engaging in FEARMONGERING, but this time on steroids and obviously for a $10 million advance from the publisher – according to O’Reilly?
First, let’s set forth and take a hard look at Bob’s journalism Code of ethics.
As a journalist, Bob has both “rights and responsibilities.
“These are set forth in the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.
“The society’s code is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists [including Bob], regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.
“The code is intended not as a set of “rules.”
“It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — legally enforceable.
“Instead, it is intended as a [mandatory] resource for [Bob’s] ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING.
“Preamble
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.
“The duty of [Bob] the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
“Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties [including Bob] strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.
“Professional integrity is the cornerstone of [Bob’s journalistic] credibility.
“Members of the Society [, including Bob] share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code [as declaration of] the Society’s [and in this case Bob’s] principles and standards of practice.
Bob’s first aim as a journalist is to “Seek truth and report it
[Bob the Journalist, kind of like Bob the Builder] “should be –
“honest,
“fair
“and courageous
“in gathering,
“reporting
“and interpreting information.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional “Journalist should:
“Test the accuracy of information from ALL sources [I think I recall from the TRUMP Woodward phone conversation that Bob the Journalist did not interview POTUS.]
“and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.
“Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist, is to “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories
“to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. [Sounds like Bob the Journalist didn’t do this.]
and to “Identify sources whenever feasible. [Sounds like Bob the Journalist didn’t do this either.]
“The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability. [How many ANONYMOUS SOURCES are there in Bob the Journalist’s alleged expose?]
“Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
“Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.
“Keep promises.
“Make certain that headlines,
“news teases
“and promotional material,
“photos,
“video,
“audio,
“graphics,
“sound bites and
“quotations
“do not misrepresent.
“They should not oversimplify
“or highlight incidents out of context.
Bob, as a professional journalist, is to “Never distort the content of news photos or video.
“Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible.
“Label montages and photo illustrations.
“Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events.
“If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist, is to “Avoid undercover
“or other surreptitious methods
“of gathering information
“except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. [DID BOB THE JOURNALIST use “undercover” or “other surreptitious methods” to gather any of the information in Bob the Journalists book of “FEAR?”
“Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
“Never plagiarize. [Did Bob plagiarize?]
“Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly,
“even when it is unpopular to do so.
“Examine [his] own cultural values
“and avoid imposing those values on others. [Did Bob the Journalist as part of his book of “FEAR” examine his own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on the rest of us?]
“Avoid stereotyping
“by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. [Does Bob the Journalist stereotype POTUS Trump by any of these characteristics?]
“Support the open exchange of views, even views [Bob finds] repugnant. [Does Bob the Journalist’s book of “FEAR” set forth any other views? For example, does Bob the Journalist acknowledge that POTUS Trump has kept 44 of his promises including but not necessarily limited to the fact that 90% of the country is happy POTUS Trump is making progress to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS on so many fronts. Does Bob the Journalist acknowledge that POTUS Trump is to be honored for keeping these 44 promises? [And no doubt others.]
ABORTION effort at elimination.
AFGHANISTAN WAR TALIBAN shutdown.
ARABS visit and cooperation.
BORDER WALL funding and building to-date.
BREXIT support.
CHINA cooperation despite tariffs.
CONGRESS major effort at cooperation working across the aisles despite democrat continuation of their fake POTUS colluded with Russians narrative.
CONSTITUTION upholding.
CRIMINAL SYNDICATE elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
DRUGS/OPIOIDS control/elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
ENERGY independence.
FAMILY support.
FIRST RESPONDERS honoring and support.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS.
GANG AND CRIME elimination. (Glad AG Sessions is there.)
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION elimination of same by holding those accountable who have misused the public trust. (Looks like POTUS Trump has just touched the tip of the iceberg.)
HARSH REGULATIONS reduction.
HEALTH CARE more affordable.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ensuring all come through the front door and are vetted and E-verified.
INFRASTRUCTURE funding and improvement.
IRAN sanctions.
IRAQ strategy.
ISIS AND TERRORIST GROUPS shutdown if not total elimination.
ISRAEL PALESTINE solution.
JEWISH STATE AND JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL support.
JOBS increased dramatically. The economy appears to be humming on more cylinders than during Obama and earlier administrations.
MANUFACTURING increased and brought home to USA.
MEDIA CALL OUT for fake news.
MELANIA AND IVANKA AND OTHER FAMILY as a compliment to POTUS. These folks have great courage and are to be commended. Give them each an A+ for putting up with so much negativity, so much “FEAR” mongering from Mr. Woodward and the left.
MILITARY supported and dramatically improved. [General Mattis says Bob the Journalist’s book is a work of FICTION.]
NORTH KOREA cooperation.
NUCLEAR reduction.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH policy.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS elimination.
RESILIENCE despite severe criticism from press, democrats, and naysayer Republicans.
RUSSIA building a relationship to prevent nuclear war.
SAFETY FROM TERRORISM. Give ICE and Border Patrol and First Responders an A+.
SUPREME COURT CHOICES rational and helpful to the nation.
TAXES major reductions.
VETERANS support.
BUILDING THE WALL.
Bob the Journalist is to “Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
“Analysis and commentary should be labeled [Was it?]
“and not misrepresent fact or context. [Was it?]
“Distinguish news from advertising
“and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
“Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open [including the requirement that each person who criticized do so in the open so his or her credibility can be vetted.]
“and that government records are open to inspection.
Bob the Journalist’s duty as a professional journalist is to “Minimize harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.[Has Bob the Journalist done so vis a vis POTUS Trump and FLOTUS Trump and their family?]
“Journalists [in this case Bob the Journalist] should:
“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. [How about Melania?]
“Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. [How about Baron?]
“Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
“Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.
“Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. [To what degree is Bob the Journalist’s book of “FEAR” for the $10 million advance money and founded in Bob the Journalist’s arrogance? Both good questions.]
“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention.
“Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
“Show good taste.
“Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
“Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
“Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
“Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Bob the Journalist as a professional journalist is obligated to “Act independently
Bob, as a journalist “should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Bob, as a journalist, “should:
“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
“Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
“Refuse
“gifts,
“favors,
“fees,
“free travel
“and special treatment,
“and shun secondary employment,
“political involvement,
“public office
“and service in community organizations
“if they compromise [his] journalistic integrity.
Bob, as a professional journalist is obligated to “Disclose unavoidable conflicts. [How much conflict is there in a $10 million advance if such, as stated by Bill O is correct?]
“Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. [Would Bob the Journalist’s “FEAR” efforts have been better used to give us answers to the Clinton questions that still remain unanswered?]
“Deny favored treatment to advertisers
“and special interests
“and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
“Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money;
“avoid bidding for news.
Bob the Journalist, as a professional journalist is obligated to “Be accountable
“Journalists are accountable to their readers,
“[accountable to their] listeners,
“[accountable to their] viewers
“and [accountable to] each other.
Bob, as a professional journalist should:
“Clarify and explain news coverage
“and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
“Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
“Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
“Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
“Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
“This information was adapted from the website of the Society of Professional Journalists. … Last updated: March 30, 2009
Now let’s compare Bob’s activities that were basic to his writing and publishing his new book of FEAR. What do we glean from those who allegedly were interviewed? Is Bob a FEARMONGER? Looks like it. The title “FEAR” alone says it all.
I watched Bill O’Reilly comment about Bob’s book. Bill said, paraphrased, “How hard is it to find someone in an inner circle to say nasty things about the boss? Not hard at all.”
Bill’s focused on the many anonymous sources Bob uses.
134, Bill says he believes “General Mattis.” General Mattis says that he General Mattis did not say what Bob the Journalist says he said. General Mattis says the Woodward book is fiction.
Looks like Bob the Journalist has done a good job of “MONGERING” “FEAR” WHICH MUST MAKE BOB A “FEAR” MONGER.
Neither did Bob interview POTUS Trump, nor give him an opportunity to respond to Bob’s criticisms which not only must make Bob a “FEAR” monger but also makes Bob much less than a professional journalist.
BARREL, after all you have said and done, and you have to admit you have said more than you have done on this one, Bob the Journalist and his publisher, at POTUS Trump’s expense, and that of his family and supporters, is enjoying bank by selling lots of Bob the Journalist’s “FICTION ACCORDING TO GENERAL MATTIS” “FEAR” book.
Kanye West supports POTUS Trump because POTUS Trump cares for the Black Community, because POTUS Trump has initiated the lowest unemployment rate among Blacks ever.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Yes, BARREL, and don’t forget ABORTION OF BLACKS. We need to focus and ELIMINATE IT.
IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SUBJECTED TO GENOCIDE, SINCE ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES KILLED.
PORK, DID YOU HEAR THAT SAUDI ARABIA CRUCIFIED A MAN FOR MURDER, THEFT, ATTEMPTED RAPE.
Yes, I did, BARREL. Click here to read the details. https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/2018/08/08/saudi-arabia-carries-out-rare-crucifixion-for-murder-theft#gs.kj7Rr5A
BARREL, as a reminder, I have this set of 25 questions for POTUS Trump.
What are they, PORK?
POTUS Trump:
Don’t you think Congress has had its chance to build the wall?
Don’t you think Congress has failed and needs to be “fired?”
Don’t you think Congress, especially democrats, has failed and any responsibility for the wall and its funding needs to be removed from their oversight?
POTUS Trump, in your business, if your employees were dragging their feet and not getting the job done, wouldn’t you fire them promptly?
Wouldn’t you personally take charge and get the project done?
Don’t you have the power to build the complete wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you have plenty of money in the military budget to build the wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you think it is time to pull all stops and get the wall done now?
Don’t you think it is time to assign the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall in the next month?
Doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers have the capacity to build the wall in war time? YES THEY DO.
Doesn’t the U.S. Military have the capacity to build the wall in the next two months? YES THEY DO.
Don’t you think we are at war with the drug cartels and other terrorist groups and even certain nations? YES WE ARE.
In any war time situation, wouldn’t the Army Corps of Engineers and Military under General Mattis be called upon to move extremely fast? YES THEY WOULD.
Again, are we not at war with the Mexican drug cartels and terrorists groups and even other nations? YES WE ARE!Are they not killing thousands of our young and old with their illicit drugs and gang members? YES THEY ARE.
Don’t you think the most humane treatment of all regarding those from whatever country who are trying to come to the U.S. is to put a complete end to illicit border crossings by shutting down the coyotes completely? YES IT IS.
Don’t you think it is humane and the right thing to do and beyond time to seal the border and make everyone come in through the front gate and be vetted?
Don’t you think it is time for you to give a very detailed progress report to the nation about the status of the WALL BUILD and the safety of the nation?
Isn’t your approval rating high – in our judgment 80% – 90% not hovering at 50% as some would have us believe? We propose that this is true regardless of polls because you command 90% of the media attention in the nation and world.
Didn’t we vote for you because you said you would build the wall and make Mexico pay for it?
Don’t you think it is time to make good on your promise?
Don’t you think you ought to get out of your Oval Office chair and report on the wall and launch a major build the wall effort BEFORE THE COMING ELECTIONS?
POTUS Trump, did you or did you not promise you would build the wall, no excuses?
Don’t you think it is time to REPORT TO THE NATION AND BUILD THE WALL NOW?
Don’t you think you ought to hire us, BARREL & PORK, to put all of your promises on a grid so you can report daily to the American people about your progress in keeping your promises?
Don’t you think top of the list should be BUILD THE WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT?
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
ABORTION. ELIMINATE IT. IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SUBJECTED TO GENOCIDE, SINCE DEMOCRAT ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES KILLED. YOU POLITICIANS FIX IT NOW! ADOPTION NOT ABORTION. Richard William “Wilberforce” Linford.
BARREL, I have a set of 25 questions for POTUS Trump.
What are they, PORK?
POTUS Trump:
Don’t you think Congress has had its chance to build the wall?
Don’t you think Congress has failed and needs to be “fired?”
Don’t you think Congress, especially democrats, has failed and any responsibility for the wall and its funding needs to be removed from their oversight?
POTUS Trump, in your business, if your employees were dragging their feet and not getting the job done, wouldn’t you fire them promptly?
Wouldn’t you personally take charge and get the project done?
Don’t you have the power to build the complete wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you have plenty of money in the military budget to build the wall immediately? YOU DO.
Don’t you think it is time to pull all stops and get the wall done now?
Don’t you think it is time to assign the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall in the next month?
Doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers have the capacity to build the wall in war time? YES THEY DO.
Doesn’t the U.S. Military have the capacity to build the wall in the next two months? YES THEY DO.
Don’t you think we are at war with the drug cartels and other terrorist groups and even certain nations? YES WE ARE.
In any war time situation, wouldn’t the Army Corps of Engineers and Military under General Mattis be called upon to move extremely fast? YES THEY WOULD.
Again, are we not at war with the Mexican drug cartels and terrorists groups and even other nations? YES WE ARE!Are they not killing thousands of our young and old with their illicit drugs and gang members? YES THEY ARE.
Don’t you think the most humane treatment of all regarding those from whatever country who are trying to come to the U.S. is to put a complete end to illicit border crossings by shutting down the coyotes completely? YES IT IS.
Don’t you think it is humane and the right thing to do and beyond time to seal the border and make everyone come in through the front gate and be vetted?
Don’t you think it is time for you to give a very detailed progress report to the nation about the status of the WALL BUILD and the safety of the nation?
Isn’t your approval rating high – in our judgment 80% – 90% not hovering at 50% as some would have us believe? We propose that this is true regardless of polls because you command 90% of the media attention in the nation and world.
Didn’t we vote for you because you said you would build the wall and make Mexico pay for it?
Don’t you think it is time to make good on your promise?
Don’t you think you ought to get out of your Oval Office chair and report on the wall and launch a major build the wall effort BEFORE THE COMING ELECTIONS?
POTUS Trump, did you or did you not promise you would build the wall, no excuses?
Don’t you think it is time to REPORT TO THE NATION AND BUILD THE WALL NOW?
Don’t you think you ought to hire us, BARREL & PORK, to put all of your promises on a grid so you can report daily to the American people about your progress in keeping your promises?
Don’t you think top of the list should be BUILD THE WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT?
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
ABORTION. ELIMINATE IT. IN THE U.S. ALONE, 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABIES HAVE BEEN SURGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY MURDERED, KILLED, DISMEMBERED, FLUSHED, DISSOLVED, POISONED, RIPPED APART, SENT TO LAND FILLS, SUBJECTED TO GENOCIDE, SINCE DEMOCRAT ROE v. WADE, 50,000,000+ BLACK BABIES, 50,000,000+ HISPANIC BABIES, 200,000,000+ JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN BABIES KILLED. YOU POLITICIANS FIX IT NOW! ADOPTION NOT ABORTION. Richard William “Wilberforce” Linford.
DO NOTHING DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS AND DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS SCHUMER, PELOSI, AND OTHERS, CONTINUE THEIR DOWNWARD SPIRAL INTO OBLIVION, WHILE POTUS TRUMP CONTINUES TO DELIVER ON HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
POTUS TRUMP APPROVAL RATING IS 80 to 90%.
POTUS TRUMP chalks up another campaign promise done. POTUS TRUMP says this Russia reset with President Putin will be an even greater success with many positive things to come. [Discussed working together to eliminate terrorism, working together to eliminate Syrian conflict and provide humanitarian aid, coupled with talks of reducing nuclear armaments.]
Do nothing democrats and disaffected republicans went and still are nuts with Trump Derangement Syndrome. All they can do is accuse both POTUS TRUMP and President Putin, while still doing nothing, all the while having “no, none, not any, not one, zero, zilch, zip, nil, didly, nada, nought, insignificant, infinitesimal, minimal, piddling, trivial, tiny, unimportant, goose egg, void, blank, no good, good-for-nothing, boring, zippo, nonexistent, valueless, insipid, monotonous, unimaginative, uninspired, uninspiring, characterless, flat, uninteresting, lackluster, dull, drab, boring, dry, humdrum, ho-hum, monochrome, tedious, uneventful, run-of-the-mill if at all, commonplace, pedestrian, trite, tired, hackneyed, stale, lame wishy-washy, colorless, anemic, lifeless” democrat policies, none of which are designed to help us be free, safe, and prosperous.
So, BARREL, you got carried away with your synonyms for the word nothing.
Not really, PORK. The truth will out. We have told the democrats and say the same thing to the disaffected republicans how to win elections but only a couple have listened.
Remind me, BARREL.
They need to stop the POTUS TRUMP bashing completely and take on the true role as statesmen and stateswomen with only our interests at heart. They need to keep their “positive” campaign promises. All this talk about impeachment, all this foolish talk by Maxine Waters, all this beyond the pale talk about POTUS TRUMP not being true to us and the nation, all this collusion talk is garbage. They need to work with POTUS TRUMP. They need to prepare and live by a set of positive policies and programs that keep us and our unborn FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, nothing more, nothing less.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Buy Richard Linford’s books. We endorse them. BARREL & PORK.
MELANIA TRUMP Honoring FLOTUS: The highly intelligent, pleasant, nice, decent, First Lady of The United States of America. Click here to go to amazon. Melania Trump
MEDITATIONS on THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas A Kempis BOOK ONE Admonitions Profitable for the Spiritual Life: Translated by Rev. William Benham. Meditations by Richard W. Linford
Think and Grow Smart! Think and Grow Rich!: The Story of the foolish cutting of the Golconda Great Mogul Diamond; With more than 50 Ancient and Modern Knowledge and Wealth Wisdom Principles
DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS SCHUMER, PELOSI, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING SOME DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS, CONTINUE THEIR DOWNWARD SPIRAL INTO OBLIVION WHILE POTUS TRUMP CONTINUES TO DELIVER ON HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
POTUS TRUMP APPROVAL RATING IS 80 to 90%.
POTUS TRUMP says this Russia reset with President Putin will be an even greater success with many positive things to come. [Discussed working together to eliminate terrorism, working together to eliminate Syrian conflict and provide humanitarian aid, coupled with talks of reducing nuclear armaments.]
Do nothing democrats went and still are nuts with Trump Derangement Syndrome. All they can do is accuse both POTUS TRUMP and President Putin, while still doing nothing, all the while having “no, none, not any, not one, zero, zilch, zip, nil, didly, nada, nought, insignificant, infinitesimal, minimal, piddling, trivial, tiny, unimportant, goose egg, void, blank, no good, good-for-nothing, boring, zippo, nonexistent, valueless, insipid, monotonous, unimaginative, uninspired, uninspiring, characterless, flat, uninteresting, lackluster, dull, drab, boring, dry, humdrum, ho-hum, monochrome, tedious, uneventful, run-of-the-mill if at all, commonplace, pedestrian, trite, tired, hackneyed, stale, lame wishy-washy, colorless, anemic, lifeless” democrat policies, none of which are designed to help us be free, safe, and prosperous.
So, BARREL, you got carried away with your synonyms for the word nothing.
Not really, PORK. The truth will out. We have told the democrats several times how to win elections but only a couple have listened.
Remind me, BARREL.
They need to stop the POTUS TRUMP bashing completely and take on the true role as statesmen and stateswomen with only our interests at heart. They need to work with POTUS TRUMP. They need to prepare and live by a set of policies that keep us and our unborn FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, nothing more, nothing less.
BARREL & PORK image and blog post. by Richard W. Linford
(c) Copyright 2018 Linford Corporation
All domestic and international rights reserved
Buy Richard Linford’s books. We endorse them. BARREL & PORK.
MELANIA TRUMP Honoring FLOTUS: The highly intelligent, pleasant, nice, decent, First Lady of The United States of America. Click here to go to amazon. Melania Trump
MEDITATIONS on THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas A Kempis BOOK ONE Admonitions Profitable for the Spiritual Life: Translated by Rev. William Benham. Meditations by Richard W. Linford
Think and Grow Smart! Think and Grow Rich!: The Story of the foolish cutting of the Golconda Great Mogul Diamond; With more than 50 Ancient and Modern Knowledge and Wealth Wisdom Principles
