Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter late Friday continued to blast President TrumpDonald John TrumpStone: ‘I’ve never had any discussion’ with Trump about a pardon White House: Trump will move forward on wall ‘with or without’ Dems Pelosi after Stone indictment: ‘What does Putin have on the president’? MORE‘s decision to end the 35-day partial government shutdown without securing funds for a border wall, saying he was outmaneuvered by Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D’Alesandro PelosiPelosi after Stone indictment: ‘What does Putin have on the president’? Lou Dobbs slams Trump’s move to end shutdown: ‘Illegal immigrants are surely pleased’ Cardi B on calls for her deliver Dems’ response to State of the Union: ‘Why not’ MORE (D-Calif.).

“We thought, ‘Hey, maybe this guy’s wacky enough, he won’t care what the elite say, and he’ll build the wall.’ That was what put him in the White House. He has got to build the wall,” Coulter said on Los Angeles radio station KNX.

“There’s no question but that Nancy Pelosi got the better of Donald Trump.”

Coulter on Friday afternoon called Trump “the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States” after he announced that he would support reopening the government with obtaining funds for a border wall.

The immigration hard-liner has repeatedly pushed Trump to immediately start construction on a wall and she said shortly before the shutdown began in December that she would not vote for Trump again in 2020 without a border wall.

Trump garnered attention last month for unfollowing Coulter on Twitter after she made remarks about a “joke presidency.”

The president has maintained that his decision to allow the government to fully reopen for three weeks without funding for a wall was not a concession on his part.

The deal includes lawmakers forming a bipartisan conference committee to begin negotiating border security. Trump has maintained that if the committee doesn’t provide funds for a wall, he will declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and move to build one.

“This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!” he tweeted Friday.

“We’ll work with the Democrats and negotiate and if we can’t do that, then we’ll do — obviously we’ll do the emergency because that’s what it is. It’s a national emergency,” he told reporters at the White House earlier in the day.

Trump had previously rejected proposals to reopen shuttered agencies for three weeks specifically over border wall funding. His demand for more than $5 billion for a wall remained the primary sticking point in negotiations for weeks before he reversed course Friday.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/media/427094-coulter-no-question-pelosi-outplayed-trump

Because of the shutdown, the park was “hanging by a thread,” said Ken Yager, 59, a professional climber who came to Yosemite more than four decades ago and never left the area.

All but a skeleton crew of rangers at the park were furloughed, the visitor center was closed and no one answered the phone at the park headquarters. Nearby, the towns that rely on Yosemite tourism for their livelihoods were hurting. Mr. Yager, who runs a cleaning service, laid off most of his employees.

Every day the shutdown stretched on, Mr. Yager said, people were “more and more desperate.”

It has been more than six weeks since the blustery Oval Office confrontation on Dec. 11 between Mr. Trump and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader.

Mr. Trump, reiterating his campaign pledge to build a border wall, had said he would take the blame for shutting down the government if Democrats rebuffed his effort. “I will take the mantle,” he said in a vow that was replayed on cable news countless times. “I will be the one to shut it down.”

And it did shut down, in the early morning of Dec. 22. The shuttered departments included Treasury, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Commerce and Justice. More than 420,000 federal employees began to work without pay; another 380,000 were furloughed to wait for a resolution from home.

Yet the notion of a government shutdown still felt to many like a familiar political ritual rather than a fear-inducing event, at least at first. This shutdown marked at least the 21st time in the last four decades that the government has not passed some form of a spending bill on time.

In the first days and weeks, a tangle of complications began to emerge.

Sheila Bailey, 73, had set her retirement for Dec. 31, after working for 34 years as a scientist at NASA’s John H. Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. And indeed, the date came and went, and Ms. Bailey is spending her days at home.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/government-shutdown-over.html

KABUL/PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) – Taliban officials said U.S. negotiators on Saturday agreed a draft peace deal stipulating the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan within 18 months of the agreement being signed.

The details were given to Reuters by Taliban sources at the end of six days of talks with U.S. special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in Qatar aimed at ending the United States’ longest war.

While neither side released an official statement, Khalilzad tweeted later that the talks had made “significant progress” and would resume shortly, adding that he planned to travel to Afghanistan to meet government officials.

“Meetings here (in Qatar) were more productive than they have been in the past. We have made significant progress on vital issues,” he wrote, adding that numerous issues still needed work.

“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and everything must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire,” he said in the tweets.

A U.S. State Department spokesperson declined further comment.

It was not clear if the draft described by the Taliban sources is acceptable to both sides or when it will be completed and signed.

According to the sources, the hardline Islamic group gave assurances that Afghanistan will not be allowed to be used by al-Qaeda and Islamic State militants to attack the United States and its allies — a key early demand of Washington.

They said the deal included a ceasefire provision but they had yet to confirm a timeline and would only open talks with Afghan representatives once a truce was implemented.

Up until now, the Taliban has repeatedly rejected the Afghan government’s offer of holding talks, preferring instead to talk directly to the U.S. side, which it regards as its main enemy.

“In 18 months, if the foreign forces are withdrawn and ceasefire is implemented then other aspects of the peace process can be put into action,” a Taliban source said, quoting from a portion of the draft.

More talks on the draft are expected in February, again in the Qatari capital Doha, the Taliban sources said.

They expect their side to be led by new political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the movement’s co-founder and a former military commander who was released from prison in Pakistan last year.

While they said his appointment had boosted momentum for a deal, it was unclear if he joined the talks.

Taliban officials believe the U.S. was keen to get Baradar — who was captured in a joint Pakistani-U.S. intelligence raid in 2010 — to the table so they could be sure of speaking to the movement’s most powerful figures.

NEAR-DAILY ATTACKS

Other clauses in the draft include an agreement over the exchange and release of prisoners, the removal of an international travel ban on several Taliban leaders by Washington and the prospect of an interim Afghan government after the ceasefire is struck, the Taliban sources said.

The suggestion to appoint an interim government in Afghanistan comes at a time when top politicians including Ghani have filed their nominations for the presidential polls in July this year. Ghani has repeatedly rejected the offer to agree to the formation of an interim government.

News of progress on a deal comes as the Taliban continues to stage near-daily attacks against the Western-backed Afghan government and its security forces.

Despite the presence of U.S.-led foreign forces training, advising and assisting their Afghan counterparts 17 years after the U.S.-led an invasion to drive them from power, the Taliban controls nearly half of Afghanistan.

Ghani said last week that 45,000 members of the country’s security forces had been killed since he took office in 2014.

The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led mission, known as Resolute Support, as well as a U.S. counter-terrorism mission directed at groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Despite reports in December last year that the United States was considering pulling out almost half of its forces, a White House spokesman said that U.S. President Donald Trump had not issued orders to withdraw the troops. However, the administration has not denied the reports, which have prompted fears of a fresh refugee crisis.

The Taliban sources also confirmed provisions in the draft that have broader implications for Afghanistan’s ties with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, India and China.

They said the deal included provisions that Baloch separatist militants will not be allowed to use Afghan soil to target Pakistan.

Balochistan, a resource-rich yet often-neglected province in south west Pakistan, has been the source of separatist insurgencies for more than 60 years.

Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay in Washington; Writing by Greg Torode; Editing by William Maclean and Helen Popper

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-draft/foreign-troops-to-quit-afghanistan-in-18-months-under-draft-deal-taliban-officials-idUSKCN1PK0DG

Spain, France, Germany and Britain have given embattled Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro an ultimatum, saying the nations would recognise opposition leader Juan Guaido as president unless he calls elections within eight days.

“If within eight days there are no fair, free and transparent elections called in Venezuela, Spain will recognise Juan Guaido as Venezuelan president,” Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said in a televised announcement on Saturday.

Guaido, the 35-year-old head of the National Assembly, proclaimed himself acting president of Venezuela during massive street rallies this week.

He is trying to remove Maduro from the economically strapped country following controversial elections that saw the socialist leader sworn in for a second term.

Maduro’s reelection last year was contested by the opposition and criticised internationally – but he has until now retained the loyalty of the powerful military.


The United States and its regional allies – Brazil, Argentina and other countries – had already endorsed Guaido in repudiation of Maduro.

Left-leaning governments in the region, including Cuba and Bolivia, have thrown their weight behind Maduro. Mexico under its new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has so far refused to take sides.

UNSC discusses Venezuela

Spain is closely linked to Venezuela, a former colony, as some 200,000 of its nationals live there.

Since his self-proclamation as interim leader, Guaido has rejected an offer of talks with Maduro and called for a “major demonstration”.

French President Emmanuel Macron echoed the Spanish ultimatum.

“Unless elections are announced within eight days, we will be ready to recognise @jguaido as ‘President in charge’ of Venezuela in order to trigger a political process,” Macron said on his Twitter feed.

A spokesperson of the German government issued a similar statement.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said that Guaido is “the right person to take Venezuela forward”.

“Time for a new start for the suffering ppl (people) of Venezuela,” Hunt said in a statement later on Saturday.

EU diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini also called for fresh elections.

“In the absence of an announcement on the organisation of fresh elections with the necessary guarantees over the next days, the EU will take further actions, including on the issue of recognition of the country’s leadership,” Mogherini said in a statement.

Venezuela’s foreign minister rejected the European ultimatum, insisting that Maduro remained the legitimate president.

“Nobody is going to give us deadlines or tell us if there are elections or not,” Jorge Arreaza told a special session of the United Nations Security Council.

“How is it that you can issue an ultimatum to a sovereign government?” he said.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Saturday voted to discuss the situation in Venezuela at the request of the US despite opposition from Russia and China.


Pompeo issues fresh warning

Speaking at the special UNSC session, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that it was time now for countries to pick a side on Venezuela. 

“Now it is time for every other nation to pick a side. No more delays, no more games. Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem,” Pompeo said.

Despite Guaido’s international endorsements, Maduro still has the support of the military and powerful, longtime allies like Russia and China and is vowing to defend his socialist rule.

Maduro broke off diplomatic relations with Washington and set a 72-hour deadline for US diplomats to leave the Latin American country.

But Pompeo on Saturday warned the Venezuelan leader to protect the US embassy. “Let me be 100 percent clear – President [Donald] Trump and I fully expect that our diplomats will continue to receive protections provided under the Vienna Convention,” Pompeo said in his UNSC speech.

Guaido on Friday vowed to remain on the streets until his country has a transitional government, while Maduro dug in and accused his opponents of orchestrating a coup.

Guaido’s talk with reporters in a plaza in Caracas turned into a de facto rally as thousands gathered after hearing he would speak in public for the first time since taking a symbolic oath on Wednesday proclaiming himself the nation’s rightful leader.

Source Article from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/eu-nations-give-venezuela-maduro-day-ultimatum-190126115807947.html

Image copyright
AFP

Image caption

Julen’s parents José and Victoria have experienced tragedy before

Rescuers in Spain have found the body of a two-year-old boy who fell into a borehole near the southern city of Málaga, officials say.

The boy, named Julen, disappeared into a narrow well more than 100m (330ft) deep during a family outing on 13 January.

Specialist teams worked day and night in a tunnel that had been dug parallel to the narrow borehole.

The body was found in the early hours of Saturday morning.

“At 01:25 (00:25 GMT), the rescue teams reached the area of the well where they were looking for Julen and they found the lifeless body of the little one,” said Alfonso Rodriguez Gomez de Celis, the central government representative in the region of Andalusia.

The accident happened during a Sunday afternoon excursion in a hilly plantation near the village of Totalán.

The borehole – only 25cm (10in) in diameter – had apparently been left uncovered, although the businessman who had originally had it dug a month earlier insisted that he had sealed it.

Such shafts are dug in the hope of extracting water.

Rescuers had found hair among debris removed from the well and compared it with DNA samples from the boy’s drinking bottle as well as from his family, confirming his identity.

A camera sent down the hole found a snack bag believed to be the one Julen was holding when he fell.

At 73m (240ft) the camera encountered an earth blockage in the shaft.

Rescuers had not picked up any hopeful sign from the boy during the whole operation.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote on Twitter on Saturday: “All of Spain feels the infinite sadness of Julen’s family.”

“We will always appreciate the tireless effort of those who searched for him during all these days.”

‘An unspoken pact’

By James Badcock, Madrid

For almost two weeks a flicker of hope kept Spaniards and the country’s media glued to the mountainside which had swallowed two-year-old Julen during a family picnic.

Once rescue workers realised there was no safe way to break downwards through the plug of earth under which the toddler lay, meaning that another shaft would have to be made, logic dictated that the operation was more about recovering Julen’s body than saving his life.

But an unspoken pact banished any such statements while the combined team of Guardia Civil, firemen, mine rescue workers and others worked round the clock.

Now a court in Málaga will attempt to determine the circumstances that saw Julen buried by rubble in a borehole that, according to local authorities, lacked the necessary permit – as do many thousands of others like it around the country.

Julen’s parents José and Victoria have experienced tragedy before.

Residents of El Palo, a nearby district, say the couple’s three-year-old son, Oliver, died suddenly less than two years ago because of a heart problem.

Image copyright
EPA

Image caption

The borehole into which Julen fell is only 25cm (10in) in diameter

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47012276

With airports jammed with angry passengers, Republican senators blaming each other behind closed doors for the government shutdown, and President Trump’s poll numbers tanking, the writing was on the wall. Feeling pressure from his fellow Republicans to reopen the government, Trump announced Friday afternoon that a deal was reached for federal employees to come back to work as negotiations on border security are given a little more time.

A week ago, the White House was firm on its demand: Parts of the government will remain shuttered until Democratic lawmakers write a $5.7 billion check for a border wall. Trump’s capitulation (and make no mistake, it was a capitulation) is a complete reversal of the White House position and a blowout win for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in her first month back on the job.

Trump, however, remained defiant. At the same time he asked lawmakers to work in unison for the benefit of the nation, he threatened to use the nuclear option if Congress can’t come up with a solution. “I have a very powerful alternative, but I did not want to use it at this time,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden. “Hopefully, it will be unnecessary.”

That “very powerful alternative” Trump is referring to is a declaration of national emergency, a proclamation that would provide him with a way to get his border wall money without having to go through the normal legislative process. Ordinarily, the executive branch is constitutionally barred from spending any taxpayer money on any program unless Congress explicitly authorizes and appropriates the funds. Outside of declaring war or authorizing the use of military force, the ability to appropriate funds, or not, is the legislative branch’s most coveted power.

Lawmakers from both political parties protect the power of the purse with every fiber of their being because it’s one of the few tactics Congress can employ to pressure the president. Trump’s declaring of a national emergency would rip that power away. If lawyers in the executive branch can argue that there is indeed a dire national emergency along the southwestern border with Mexico, billions of dollars in the military construction budget will be made available for the border structure Trump so desperately wants. Trump could task the Army Corps of Engineers to start building right away.

Democrats, who are as strongly opposed to a border wall as Trump is enamored by it, would not be powerless bystanders if the president tried to do an end-run around Congress. They could technically prohibit any money from being used for construction of a border barrier through legislation, although GOP opposition would likely kill it. They could file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that his emergency declaration is not, in fact, an emergency, but rather an instigation of an artificial crisis in order to justify an unjustifiable project.

A lawsuit would work itself through the court system and wind up in the Supreme Court, where the case could prove to be one of the most important trials of executive power since the fight over military commissions in the George W. Bush era. The border wall could become a proxy war between the executive and legislative branches, a classic battle over constitutional power that the judiciary would have to arbitrate. If Trump loses that fight, the precedent it would set would impact the flexibility of presidents in the future to tap into their emergency powers.

Trump may decide that a national emergency is too big of a step. The House Freedom Caucus, Trump’s most reliable support base on Capitol Hill, has already questioned whether an emergency proclamation is a smart idea. Lawmakers such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows are concerned that a declaration now could provide a future Democratic president with the power to do something similar on progressive priorities like climate change. The White House may gamble on another government shutdown, perhaps believing that the public would blame Democrats for being too obstructionist this time around.

Either way, the three-week government reopening shouldn’t be celebrated as a major breakthrough. The end of the longest shutdown in history may turn out to be the intermission to the meatier second act.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-drama-isnt-over-this-is-just-intermission

A writer for the leftist Nation magazine opined in 2013, “Yes, the Venezuelan president could be a strongman,” upon the Venezuelan dictator’s death. “But he leaves behind what might be called the most democratic country in the Western Hemisphere.”

Such are the delusions of socialism. Chavez, having been legitimately elected in 1998, quickly set out to destroy Venezuela’s democratic institutions. Taking advantage of a weak and too-easily-altered national constitution, he neutered the elected legislature and destroyed the independence of its judiciary. He thus augmented his own power at home. Abroad, he began the work of subverting democratic governments of other countries in his neighborhood and subsidizing Cuba’s repressive regime with cheap oil.

Under Chavez, Venezuela’s profitable industries were systematically expropriated by the state. As a consequence, they rapidly failed. Oil production, a mainstay of what had been South America’s strongest economy, plummeted. Soon enough, the sky-high prices of oil from the last decade receded as well. This meant that in order to keep up the stream of benefits for the poor that had until then kept him in power — to hold up the mask of a smiley, happy-faced socialism — Chavez began inflating the currency, destroying his citizens’ savings and driving international investment out of the country.

Chavez died before the final collapse he had set in motion. As Venezuela descended into lawlessness, political violence, and dire scarcity, his successor, Nicolas Maduro, took over the reins of ruin. Venezuelans are now literally losing weight and dying from starvation, and they have a socialism that was democratic (at least, up until 2015) to thank for their immiseration. Children are dying from lack of nutrition and going without medical care because Maduro refuses to scrap his state-run economic model that produced the disaster.

Price controls have made basic everyday goods impossible to buy at any price. People critical of Maduro can expect to be held as political prisoners. If they gather in numbers, they can expect a violent response from government-backed Red-Shirts, who have beaten and murdered anti-government protesters with impunity.

Unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for destroying his nation’s economy, Maduro has periodically arrested and prosecuted business owners — store owners who failed to stock goods they could not obtain and bakers for failing to make bread at a loss. Like the economic problems it always creates, another essential characteristic of socialism is this inability to accept blame for creating the problems.

This is how South America’s once-wealthiest nation, with greater proven oil reserves than Norway or Saudi Arabia, has been turned into a failed state. Its democracy has been subverted, its military and police corrupted, its money worthless, and its people unable to receive basic necessities. Venezuela used to produce exports, but its only export today is its people.

This is how socialism always works out everywhere it is tried. From that point of view, it has been a stunning success in Venezuela.

In 2015, Venezuelan voters finally took away Maduro’s power, or thought they had, by electing an opposition supermajority to the National Assembly. In response, Maduro created an illegitimate parallel legislature that would allow him to ignore the constitutional one. His fraudulent election last spring led directly to today’s crisis.

Juan Guaido, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, declared himself interim president this week, at the end of Maduro’s term. He is wisely offering amnesty for the corrupt military officials who have propped up Maduro’s regime until now. With official U.S. support, he has a realistic chance of saving his country from further ravages by socialism.

Or perhaps he will fail, and the unfolding tragedy will continue. Either way, the lesson of Venezuela is one that American voters should take to heart. Chavez destroyed his country’s prosperity very quickly, and unlike most socialists, he did it while winning democratic elections.

Never forget this when you hear American politicians today refer to themselves as socialists, even when they modify that by calling themselves “democratic socialists.” Eventually, socialism inevitably produces coercion and ends freedom. These politicians are owning up to supporting a system that worked its miracle of destruction in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and in so many other nations before.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/in-venezuela-socialism-has-succeeded-the-way-it-always-does

The indictment of President Trump’s former political adviser Roger Stone – who was arrested Friday on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering – demonstrates yet again that there is no known evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating allegations since May 2017 that Donald Trump or people on his presidential campaign may have worked with Russia to win the 2016 election. There’s no question that if Mueller believed he had proof of such activity the special counsel would have charged Stone with some collusion-related offense involving a conspiracy.

Significantly, Stone wasn’t charged with anything involving collusion. In fact, not a single person has been charged with the alleged crime Mueller was appointed to investigate.

FBI’S SHOW OF FORCE IN ROGER STONE ARREST SPURS CRITICISM OF MUELLER TACTICS

Instead, in his indictment of Stone, Mueller chose to do what he has done so often – bring charges that were generated by his own investigation. These are commonly referred to as “process crimes.” That is, they are offenses against the legal process. Such offenses typically occur when someone interferes with the procedures of an investigation.

Nowhere in Mueller’s indictment is it alleged that Stone conspired, coordinated or colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

This is not to minimize “process crimes.” They are serious violations of the law. No person should ever lie, mislead or obstruct a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

However, the distinction between a principle crime and a process crime is significant. The former is an independent criminal act. The latter is derived from the investigation into whether such an act ever occurred.

“I will plead not guilty to these charges,” Stone told reporters after his arrest and appearance in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “I will defeat them in court. This is a politically motivated investigation.”

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office.

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office. 

The inexorable truth is that a nefarious plot supposedly hatched between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the bowels of the Kremlin was a hoax all along – it simply never happened.

As President Trump has said many times, “there was no collusion.”

In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for unverified Russian information and then fed it to the FBI and Justice Department in a scheme to damage Trump, her political opponent.

Hence, Trump-Russian “collusion” was nothing more than a clever and devious invention. Clinton-Russian “collusion” was authentic and one of the dirtiest tricks in modern American politics.

The FBI became complicit in the scheme to frame Trump in a series of wrongful, if not corrupt, decisions.

First, the bureau should never have launched its initial investigation in July 2016 that later developed into the Mueller probe. It had no probable cause and no credible evidence to justify its probe.

Second, the FBI should never have misused an unverified anti-Trump “dossier” composed by a discredited and biased source in order to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. In the process, the FBI and Justice Department withheld evidence from an intelligence court and deceived the judges who issued the wiretap warrants.

And finally, a special counsel should never have been appointed. Under federal regulations there must first be some evidence of a crime to appoint a special counsel. No such evidence existed.

Had it not been for the misconduct of the FBI and the Justice Department, there would never have been an investigation for Stone to allegedly obstruct – meaning that no indictment would have been handed down against him.

The plain truth is that the improper existence of Mueller’s investigation created the crimes Stone stands accused of committing.

The indictment against Stone suggests he may have had some advance knowledge or inside information about the content of hacked Clinton campaign emails that were released by WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

WikiLeaks has never said how it obtained the emails. It has been reported that Russian intelligence operatives were responsible for the hacks.

While Stone’s efforts to garner details about the emails and pass them along to the Trump campaign surely makes for a tantalizing story, this activity is not a crime. At the time, hundreds of journalists – including me – were contacting sources or attempting to elicit further information directly from WikiLeaks. None of us has been accused of a crime.

Stone appears to have speculated or projected that the hacked emails would be highly damaging to Clinton’s campaign. This, of course, was stating the obvious.

An examination of Stone’s emails shows that he offered little more than the same information that WikiLeaks had already stated publicly. Stone’s mistake, if any, is that he created the appearance that he knew more than he actually did.

But millions of people exaggerate their knowledge about all sorts of things every day to make themselves seem smarter or more important than they really are. They don’t wind up getting charged with committing any crimes.

Unless it can be shown that Stone was somehow involved in the actual hacking of the Clinton emails, he violated no felony laws. This is why he was not charged with a conspiracy crime.

Five of the charges against Stone are for making false statements during the Mueller investigation. These will be exceedingly difficult for the special counsel to prove. The statute governing these offenses (18 U.S.C. 1001) requires proof that the false statements be made “knowingly and willfully.”

A faulty memory or a diminished recollection is not sufficient to sustain the specific intent requirement of the criminal charge. If Stone recalled events differently than Mueller interprets them it is not a crime.

Moreover, Stone amended some of his testimony with corrected statements. These this will be introduced as evidence in his defense.

The charges of witness tampering and obstruction of an investigation may be more problematic for Stone. Much will depend on the facts as they are developed.

For now, Mueller’s indictment of Stone should be read through a skeptical lens. Prosecutors only present their own slanted version of events. At trial, Stone’s defense attorneys will present his countervailing evidence and arguments. Like all defendants, Stone must be presumed innocent unless prosecutors can prove him guilty.

Sadly, Mueller’s “process charges” against Stone and others in the Trump orbit represent selective and unequal prosecution when compared with their treatment of allies of Clinton.

Neither top Clinton aides Huma Abedin nor Cheryl Mills were charged with giving false statements to the FBI during their 2016 interviews about Clinton’s email scandal, in which Clinton improperly used a private email server instead of the required State Department secure email system when she was secretary of state.

Abedin and Mills both insisted they knew nothing about Clinton’s private email server until after she departed the State Department. Yet email exchanges proved their statements were clearly false.

Former FBI Director James Comey said that no prosecutions of Abedin and Mills were justified, dismissively telling the House Judiciary Committee: “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

This from the same guy who twisted the facts and contorted the law to clear Clinton from the felony statutes she so flagrantly violated. Comey misconstrued the law in a manner that could only have been deliberate. He then weaponized the law to investigate Trump without legal justification or credible evidence.

 CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The same double-standard of justice is now being applied by Comey’s long-time friend and ally, Robert Mueller.

President Trump’s enemies are desperate to find something – anything – in the Mueller investigation that points to wrongdoing by Trump because they want to see the president impeached and forced from office. So far, nothing that has been made public is the “smoking gun” they fantasize about that could show Trump engaged in any criminal activity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-stone-indictment-shows-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion

Mexico’s government said Friday it would not impede U.S. plans to send ­asylum-seeking migrants back across the southern border while they await a hearing in U.S. courts.

Mexican authorities made it clear they did not support the Trump administration’s program, but they appeared reluctant to pick a new fight with the White House less than two months into the term of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The decision appeared to clear the way for U.S. agents to begin the new protocols even as many migrants remained bottlenecked in Tijuana — just steps from the border — and officials in the teeming border city said resources were strained to the limit.

“We are not saying we will open any kind of refugee camps or something like that,” Roberto Velasco, spokesman for the Mexican Foreign Ministry, told The Washington Post.

“We simply do not have the resources for that,” he added. “What we are saying is, we will open the door for the aid to come.”

The new policy could also face swift legal challenges in the United States.

Velasco told reporters in Mexico City that the United States was prepared to send back the first group: up to 20 migrants across the footbridge at the San Ysidro border crossing near San Diego.

Velasco, however, also outlined some ground rules. He said Mexico would not accept migrants appealing a denial of asylum, unaccompanied children or people with serious health problems. The Department of Homeland Security said unaccompanied minors would be exempt from the U.S. policy.

“The Mexican government does not agree with the unilateral measure implemented by the U.S. government,” Velasco said. “Nonetheless, and in line with our new migration policy, we reiterate our commitment to migrants and to human rights. Migration should be a choice, not a necessity.”

The returned migrants would be the first group of people to have been affected by the U.S. policy, originally called “Remain in Mexico” and formally announced in December.

Immigrants in the United States currently wait months or years for their cases to be resolved, partly a result of an 800,000-plus-case backlog in the immigration courts. But a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said the asylum cases of those sent back to Mexico should be decided within a year, with an initial hearing within 45 days.

Critics say Trump’s new policy will have little impact unless Mexico agrees to extend it throughout the nearly 2,000-mile border, since the largest number of U.S. border apprehensions is in Texas. Yet it’s unclear whether Mexico will be willing to absorb tens of thousands of asylum seekers a year, and many migrants are wary of high-crime border cities there. Two Honduran teens traveling with a caravan were killed in Tijuana late last year.

On Friday, even municipal officials in Tijuana said they remained in the dark about the details.

Cesar Palencia, chief of migrant affairs in Tijuana, said he did not believe the city would be capable of attending to all of the asylum seekers, and that no new space had been set up to receive them.

“We don’t see a strategy to attend to them,” he said. “It’s not in keeping with the law, and I consider it a violation of migrants’ rights.”

Palencia was also concerned that the strategy would cause more people to be forced to remain in Mexico for the long term, and further limit their options to reenter the United States.

“What happens if someone from Honduras goes in front of a judge and says, ‘My life is at risk, but I’ve been living in Mexico for three years’?” he said. “It seems like a method of denying them.”

Leopoldo Guerrero Díaz, the secretary general of Tijuana, said that it was the responsibility of the Mexican government to prepare spaces for the migrants.

He said El Barretal — a shelter established for 6,000 migrants who arrived en masse in November — had the space for more migrants, but that other shelters in the city were already at capacity.

“Tijuana has traditionally received thousands of migrants, but not in the manner they’re arriving now. No city in the country has the capacity,” Guerrero Diaz said.

Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said it appears that the “various parts of the Mexican government aren’t on the same page” about cooperating with the United States.

“My sense is that this is still in negotiation,” Selee said. “You get the sense the Mexican government is making up its collective mind.”

“Since there’s nothing written down, there’s no actual formal agreement, all of this is going to be in flux for a while,” he said.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the agency’s union, and a vocal Trump supporter, said the president’s initiative will work only if it is rolled out across the entire southern border. If it is limited to legal ports of entry, he said, the plan will only spur migrants to cross illegally.

“If it’s border-wide, it will be an absolute game changer,” Judd said. “It will drive illegal immigration down.”

The top Democrats on the Senate and House Judiciary panels said Friday that the program was evidence that “the Trump administration is on a mission to take apart the asylum system,” founded upon the principle “that people fleeing for their lives cannot be turned away without a chance to make their case.”

“Asylum seekers are easy prey for criminals and gangs in Mexico, but the Trump plan forces people to remain in harm’s way,” they wrote in a statement, accusing Trump of pursuing “nativist policies” that create “more chaos at the border, harming refugees instead of protecting them.”

On its southern border, meanwhile, Mexico has been dealing with a different immigration issue: 13,000 people who left in a new caravan from Honduras last week are in line to enter legally. Though authorities have promised them they can stay anywhere in the country for at least one year, it has encouraged them to seek jobs in the country’s southern states.

Yet many could attempt to make the trek north toward the U.S. border to request asylum.

Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute’s Office at the New York University School of Law, said the U.S. policy change is “intended to create a certain amount of order.”

But it could have the opposite result.

“You need the infrastructure in place to house and feed people,” he said. “If that’s not provided, it’s going to be a humanitarian crisis, or it’s going to be an incentive for people to give up entering at ports of entry.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit that has filed lawsuits against previous efforts by Trump to restrict migrants from seeking asylum, called the new policy “inhumane and unlawful.”

“Rates of violence in U.S.-Mexico border towns are often as high or higher than they are in the countries asylum seekers are fleeing,” the group said in a statement. “People will die. They will die on both sides of the border, whether in Mexico because of organized crime, en route because of increased trafficking, or, because they will be forced to cross ­between ports of entry, on the U.S. side from exposure to the ­elements.”

Mary Beth Sheridan in Mexico City and Maria Sacchetti and Karoun Demirjian in Washington contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexico-rebukes–but-accepts–unilateral-us-move-to-return-asylum-seekers-pending-hearing/2019/01/25/52062470-202b-11e9-a759-2b8541bbbe20_story.html

The essence of Mr. Trump’s pitch for a border wall — that a porous border had led to a crime and drug epidemic — remained unchanged.

Last year, he said, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement “removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members like MS-13 and members as bad as them.” (This is exaggerated; the agency reported it had removed 5,872 “known or suspected” gang members in the 2018 fiscal year.)

In addition, Mr. Trump repeated the statistic that in the past two years, ICE “arrested a total of 266,000 criminal aliens inside of the United States, including those charged or convicted of nearly 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 homicides or, as you would call them, violent, vicious killings.” The figures include both charges and convictions, and each arrest may represent multiple offenses. The most common charges were traffic violations and drug and immigration offenses.

“Drugs kill much more than 70,000 Americans a year and cost our society in excess of $700 billion,” the president said. The figures are accurate for overdose deaths and the economic costs of addiction. But a border wall would do little to prevent the 35 percent of overdose deaths involving prescription opioids or the $627.5 billion in costs incurred because of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drug addiction.

Still, the president pressed the case.

“I believe that crime in this country can go down by a massive percentage if we have great security on our southern border,” Mr. Trump said. “I believe drugs, large percentages of which come through the southern border, will be cut by a number that nobody will believe.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/politics/trump-shutdown-border-wall-fact-check.html

MADRID — Rescue crews in Spain early Saturday found the body of a 2-year-old boy, whose fall into a deep borehole 13 days earlier prompted a complex and heart-wrenching search-and-rescue operation that had the country holding its breath.

Julen Rosello fell down the narrow 360-foot-deep borehole on Jan. 13 while his family was preparing a countryside Sunday lunch. Adding to the family’s tragedy, Spanish media had reported that his parents had another young son who died of a heart attack in 2017.

Julen’s remains were found in the early hours of Saturday by rescuers digging a tunnel to reach him, said Alfonso Rodriguez, the Spanish government’s representative for the southern region of Andalusia. They were accompanied by a member of the Civil Guard, which then took charge of removing the body.

Rodriguez said that the results of the boy’s autopsy would remain secret under a judicial commission following up with the accident’s investigation. The Civil Guard was investigating if the borehole had been made illegally.

The tragedy had gripped Spaniards from day one and the country had followed closely every turn of an extremely complex operation, frequently hampered by layers of hard rock.

Spain’s King Felipe VI and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez both offered their condolences to the family.

“All of Spain shares in the infinite sadness of Julen’s family,” Sanchez wrote on Twitter. “We have followed each step taken to reach him. We will always be grateful for the tireless effort of those who worked to find him during these days. My support and warmth to his parents and loved ones.”

Julen RoselloFacebook

The dry waterhole, only 10 inches in diameter, was too narrow for an adult to get into and hardened soil and rock blocked equipment from progressing to the place two-thirds of the way down where the toddler was trapped.

During the nearly two weeks of the ordeal, officials came up with several alternative routes to the toddler. A series of small explosions set off since Thursday afternoon, including a fourth one late on Friday, helped the crews make their way through a 12 ½-foot-long horizontal tunnel to the cavity.

Before that tunnel could be dug some 230 feet underground, a vertical shaft was drilled during days of painstaking engineering to bring miners and rescue experts up and down.

The difficulty of the operation had prompted Jorge Martin, a spokesman with the Malaga province Civil Guard, to say: “We have to be very careful, here the mountain is in control.”

Only hair that matched Julen’s DNA was found in the borehole and no other verbal or visual contact had been established with him. Despite that, officials had refused to speculate over whether the boy could have survived so long.

In one of the few media interviews the child’s parents gave before the body was found, father Jose Rosello said the family was “heartbroken” by the long wait but hoping for “a miracle.”

El Pais reported that the couple had lost Julen’s older brother, Oliver, when the 3-year-old suffered a heart attack during a walk on the beach two years ago.

Source Article from https://nypost.com/2019/01/26/tragic-end-to-search-for-spanish-boy-trapped-in-hole-for-13-days/

Last Friday, during the March for Life at the Lincoln Memorial, a junior in high school became the target of society’s collective hatred. Nick Sandmann was quickly dubbed a racist who embodied everything wrong in Trump’s America, and became the subject of online vitriol and rage, from death threats to calls to dox him and his classmates.

The initial story fell apart by Monday. The narrative that pushed Sandmann and his fellow high schoolers as the bigots who’d mobbed an elderly Native American man was proven false, and the mea culpas began rolling in from outlets like The Atlantic and the New York Times. As The Atlantic’s Caitlin Flanagan put it, “The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story.”

So why did so many commentators, including elite journalists, jump to attack Sandmann armed with nothing more than an out-of-context video clip?

The traditional argument is that when we’re online, we can be anonymous, and that encourages our worst impulses. As Likeable, a social media marketing agency, put it, “If you could steal from a bank and you knew no one could identify you, would you? Our identity helps keep our actions in check because we must be responsible for those actions afterward.” Anonymity removes that check. But this explanation falls short. Most of Sandmann’s attackers were loud and proud, not hiding behind anonymous profiles.

The truth behind these online pile-ons is almost completely the opposite. Online pile-ons are a very public form of virtue signaling, aided by the unique psychological triggers of social media. Social media platforms designed their products to trigger a neurological response when someone engages with your post. Sean Parker, founding president of Facebook, says, “Whenever someone likes or comments on a post or photograph, we give you a little dopamine hit.” Dopamine is associated with feelings of euphoria and bliss, and we’re hardwired to seek out hits of the chemical.

Unfortunately, an effective way to get dopamine-inducing likes and retweets on social media is to tweet savagely about your political opponents, because it gets your fans fired up. You also get points for being early — social media rewards trend-setters, not followers. When college professor Reza Aslan tweeted about Sandmann’s “punchable face,” he was rewarded with more than 23,000 dopamine-inducing likes.

By contrast, calm and moderate posts rarely go viral. “Let’s wait and see what all the facts are” takes may age well, but they don’t viscerally engage fans’ emotions. Getting the story right matters, and not just because getting it wrong reduces the credibility of journalists and news organizations. There are real victims to these online pile-ons. In the case of Nick Sandmann, powerful elites with hundreds of thousands of followers publicly attacked a high schooler whose ability to fight back was limited.

How can we stop our collective rush to judgment?

A good place to start would be to adopt the following policy when we’re evaluating something our political opponents did that looks very bad: If the situation were reversed and it were my political allies under fire, would I rush to judgment, or would I look for additional context? If we’d do so when our allies were at risk of looking bad, then we have a moral obligation to do the same when it’s our opponents.

When we’re savagely tweeting about a breaking controversy, we should also take a moment and ask ourselves how our tweets will age if we’re wrong. Tweeting about a high schooler’s “punchable” face, as Aslan did, wouldn’t look great even if Aslan was right that the high-schooler in question was racist. But as details emerged that contradicted Aslan’s assumptions, his tweet began to look worse and worse. A few moments of humility (“What if my analysis of the situation is wrong?”) could have saved a lot of journalists from looking bad while also preventing a lot of trauma for innocent high schoolers.

We’re living in a brave new world where social media incentivizes savagery and a rush to judgment. A little cultivated empathy and humility could help.

Julian Adorney (@Julian_Liberty) is a Young Voices contributor.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-to-stop-a-covington-catholic-screw-up-from-happening-again

With airports jammed with angry passengers, Republican senators blaming each other behind closed doors for the government shutdown, and President Trump’s poll numbers tanking, the writing was on the wall. Feeling pressure from his fellow Republicans to reopen the government, Trump announced Friday afternoon that a deal was reached for federal employees to come back to work as negotiations on border security are given a little more time.

A week ago, the White House was firm on its demand: Parts of the government will remain shuttered until Democratic lawmakers write a $5.7 billion check for a border wall. Trump’s capitulation (and make no mistake, it was a capitulation) is a complete reversal of the White House position and a blowout win for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in her first month back on the job.

Trump, however, remained defiant. At the same time he asked lawmakers to work in unison for the benefit of the nation, he threatened to use the nuclear option if Congress can’t come up with a solution. “I have a very powerful alternative, but I did not want to use it at this time,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden. “Hopefully, it will be unnecessary.”

That “very powerful alternative” Trump is referring to is a declaration of national emergency, a proclamation that would provide him with a way to get his border wall money without having to go through the normal legislative process. Ordinarily, the executive branch is constitutionally barred from spending any taxpayer money on any program unless Congress explicitly authorizes and appropriates the funds. Outside of declaring war or authorizing the use of military force, the ability to appropriate funds, or not, is the legislative branch’s most coveted power.

Lawmakers from both political parties protect the power of the purse with every fiber of their being because it’s one of the few tactics Congress can employ to pressure the president. Trump’s declaring of a national emergency would rip that power away. If lawyers in the executive branch can argue that there is indeed a dire national emergency along the southwestern border with Mexico, billions of dollars in the military construction budget will be made available for the border structure Trump so desperately wants. Trump could task the Army Corps of Engineers to start building right away.

Democrats, who are as strongly opposed to a border wall as Trump is enamored by it, would not be powerless bystanders if the president tried to do an end-run around Congress. They could technically prohibit any money from being used for construction of a border barrier through legislation, although GOP opposition would likely kill it. They could file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that his emergency declaration is not, in fact, an emergency, but rather an instigation of an artificial crisis in order to justify an unjustifiable project.

A lawsuit would work itself through the court system and wind up in the Supreme Court, where the case could prove to be one of the most important trials of executive power since the fight over military commissions in the George W. Bush era. The border wall could become a proxy war between the executive and legislative branches, a classic battle over constitutional power that the judiciary would have to arbitrate. If Trump loses that fight, the precedent it would set would impact the flexibility of presidents in the future to tap into their emergency powers.

Trump may decide that a national emergency is too big of a step. The House Freedom Caucus, Trump’s most reliable support base on Capitol Hill, has already questioned whether an emergency proclamation is a smart idea. Lawmakers such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows are concerned that a declaration now could provide a future Democratic president with the power to do something similar on progressive priorities like climate change. The White House may gamble on another government shutdown, perhaps believing that the public would blame Democrats for being too obstructionist this time around.

Either way, the three-week government reopening shouldn’t be celebrated as a major breakthrough. The end of the longest shutdown in history may turn out to be the intermission to the meatier second act.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-drama-isnt-over-this-is-just-intermission

The indictment of President Trump’s former political adviser Roger Stone – who was arrested Friday on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering – demonstrates yet again that there is no known evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating allegations since May 2017 that Donald Trump or people on his presidential campaign may have worked with Russia to win the 2016 election. There’s no question that if Mueller believed he had proof of such activity the special counsel would have charged Stone with some collusion-related offense involving a conspiracy.

Significantly, Stone wasn’t charged with anything involving collusion. In fact, not a single person has been charged with the alleged crime Mueller was appointed to investigate.

FBI’S SHOW OF FORCE IN ROGER STONE ARREST SPURS CRITICISM OF MUELLER TACTICS

Instead, in his indictment of Stone, Mueller chose to do what he has done so often – bring charges that were generated by his own investigation. These are commonly referred to as “process crimes.” That is, they are offenses against the legal process. Such offenses typically occur when someone interferes with the procedures of an investigation.

Nowhere in Mueller’s indictment is it alleged that Stone conspired, coordinated or colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

This is not to minimize “process crimes.” They are serious violations of the law. No person should ever lie, mislead or obstruct a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

However, the distinction between a principle crime and a process crime is significant. The former is an independent criminal act. The latter is derived from the investigation into whether such an act ever occurred.

“I will plead not guilty to these charges,” Stone told reporters after his arrest and appearance in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “I will defeat them in court. This is a politically motivated investigation.”

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office.

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office. 

The inexorable truth is that a nefarious plot supposedly hatched between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the bowels of the Kremlin was a hoax all along – it simply never happened.

As President Trump has said many times, “there was no collusion.”

In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for unverified Russian information and then fed it to the FBI and Justice Department in a scheme to damage Trump, her political opponent.

Hence, Trump-Russian “collusion” was nothing more than a clever and devious invention. Clinton-Russian “collusion” was authentic and one of the dirtiest tricks in modern American politics.

The FBI became complicit in the scheme to frame Trump in a series of wrongful, if not corrupt, decisions.

First, the bureau should never have launched its initial investigation in July 2016 that later developed into the Mueller probe. It had no probable cause and no credible evidence to justify its probe.

Second, the FBI should never have misused an unverified anti-Trump “dossier” composed by a discredited and biased source in order to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. In the process, the FBI and Justice Department withheld evidence from an intelligence court and deceived the judges who issued the wiretap warrants.

And finally, a special counsel should never have been appointed. Under federal regulations there must first be some evidence of a crime to appoint a special counsel. No such evidence existed.

Had it not been for the misconduct of the FBI and the Justice Department, there would never have been an investigation for Stone to allegedly obstruct – meaning that no indictment would have been handed down against him.

The plain truth is that the improper existence of Mueller’s investigation created the crimes Stone stands accused of committing.

The indictment against Stone suggests he may have had some advance knowledge or inside information about the content of hacked Clinton campaign emails that were released by WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

WikiLeaks has never said how it obtained the emails. It has been reported that Russian intelligence operatives were responsible for the hacks.

While Stone’s efforts to garner details about the emails and pass them along to the Trump campaign surely makes for a tantalizing story, this activity is not a crime. At the time, hundreds of journalists – including me – were contacting sources or attempting to elicit further information directly from WikiLeaks. None of us has been accused of a crime.

Stone appears to have speculated or projected that the hacked emails would be highly damaging to Clinton’s campaign. This, of course, was stating the obvious.

An examination of Stone’s emails shows that he offered little more than the same information that WikiLeaks had already stated publicly. Stone’s mistake, if any, is that he created the appearance that he knew more than he actually did.

But millions of people exaggerate their knowledge about all sorts of things every day to make themselves seem smarter or more important than they really are. They don’t wind up getting charged with committing any crimes.

Unless it can be shown that Stone was somehow involved in the actual hacking of the Clinton emails, he violated no felony laws. This is why he was not charged with a conspiracy crime.

Five of the charges against Stone are for making false statements during the Mueller investigation. These will be exceedingly difficult for the special counsel to prove. The statute governing these offenses (18 U.S.C. 1001) requires proof that the false statements be made “knowingly and willfully.”

A faulty memory or a diminished recollection is not sufficient to sustain the specific intent requirement of the criminal charge. If Stone recalled events differently than Mueller interprets them it is not a crime.

Moreover, Stone amended some of his testimony with corrected statements. These this will be introduced as evidence in his defense.

The charges of witness tampering and obstruction of an investigation may be more problematic for Stone. Much will depend on the facts as they are developed.

For now, Mueller’s indictment of Stone should be read through a skeptical lens. Prosecutors only present their own slanted version of events. At trial, Stone’s defense attorneys will present his countervailing evidence and arguments. Like all defendants, Stone must be presumed innocent unless prosecutors can prove him guilty.

Sadly, Mueller’s “process charges” against Stone and others in the Trump orbit represent selective and unequal prosecution when compared with their treatment of allies of Clinton.

Neither top Clinton aides Huma Abedin nor Cheryl Mills were charged with giving false statements to the FBI during their 2016 interviews about Clinton’s email scandal, in which Clinton improperly used a private email server instead of the required State Department secure email system when she was secretary of state.

Abedin and Mills both insisted they knew nothing about Clinton’s private email server until after she departed the State Department. Yet email exchanges proved their statements were clearly false.

Former FBI Director James Comey said that no prosecutions of Abedin and Mills were justified, dismissively telling the House Judiciary Committee: “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

This from the same guy who twisted the facts and contorted the law to clear Clinton from the felony statutes she so flagrantly violated. Comey misconstrued the law in a manner that could only have been deliberate. He then weaponized the law to investigate Trump without legal justification or credible evidence.

 CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The same double-standard of justice is now being applied by Comey’s long-time friend and ally, Robert Mueller.

President Trump’s enemies are desperate to find something – anything – in the Mueller investigation that points to wrongdoing by Trump because they want to see the president impeached and forced from office. So far, nothing that has been made public is the “smoking gun” they fantasize about that could show Trump engaged in any criminal activity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-stone-indictment-shows-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion

In any event, the court rejected Pollock only a few years later, by upholding an estate tax and a gift tax — that is, a tax on net worth. After the 16th Amendment, which declared an income tax constitutional, was ratified in 1913 as a response to Pollock, discussions of the constitutionality of taxes other than the head tax dropped off the Supreme Court docket.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-warren-wealth-tax-20190125-story.html

A male St. Louis police officer was charged Friday with involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a female officer during what was described as a deadly game with a revolver.

Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced the charge against Nathaniel Hendren, 29, in the death of 24-year-old Katlyn Alix, as they allegedly played a game in which a revolver’s cylinder was emptied, one bullet put back and the two colleagues took turns pointing at each other and pulling the trigger.

Alix was with two male officers at an apartment when she was killed just before 1 a.m. Thursday . A probable cause statement from police, provided by Gardner’s office, offered a chilling account of the dangerous game that led to her death.

The probable cause statement said Alix and Hendren were playing with guns when Hendren produced a revolver.

“The defendant emptied the cylinder of the revolver and then put one cartridge back into the cylinder,” the statement said. He allegedly spun the cylinder, pointed the gun away and pulled the trigger.

The gun did not fire. The statement said Alix took the gun, pointed it at Hendren and pulled the trigger. Again, it didn’t fire.

Hendren “took the gun back and pointed it at the victim (and) pulled the trigger causing the gun to discharge,” the statement said. “The victim was struck in the chest.”

The other male officer told investigators he warned Hendren and Alix not to play with guns and reminded them they were police officers. He was about to leave when he heard the fatal shot, the statement said.

The male officers drove Alix to a hospital where she died. Hendren also is charged with armed criminal action.

The two men were on-duty at the time of the shooting. Police Chief John Hayden has declined to answer questions about why the officers had gathered at the apartment, which was home to one of the men.

St. Louis police said the charges were the result of a promise Hayden made to Alix’s family to conduct a “thorough and competent investigation.”

Alix, a military veteran who was married, was not working but met the men at the apartment.

Police immediately launched an internal investigation and placed both officers on paid leave. Gardner also began her own investigation on Thursday and enlisted the Missouri State Highway Patrol to conduct it.

Alix was a patrol officer who had graduated from the St. Louis Police Academy in January 2017.

Source Article from https://abc7.com/officer-charged-in-russian-roulette-style-killing-of-fellow-cop/5107396/

January 25 at 6:21 PM

While Congress and President Trump on Friday agreed to reopen dozens of federal government agencies that have been shuttered for 35 days, the 800,000 employees who haven’t been paid in more than a month probably will have to wait well into next week to receive their pay.

Although employees are on track to go back to work when Trump signs legislation that would restart the government for the next three weeks, its massive timecard and payroll processing systems will take several days to lumber back to life. Employees will have to file timecards, agencies will have to approve them, and the Treasury Department will have to disburse billions of dollars in what is known as an “off-cycle” payroll.

It probably will be next Thursday, Friday or even Saturday before employees are paid, according to former federal personnel and payroll officials and senior agency officials. The delay could cause continued financial hardship for thousands of employees who have been struggling with zero cash flow during the partial government shutdown.

That the agreement came on a Friday makes payments to employees more complex, as human resources offices are not typically staffed, and employees who do return to work on Monday likely will face huge backlogs of work.

The legislation the president signed Jan. 16 to pay furloughed employees and those who have worked without pay during the shutdown requires them to be compensated “as soon as possible” after agencies reopen, regardless of when they normally would be paid.

A senior administration official who communicated on the condition of anonymity said in an email late Friday that “recognizing the urgency of getting federal employees paid quickly, the administration is taking steps to ensure that they receive pay as soon as possible.”

But the official offered no specifics about the logistics of the payments, nor an estimate of when the money would be deposited electronically into bank accounts. The official said payroll timing likely will vary by agency.

Margaret Weichert, the White House’s deputy director for management, directed agency leaders in a memo Friday to “prepare for an orderly reopening” of shuttered offices. “As agencies identify these steps, they should be prepared to prioritize restoring pay and benefits for employees.”

The government’s payroll process is similar to that of a large company: Employees submit work hours, sick time and overtime into an attendance system, a supervisor approves it and then passes it to the agency’s human resources department, which uploads it to one of the government’s four payroll providers. Paychecks typically hit employees’ bank accounts about a week after the close of the pay cycle.

In this case, payroll providers could need one or two extra runs to account for complexities, such as if an employee has sick or disability leave or overtime, said Cyrus Lohfink, a retired director of the National Finance Center based at the Agriculture Department, which processes the payroll for 800,000 employees at 130 agencies.

“A lot of things have to happen behind the scenes,” Lohfink said. “What you don’t want to do is create a situation where employees get upset because they weren’t accurately paid.”

He said it could take several weeks “until everybody is caught up.”

About 1 percent of federal workers still receive hard copies of their checks in the mail, or have them deposited electronically in small credit unions. It could take a day or two longer for those employees to receive payment, Lohfink said.

Vincent Castellano, national vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents transportation security officers, estimates that transportation security officers won’t see their paychecks for at least a week.

Angela Fritz, Danielle Paquette and Dan Lamothe contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-with-shutdown-deal-federal-workers-likely-wont-see-back-pay-until-next-week/2019/01/25/9d5367aa-20e2-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html

The United States on Friday intensified its push to drive Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power, as US diplomats left the embassy in Caracas and Russia vowed to back its South American ally.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday will urge the members of the United Nations Security Council to recognise opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela‘s legitimate head of state.

Washington requested the meeting of the 15-member council after a string of countries threw their weight behind Guaido, who heads Venezuela’s Congress, and urged Maduro to step down.

Russia opposes the request and has accused Washington of backing a coup attempt, placing Venezuela at the heart of a growing geopolitical duel. Moscow will insist on compliance with international law, Russia’s RIA news agency cited Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying on Friday.

Maduro said he welcomed a debate over Venezuela’s situation and thanked Pompeo for making the UN request, in a jocular response during a news conference on Friday.

“I was about to say to the foreign minister ‘ask for a Security Council debate,’ (but) Mike Pompeo got ahead of me,” Maduro said. “Thanks, Mike … We’re going to tell the truth about the articles of the constitution, about the coup.”


Earlier, American diplomats left the US embassy in Caracas in a convoy of vehicles with a police escort en route to the airport, according to Reuters news agency.

In a fiery speech on Wednesday, Maduro had broken off diplomatic relations with Washington and ordered the US personnel out within 72 hours. 

The State Department on Thursday told some US government workers to leave Venezuela and said its citizens in the country should consider leaving. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the movement of embassy personnel on Friday. 

UN human rights boss Michelle Bachelet called on Friday for an investigation into the alleged excessive use of force by Venezuelan security forces against protesters, adding that she was “extremely concerned” that the situation could rapidly spiral out of control.

‘No fake dialogue’

Guaido, who has galvanised Venezuela’s opposition, proclaimed himself interim president on Wednesday during a march of hundreds of thousands in Caracas. He is considering making a request for funds from international institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, two people familiar with the talks said on Friday.

However, he still has no control over the Venezuelan state and the military, which have so far remained loyal to Maduro.

Guaido has promised future amnesties to military members if they disavow Maduro.

On Friday, Guaido repeated his offer to the armed forces around Venezuela, asking soldiers “to put themselves on the side of the constitution”. He also called for mass protests next week. 



Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido gestures as he speaks during a news conference in Caracas [Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters]

Most Latin American nations have joined the US in supporting Guaido’s claim on the presidency, although Mexico‘s new leftist government has said it would not take sides. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Friday his administration would be willing to mediate.

Guaido said he would reject any negotiations that did not include Maduro’s exit, setting up a transition government and free elections to pick a new president.

“No one wants fake dialogue … the only thing we want to negotiate is the end of the usurpation,” he told a crowd clustered in a plaza in Caracas’s Chacao district, an opposition stronghold.

For his part, Maduro said he would be willing to engage in talks with the opposition to avoid violence.

“I’m committed to a national dialogue. Today, tomorrow and always, I’m committed and ready to go wherever I have to. Personally, if I have to meet with this young man … I’ll go,” the leader said.

Analysts believe Maduro’s strategy may be focussed on gaining time.

“In the past, when Maduro’s government has faced [similar situations] he has always opted for a strategy in which he calls for national and international dialogue,” said Carlos Eduardo Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist.

“He is aiming to gain time. He has done this in the past and he has succeeded,” Pina added. “[Maduro] has managed to dismantle the opposition forces, their leaders, and their supporters, making them seem as incapable of reaching their own political agenda.”

US seeks to cut off funds

To ratchet up pressure on Maduro, who began a second term on January 10 following an election last year widely considered to be fraudulent, the US is seeking to cut off funds for his government, officials said on Thursday. 


Guaido is also readying a new board to run state-run oil firm PDVSA’s US unit Citgo Petroleum, people familiar with the discussions said.

Maduro warned off any attempt to take control of Citgo, the country’s primary offshore asset.

“It is the property of the Venezuelan people, and we will defend it,” he said.

The Maduro-appointed board of Citgo is preparing a legal strategy to defend itself, sources close to the talks said.

Oil prices edged higher on Friday as the political turmoil threatened to tighten the global supply of crude.
Washington has signalled that it could impose new sanctions on OPEC member Venezuela’s vital oil sector.

“The oil situation has been an ethical moral dilemma for us,” said US Senator Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

“Cutting off all trade in oil would be the last step. It would make it even worse for the average person.”

Source Article from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/intensifies-anti-maduro-push-russia-backs-venezuelan-ally-190125200417182.html

CLOSE

President Trump thanked furloughed federal workers for their devotion during the shutdown and credited them with helping to make America great again.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Getting the government back to full speed following a 35-​​​​​​day shutdown is a bit like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier: It doesn’t happen very quickly.

Now that President Donald Trump and congressional leaders have reached a deal to reopen the government for three weeks, the administration has begun the task of calling back the 800,000 workers who were no longer getting paid from the partial shutdown that began Dec. 22 over a budget impasse tied to the president’s demand for billions in border wall funds.

Many of those workers have been deemed “essential” and been called back from furlough over the past few weeks. But some of those have opted not to show up, resulting in delays at airport security checkpoints and potentially longer waits for tax returns.

The shutdown already has exacted a financial cost: $6 billion as of Jan. 25, according to estimates by S&P Global Ratings. That’s $1.4 billion more than Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for a wall on the Southern border.

With the shutdown over – at least for now – there are plenty of logistics to carry out: employees to bring back, national parks to reopen, and tax refunds to process. 

Here are how the reopening could affect several groups:

Federal workers

They’ll get their back pay but not it’s not clear how fast. The White House Friday tweeted that it would be “in the coming days.”

Friday was the second payday for most workers since the shutdown began.

With bills to pay and creditors – potentially – breathing down their necks, workers are anxious to see money in their bank accounts.

The good news is they will be treated as if they had never been forced to miss work, according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They’ll accrue sick time and vacations days as if they had been working all along, and their pension calculation will assume they were on the job without interruption.

If they applied for unemployment and started receiving benefits, they’ll have to repay what they received in full.

CLOSE

Due to staffing shortages related to the partial government shutdown, major airports in the Northeast are experiencing delays. Veuer’s Justin Kircher has more.
Buzz60

Airport travelers

With the government reopen, security checkpoint wait times, especially in high-volume airports such as those in Atlanta and the Baltimore-Washington region, should ease quickly.

Financial hardship has prompted “sickouts” by TSA workers who process airport checkpoints. And “staffing” issues among air traffic controllers who manage the nation’s airspace were blamed for flight delays at several airports in the Northeast.

Related: FBI Director Christopher Wray: Government shutdown ‘mind-boggling’ and ‘short-sighted’

Related: Today should be payday for hundreds of thousands of government workers. But the shutdown means they’re not getting paid

Roughly 800,000 federal workers were affected by the shutdown. Of those, about 50,000 are airport security workers, who have been working despite not getting paid because they are considered “essential.” TSA recently acknowledged that some airports have experienced long security lines because of staffing shortages. 

“While national average wait times are within normal TSA times of 30 minutes for standard lanes and 10 minutes for TSA Precheck, some airports experienced longer than usual wait times,” the TSA said in a statement.

National park visitors

Some parks never officially closed (though they shuttered their visitor centers) but about a third did, mostly historic sites such as Fort McHenry in Baltimore.

Some won’t be open right away due to cleanup of trash, graffiti and human waste that were left on their grounds. Others may have limited access for a while due to natural causes such as snow-covered roads that have to be plowed.

Kristen Brengel, a lobbyist for the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy organization, said she believes the administration will do its best to reopen parks and sites quickly.

“The Park Service is an agency that wants to be open to the public,” she said. “So if there are roads that have been covered in snow for a month now, the Park Service may need a bulldozer instead of a plow to open. It kinds of depends on the situation as to whether or not a park can be open instantly.”

Small business owners

The reopening means the federal government can continue helping small businesses: the Small Business Administration can once again process loan requests, mom-and-pop stores near national parks can resume selling goods and services to visitors, and small businesses with federal contracts for a broad range of services can start getting paid again.

Even if the restart is quick, it might be too late for some, said John Arensmeyer, CEO and founder of Small Business Majority.   

“It’s an inescapable fact that the partial government shutdown inflicted substantial damage on America’s small firms,” he said. “Since most small firms have little if any financial safety net, a small dip in earnings can be an existential blow and many small firms will not recover anytime soon from the losses they incurred over the past month.

 

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/25/shutdown-restarting-us-government-national-parks-airports/2659538002/

With airports jammed with angry passengers, Republican senators blaming each other behind closed doors for the government shutdown, and President Trump’s poll numbers tanking, the writing was on the wall. Feeling pressure from his fellow Republicans to reopen the government, Trump announced Friday afternoon that a deal was reached for federal employees to come back to work as negotiations on border security are given a little more time.

A week ago, the White House was firm on its demand: Parts of the government will remain shuttered until Democratic lawmakers write a $5.7 billion check for a border wall. Trump’s capitulation (and make no mistake, it was a capitulation) is a complete reversal of the White House position and a blowout win for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in her first month back on the job.

Trump, however, remained defiant. At the same time he asked lawmakers to work in unison for the benefit of the nation, he threatened to use the nuclear option if Congress can’t come up with a solution. “I have a very powerful alternative, but I did not want to use it at this time,” Trump said in the White House Rose Garden. “Hopefully, it will be unnecessary.”

That “very powerful alternative” Trump is referring to is a declaration of national emergency, a proclamation that would provide him with a way to get his border wall money without having to go through the normal legislative process. Ordinarily, the executive branch is constitutionally barred from spending any taxpayer money on any program unless Congress explicitly authorizes and appropriates the funds. Outside of declaring war or authorizing the use of military force, the ability to appropriate funds, or not, is the legislative branch’s most coveted power.

Lawmakers from both political parties protect the power of the purse with every fiber of their being because it’s one of the few tactics Congress can employ to pressure the president. Trump’s declaring of a national emergency would rip that power away. If lawyers in the executive branch can argue that there is indeed a dire national emergency along the southwestern border with Mexico, billions of dollars in the military construction budget will be made available for the border structure Trump so desperately wants. Trump could task the Army Corps of Engineers to start building right away.

Democrats, who are as strongly opposed to a border wall as Trump is enamored by it, would not be powerless bystanders if the president tried to do an end-run around Congress. They could technically prohibit any money from being used for construction of a border barrier through legislation, although GOP opposition would likely kill it. They could file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that his emergency declaration is not, in fact, an emergency, but rather an instigation of an artificial crisis in order to justify an unjustifiable project.

A lawsuit would work itself through the court system and wind up in the Supreme Court, where the case could prove to be one of the most important trials of executive power since the fight over military commissions in the George W. Bush era. The border wall could become a proxy war between the executive and legislative branches, a classic battle over constitutional power that the judiciary would have to arbitrate. If Trump loses that fight, the precedent it would set would impact the flexibility of presidents in the future to tap into their emergency powers.

Trump may decide that a national emergency is too big of a step. The House Freedom Caucus, Trump’s most reliable support base on Capitol Hill, has already questioned whether an emergency proclamation is a smart idea. Lawmakers such as Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows are concerned that a declaration now could provide a future Democratic president with the power to do something similar on progressive priorities like climate change. The White House may gamble on another government shutdown, perhaps believing that the public would blame Democrats for being too obstructionist this time around.

Either way, the three-week government reopening shouldn’t be celebrated as a major breakthrough. The end of the longest shutdown in history may turn out to be the intermission to the meatier second act.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-drama-isnt-over-this-is-just-intermission

The indictment of President Trump’s former political adviser Roger Stone – who was arrested Friday on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering – demonstrates yet again that there is no known evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating allegations since May 2017 that Donald Trump or people on his presidential campaign may have worked with Russia to win the 2016 election. There’s no question that if Mueller believed he had proof of such activity the special counsel would have charged Stone with some collusion-related offense involving a conspiracy.

Significantly, Stone wasn’t charged with anything involving collusion. In fact, not a single person has been charged with the alleged crime Mueller was appointed to investigate.

FBI’S SHOW OF FORCE IN ROGER STONE ARREST SPURS CRITICISM OF MUELLER TACTICS

Instead, in his indictment of Stone, Mueller chose to do what he has done so often – bring charges that were generated by his own investigation. These are commonly referred to as “process crimes.” That is, they are offenses against the legal process. Such offenses typically occur when someone interferes with the procedures of an investigation.

Nowhere in Mueller’s indictment is it alleged that Stone conspired, coordinated or colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

This is not to minimize “process crimes.” They are serious violations of the law. No person should ever lie, mislead or obstruct a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

However, the distinction between a principle crime and a process crime is significant. The former is an independent criminal act. The latter is derived from the investigation into whether such an act ever occurred.

“I will plead not guilty to these charges,” Stone told reporters after his arrest and appearance in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “I will defeat them in court. This is a politically motivated investigation.”

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office.

So far, Mueller’s exhaustive probe has produced no evidence and no indictments in support of his original mandate. The special counsel has little to show for his efforts that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and hobbled the president with unfounded accusations from the moment he took office. 

The inexorable truth is that a nefarious plot supposedly hatched between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the bowels of the Kremlin was a hoax all along – it simply never happened.

As President Trump has said many times, “there was no collusion.”

In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for unverified Russian information and then fed it to the FBI and Justice Department in a scheme to damage Trump, her political opponent.

Hence, Trump-Russian “collusion” was nothing more than a clever and devious invention. Clinton-Russian “collusion” was authentic and one of the dirtiest tricks in modern American politics.

The FBI became complicit in the scheme to frame Trump in a series of wrongful, if not corrupt, decisions.

First, the bureau should never have launched its initial investigation in July 2016 that later developed into the Mueller probe. It had no probable cause and no credible evidence to justify its probe.

Second, the FBI should never have misused an unverified anti-Trump “dossier” composed by a discredited and biased source in order to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. In the process, the FBI and Justice Department withheld evidence from an intelligence court and deceived the judges who issued the wiretap warrants.

And finally, a special counsel should never have been appointed. Under federal regulations there must first be some evidence of a crime to appoint a special counsel. No such evidence existed.

Had it not been for the misconduct of the FBI and the Justice Department, there would never have been an investigation for Stone to allegedly obstruct – meaning that no indictment would have been handed down against him.

The plain truth is that the improper existence of Mueller’s investigation created the crimes Stone stands accused of committing.

The indictment against Stone suggests he may have had some advance knowledge or inside information about the content of hacked Clinton campaign emails that were released by WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

WikiLeaks has never said how it obtained the emails. It has been reported that Russian intelligence operatives were responsible for the hacks.

While Stone’s efforts to garner details about the emails and pass them along to the Trump campaign surely makes for a tantalizing story, this activity is not a crime. At the time, hundreds of journalists – including me – were contacting sources or attempting to elicit further information directly from WikiLeaks. None of us has been accused of a crime.

Stone appears to have speculated or projected that the hacked emails would be highly damaging to Clinton’s campaign. This, of course, was stating the obvious.

An examination of Stone’s emails shows that he offered little more than the same information that WikiLeaks had already stated publicly. Stone’s mistake, if any, is that he created the appearance that he knew more than he actually did.

But millions of people exaggerate their knowledge about all sorts of things every day to make themselves seem smarter or more important than they really are. They don’t wind up getting charged with committing any crimes.

Unless it can be shown that Stone was somehow involved in the actual hacking of the Clinton emails, he violated no felony laws. This is why he was not charged with a conspiracy crime.

Five of the charges against Stone are for making false statements during the Mueller investigation. These will be exceedingly difficult for the special counsel to prove. The statute governing these offenses (18 U.S.C. 1001) requires proof that the false statements be made “knowingly and willfully.”

A faulty memory or a diminished recollection is not sufficient to sustain the specific intent requirement of the criminal charge. If Stone recalled events differently than Mueller interprets them it is not a crime.

Moreover, Stone amended some of his testimony with corrected statements. These this will be introduced as evidence in his defense.

The charges of witness tampering and obstruction of an investigation may be more problematic for Stone. Much will depend on the facts as they are developed.

For now, Mueller’s indictment of Stone should be read through a skeptical lens. Prosecutors only present their own slanted version of events. At trial, Stone’s defense attorneys will present his countervailing evidence and arguments. Like all defendants, Stone must be presumed innocent unless prosecutors can prove him guilty.

Sadly, Mueller’s “process charges” against Stone and others in the Trump orbit represent selective and unequal prosecution when compared with their treatment of allies of Clinton.

Neither top Clinton aides Huma Abedin nor Cheryl Mills were charged with giving false statements to the FBI during their 2016 interviews about Clinton’s email scandal, in which Clinton improperly used a private email server instead of the required State Department secure email system when she was secretary of state.

Abedin and Mills both insisted they knew nothing about Clinton’s private email server until after she departed the State Department. Yet email exchanges proved their statements were clearly false.

Former FBI Director James Comey said that no prosecutions of Abedin and Mills were justified, dismissively telling the House Judiciary Committee: “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

This from the same guy who twisted the facts and contorted the law to clear Clinton from the felony statutes she so flagrantly violated. Comey misconstrued the law in a manner that could only have been deliberate. He then weaponized the law to investigate Trump without legal justification or credible evidence.

 CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The same double-standard of justice is now being applied by Comey’s long-time friend and ally, Robert Mueller.

President Trump’s enemies are desperate to find something – anything – in the Mueller investigation that points to wrongdoing by Trump because they want to see the president impeached and forced from office. So far, nothing that has been made public is the “smoking gun” they fantasize about that could show Trump engaged in any criminal activity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY GREGG JARRETT

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-stone-indictment-shows-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion