The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Concealing and Revealing
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
.
The Academy Gets It Wrong — Twice
By Mark Alexander: I know you were shocked — S-H-O-C-K-E-D — to learn that an outstanding film based on a true story of unprecedented heroics and faith lost its top Oscar nomination to a movie about gay black folks enslaved on urban poverty plantations.
The heroics and faith film, "Hacksaw Ridge," is based on the incredible tale of Desmond Doss, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for arguably the most significant acts of bravery of any award recipient in history. It was rightly among the small list of films nominated in the top three categories — Best Picture, Director and Actor, but of course, it lost all three. However, it did receive two obscure secondary editing awards.
Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway errantly announced that "La La Land" won Best Picture, a gaffe being heralded as the worst in Academy Awards history — unless you consider most of the other awards given in this and previous years. Once all the celebrity La La Land hugs and kisses were done, the hosts corrected their error, announcing that "Moonlight," which The New York Times described as "a movie about growing up poor, black and gay," won best film. Moreover, Mahershala Ali became the first Muslim actor to win a trophy for his supporting role in that big screen screed.
Fact is, the Academy got it wrong twice — "Hacksaw Ridge" should have swept the awards. If you would like to read about Desmond Doss, whom I knew personally as a neighbor for many years, I invite you to read my column on the incredible life story of this most heroic of genuine heroes. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
AG Sessions Clear The Air On Witch Hunt,
Testimony, Recusal And Russia
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Tucker Carlson interviewed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, beginning with a question as to why neither the Attorney General or anyone on his staff had discussed providing a supplement to the Senate... in order to avoid the problems that General Flynn had. Sessions replied that the question put to him by Sen. Franken was regarding a specific report that “various surrogates” of the Trump campaign were meeting continually with Russian officials. That was the question he responded to. The earlier meeting as a function of his normal Senate duties didn’t come to mind. The AG points out that during that meeting, two independent, non-partisan military aides were also in attendance with him at all times. The only two times the Attorney General recalls meeting the Ambassador was the meeting in his office and another time they mingled after he had given a speech at the Republican convention. In neither instance did he discuss anything to do with the campaign... http://rickwells.us/carlson-ag-sessions-clear-air-witch-hunt-testimony-recusal-russia/
.
Look What Top Democrat Was Just
Caught Doing with Putin in NYC
by Prissy Holly
{freedomdaily.com} ~ Ever since Trump got elected, the left has been making up fake stories about the Trump Administration’s “ties to the Russians” as a way to deflect blame for their embarrassing 2016 election loss... As they’re left licking their wounds from the worst Democratic loss since World War II, rather than looking internally, they continue to push this ridiculous propaganda, despite there being zero evidence to back up their claims. And on Thursday, another startling round of fake news began being perpetrated by the left, after it came to light that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose two meetings he had with the Russian ambassador to Washington back in 2016. One of the main morons leading the fake news about the Trump-Russian tie is Democratic Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, who is now DEMANDING that Jeff Sessions immediately step down from his post, following reports that he met twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last year. While there is no proof of a plot between Sessions and Kislyak to get Trump elected, Schumer continues to lead the latest round of propaganda, as liberals around the nation collectively go nuts. But unfortunately for Schumer, look what he was photographed doing with the president of Russia in New York City, immediately after the Russians set up oil operations in the Big Apple with their oil company, Lukoil... http://freedomdaily.com/breaking-look-top-democrat-just-caught-putin-nyc-libs-push-fake-news-sessions-ties-russians/
.
.
Judge Helps Criminal Alien Escape,
Slips Him Through Private Door
by Trey Scanchez
{truthrevolt.org} ~ Fox News is reporting that Oregon Judge Monica Herranz helped convicted illegal alien Diddier Pacheco Salazar escape from ICE agents by slipping him through a private door in her chambers... Salazar was in court facing a drunk driving charge and ICE was waiting in the hallway to deport him. A courtroom staffer tipped the judge to take action. Some are wondering if Judge Herranz is running a “sanctuary courtroom” as she is “inappropriately delegitimizing the work of ICE agents." He also recounted a story where he was approached in some woods near his New Hampshire home by an immigration agent and discovered he was mistakenly carrying his daughter’s green card. Steyn said the agent threatened to go to his daughter’s school and take further action...Something needs to be done with judges who go against the rule of law. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/judge-helps-criminal-alien-escape-slips-him-through-private-door
.
Limbaugh warns of 'silent coup' against Trump
by Garth Kant
{wnd.com} ~ As Democrats and the major media attack Attorney General Jeff Sessions and push claims of the Kremlin’s influence on the Trump administration and Russian interference in the presidential election... one of the nation’s most prominent conservatives insists there really is a huge scandal. But not the one the media are reporting. Rush Limbaugh said the real scandal is that a “silent coup” is underway against President Trump. “There is the execution of an attempt at a peaceful coup,” said the radio talk show host on Friday. “A peaceful coup to oust Donald Trump is what we are witnessing. It’s been orchestrated by liar-nObama and the Democrat Party. It’s that simple.”... http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/limbaugh-warns-of-silent-coup-against-trump/
.
.
Concealing and Revealing
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Last week, President Donald Trump erupted with fury over a series of public revelations of private facts — some top-secret and some office gossip — that painted him and his White House in a bad light. The president ordered the FBI to investigate some of these so-called leaks and his own White House counsel to investigate others.
There are numerous issues related to the leaking of government information. They include the leaking of classified information, the leaking of confidential communications and the publishing of leaked material.
Here is the back story.
It is a felony to reveal classified information to any person who lacks a classified clearance, as some in the intelligence community have recently done to embarrass, control, intimidate or infuriate the president. The National Security Agency employs over 60,000 domestic spies, but they work in compartmentalized areas. Thus, not all of them have access to all the data collected by all of their colleagues. Only about 100 spies have access to the top-secret data that was leaked about the president.
When members of the intelligence community leaked lurid allegations about the future president's alleged behavior in a Moscow hotel room, which he has vehemently denied, and when some leaked the partial transcripts of telephone conversations between retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. — shortly before Flynn became the president's national security adviser — and when some leaked an intelligence report that contradicted the president's publicly stated conclusions on the likelihood of dangerous people immigrating to the U.S. from the seven predominately Muslim countries named in the president's now enjoined temporary travel ban, one can understand the presidential anger.
And leaks are a two-sided coin. Adding to Trump's woes caused by too much revealing is the other side of that coin — too much concealing. This comes into play when one has a duty to reveal. That duty arises from the legal obligation of spies to pass on to their superiors — and ultimately to the president — all of the material information they have acquired about America's friends and enemies.
Selectively concealing and revealing this type of intelligence data, thereby manipulating the presidential judgment, when one has a duty to reveal substantially all of it is a form of interference with a governmental function — namely, the president's exercise of his judgment — and that is a felony.
As if all this were not enough for a young presidency to deal with, Trump finds himself with a White House staff leaking to the press Oval Office gossip about confidential conversations from within the White House that the participants in those conversations had every reason to believe would not be made public. This resulted in the temporary seizure of government-issued cellphones held by a dozen or so staffers so their bosses could learn whether any had spoken to the press. The cellphones episode was itself leaked, apparently by a participant not happy with it.
What's going on here?
These events are either the growing pains of a new presidential administration, still partially staffed by those loyal to former President Barack liar-nObama, or the product of sinister forces from people attempting to exercise their own judgment about America's foes by frustrating and manipulating the judgment of the president — whom the voters elected to exercise the constitutional powers to make those judgment calls. The latter situation would be perilous, as it would mean we have unelected, unaccountable and unnamed people pulling the levers of power in the field of national security.
The leaks of confidential communications from within the White House may be a pain in the neck for the president, but they are not criminal. And generally, a boss can look at an employee's cellphone, as long as the employer of the boss and the employee owns the phone — except when the employer is the government. The Fourth Amendment insulates government employees from governmental reach into its employees' cellphones. Absent an employee's waiving his Fourth Amendment rights, the government may not seize work-related governmental or personal phones without a search warrant.
Can the media publish these leaks?
In a word, yes. The media may publish anything that is of material interest to the public, notwithstanding its level of secrecy or how it was acquired. The First Amendment — which the courts have construed to treat the media as the eyes and ears of the public — protects absolutely the publication by the media of leaked data, whether gossip or top-secret, that the public wants to hear.
The courts have also ruled that everything about the president is of material public interest — meaning no criminal or civil action can be taken against the media for the publication of any leaked materials that reflect on the president as a person or as a government official. When The New York Times published a probably stolen copy of Trump's tax returns, it did so with impunity.
One can see why Trump rails against the press. Yet he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the very constitutional principles that protect and liberate a free press from the anger of the government, no matter how well-grounded that anger may be. One of his predecessors who was savaged by the press, Thomas Jefferson, wrote that accountability and transparency in government are of such overriding value that he'd prefer newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers.
There are numerous issues related to the leaking of government information. They include the leaking of classified information, the leaking of confidential communications and the publishing of leaked material.
Here is the back story.
It is a felony to reveal classified information to any person who lacks a classified clearance, as some in the intelligence community have recently done to embarrass, control, intimidate or infuriate the president. The National Security Agency employs over 60,000 domestic spies, but they work in compartmentalized areas. Thus, not all of them have access to all the data collected by all of their colleagues. Only about 100 spies have access to the top-secret data that was leaked about the president.
When members of the intelligence community leaked lurid allegations about the future president's alleged behavior in a Moscow hotel room, which he has vehemently denied, and when some leaked the partial transcripts of telephone conversations between retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. — shortly before Flynn became the president's national security adviser — and when some leaked an intelligence report that contradicted the president's publicly stated conclusions on the likelihood of dangerous people immigrating to the U.S. from the seven predominately Muslim countries named in the president's now enjoined temporary travel ban, one can understand the presidential anger.
And leaks are a two-sided coin. Adding to Trump's woes caused by too much revealing is the other side of that coin — too much concealing. This comes into play when one has a duty to reveal. That duty arises from the legal obligation of spies to pass on to their superiors — and ultimately to the president — all of the material information they have acquired about America's friends and enemies.
Selectively concealing and revealing this type of intelligence data, thereby manipulating the presidential judgment, when one has a duty to reveal substantially all of it is a form of interference with a governmental function — namely, the president's exercise of his judgment — and that is a felony.
As if all this were not enough for a young presidency to deal with, Trump finds himself with a White House staff leaking to the press Oval Office gossip about confidential conversations from within the White House that the participants in those conversations had every reason to believe would not be made public. This resulted in the temporary seizure of government-issued cellphones held by a dozen or so staffers so their bosses could learn whether any had spoken to the press. The cellphones episode was itself leaked, apparently by a participant not happy with it.
What's going on here?
These events are either the growing pains of a new presidential administration, still partially staffed by those loyal to former President Barack liar-nObama, or the product of sinister forces from people attempting to exercise their own judgment about America's foes by frustrating and manipulating the judgment of the president — whom the voters elected to exercise the constitutional powers to make those judgment calls. The latter situation would be perilous, as it would mean we have unelected, unaccountable and unnamed people pulling the levers of power in the field of national security.
The leaks of confidential communications from within the White House may be a pain in the neck for the president, but they are not criminal. And generally, a boss can look at an employee's cellphone, as long as the employer of the boss and the employee owns the phone — except when the employer is the government. The Fourth Amendment insulates government employees from governmental reach into its employees' cellphones. Absent an employee's waiving his Fourth Amendment rights, the government may not seize work-related governmental or personal phones without a search warrant.
Can the media publish these leaks?
In a word, yes. The media may publish anything that is of material interest to the public, notwithstanding its level of secrecy or how it was acquired. The First Amendment — which the courts have construed to treat the media as the eyes and ears of the public — protects absolutely the publication by the media of leaked data, whether gossip or top-secret, that the public wants to hear.
The courts have also ruled that everything about the president is of material public interest — meaning no criminal or civil action can be taken against the media for the publication of any leaked materials that reflect on the president as a person or as a government official. When The New York Times published a probably stolen copy of Trump's tax returns, it did so with impunity.
One can see why Trump rails against the press. Yet he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the very constitutional principles that protect and liberate a free press from the anger of the government, no matter how well-grounded that anger may be. One of his predecessors who was savaged by the press, Thomas Jefferson, wrote that accountability and transparency in government are of such overriding value that he'd prefer newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers.
Comments