Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All *****
Dick Morris: More Breast and Prostate Cancer Deaths Under Obamacare
By Dick Morris
Latest statistics show that former President Barack Obama was wrong — horribly wrong — when he had Obamacare cut the number of mammograms and PSA tests allowed.
It turns out that these were not superfluous, unnecessary tests after all.
It turns out that these were not superfluous, unnecessary tests after all.
A New York Post Op-Ed by health care expert Betsy McCaughey of the London Center for Policy Research noted that cutting the number of tests allowed has led to later diagnoses and more serious outcomes for patients of both breast and prostate cancer.
The consensus in the medical community — before Obama — was that women over the age of 40 should have annual mammograms.
But in 2009, Obama’s Preventative Services Task Force cut back the recommendation to mammograms every two years, starting at age 50.
And the panel cut back on its payments for more frequent testing.
Now, Dr. Elisa Port, chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, has reported that women who accepted the recommendation and only got mammograms every other year were more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer, more likely to need mastectomies and chemotherapy, and more burdened with cancer that spread to their lymph nodes.
Likewise, Obama’s panel recommended against annual PSA tests for men to detect prostate cancer.
The panel said that for each man found to have prostate cancer, the PSA test showed five more with false positives.
But it turned out that it was worth the inconvenience and added anxiety.
In the years since the Preventative Services Task Force recommended the discontinuation of annual PSA tests, more men have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and at later stages.
And last year, McCaughey wrote, “the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that PSA tests reduce prostate-cancer deaths by almost one-third.”
The Obama task force has now dropped its decision to reduce PSA tests.
Over the next few years, we can expect gloomy data just like this to show us how fatuous and naive Obama was being when he claimed Obamacare was only cutting unnecessary tests and procedures that we didn’t really need in the first place
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant.
Rush Limbaugh Just Exposed The One Thing The Deep State Fears
Since the first day Trump took office, the deep state has relentlessly tried to remove Trump from office.
Their latest scheme to do that is through the phony Stormy Daniels scandal.
But Rush Limbaugh just exposed the one thing that will destroy that scheme, and the deep state is running scared.
In recent weeks, the left-wing media has almost constantly been talking about Stormy Daniels.
Her lawyer, Michael Avenatti has become a hero to the deep state, who has been trying so hard to destroy Trump.
Avenatti has been on CNN almost every single day for the past month talking about his case.
But as of late, he hasn’t really been talking about Daniels so much as attacking Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, claiming that he received $500,000 from a Russian billionaire.
But while Avenatti has been targeting Trump and his lawyer, he has been trying to avoid a few skeletons in his own closet, which Rush Limbaugh exposed on his radio show.
Limbaugh pointed out the fact that Avenatti owes the IRS $5 million in back taxes.
He referred to an official letter showing that he owes that money.
Robert Barnes@Barnes_LawNot everybody owes $5M+ in federal taxes...meet Michael Avenatti…
9:15 PM - May 8, 2018
For someone trying to attack Trump and his allies for wrongdoing, he sure has a lot to answer for.
But this isn’t much of a surprise.
The leftists that have been mercilessly attacking Trump since day one almost all have shady pasts.
It was only a matter of time before Avenatti got exposed.
Transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show:
“LET’S GO TO AVENATTI, STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER — WHO, BY THE WAY, I JUST FOUND OUT OWES THE IRS $5 MILLION. DID YOU SEE THE STORY? HE OWES THE IRS $5 MILLION OVER SOME SUCH THING. THE ACTUAL LETTER FROM THE IRS HAS BEEN REPRINTED. I LOOKED AT IT. I ACTUALLY TRIED TO SCAN THE BARCODE TO PROVE ITS LEGITIMACY AND IT WAS A COPY OF A COPY. THE BAR CODE DIDN’T SCAN. BUT, ANYWAY, IT’S OUT THERE. BUT THE LAWYER, MICHAEL AVENATTI — THE LAWYER FOR THE PORN STAR, STORMY DANIELS — SAYS THAT TRUMP’S PERSONAL LAWYER, COHEN, “RECEIVED $500,000 FROM A RUSSIAN BILLIONAIRE IN THE MONTHS AFTER THE 2016 ELECTION.”
“HE HAS THIS $5 MILLION DUE TO THE IRS, HAS NOT PAID EMPLOYEES, HAS NOT DEDUCTED PROPER PAYROLL TAXES, APPARENTLY, OVER THE COURSE OF HIS MANY YEARS AS A LAWYER AND BUSINESSMAN. IF THIS GUY… IF THIS 500 GRAND FROM THIS SUPPOSED PERSON WITH TIES TO PUTIN… IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO THIS, I AM HERE TO TELL YOU THE DRIVE-BY MEDIA WOULD BE ALL OVER IT, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BE ALL OVER IT. HERE’S THE THING TO REALIZE ABOUT THIS. THE COHEN CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BY WHO?”
The deep state did not want anybody to know about this.
Their goal is to use Stormy Daniels to force Trump out of office.
But clearly, the American people aren’t buying it.
Where Is the Media? Stormy Stories Overshadow $84 Million Clinton Scandal
By Dan Backer
From Stormy Daniels to allegations of Russian collusion, the left-leaning mainstream media is determined to derail the Trump presidency. A recent, typically biased CNN headline reads: “Trump’s boss act doesn’t always work.”
For every legitimate news story, there are dozens of others criticizing President Donald Trump’s personal cell phone use, first lady Melania Trump’s designer hat and the Trump administration’s alleged “scandals and embarrassments.” Even the president’s second scoop of ice cream made headline news.
Media bias is nothing new. More than 90 percent of Trump campaign coverage was negative, while 96 percent of media campaign contributions went to Hillary Clinton.
But even more dangerous than an openly partisan press spinning biased coverage is the journalistic sin of omission — when the press willfully ignores a relevant story on the basis of political ideology. According to Ken Stern, former CEO of the left-leaning National Public Radio, the liberal media routinely suppresses stories that “don’t reflect their interests or beliefs.”
The mainstream media’s most recent stunning example of suppression is its handling of Hillary Clinton’s $84 million campaign finance scandal. If you’ve never heard of it, that’s precisely the problem.
The liberal media is so preoccupied with Stormy Daniels — and an alleged $130,000 Federal Election Commission reporting issue — that they’re willfully ignoring an ongoing federal investigation into Clinton’s fundraising practices.
That scandal, which has appeared for months almost entirely in conservative media, involves $84 million in allegedly excessive six-figure contributions laundered through the Hillary Victory Fund, dozens of Democratic state parties, Democratic National Committee and ultimately to Clinton’s campaign.
Last December, the Committee to Defend the President filed a complaint with the FEC, documenting “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy.” The 101-page complaint is built entirely on FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and public statements from former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile and others.
Trump Sets Economic Record That’s Never Been Seen Before
The unemployment rate has fallen below 4%, and it’s at a rate that economists call “full employment.”
Given that there will always be some unemployment in an economy even when everyone can find a job (as some people will be temporarily unemployed in-between jobs, or work seasonal jobs), most economists recognize there’s a “natural rate of unemployment” of around 4-5%.
At 3.9%, the unemployment rate is clearly below that threshold, and for the first time ever, there’s one job opening for every unemployed worker.
According to MarketWatch:
According to the latest data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, there were 6.55 million job openings in March. In March, there were 6.59 million unemployed, meaning there are 1.01 unemployed workers for every job.
In July 2009, just as the U.S. exited the Great Recession, there were 6.65 unemployed people for every available job.
In July 2009, just as the U.S. exited the Great Recession, there were 6.65 unemployed people for every available job.
The labor force participation rate fell like a rock during the Obama economy (as people gave up looking for work), and despite the recent historic lows in unemployment, the labor force participation rate has flatlined.
If discouraged workers (who don’t work – but aren’t counted as unemployed because they aren’t actively looking for work) are included in the mix, the unemployment rate in April was 7.8%. A high figure for sure, but slightly inflated due to the fact that it also counts workers that are employed part time for economic reasons as “unemployed,” and still at historic lows:
All that means is that despite the economy currently at “full employment,” there still is capacity for further growth in the labor force. Furthermore, many current job openings can’t be filled because of the skills gap in this country.
While we have a surplus of liberal arts majors, there is currently a whopping $272 billion worth of unfilled jobs right now. The healthcare industry alone has over 800,000 openings, with over $45 billion in salaries. The tech industry has over $20 billion in salaried positions offered that haven’t been filled.
The economy has finally come back from the Obama years, and everyone who wants a job can get one. The next phase of progress will be in the quality of jobs citizens are obtaining.
New Report Exposes Fusion GPS’ Russian Connections
In June of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. received an email from Rob Goldstone, the publicist of a pop star that’s acquainted with the Trump family. “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” wrote Goldstone.
“If it’s what you say it is, I love it!” Trump Jr. replied, in what would lead to an infamous meeting in Trump tower with a Russian lawyer named Nataliya Veselnitskaya.
Veselnitskaya ended up having none of the information she claimed – and instead spent the meeting railing against the Magnitsky Act, which places sanctions on certain Russian individuals.
The Act is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who exposed corruption within Russia’s government while being employed at the hedge fund Hermitage Capital. Magnitsky was arrested, detained, and eventually beaten to death while in captivity. Hermitage’s CEO Bill Browder successfully lobbied for the “Magnitsky Act” to be passed in the U.S. to hold the Russians believed to be responsible.
Most interesting, Veselnitskaya was working for Fusion GPS at the time of the Trump Tower meeting, the firm that produced the anti-Trump dossier. Was she trying to compromise Trump? Veselnitskaya looks like a snake – and Browder is speaking out to confirm as much.
“Putin hates the Magnitsky Act, as we know,” Mr. Browder says, “and looks for different ways to stop it. And one of his projects—well-resourced, with millions of dollars—was Veselnitskaya. She was deputized for this project because she represented the Katsyv family—Putin cronies caught up in laundering some Magnitsky money in the U.S. Some of that money enabled the purchase of apartment buildings in New York by Denis Katsyv, whose father is a government official close to Putin.” (In May 2017 Mr. Katsyv’s company, Prevezon Holdings, reached a $5.9 million settlement with the U.S. government, thereby avoiding a trial. The company and the Katsyvs denied any wrongdoing.)
In Mr. Browder’s account, Ms. Veselnitskaya came to America on behalf of the Katsyvs when the U.S. Justice Department began a forfeiture order for the properties. Ms. Veselnitskaya then began “a legal campaign to extricate the Katsyvs” from the case “and a political campaign to repeal the Magnitsky Act.”
In Mr. Browder’s account, Ms. Veselnitskaya came to America on behalf of the Katsyvs when the U.S. Justice Department began a forfeiture order for the properties. Ms. Veselnitskaya then began “a legal campaign to extricate the Katsyvs” from the case “and a political campaign to repeal the Magnitsky Act.”
And who did Veselnitskaya hire back in 2014 to help with her anti-Magnitsky work? Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS:
Mr. Browder tells me he heard from reporters that as the campaign against the Magnitsky Act proceeded, Mr. Simpson was pitching a story that “Magnitsky wasn’t murdered, he died of natural causes,” that “Magnitsky wasn’t a whistleblower, he was a criminal,” and that “Bill Browder telling this story is in contempt of Congress and perjuring himself.” (Through a lawyer, Mr. Simpson declined to comment. In November Mr. Simpson testified before the House Intelligence Committee: “I obviously think Sergei Magnitsky was killed in prison by neglect, if not worse.”)
There is only a “debate” over Magnitsky’s death in the world of Russian propaganda, not reality.
And now we’re in the situation where a firm that once helped push Russian propaganda, helped fund an infamous dossier that claimed Trump was colluding with the Russians, while still working with Veselnitskaya.
Not only that, Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson the day of and the day after the Trump Tower meeting.
Comey Troubles Mount as House, Senate Leaders Say He Misled Them
The presses have yet to cool from printing his book “A Higher Loyalty,” and former FBI Director James Comey has found himself in more trouble with Congress.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that Comey had told the House Intelligence Committee that agents hadn’t noticed any physical signs of deception when they interviewed former national security adviser Michael Flynn about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Now, according to the Washington Examiner, a letter from the Senate Judiciary Committee has gone even farther, with Chairman Chuck Grassley saying to the Department of Justice and FBI that Comey had suggested Flynn wouldn’t be charged for making false statements to investigators.
“Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, ‘saw nothing that led them to believe (he was) lying,'” Grassley, an Iowa Republican, wrote in the letter.
“Our own committee’s staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the ‘agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.'”
This was similar to what the House Intelligence Committee said in its report.
“Director Comey testified to the committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them,'” the House report read.
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified similarly, confirming “the interviewing agent’s initial impression and stated that the ‘conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although (the agents) didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'”
However, in his letter, Grassley said Comey went even further, claiming that the former FBI director “led us to believe…that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute (Flynn) for false statements made in that interview.”
For his part, Comey has always claimed he never told either house of Congress about Flynn not being prosecuted.
“I don’t know where that’s coming from,” Comey said in his ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos about the claims regarding Flynn’s behavior. “Unless … I said something that people misunderstood, I don’t remember even intending to say that. So my recollection is I never said that to anybody.”
Comey similarly told Fox News’ Brett Baier that “someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that and didn’t say that.”
The difference between what Comey told the Senate and what he told the House could potentially have been resolved by looking at the dates when the testimony happened. He spoke to the Senate just four days after the inauguration in January 2017 and to the House two months later in March.
The House interview was transcribed while the Senate’s wasn’t, although Grassley said he referred to “notes taken by a career, non-partisan law enforcement officer who was present.”
However, there’s nothing that necessarily accounts for the fact Comey refuses to acknowledge that he told either committee what transcripts or notes confirm he said.
Grassley’s letter requests a transcription of the December 2016 call with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak that led to Flynn’s questioning by the FBI (and eventually charges of making false statements to investigators, which Flynn pleaded guilty to) as well as the agents’ report.
Grassley also requested the FBI “make special agent Joe Pientka available for a transcribed interview,” along with the relatively better-known (for unfortunate reasons) Peter Strzok, Pientka is one of the two agents who interviewed Trump’s former national security adviser.
As for Comey, the takeaway from the letter is that he either can’t remember anything about the Flynn investigation or he’s lying. If it’s the former, that’s a truly distressing and remarkable thing. If it’s the latter, it should tell us all we need to know about Comey’s character.
Either one, mind you, should be a disqualifying factor for an FBI director — something he probably won’t tell book tour audiences when he grouses about his firing.
Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch
BY JOHN SOLOMON
Special counsel Robert Mueller has withstood relentless political attacks, many distorting his record of distinguished government service.
But there’s one episode even Mueller’s former law enforcement comrades — and independent ethicists — acknowledge raises legitimate legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.
In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer, the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Some aspects of Deripaska’s help were chronicled in a 2016 book by reporter Barry Meier, but sources provide extensive new information about his role.
They said FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington. Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland.
“We knew he was paying for his team helping us, and that probably ran into the millions,” a U.S. official involved in the operation confirmed.
One agent who helped court Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, the recently fired FBI deputy director who played a seminal role starting the Trump-Russia case, multiple sources confirmed.
Deripaska’s lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with Iranian contacts under the FBI’s watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
Then in fall 2010, the operation secured an offer to free Levinson. The deal was scuttled, however, when the State Department become uncomfortable with Iran’s terms, according to Deripaska’s lawyer and the Levinson family.
FBI officials confirmed State hampered their efforts.
“We tried to turn over every stone we could to rescue Bob, but every time we started to get close, the State Department seemed to always get in the way,” said Robyn Gritz, the retired agent who supervised the Levinson case in 2009, when Deripaska first cooperated, but who left for another position in 2010 before the Iranian offer arrived. “I kept Director Mueller and Deputy Director [John] Pistole informed of the various efforts and operations, and they offered to intervene with State, if necessary.”
FBI officials ended the operation in 2011, concerned that Deripaska’s Iranian contacts couldn’t deliver with all the U.S. infighting. Levinson was never found; his whereabouts remain a mystery, 11 years after he disappeared.
“Deripaska’s efforts came very close to success,” said David McGee, a former federal prosecutor who represents Levinson’s family. “We were told at one point that the terms of Levinson’s release had been agreed to by Iran and the U.S. and included a statement by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointing a finger away from Iran. At the last minute, Secretary Clinton decided not to make the agreed-on statement.”
The State Department declined comment, and a spokesman for Clinton did not offer comment. Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, declined to answer questions. As did McCabe.
The FBI had three reasons for choosing Deripaska for a mission worthy of a spy novel. First, his aluminum empire had business in Iran. Second, the FBI wanted a foreigner to fund the operation because spending money in Iran might violate U.S. sanctions and other laws. Third, agents knew Deripaska had been banished since 2006 from the United States by State over reports he had ties to organized crime and other nefarious activities. He denies the allegations, and nothing was ever proven in court.
The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In fall 2009, according to U.S. entry records, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare law enforcement parole visa. And since 2011, he has been granted entry at least eight times on a diplomatic passport, even though he doesn’t work for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Former FBI officials confirm they arranged the access.
Deripaska said in a statement through Adam Waldman, his American lawyer, that FBI agents told him State’s reasons for blocking his U.S. visa were “merely a pretext.”
“The FBI said they had undertaken a careful background check, and if there was any validity to the State Department smears, they would not have reached out to me for assistance,” the Russian said.
Then, over the past two years, evidence emerged tying him to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the first defendant charged by Mueller’s Russia probe with money laundering and illegal lobbying.
Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money.
Mueller’s indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators have found no evidence it occurred. There’s no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.
The U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish Vladimir Putin — using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission and to allow him into the country eight times.
I was alerted to Deripaska’s past FBI relationship by U.S. officials who wondered whether the Russian’s conspicuous absence from Mueller’s indictments might be related to his FBI work.
They aren’t the only ones.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told me he believes Mueller has a conflict of interest because his FBI previously accepted financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.
“The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law,” Dershowitz said.
Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a “far more significant issue” is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: “It’s possible the bureau’s arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services.”
George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: “If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety.”
Now that sources have unmasked the Deripaska story, time will tell whether the courts, Justice, Congress or a defendant formally questions if Mueller is conflicted.
In the meantime, the episode highlights an oft-forgotten truism: The cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Moscow and Washington are often portrayed in black-and-white terms. But the truth is, the relationship is enveloped in many shades of gray.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.
In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer, the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Some aspects of Deripaska’s help were chronicled in a 2016 book by reporter Barry Meier, but sources provide extensive new information about his role.
They said FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington. Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland.
“We knew he was paying for his team helping us, and that probably ran into the millions,” a U.S. official involved in the operation confirmed.
One agent who helped court Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, the recently fired FBI deputy director who played a seminal role starting the Trump-Russia case, multiple sources confirmed.
Deripaska’s lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with Iranian contacts under the FBI’s watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
Then in fall 2010, the operation secured an offer to free Levinson. The deal was scuttled, however, when the State Department become uncomfortable with Iran’s terms, according to Deripaska’s lawyer and the Levinson family.
FBI officials confirmed State hampered their efforts.
“We tried to turn over every stone we could to rescue Bob, but every time we started to get close, the State Department seemed to always get in the way,” said Robyn Gritz, the retired agent who supervised the Levinson case in 2009, when Deripaska first cooperated, but who left for another position in 2010 before the Iranian offer arrived. “I kept Director Mueller and Deputy Director [John] Pistole informed of the various efforts and operations, and they offered to intervene with State, if necessary.”
FBI officials ended the operation in 2011, concerned that Deripaska’s Iranian contacts couldn’t deliver with all the U.S. infighting. Levinson was never found; his whereabouts remain a mystery, 11 years after he disappeared.
“Deripaska’s efforts came very close to success,” said David McGee, a former federal prosecutor who represents Levinson’s family. “We were told at one point that the terms of Levinson’s release had been agreed to by Iran and the U.S. and included a statement by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointing a finger away from Iran. At the last minute, Secretary Clinton decided not to make the agreed-on statement.”
The State Department declined comment, and a spokesman for Clinton did not offer comment. Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, declined to answer questions. As did McCabe.
The FBI had three reasons for choosing Deripaska for a mission worthy of a spy novel. First, his aluminum empire had business in Iran. Second, the FBI wanted a foreigner to fund the operation because spending money in Iran might violate U.S. sanctions and other laws. Third, agents knew Deripaska had been banished since 2006 from the United States by State over reports he had ties to organized crime and other nefarious activities. He denies the allegations, and nothing was ever proven in court.
The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In fall 2009, according to U.S. entry records, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare law enforcement parole visa. And since 2011, he has been granted entry at least eight times on a diplomatic passport, even though he doesn’t work for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Former FBI officials confirm they arranged the access.
Deripaska said in a statement through Adam Waldman, his American lawyer, that FBI agents told him State’s reasons for blocking his U.S. visa were “merely a pretext.”
“The FBI said they had undertaken a careful background check, and if there was any validity to the State Department smears, they would not have reached out to me for assistance,” the Russian said.
Then, over the past two years, evidence emerged tying him to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the first defendant charged by Mueller’s Russia probe with money laundering and illegal lobbying.
Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money.
Mueller’s indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators have found no evidence it occurred. There’s no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.
The U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish Vladimir Putin — using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission and to allow him into the country eight times.
I was alerted to Deripaska’s past FBI relationship by U.S. officials who wondered whether the Russian’s conspicuous absence from Mueller’s indictments might be related to his FBI work.
They aren’t the only ones.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told me he believes Mueller has a conflict of interest because his FBI previously accepted financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.
“The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law,” Dershowitz said.
Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a “far more significant issue” is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: “It’s possible the bureau’s arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services.”
George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: “If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety.”
Now that sources have unmasked the Deripaska story, time will tell whether the courts, Justice, Congress or a defendant formally questions if Mueller is conflicted.
In the meantime, the episode highlights an oft-forgotten truism: The cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Moscow and Washington are often portrayed in black-and-white terms. But the truth is, the relationship is enveloped in many shades of gray.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.
What if Bobby Kennedy survived Sirhan Sirhan’s shot in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968?
What if he went on to challenge Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Sen. Eugene McCarthy for the Democratic presidential nomination?
What if the eventual nominee took on Republican Richard Nixon in the fall?
For many of us, in our hearts, that is what we would like history to be. We want Bobby to get off that kitchen floor and save America.
Could it have happened?
Could Kennedy have beaten Humphrey — and Nixon?
In his new book, “On To Chicago: Rediscovering Robert F. Kennedy and the Lost Campaign of 1968,” Jim Rogan, a former Republican congressman from California — and a prosecutor against Bill Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial of 1998 — answers these questions with the speculation of an informed political observer with great instincts.
It’s worth reading this book just to indulge the fantasy a bit longer.
Just to erase the memory of that terrible night in June.
Just to give the scar more time to heal.
As I have been watching the Netflix special on Robert Kennedy’s life, “Bobby Kennedy for President,” I have come to realize that RFK is the true father of the modern Democratic Party.
It was he who strung together the coalition of African-Americans, Latinos, liberals, students and labor who now constitute the Democratic Party.
The New Left of 1968 became the establishment of the party after Kennedy’s death.
Rogan’s book is fun, very well written and a real political thriller.
It stands history on its head even as it raises Bob Kennedy from the bloody kitchen floor.
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.
Trump to Address Pro-Life Group's Annual Gala
By Jason Devaney
(Getty Images)President Donald Trump is slated to speak at the annual gala of a leading pro-life organization next week.
Susan B. Anthony List announced Monday that Trump will headline the May 22 Campaign for Life Gala at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway will attend to receive the SBA List's 2018 Distinguished Leader Award, while House Majority Whip Steve Scalise will speak at the event as well.
Supermodel and businesswoman Kathy Ireland, an outspoken Christian and pro-life advocate, will serve as the mistress of ceremonies.
"President Donald Trump is governing as the most pro-life president in our nation's history and Susan B. Anthony List is honored to receive him at our annual Campaign for Life Gala," SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said.
"President Trump has diligently and successfully gone about fulfilling his promises to the pro-life voters who worked so hard to elect him, and it has been a privilege to stand with him to defend the innocent unborn."
Vice President Mike Pence was the keynote speaker at last year's Campaign for Life Gala.
A story last month indicated abortion is shaping up to be a major issue in this fall's midterm elections, in which Republicans are at risk of losing control of the House and/or Senate chambers.
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/2018/05/www_15.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment