Special Opinion to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
Oh, my goodness, wasn’t it just incredible how they howled and moaned and screamed and hollered, and caterwauled, the Washington, D.C. crowd, that is, and you all know who they are; there is Charley “CHUCK” Schumer, of course, who can forget him; in the Washington Post story “‘A sad day for America’: Top Dems call Trump’s meeting with Putin ’embarrassing’” by John Wagner published July 16, 2018, Charley “Chuck” is heard to say as follows:
“A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House:
What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States?”
“Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.”
Now, talk about drama, people, there is what it looks like in real life.
Can you just imagine it – I mean seriously, we’re talking about not just a handful of people, but actual millions, and that is nothing to sneeze at, I’m saying.
And look at how many innuendos a top-notch political hack like Charley “Chuck” Schumer was able to cram into one small sentence he could then convert into a TWEET on TWITTER.
First, there is Trump’s “dangerous behavior,” which Democrat Charley “Chuck” Schumer says was “putting the interests of Russia over those of the United States.”
Oh, really, Charley “Chuck,” how so, dude?
And so we are all on the same page here, let’s carefully review the Marketwatch article “12 Russians indicted over hacking into Democrats’ computers” by Steve Goldstein published July 13, 2018, starting with the title itself – “indicted over hacking into Democrat’s computers.”
More specifically, we are talking about the computers of a private social club in America known as the Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capitol Street Southeast, Washington, DC 20003.
According to the website of this private social club, the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, was created during the Democratic National Convention of 1848 and for 167 years, it’s been responsible for governing the Democratic Party and is the oldest continuing party committee in the United States.
And that is a very important point to keep in mind here, people – the Democratic National Committee is responsible for governing the social club known as the Democratic Party, and that is all it is responsible for governing, keeping in mind that as of October 2017, Gallup polling found that only 31% of Americans identified as Democrat.
So let’s be incandescently clear here, people – the Democratic National Committee is not our government, although it certainly does meddle in its affairs, as well as feeding off it like a social parasite, which is exactly what it is, and it does not govern us, although it has pretensions to doing so.
Getting back to the official website of this private social club that was apparently hacked by some Russians, the Committee plans the Party’s presidential nominating convention and promotes the Democratic Platform, the statement of core principles at the heart of that Party, and the DNC also raises money, hires staff, and coordinates strategy to support candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, and additionally, the Committee works with various constituencies to respond to the needs and views of Democrats across the nation.
For those of us who are not Democrats, the DNC has absolutely nothing to offer us, because we are not Democrats., and as we saw in 2016, the Democrats do discriminate against those of us who are not Democrats, lumping us all into what they call a “basket of deplorables.”
Those are the people who the Russians allegedly hacked, and the Russians were able to do so, because those people at the DNC are incompetent and plain stupid.
Is that something millions of Americans should be suffering angst over?
I’m certainly not.
So, with that factual basis established, let’s get back to the Marketwatch article, where we find as follows:
The Mueller indictment states that officers of the GRU — Russian military intelligence — gained unauthorized access into the computers, stole documents, and tried to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, however, stated at a press conference that the indictment does not allege that the vote count was impacted by the actions.
Now, people, key in on that second sentence, to wit: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated at a press conference that the vote count was not impacted by the actions.
In other words, despite all the hype, and my God, is there ever an abundance of it, as we shall continue to see, our elections were not meddled with by the Russians, nor were they interfered with, and that is a fact.
Getting back to the story of the indictments:
The indictment states that starting in March 2016, the conspirators started to hack the email accounts of Clinton campaign officials, including its chairman, John Podesta, whose emails were later released over Wikileaks.
The next month, they hacked into the networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee.
By June, they started releasing stolen emails and documents via “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” the indictment states.
Just hours after Trump said on July 27, 2016, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Russians attempted to spearfish “for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office.”
They used a network of computers across the world and paid for this infrastructure via cryptocurrency, mostly bitcoin.
The use of bitcoin allowed them to avoid direct relationships with traditional financial institutions, the indictment said.
So that is what all the considerable HOOPLA is about, people – knowing how weak the Democrats really are on national security and incompetent, they did waltz in there and do all that stuff on Obama’s watch, afterall, the Russians exploited that weakness and incompetence and exposed it for all the world to see, and now, we are all supposed to be freaking out about it, but I’m not.
And then we have this:
During the press conference, Rosenstein was asked about the timing of the indictment and denied it was related to Trump’s meeting with Putin.
“It’s a function of the collection of facts, evidence of law and determination sufficient to present the indictment at this time,” he said.
“It’s important for the president to know what information we’ve uncovered because he needs to make important decisions for the country.”
“He needs to understand what evidence we have of foreign interference.”
Except there was no “foreign interference!”
Hacking into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail because she is weak and incompetent, and hacking into the computers of the DNC does not constitute “foreign interference” in our elections.
As to the “indictments” themselves, in an article on the subject by Andrew D. Leipold. Edwin M. Adams Professor and Director, Program in Criminal Law & Procedure, University of Illinois College of Law entitled “Grand Jury Requirement” at The Heritage Guide To The Constitution website, we are informed as follows:
The jurors meet in a closed courtroom, with no judge, no accused, no press, and no lawyer but the prosecutor present.
The prosecution presents evidence that a particular suspect committed a crime; the prosecutor is then excused, and the jurors deliberate and vote on whether there is enough evidence to justify the filing of criminal charges against this suspect and sending the case forward to trial.
If a majority of jurors believe that there is sufficient evidence, the jurors return a “true bill,” which when signed by the prosecutor becomes the indictment: the formal criminal charge that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
The current state of the law restricts the ability of a grand jury to serve as a significant shield against prosecutorial overreach.
Focus on that last sentence and the words “prosecutorial overreach.”
In an article entitled “US Supreme Court to Judges: STOP Prosecutorial Over-reach!” by Donald Scarinci, a managing partner at Lyndhurst, N.J. based law firm Scarinci Hollenbeck who is also the editor of the Constitutional Law Reporter and Government and Law blogs, we have as follows on that subject, to wit:
For the third time in three years, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected prosecutors expansive (and sometimes absurd) reading of the laws they use to prosecute people.
This time, the Court interpreted a federal anti-corruption law to prosecute former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
The McDonnell decision reflects the Supreme Court’s continuing disapproval of prosecutorial over-reach.
As regular readers of this column know, when it comes to elected officials, prosecutors investigate people, not crimes.
They creatively reinterpret laws in unexpected and unintended ways and highlight any salacious information they can use to get a headline and inflame judges and jurors.
Is that the case here?
It certainly could be, as we see from the following concerning federal grand juries:
The proceedings are secret, and thus a suspect has no way of knowing if the evidence presented by the prosecution is complete or accurate.
Prosecutors are now highly professional and specialized, and federal criminal laws have become more complex.
One result of this change is that grand jurors lack the realistic ability to decide whether the prosecutor has presented “enough” evidence to justify an indictment.
The question that jurors are asked is ultimately a legal one concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, a question that is posed after the only lawyer in the room—the prosecutor—has recommended that the defendant be indicted.
Because the prosecutor has complete control over the evidence the grand jurors hear, and because the jurors have no benchmark against which to measure that evidence, it is rare for jurors to second-guess a prosecutor’s recommendation.
Consequently, grand jurors agree with the prosecutor’s recommendation and return a true bill in nearly every case where they are asked to do so.
In other words, either Rosenstein or Mueller could have used the grand jury to indict a hot dog.
Who in their right mind on that grand jury was going to buck the system and go against Mueller or Rosenstein when they were told to do their duty and return indictments against those twelve Russians, who happen to be in Russia, not America?
And that takes us back to the Washington Post article above, because where there is Charley “Chuck” Schumer, or “Wall Street Cholly” as he is affectionately known in New York state, there is Nancy Pelosi, as well, and this is what she had to say to the millions of people not only all across America but throughout the candid world, as well, who are tuned into this made-for-American-TV drama, to wit:
“President Trump’s weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the Russians have something on the president, personally, financially or politically,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.
“This is a sad day for America, and for all Western democracies that Putin continues to target.”
Talk about being proven guilty on national TV without a trial or the presentation of any evidence, that takes the cake!
Arnold Schwarzenegger called Trump a “wet little noodle” in his adorable Austrian accent that the American people just love, because it sounds so, well, you know, foreign and exotic, like Arnold was a Habsburg prince or something, and based on that, Nancy Pelosi now wants us to believe that that proves the Russians have something on Trump personally, financially or politically:
“President Trump, I just saw your press conference with President Putin and it was embarrassing.”
“I mean, you stood there like a little wet noodle, like a little fanboy.”
For those unfamiliar with the term “fanboy,” and I admit to being one of them, it is defined as “a boy or man who is an extremely or overly enthusiastic fan of someone or something.”
As to a real sad day for America, I personally think it can be found in a Tribune Washington Bureau article entitled “Embattled Pelosi’s big survival weapon: money” by Anshu Siripurapu on 22 June 2017, as follows:
Here’s a huge reason Nancy Pelosi maintains her iron grip on House Democrats, even after another bruising and in many party circles embarrassing election loss: her ability to raise lots and lots of money.
The House Democratic leader has few current peers when it comes to pumping money into colleagues’ campaigns.
No other potential up-and-coming Democratic challenger to her leadership comes close.
Since 1990, she’s raised more than $9.2 million for party candidates, including $739,000 in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks contributions from candidate committees and affiliated PACs.
Pelosi’s office claims even loftier triumphs, saying she’s raised more than $500 million for Democrats since entering the party leadership in the early 2000s, including $141.5 million in the 2015-2016 cycle.
Big donors to the party’s congressional campaign committee were also available to Pelosi through her “Speaker’s Cabinet” program, which gave them special access to the Democratic leader.
There is what a real sad day for America looks like to me – Democrat Nancy Pelosi selling access to our government to the highest bidders, and selling out the American people in the process.
But this story of America under attack doesn’t end there, so stay tuned, much more is yet to come!