Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Jan. 27, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
Minimum wage job.
Conservative Heritage Foundation Rates Trump’s First Year Better Than Reagan’s
by Jim Hoft
News Flash to Conservatives in the Republican Party – According to the Heritage Foundation President Trump did an amazing job in his first year in office – even better than conservative and American icon President Ronald Reagan!
The New York Times reported that the conservative Heritage Foundation ranks President Trump as doing even better than conservative icon President Ronald Reagan in the first year of his Presidency –
The Trump administration has pursued policies that have hewed remarkably close to the recommendations of a leading conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, which found in a new review that nearly two-thirds of its ideas had been carried out or embraced by the White House over the past year.
Not one to dwell on the details of governing, President Trump has shown a considerable degree of deference to groups within the conservative movement like Heritage, leading to a rightward shift in social, environmental, immigration and foreign policy.
The results, Heritage found in its review, exceeded even the first year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, whose tenure has long been the conservative gold standard.”
The Times continued that as the horrible Obama years came to an end –
Heritage began developing in 2016 a list of 334 policy prescriptions that a new Republican administration could adopt. It included a variety of actions, like reimposing work requirements for welfare recipients, ending the program that shields young immigrants brought here illegally as children, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and eliminating certain gender identity protections.
Heritage said that 64 percent of those items were enacted by the administration either through executive order or another means of enforcement, or included in Mr. Trump’s budget, which has not been voted on by Congress.
In Reagan’s first year, only 49 percent of Heritage’s wish list items were embraced by the president or enacted. At the time, Heritage identified a familiar problem for why the administration’s policies were wanting. In almost every federal agency, Heritage said in November 1981, “delayed appointments, unqualified or misqualified appointments, or the appointment of individuals who are not committed to the President’s goals and policies” had delayed or thwarted policy changes.”
President Trump incurred his fair share of challenges during his first year but his results were historic –
LIST: TRUMP FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS... http://bit.ly/2EXIN36
HERE IT IS=> Complete List of President Trump’s Historic Accomplishments His First Year in Office!Guest post by Joe Hoft President Donald J. Trump had arguably the best first year for any President in US history since Washington – in spite of massive headwinds from the actions of the corrupt and...
Thegatewaypundit.com
DOJ BEGS Congress To Not Release The Memo
by: Donny Bomenabori
In a strange turn of events, Stephen Boyd, the Asst. Attorney General of the United States in the Dept. of Justice, urged Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) not to release the classified memo that is rocking Congress over alleged abuses by the FISA Court during the Trump campaign. In a letter to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Boyd said, “We believe it would be extraordinarily reckless for the Committee to disclose such information publicly without giving the Department and the FBI the opportunity to review the memorandum and to advise the HPSCI of the risk of harm to national security and to ongoing investigations that could come from public release.”
This comes as Congressmen with access to the memo have expressed their public shock at the contents of the classified memo, which details abuses related to illegitimate surveillance of President Trump's 2016 campaign and transition. Boyd, who was confirmed by the Senate to his post in August, worked previously for Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his Senate office and has extensive ties to elected Alabama Republicans. Yet, he currently oversees the Office of Legislative Affairs, and reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who initiated the Special Counsel's investigation.
Boyd claims in his letter that releasing the memo would betray intelligence gathering techniques and damage national security, as well as faith in the rule of law. However, if the findings of the House Committee that drafted the memo are valid, they will have forfeited that trust, as the mechanisms of intelligence gathering will have been used for partisan ends in a way that is incompatible with a free people and their government. The bottom line is that elements within the Justice Department, either from Obama holdovers or recent Trump appointees, are more concerned with saving face in the swamp than exposing its misdeeds.
This comes as Congressmen with access to the memo have expressed their public shock at the contents of the classified memo, which details abuses related to illegitimate surveillance of President Trump's 2016 campaign and transition. Boyd, who was confirmed by the Senate to his post in August, worked previously for Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his Senate office and has extensive ties to elected Alabama Republicans. Yet, he currently oversees the Office of Legislative Affairs, and reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who initiated the Special Counsel's investigation.
Boyd claims in his letter that releasing the memo would betray intelligence gathering techniques and damage national security, as well as faith in the rule of law. However, if the findings of the House Committee that drafted the memo are valid, they will have forfeited that trust, as the mechanisms of intelligence gathering will have been used for partisan ends in a way that is incompatible with a free people and their government. The bottom line is that elements within the Justice Department, either from Obama holdovers or recent Trump appointees, are more concerned with saving face in the swamp than exposing its misdeeds.
Gowdy: FBI Agents Should Explain ‘Secret Society’ text
by JEFF POOR
Wednesday on CNN’s “OutFront,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) weighed in on text messages swapped between FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok over the course of several months.
Among those text messages was a discussion about a “secret society,” which Gowdy told host Erin Burnett the two agents should have to explain.
Transcript as follows:
BURNETT: And let’s go straight now to Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, he’s the chairman of the house oversight committee and he also sits on the crucial Intelligence Committee we are talking about right now, as well as the Judiciary Committee. Congressman Gowdy, thanks so much for your time, I appreciate it.
I want to give your chance right away to respond to this memo sent by the Assistant Attorney General here to Devin Nunes, the chairman of your House Intelligence Committee. It says it would be reckless to release that memo without showing it to Department of Justice for them to review it. What do you say?
GOWDY: Well, Erin, thank you for having me on. Let me say this at the outset. I have tremendous respect for the Department of Justice and the FBI. I worked in and with them for 18 of my professional years. So there is no member of Congress that holds that department in higher esteem than I do. I have concerns about what was done in the spring and fall of 2016.
And I’m not a critic of the department. Not someone who alleges the department is corrupt. I’m a fan of the department. And I have concerns about what they did in 2016. So I would say this to my friend Steven Boyd, let’s lower the rhetoric.
I don’t care if you see the memo. But let’s be clear about this, Erin, the memo was derived, distilled from information that the department gave us. So it’s not like there is new information. Everything in the memo they already have. What they don’t know specifically is what are their complaints — and I’m fine to share them with them, but you can’t possibly say a memo is reckless if you haven’t read it.
BURNETT: So let me ask you a crucial question here. Have you seen the underlying intelligence, classified intelligence that this memo, right, because this is summary written by the republican chairman, have you seen the actual intelligence that it is based on? And is it 100% consistent with the memo as you have seen it?
GOWDY: The answer to your first question, Erin is yes. I may be the only member who has read it all. I went to the Department of Justice on a couple different occasions —
BURNETT: Jerry Nadler, democrat, told me yesterday he had as well.
GOWDY: All right. That would be two. Well, Jerry’s not on Intel. He’s on Judiciary. More power to him. I think everybody ought to go down there and read it. It’s really hard to have a conversation about what’s in the documents when you haven’t read the documents. Glad jerry did it. I read it all.
I have concerns about the process, about representations that may be made in court pleadings. I have concerns about the duty of government to provide complete, full, accurate information. You know FBI agents and prosecutors are not advocates at this I go stage.
We are representatives to the courts. So there is an obligation to present accurate, full, complete information. And that’s true in every criminal case or every counterintelligence case. They don’t get the scrutiny that this one does.
BURNETT: Okay. They are saying though, and again, I just want to make the point, Steven Boyd, the Assistant Attorney General who signed this letter that I’m looking at right now, it says, and in among other things, not only do they think not only would it be reckless to release Chairman Nunes’ memo, but they seen no evidence of any wrongdoing to the FISA process.
And the reason this is so crucial, again let’s make the point, Steven Boyd is Donald Trump’s nominee. He is saying to you all he does not see any evidence of what is being alleged.
GOWDY: Yeah, well, I mean I would say this again. I like Steven. I work well with him. It’s really difficult to say a memo is reckless when you haven’t read it. To the extent he says that they’ve seen no evidence of any impropriety or untowardness or inappropriate conduct during the conduct during the process – we just respectfully disagree.
And that happens from time to time. Lawyers can look at the same fact pattern and draw two different conclusions. I’m sure Adam Schiff is going to do a minority memo he doesn’t see any problems.
But what that advocates for though, Erin, is the release of non-classified material, release it, in an appropriate form, and let the public decide. That’s what that advocates for.
BURNETT: Okay. But how is that consistent with you are saying how can anyone talk about this and the implications of it if they haven’t seen the underlying information?
From what I understand no one is advocating to release the underlying information for what is a partisan memo that’s coming out of it. Because it’s so classified. Are you saying that the underlying information read — the top secret information you read should also be released, so everyone can read the source data and then decide if they think —
GOWDY: No.
BURNETT: — if the summary is fair?
GOWDY: No. I don’t. The president can declassify it. My counsel to him is don’t do it. Do nothing to jeopardize sources and methods. Do nothing to jeopardize the women and men in the intelligence committee. But you and I are having a conversation about it right now without divulging conversation.
People do it all day, every day. It can be done. You have to do it jointly, and you have to do it carefully. But you can have a conversation. I mean we’ll do it right now. Do you think information should be vetted before it’s included in a court proceeding?
That would be a question I have for you. If a hypothetical source is being paid by a political opponent, do you think that should be shared with a court or with a judge? See, you and I just did it. And I think the answer is, yes, that should it be shared with the court. And if it’s not shared with the court, then you have to tell me why it wasn’t important enough to do so.
BURNETT: Chairman, I want to ask you about a couple of other things tonight. One is it the other news that has been breaking over the past few hours regarding the text messages exchange between Mr. Strzok and Miss Page.
Thousands of FBI issued phones, we are finding out today — were affected by this technical glitch. All right? It resulted in five months of missing text data. And we are now told, a law enforcement official is now telling CNN about one in ten FBI phones were affected, so not just these two, it’s thousands – it’s one in ten phones – that were affected that has this exact same data outage. Do you accept this was a technical glitch or do you think there is some sort of conspiracy theory here?
GOWDY: I’m not a conspiracist. And I have no reason to impeach or undercut what the department is representing and what the FBI is representing. It puts those of us who are fans and supporters of the Department and Bureau in an awkward position.
There’s a five month gap that’s really important. But I have no reason to not believe them. I hope my Michael Horowitz or someone else will verify it. But I’m not a conspiracist.
I’m ever bit concerned about the texts we do have as the five months worth that we don’t. And the ones that we do have, evidence a level of bias that I have never seen before from any law enforcement officer and it is troubling. And I am eminently more interested in discussing the texts that do exist, than theorizing about what’s in ones that don’t.
BURNETT: Alright, so let’s talk about what we have. First of all I just want to point out for the record of course, that the Special Counsel Bob Mueller, last summer when he found out about the text messages, which did indicate bias by the senior agent Strzok — he removed him from the team. Okay? He removed him immediately upon finding that out.
But let’s just share one of them that I know that you have talked about, as well as your republican senatorial colleague Senator Johnson. This one is from May 19th of last summer — so it’s right after the five month glitch, and in it, Strzok texts Page referring to the Russia investigation ostensibly.
“You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there is no big there there.”
Okay. Assumption being made here is they are talking about his willingness to join the Russian investigation. But my question to you is, Congressman, doesn’t this show you whatever his personal political beliefs is, what he’s saying here, I thought it likely I would be there no question, but didn’t have a bias against Trump on Russia. He’s saying there is no big there there. I don’t there is anything there.
GOWDY: You know what, Erin, respectfully, it tells me the exact opposite, because just above that text is a conversation about impeachment. And every single FBI agent I know would look at what Bob Mueller is doing right now and say you are performing a national service from a counter-intelligence standpoint and from a criminal standpoint. It’s just not how many pelts you can tack up against the wall in terms of guilty pleas and convictions – Bob Mueller’s also doing a counterintelligence investigation about a foreign adversary, that attacked our country in 2016.
And if that doesn’t get a FBI agent excited enough to participate in an investigation, that’s heartbreaking. So I read that text exactly differently. If it’s not going to result in a conviction against the President of the United States, I’m not interested in participating. I don’t know another bureau agent that would take that approach.
BURNETT: All right. But I’m making the point he obviously didn’t think there was a there there. So he didn’t go into the Russian investigation, which he then subsequently joined before Mueller removed him. He didn’t go into it thinking the president was guilty. He went into it thinking the opposite. So as much as the guy, as you are pointing out, hates the president, he didn’t see any there there. He wasn’t going in thinking he was going to find anything.
GOWDY: Well, the only thing I would say in response to that Erin, is the morning after the election they are discussing impeachment. So if they are really open minded, objective, fact-centric FBI agents, what are they doing discussing impeachment when the ink isn’t dry on the ballot confirmation yet? This is the morning after and they are talking about impeachment.
So, look, I have a lot of respect for you. You’re going to have a really hard time convincing me that Peter Strzok should have been on this investigation.
BURNETT: Okay. So let me ask you, by the way, again, I’m just pointing because I need to for the record, that Bob Mueller did remove him when he found out about the texts. So Peter Strzok was removed from —
GOWDY: He did. I say Kudos to Bob —
BURNETT: — last summer. Just to make sure everyone knows. He didn’t stay on this investigation for some period of time after this was discovered. Okay, in the text messages —
GOWDY: That’s right. You never heard me criticize Bob Mueller.
BURNETT: — right, and you have said that you have seen the ones — the texts which exist, the ones that we know about personally.
One that was sent the day after the election which you are referring to impeachment. But one of the ones you talked about you quoted it as saying “Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society.” You didn’t give any context. Okay — what was the context? Did they elaborate? What are we talking about secret society?
GOWDY: It’s right after they were lamenting the fact trump won North Carolina and then he won Florida. And they’re really disappointed in the way the election turned out. And then about an inch down from that is a conversation about perhaps this is — should be the first meeting of the secret society. And then about two texts down they say let’s talk about it with Andy. I don’t know if that’s Andy McCabe and I’m not going to allege it is. But eerily similar to that.
BURNETT: But by saying it right now, you kind of – you kind of are. You’re throwing it out into the ether —
GOWDY: No, no no. Well, Andy McCabe is mentioned throughout their texts. I don’t know if there is another Andy. So – I don’t know if there is or not. So I’m not going to malign Andy McCabe.
I actually asked him directly about the insurance policy text and he denied it. I take him at his word. But take him out of it. Here are two bureau agents talking about a secret society. I have no clue what they are talking about. I don’t know whether one existed but you know what Erin?
It’s not my responsibility to prove that. They are the ones who used the phrase. They are the ones that should explain it. I can’t tell you what they meant. I can just tell you what they said. And talking about a secret society right after they were talking about how depressed they were that Donald Trump won.
BURNETT: All right. Let me ask you one more question before we go here since we’re out of time. This is important. The president tonight, you know, saying he doesn’t recall whether he asked Andy McCabe who he voted for.
Just to put the facts out there, we have confirmed that Andy McCabe did not vote in the general election, and in the primary, he voted in the republican primary in Virginia, Chairman.
But obviously the report is, which the White House did not deny today, was that the president asked, Andrew McCabe, the Deputy FBI Director, directly in the Oval Office, who he voted for.
Do you think that is appropriate in any way, shape or form for a president to ask that of a Deputy FBI Director?
GOWDY: I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to ask that. Any time there is a curtain involved, that tells me supposed to be private. There is a curtain at the voting booth I vote in. No one should ever ask anyone else who they voted for. I don’t ask my wife if she voted for me. In part because I’m not sure what the answer is, and I’m not sure I want to hear it – but it’s none of my business who my kids vote for or my wife votes for.
I’d never asked a cop in my entire life, “Are you a republican or democrat?”
It doesn’t come up in the law enforcement context. So I hope Mr. McCabe was not asked that question and I hope he didn’t answer it. Because nobody’s business.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Chairman Gowdy, I appreciate your time. Good to have you back.
GOWDY: Yes, ma’am. Thank you.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Trump Favors Eventual Citizenship for Dreamers: 'We're Going to Morph Into It'
By Susan Jones
President Trump speaks to a gathering of mayors on Jan. 24, 2018.
(CNSNews.com) - President Trump, in an impromptu meeting with reporters in his chief of staff's office on Wednesday, said he's open to the prospect of citizenship for dreamers -- if they work hard in the meantime.
He also indicated he might consider extending the March 5 expiration of DACA; and he held out for his long-promised border wall.
Trump made the comments before departing for Davos, Switzerland:
"We're going to morph into it, it's going to happen at some point," he told reporters in Gen. John Kelly's office, when a reporter asked if he was open to citizenship for dreamers:
"Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they've worked hard--it gives incentive to do a great job. But they've worked hard, they've done terrifically, whether they have a little company or whether they've worked or whatever they're doing, if they do a great job, I think it's a nice thing to have the incentive of, after a period of years, being able to become a citizen."
Trump said he thinks DACA is a better issue for Republicans than it is for Democrats, and he believes he'll be able to strike a deal on it.
"And then after we do DACA, we'll take a look at the even bigger immigration problem," the president said.
A reporter asked Trump if he will extend the deadline if a DACA bill doesn't pass by March 5:
"Yeah, I might do that," he said. I'm not guaranteeing it," he added.
The president also said dreamers should not worry about being deported when DACA ends on March 5:
"Tell them not to be concerned, okay?" the president said. "Tell them not to worry about it. We're going to solve the problem. Now it's up to the Democrats, but they should not be concerned."
He also repeated that there will be no DACA deal without a wall.
The president once again advocated a "good, strong, family" system of chain migration; a replacement for the diversity visa lottery system, which means bringing people into the country based on merit instead of lottery.
And Trump said he wants $25 billion for his wall, which he promised to deliver "under budget." He said a wall will be a "great return on investment," given the hundreds of billions now spent on immigration-related issues.
Mueller's Investigation Targets Trump Over Supposed 'Obstruction.' This Could Be A Massive Constitutional Crisis In The Making.
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesBy BEN SHAPIRO @benshapiro
On Wednesday, the wave of news around the Mueller investigation seemed to crest with a bevy of headlines about how the special counsel was now targeting President Trump himself for an interview. That interview would presumably cover Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey, his alleged request to Comey to let now-indicted former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn go, and his pressure on various officials ranging from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe with regard to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
According to The Washington Post, Mueller wants to interview Trump in particular about the firings of Flynn and Comey. Sessions and Comey have both met with the special counsel investigators. One source told the Post that Mueller “has also expressed interest in Trump’s efforts to remove Sessions as attorney general or pressure him into quitting…The person said the special counsel was seeking to determine whether there was a ‘pattern’ of behavior by the president.”
So, here’s the “pattern” of behavior that apparently bothers Mueller.
According to Comey, Trump asked Comey for his “loyalty” during a private dinner at the White House in January. Then, in February, Trump fired Flynn; immediately thereafter, Comey says Trump asked him to let Flynn go. In May, Trump asked McCabe how he voted in the last election cycle. Throughout this period, Trump harassed Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Twitter, presumably for recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
Presumably, Mueller is looking to pin Trump down on possible obstruction charges — the notion that Trump was attempting to manipulate his own law enforcement agencies to cover for Flynn or himself. That’s why he wants to interview Trump: to set a perjury trap for the president, or to get Trump to admit to something that would indict him.
Democrats have been suggesting that this is Mueller’s ultimate angle here for months. Back in December, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated on Meet The Press:
I think what we’re beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice. I think we see this in the indictments — the four indictments and pleas that have just taken place — in some of the comments that are being made. I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets, and I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of [former FBI] Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of Justice.
Trump didn’t help his case when he tweeted in December that he fired Flynn because “he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” strongly implying that he knew Flynn was guilty of something when he asked Comey to let him go.
Now, is there a legal case for obstruction of justice even if all of this is true? Not really. Here’s what I wrote about it in June 2017:
There are three separate federal laws, as The New York Times points out, that could deal with this situation. None clearly does.
1. 18 USC 1503: This “omnibus” clause covers “corruptly or… by any threatening letter or communication influenc[ing], or imped[ing] or endeavor[ing[ to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” But the clause also requires a pending judicial proceeding – and as far as we are all aware, there is none. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is quite exacting on the application of this law – a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump’s conduct materially impeded the investigation, which even Comey has said didn’t happen.
2. 18 USC 1512(c): This provision of law covers anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” It is not clear that an FBI investigation is an “official proceeding,” and proving intent is difficult in any case. And it’s not enough to show intent to violate the subsection – you have to take a “substantial step toward the accomplishment of that goal.”
3. 18 USC 1519: This provision covers destroying evidence related to a federal investigation. There are no accusations that Trump destroyed evidence. Unless Trump had tapes and destroyed them, the statue simply doesn’t apply.
So what is Mueller doing?
He’s setting the groundwork for what could become the worst political fight of our lifetime: an impeachment move started by Democrats over supposed non-illegal “obstruction” of an investigation that found no underlying crime other than lying to the FBI. Trump will be tempted to pardon those who lied to the FBI; Republicans will surely defend Trump. Meanwhile, the media will have a field day suggesting that Trump is a criminal and that the Republicans are covering for his manipulation of the FBI and Department of Justice.
Nowhere in any of this will Russian collusion be a factor.
So an investigation that began with promises that Trump had worked hand-in-glove with Vladimir Putin to subvert an American election will boil down to Mike Flynn lying to the FBI about talking with the Russians about foreign policy during the transition, George Papadopoulos lying to the FBI about meeting with a rumored Russian source and then being stymied by the upper levels of the Trump campaign, and Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for issues unrelated to the campaign — and then Trump firing Comey and Flynn and saying stuff to Comey and McCabe and Sessions.
That’s weak tea. But weak tea may make for the most controversy, given that actual evidence of Russian collusion would unite Americans against Trump.
Department of Justice Finds Missing FBI Texts Between Peter Strzok, Lisa Page
The Department of Justice has located the missing texts exchanged between compromised FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, lawyer Lisa Page.
On his Fox News show last night, Hannity said that sources informed him that the DOJ had the means to recover the texts. It looks like he was right.
The Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz told Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Thursday he located the missing text messages from a critical five-month period between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who both expressed anti-Trump sentiments.
These texts have been subject to much speculation in recent days. And for good cause. The time period gap stretched from December of 2016 to May of 2017. It ends the very day Robert Mueller began his investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
That was coincidental enough. But the previous remarks made by Strzok and Page hint at a virulent anti-Trump bias held by many members in the top echelons of the FBI. That’s why a number of Republican lawmakers, including Senator Ron Johnson and Representative Trey Gowdy, have been trying to track down the exact nature of these texts and what they can tell us about possible subversion by the U.S. government of a private citizens campaign for president.
Now, we have to wait and see what these texts reveal. No doubt, Republicans in Congress will comb over them, picking out any relevant information related to possible FBI corruption.
At the end of this, we should know for sure if top officials in the FBI truly worked to subvert Donald Trump in his quest for the presidency.
Buckle up now, this could be a bumpy ride.
3 Prisoners Escaped Alcatraz in 1962 Thought to Be Dead, Letter Tells a Different Story
A letter made public this week added a new wrinkle to the captivating prison escape that served as inspiration for a hit motion picture.
When three inmates at Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary hatched a plot in 1962 to escape the prison island, they made it as far as the waters of the San Francisco Bay and were never heard from again.
Their daring plan was commonly presumed to have ended in the death of all three escapees. Guards insisted at the time that they drown in the cold water surrounding the prison.
According to a letter reportedly handed over to San Francisco police several years ago and obtained recently by KCBS, however, the three men “barely” made it to dry land and went on to live under the radar for decades.
As Fox News reported, the letter was purportedly written by one of the escapees, John Anglin, who staged the plan with his brother, Clarence, and another inmate, Frank Morris.
The letter goes on to detail the supposed fates of the three men involved.
“Yes we all made it that night but barely,” it continued.
According to the author, Morris died in 2008 and Clarence Anglin died a few years later.
As for John Anglin, the letter indicated he was looking to make a deal.
“If you announce on TV that I will be promised to first go to jail for no more than a year and get medical attention, I will write back to let you know exactly where I am,” the letter read. “This is no joke.”
The author also claimed he spent a number of years living in Seattle after escaping Alcatraz, following by several years in North Dakota and then Southern California, where he lived at the time of writing the letter.
Federal authorities were reportedly unable to obtain conclusive fingerprint evidence from the letter to test against John Anglin.
Rumors about the men’s survival have resurfaced throughout the decades since the escape.
According to a 2012 statement by U.S. Marshal Michael Dyke, who was in charge of the unsolved case at the time, he had seen evidence that made him consider the possibility that any or all of the escapees survived.
As WDJT reported, a photograph published in 2015 allegedly pictured the Anglin brothers together in Brazil in the mid-1970s.
Most official statements, however, indicate the likelihood that they all perished shortly after escaping the island, likely carried off into the Pacific Ocean.
“There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of them would have changed their lifestyle and became completely law abiding citizens after this escape,” the U.S. Marshal Service wrote in response to the letter presented to police.
The trio’s 1962 plot served as the inspiration for the 1979 film “Escape from Alcatraz.”
Serving sentences for bank robbery, they began putting together an elaborate plan that included their escape vehicle — a raft made of at least 50 raincoats. Guards found plaster dummies in their beds the following morning.
Prison operations on Alcatraz ceased the year after their escape.
Nancy Pelosi Fought to Keep $64,000 Tax Break for Herself
In response to the news of dozens of companies giving employees $1,000+ bonuses in the wake of tax reform, Nancy Pelosi referred to those bonuses as “peanuts.”
It’s certainly not a lot of money for her – but other Democrats, even those who strongly criticized the tax plan, have been smart enough not to make such elitist comments publicly.
It confirmed once again just how insane Trump truly has driven some on the Left. Just look at how she felt about a $40 a week tax cut some received under Obama through a temporary reduction in the payroll tax he signed in 2011:
What exactly could she possibly be complaining about anyway? This is businesses voluntarily giving up some of the tax cut they received to their workers, who are also receiving a tax cut. Let’s be honest: Corporate America redistributing anything less than 100% of that tax cut to their employees would be unacceptable to Pelosi, and she’d prefer such a scenario happen under a Democrat president anyway.
Meanwhile, as Pelosi rails against tax cuts for the private sector, she’s fighting for tax cuts to help preserve her own wealth. According to the Washington Free Beacon,
Just days after President Trump signed the sweeping tax bill into law late last month, Pelosi and her husband tried to preserve $64,000 in property tax breaks, known as the state and local taxes (SALT) deductions, for her two California homes. The new tax law limits the deduction to $10,000 and went into effect Jan. 1.
A net worth in the hundreds of millions – and she’s fighting to preserve an extra sixty-four grand?
Dick Morris: McCain’s Revenge – How He Helped Set Up Trump
By Dick Morris
It all started at an elite conference on national security in Halifax, Nova Scotia, immediately after the U.S. election. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the featured speakers, had traveled there with former State Department Assistant Secretary David Kramer, one of his top aides. Kramer was an unabashed Trump hater who publicly criticized Trump’s positions on the Ukraine and Russia.
At the conference, McCain and Kramer were approached by Sir Andrew Wood, a highly respected former U.K. Ambassador to Russia who was secretly affiliated with Orbis Business Intelligence, the firm founded by Dossier author Christopher Steele.
Wood told the Americans about the Steele dossier. Although he claimed that he had never seen it and that he did not have a copy, Sir Andrew knew an awful lot about the outlandish claims in the document. (Court records later showed that he worked with Steele and was fully aware of the dossier.) Woods purportedly told McCain that he was concerned that Trump might be vulnerable to blackmail.
What followed was a cloak and dagger strategy, worthy of James Bond, to get the Dossier to McCain.
Wood called Steele and asked him to arrange a meeting with Kramer. At the same time, Kramer called Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, the co-author of the Dossier. Soon a plan was hatched.
Several weeks later, Kramer flew to Heathrow. He was instructed to go to the Baggage Claim area and look for a man reading the Financial Times. Once he approached the man, they exchanged pre-arranged code words.
The man behind the newspaper was former MI6 British spy, Christopher Steele, the dossier co-author. Together, they traveled to Steele’s home, where they reviewed the Dossier and spoke to Simpson about sending it by encrypted email.
Simpson then delivered the document to Kramer, who gave it to McCain, who subsequently handed it to them-FBI Director James Comey.
While the Dossier was a total fabrication and lie, its lineage, as it passed from hand to hand, endowed it with a credibility it did not deserve. Steele, whose record as a spy in Russia and his subsequent work for the FBI in the international soccer scandal gave him credibility. Then it went to McCain, whose prestige further enhanced the seriously flawed document. Then Comey handed it to President Barack Obama, endowing it with further credentials. And, finally, as a document that had been shown to the president by the FBI, it was sufficiently rehabilitated to be published.
And that’s how the Dossier emerged into public view.
Before McCain agreed to play the middleman, the Dossier’s authors at Fusion GPS had been gnashing their teeth in frustration at their inability to get major media in the U.S. to cover their document. It was unverifiable and filled with flaws; no U.S. outlet would touch it.
The Dossier, for example, purported to chronicle a meeting that never happened between Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and top Russian intelligence officers in Prague. But Cohen has never been to Prague. It named two Russians as the hackers who invaded the Democratic Committee’s files. But one was in the prison in the Gulag serving a 40-year sentence for pedophilia with no access to a phone or computer. The other was a millionaire in Cypress with no connection to Russia. And, finally, it discussed how Trump had watched as two hookers peed on a bed in his Moscow hotel room. That also never happened.
Why did the Dossier authors choose McCain to do their dirty work?
Sir Andrew had cultivated a relationship with McCain and Kramer as they shared the podium at several anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine conferences. He was likely aware of the highly publicized feud between McCain and Trump, and realizing that, as a Republican, McCain could draw attention to the Dossier and invest it with credibility, he decided to broach the subject to McCain. The senator responded with alacrity and agreed to be the middleman in conveying the Dossier to Comey and thence to Obama.
Why would a Republican senator turn on a Republican president and pass information that was so wrong and misleading?
Trump and McCain had been feuding ever since candidate Trump demeaned the senator’s outstanding war record.
Shockingly, he put McCain down, saying, “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Disgusting as the put down was, it has kindled massive animosity between Trump and McCain.
Now, McCain got his revenge. Coming from a man — Trump — who had never served in the military, the comment was unforgivable. But, in politics, revenge is a dish best served cold, so McCain bided his time until he could get even. The assignment to bring the Dossier into public view offered an ideal opportunity.
Even though the Dossier has been exposed as a total lie, it led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special prosecutor and has haunted the Trump White House ever since.
John McCain got his revenge. Now Comey had a legitimate excuse to seriously consider the dossier and to pass it to Obama, congressional leaders, and possibly the media.
That’s how the whole Russian collusion investigation started.
NOTE: John McCain has denied leaking the Dossier to the press. David Kramer quietly left his position at the McCain Foundation and has asked a federal court to seal his testimony. MY OPINION: It was likely Kramer who leaked the dossier.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/01/www_26.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment