Pour...

Light.....

As the Muller report fades away, the new word coming up is, "Spying."

This will be something for the 2020, similar to other issues around the Presidential election time. For those who know, the tides have turned.

Racket...

A defamation lawsuit was filed by former Trump aide Carter Page against the Democratic National Committee in Oklahoma. 

The suit, which revolved around the infamous dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, alleged that the DNC paid for the dossier as part of opposition research that made "extremely malicious and destructive falsehoods" about him. 

Page made a number of charges in the lawsuit, including that the DNC's actions constituted as "act of terrorism" and racketeering. 

Page’s suit claims that those individuals gave information reporters about Page's dealings with Russia. He blamed the DNC for the public release of the dossier, which alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. 

The dossier was used in part to help launch the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, a probe led by speical counsel Robert Mueller. 

AG Barr...

AG Barr says “I think spying did occur” against Trump campaign 

The criticism of Barr reached a crescendo after he used the word “spying” in congressional testimony to refer to the surveillance of Trump campaign officials in 2016. 

The reaction to his testimony was over-the-top. Yes, the word “spying” has a negative connotation, but it’s functionally indistinguishable from “surveiling.”  

There is no doubt that Trump officials were surveilled or spied on. The FBI famously acquired a FISA warrant against Carter Page, but the warrant allowed it to look back at his time with the campaign.

The FBI also gathered information on Page and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos via an informant, who contacted Trump aide Sam Clovis, as well.

The question is whether this surveillance was properly predicated. Barr is being attacked as a partisan hack for saying he’s going to find out. 

Democrats fear that Trump will use whatever is found for his own political purposes, but this isn’t a good reason to oppose Barr determining whether the intelligence agencies conducted itself in good faith during this episode. 

The public certainly has an interest in knowing the facts, this may be the next emails mishap of 2016.

Barr wrote a memo prior to his appointment as attorney general outlining his view that the legally aggressive theory of obstruction of justice that Mueller seemed to be operating on was flawed.  

Barr didn’t take the job of attorney general for the sake of résumé padding he already had the job on his résumé. He thought his experience, knowledge, and credibility gave him a unique ability to lead the Justice Department at an incredibly fraught time. Nothing he has done so far has cast any doubt on that assessment.  [MSN-News]

Wiki...

One guy cause a lot of heart aches.

Bias...

CNN has often been the subject of allegations of party bias. In research conducted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable networks of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: 

"The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates – by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral.

The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain faring the worst (63% negative) and Romney faring a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. With the exception of Obama, 

Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, among others, have referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".^[2] DeLay has also called it the "Communist News Network".^[3] In its early days, CNN was sometimes referred to as "Chicken Noodle News".^[4] 

In September 2009, a Pew Research Poll showed that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate the network favorably, and Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to see CNN unfavorably.^[5] 

Emails...

Charge...

 

 

There is no constitutional difference between WikiLeaks and the New York Times.

If the New York Times, in 1971, could lawfully publish the Pentagon Papers, knowing that it included classified documents stolen by Rand Corporation military analyst Daniel Ellsberg from our government, then WikiLeaks was entitled, under the First Amendment, to publish classified material that Assange knew was stolen by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from our government.

Charge Assange with espionage or any other crime for merely publishing the Manning material, this would be another Pentagon Papers case with the same likely outcome. 

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1971 case, did not say that the newspapers that were planning to publish the Pentagon Papers could not be prosecuted if they published classified material. It only said they could not be restrained that is, stopped in advance from publishing them. They did publish, and they were not prosecuted.

Prosecutors have chosen to charge him with conspiracy to help Manning break into a government computer to steal classified material. Such a crime, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would have a far weaker claim to constitutional protection.  

It alleges that "Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records" from government agencies. It alleges that "Manning provided Assange with part of a password" and that "Assange requested more information." But it goes on to say that although Assange had "been trying to crack the password," he had "no luck so far." Not the strongest set of facts!

The last question is whether Manning will testify against Assange. 

 [Alan Dershowitz, opinion contributor, The Hill]

Leaks...

Attorneys for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are vowing to fight his possible extradition to the United States. British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he had taken asylum for almost seven years. 

U.S. authorities unsealed an indictment accusing him of conspiring with Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who leaked a trove of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. That  includes evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the Democratic National committee's emails that was scandalous.

In London, Assange’s attorney Jennifer Robinson warned the prosecution of Assange could jeopardize press freedom.

Attorney for Assange said: “This sets a dangerous precedent for all media organizations and journalists in Europe and elsewhere around the world. 

This precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for having published truthful information about the United States. I’ve just been with Mr. Assange in the police cells. He wants to thank all of his supporters for their ongoing support.

El Sisi...

The White House said Monday the two leaders will have a "very frank and open" conversation about human rights and civil society, but officials emphasized their "warm and personal" relationship, adding that expanding on that is among the visit's goals.

But Sisi's trip comes a week before the Egyptian parliament votes on constitutional amendments that would ensure the general-turned-president remains in power until 2034. The amendments proposed by the pro-Sisi parliament majority, Support Egypt Coalition, would allow the president to run for two six-year terms compared with four-year terms. 

In addition, it adds a clause that allows the changes to apply to Sisi, whose last term should end in 2022. The changes would also grant him executive authority over the judiciary and further expand the role of the military in political life.

* For those who knows it all in the Fake News of the Liberal Media" here it is. No one wants these folks who Europe, and USA have had a sample of it in the near past and still chasing those who are al-Qaida affiliate members. 

So Good luck with what you know. It is outdated.   Just a thought.