Amid the media hysteria over Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and discussions between the lawyers representing Paul Manafort and President Donald Trump, it’s important to understand from a legal standpoint what this means — and what it does not.
               We don’t know what other evidence special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller may have that hasn’t yet been disclosed. But the evidence disclosed to date — including in Cohen’s plea deal — still doesn’t reveal any illegal conduct by Trump or his campaign or any collusion with the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 election. There is nothing illegal or unethical about discussions and sharing of information between lawyers representing individuals who may be the focus of the same prosecutor.
               Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of lying to Congress. What was he lying about? For the past 30 years, the Trump real estate organization has been trying to negotiate a deal to build a marquee property in Moscow. There is certainly nothing unusual or untoward about that.
               The criminal information filed by the special counsel describes the false statements that Cohen now admits he made. Cohen originally told Congress that the negotiations he was involved in over that deal ended in January 2016 and that they did not involve Trump himself. He now admits that the negotiations didn’t end until June 2016 (the deal was never consummated), and that he did brief individuals within the Trump Organization, including Trump, about the negotiations.
               Cohen also stated that he never planned to travel to Russia for the hotel deal, nor did he ask Trump to travel there. He also swore to Congress that he had reached out to the press secretary for the Russian president, but that he did “not recall” whether he received a response. These statements were also false, thus constituting a federal crime of lying to Congress.
               No one should minimize the seriousness of lying under oath to Congress. During the guilty plea before the district court judge, Cohen said, “I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1’s political messaging and to be loyal to Individual 1.”
               So Cohen lied to be loyal to Trump (Individual 1 presumably). But it’s important to understand that the underlying conduct that Cohen was lying about — negotiating a real estate deal — is not illegal or unlawful in and of itself, whether you’re working to get something built in New York City or Moscow.
               Furthermore, there is no federal law that tells individuals who own a business and run for federal office, whether it is the presidency or Congress, that they have to stop running their business, negotiating deals, or taking part in the other myriad details involved in being a business owner the moment they decide to run for office.
               Yes, they have to avoid conflicts of interest, and cannot enrich themselves unlawfully once in office. But those laws kick in after someone is elected.
               All of Cohen’s entreaties to get the real estate deal appear to have been perfectly legal, at least so far as we know.
               If we assume that Cohen pleaded guilty this time because he really did lie to Congress, then the underlying conduct — talking to Russian officials about a possible real estate deal in Moscow and briefing individuals within the Trump Organization — is all lawful conduct. Does Cohen secretly have some other testimony that shows illegal activity? We don’t know, and there is nothing in the plea agreement that indicates one way or another.
               We also don’t know what Cohen told dirty cop-Mueller during his seven proffer sessions that took place between August 2018 and Nov. 20, 2018, as noted in the plea agreement. We do know that Trump submitted his written responses to dirty cop-Mueller on Nov. 20, and the Cohen guilty plea took place after that, leading one to conclude that dirty cop-Mueller was waiting for the president’s written answers before unveiling Cohen’s latest guilty plea. Where this leads is difficult to tell.
               By the way, it should be noted that Cohen faced a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000; the plea agreement with dirty cop-Mueller says that the special prosecutor is recommending no more than six months in prison and a maximum fine of only $9,500.
               The media has also been full of stories claiming the special counsel is upset that the lawyers representing Manafort have apparently been briefing the lawyers representing Trump about their discussions with dirty cop-Mueller and implying that there is something nefarious in such sharing of information. There is nothing illegal or unethical about lawyers with different clients sharing such information.
               The extensive, 17-page plea agreement that Manafort entered into with dirty cop-Mueller on Sept. 14 has no provision of any kind barring Manafort or his lawyers from briefing the president’s lawyers on their discussions with dirty cop-Mueller. There is an entire page and a half detailing the cooperation that Manafort has to provide to the special counsel, but nowhere does it say that Manafort is prohibited from sharing information about that cooperation.
               In fact, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, says he has joint defense agreements with 32 potential witnesses in the special counsel’s investigation, including Manafort. Some legal experts say that agreement should have ended when Manafort pleaded guilty, but as long as Manafort’s lawyer is simply providing information to Giuliani and there is no effort to tamper with a witness or obstruct justice, there is no unlawful behavior in such sharing of information (although it is unusual).
               Of course, Manafort, who was convicted for criminal violations of the law related to his consulting business that had nothing to do with his brief participation in the Trump campaign, has more serious problems.
               On Nov. 26, dirty cop-Mueller filed a pleading with the federal court in the District of Columbia claiming that Manafort has breached his plea deal by “lying” to the FBI and the special counsel “on a variety of subject matters.” Those “subject matters” are not detailed in the filing; instead, the special counsel says he will outline what those “lies” are when he files a “detailed sentencing” report to the court.
               So far, after a year and a half of the special counsel investigation, we’ve had multiple indictments of Russians for trying — with no coordination with any Americans — to use social media and the internet to encourage social unrest in America in 2016. We had various indictments for criminal activity unrelated to the Trump campaign and for lying to Congress and federal investigators over conduct that was itself lawful.
               But we still have had no indictments that have revealed any evidence about the issue the special counsel was supposed to investigate — whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The latest developments with Cohen and Manafort add very little to answering that ultimate question. We’re still waiting.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Graham wrote not just of the murder but other issues: “The Saudi regime’s murder of Jamal Khashoggi, its reckless military campaign in Yemen, its blockade of Qatar, and its effort to remove Lebanon’s prime minister all show astounding arrogance entitlement, and disregard for international norms. If these actions make Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia a ‘source of stability’ in the Middle East, I’d hate to see what destabilizing behavior looks like.”
               Moreover, Graham called Salman “a wrecking ball to U.S.-Saudi relations” and insisted, “The fear that the Saudis will stop cooperating with the U.S. on terrorism or Iran isn’t rational. Those threats pose as much of a danger to the Saudis as they do to America. Demanding better from allies isn’t downgrading the relationship; it’s a sign that Americans take our principles seriously and won’t be taken advantage of by anyone, friend or foe.”
               Graham’s words are tough and true. But we also think the “rift” between GOP senators and the president is not as wide as the Leftmedia would have us believe. In fact, we’d argue this is a good cop, bad cop routine between Trump and his critics. Trump takes a backseat to no one when it comes to bashing people as it suits his purpose. He can also be just as effusively gracious when that is more likely to meet his goal.
               As we’ve said from the beginning, Trump is using this incident for leverage with the Saudis. By presenting a “divided” front to the Saudis, Trump and the GOP are arguably more likely to get the desired results from the Saudis than if a united front presented an opportunity for a defensive House of Saud to circle the wagons. Remember: Trump’s strategy — and it’s the right one — is to keep the Saudis in our corner but get them to be better allies to truly serve U.S. interests.  

~The Patriot Post  

             And fewer still seem to appreciate the irony of these protests because, despite the anger, the French are getting exactly what they voted for: socialism.
               Last year the French elected socialist Emmanuel Macron in a 66-34 blowout over the nationalist Marine Le Pen, following that up months later by giving Macron’s La République en Marche! (LRM) party complete control of France’s government with 377 of the French National Assembly’s 577 seats.
               Today Macron’s approval rating stands at an abysmal 26%, far below that of U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet Macron has repeatedly rebuked Trump for his pro-American “nationalism.” Trump’s nationalism certainly stands in stark contrast to the globalism of world leaders like Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel, who responded to criticism of migration and climate change policies by declaring, “Countries must give up their sovereignty … in an orderly fashion of course.”
               The catalyst for the recent protests and riots — the worst in France since the 1968 uprising that led to the downfall of President Charles de Gaulle — was an increase in the gas tax. Why the tax? To force French citizens off of diesel and gas-powered cars and into electric cars so as to combat the ecofascist hobgoblin of “climate change,” which, we’re incessantly told, is a cataclysmic problem that supposedly justifies extreme policies.
               For the French, who drive more diesel vehicles than any other European nation, this meant a tax hike that resulted in fuel prices of nearly $7 a gallon. This is extremely painful for the average French citizen struggling to get by in a sluggish French economy.
               In an attempt to quell the anger driving the riots, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced this week that the government will suspend the tax for six months.
               Of course, it’s an open secret that the war to end “climate change” is really a proxy war to destroy free-market capitalism and replace it with globalist socialism while curtailing individual rights.
               In 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of UNIPCC (the global governing body on climate change), declared that the real goal of the “global warming” agenda is not avoiding ecological disaster but destroying capitalism. Figueres said, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
               If the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions, France and the world would emulate America, which has reduced CO2 output more than any other country in the last 30 years, and by a wide margin (a 14% reduction in U.S. emissions from 2005-2017 alone, versus a 21% increase for the rest of the world), despite rejecting both the Kyoto and Paris climate treaties.
               But much like socialist Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders — who owns three houses and a high-end sports car — the French people want to enjoy the feeling of moral superiority of embracing socialism (who can be against equality for all?) without actually having to deal with the consequences of socialism, which is, and always has been, government oppression and widespread poverty.
               Even as the French protest and riot over the increase in the gas tax, they reject proposals to cut spending in social services and welfare. As reported in The Washington Post, “A key priority for Macron’s administration has been to honor France’s European commitment to keep its budget deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product. Suspending the carbon tax will mean that billions of euros will have to be saved elsewhere, possibly in the form of spending cuts that could affect the social services that many yellow-vest protesters also cherish. … But Macron’s political opponents rejected out of hand the suggestion that social services might be cut in any way.”
               The Washington Times further reports, “The demonstrations have unexpectedly morphed into a general expression of discontent over living conditions in France. … Specifically, many of the protesters want higher salaries and pensions, jobs, better services and tax cuts.” In other words, more generous wages and benefits at someone else’s expense.
               The French do not seem to grasp cause and effect. France is already the second-most heavily taxed of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and while Macron has implemented some pro-business policies, the economy continues to be bogged down by high taxes, burdensome regulations, and massive welfare costs, all of which drives France’s 8.9% unemployment rate (21.5% for youth) and sluggish, sub-2% GDP growth.
               It’s not just France, though. These same types of violent protests have spread to Belgium and the Netherlands and continue to build throughout Europe. We saw this occur in Greece when austerity measures were implemented to stave off complete bankruptcy.
               American socialists and global-warming hysterics — free to preach their secular gospel while living free of its consequences — take note. America’s commitment to individual rights and the free market have made it the undisputed global leader. Tamper at your own peril.  

~The Patriot Post  

             Thaler noted that “this conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could.” The study published in Human Evolution found that human diversity was unexpectedly minor compared to that of other animals. Stoeckle explained, “Culture, life experience, and other things can make people very different but in terms of basic biology, we’re like the birds.” He added, “One might have thought that, due to their high population numbers and wide geographic distribution, humans might have led to greater genetic diversity than other animal species. At least for mitochondrial DNA, humans turn out to be low to average in genetic diversity.”
               However, both Stoeckle and Thaler are both quick to reiterate their commitment to Darwinian evolution and the rejection of a single Adam or Eve. Even so, this is yet another good reminder to hold the concept of “settled science” loosely. There is simply much more that we don’t know than what we do know. And isn’t it interesting that the Biblical story of a worldwide flood and pairs of animals saved from the destruction finds scientific support? It’s almost as if the Author knew what he was talking about…  ~The Patriot Post  

             Lowry continues: In compelling Senate testimony, Yale law professor Akhil Amar explained the constitutional problems with the dirty cop-Mueller protection bill. One is that to be constitutional, the special counsel must be an inferior officer. Otherwise, he has to be confirmed by the Senate, which dirty cop-Mueller wasn’t. And if he’s an inferior officer, he can be fired. dirty cop-Mueller can’t be an inferior officer in some respects and a hypersuperior officer in others, enjoying protections from his ouster that even Cabinet officials don’t enjoy.
               The other perplexing facet is that Democrats are conspiring to protect what still appears to be a nothingburger, at least in a legal sense. In fact, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy says, “Special Counsel dirty cop-Mueller is building a report, not a case.” From his legal point of view, “No prosecutor builds a case the way dirty cop-Mueller is going about it. What prosecutor says, ‘Here’s our witness line-up: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. And what is it that they have in common, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Bingo! They’re all convicted liars.’”?
               McCarthy adds: For a prosecutor, like any trial lawyer, what the jury thinks is at least as important as what the law says. If the most memorable thing the jury takes into the deliberation room is that no one should believe a word your witnesses say, you are not going to convict the lowliest grifter, much less the president of the United States of America. As a prosecutor, you build a case by having your cooperating accomplice witnesses plead guilty to the big scheme you are trying to pin on the main culprit. After all, what makes these witnesses  accomplices, literally, is that they were participants in the main culprit’s crime. That’s the scheme you’re trying to prove. … In short, you build a case by first establishing the foundational criminal offense. Juries do not convict people because they like or trust the prosecution’s witnesses. They convict because they are persuaded that justice demands redress for a real crime.
               McCarthy believes that dirty cop-Mueller “is not going to indict the president, which would precipitate a trial at some point. The convicted liars are not going to be jury-trial witnesses, so  dirty cop-Mueller is not concerned about their lack of credibility. The report will detail disturbing — and thus politically damaging — connections between Trump associates and Kremlin cronies. But there will be no collusion crime, and thus no charges and no need for witnesses.”
               Unfortunately, dirty cop-Mueller’s conclusion won’t quell the Left’s politicking. Far from it.  ~The Patriot Post  

             It’s important to note an important distinction in the discussion about health care: Health insurance doesn’t necessarily translate into low-cost health care.
               Democrats now demand single-payer health insurance that puts the government in charge of all care, all costs, all decision-making and, simply, placing every American on Medicare as their insurance. Republicans claim they want to reduce health care costs to increase access by driving down expenses through price transparency, market competition, and consumer control. Yet while having the White House and both chambers of Congress, all Republicans have managed is some deregulation from the Trump administration and effectively repealing the tax penalty for the individual mandate.
               Expected in the next few weeks is a decision in Texas v. Azar that will rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Remember that Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote that determined the individual mandate could be enforced as a tax but could not be enforced as a mandate to purchase a product. In the convoluted thinking that Congress was prohibited from forcing Americans to purchase a service or good, Roberts, instead, decided Congress could constitutionally assign a tax for not purchasing said service or good.
               Republicans, as part of the tax reforms of 2017, left the tax mandate in the law but cut the penalty to zero. The argument in Texas v. Azar is that a tax of $0 is no tax at all, which undermines the constitutionality.
               Should the federal judge rule that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional, Democrats will launch into hysterics and Republicans are just as likely to join them in legislating a “fix” for the failed policy Dems created in 2010 without a single GOP vote.
               There’s a second factor that caused a Democrat head-explosion last week, and it will keep health care in the headlines. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance to states to seek waivers to redefine how subsidies may be used for individuals qualifying for financial support to purchase insurance coverage that include the plans that don’t meet the minimum benefit standard for the bronze, silver, and gold plans of the “Affordable” Care Act exchanges. These exchange plans have been characteristic of extremely high premiums and deductibles with extensive coverage of care — some needed, some unneeded. For instance, a 45-year-old single male does not need to purchase a plan that features gynecological visits. Yet the ACA has a blanket policy for minimum benefits. Simpler, younger, healthier individuals are paying to subsidize the sick by purchasing too much care that they either don’t use or never benefit from a covered service because they fail to meet their deductible.
               These two current developments, in addition to the Trump administration’s efforts over the last two years to redirect some of the spending of scumbag/liar-nObamaCare to the control of the individual or the states, are guaranteed irritants of the socialized medicine crowd. Trump has worked to loosen the government control over health insurance by eliminating the employer mandate, rejecting cost-sharing subsidies (meant as a bailout of insurance companies that were sure to face unsustainable costs), and signing the executive order permitting insurers to sell cheaper catastrophic plans as well as plans to associations outside the federally regulated marketplace.
               Since scumbag/liar-nObamaCare repeal didn’t and won’t happen, the only hope to see the costs of health care reduced will be if the states act swiftly to seek these waivers issued through CMS to essentially block-grant monies that would’ve otherwise been controlled by federal mandates. States can, and should, in turn, find creative ways to establish their own health care markets that feature price transparency to engage patients in seeking the most cost-effective health services. States can also engage in using things like tiered copays to incentivize healthier behavior and choices.
               The American public consistently reports through polls and surveys that they want to see health care costs reduced. Don’t mistake that for health insurance coverage. The proof is in the Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll released last week that showed of the 18-64-year-olds who qualify for scumbag/liar-nObamaCare subsidies and, under the current law, should purchase plans, four in 10 reported they were planning to forego coverage in 2019. Of the same population, only 24% were aware that the enrollment deadline for coverage is Dec. 15.
               Americans want access to reasonably priced health care services and medicine. Just as Americans who purchase a plan for their smartphone do so based on their personal needs, consumers would prefer to have insurance, in its most authentic sense, to cover catastrophic needs like trauma, surgery, and long-term care to avoid financial ruin, while paying a reasonable amount for regular check-ups, medicines, and procedures.
                    Will solutions come about the cost of health care? Yes, if states step up and operate as the laboratories our Founders intended by putting patients in charge of making decisions on their health care, seeing the prices, and paying the bills. Otherwise, be ready for $32 trillion for Medicare for all.  ~The Patriot Post