Saturday Politics : Sessions Is under Attack but the Obama Target Is President Trump

Saturday Politics is sometimes about Washington political gang wars. • • • VOTERS ARE TIRED OF DEMOCRAT WHINING. The majority of voters tell protesters : “it’s time to move on.” That’s according to a Fox News Poll of registered voters taken between February 11 and 13 and released Thursday. The poll asked, “What message would you like to send to people who are protesting President Trump and his policies?” Over half, 53%, would tell them “it’s time to move on,” while 44% would implore them “don’t give up the fight." Of course, these results are highly partisan -- 81% of Democrats want the protesters to keep fighting, while 87% of Republicans say it’s time to move on. • • • VOTERS ARE ALSO TIRED OF CNN. A YouGov poll shows that CNN has fallen behind MSNBC and Fox News in brand perception. The poll asked respondents, “If you’ve heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?” Of the three cable networks, Fox News was the only one to score a neutral brand perception. CNN and MSNBC both scored negative on brand perception. YouGov’s Ted Marzilli told the Daily Caller : “CNN’s negative acceleration point happened in mid-October 2016, around the time Anderson Cooper interviewed Melania Trump, notably discussing her husband’s famous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape. Also at that time, a local North Carolina Republican office was firebombed, causing conservative-leaning media to pounce on CNN for suggesting Trump’s rhetoric spurred the incident.” Marzilli adds that President Trump’s bashing of the network’s news coverage, calling it "fake news" have taken a toll on CNN. • • • AND THE MEDIA DOESN'T LIKE TRUMP. Washington Times reporter Jennifer Harper summarized on Thursday "a meticulous new study by the Media Research Center [that] finds that 88% of the broadcast news coverage of Mr. Trump and his team was 'hostile' during the first 30 days of office. The coverage was intense and plentiful. The study, which analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS, found that the “Big Three” networks produced 16 hours of coverage on the new President and his staff. That is over half -- 54% -- of their total coverage for the month." Harper reports that MRC's research director Rich Noyes and analyst Mike Ciandella agreed on the findings, saying : “Our measure of media tone excludes soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories. In their coverage of Trump’s first month, the networks crowded their stories with quotes from citizens angry about many of his policies, while providing relatively little airtime to Trump supporters. And the networks’ anchors and reporters often injected their own anti-Trump editorial tone into the coverage." Their example was CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley beginning his February 6 telecast with the "snide" comment : "It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality." The study found that Trump’s call for a temporary ban on travel from seven specific Middle Eastern nations drew the most negative coverage -- over three hours. "Other favorite showcases for negative coverage of Mr. Trump included the border war between the US and Mexico, battle over his cabinet confirmation picks and the President’s 'complicated relationship' with Russia." • • • THE BATTERING OF SESSIONS CONTINUES. Breitbart reported on Thursday that : "The Democrats and their media are making a big push to portray Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a Russian agent, or at least catch him in a perjury trap, because they had to talk about something other than President Trump’s address to Congress until the weekend news cycle kicks in." Breitbart quoted CNN's Jake Tapper tweet : "One cannot overstate how bothered POTUS will be by this Sessions story (with GOPers now calling for recusal) stepping on his good news cycle." Breitbart answered : "One cannot overstate how obviously that is the point of all this, Mr. Tapper." • • • DEMOCRAT DECEIT. Democrats thought misleading Congress was okay until Sessions. Remember when Democrats were quick to dismiss blatantly false statements to Congress from such individuals as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, and Attorney General Eric Holder as trivial errors. In each case, congressional Democrats showed the maximum possible indulgence to Obama administration officials, accepting every claim of imperfect memory, misunderstanding of questions, and even rank incompetence as acceptable excuses. Holder’s defense against perjury charges amounted to a confession that he did not read his email and had no idea what anyone connected to the horrifying Operation Fast and Furious scandal was doing. Clinton’s evasions in her use of a secret email server are legendary. The server itself was essentially a mechanism for misleading Congress about her activities on a continual basis. Democrats argued during Obama’s eight years that every possible allowance should be made for imperfect memory, bad record-keeping, and honest misunderstandings. They reproached Republicans, saying they used their investigatory powers to make mountains out molehills. Now they want to take all that back because they think they can inflict some damage on the Trump administration, and keep their “Russia stole the election!” narrative alive, by magnifying Jeff Sessions’ words with an electron microscope. • Senator Claire McCaskill was having one of those convenient memory blackouts that afflict Democrats at crucial moments when she stated she had never met with the Russian ambassador. Internet searches proved she had, and so maybe the Democrats ought be calling for McCaskill to resign for blatantly lying about her contacts with Russian ambassadors, to prove how serious they are about pursuing Sessions? At least, shouldn’t the media be hounding her about it? • Democrats were happy to let the Obama transition team wear different hats for foreign meetings : Obama 2008 campaign officials met with foreign representatives -- including those of Hamas and Iran -- but were allowed to get away with it by claiming those meetings were part of their other jobs. Democrats now say Sessions should not have responded to Franken in the obvious, clearly-stated context of his position with the Trump 2016 campaign without also including his every action as a Senator. • • • SESSIONS HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. Sessions did not commit perjury. The criminal law only prohibits lying to Congress under two statutes -- 18 USC 1621 ands 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires that a person “willfully and contrary” to a sworn oath “subscribe a material matter” which is both false and the person knows to be false. Section 1001 is basically the same and also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statement. So, perjury requires three elements : a false statement; the false statement must be “material”; and, the false statement must be made “knowingly” and “willfully.” A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in an innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant to the subject of the inquiry. "Willfully" is a very high standard of proof : it requires the person know they are committing the crime, and do so anyway. None of the three exist as to Sessions. There was strong evidence that Hillary Clinton made false statements to Congress about a range of subjects concerning the emails, and there was evidence that she knew they were false. She was not prosecuted. There was strong evidence that James Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA spying on Americans, and he was not prosecuted -- he was promoted by President Obama. The question of “literally accurate but possibly misleading” answers was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court long ago and found by the Court not to constitute perjury. In that case, the statements in question were more deliberately misleading than anything Sessions said, but the perjury charge failed. • The then-Senator Sessions met with over 20 ambassadors in 2016, in addition to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Also, Kislyak was one of fifty ambassadors Sessions once addressed in a single event at the Heritage Foundation. In a chronology of the Sessions affair published by the Washington Post, the Heritage panel was described as focused on “Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and Georgia.” The moderator noted that “several ambassadors asked for names of people who might impact foreign policy under Trump.” Kislyak was one of a “small group of foreign dignitaries” who approached Sessions at the event. Whatever one thinks of the nations represented by each of these dignitaries, they were doing what all ambassadors do -- especially if they happen to be a "Russian master spy," as Kislyak is described. Incidentally, the author of that Washington Post report, Philip Bump, said he thinks “Democrats are overplaying their hand.” • • • WHAT NEXT? There is zero evidence to suggest Sessions acted inappropriately for doing his job as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee. To say Sessions’ answers during his confirmation hearing amounted to "lying to Congress" requires enormous partisan deceit. Now that Attorney General Sessions has recused himself form all matters related to the presidential campaign, if President Trump also surrenders to Progressive Democrat demands and takes the further step of sacrificing Sessions to appease them and the mainstream media attack dogs, it will be seen as confirmation that Sessions did act inappropriately, not just that he failed to meet some cynical standard of full disclosure with Senator Franken. The media would also interpret a Sessions resignation as a confession that he did discuss some scheme to “hack” the 2016 election with Russia’s ambassador. Democrats would scream about “lack of integrity" and "incompetence” and begin making a list of the next Trump team targets they want their media lapdogs to go after -- if those lists do not already exist. • There are undoubtedly some people in the Trump White House who now wish they had fought harder to save National Security Advisor General Mike Flynn, whose name comes up in many stories about Sessions, with reminders that he resigned "only" two weeks ago. The old story about giving a thief an inch and he'll take a mile should be repeated every morining before Trump and his advisors begin work -- it applies in spades to Democrats. • • • WHO LEAKED THE INFO ABOUT SESSIONS. LifeZette's Jim Stinson said on Thursday that CIA officials know who has been leaking classified information to the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the officials have passed that information on to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Stinson cited a former US attorney for President Ronald Reagan, Joseph diGenova, who was U S Attorney for the District of Columbia under Reagan. DiGenova told LifeZette that in private conversations with CIA officials, they confirmed to him that they have the names of alleged leakers and have given the names to the US Department of Justice, proving that former Obama administration officials are in fact disclosing and discussing classified information with the press. DiGenova’s claim comes after leaked classified information to the WP about Sessions made headlines late Wednesday. • And, the NYT revealed in a report Wednesday that President Obama’s staffers left hidden crumbs for those looking to undermine the Trump administration -- they were scattered throughout the federal government. The revelation by the NYT goes far in explaining how it can be that a steady drip of embarrassing leaks has hounded the new Trump administration. Some of the information reportedly planted by Obama officials had to do with alleged ties between President Trump's "associates" -- the Times does not define that term -- and Russian officials. The NYT, citing former American officials, reported that these officials were concerned that the information they were gaining on the Russian meddling in the election and the possible campaign contact could be compromised with the new administration, and they wanted to set up any future investigation with the information. Fox News reported on Thursday that the Times says after Obama asked for an investigation into Russian tampering into the elections, officials found some "damning" evidence. A former intelligence official confirmed to Fox News that the Obama administration was determined to keep the Russian issue alive and so they circulated data on Moscow's election interference broadly. Fox reported : "The usual intelligence practice is to circulate assessments privately, but such was the gravity of Russia's actions that there were two versions -- one for the public to digest and the other classified, the former official said. The New York Times reported that intelligence agencies pushed forward as much “raw” intelligence as they could analyze. The intelligence reports were also reportedly labeled a low classification level, so they would be accessible to more government workers -- and some European allies. The Obama officials reportedly wanted to make sure that as many individuals as possible -- with the proper clearances -- could see the intelligence. One of the tactics reportedly used was that officials asked pointed questions during intelligence briefings. The report said the answers to those questions are archived." While congressional staffers have said they are unaware of any evidence that materials related to Russia are not being preserved, Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer of New York said last week : "There is real concern that some in the administration may try to cover up its ties to Russia by deleting emails, texts and other records that could shine a light on those connections. These records are likely to be the subject of executive branch as well as congressional investigations and must be preserved." The NYT report was released the same day that allegations emerged that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the US during last year’s presidential campaign. • Fox also said that the Wall Street Journal reported that Sessions did not know that his communications were under investigation. • President Trump has repeatedly said that he knows of no contact between his campaign and Russian officials. The Times report pointed out that Trump has accused Obama officials with playing up the Russia story -- now we know why. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said, when asked about the leaks : “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” But, the media continues to insist -- without any evidence cited to support its allegation -- that the intelligence community has assessed that Russia's hacking of Democratic groups and operatives was carried out to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton. • According to diGenova, Obama wanted to leave plenty of ammunition for leakers to keep hot the theme that Trump and his allies are connected to Moscow : "US allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials -- and others close to Russia president Vladimir Putin -- and associates of President-Elect Trump, according to three former US officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence," diGenova said, adding : "Separately, US intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump's associates." It is unclear in the NYT story if the "associates" were Trump campaign officials. Thee is still No Evidence that confirms the Times allegations. • But diGenova said the bigger story is the ongoing war of leaks between entrenched federal employees, loyal to Obama, and the new Trump White House : "[This] confirms former Obama administration officials are in fact disclosing and discussing classified information with the press." said diGenova. • • • DEAR READERS, obviously, President Trump and his team know that we are far from the end of this tale. White House Counsel Don McGahn has instructed Trump’s aides to preserve everything related to Russia, a sure sign that things are just getting warmed up. Also likely are many more leaks about Trump’s Russia ties. Everyone knows that there is an investigation already underway by the FBI into Trump campaign ties and, presumably, the leaks of those ties. But, remember that there has been No Evidence presented anywhere that the Trump campaign team colluded with anyone in Russia about obtaining or leaking information damaging to Clinton’s campaign. • Since the Prog-Dem Russia gambit is not going away, the President and his administration need to be proactive. The rumors in Washington Thursday were about Trump appointing a White House European-Russia advisor, a woman who had been considered for the position while General Flynn was the head of NSA. Perhaps President Trump also ought to name a Special White House Counsel, a well-known GOP lawyer unrelated to his campaign, to serve as head of a Russia Desk -- who would collect and hold all information in the possession of any Trump individual, and who would be the single point to receive and answer media and congressional questions about the matter. We know Trump likes to mix it up in his office in order to get the best ideas out and vetted. But, this is not Trump Tower. It is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And President Trump is not dealing with honorable business associates. He is dealing with dishonorable Progressive Democrats who are determined to destroy him. It will be too late to circle the wagons after the Democrats have blown up Trump's munitions arsenal. Remember, it was unanswered questions about a land deal in Arkansas that ultimately led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. Trump needs to show that he is not hiding, because the alternative could be that he gets his own Ken Starr. • In the continuing storm of unproven and unprovable Democrat allegations, there is another idea to consider. It was proposed by Huffington Post on December 6, 2012, and was meant to help President Obama. TheHuffPost wrote : "Attorney General Eric Holder’s assignment on June 8 of two US attorneys to investigate 'possible unauthorizled disclosures of classified information' might blunt demands within Congress to enact new legislation to combat classified leaks by government officials. Whether the new investigations lead to criminal charges, however -- or convictions in the event of a prosecution -- is far from certain. At the center of the controversy are apparent leaks contained in recent news stories regarding a variety of sensitive national security matters: the thwarting of another Yemen-based terrorist plot to down US passenger aircraft, involving an enhanced 'underwear bomb'; US involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus that targeted the Iranian nuclear program; a 'kill list' designating terrorists for elimination; the Pakistani doctor reportedly recruited by the CIA to obtain DNA samples from Osama bin Laden’s family; and information provided to filmmakers developing a movie about the US military raid that killed bin Laden." The HuffPost article explained that : "Those pressing for new legislation -- or more frequent leak prosecutions -- also should be mindful of the challenges and risks that accompany criminal prosecutions of leaks of classified information. In the common scenario where a government employee transmits intangible information (as opposed to documents or other tangible items) to a journalist, it is not sufficient for the government to prove that the information “[relates] to the national defense” and that the defendant disclosed the classified information to a person unauthorized to receive it. It must also prove that the defendant had a “bad faith purpose to either harm the United States or to aid a foreign government. That was what a district court held in the recent prosecution of two officials with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee ('AIPAC'), a ruling that contributed to the government’s decision to dismiss the case." Then, the HuffPost suggested an alternative for the Obama administration : "The availability of non-criminal measures as an alternative sanction for government employees who leak classified information should be considered by those pressing for new criminal legislation. As a general matter, Executive Branch agencies have broad discretion to grant a security clearance, to impose disciplinary action regarding the misuse of classified information, and to revoke the security clearances of government employees. Administrative appeal procedures in the event of a security clearance revocation are available to the government employee contesting the clearance revocation, but it is an uphill battle in which only limited due process protections are afforded. The loss of a security clearance can be devastating, as it can result not only in the loss of federal employment but also constrain reemployment options in the private sector." • Maybe the fastest way to stop leaks from the CIA and other intel groups is to begin administrative procedures and lift the security clearances of each accused for the duration of the procedure. We could suggest one great source of leads as to who the CIA leakers are -- David Ignatius of the Washington Post practically advertizes himself as the gateway for CIA leaks. Why not ask him a few hard questions about his sources in the intelligence community, especially the CIA.