Democrats Launch Preemptive Strike on Barr

william-barr-1

The Democratic Party and its willing allies in the mainstream media have a new target in their political sights: Attorney General William Barr.

Attorney General Barr is the latest recipient of the poisonous politics in which Democrats of the extreme partisan kind are engaging. Interestingly, what appears to be lurking in the shadows of the political drama is a kind of raw fear on the part of Democrats.

A tactic from the military handbook, known as the “preemptive strike,” involves attacking one’s enemy before the enemy has had a chance to attack first. In this manner, the opposing side’s capabilities are inhibited or eliminated.

Democrats are going on the attack against Attorney General Barr with the goal of destroying the man’s reputation. They are doing so in order to interfere with the efforts of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in unearthing potentially damaging facts relating to the government’s investigation of President Trump.

Senate Democrats know, although some feign otherwise, that the attorney general is a fair-minded and competent legal professional.

The new head of the DOJ has plainly stated that with the Mueller investigation having been completed, he intends to delve into issues that may impact the image and reputation of various public officials, including some in the previous administration. This may prove to be potentially problematic, especially for Democrat candidates who are running in upcoming elections.

Attorney General Barr has let the Senate Judiciary Committee know that he is looking into the origins of the investigation into Trump and any possible criminal leaks to the media by FBI and/or DOJ officials. Additionally, the question of whether the Christopher Steele dossier was a form of Russian disinformation will be examined.

The Steele dossier was reportedly the basis for applications submitted in order to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue warrants against a Trump associate, Carter Page.

Steele was hired to create the dossier by an entity called Fusion GPS, which is an opposition research firm that was paid in part by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, using the Perkins Coie law firm as a cutout.

The attorney general has already started probing the manner in which the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and administration was conducted. He has indicated a desire to determine the facts surrounding the alleged spying on Donald Trump before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election. He has also indicated that he will look into the numerous leaks to the press that occurred, and the origin of the Steele dossier and its use in the FISA courts.

Fear may have set into certain Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when the attorney general informed them that he was working closely with Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice Michael Horowitz to investigate the investigators who initiated and conducted the investigation at the DOJ and FBI into so-called Trump-Russia collusion.

For more than a year Inspector General Horowitz has been looking into the process by which FISA court surveillance warrants were obtained to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. Horowitz commenced the FISA abuse probe after having received requests from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and members of Congress.

Attorney General Barr said, “I talked to Mike Horowitz a few weeks ago about it. It’s focused on the FISA, basis for the FISA and handling of the FISA applications. But by necessity, it looks back a little earlier than that. The people helping me with my review will be working very closely with Mr. Horowitz.”

According to Attorney General Barr, Horowitz’s report could be released at the end of June 2019, and any criminal referrals produced will be placed into the hands of the attorney general.

Democrats are no doubt aware that if the immense investigative and intelligence powers possessed by the federal government were used on American citizens without a proper predicate, the communication thereof to the public will significantly jeopardize their party’s ability to win elections and maintain power.

United States Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber has reportedly been tasked with looking into the way in which the FBI handled allegations of Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of U.S. uranium rights to an entity known as Uranium One. He has also been charged with the responsibility of examining the way in which FISA warrants were obtained to surveil Carter Page. According to various media reports, Huber is close to submitting his findings.

Democrats realize that Huber will be reporting his findings to Attorney General Barr.

The attorney general may have caused certain Senate Democrats to experience further anxiety when he told them that more wrongdoing than previously reported may have taken place by those who were conducting a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and other individuals connected with him.

“Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I would like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort to stop the threat as it is being represented,” Attorney General Barr said.

The attorney general also indicated that he is working closely with the FBI to go where Democrats never thought he would.

With some of the spying details about to be revealed, the Democrat strategy is to preemptively undermine the credibility of the head of the DOJ, Attorney General Barr.

To this end, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was particularly outrageous in her rhetoric during Attorney General Barr’s testimony before Congress, saying, “Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway or any of the other people who sacrificed their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office.”

Calls for the attorney general to resign came spewing out of the mouths of Democrat presidential hopefuls, including Senators Kamala Harris, D-Calif, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Other Democrats issued demands for the attorney general’s resignation, disbarment, and/or impeachment.

When Attorney General Barr used the term “spying” in his public testimony, it sent Democrats and their mainstream media cronies into a tailspin. They subsequently showed their true colors, launching a barrage of attacks against him.

But despite their unsavory tactics, the attorney general is proving himself to be unflappable, both in his public testimony and beyond. It highly unlikely that he will be distracted by partisan politicians who in private are more than likely scared out of their wits.

President Trump’s Emergency Declaration Will Survive Lawsuits

190215-pelosi-schumer-al-1242_d3bca321ca33f114f80bd0bde830735a.fit-1240w

According to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the new Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, President Donald Trump possesses the lawful authority to use emergency powers to fund and build a barrier at the border.

In response to an interview question about the legality of the president’s recent emergency declaration, Smith told host of ABC’s “This Week” George Stephanopoulos, “Unfortunately, the short answer is yes. There is a provision in law that says the president can declare an emergency. It’s been done a number of times…” The congressman added that the president would be the recipient of a court challenge.

The lawsuit avalanche has just begun. More than a dozen states are filing suits challenging the emergency declaration. A case in point is the recent one declared by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

It is simply a fact that under existing law the suits should eventually lose when the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately gets the case.

Even Democrats such as Smith and various liberal legal commentators have admitted that President Trump has the statutory authority to declare the border crisis to be a national emergency, and he will therefore be able to adequately fund a border barrier.

The declaration by a president of a national emergency is nothing new. There have been 58 national emergencies declared since the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA) was signed into law. Currently, there are 31 active national emergencies in effect. President Bill Clinton declared 17, and President Barack Obama declared 13 of them.

National emergencies exist today in remote places such as Yemen, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Myanmar, and Somalia. The current national emergency declared by President Trump deals with a crisis occurring on the U.S. Southern border.

The NEA was originally passed to rein in the authority of the president to use emergency power. The law requires the occupant of the Oval Office to renew declarations of emergencies annually, and it gives Congress the potential ability to terminate a state of emergency. Congress has routinely renewed most past declared emergencies without raising meaningful objections or litigation.

In order to terminate President Trump’s recent declaration of emergency, Congress must pass a joint resolution and submit it to the president for his signature. If the president were to veto the resolution, as President Trump would most certainly be expected to do, Congress would have to come up with a veto-proof supermajority to end the state of the emergency.

When Congress, via the NEA, granted the president the power to declare a national emergency, it did not define the meaning of the phrase. The power of any president to declare a national emergency ends up being very broad.

President Trump’s authority to do so does not arise solely from the NEA, though, but also from the presidential power to protect the nation and control the orderly process of entry into the United States.

Supreme Court precedent recognizes the power of the executive branch to control the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals and generally views this authority as mostly unsusceptible to interference by courts.

The funding for a border barrier has already been given the blessing of Congress via enacted legislation that was signed into law. The law of the land, as stated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, is that a border barrier shall be built along the U.S. Southern border.

Democrats are alleging that President Trump’s emergency declaration is seeking to use an emergency as a means to obtain what Congress had refused to authorize. However, Democrats are evidently more than willing to have the judicial branch step in to end a declared emergency, rather than follow a law that specifically states how Congress is mandated to carry out the process of overriding an emergency declaration.

There was no mass rush to file lawsuits and no cries of abuse of power on the part of Democrats when President Obama, after stating that he did not possess the legal authority to do so, proceeded to bypass Congress after it refused to pass immigration reform. He simply created with a stroke of his pen a program that fundamentally altered immigration laws.

The former president additionally funded some significant parts of the Affordable Care Act, after Congress had denied him such funding. And he also funded the undeclared war in Libya, after Congress had turned down his funding request.

In is clearly apparent that Democrats are not concerned with the law, but rather they are in opposition to any kind of border barrier of which President Trump might be in favor. This is simply due to the fact that President Trump made the wall a centerpiece promise during his 2016 presidential campaign. Democrats have been relishing in anything they believe might harm him politically, and they continue to do so.

The ugly reality is that the primary reason Democrats are seeking to stop the construction of any type of border barrier is that barriers work, and they do not want anything to be implemented that might curb the mass migration of their would-be voters.

Jeff Bezos’s Extortion Claim May Go Nowhere

600x-1

Founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, entered the political arena about six years ago with his purchase of The Washington Post.

American Media, Inc. (AMI) is the company that owns The National Enquirer, which is the media outlet that recently revealed Bezos was involved in an extramarital affair. The Enquirer story appeared a day after Bezos announced that he and his wife of 25 years were getting a divorce.

The story exposed Bezos’s affair with Lauren Sanchez, who is a former host of Fox’s “So You Think You Can Dance.” News of the affair changed public perception of Bezos, particularly with regard to his image as a CEO.

After suffering some embarrassment as a result of the story, Bezos unveiled a surprising blog post, which accused AMI of extortion. According to Bezos, in an email sent by the company’s lawyer, AMI threatened to publish texts and compromising photographs of Bezos, which included pictures of his male anatomy, if he did not publicly state that the tabloid’s reporting on his affair was not motivated by political concerns. Ironically, the lawyer who wrote the email is a former Amazon employee.

David Pecker is the CEO of AMI, and he is known to be an associate and friend of President Donald Trump. In the aforementioned blog post, Bezos made it a point to mention President Trump and cited ways that the president and Pecker had cooperated in the past.

Apparently, Bezos has been stung by the president’s tweets about his newspaper.

“It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy,” Bezos wrote. “President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets.”

Bezos has now put together a team of prominent lawyers and crisis managers to assist him in his public tug-of-war. The team includes high-profile figures such as Hollywood lawyer Martin Singer, who in 2005 represented Bill Cosby over potential Enquirer articles that detailed sexual assault allegations made against Cosby.

Attorney Jonathan Sherman, who previously represented AMI, is part of Bezos’s team and is with the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. Partner of the firm David Boies defended Harvey Weinstein against sexual harassment and abuse accusations.

An additional team member is security specialist Gavin de Becker, who worked with public figures such as Olivia Newton-John, Cher, and former President Ronald Reagan.

If the email is taken at face value, it appears as though AMI’s lawyer offered to forego the publishing of material that would be embarrassing to Bezos in exchange for a public statement from Bezos that would benefit AMI. Based on a superficial read, the subject of criminal extortion has been repeatedly featured in media discussions.

Citing anonymous sources, reports have surfaced claiming that federal prosecutors are looking into the extortion claim.

The allegation in question is that AMI, via its lawyer, communicated to Bezos during settlement discussions that it possessed embarrassing texts and photographs, and conveying that if Bezos did not settle with AMI the company intended to go forward and publish the material.

The communication was made by a Deputy General Counsel for AMI and purportedly followed an email from AMI’s Chief Content Officer that had described in detail the texts and photographs.

In analyzing this email, it is important to focus on the context within which both parties are seeking to settle a dispute.

In settlement negotiations, it is common practice for the parties to propose that each side will release the other from any potential claims. This is what was communicated through its legal counsel in the subject email by AMI, along with a proposal that Bezos would agree to tell the public that AMI’s coverage of Bezos was not politically motivated. In return, AMI would agree not to publish the texts and photographs.

Outside of the settlement discussion context, criminal extortion would exist in a case such as this if money was demanded as payment for not making public an embarrassing secret. However, in this instance the key difference revolves around the settlement backdrop.

Why would the two sides be negotiating a settlement? It is clear that Bezos has been raising potential civil legal claims against AMI, while AMI has suggested that Bezos’s Washington Post planned to publish a false news story about AMI.

These cross assertions are arguably the basis for both parties to be pursuing a settlement of their respective claims. A settlement agreement would mutually release the claims of both parties.

Typically such agreements contain non-disclosure provisions stipulating that neither side will disparage the other, particularly when both sides are publishers. The argument of AMI as a criminal extortion defendant would be as follows: the texts and emails in question were an essential part of the settlement negotiations and were necessary to establish an incentive for Bezos to negotiate.

Prosecutors would have an uphill battle in attempting to use these facts as a basis for a criminal extortion case. Additionally, the First Amendment creates further problems for the prosecution, since Bezos is a very well known influential public figure and a power player in Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.

Since Amazon moved forcefully into the entertainment business, Bezos is often seen at award shows and red carpet events. His life choices can have an on one of the largest companies in the world and one of the most influential news outlets in the nation. Despite its inherent unseemly nature, this story is, in fact, a newsworthy one that most current news outlets would run with if given the opportunity.

Furthermore, in the Michael Cohen case AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, agreeing to cooperate in exchange for not being subjected to prosecution. The agreement was conditioned on the company not getting into trouble legally for a period of three years.

Bezos’s team is well aware that, if it were determined that AMI broke the law, the company would potentially be in violation of the agreement. However, if there is no prosecutable crime, there seemingly would be no impact on the non-prosecution agreement.

Much of the analysis and reporting on the latest chapter in the Bezos saga illustrates the hunger on the part of many in the mainstream press for anything that can be weaponized against the president and used to ratchet down his poll numbers.

Republicans Can Win in 2020 If They Step Up Their Game

5b67a7612000009f00378fcc

Legendary football coach Vince Lombardi once famously said, “It’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get up.”

Some of the Republican rank and file may be feeling a bit punchy at the present. However, there are a lot more positives than negatives upon which to focus, and the goal in 2020 is very realistically achievable.

After loads of liberal media gloom and doom regarding the fate of the GOP, it may be a surprise for some to hear that, despite the midterm election results, Republicans are in a good position to take the White House again, retake the House of Representatives, and maintain the Senate. That is, if they are able to focus on three key elements: voter data, party unity, and strategically significant issues.

According to the hyperventilating panelists who appear on the left-leaning media news shows, President Trump and the Republican Party are in trouble. The recent court filings made by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen have the talking heads sneering with delight at the prospect of more GOP misfortune.

The lopsided media, though, is not presenting an accurate picture of the political playing field. Since the Republican Party will lay claim to an even larger Senate majority in 2019, the likelihood of Mueller producing sufficient evidence to convince enough GOP Senators to support impeachment proceedings is highly remote. Twenty Republican Senators would have to link arms with the Democrats for President Trump to be removed from office, which is far-fetched, if not impossible.

With President Trump at the top of the ticket in 2020, the GOP will be running an incumbent for reelection, while the Democrats will have the disadvantage of an open, crowded field with a couple dozen presidential candidates who are likely to want to storm the debate stage.

In contrast with the Republicans, Democrats appear to be having serious problems with their voter data infrastructure. Following the GOP lead, the DNC leadership is attempting to combine all of the voter data from Democratic groups into a single entity. However, disagreement between the national committee and the state parties is preventing the compilation of data from materializing.

The state Democrat parties are still smarting from the unusual rules that favored Hillary Clinton to the detriment of Bernie Sanders, as former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile described in her book.

On the other hand, Republican voter data operations appear to be very strong. The voter database used by RNC and the Trump campaign in 2016 took the political world by surprise. Former Trump campaign strategist Michael Caputo does not believe that Democrats will be able to keep up with the president’s data machine. In fact, Caputo said that the Trump campaign will have a data operation in 2020 that will make the use of data in 2016 “look like child’s play.”

In the 2018 election cycle, President Trump held numerous trademark MAGA rallies in states with contested senate seats during the closing weeks of the midterms. The rallies did more than just assist Republicans in winning races. A well-honed approach to building a voter database was being implemented by the Trump campaign working together with the RNC. The two organizations have entered into a data-sharing agreement that will increase the chances of the GOP winning in 2020.

The MAGA rallies provide the perfect opportunity to sign up new potential voters for future elections.

Republicans are actually showing a greater degree of party unity than the experts had anticipated during the tenure of the Trump administration. Meanwhile the Democratic Party is fractured, with its mostly wealthy far-left wing support of candidates such as Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), separating from the objectives and desires of the Democrats traditional working class base.

The far left-wing constituency and donor base continually drive the Democrats to focus on social issues, which tend to alienate working-class voters, the same voters who played a significant role in President Trump’s earth shaking 2016 win. With Democrat candidates supporting open borders, new legal definitions of gender, and taxpayer funding for abortion, they risk losing significant portions of their base.

The Trump campaign and the RNC need to solidify their bond with working-class voters, who are alienated by the Democrats’ left-wing pandering. Simultaneously, they need to articulate pro-family and economic ideas such as school choice, increased parental autonomy for children’s education, and real limitations on the abortion industry.

By focusing on and further refining the same factors that resulted in the 2016 victory, Republicans can enhance and utilize a better database, maintain cohesiveness, and center on resonant issues. President Trump will then be reelected by a large enough margin to bring a significant number of Republican candidates alongside him to victory.

Trump Critics Complain over Troops at the Border

470cdc8700000578-5153149-image-a-43_1512592248104

Since the Trump administration authorized the military to use force along the US-Mexico border, many are raising legal challenges to the president’s border policy by invoking a 19th century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement functions unless specifically authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

According to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, over 5,000 active duty troops are now engaged in supporting missions along the border in Texas, Arizona, and California.

The actions authorized by the White House are those the Secretary of Defense “determines are reasonably necessary” including “a show or use of force, crowd control, temporary detention, and cursory search.” The military has also been given the option to use lethal force, if conditions make it necessary to do so.

It is therefore not surprising that the same media panelists who routinely attack President Trump are ranting about the president violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which stops U.S. military from involvement in most civilian law enforcement roles.

Secretary Mattis stressed the need to keep the military away from civilian law enforcement roles.

“We are not doing law enforcement,” Mattis told the press. “We do not have arrest authority.”

Mattis indicated that, because National Guard troops are also present at the border, the governors of affiliated states could give them arrest authority.

“We’ll decide if it’s appropriate for the military, and at that point, things like Posse Comitatus obviously are in play,” Mattis said. “We’ll stay in strict accordance with the law.”

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes on June 18, 1878. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was subsequently amended in 1956 and 1981.

The Constitution grants the president the power to utilize the armed forces to defend the nation’s territory, as well as to use the military to support civil authorities in preserving the peace.

The Posse Comitatus Act limits but does not eliminate the power of the president to declare “martial law” when local law enforcement and court systems cannot properly function. In such cases, all civilian police powers are assumed by the military. The president must also be able to deploy the military to counter insurrections, rebellions, or invasions.

In addition to the exceptions to Posse Comitatus, which allow the military to support civilian authorities in instances such as national disasters or terrorist acts, a federal law, Title 10, Chapter 13 of the U.S. code, is particularly pertinent.

When the president determines that unlawful “obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the president has the power to “use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

Thousands of foreign nationals intend to engage in an unlawful incursion of U.S. territory, and some of them have already demonstrated a willingness to resort to violence in disregard of the laws of Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has said that as many as 500 criminals and gang members are within the groups heading towards the border. The territorial protection of the nation gives the president the authority to act as commander-in-chief in the case at hand.

Also contained in Chapter 13 is additional power of the president to use the armed forces. The language further states that the president “shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” as long as the insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy “so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection…”

If President Trump has reasonable grounds to believe that the thousands of foreign nationals who reportedly intend to “rush the border” would overwhelm the resources of the border states, and moreover pose a security threat to the border patrol, he is empowered to “take such measures as he considers necessary.”

In the executed directive that granted military authority, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly wrote that “credible evidence and intelligence” indicated that the thousands of foreign nationals, many of whom are now in Tijuana, Mexico, “may prompt incidents of violence and disorder” that could threaten border officials.

Once again the nation may witness the filing of lawsuits with pre-selected liberal federal district court judges, seeking to have the power of the commander-in-chief curtailed.

However, as has also been seen before, it is highly likely that the president’s power to use the military to protect the nation’s citizens, the nation’s territory, and the nation’s sovereignty will be held to be lawful.

John Kerry’s Telling Remarks

9a3e5076-8576-46c6-bfd6-f9171ac99463

John Kerry appeared on a recent cable broadcast of “Real Time with Bill Maher” to promote a book, increase his possible presidential profile, and deliver a Left Coast attack on the current sitting president.

The segment did not go as swimmingly as Kerry likely intended. In what appeared to be a pre-written attempt at humor, he told Maher, “He [President Donald Trump] is the first president that I know of who spends more time reading his Twitter ‘likes’ than his briefing books or the Constitution of the United States.”

The former secretary of state-turned-comic received the usual applause from the left-leaning audience, but few laughs. He went on to acknowledge that he has been engaged in what many government officials and private citizens as well view as rogue diplomacy.

In what appears to have been an effort to revive the now-defunct Iran nuclear deal, the probable presidential aspirant revealed that behind-the-scenes he has been in talks with a high-ranking representative of Iran.

Prior to the “Real Time” venue, in a separate media appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Kerry had already admitted that he had met several times with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, and that the talks had taken place without the approval of the Trump administration.

On the actual day of the “Real Time” taping, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took to the podium regarding Kerry’s unauthorized meetings.

“You can’t find precedent for this in U.S. history, and Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior,” Pompeo said in a press conference at the State Department. “It’s inconsistent with what foreign policy of the United States is as directed by this president, and it is beyond inappropriate for him to be engaged.”

“I’ll leave the legal determinations to others,” Pompeo added. “But what Secretary Kerry has done is unseemly and unprecedented. This is a former secretary of State engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”

The day following Kerry’s appearance on Maher’s show, Pompeo took to Twitter to post a pair of tweets that focused on the Obama administration’s dubious Iran nuclear agreement, which was arranged under Kerry’s stewardship.

“What @JohnKerry has done by engaging with #Iran’s regime, the world’s top state sponsor of terror, is unseemly, unprecedented, and inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy. The deal failed. Let it go,” Pompeo said in a tweet.

The secretary of state then added the following second post: “#JCPOA [the Iran nuclear deal is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] didn’t stop all paths for #Iran to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to the way it was sold to the American people.”

The “legal determinations” to which Pompeo made reference in his press conference involve the Logan Act, the same law that then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates used against then-National Security Advisor designee Michael Flynn.

The Logan Act does not apply to an incoming official engaged in transition activities for a new administration, which was the case with General Flynn. It would, however, appropriately apply to a former secretary of state who may have misused his contacts and secretly negotiated with a dangerous foreign power without authorization from the current administration.

Depending upon the specific details of Kerry’s interaction with Zarif, he could be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires registration and transparency by individuals or companies acting on behalf of foreign governments, political parties, or persons. This is the identical statute that was used to prosecute former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

Kerry appears to be unconcerned about the remarks that he made regarding his potential illegal behavior, focusing instead on how his humor is playing out with the leftist base and the greater public.

On Maher’s show, Kerry schooled the audience on how democracy relies on the truth, but the truth rings hollow with regard to current pertinent events surrounding Kerry, as well as some significant ones in the past.

“Unfortunately, we have a president,” Kerry said, “literally, for whom the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is three different things…”

It is the height of irony that the former secretary of state would invoke the value of truth. When Kerry returned from Vietnam, he used the anti-war sentiment that was prevalent in the media to acquire fame by making himself a leader of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Kerry publicly relayed a number of gruesome tales, which accused U.S. military personnel of engaging in brutal war crimes. He now refers to his slanderous stories impugning the U.S. armed forces as an exaggeration.

As a set up to what Kerry must have thought was his line of the evening, he professed to not want to “get into a real riff” on it, but then suddenly the following words rolled off his tongue.

Speaking about the current president, Kerry said that he has “the maturity of an eight-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl.”

Kerry presently appears to harbor an intense desire to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the next election cycle. Among his many celebrated causes, he has professed to be a staunch advocate for women’s rights.

It will be interesting to see whether Kerry, with his “teenage girls” comment and his characterization of young women as “insecure,” will be held to account or even asked to explain how blatant stereotyping and not so subtle ridicule is somehow acceptable in the present day and age.

Antitrust Law Should Be Used to Break Up Big Tech Monopolies

161214-trump_techexecutives-1558_539e73df73d2409411e78c0f502b8ce3-fit-1240w

President Donald Trump, via his Twitter account, recently prompted a public discussion about the possibility of using antitrust law against major technology companies, due in part to a growing body of evidence that bias is being perpetrated against conservative individuals and entities by such companies.

The primary rationale of antitrust enforcement is the protection of the American consumer and free market economy from unprincipled business behavior by monopolistic enterprises.

Never before in the nation’s history have companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon, among others, possessed the size, wealth, dominance, control, and sheer power that the tech giants do.

With more than 70 percent of the PC search market and almost 85 percent of the mobile device market, Google currently has a virtual stranglehold on the gateway to digital information. And Google’s video social media platform, YouTube, controls almost 80 percent of the video market.

Facebook has about 2 billion users worldwide, and when the company’s additional acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp are factored in, 95 percent of young people regularly log on to Facebook platforms.

When it comes to Amazon, by the year’s end the company will have swallowed up almost 50 percent of the U.S. e-commerce business, and additionally lays claim to 80 percent of the e-book market. Amazon is also the largest provider of hosted cloud services, and the odds are strong that an online sales firm that competes with the company would likely be using Amazon servers for its own website.

Research on Google searches has produced data, which indicate that bias against conservative news outlets, blogs, and websites exists, and additionally indicate that ideologically right-of-center content has actually been removed from YouTube.

Despite Google’s denial of bias, PJMedia recently conducted a count of search results relating to President Trump and found that 96 percent of the most visible news articles that arose were generated from liberal outlets.

The Daily Caller reported that Google’s fact check feature engages almost exclusively in the targeting of right-of-center sites.

Facebook has exhibited bias in its trending topics, as well as in its removal of conservative content, and Amazon has manipulated book reviews to favor leftist writers.

Despite promises to the contrary, Facebook continues to censor ideas based on conservative content and has recently been caught doing so. A New York Post article by Salena Zito, which noted that supporters of President Trump were unaffected by the conviction and plea deal of two prominent Trump-associated individuals, Zito’s article was labeled as “spam.”

Facebook even took down an article titled “The School Shootings That Weren’t,” posted by NPR, that showed the number of school shootings, which were claimed to have taken place during the 2015–2016 school year, was highly inflated.

The president is correct in suggesting that the use of antitrust law against tech companies may be a necessary step that the government needs to take in order to awaken the tech giants to the duty that they have, to exercise greater responsibility in their approach to users and content. If they do not, consequences may result as seen with other companies, which were divided into smaller less monopolistic concerns.

In a previous antitrust filing, AT&T was split up into eight much smaller companies, and Standard Oil was divided into 34 firms. Each of these companies possessed the ability to almost totally dominate their respective market. The original AT&T accounted for 93 percent of all telephone calls made in the U.S., and Standard Oil sold 87 percent of U.S. refined oil.

An antitrust case that began in the early years of former President Bill Clinton’s administration was ultimately settled by the Department of Justice. Microsoft had been accused of abusing monopoly power on personal computers, in its handling of operating system and web browser sales, by bundling its Internet Explorer browser with its Windows operating system.

Microsoft’s actions are strikingly similar to a recent Google business practice. To insure its dominance of the mobile market, Google forced carriers and manufactures that used its Android operating system to make Google Search the default search engine and include a number of Google apps as well.

In 2008 the Bush Justice Department threatened to bring an antitrust action against Google, due to a proposed partnership with Yahoo for the sale of advertising. At the time, Google had a 70 percent share of the market, and Yahoo, with 20 percent, was the second largest search engine.

Due to the monopolistic realities of these giant tech companies, startups that might compete with the giants may end up being smothered. For example, an entrepreneurial startup company with products that compete with Google offerings has to be concerned that Google will give its own product a higher ranking and may even hide the new company’s competing products.

This poses a danger to the overall consumer market, because consumers lose the ability to become aware of and/or purchase any innovative products that startup companies might have to offer.

Both Google and Facebook maintain that their companies should not be the subject of antitrust scrutiny, because their product is said to be provided to their users free of charge. However, participants who are obtaining the services for free are not the actual customers of the companies. The real paying customers, in both search and social media, are the advertisers and publishers that pay for the ability to broaden their own pool of consumers.

The argument can be made that the big tech companies, via paid search advertising and paid social media advertising, have morphed into monopolies, and these monopolies have effectively stifled competition and innovation, while having a deleterious effect on the free market economy.