ProgDem, Mueller, and Soros Cabal Means that Sessions, Giuliani and Flood Must Act NOW

SOMETIMES THE NEWS IS SIMPLY A REPETITION OF LUNACIES. We are being bombarded every day with the latest 'impeachable' offense of President Trump. We are now being subjected to ProgDem media mass hysteria about the President being subpoenaed by the special counsel who never should have been appointed. • SPECIAL COUNSEL. Special counsel are appointed to investigate evidence relating to suspected crimes, not to overturn legitimately elected Presidents. The appointment decision rests with the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. Special counsel must be from outside government and undergo a background investigation that includes a review of ethics and conflict of interest issues. The special counsel's jursidiction is precisely established by the Attorney General. The special counsel may seek staff from within the Department of Justice, or outside with notice. The special counsel is independent of the DOJ; but, a special counsel is accountable for his actions to the Attorney General and may be removed by the Attorney General for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies [Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s lack of supervision means that Mueller is in real terms independent]. A special counsel has reporting obligations to the Attorney General. It is the Attorney General who reports about the special counsel's work to Congress and to the public, if deemed in the public interest. Here, we have an example of a very clear federal statute, to be found at 28 CFR § 600.1 - 9. • National Review's Andrew McCarthy wrote on Thursday : "Being inconsolably upset about the outcome of the 2016 election does not entitle Democrats to an Oval Office minder with subpoena power. The actions and intentions Mueller seeks to probe are bases for political opposition to Trump, not prosecution. If you think his derelictions outweigh the positive policy outcomes of his presidency, then work to defeat him in the coming election cycles. But that is not prosecutor work. Trump would be foolish to answer questions from Mueller, who has made a habit of turning witness interviews into false-statements prosecutions. More important, absent concrete evidence of his complicity in a serious crime, a President should not be put in the position of being pressured to answer a prosecutor’s questions. When Trump complains that the Obama Justice Department would never have permitted President Obama to be treated this way, he is right." • • • IS THIS ABOUT TO CHANGE? On Wednesday, WND wrote : "Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally met “his match” -- and now America will witness a “fair fight” between President Trump’s legal team and Mueller, who has been leading an investigation into alleged 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign for nearly a year now. On Wednesday, Trump’s legal team got some new muscle with the addition of veteran defense attorney Emmett Flood, who, sources say, will never allow Mueller to interview President Trump. Flood represented former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s during the impeachment process and helped draft Clinton’s response to the Starr report, famously arguing that it was okay for President Clinton to tell lies to a grand jury since 'grand juries are not designed to search for truth' and that the former President didn’t commit perjury because 'answers to questions that are literally true are not perjury.' What Flood said about Clinton was : "The President has acknowledged a serious mistake -- an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He has taken responsibility for his actions, and he has apologized to the country, to his friends, leaders of his party, the cabinet and most importantly, his family." • Flood clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. • WND reported what an unnamed Washington lawyer who has known Flood for a long time told the Daily Beast : "Mueller finally has somebody who’s his match. You’ve got a fair fight now.” According to the source, White House Counsel Don McGahn advocated for bringing Flood onto Trump’s team. McGahn had disagreements with Ty Cobb, a departing lawyer on Trump’s legal team, about how to manage legal concerns. On Wednesday, Cobb reportedly told Chief of Staff John Kelly that he would retire at the end of May. 'I’ve done what I came to do in terms of managing the White House response to the special counsel requests,' Cobb told CNN. 'I’m extremely grateful to the President and Chief Kelly for the opportunity to serve my country.' As for Flood, 'He comes across like a Columbo-type -- unassuming, but the intellect is gargantuan,' the lawyer told the Daily Beast." • Will this make a difference for President Trump? Mueller’s team has recently discussed subpoenaing President Trump, according to the Washington Post. Flood is expected to enter live negotiations between Mueller’s team and Trump’s lawyers. Flood's strong reputation for handling high-stakes political battles, according to Norm Eisen, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution will show : “These scandals run hot, and he has the gift of cooling them down and slowing them down,” Eisen told the Daily Beast. “It is like the way Neo slows down time in the Matrix to dodge bullets.” • In mid-April, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani joined the President’s legal team, promising he will “negotiate an end” to the ongoing and contentious saga involving the President and the special counsel. But, on Wednesday, Giuliani reportedly outlined conditions of a possible interview between President Trump and Mueller. Giuliani told the Washington Post an interview between the two would need to be limited to “two to three hours” and involve “a narrow set of questions.” Emmett Flood will undoubtedly take over this decision, and if his work for Clinton is any indication, there will be no Mueller interview of the sitting President, and no impeachment. • • • ANDREW MCCARTHY'S COMMENTARY. The article by McCarthy in Wednesday's National Review is incisive : "The Justice Department should not permit the president to be interrogated on so paltry and presumptuous a showing. I am assuming the authenticity of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump. The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime. Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom." McCarthy brings it all home : "If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for President. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license -- ultimately, by the chief executive -- to investigate crime. If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment. He should stand down." • McCarthy lays blame at the feet of the Justice Department and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, acting as Miueller's supervisor in light of AG Sessions recusal of himself early on : "Trump should decline the interview. More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the President on so paltry and presumptuous a showing." • McCarthy lays out the roadmap for special counsel actions : "Two competing considerations are especially significant here. First, our law-enforcement system is based on prosecutorial discretion....the desirability of prosecuting even a palpable violation of law must be balanced against other societal needs and desires. We trust prosecutors to perform this cost-benefit analysis with modesty about their mission and sensitivity to the disruption their investigations cause. Second, the President is the most essential official in the world’s most consequential government. That government’s effectiveness is necessarily compromised if the President is under the cloud of an investigation. Not only are the President’s personal credibility and capability diminished; such an investigation discourages talented people from serving in an administration, further undermining good governance. The country is inexorably harmed because a suspect administration’s capacity to execute the laws and pursue the interests of the United States is undermined. Naturally, this is of little moment to rabid partisans who opposed the President’s election and object to his policy preferences. By and large, however, Americans are not rabid partisans; they want the elected President to be able to govern, regardless of which party is in charge." • Andrew McCarthy asks the key questions that ProgDems and the media are not even willing to address : "So how do we police the President while minimizing the damage that an investigation of the President can do to the country? We acknowledge that we are willing to endure this damage, but only if there is strong evidence that the President is guilty of a serious crime or abuse of power. A President should not be subjected to prosecutorial scrutiny over poor judgment, venality, bad taste, or policy disputes. Absent concrete evidence that the President has committed a serious crime, the checks on the President should be Congress and the ballot box -- and the civil courts, to the extent that individuals are harmed by abusive executive action. Otherwise, a special-counsel investigation -- especially one staffed by the President’s political opponents -- is apt to become a thinly veiled political scheme, enabling the losers to re-litigate the election and obstruct the President from pursuing the agenda on which he ran." • McCarthy cites the reasons for Mueller's appointment -- "to take over a counterintelligence probe; and, as a cave-in to (mostly) Democratic caviling over Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey, which was lawful but incompetently executed." McCarthy says : "Democrats contended that Comey’s dismissal, in conjunction with Comey’s leak of Trump’s alleged pressure to drop the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn, warranted a criminal-obstruction probe. That is, the pretext of obstruction was added to 'Russia-gate,' the already-existing pretext for carping about the purported need for a special counsel. Neither of these reasons was a valid basis for a special-counsel investigation....a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. To the extent it has a “subject,” it is a foreign power that threatens the United States, not an American believed to have violated the law. A counterintelligence investigation aims to gather information about America’s adversaries, not build a courtroom prosecution....such investigations are classified and the Justice Department does not assign prosecutors to them, as it does to criminal cases. Counterintelligence is not lawyer work; it is the work of trained intelligence officers and analysts....Justice Department regulations do not authorize the appointment of a special counsel for a counterintelligence probe. The point is that counterintelligence is not prosecution and is therefore not a mission for a prosecutor." • As for Comey's role, McCarthy says : "Prior to Comey’s firing, Democrat demands for a “Russia-gate” special counsel were rebuffed because they were nakedly political. Even if one accepts the dubious premise that Trump materially benefited from Kremlin interference in the election, there was no known credible evidence that he or his campaign committed a crime in that connection. If there had been such evidence, no one would ever have mentioned a counterintelligence investigation; they would have said a special counsel was being appointed to investigate, say, a hacking conspiracy -- an actual violation of federal criminal law. The Democrats did not want a special counsel in order to investigate a crime; they wanted a special counsel (a) to promote a political narrative that Hillary Clinton lost because of something other than her lack of appeal and (b) to frustrate Trump’s ability to govern -- to mollify their 'Resist!' base, to stop Trump from implementing policies they oppose, and to enhance their electoral hopes in the 2018 and 2020 cycles. But, the President’s dismissal of subordinate executive officials (such as the FBI director), and his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (by merely weighing in on whether a person -- here, Flynn -- deserves to be investigated), are constitutional acts that are not judicially reviewable. Executive prerogatives that are not subject to judicial review may not be subjected to judicial review by indirection, under the guise of a prosecution." • The heart of the matter is impeachment, says McCarthy : "If Congress believes that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, it is free to open an impeachment inquiry. Mueller is not Congress....Acts that do not transgress the criminal law may nevertheless be despicable. It is not a crime, for example, for a President to use the Oval Office for extramarital trysts with an intern, or to lie to the public about people being able to keep their health insurance.....The President can be impeached -- just as the President has plenary power to fire an executive subordinate, Congress has plenary power to determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. If Congress believes that the President’s lawful exercise of an executive prerogative was corruptly motivated, Congress may remove the President....But impeachment is not prosecution. Mueller...is a subordinate officer of the executive branch whose job is to investigate and (if merited) prosecute crimes specified by his Justice Department superiors. A special counsel is not supposed to be Congress’s lawyer for the purpose of investigating non-crimes that might nevertheless constitute impeachable abuses of power....Here, we do not have real obstruction. We have, at most, a politicized, hyper-technical claim of obstruction that rests on a suspect legal theory and a dearth of evidence that anyone was impeded in the slightest. Those are frivolous grounds for an investigation that compromises the President’s capacity to govern. The criminal law inquires into intent when actions patently violate criminal statutes; its purpose is not to manufacture crime by speculating about the intent behind apparently lawful actions." • Should Trump answer Mueller's questions. McCarthy says 'No' : "Trump would be foolish to answer questions from Mueller, who has made a habit of turning witness interviews into false-statements prosecutions. More important, absent concrete evidence of his complicity in a serious crime, a President should not be put in the position of being pressured to answer a prosecutor’s questions. When Trump complains that the Obama Justice Department would never have permitted President Obama to be treated this way, he is right." • And, McCarthy concludes with constitutional wisdom about the subpoena nonsense : "Put the President aside for a second. A Justice Department prosecutor would not be permitted to subpoena, say, a journalist or a lawyer, unless doing so was vital to the investigation of a serious crime -- to the acquisition of critical information that was unavailable from any alternative source. The firewall that would prevent a heedless prosecutor from running roughshod over free-press principles or the attorney–client privilege is Justice Department leadership. It is astonishing that current Justice Department leadership apparently believes that the President of the United States, despite his responsibilities for our governance and security, is entitled to less deference. Unless Mueller can demonstrate that a serious crime has been committed, that Trump was complicit in it, and that Trump is in possession of evidence that is essential to the prosecution, Rosenstein should bar him from seeking an interview, let alone issuing a subpoena demanding grand-jury testimony. This is not merely about protecting Trump; it is about protecting the office of the presidency." • • • WITNESSES CONFIRMED SESSIONS' POSITION ABOUT RUSSIA CONTACTS. ProgDems in Congress, the mainstream media and the Deep State have insisted that Jeff Sessions lied to Congress about his dealings with Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos, who had been approached about the Russians possibly having emails belonging to Hillary Clinton and pressing him to set up a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Papadopoulos was never given any emails and no meeting ever took place. And, when Sessions testified about his interactions with Papadopoulos, Sessions stated that he pushed back on the idea of Trump meeting with the Russians. But, infamous "anonymous sources" leaked to the media that Sessions had lied. However, the House Intelligence Committee report prepared by the Republican majority confirms that two eye witnesses back up Sessions" version of what happened. The Daily Caller wrote that the report cites testimony from three witnesses -- two of the names are redacted in the report but its dating of testimony enabled Daily Caller to deduce that the redacted witnesses were Walid Phares, a Trump campaign advisor, and Sam Clovis, national co-chairman of the campaign. Two non-redacted witness names are J.D. Gordon, director of the campaign national security advisory committee, and one other witness not named by Daily Caller. The key point in the report is that not only did Sessions not encourage Papadopoulos to contact the Russians who had approached him, Sessions actually stopped the discussion in campaign meetings and explained the scope of the Logan Act to the attendees. • This would seem to be an excellent reason for Sessions to revisit his decision to recuse himself from all things related to the Russina investigation. America could really use AG Sessions about now in the Mueller "matter." Sessions needs to extricate himself in order to save the Republic from this ProgDem / Deep State frontal and unconstitutional attack. • • • THE DARK MONEY FEEDING THE TRUMP FRENZY. • The Washington Free Beacon reported on Thursday that : "The group spearheading a campaign against Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), is a project of a low-profile Progressive dark money organization with large assets. Allied Progress, a Washington, DC-based group that describes itself as a 'consumer watchdog organization,' has taken credit for forcing the withdrawals of past Trump nominees [Trump nominee Andy Puzder, who withdrew his nomination as labor secretary and Trump's previous picks to head the Department of Commerce and Treasury] and is now in the midst of the 'Defending the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau' campaign against Mulvaney....Karl Frisch, the executive director of Allied Progress, has for years been involved with issue advocacy and electoral communication campaigns. Frisch came out as a Progressive shortly after working on Senator John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Since that time, he has worked for Democratic leaders, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and Media Matters for America, a group founded by liberal operative and Clinton loyalist David Brock. Frisch appears to be the only person associated with Allied Progress....Frisch has recently been included in the Los Angeles Times, CNN Money, NPR, Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post. Despite Frisch's liberal ties, only CNN Money labeled his organization as Progressive, while the others simply referred to it a consumer advocacy or watchdog organization." The Free Beacon states : "According to the fine print at the bottom of the Allied Progress's donation page, the group is not a standalone organization, but rather a project of the New Venture Fund, a 501(c)(3) Progressive 'fiscal sponsor' organization that handles the group's legal compliance and logistics.....it is virtually impossible to determine who funds [Allied Progress]. Those who steer money to the group do not have to report their contributions as going directly to Allied Progress. Instead, the contributions are marked as money given to the New Venture Fund....Allied Progress is not required to file tax forms with the IRS because it is 'sponsored' by the New Venture Fund." But, the Free Beacon reveals that Eric Kessler, a former Bill Clinton appointee and member of the Clinton Global Initiative, founded the New Venture Fund and also chairs its board and directs the group's strategy and management. Kessler, says the Free Beacon "is also the founder and senior managing director of Arabella Advisors LLC, a social venture firm that provides consulting to liberal philanthropy endeavors." AND, are we surprised??-- the Free Beacon states that : "Arabella Advisors manages the New Venture Fund, which has received funding from the likes of liberal billionaire GEORGE SOROS, whose Open Society Foundations has given at least one $150,000 grant to the group. Scott Nielsen, the managing director of advocacy at Arabella, has worked for the Open Society Foundations and the Democracy Alliance, the left's biggest secretive dark money donor network that was co-founded by Soros. The New Venture Fund paid Arabella $13,167,207 for management services in 2015...Arabella was the highest paid independent contractor that year....Allied Progress also contains a 501(C)(4) advocacy arm, Allied Progress Action, that falls under the fiscal sponsorship of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a DC-based group that has fiscally sponsored over 45 initiatives while managing over $75 million for advocacy campaigns. Kessler is also the president of the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Douglas Hattaway, the director of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, previously 'worked closely' with Hillary Clinton and Al Gore....Hattaway Communications works with the Soros's Open Society Foundations and the Center for American Progress, a D C-based think tank founded by former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, which is an approved group of the Democracy Alliance. The Sixteen Thirty Fund's highest paid independent contractor is Arabella Advisors LLC, who received $789,891 in fiscal year 2016....Sixteen Thirty also disbursed $400,000 to the Democracy Alliance for consulting services that same year. • The Washington Free Beacon also reported on Thursday that : "An increasing share of financial transactions in Democratic politics are handled by union-owned Amalgamated Bank, which has established itself as the de facto bank for the liberal movement and now brings in millions annually in bank fees from political groups. Amalgamated Bank has long been majority owned and controlled by the politically active Service Employees International Union (SEIU), but it didn't enter the political banking sector until 2012 when, following massive losses and near collapse, it hired SEIU executive Keith Mestrich to direct operations in the Washington, DC, region. A few months later, Mestrich acquired the Democratic National Committee as a client, beginning the relationship with a $15 million loan in September 2012....the political operation that began with just the DNC and a handful of small campaigns now handles money for major national party committees, top liberal super PACs, and high profile Democratic campaigns. The bank's profits come both through interest payments from cash-strapped groups that take out large loans such as the DNC, which has had outstanding loan debt for 61 of the 67 months it's been a client, and through bank fees from highly transactional campaign clients....During the 2016 cycle its intake again more than doubled to just over $2.4 million. Its new clients included Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, many top Senate campaigns, and large groups such as Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate Action Committee and David Brock-led groups American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record. Amalgamated has already brought in over $1.3 million through disbursements this cycle, which will ramp up as it gets closer to the November election. The bank has received payments from numerous Senate reelection campaigns, including for Senators Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.)....Mestrich uses Amalgamated's partisanship as a sales pitch for new clients, which include non-campaign groups such as the Biden Foundation and Demos, a radical liberal public policy organization chaired by Senator Elizabeth Warren's daughter. The fees brought in through that category of political group are not captured in FEC filings. AND -- again, are we surprised?? -- Mestrich is head of recruitment for Democracy Alliance, a liberal donor club founded by billionaire GEORGE SOROS..." -- that's right , it's the above-noted "biggest secretive dark money donor network that was co-founded by Soros" and is spearheading efforts noted above to destroy Trump appointees' nominations. • • • SOROS DARK MONEY ACTIVE ON THE MEXICAN BORDER. A WND Exclusive published on April 29 revealed that : "Hundreds of Central American migrants demanding asylum at the US border with Mexico Sunday may be poor, but they have support of major foundations, corporations and billionaire GEORGE SOROS for their well-organized caravan-style invasion....The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo sin Fronteras. But the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services and the American Immigration Lawyers Association....At least three of the four groups are funded By George Soros’ Open Society Foundation." The CARA coalition, as these groups call themselves, was, states WND : "formally announced in April. Other support groups are funded by the MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation....Alex Mensing is one of the organizers of the Pueblo sin Fronteras group, serving as an official spokesman at the border. While identifying himself as a paralegal at the University of San Francisco’s Immigration and Deportation Defense Law Clinic, he also works with CARA. He regularly briefs leftist website and magazine Mother Jones, also a major recipient of Soros grants. Pueblo Sin Fronteras is a member of the National Day Laborer Network, which is affiliated with United for Justice and Peace, Caravan Against Fear and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The connections run deep between left-wing activism and corporate and foundation sponsorship. The Democratic Party links are also in strong evidence. Earlier this month, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Kate Brown accepted a contribution to her re-election campaign from SOROS – his first direct involvement in that state’s elections. Three days later, Brown announced the Oregon National Guard would not be participating in President Trump’s effort to get the Guard providing border security....Soros pledged on September 20, 2016, to invest up to $500 million in programs and companies benefiting migrants and refugees 'fleeing life-threatening situations.' That’s exactly the case Pueblo sin Fronteras is making. 'We will invest in startups, established companies, social impact initiatives, and businesses started by migrants and refugees,' said in an official statement. 'These investments are intended to be successful. But our primary focus is to create products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities. I hope my commitment will inspire other investors to pursue the same mission.' A press release dated March 23 by the 'Refugee Caravan' made clear the goal...The opening statement reads: 'We are a group of people form different nations, religions, genders, gender expressions and sexual orientations migrating and seeking refuge. We seek to become one collective, supporting each other shoulder to shoulder and demonstrating that by uniting we can abolish borders.' ” • The WND Exclusive reports on the Soros foundations empire : "Last fall, SOROS transferred $18 billion to the Open Society Foundations, the network of non-profits Soros uses to advance his globalist, borderless ideology both in the US and around the world. The massive transfer, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Afghanistan, according to World Bank data. It is seen as a way for the 89-year-old Soros to avoid the estate tax -- also known as the death tax -- which penalizes large inheritances. Inside Philanthropy reported in 2016 that Soros, who has said that he considers himself to be “some kind of god,” began laying the groundwork for the foundation to continue his mission after he dies. Hacked Open Society Foundation documents published last summer shed light on the way in which Soros has used his foundation to advance progressive, open-borders policies both domestically and abroad. In the US, his foundation has provided funding for the Black Lives Matter movement and open borders activists. The foundation has also provided funding to anti-Trump 'resistance' groups, funded opposition research on critics of radical Islam and attempted to influence Supreme Court rulings. Soros’ foundation is now the second-largest philanthropic organization in the US, behind only the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Earlier this month, Judicial Watch obtained 32 pages of records showing the Obama administration sent US taxpayers’ funds to a group backed by Soros, which used the money to fund left-wing political activities in Albania, including working with the country’s socialist government to push for highly controversial judicial 'reform.' The records also detail how the Soros operation helped the State Department review grant applications from other groups for taxpayer funding. The records were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development. The new documents show USAID funds were funneled through that agency’s Civil Society Project to back Soros’s left-wing Open Society Foundations in Albania, particularly the Soros operation efforts to give the socialist government greater control of the judiciary. USAID reportedly gave $9 million in 2016 to the 'Justice for All' campaign, which is overseen by Soros’s 'East West Management Institute.' Soros is also funding programs to fund the entry of 'refugees' into Italy, Hungary and Israel." [You can read the entireExclusive at < http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/border-caravan-call-it-the-george-soros-express/#CdFSQrfrPjeUYuid.99 > ]. • • • DEAR READERS, in late March, Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided not to appoint a second special counsel to investigate alleged bias in the Justice Department. In April, Sessions told Congress the current probe into Russian election meddling has already taken "on a life of its own." Sessions told lawmakers the Robert Mueller probe proved that it was a bad idea to appoint special counsels "willy-nilly." Sessions said, adding that the Department of Justice needs to “be disciplined and stay within our classical procedure and rules” before opening further investigations. • Republicans have been demanding for weeks that a second special counsel be appointed to probe the FBI's handling of both the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server. GOP lawmakers have argued that both investigations contained instances when FBI agents displayed personal bias against Trump and for Clinton. Sessions has instead named a federal prosecutor from Utah, John Huber, to lead the investigation into Republicans' allegations that the FBI and DOJ abused a surveillance program against a former Trump campaign aide. The chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees, Representatives Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte, applauded the move, but continued their calls for a second special counsel to investigate supposed misconduct : "While we continue to believe the appointment of a second Special Counsel is necessary, this is a step in the right direction. We expect that US Attorney Huber, given his reputation, will conduct an independent and thorough investigation," the two chairmen said in a statement last month. "Such an investigation is critical to restoring the reputation of both the Bureau and DOJ in the eyes of the American people," they added. • But, in the ProgDem Swampy world we are now exposed to on a daily basis, it is the ProgDem Swamp Creatures that call the shots, and we -- the hounded and hunted conservatives -- are their prey. There must be some visible legal reaction to the unprecedented attack by the Progressive elites and their dark-money deep-pockets guru, George Soros. Their attack on the Constitution and its rule of law is numbing. It has already had a chilling effect on information available to voters because it is choking off real debate. The American media is not interested in debate -- it is interested in Trump's and conservatives' blood. If there is not a response from the legitimate government -- and soon -- it will be too late. Rather like tossing life jackets out onto the silent sea after the Titanic and its passengers had sunk into the icy waters. Sessions. Flood. Giuliani. We need you to act -- NOW.