The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Papa John's Unappetizing Ingredient: The NFL
by Jordan Candler: The proliferation of national anthem protests in the NFL has culminated in falling television ratings and a shrunken fan base. But the political theater on display by athletes has repercussions beyond the field. For seven years, Papa John’s has branded itself around being recognized as the NFL’s official pizza sponsor. That was obviously a boon for business. At least until now.
by Jordan Candler: The proliferation of national anthem protests in the NFL has culminated in falling television ratings and a shrunken fan base. But the political theater on display by athletes has repercussions beyond the field. For seven years, Papa John’s has branded itself around being recognized as the NFL’s official pizza sponsor. That was obviously a boon for business. At least until now. Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter has revealed that business is sluggish due to fallout over his company’s ties to the NFL. He minced no words, either, reportedly complaining, “The NFL has hurt us by not resolving the current debacle to the players’ and owners’ satisfaction. NFL leadership has hurt Papa John’s shareholders.” He added, “Leadership starts at the top, and this is an example of poor leadership.” From Schnatter’s standpoint, “This should have been nipped in the bud a year and a half ago.”
According to Bloomberg, “Back in 2014, when Papa John’s posted a nearly 10 percent gain in North American same-store sales, the company credited its close relationship with the NFL and [Peyton] Manning for driving its business in the U.S. On Wednesday, the tone was quite different. Papa John’s post-earnings conference call was dominated by negative talk of the NFL. The league’s name came up 44 times during the discussion, compared with 12 mentions in the year-earlier call.”
The NFL fallout affects Papa John’s in terms of less exposure (not as many eyeballs are seeing ads). And a dwindling base translates into fewer orders. One also could assume that some fans are so fed up with the politics of the NFL that they are boycotting the companies associated with it as well. Of course, Papa John’s is free to take sponsorships elsewhere, and it may come to that. But its lackluster sales are yet more proof that the NFL opened a can of worms when it neglected to quickly and effectively diffuse the situation. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52211
.
With liar-Clinton Hijacking They All Enabled
Exposed, dinky-Warren “Wants” Party Accountability
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ A year ago Elizabeth dinky-Warren was trashing Donald Trump as she shared a stage with liar-Hillary Clinton... She pretends now that she had no idea what was widely suspected at the time, the DNC political machinery being in the tank for liar-Clinton and actively working in opposition to Sanders, was taking place. If everyday conservatives were aware of it at the time, at least of the rumors, a top Democrat who was sharing the stage with her surely was as well. Jake Tapper asks dinky-Warren, “We learned today from former Democrat National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile that the liar-Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by entering into an agreement to control day to day operations the DNC.”... https://rickwells.us/clinton-hijacking-warren-accountability/.
Lawyers for Paul Manafort and Rick Gates
mount first counterattack against Mueller charges
by Julia Fair
{usatoday.com} ~ Lawyers defending President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort mounted their first counterattack against federal money laundering and conspiracy charges on Thursday... insisting that federal prosecutors had "embellished" the strength of their case. The charges that both served as unregistered agents of a foreign government then laundered their profits into the United States are part of Mueller's wide-ranging investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. Manafort's lawyers, Kevin Downing and Thomas Zehnle, said in a court filing Thursday that the case was overblown. They said the laws governing Manafort's work in Ukraine are unclear. The money laundering charges are just a "facade," they added, noting that "in an international scheme to conceal assets, individuals generally move them offshore, not to the United States."... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/02/paul-manafort-not-serious-flight-risk-his-lawyer-argues-before-court-appearance/824983001/
VIDEO: https://usat.ly/2iRtROr
.
ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/PBS Drop
the Ball on liar-Clinton/Uranium/Russia Scandal
by Geoffrey Dickens
{newsbusters.org} ~ Beginning on October 17, The Hill broke new stories on the liar-Clinton/Russia/Uranium scandal that deserved extensive coverage... And while Fox News Channel has thoroughly covered the breaking developments they’ve been, unfortunately, the exception and not the rule in TV news. From October 17 through November 2 The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks have devoted a piddly 4 minutes and 38 seconds to the new findings. CBS delivered a pathetic 2 minutes, 34 seconds, followed by ABC at a scant 2 minutes, 4 seconds. Astoundingly, NBC News has failed to devote a single second to any of the most recent charges. And prior to the October 17 findings the network evening shows had only spent a miserly 3 minutes and 1 second on the liar-Clinton Foundation scandal in more than two years...You know where their heads are. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/11/02/abccbsnbccnnmsnbcpbs-drop-ball-clintonuraniumrussia-scandal?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRKaE1ETmlZamcyT0dRMCIsInQiOiJIXC9ZSmJBUE5vZ3lZVEpveTZsN3d4d0E1dTN0a04rM1hHXC82VCs4eFdxMWI2eEw2d0tXOFwvQ0hNQklNUnJTWEpmeWphd2JiSmt4OE4wMzhvaDd1ZWZcLzlibkFRMUpTcDZnZHZqc0lTXC9meGVzYXZJREhpZHBkRVpBQWxBQURESUNCIn0%3D.
Hamas Pursues Reconciliation - with Hizballah and Iran
.
WHY MEDIA, OFFICIALS
MISTRANSLATE 'ALLAHU AKBAR'
by ART MOORE
{wnd.com} ~ As the horrific news broke Tuesday that the driver of a Home Depot rental truck in New York City had mowed over pedestrians and bike riders, “terrorism” naturally came to the minds of most Americans... When reports began circulating that witnesses heard the perpetrator yell “Allahu akbar,” even law enforcement officials typically reluctant to apply the terrorism label to such incidents acknowledged they were looking at something more than a tragic accident. “Allahu akbar” is an Arabic phrase that has become significant in this post-9/11 era, yet in the aftermath of the attack Tuesday in which eight people were killed and a dozen injured, official after official and news outlet after news outlet mistranslated it, insisting it means “God is great.” An accurate translation – and even Google Translate affirms it – is “Allah is the greatest” or, literally, “Allah is greater,” as in the god Allah is greater than all other gods... http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/why-media-officials-mistranslate-allahu-akbar/.
.
The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg?
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies.
Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government.
The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness.
Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story.
At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward liar-Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians.
The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign?
When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him -- not literally, of course -- for evidence to which they believe he can lead them.
The ultimate target of Mueller's investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It's clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him.
The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.
There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week's Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty.
In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation?
Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret.
That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired -- a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public.
Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller -- truthfully or not -- because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months.
Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump's personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes.
Is this any way to conduct a prosecution?
I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery, not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. "You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses." It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president?
In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.
Comments