Mediaboss Marketing

Two former senior administration officials said it was retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, who rejected such a move, telling the Obama team that the Trump team first wanted to conduct its own review of an ISIS strategy.

One former US defense official explained to CNN the Obama administration offered to green light arming the Kurds during the transition in order to spare Trump the fallout with Ankara. At the time, this official had the impression Trump's people vetoed it because they wanted to do their own strategic review. The official did not speak to Flynn's role in this.

Prior to Flynn making this decision, the Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 in payments from a Turkish-owned company based in the Netherlands and in March registered as a foreign agent with the Justice Department, acknowledging that the work may have benefited the Turkish government, according to foreign agent registration paperwork filed with the department.

Flynn's firm was not compensated directly by the Turkish government. Flynn Intel had a contract with a Dutch firm, Inovo BV, a Dutch firm owned by a prominent Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.

Alptekin, the chair of the semi-official Turkish-American Business Council helped organize Turkish President Recep Erdogan's 2015 visit to Washington. In an email to CNN, Alptekin said that his firm works to strengthen "the transatlantic relationship and Turkey's future in that alliance."

The decision to arm Syrian Kurds was something even the Obama administration struggled with in order to save the fragile US-Turkey relationship. Two Kurdish allies of the US -- the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces -- are enemies of Turkey.

The Pentagon finally announced last week that Trump had authorized the limited arming of Syrian Kurds to help in the fight against ISIS in Raqqa, despite strong opposition from US NATO ally Turkey.

A current senior defense official told CNN there was no delay in the military planning or operations to isolate Raqqa and continue to train local fighters. The official did not speak to Flynn's actions.

View original post here:
Flynn rejected Obama's offer to arm Syrian Kurds, something Turkey would oppose - CNN

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown carelessness in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been extremely careless in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clintons server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Case dismissed.

Could there be more striking parallels? A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the presidents subordinates dropped the case exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obamas stated rationale.

Yet the media yawned.

Of course, theyre not yawning now. Now it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, sending Comey signals. So now, such signals are a major issue not merely of obstruction of justice, but of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump hysteria seems to be a permanent condition, a combustive compound of media-Democrat derangement surrounding a president who keeps providing derangement material. Lets try to keep our feet on the ground, but with a commitment to get the evidence and go wherever it takes us.

For now, we dont have much evidence. Essentially, weve got single statement, mined by the New York Times from a memo that no one outside a tight circle inside the FBI has seen indeed, that the Times has not seen. According to anonymous sources, the memo was written by thenFBI director Comey shortly after a private meeting with President Trump only two of them in the room after Trump asked other officials to leave. This was on February 14, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned over inaccurate statements he made to senior administration officials in recounting conversations hed had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

Trump is said to have told Comey, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.

Other than telling us that Comey replied, I agree he is a good guy, the Times provides no context of the conversation. Its report gives no indication of whether the memo provides such context.

On its face, the statement does not amount to obstruction of justice. Trump could be said to be putting pressure on his subordinate, just as Obama was putting pressure on his subordinates (Comey included) last April. But assuming the Times is right about the memo, Trump did not order Comey to drop the case. In fact, Trumps statement is consistent with encouraging Comey to use his own judgment, with the understanding that Trump hoped Comey would come out favorably to Flynn.

But of course, also with the understanding that if Comey pushed to prosecute Flynn, the president who had the power to fire Comey was going to be very unhappy. Just as President Obama would have been very unhappy, and in a position to fire Comey, if Mrs. Clinton had been indicted.

It is not frivolous to infer that Trumps statement to Comey was a veiled order. If that is your interpretation, though, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Obamas public statements were also veiled orders not to indict Clinton. Up until now, veiled orders have not been thought the equivalent of obstruction of justice.

In light of what Ive previously contended (viz., that obstruction of justice is a concept irrelevant to a counterintelligence investigation), I must note here that concerns about obstruction of justice in the context of the reported Trump-Comey conversation are legitimate. That is because the conversation does not directly relate to the so-called Russia investigation, which Comey has explained is a counterintelligence inquiry regarding Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. Rather, Trump and Comey were speaking about a criminal investigation of Flynn, ancillary to but separate from the Russia investigation. We are informed that a grand jury in Virginia is considering evidence of transactions involving Flynn, although it is not clear that this was the case on February 14, when Trump and Comey spoke.

There is good reason to believe veiled orders, while inappropriate, are not criminal i.e., they do not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction of justice. Obstruction can be a tough crime to prove. It is necessary to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect acted corruptly in impeding or influencing a criminal investigation. That means acting with knowledge that ones conduct was unlawful, and with a specific intent to undermine the truth-seeking function.

Context is critical, and we dont have it. All we know is that Trump hoped the criminal investigation would be dropped but again, did not order it to be dropped and vouched for Flynns character. That may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, but it was not corrupt. Comey surely found it awkward, but he clearly did not perceive it as obstruction. The former director is a highly experienced and meritoriously decorated former prosecutor and investigator. He knows what obstruction of justice is. And the Jim Comey Ive known for 30 years would not stand for political interference in law enforcement. If he had understood Trumps remarks as a directive or, worse, a threat, he would have resigned.

It is not enough to say that he did not resign. Unlike the investigation of Mrs. Clinton, the investigation of Flynn has continued. Plus, Comey does not appear to have indicated to his subordinates, to his Justice Department superiors, or to Congress that he felt threatened. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and Comeys former deputy (now acting director) Andrew McCabe have not intimated, even vaguely, that their investigative activities have been hampered. Again, the investigation is proceeding apace.

There is no question that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. But media hyperventilating notwithstanding, the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there...unless you also think President Obama obstructed justicelast April.

READ MORE: Trumps Russian Leak Defense is Not Reassuring Donald Trumps Republican Support is Waning Trump Firing James Comey Means its Time for the President to Change

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Go here to read the rest:
Under the Obama Precedent, No Trump Obstruction of Justice - National Review

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Rosenstein was virtually a consensus appointment and was perfectly capable of supervising the investigation in a fair, impartial and credible manner.

However,Rosensteinwas part of President Donald Trumps decision to fire James Comey as FBI director last week. Criticsallege that was an attemptto interfere in the Russia investigation.

By delegating the task of overseeing the investigationto someone outside of that decision chain, Rosenstein has protected the integrity of his office and the image of the investigation. The fact that Mueller worked under the previousadministration also helps in that regard.

But viewed in recent historical context, the appointment of a Special Counsel is unfair and indefensible. President Barack Obama faceda large number of scandals, many of which involved apparent violations of federal law. And yet in eight long years, Obama skated by without any serious investigations by the Department of Justice, or with investigations that were quashed from above. It seems Republican administration are held to a higher standard.

The most glaring example is, of course, the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, which is connected to broaderclaims of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. President Obama told60 Minutes in 2015 that Clinton had simply made a mistake: I dont think it posed a national security problem, he said. The media bought it and so did the Department of Justice, despite a mountain of evidence that she had been extremely careless, as Comey put it later.

Another example that still rankles conservatives was the IRS scandal, where there were clear violations of federal law, including the deliberate leak of confidential taxpayer information to partisan groups, as well as violation of conservatives civil rights. Yet the Department of Justicelet former IRS official Lois Lerner, and her bosses, off the hook, saying the IRS was merely guilty of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia but no crimes.

There was also the Fast and Furious scandal, where the Obama administration, under the supervision of Attorney General Eric Holder, supervised the smuggling of weapons across the Mexican border, ostensibly to trace their path through drug cartels, but more likely as a pretext for gun control. Obama tried to use his executive privilege to cover up related documents, and Holder was held in contempt of Congress but nothing more.

In the Stuxnet scandal, where the Obama administration leaked information about a computer virus that had been created to destroy Iranian nuclear centrifuges, the White House specifically rejected calls for a special counsel or special prosecutor. Retired Marine Corps General James E. Cartwright was eventually found guilty, but benefited from a lame-duck pardon by President Obama, setting a dangerous example for future leakers of national secrets.

And there were also the numerous times Obama administration officials lied to Congress. Holder lied to Congress, under oath, about whether he had discussed prosecuting journalists. But Holder had ordered the wiretapping of Fox News reporter James Rosen. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also lied to Congress about data collectionon U.S.citizens. The Department of Justice never appointed a special counsel to investigate.

The double standard is glaring. Some Republicans feel the appointment of a special counsel in the Russia case is evidence their party lacks theDemocrats will to fight.

But Rosensteins decision was not a partisan one and, arguably, it is better thatthe eventual exoneration of the presidentwill be seen as impartial.

Still, the imbalance remains, and might only begin to be rectified if the FBI and DOJ pursue the leakers and unmaskers causing havoc with our democracy.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author ofHow Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

This post has been updated to include theStuxnet scandal.

Read this article:
Special Counsel for Trump but Not for Obama Scandals? - Breitbart News

President Barack Obama's last few months in office were pretty hard on America. On a mission to cement his legacy, he set out on a final regulatory onslaught to expand the size of government dramatically. His agencies rushed through rule after rule, targeting sectors of the economy that did not sit well with his ideology.

Republicans campaigned on a promise to deliver relief and scale back the size of government. We pledged that we would repeal regulations to create jobs and get the economy moving again. Now, we are delivering on that promise.

Enter the Congressional Review Act. It's a law on the books that gives Congress 60 legislative days to repeal regulations with a simple voting majority. Furthermore, it dictates that no similar regulation can be issued in the future. Enacted in the 1990s, the Congressional Review Act had only been used to successfully overturn one regulation before 2017.

But in just four months, Congress overturned not one regulation, not two regulations, but 14 harmful Obama-era regulations those rushed through in the 11th hour of his presidency.

These dictates were poorly crafted, complicated and created massive uncertainty. They made it difficult for businesses to grow and threatened tens of thousands of jobs. They unilaterally grabbed power from the states and gave it to bureaucrats in Washington. They were bad for our economy and our culture.

On the economic front, look at the Interior Department's stream protection rule, finalized in December. Packaged as an effort to protect the environment, the regulation was really a frontal attack on coal country, projected to wipe out up to one-third of American coal mining jobs. The Obama administration always had an antipathy to coal, and the stream protection rule was its last attempt to try and dismantle the coal industry once and for all.

But Congress stopped that attack. Using the Congressional Review Act, the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 38 in February, repealing the stream protection rule. President Trump signed the joint resolution into law shortly thereafter.

And take the Department of Health and Human Services' Title X rule, which overrides state laws. Billed as an effort to protect women's health, it was really just an effort to keep Planned Parenthood flush with taxpayer cash. Finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, the rule banned state governments from moving Title X money away from abortion giants like Planned Parenthood and toward community health centers that help women.

Using the Congressional Review Act once again, Congress stopped that assault on life. Under no circumstances should taxpayers have to pay for abortions. Passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in February, H.J. Res 43 repeals regulations overriding state laws that prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in their states.

These are just two of the 14 Congressional Review Act bills from the past few months that are now law. Others limit the power of Washington bureaucrats to unilaterally deny government contracts and give state governments back the ability to make land and education decisions in their communities.

Throughout the past eight years, the American people have lived under an administration that pitted the federal government against the American economy and way of life. With Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, that era is over. We in Congress had an important tool at our disposal in the Congressional Review Act and we didn't hesitate to use it.

Repealing some of the most harmful, last-minute Obama-era regulations was the first step in undoing Obama's big government policies and fulfilling our pledges to the American people.

Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He represents Wisconsin's first district in the U.S. Congress.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read ourguidelines on submissions.

Read this article:
Paul Ryan: Obama's regulatory tailspin has been repealed - Washington Examiner

In an interview with Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of the late President John F. Kennedy, for his Profile in Courage award, Obama said the "most political courage" came from his "decision not to bomb Syria."

In December 2016, Obama told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that in retrospect he still believes he handled Syria the right way.

Obama's latest remarks came more than a month after President Donald Trump authorized a strike against a Syrian air base in April in response to a chemical weapons attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base, the first time the US has directly attacked the Assad regime in the country's six-year civil war.

Trump's decision to strike Syria earned him rare bipartisan praise, with Republicans largely supporting him in his decision to respond to the chemical attack, while Democrats were more concerned with discussing Trump's next step to address Syria.

Instead, the Obama administration reached a deal with Russia -- a Syrian ally -- on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.

The request was for Syria -- with Russia brokering the agreement -- to turn over its chemical weapons as part of a process overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The removal of the weapons was confirmed by the OPCW, but the Obama administration said at the time that it couldn't confirm that there weren't still undeclared stocks in country.

US intelligence has estimated that less than 10% of the stockpile is suspected to have remained in place and Syria has the ability to make more.

So even though the Obama administration embraced the process as a victory, it still left Syria with chemical weapons. Republicans also charged that it was a display of weakness as the White House didn't enforce its red line. But Obama didn't want to bomb Syria without approval from Congress, which didn't happen.

Obama did launch airstrikes in Syria a year later, but against ISIS, as the US began a military campaign against the terror in Iraq and Syria. However, those airstrikes were not in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The Trump administration criticized Obama's strategy toward Syria when the chemical attack happened there in April.

The chemical attack against Assad's own citizens in Syria was the Obama administration's fault, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, declaring it a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly tweeted a rebuttal to Obama's remarks in the interview, writing, "What President Obama calls 'political courage' -- most everyone else calls weakness and poor judgement."

He added: "It's not 'courageous' to allow a ruthless dictator to kill thousands and cross red lines regarding chemical weapons. #syria"

Graham sent out two more tweets, writing, "Giving Assad a pass for his outrageous behavior was not 'political courage,'" and "President Obama's 'courageous' approach to Syria has come back to haunt the people of Syria, the Middle East, and the world at large."

CNN's David Wright, Barbara Starr, Nicole Gaouette and John Kirby contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Obama: Decision not to bomb Syria required 'political courage' - CNN