Mediaboss Marketing

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown carelessness in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been extremely careless in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Case dismissed.

Could there be more striking parallels? A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the presidents subordinates dropped the case exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obamas stated rationale.

Yet the media yawned.

Of course, theyre not yawning now. Now it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, sending Comey signals. So now, such signals are a major issue not merely of obstruction of justice, but of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump hysteria seems to be a permanent condition, a combustive compound of media-Democrat derangement surrounding a president who keeps providing derangement material. Lets try to keep our feet on the ground, but with a commitment to get the evidence and go wherever it takes us.

For now, we dont have much evidence. Essentially, weve got single statement, mined by the New York Times from a memo that no one outside a tight circle inside the FBI has seen indeed, that the Times has not seen. According to anonymous sources, the memo was written by thenFBI director Comey shortly after a private meeting with President Trump only two of them in the room after Trump asked other officials to leave. This was on February 14, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned over inaccurate statements he made to senior administration officials in recounting conversations hed had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

Trump is said to have told Comey, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.

Other than telling us that Comey replied, I agree he is a good guy, the Times provides no context of the conversation. Its report gives no indication of whether the memo provides such context.

On its face, the statement does not amount to obstruction of justice. Trump could be said to be putting pressure on his subordinate, just as Obama was putting pressure on his subordinates (Comey included) last April. But assuming the Times is right about the memo, Trump did not order Comey to drop the case. In fact, Trumps statement is consistent with encouraging Comey to use his own judgment, with the understanding that Trump hoped Comey would come out favorably to Flynn.

But of course, also with the understanding that if Comey pushed to prosecute Flynn, the president who had the power to fire Comey was going to be very unhappy. Just as President Obama would have been very unhappy, and in a position to fire Comey, if Mrs. Clinton had been indicted.

It is not frivolous to infer that Trumps statement to Comey was a veiled order. If that is your interpretation, though, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Obamas public statements were also veiled orders not to indict Clinton. Up until now, veiled orders have not been thought the equivalent of obstruction of justice.

In light of what Ive previously contended (viz., that obstruction of justice is a concept irrelevant to a counterintelligence investigation), I must note here that concerns about obstruction of justice in the context of the reported Trump-Comey conversation are legitimate. That is because the conversation does not directly relate to the so-called Russia investigation, which Comey has explained is a counterintelligence inquiry regarding Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. Rather, Trump and Comey were speaking about a criminal investigation of Flynn, ancillary to but separate from the Russia investigation. We are informed that a grand jury in Virginia is considering evidence of transactions involving Flynn, although it is not clear that this was the case on February 14, when Trump and Comey spoke.

There is good reason to believe veiled orders, while inappropriate, are not criminal i.e., they do not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction of justice. Obstruction can be a tough crime to prove. It is necessary to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect acted corruptly in impeding or influencing a criminal investigation. That means acting with knowledge that ones conduct was unlawful, and with a specific intent to undermine the truth-seeking function.

Context is critical, and we dont have it. All we know is that Trump hoped the criminal investigation would be dropped but again, did not order it to be dropped and vouched for Flynns character. That may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, but it was not corrupt. Comey surely found it awkward, but he clearly did not perceive it as obstruction. The former director is a highly experienced and meritoriously decorated former prosecutor and investigator. He knows what obstruction of justice is. And the Jim Comey Ive known for 30 years would not stand for political interference in law enforcement. If he had understood Trumps remarks as a directive or, worse, a threat, he would have resigned.

It is not enough to say that he did not resign. Unlike the investigation of Mrs. Clinton, the investigation of Flynn has continued. Plus, Comey does not appear to have indicated to his subordinates, to his Justice Department superiors, or to Congress that he felt threatened. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and Comeys former deputy (now acting director) Andrew McCabe have not intimated, even vaguely, that their investigative activities have been hampered. Again, the investigation is proceeding apace.

There is no question that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. But media hyperventilating notwithstanding, the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there...unless you also think President Obama obstructed justicelast April.

READ MORE: Trumps Russian Leak Defense is Not Reassuring Donald Trumps Republican Support is Waning Trump Firing James Comey Means its Time for the President to Change

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Go here to read the rest:
Under the Obama Precedent, No Trump Obstruction of Justice - National Review

President Barack Obama's last few months in office were pretty hard on America. On a mission to cement his legacy, he set out on a final regulatory onslaught to expand the size of government dramatically. His agencies rushed through rule after rule, targeting sectors of the economy that did not sit well with his ideology.

Republicans campaigned on a promise to deliver relief and scale back the size of government. We pledged that we would repeal regulations to create jobs and get the economy moving again. Now, we are delivering on that promise.

Enter the Congressional Review Act. It's a law on the books that gives Congress 60 legislative days to repeal regulations with a simple voting majority. Furthermore, it dictates that no similar regulation can be issued in the future. Enacted in the 1990s, the Congressional Review Act had only been used to successfully overturn one regulation before 2017.

But in just four months, Congress overturned not one regulation, not two regulations, but 14 harmful Obama-era regulations those rushed through in the 11th hour of his presidency.

These dictates were poorly crafted, complicated and created massive uncertainty. They made it difficult for businesses to grow and threatened tens of thousands of jobs. They unilaterally grabbed power from the states and gave it to bureaucrats in Washington. They were bad for our economy and our culture.

On the economic front, look at the Interior Department's stream protection rule, finalized in December. Packaged as an effort to protect the environment, the regulation was really a frontal attack on coal country, projected to wipe out up to one-third of American coal mining jobs. The Obama administration always had an antipathy to coal, and the stream protection rule was its last attempt to try and dismantle the coal industry once and for all.

But Congress stopped that attack. Using the Congressional Review Act, the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 38 in February, repealing the stream protection rule. President Trump signed the joint resolution into law shortly thereafter.

And take the Department of Health and Human Services' Title X rule, which overrides state laws. Billed as an effort to protect women's health, it was really just an effort to keep Planned Parenthood flush with taxpayer cash. Finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, the rule banned state governments from moving Title X money away from abortion giants like Planned Parenthood and toward community health centers that help women.

Using the Congressional Review Act once again, Congress stopped that assault on life. Under no circumstances should taxpayers have to pay for abortions. Passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in February, H.J. Res 43 repeals regulations overriding state laws that prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in their states.

These are just two of the 14 Congressional Review Act bills from the past few months that are now law. Others limit the power of Washington bureaucrats to unilaterally deny government contracts and give state governments back the ability to make land and education decisions in their communities.

Throughout the past eight years, the American people have lived under an administration that pitted the federal government against the American economy and way of life. With Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, that era is over. We in Congress had an important tool at our disposal in the Congressional Review Act and we didn't hesitate to use it.

Repealing some of the most harmful, last-minute Obama-era regulations was the first step in undoing Obama's big government policies and fulfilling our pledges to the American people.

Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He represents Wisconsin's first district in the U.S. Congress.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read ourguidelines on submissions.

Read this article:
Paul Ryan: Obama's regulatory tailspin has been repealed - Washington Examiner

In an interview with Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of the late President John F. Kennedy, for his Profile in Courage award, Obama said the "most political courage" came from his "decision not to bomb Syria."

In December 2016, Obama told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that in retrospect he still believes he handled Syria the right way.

Obama's latest remarks came more than a month after President Donald Trump authorized a strike against a Syrian air base in April in response to a chemical weapons attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base, the first time the US has directly attacked the Assad regime in the country's six-year civil war.

Trump's decision to strike Syria earned him rare bipartisan praise, with Republicans largely supporting him in his decision to respond to the chemical attack, while Democrats were more concerned with discussing Trump's next step to address Syria.

Instead, the Obama administration reached a deal with Russia -- a Syrian ally -- on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.

The request was for Syria -- with Russia brokering the agreement -- to turn over its chemical weapons as part of a process overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The removal of the weapons was confirmed by the OPCW, but the Obama administration said at the time that it couldn't confirm that there weren't still undeclared stocks in country.

US intelligence has estimated that less than 10% of the stockpile is suspected to have remained in place and Syria has the ability to make more.

So even though the Obama administration embraced the process as a victory, it still left Syria with chemical weapons. Republicans also charged that it was a display of weakness as the White House didn't enforce its red line. But Obama didn't want to bomb Syria without approval from Congress, which didn't happen.

Obama did launch airstrikes in Syria a year later, but against ISIS, as the US began a military campaign against the terror in Iraq and Syria. However, those airstrikes were not in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The Trump administration criticized Obama's strategy toward Syria when the chemical attack happened there in April.

The chemical attack against Assad's own citizens in Syria was the Obama administration's fault, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, declaring it a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly tweeted a rebuttal to Obama's remarks in the interview, writing, "What President Obama calls 'political courage' -- most everyone else calls weakness and poor judgement."

He added: "It's not 'courageous' to allow a ruthless dictator to kill thousands and cross red lines regarding chemical weapons. #syria"

Graham sent out two more tweets, writing, "Giving Assad a pass for his outrageous behavior was not 'political courage,'" and "President Obama's 'courageous' approach to Syria has come back to haunt the people of Syria, the Middle East, and the world at large."

CNN's David Wright, Barbara Starr, Nicole Gaouette and John Kirby contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Obama: Decision not to bomb Syria required 'political courage' - CNN

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov leaves following a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC, May 10, 2017. (Getty)

Supporters of President Donald Trump are hitting back at the Washington Post report that he shared highly classified information on ISIS with top Russian officials by arguing that President Obama basically did the same thing.

Is it true? Did President Obama share ISIS-related intelligence with Russia? There are differences between what the Washington Post alleges Trump said and what Obama offered. However, its true that President Obama offered to share more intelligence on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups with Russia because both Russia and the United States consider ISIS a common foe.

The White House and top Trump officials most notably National Security Adviser Henry McMaster adamantly deny the latest Washington Post report, with McMaster pointblank calling it false. More on that back-and-forth in a minute. First the Obama report.

The claim stems mostly from a Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung that ran on June 30, 2016.

The article was headlined, U.S. offers to share Syria intelligence on terrorists with Russia. Trump supporters ricocheted that old story around social media after the latest allegations broke:

The newspaper reported that the Obama administration had offered Russia what it was calling enhanced information sharing that does not include joint military planning, targeting or coordination with U.S. airstrikes or other operations in Syria.

According to The Post, the Obama offer came with conditions: The Obama administration has offered to help Russia improve its targeting of terrorist groups in Syria if Moscow will stop bombing civilians and opposition fighters who have signed on to a cease-fire and use its influence to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to do the same, the story reported.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said at the time, according to The Post: Weve made no bones about the fact that if the Russians, with their military presence in Syria, proved to be willing to focus those efforts against Daesh, then thats a conversation we would be willing to have.

Obama during his Farewell Address. (Getty)

In July 2016, the Post wrote another story titled, Obamas Syria plan teams up American and Russian forces. The story, by Josh Rogin, reported, The Obama administrations new proposal to Russia on Syria is more extensive than previously known. It would open the way for deep cooperation between U.S. and Russian military and intelligence agencies and coordinated air attacks by American and Russian planes on Syrian rebels deemed to be terrorists.

Its not hard to find articles about the Obama administration contemplating more coordination with Russia in the fight against terrorism.

In 2015, Defense News reported that the head of the CIA was determined to keep conversations open between the intelligence communities of the United States and Russia and wants to see relations between the two nations enhanced to prevent future terrorist attacks, particularly from the Islamic State group, commonly known as ISIS or ISIL.

John Brennan, Obamas CIA director, said in that article that he was having ongoing conversations with my Russian counterpart over the previous year. According to Defense News, those conversations have largely centered on the flow of potential terrorists between Russia and ISIS-controlled territory, a very real concern for the Russians, Brennan said.

Brennan was CIA director from 2013 through Trumps inauguration.

Defense News quoted Brennan as saying, So weve been exchanging information. I think it needs to be enhanced. But I am determined to continue to work with my Russian counterparts, because of the importance that I think we each can bring to this issue, in terms of our insights, our information, our data and sharing.

How does that compare to the current report? There are key differences between the allegations; the Post alleges that Trump basically spoke out of school, off the cuff (not as a planned-out strategy) and shared classified information with the Russians that an ally had provided to the U.S. about terrorists using laptop computers as bombs.

The Washington Post is reporting that, although it wouldnt be illegal for Trump to have done so, anonymous current and former U.S. officials said Trumps disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. The Posts anonymous source allegedly said that Trump revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies and that Trump had relayed sensitive information that had been shared with U.S. intelligence through a partner-sharing agreement with an unnamed ally who had not given the U.S. permission to share it.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has flatly declared the Washington Post report false.

National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster. (Getty)

The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation, McMaster said in a news conference on May 15. At no time at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly knownI was in the room. It didnt happen.

McMaster said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and another senior official shared the same recollection of the conversation.

Washington Post reporter Greg Miller told CNN he stands by his story. In a subsequent analysis, The Post claimed McMaster and others were using semantics to help Trump, writing, McMaster says that at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. But The Posts reporting doesnt say that they were.

The Post alleges that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didnt say Trump discussed them.

The meeting took place on May 10 between Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavlov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak (the latters phone conversations with Michael Flynn helped spur his resignation).

The Lavrov meeting was closed to the press and the only visual account we have of it thus far is via handout photos from the Russian government, Jordan Fabian, of the Hill, wrote in a pool report after the meeting. Those images show Trump also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

White House officials barred reporters from witnessing the moment, reported The New York Times, which added that the Russians brought an official photographer whose snaps were soon disseminated by TASS.

You can listen to McMasters response here:

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster will make a statement about the Washington Post's report that Donald Trump shared classified info with the Russians. Watch live here.

Read the original here:
REPORT: Obama Offered to Give ISIS Intelligence to Russia - Heavy.com

Top officials from the Obama administration are working to stymie congressional pressure on Iran, including through a quiet push in Congress by an organization that has been criticized for helping mislead the public about the Iran deal, according to correspondence obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The Ploughshares Fund, described by the Obama White House as a key promoter of the nuclear deal, distributed a letter to congressional staffers last week written by former Obama Treasury official Adam Szubin that harshly criticizes pending Iran sanctions legislation.

Ploughshares came under fire last May for giving hundreds and thousands of dollars to media outlets and fueling what Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes admitted was an "echo chamber." A Ploughshares official cc'd Szubin on the email with the letter, and welcomed congressional staffers to reach out to him for further discussion. The sanctions bill is expected to move forward in coming weeks.

"[The legislation] would provoke a terrible reaction in Iran and with our allies," Szubin wrote in the letter, addressed to leaders of the foreign relations committee. "[It] would contribute no benefit, as it would impose no additional pressure on Iran's malign activities outside of the nuclear space."

The congressional push coincides with the launch of an organization backed by former Obama officials, with Secretary of State John Kerry at the fore, many of whom are vocal opponents of the sanctions legislation. The group, Diplomacy Works, aims to "promote, protect, and preserve" the nuclear deal by informing and influencing lawmakers, experts, and others, according to a statement on its website.

Experts who fought against the nuclear deal in 2015 told TWS that the Obama team's renewed push is all too familiar.

"The Obama defenders of the [nuclear deal] are terrified that the Trump administration will end the Obama paralysis of U.S. policy towards the Iranian regime," said one Iran expert who played a major role in push back against the nuclear deal. "They will fight tooth and nail any sign of a more robust and hard hitting policy to rollback and subvert Iranian aggression."

Another long-time Middle East expert closely involved in the fight against the deal said the officials are mobilizing to ensure that lawmakers do not impose additional pressure on Iran.

"The same people who promised that the nuclear deal would enable Congress to push back against Iranliterally the very same peopleare now mobilizing to prevent any pressure against Iran over its threats to us and our allies," the adviser told TWS.

"Of course that gives away the game, doesn't it?" the adviser continued. "The goal of the Iran deal was never to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but instead to empower Iran by giving it something to use as blackmail against U.S. pressure."

View post:
Obama Officials Working to Derail New Iran Sanctions - The Weekly Standard