As much of America is enjoying the weekend, please keep those in the path of Hurricane (now downgraded to Tropical Storm) Florence in your prayers. While the storm has weakened, it’s already proved deadly, and there is continuing danger from high winds and flooding.
One image has emerged from the storm as a symbol of hope and resolve by Americans to weather any storm together. It’s an American flag about 30 miles off the Carolina coast, at Frying Pan Tower, a B&B that used to be a lighthouse. All the people evacuated, but the flag remained, captured on a webcam being whipped by the intense winds and rains. Check it out at the link. This time, it wasn’t the rockets' red glare but the lightning that gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Nevertheless, it was still there, on its flagpole and flying proudly and defiantly through the hurricane.
Speaking of how Americans put aside their difference and stand together when storms arrive, here’s an example of that in action. Maybe after this, there will be at least one Democrat who won’t be blaming President Trump for the bad weather.
On this weekend when the weather news is dominating TV, I hope you’ll take an hour off of watching the radar to switch to TBN for a brand new episode of “Huckabee.” Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream will drop by to talk about the latest shameful shenanigans in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. I’ll welcome Oliver North and the Rev. Franklin Graham, and have a sneak peak at the new faith-based movie, “Unbroken: Path to Redemption.” Plus a lot more fun and surprises, topped off with music from the amazing Annie Moses Band (trust me: you have to see this incredibly unique group!) It’s all coming your way tonight at 8 and 11 EST, 7 and 10 CST, and repeated at the same times on Sunday, only on TBN. To find out where to watch in your area, and to stream previous episodes, visit https://www.tbn.org/programs/huckabee
Nothing to see here
For month after month, we’ve heard from Trump critics that the Mueller investigation was going to nail former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and he was going to crack and turn state’s witness and spill the beans on his nefarious doings with foreign governments and implicate the President and then IMPEACHMENT!!
Well, Mueller did finally get his multiple convictions of Manafort – all for things that had nothing do with Trump or Russia and that happened long before the 2016 election. And Manafort finally agreed to cooperate with Mueller. Now, the bombshell: we learn that his questionable lobbying efforts for a foreign government (Ukraine) did reach all the way into the White House, with one of his lobbyists actually having a direct meeting with the President and Vice President.
This is it at last! Unleash the hounds! Convene the impeachment hearings!
Oh, hold on: you say this meeting was in 2013? And Manafort’s lobbying rep met with President Obama and Vice President Biden?
Well, move along, nothing to see here…
Cold, hard facts
It’s easier to fall for the siren song of socialism if you don’t question the bogus statistics that leftists like to throw around. For instance, the claim that the average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes, and that CEO pay is skyrocketing compared to their workers.
Granted, I’d love to see all good workers get a raise, but that’s not what happens under socialism (again: “Venezuela.”) And none of the leftist claims in that first paragraph pass the smell test, as explained in detail at this must-read article from the American Thinker.
Using figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau, the article reports that in 2017, the average CEO made $183,270, about three times as much as the average worker. Back in 2005, the average CEO made $180,000, which was then about four times as much as the average worker. Over the past 12 years, CEO pay has grown by only about 3% while the average worker’s salary has risen by 33%. There are more such numbers that show the booming economy under Trump is not just benefiting CEOs but blue collar workers, rural workers and all other working class demographics.
That’s not what the Democrats are telling you leading up to the election, of course. They’d like you to believe that you're being exploited by capitalism and that all CEOs are insanely rich megalomaniacs paying themselves billions while their workers are overworked, underpaid serfs afraid to speak their minds and unable to survive on their paychecks without food stamps. But that’s not true of all CEOs, only a small handful -- and mostly the extremely liberal ones in Silicon Valley who are bankrolling the Democrats.
Just for the record
Legally-armed citizens don’t just save innocent people before the police show up. Sometimes, they help save the police, too.
New low for Democrats
Sixty-five women who knew Judge Brett Kavanaugh in high school have signed a statement vouching for his good character and denying that they ever heard of him doing anything objectionable. And to his critics, that’s proof that he must be...guilty? While you shake off your mental whiplash, I’ll explain: if his defenders didn’t know there was some awful claim against him out there, they wouldn’t have been ready with to gather all those signatures it so quickly, so that proves it (whatever “it” is) must be true! After all, it’s not as if there’s some futuristic communications medium that allows you to instantly contact a bunch of people you went to high school with.
If you think that’s pathetic, you should know that they’re also now, to quote the National Review's David French, using Kavanaugh's good character against him. The left is attacking him as a potential sex creep because he coaches his daughters’ basketball teams and has made it a point to hire female law clerks.
So to be clear: if you support girls’ sports and giving women job opportunities, you’re a potential sex predator -- and if you don’t, you’re a sexist. Either way, you’re disqualified for the Supreme Court! I guess to the left, the only thing that doesn’t make a man a potential sex predator is putting on a dress and hanging out in the women’s bathroom.
Thanks for all the comments. I especially like the positive response to my call to action, “Tear down this ‘deep state’ wall!” Very Reaganesque.
Here’s an interesting question from Richrd Payne: “All we ever talk about is Strzok and Page. Isn’t anyone else guilty?”
Oh my goodness, yes. The reason Strzok and Page have been in the headlines (at least my headlines) every day for almost a week is that their texts from the period IG Michael Horowitz called a “gap” are suddenly trickling out. In fact, their texts show that they were not operating in a vacuum. They implicate others with whom they worked, referring specifically to “Andy’s office” and coordination within the Justice Department --- a “media leaking strategy” with the DOJ. (Despite the ridiculous claim that Strzok’s lawyer tried to make, it’s easy to see from the context that they were talking about a strategy not to STOP leaks, but to CREATE them.) As more text messages come out, they will no doubt add to the larger picture of what’s been going on at the Justice Department in recent years.
In other words, this is about many more people than Strzok and Page --- it’s just that their addiction to texting is continuing to supply us with clear evidence of what was being done. Even then-President Obama is mentioned at one point (and, for all we know, is referenced in other texts that have not yet been released). These two people texted so many thousands and thousands of times that it’s hard to imagine they got much else accomplished, yet somehow they still had time to (among other things) cultivate relationships with numerous reporters at the Washington Post and New York Times, meet with others in “Andy’s office” to work out a strategy for stopping Trump, write helpful op-ed material, leak secret FISA court information, alter the wording of documents to let Hillary off the hook, and carry on an office affair, all at the same time.
Talk about work ethic!
Anyway, that’s why Strzok and Page are so important. We should probably think of the thousands of Strzok-Page texts as blemishes that came to the surface, symptomatic of some horrible, heartbreaking condition. We could cover them up and try to minimize them, but the condition itself will kill the patient (Lady Justice) if nothing is done to treat it, systemically.
Another reader, Joan Chambers, asked about the statute of limitations for charging Hillary with crimes relating to her classified emails, wondering about a cutoff date that she thought might be as soon as September 28, just a couple of weeks away. Now, I’m not a lawyer, and this is a complicated issue, but after a little research turned up an article in the Washington Examiner from mid-June that explains it pretty clearly in layman’s terms.
I’d like to be able to offer a simple yes or no to that specific date, but the answer is “it depends.” There are two different charges that could be levied regarding Hillary’s mishandling of classified information. Depending on the statute under which she’s charged, it could conceivably happen anytime until March of 2025. And if it happened to be treason (I’m speaking hypothetically, as that’s extremely hard to prosecute), well, as I understand it, there’s no statute of limitations at all about THAT.
There are numerous ways information can be mishandled: ordinary sloppiness, whistleblowing, deliberate leaking, and spying come to mind. I’d say that in Hillary’s case, she was probably trying to cover her tracks for doing God-knows-what else. One law, 18 U.S. Code 1924, the one David Petraeus pleaded guilty to in 2015 for sharing highly classified material with his biographer/mistress, forbids the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” In May of this year, former CIA contractor Reynaldo Regis pleaded guilty to violating the same law after taking home about 60 notebooks containing classified information. There was no allegation that he had shared any of it.
That law has only a five-year statute of limitations. And it’s written to suggest that the clock starts when the documents are actually removed with intent to retain. Hillary left the State Department in February of 2013, so the time to charge her under that particular law seems to have run out.
But there’s another, harsher law that’s preferred by prosecutors. Part of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S. Code 793 restricts possession or retention of information relating to national defense and carries a possible sentence of ten years in prison.
That law has a ten-year statute of limitations. In this particular case, I prefer that one, too.
The defendant doesn’t even have to be accused of having deliberately shared the information (though it appears Hillary had no problem with doing that). This is the law they used to charge former U.S. Navy sailor Kristian Saucier for taking six pictures on board a nuclear submarine in 2009. The pictures were deemed confidential, the lowest level of classification, and Saucier had never shared them with anyone. They happened to be discovered in a Connecticut trash dump in 2012. Yet, technically, they had to do with defense, so Saucier could be charged under that law.
Hillary’s server contained 110 emails, in 52 email chains, that were classified, with 8 email chains containing top-secret information. There were 36 other emails with “secret” information. It’s hard to imagine that, in her work as Secretary of State, none of the classified material that passed through her server had anything to do with national defense. And, according to Julian Assange’s attorney, Barry Pollack, the law has been “interpreted broadly.”
In late March of 2015, Hillary’s tech aide Paul Combetta used the software BleachBit to delete Hillary’s stored emails (he said he was supposed to do it months earlier but had forgotten). According to Pollack, the clock probably started at that point, when Hillary no longer retained the documents. So that takes us up to late March of 2025.
So there’s our answer! Glad I could help, and glad you asked, because this is much clearer now for me, too. Here’s the full article, which gives other examples of people who have been charged under this harsher law. Of course, there may be numerous other crimes that Hillary could be charged with, ones relating to obstruction of justice, the Clinton Foundation, etc. etc. etc. But anyone who is looking to prosecute Hillary specifically for her mishandling of classified emails should take note: the clock is running.