Time for Action in Washington for a Washington Corrupt Practices Act.

There is a problem concerning the elected officials of both political parties in America with how these long and short term career political class of politicians hide corruption and enriched family and friends at the direct expense of those who elect them #imhopeople

It's obvious that their mindset, "that this is just the way the world or global economy works, is itself corrupt thinking and denies allegiance to the voters that America is an exceptional nation.

"Voters must not tolerate public service as a front for family or political enrichment and their endless elite will for power. 

It's Un-American and has direct and dire effects on policy-making and good governance."

Trump, as others have written about, has pointed out to all voters, that Americans urgently requires a Washington Corrupt Practices Act.

Such an Act must strength US codes on giving gifts, favours, or deals to politicians or their families or friends in the hopes of getting favours in return-which are the very essence of bribery. And would deal dramatically, with the current and past problems now encompassing the Biden’s, Obama's and many other current and past former career politicians.

Far too many politicians in Washington believe they are entitled to on the job enrichment for building up their family members' wealth at the expense of voters and the Nation.

Unfortunately today and as in the past far too many career politicians in Washington and throughout the nation and indeed the world believe, they are entitled to on the job enrichment and illegal entitlements for increasing the wealth of their family members and friends at the direct expense of voters and the nations they were elected to serve.

Source:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/book-review-secret-empires-by-peter-schweizer/

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6091949912001/#sp=show-clips

"Special Counsel Mueller Exceeded Powers of the USA Justice Department."

"We have a mob mentality now in this country when it comes to the Congress as nearly half of the Progressive Socialist Democrats in the House of Representatives want to continue with this coup, #IMHOPEOPLE ."

The Mueller report cost you the taxpaying voters in excess of $35 MILLION and counting.

Volume 1 took 200 pages and $35 MILLION to tell us all what we knew from the beginning of this attempted political coup of the US President. 

There was NO COLLUSION.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

This whole idea that there was collusion. You and I knew it from day one that it was phoney -- phoney. But they used Federal law enforcement, Federal intelligence and then they appoint a Special Counsel. 

There's no collusion says the Special Counsel that takes one sentence. It doesn't take 200 damn pages; it doesn't take $35MILLION. One sentence, "No collusion," he says by the President, by the campaign, by his staff, by the White House, by his family, by any American. 

No collusion.

Mueller and more precisely his “TEAM” by introducing the concept of “exoneration” into the legal system presents a grave and frightening danger under the US and International Law. 

It suggests that a person may still be presumed guilty even if the decision was made not to prosecute him or her, or even if a jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. And this is crazy!

Exoneration is not the job of our legal system. And Mueller’s attempt to introduce it is an extraordinary and dangerous innovation that would endanger the presumption of innocence we all have under the law and as guaranteed by the Constitution.

As exoneration is NOT Part of the American Legal system and as such Mueller and all lawyers of his team, in fact, should be disbarred from practising law anywhere in the USA or World, #IMHOPEOPLE

As for this collusion issue it was however pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. There are things that have been done in the last three years to candidate Trump, President-elect Trump and President Trump that should not occur in the United States of America.

You had the Hillary campaign, the Obama administration trying to take out the Republican candidate for President of the United States under their preposterous notion that he was conspiring with Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump has never in his entire life shown a dislike for his country. He loves his country. It is the people who have set this up who despise their country and despise our election system.

Senior levels of the FBI, senior intelligence officers, the Obama White House, the Democrats they did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump from being President of the United States, but you decided otherwise. You elected a President of The United States. They wanted their third term of Obama. 

Well, they got their first term of Trump and they are furious.

Some senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation planted a spy -- that's right, a spy -- in the Trump administration. They lie to Federal courts not once, but four times -- the FISA Court -- in order to get a counterintelligence warrant and they got it. And who are they spying on? Page? It was a backdoor effort to go after the Trump campaign.

These same senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- these individuals should be charged. They're the ones who interfered with our election even more effectively than the Russians. And they along with the Democrats are still at it.

Suddenly, this part of the report --COLLUSION-- that's out. Now, they go after obstruction!

Then let me ask you a question, how the hell did “MUELLER” get appointed? How did he get appointed? McCabe: The Deputy Director of the FBI does an interview on "60 Minutes." It's all about collusion. 

That Trump, well maybe he is a spy, that Trump -- well we think, he was working with the Russians. You had the media -- the media in this country. We don't have a free press in this country. We have an unfree press in this country and they're at it as I speak.

This is a disgrace what's being done to this country by the Democratic Party and by the media -- one and the same. It is a disgrace. We don't have news reporters, not on CNN and MSNBC. "New York Times" you can't tell the editorial page from the news page. Mistake after mistake after mistake in reporting. "Washington Post," "New York Times" -- oh they get Pulitzer prizes and they got more Pulitzer prizes.

CNN must fire three fools for putting out information that was fake and yet the head of CNN, Zucker -- you think -- what do you expect us to do? 

We must investigate these things. That is CNN's answer to the American voters!

This is the greatest scandal in American history, not that the Russians tried to interfere with our election. They did, and they always do, the way Obama interfered with the Israeli election, but the Obama administration also interfered with this election and I've been saying for two years, there is no way in hell the President of the United States and the people in the Oval Office didn't know something about this. 

Now, how do we know?

Because it was in the newspaper.

The system isn't working. The checks and balances aren't working. 

Where are these Federal judges that were appointed as FISA Court judges? Where are they? They see what has taken place. They see they were lied to. They see that was opposition research and dishonest -- lying opposition research -- that was put in a dossier used by the FBI to get a warrant. 

Where are the evidentiary hearings? Where is the contempt hearings? Where are these Federal judges? 

They ought to abolish the FISA Courts because they don't work. Because the only people in that courtroom -- in that secret courtroom -- is the FISA judge and the government -- and the government. The targets, they have no say whatsoever.

Which brings me back to this pathetic joke of a report. Four hundred -- four hundred pages of what? BS. We already knew there was no collusion. No evidence whatsoever and yet they conduct a Federal investigation.

When Mr. Mueller came up to other violations, he says, tax fraud, this fraud -- those are U.S. Attorney investigations. You don't have a Special Counsel for that.

So basically, there was no reason to appoint Mueller and Mueller found nothing. That's the headline. No collusion. 

Despite what the FBI did. 

Despite what the Department of Justice did. 

Despite what these FISA judges did. 

Despite what the Obama administration did. 

Despite the Hillary campaign and the DNC. 

No collusion. That's the headline and instead obstruction of justice.

There was obstruction of justice. Was the President charged? No. Well, why wasn't he charged? Well, you can't indict a sitting President. Really? Who came up with that idea?

If you can't indict a sitting President, so if you can't indict a sitting President, why do you appoint a Special Counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of a President? 

If we all agree you can't indict a sitting President, well, they appoint one anyway. Why did they appoint one?

Because Chuck Schumer demanded it. The Democrats demanded it. James Comey, Mr. Leaker, he demanded it. So, they demand it and you get a Special Counsel? And who do they pick? Mueller. And who is Mueller? He is best friends with Comey. Oh, that makes sense.

With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, if the President was under investigation, you should have been, too, because you're one of the ones who recommended that he fire Comey and let's be honest, Comey should have been fired. His conduct was outrageous, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. 

The whole senior level of the FBI is gone. Almost all of them are under criminal or independent counsel investigation.

Trump didn't do that. They're under investigation. The senior level of the FBI -- I've never seen anything like it. We were told, the President of the United States was going to fire Mueller. We've even had some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee join with Democrats and said we need to pass legislation to protect Mueller. 

Did the President fire Mueller? No.

We were told that there would be a Saturday Night Massacre like there was in Watergate. That once the President fired Comey, he'd go right down the list and fire the rest of them. Did he? No, he didn't. We were told the President would assert this privilege and that privilege to prevent his staff and others -- others -- from assisting in this all-important investigation. Did he?

Let me tell you something, he is the only President in modern history who did not once assert any Presidential privilege including the executive privilege to prevent documents or of people around him, including his own White House lawyer from talking to Mueller as much as they wanted to talk to Mueller and as much as Mueller wanted to talk to them. 

He was an open book. They could see everything they want.

You even have reporters going through, "Oh, Volume 2, look how embarrassing. Look at this. Look at that." They wouldn't even know about any of that if the President of the United States didn't waive every single privilege and then the report is sent to the Attorney General.

The President still didn't assert the privilege.

Let us not forget, the President is the Executive Branch, not Mr. Mueller and not the Attorney General. He is there to protect the Executive Branch and the office of the President. You know what this President said? No recent President in history has said this, he said, "The way for me to protect the office of the presidency, the way for me to protect the Executive Branch against all these allegations is to make sure everything is available. Everything is out there." Everything is out there.

Now, this Volume 2 of obstruction of justice, there's not a lot of redaction. You know why? Because it's not a legal investigation. It's pablum. It's gossip. This staffer said this. This one saw this. We have this one's notes who said this. This one said that. The only reason you know that is because the President of the United States did not assert a privilege.

Now, Mr. Mueller didn't write this report all by himself. I doubt he's read this report all by himself. He had help. Probably from Weisberg or Weissmann and probably some of the other Democrats on his staff. No question about this. Who was this report written for? Who was it written for? He didn't even try to charge the President with anything. He knew what would happen to this report.

Bill Bar, when he was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate, he said, "I'm going to release as much of this report as I possibly can." Wow. Cover up. Redactions. Very little is redacted. So, they're wrong again.

Mueller wasn't fired. Minimal redactions. But he says, "I'm going to release as much as I can," so what does Mueller think? And what do all his prosecutors think? Including the ones who supported Hillary Clinton and Obama including Weissman who was at the Hillary Clinton victory party. Sorry, pal, you lost. Who was that written for?

When this thing was finished, they also knew that Democrats took over the House of Representatives. They also knew that under Article 2 Section 4, the Democrats were hungry for impeachment. How do we know? The day after the President was elected, Donald Trump, they were talking about impeachment. He sees it. We all see it. The Mueller team saw it and so the Mueller team wrote particularly, Volume 2 for the Democrats in the House of Representative.

This is an impeachment report. This is an abuse of power by a prosecutor. This is the only prosecutor in the entire country who writes a report. Under the Justice Department regulations, a report that is only supposed to go to the Attorney General who then makes decisions about whether to release any of it or all of it, the Attorney General decides because there's no requirement that this report be released at all.

But Mueller knew the Attorney General was going to release most of it because the Attorney General said so, so they wrote the report. They wrote it for CNN. They wrote it for MSNBC. They wrote it for Nadler and Schiff and all the other reprobates. They wrote the report for them.

Now, is that what a prosecutor supposed to do? Is that an abuse of power? Is that the proper use of our tax dollars? Let's get back to fundamentals here. When you accuse somebody of an offence or you suggest that you can exonerate them -- now we have a prosecutor who claims to be able to exonerate people -- another first. That's not his job. How do they defend themselves?

This runs completely contrary to a civilized society, to our constitutional system -- completely contrary to it. Is there a single Democrat member of the House of Representatives, who give a damn? No. Is there a single host or guest on CNN or MSNBC, a single so-called news person at the "New York Times" or "Washington Post" or any of these outlets who cares about the constitutional system?

Who cares about the justice system? Not one. Suddenly, they like those police state tactics.

Have we all forgotten what Snowden, the whistleblower, showed us years ago? 

"The Snowden phenomenon was far larger than the man himself, larger even than the documents he leaked. In retrospect, it showed us the first glimmerings of an emerging ideological realignment—a convergence, not for the first time, of the far left and the far right, and of libertarianism with authoritarianism. It was also a powerful intervention in information wars we didn’t yet know we were engaged in, but which we now need to understand."


Sources: Alan Dershowitz https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-mueller-wrongly-introduces-dangerous-concept-of-exoneration-in-review-of-trump-actions

Mark Levin https://video.foxnews.com/v/6028573066001/#sp=show-clips

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/09/13/edward-snowden-reconsidered/

Japan learned a lesson from WWII that the Canada, England, Europe and USA has not learned yet.

 * Hiroshima has returned to what it was economically before the atomic bomb was dropped. 

* Japan prevents the use of mobile phones in trains, restaurants and indoors. * For first to sixth primary year Japanese students must learn ethics in dealing with  people. * Even though one of the richest people in the world, the Japanese do not have servants. The parents are responsible for the house and children. * There is no examination from the first to the third primary level because the goal of education is to instil concepts and character building. * If you go to a buffet restaurant in Japan you will notice people only eat as much as  they need without any waste because food must not be wasted. * The rate of delayed trains in Japan is about 7 seconds per year!!  * The Japanese appreciate the value of time and are very punctual to minutes and  seconds. * Children in schools brush their teeth (sterile) and clean their teeth after a meal at   school, teaching them to maintain their health from an early age. * Japanese students take half an hour to finish their meals to ensure proper digestion because these students are the future of Japan. The Japanese focus on maintaining their culture. Therefore, * No political leader or a prime minister from an Islamic nation has visited Japan  not the Ayatollah of Iran, the King of Saudi Arabia or even a Saudi Prince! * Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay by putting strict restrictions on Islam and  ALL Muslims.      1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims. 2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims. 3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan. 4) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught. 5) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language. 6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land.  These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry out their religious rituals in their  homes. 7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies  in Islamic countries.  8) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies. 9) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent  by foreign companies. 10) In most companies, it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should   apply for a job. 11) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist,  and even in the era of globalization, they are not willing to change their Muslim laws. 12) Muslims cannot even rent a house in Japan. 13) If anyone comes to know that his neighbour is a Muslim then the whole   neighbourhood stays alert. 14) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrasa' in Japan. 15) There is no Sharia law in Japan. 16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she is considered an outcast forever. 17) According to Mr Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo  University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow-minded religion and one should stay away from it." The Japanese might have lost the war, but they are in charge of their own country. There are no bombs going off in crowded business centres, "Honor Killings”, nor the killing of innocent children or anyone else.   Something to think about.

Gang of 23 Democratic Candidates All Call for Gutting the Constitution and Your Rights

All the Democratic politicians running for a spot to be the would-be President and leader of the Democratic Party are supporting the biggest effort in USA history to disenfranchise the 63 MILLION voters who voted for President Donald J. Trump.

Democrats want to gut the Constitution as the supreme law of the USA and its requirements relating to Presidential elections and the electoral colleges as established by the founding fathers, #IMHOPEOPLE

In essence #Buttijug and his fellow democratic candidates wish to remove the impediments that the Constitution imposes on government and elections in order to redistribute rights, to take from some and give to others. 

Which is the very definition of injustice or an unjust law to do that, and yet, this is what the so-called progressives, liberal socialist Democrats have been leaning toward for the past century.

“And they like this because it is their own elite progressive, liberal socialist democrats move to redefine the Constitution that then becomes the Constitution in their views. 

And the reason that this is important for this anti-American, progressive, liberal socialist democratic movement, is the Constitution's constraints on government services to limit the good that they thought they could do with the government.

Therefore, they must get rid of the constraints within the Constitutional structure, the notion of enumerated powers that the Federal government can only exercise those powers that are delegated to it. 

All these structural constraints, the founders put in the Constitution, stand in the way of these so-called best and the brightest progressive, liberal socialist democratic experts doing the right thing and their political science was going to solve all problems, create utopias for us if we would just get these constraints on government out of the way. 

It’s called Fascism, totalitarian politics by a few and for a few as opposed to by the people for the people.

And, “it's a challenge to the very legitimacy of our Constitutional system. The Democratic candidates all support their national popular vote effort to get rid of the Electoral College, the most crucial structural components of the USA Constitution which are designed to make sure that America is not a raw democracy that just acts like a mob, but in fact channels our democratic instincts into an enlightened popular rule.”

“The framers of the Constitution had foresight as they set this government up kind of complicated -- different branches, two bodies within one body -- Congress. And having judges that serve for life, but they must be confirmed this way and then we can have an executive.

The framers spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to organize this government. They didn't just say you know what, they are states, we'll have votes and you'll vote for the President or just subject everything to a Twitter plebiscite.

The framers understood that you can have a tyranny of one or tyranny of a few. Tyranny of one a despot. Tyranny of few an oligarchy. But then there is also the tyranny of a majority. Raw democracy is the tyranny of the majority/mob. Which is a popular vote for a President without an electoral college system! 

And because the USA Constitution is based on two things. One, ultimately, the people are sovereign, but the people have no just authority to deprive others of their individual rights.

Therefore, all of these structures are here in order to confine majority so that they'd be governing, but that did not trample the rights of any minority whether a religious minority, a racial minority or just an electoral minority, that every individual human being has rights that the majority must respect if it's going to be a just majority. 

As the structural components of The constitution are designed to confine, to constrain; to direct that majority so it is a just majority rather than a mob majority.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-john-eastman-says-robert-muellers-report-presumes-guilt-unless-trump-can-prove-otherwise

A Few Issues between Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists vs Capitalism/Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

Some of the Political Party Issues

Economy

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists
Supports a market system in which government regulates the economy, including price and wage controls is best (Socialism).  Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business but not the greed of big government.  Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public special interest groups.  Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

Support a free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise to create the greatest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all.  Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation, such as China, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua etc 

Healthcare

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists

Support socialized medicine through new taxes of 20.5%, at a minimum, on both employees and employers for government-controlled, supported, and run health care for all residents, legal or illegal and not simply US citizens. The State of Vermont had to abandon such a government-controlled and run health care for all plan after finding that such a plan would need to increase payroll taxes and income taxes combined by 20.5% or more. Such a Federal plan, as spoken about by Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party would require further taxes on both corporations and individuals in addition to any new payroll taxes mentioned above. There are millions of American residents who can’t afford health care and are deprived of this basic right.  Every American resident has a right to affordable health care.  The government should provide equal health care benefits for all, regardless of their ability to pay. (Socialism)

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

Support a competitive, free-market health care system so that All Americans have access to health care.  The debate is about who should pay for it.  Government-run, controlled and supported health care programs (socialized medicine) result in higher costs and everyone receiving the same poor-quality health care.  Health care should remain privatized.  The problem of uninsured individuals should be addressed and solved within the free market healthcare system – the government should not control, administer or run healthcare for all.

Immigration

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists
Support legal and illegal immigration and Open Borders.  Support amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (undocumented immigrants).  Also  believe that undocumented immigrants have a right to:
— all educational and health benefits that citizens receive (financial aid, welfare, social security and Medicaid), regardless of legal status.
— the same rights as American citizens.  It is unfair to arrest millions of undocumented immigrants.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism 
Support legal immigration only.  Oppose amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (illegal immigrants).  Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally do not have the same rights as those who obey the law and enter legally.  The borders must be secured before addressing the problem of the illegal immigrants currently in the country.  The Federal Government must secure the borders and enforce current immigration law to be considered a nation under international laws. Support of a nation as an extensive aggregate of closely associated persons with each other by common descent, language and history, as a form of a distinct race, people, occupying a definite secure territory.

Religion & Government

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists
Support the separation of church and state.  The Bill of Rights implies a separation of church and state.  Religious expression has no place in government.  The two should be completely separate.  The government should not support religious expression in any way.  All reference to God in public and government spaces should be removed (eg., the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in Federal buildings).  Religious expression has no place in government.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism 
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution.  The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  This prevents the government from establishing a national church/denomination. However, it does not prohibit God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings.  Symbols of Christian heritage should not be removed from public and government spaces (e.g., the Ten Commandments should continue to be displayed in Federal buildings).  The government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.

Social Security

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists
The Social Security system should be protected at all costs.  Reduction in future benefits is not a reasonable option.  Social Security provides a safety net for the nation’s poor and needy.  Changing the system would cause a reduction in benefits and many people would suffer as a result.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

The Social Security system is in serious financial trouble.  Major changes to the current system are urgently needed.  In its current state, the Social Security system is not financially sustainable.  It will collapse if nothing is done to address the problems.  Many will suffer as a result.  Social Security must be made more efficient through privatization and/or allowing individuals to manage their own savings.

Taxes

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialist

Support Higher taxes (primarily for the wealthy) and a larger government are necessary to address inequality/injustice in society (the government should help the poor and needy using tax dollars from the rich, Socialism and Redistribution of Wealth).  Support a large government to provide for the needs of the people and create equality.  Taxes enable the government to create jobs and provide welfare programs for those in need.  Government programs are a caring way to provide for the poor and needy in society.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

Support Lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all.  Support lower taxes and a smaller government.  Lower taxes create more incentives for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavours.  Money is best spent by those who earn it, not the government.  Government programs encourage people to become dependent and lazy, rather than encouraging work and independence.

Welfare

Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Socialist
Support welfare, including long-term welfare.  Welfare is a safety net which provides for the needs of the poor.  Welfare is necessary to bring fairness to American economic life.  It is a device for protecting the poor.

Conservatives/Republicans/Individualism

Oppose long-term welfare.  Opportunities should be provided to make it possible for those in need to become self-reliant within a specific time frame.  It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage people to become self-reliant, rather than allowing them to remain dependent on the government for provisions and handouts that never end.

Read Barr's letter to Congress in full below, outlining the conclusions of Mueller's investigation:

Read Barr's letter to Congress in full below, outlining the conclusions of Mueller's investigation: 

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller Ill and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel's Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "l

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Camparusign and the Russian government on election interference."

Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.[1]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense.

Status of the Department's Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.

 401 (3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

[1] See A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Diversity is Division Resulting in The Downfall of Civil Society

“The quickest way to control a population is to turn it against itself. Divide and Conquer. That’s how the British ruled India. If you want to run a City or Country for the benefit of all the people who live in it, by contrast, you’d do the opposite of this. 

You’d deemphasize racial and gender differences. 

You’d understand that in a society and community of many different ethnic groups, tribalism is the greatest threat to unity and order. And you would resist using the existence of racism and gender as an excuse for failure. You would never allow anyone gender or race to blame an entire racial group or one gender for the sins of its ancestors. As this would serve only to embitter and divide the population. It might make a politician's job easier in the short term, yet over time it would wreck the City; community and indeed the country itself. Politicians and businesses once understood this.

Politicians, today no longer oppose segregation. They no longer insist on treating all genders and races equally. They now consider gender and race the centre of human identity. They demand that individuals be exalted or punished because of their gender or skin colour. Human citizens must be judged on what they do, not on how they look or who their parents were or what their ancestors did or did not do.  Our elected politicians, at one time, stood for and said they did not believe in collective punishment or reward. They stood for and believed in the Individual. That’s why they opposed segregation.

Today activist protestors from numerous universities and colleges are demanding spaces entirely off-limits to WHITE people and are demanding segregated meeting areas within these publicly funded institutions of learnings, for Blacks ONLY. And that is NOT what the honourable Reverend Martin Luther King stood for during his short life. And NO media, politicians, professors etc. have acknowledged the irony of banning people, WHITE people or others on the basis of skin colour.

Tell me, if Brown versus Board ruled that school segregation was ILLEGAL, then how are any of these today's efforts to divide people by race, colour and gender legal???

For generations, it was an article of common sense and faith among politicians and businesses that integration was the key to racial and gender harmony. Bigotry grows from ignorance, was the assumption. The more personal exposure we all have to different groups, the more we’ll come to see that everyone’s basically the same. And that understanding is far less divisive than what we are now seeing today.

It’s sad that we no longer hear much from our so-called political leaders, academia or business executives about the importance of racial and gender harmony. As the emphasis now is on our differences which is the essence of the diversity agenda, #IMHOPEOPLE.

And not surprisingly, this has led to an explosion of racial and gender hostility in North American life. It was once considered the greatest possible sin to criticize someone for his/her skin colour or gender. Yet today and now it is regarded as a sign of enlightenment. And it's everywhere, in academia, politics and business, but especially on campuses throughout Canada and the USA.

The identity politics and policies of today may make a City, State, Province or Country easier to govern, it also makes them all much harder and unsafe to live in. Identity politics is based on the premise that everyone is a member of a subgroup, usually a racial or gender category. The point of achieving political power is to divert resources to your group. Which is another word for tribalism!

And this my friends is the most divisive possible way to run a Country, City, Province, State or Business. Because they are not about ideas, they are based on inborn characteristics, tribalism and identity politics which are inherently unreasonable. As there are no winning arguments of different opinions, or even having them. There is only victory or defeat for the groups.

In North America, virtually every non-white and or gender group reaps advantages from being racially and or gender-conscious and politically organized. So how long before someone asks the simple rational question: Why should the whites in North America not be allowed to think of themselves as a group and thus organize and agitate along racial and gender lines, too?

And when this happens, and at this rate of identity politics it will, and when White people become another interest group politically fighting for the spoils, Democracy throughout North America as we’ve known it shall be over. As the sense that we’re all in this together, united by citizenship in a common endeavour of some kind, as Citizens of a Country, City, State or Province, that shall end forever along with democracy, free speech, diversity and integration.

All thanks to politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, special interest groups and lobbyists have developed a whole series of institutional problems and the lack of political legitimacy because of how politicians, academia, judges and businesses fail to behave morally; ethically and transparently in matters that are central to the lives of most people and treated such obligations as unimportant.

They ALL equally are responsible for encouraging today's permissiveness in the bedrooms that have found their way into the halls of Justice, Boardrooms, Political Parties and Governments.

Diversity is the failure of civil society and is putting us all back into tribalism of divide and conquer.

PS Seeking wisdom based on facts then read Ship of Fools by Tucker Carlson (Author, Narrator)