Media was set ablaze after bombshell documents released on Thursday show former FBI head James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton before the investigation into her email conduct had concluded. Even more concerning is “Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership,” reports Townhall.
The former FBI Director also testified to Congress that he decided not to recommended charges in relation to handling of classified information, after the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. However, a new report reveals Comey penned a memo exonerating Clinton in the Spring.
An attorney for Trump, Jay Sekulow pointed out that Hillary was exonerated and immunity was handed out like candy BEFORE 17 witnesses were even interviewed–including Hillary Clinton.
Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell told Fox News’ David Asman, who filled in for Lou Dobbs on Friday evening that James Comey perjured himself when he said under oath that he decided to not recommend charges for Hillary until after he interviewed her in July.
David Asman asked Chris Farrell, “Comey said under oath when asked that he did not make his decision until after he interviewed Hillary Clinton. Did he perjure himself?”
“Yes…the facts are months in advance he’s telegraphing the investigation’s a done deal, that he’s going through the motions yet he gets in front of Congress and pretends or at least makes these representations that he hadn’t made his mind up when it’s clear there’s documents showing that he has,” Farrell said.
“So, he’s in trouble. He’s in grave legal jeopardy,” Farrell continued.
- Hillary Clinton’s Summer Home Sells for $29 Million
- Hillary Clinton “Turns To God” As Trump Plea Deal Looms And Democrat Death Scandal Erupts
- Mike Flynn has list of Deep State pedophiles, threatens release – Roger Stone
- DOJ: AG Lynch Caught Talking to Clintons
- Hillary Emails Show She PURPOSELY Avoided Secure Lines
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/k_Qa0ELpJcI/
Finding yourself trapped in the water without a way to save yourself can be a life threatening situation and when these situations come about, it can be to find a large and furry animal to hold onto until help is finally able to arrive. Did you know that there are special dogs who are specifically raised in order to accomplish this very goal? Thanks to this story, you finally get to meet one of these special dogs for yourself.
Thanks to this astonishing video footage, you can watch a large black Newfoundland spring into action when there are people who need saving. The animal leaped into action and was even willing to lunge from a helicopter in mid air to do so. The tremendous sacrifice that these animals make is something that we should all definitely take the time to recognize.
The man in this story was more than happy to see the dog swimming towards him and this animal provided him with the lifeline that he needed most. Once he was able to latch onto the dog’s body, he was lifted up by the helicopter and the two were rescued from the waters. This amazing rescue was the product of a drill that the dog had been undergoing for months.
These drills are conducted by the good people at the Italian School Of Water Rescue Dogs and the dogs are trained from the age of three months to perform a wide range of training exercises. They are given the tools that they need to conduct rescue missions like the one that you are about to see and thanks to the efforts of their trainers, most of the animals pass with flying colors.
The Newfoundland is an especially useful breed for these sorts of rescue missions, owing to their advanced swimming skills and their webbed feet. Their strength and swimming ability makes them a natural candidate for these rescues and their human counterparts appreciate their presence because of their ability to power through fatigue and reach those who are distressed.
If you would like to find out more about what these awesome animals can do for those who find themselves in distress situations, then be sure to check out this incredible clip in order to learn more. Once you have seen this rescue drill in action, you are definitely going to want to show it to all of your friends and loved ones.
MADRID (AP) — An extremist cell was preparing bombs for an imam who planned to blow himself up at a Barcelona monument, a key suspect in the attacks that killed 15 people in northeastern Spain told a judge Tuesday, according to a judicial official.
The suspect, Mohamed Houli Chemlal, was one of four men taken before Spain’s National Court in Madrid to testify about the Islamic cell that attacked pedestrians in Barcelona and the nearby seaside town of Cambrils last week.
National Court Judge Fernando Andreu questioned the four about the vehicle attacks as well as the fatal explosion at a bomb-making workshop that police said scuttled the group’s plot to carry out a more deadly attack at unspecified Barcelona monuments. After the session, the judge ordered two of the surviving suspects held without bail, another detained for 72 more hours and one freed with restrictions.
A Spanish judicial official said Houli Chemlal, 21, and suspect Driss Oukabir, 28, identified imam Abdelbaki Es Satty as the ideological leader of the 12-man cell.
Oukabir and the other two surviving suspects who testified, Mohamed Aalla and Sahal El Karib, denied being part of the cell, said the court official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and insisted on speaking anonymously.
The cell’s other eight members are dead. Police shot five during an attack Friday and one more Monday after a manhunt. Es Satty and another accidently blew themselves up while preparing explosives in a house in the coastal town of Alcanar, south of Barcelona.
Es Satty preached in a mosque in the northeastern town of Ripoll, home to most of the 12 pointed to by police as suspected members of the cell. Police identified his remains amid the rubble of the Aug. 16 explosion that destroyed the house in Alcanar.
Police found in the house over 100 tanks of butane gas and materials to make TATP, an explosive frequently used in attacks by Islamic State militants. The group has claimed responsibility for both attacks on pedestrians — one Thursday by a van that mowed down people on Barcelona’s famed Las Ramblas promenade and another early Friday in Cambrils. The attacks and a bloody getaway in which a man was stabbed to death left 15 dead and over 120 wounded.
Houli Chemlal, the only survivor of the Alcanar blast, told the court Tuesday that he is alive because he was on the ground floor of the house washing dishes after dinner. He testified from a wheelchair without lifting his eyes up from the ground, according to the court official. He has been hospitalized under guard since his arrest Thursday.
The second suspect interrogated, Oukabir, testified he rented the vans used in the attacks on pedestrians but said he thought they were going to be used for a house move. His brother Moussa was one of the five radicals shot dead Friday by police in Cambrils.
According to another person who attended Tuesday’s interrogation, Oukabir told the prosecutor that his first version of events — telling police his documents were stolen by his brother — was something he had done out of fear. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the hearing.
The third suspect, Aalla, said an Audi A3 used in last week’s attack in Cambrils was registered under his name but used by another sibling, the judicial official said. Police say one of Aalla’s younger brothers died in Cambrils and another one is believed to be the second casualty in the Alcanar house blast where the imam died.
The last surviving suspect, El Karib, the owner of a cybercafe in Ripoll, told the judge that he was only trying to make a profit when he bought at least two plane tickets for two alleged members of the cell.
Police later Tuesday raided the cybercafe in Ripoll as well as a house in Vilafranca del Penedes, searching for more evidence.
After the questioning, the judge said there was enough evidence to hold Houli Chemlal and Oukabir on preliminary charges of causing homicides and injuries of a terrorist nature and of belonging to a terrorism organization. Houli Chemlal also has an additional charge of dealing with explosives.
However, the judge ruled the evidence was “not solid enough” to keep holding Aalla, who was freed on condition he appear in court weekly, relinquish his passport and not leave Spain.
El Karib will remain in custody for at least 72 more hours while police inquiries continue, the judge said.
The lone fugitive from the initial attack, 22-year-old Younes Abouyaaqoub, was shot to death Monday west of Barcelona after a big, dayslong manhunt. Police say he flashed what turned out to be a fake suicide belt at two officers who confronted him in a vineyard.
Police said they had “scientific evidence” that Abouyaaqoub drove the van that barreled through Barcelona’s crowded Las Ramblas promenade and that he hijacked a car and fatally stabbed its driver while making his getaway.
Abouyaaqoub’s brother and friends made up the rest of the 12-man extremist cell, police say.
Chemlal was born in Melilla, one of Spain’s two North African coastal enclaves that have borders with Morocco. Spanish media say the other 11 suspects are all reportedly Moroccans who lived in Spain.
This story has been corrected to show that 13 people were killed in the Barcelona van attack and to correct the spelling of one suspect’s surname to Chemlal and another suspect’s name to Sahal El Karib.
Associated Press writer Ciaran Giles in Madrid contributed to this report.
A body-camera used to convict a suspect of attempted murder was described by the victim as the “best $30 I ever spent.” Police Officer Quincy Smith wasn’t provided a bodycam by Estill Police Department, South Carolina, but instead bought the device on Amazon.
“Dispatch please tell my family I love them,” Smith can be heard saying in the footage released by his lawyer this week. The 19-minute video in which a gun can be seen being pulled on Smith was used to convict his shooter, Malcolm Orr, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Thursday.
Smith was shot four times by Orr after attempting to question him following reports Orr was attempting to steal groceries from a nearby store in January 2016. The Estill officer managed to get back to his patrol car, where he called for help.
“My left arm is broken. I’ve been shot in the neck,” he says to police dispatch, before an ambulance arrives.
Smith’s department does not have body cameras, with the officer taking to Amazon to purchase the pair of glasses with a camera that helped convict Orr, reported WJCL.
Under South Carolina law bodycams are required, but agencies without “full funding” are exempt from enforcing the rule, reported the State.
“Both our families are the ones really suffering the most. Violence and guns aren’t the answer, that’s why I became a police officer,” Smith, who plans to return to the force next year when his recovery is complete, said referring to his and Orr’s loved ones.
These questions are designed to slow the process of consumption and assess the true value of a purchase.
The best way to save money and live frugally is not to shop in the first place. This, however, is easier said than done. Resisting the urge to buy things that appeal and attract takes great determination, especially if you have the money but know you should save it for something more important that’s far in the future, such as paying down debt or saving for retirement.
While listening to an interesting podcast with Tim Ferriss and financial freedom guru Mr. Money Mustache this past weekend, I was interested to learn about the questions that Mr. Money Mustache asks himself whenever he’s tempted to make a purchase. He says he uses these to slow down the process of consumption, to regain perspective, and to remind himself that just because he wants it doesn’t mean he should have it.
Question #1: Why are you being such an idiot?
Mr. Money Mustache calls this his “mental beat-down.” He criticizes himself for even having the urge to buy something in the first place, reminds himself of how impossible it would be to justify such a purchase to his cult-following of fellow frugal Mustachians, and how weak he’s acting. It works most of the time.
Question #2: Would I come back tomorrow to buy this?
Procrastination is a tactic recommended by many finance bloggers. If you’re really struggling, then put off the decision for a while. See if you still feel a strong urge to purchase several days later. Better yet, in the moment of deliberation, imagine coming back – and hopefully the answer would be no.
Question #3: How much space would this take up?
Consider the amount of space a new acquisition would occupy. Everything has to be stored or displayed, and while it might look pretty on the store floor, fitting it into your own domestic life might be harder than you think.
Question #4: What if it breaks?
Is this something that you can repair easily, or take somewhere to be repaired? I’d expand this to consider the full life cycle of the components. Are they recyclable? Or will you just have to cart it off to the dump someday and leave it there?
I appreciated the reminder Mr. Money Mustache gave at the end of this discussion, when he said that happiness isn’t about adding positives (i.e. nice, shiny new things), but rather about removing negatives. So if you’re shopping because you’re seeking fulfillment or novelty or distraction, it’s a waste of time. Focusing on what’s making you unhappy is a far more worthwhile endeavor – and cheaper, to boot.
Has a president tried to pardon himself before?
No. That’s why we don’t know, because it’s never been tested. The closest we came was Nixon [with Watergate]. He asked his lawyer [J. Fred Buzhardt], “What are my options?” His lawyer said, “You could quit, [or] you could pardon yourself and then quit.”
But the Department of Justice, who would have been prosecuting [Nixon] presumably after he left office … analyzed it and said they could prosecute him after he left office even if he pardoned himself, that [it] wouldn’t be valid if he pardoned himself.
Can he be prosecuted while in office?
The Constitution doesn’t say you can’t. So people say, “If there was something that said presidents are immune while in office, then great, but [the Constitution] doesn’t, so let’s prosecute him.” Other people say it’s kind of weird — he’s head of executive branch and the executive branch would be prosecuting him, so he could fire the special counsel or whoever’s prosecuting him.
When Nixon was being investigated under the Watergate investigation, [the grand jury] indicted a lot of people, but they didn’t indict him. They didn’t know if they could do it and they didn’t want to press their luck. … President [Bill] Clinton was in a similar situation. It looked like [the DOJ was] waiting for him to leave office to prosecute him, and they cut a deal the day before he left office and settled that case.
Can the president pardon his aides and/or family members?
It seems like he has much more leeway to do that. … President Clinton pardoned his own [half] brother [Roger Clinton, who was arrested and imprisoned on drug charges]. That was controversial because people thought that was unseemly, but no one thought he couldn’t do that just because it was his half-brother.
There are limits on the pardon power besides whether the pardon is valid or not. One of them is political. [T]he president needs … political support, and doing something like pardoning your family members or pardoning yourself would damage you politically in most cases. … On the other side, there’s the possibility it’s a crime. Just because you could pardon people and the pardon could stick doesn’t mean if [the pardon is] corrupt that they couldn’t prosecute you. If I gave the president $1 million to pardon me, the pardon would stick, but that’s a bribe, and [DOJ] would prosecute. If [the president is] doing it in a way that’s corrupt, that’s obstructing justice.
One important point that I think gets missed a lot: People talk about the pardon power [believing] pardons are for guilty people. [They think] if you accept a pardon you’re admitting you’re guilty. Ninety-nine percent of the time that’s what a pardon is. … But pardons are used to exonerate people. … Someone’s exhausted all their appeals, new evidence comes out, the court won’t look at it. The president can say, “I’m issuing a pardon because this person is actually innocent.” You can imagine the president saying, “This special prosecutor has gone too far. This is a witch hunt. This is fake news. This is all a bunch of inappropriate use of power. I’m the president. I have the power to stop it ,and I’m going to use that power.” … You can imagine at least 30 percent of the country would say, “Yeah, he’s right, this is ridiculous.”
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who’s being prosecuted. Let’s say you are sure you’re innocent but you’re being prosecuted anyway. If the president pardoned you, you would probably take it. Why take the chance?
If the president successfully pardoned his top aides or family members, what would that mean in terms of a political legacy?
Every once in a while people talk about amending the Constitution to restrict pardon power. The president has the pardon power because he’s politically accountable. … The fact of the matter is the Constitution doesn’t get amended for stuff like that. But you can imagine a very controversial pardon … might spur the amendment process. Congress [says that] there have been some abuses here [and] pass an amendment to restrict some pardon powers; [and] in certain matters the president can pardon but the Senate has to approve it. … But even then, it would be controversial, but it’s politics. Clinton did his controversial pardons, and there was a big fuss about it and now no one talks about it.
What’s the historical precedent for these controversial pardons?
I would say probably the [most] controversial pardon was when [President Gerald] Ford pardoned Nixon. He did it in 1974, and he still had to run for reelection [in 1976], and he lost, and it probably cost him the election. … That’s the way it’s supposed to work. The president did it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he was accountable. So that one didn’t blow over; that haunted Ford for the rest of his term, but it was probably the right thing to do. I think that’s got to be the No. 1 most controversial because it cost him the election.
Once you’re pardoned, can you be prosecuted in the future?
The state can prosecute you still. The pardon would have to specify what it covers. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was pretty broad. It was for anything [Nixon] did or might have done as president. … But if it said something like, “I pardon you for your role in the Iran-Contra scandal,” then they might still be able to prosecute me for anything else I did [outside of that], or lying to investigators. So you have to look at the terms of the pardon and see what falls under it. But basically if you’re pardoned and you haven’t already been prosecuted, then you can’t [be prosecuted]. Whatever [the pardon] says it’s covering, then it covers it. But that still leaves [state prosecution], and it still leaves impeachment.
What is the timeline for a pardon?
The usual process is that it goes through the Department of Justice. It takes years, and they make a recommendation.
But if the president wants to pardon someone, basically all you have to do is take out a piece of paper. Maybe you can even tweet it, if you’ve got the right language. All you have to say is, “I, Donald J. Trump, as president of the United States, hereby pardon so and so for such and such …” and then sign it. And that’s that. … The timeline is whatever the president wants it to be.
What’s a situation in which a president could get a pardon? How likely is the 25th Amendment scenario (in which Vice President Mike Pence steps in and then pardons Trump)?
What [someone in my law school class] said was, why would you go out of the way to pardon yourself when you could just do that? “I’m having a colonoscopy and I’m going to hand over power to the vice president.” And then the vice president pardons you, and then you come back and be president again.
That’s a great example of the most important check on the pardon power being political. It would be a tremendous political black eye to try and do something like that. You would think they would do that if they thought they could get away with it or if they had nothing to lose.
Politically, they might try and do it if they thought they could get away with it. If they had nothing to lose, then that’s not something worth protecting. As a legal matter I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t do that. The pardons would stick. You could say they made a deal; it’s a conspiracy to obstruct justice … but the pardons would stick. I don’t know why Mike Pence would want to stick his neck out like that.
He’s not one of the people who has nothing to lose.
Right, and he’s the one person Trump can’t fire.
You mentioned this earlier — the Justice Department has a 1974 memo stating that the president cannot pardon himself. What does that memo mean if Trump tries to pardon himself? Is it binding in any way?
No, [it’s not binding]. Its value is that it is potentially persuasive to say it’s a well-respected office, the Department of Justice, and smart people looked into it and this is what they thought. … It would be a weight on the scale, but it wouldn’t present any kind of insurmountable barrier.
How would pardons affect Fifth Amendment protections?
[That’s] one drawback to pardoning people if you’re trying to derail an investigation. Let’s say the president tries to pardon his son-in-law [Jared Kushner]. And you say, OK, now Mueller can’t go after him and he’s out. But Mueller can still investigate. He can’t prosecute him. Now that Kushner is pardoned, he can’t plead the Fifth. That means he’s more likely to have to testify and that protection you’re giving to him comes at the cost of exposing everyone he would then be forced to testify against.
The cynical answer is [that] in exchange for his loyalty … he would testify in a way that didn’t incriminate anyone. But the fact of the matter is they can’t take the Fifth; that provides an important protection. That’s exposing everyone above him in the enterprise.
If there’s a possibility of state prosecution, then you might still plead the Fifth. “I’ve been pardoned but I don’t want to incriminate myself as far as any state proceedings, so I’m not going to talk to you.” But you could get around that by saying, “We’ll take your testimony and not share it with the state.”
And this would only apply to things the person was pardoned for.
What are the chances that Trump actually pardons someone in his circle? Or that he pardons himself?
Time and time again, when I try and predict what Donald Trump will do, I say, “Well, surely he would never do that,” and then he does. I’ve given up estimating the extent of his ambition or what I thought were political barriers to doing things. … He would probably not use the pardon power until or unless it really starts to get real. In other words, he wouldn’t do it at this stage. Once people are indicted, once it looks like they’re going to be indicted. Even then it’s a question of loyalty: Who does he feel like he needs to protect?
If it came to that, I don’t think he would hesitate to do it. This is a fault in my analysis before; I just assumed politically it would be be suicide to pardon your own inner circle like that. But public opinion is so divided and people view the news in such polarized and mutually exclusive ways, I could see him saying, “I’m not bailing out my corrupt cronies. I’m protecting them from the other side being corrupt and inappropriate and of course I’m going to do the right thing here.”
If you don’t have enough people in Congress — the Republican majority would have to be against it — then you get away with it. I think he could get away with a lot more politically than I ever imagined a president could.
Would that person have to accept a pardon?
Sometimes the president issues a pardon conditionally. If you do X, then you’re pardoned. In that case, the person can say, “Well, I don’t want to do that, so I don’t accept the pardon.” In that case, you can say it has to be accepted. But there are other cases where the president says, for instance, President [Dwight] Eisenhower, there was a guy [Maurice Schick] who was about to executed and Eisenhower commuted his sentence and said, “Give him a life sentence and don’t execute him.” [Schick] said, “I don’t want a life sentence; I’d rather be executed.” The court said, “It’s not up to you to accept it or not.” A pardon doesn’t have to be accepted even though there are a lot of contexts in which it does. If the president wants it to happen without the person accepting it, there are ways he can do that.
How could a pardon affect the independent counsel’s investigation?
It would reduce the number of targets for prosecution, but it would expand the amount of testimony they could get. The question is how many targets are left versus how much testimony does it open up?
What about any congressional investigations?
That’s where the Constitution specifically says pardons don’t apply to impeachment. You couldn’t do anything to an impeachment — if anything, it could add fuel to the fire for an impeachment.
And the Donald Trump Jr. Senate hearings this week?
No. Congress’ power to investigate and to impeach are totally outside of the reach of the pardon power.
Ex-ethics chief Walter Shaub tweeted that we should never underestimate the willingness of the Office of Legal Counsel to revise its views when the White House finds them “annoying.” What’s your response to that?
but never underestimate willingness of OLC, which issued torture memo + nepotized WH, to revise its views when WH finds rule of law annoying
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017
That sounds pretty cynical to me, but the line between cynical and realistic is getting thinner every day. … I wouldn’t put it that way, but I can’t disagree with that.
What are people missing when they’re looking at this question of Trump and presidential pardons?
People aren’t paying enough attention to the possibility of state prosecution. The attorney general of New York [Eric Schneiderman], [is] no friend of Trump, and there’s nothing [Trump] can do about stopping state prosecution. … He can’t pardon it away.
People don’t ignore this as much, but I think they need to emphasize it more. When it comes to presidents and their accountability for their potentially criminal actions, it’s first and foremost political, and it’s first and foremost up to Congress and whether they’re going to impeach. The independent counsel can prosecute all sorts of people, but he can’t do anything to the president without Congress going first.
We saw that with [independent counsel] Ken Starr [who investigated Clinton]. … He took his report [on Clinton] and he sent it to Congress [which helped the impeachment begin].
Could a court challenge a pardon?
It would have to come up where the president pardoned himself and the prosecutor went after him anyway. The court would have to decide at that point if the president didn’t pardon himself, we won’t know. If he did pardon himself and they didn’t try to prosecute, we wouldn’t know.
But if he pardons himself and they try to prosecute him anyway, then we would, or if they start to and they ask the court. As long as it’s not theoretical, the court will weigh in. Once they do, it’s settled.
Read more from Yahoo News:
- Trump suggests Republicans should ‘protect their president’
- Kellyanne Conway explains what she meant by ‘alternative facts’
- Departing White House press secretary says good riddance to press
- Gov. Greg Abbott may be looking beyond Texas, as he runs even farther to the right
- Photos: Venezuela’s symphony of protests
Source Article from http://filmingcops.com/baltimore-cop-accidentally-films-planting-drugs-arrest/
July 17th, 2017
Via: Miami Herald:
Klaus Eberwein, a former Haitian government official, was found dead Tuesday in a South Dade motel room in what the Miami-Dade medical examinerâ€™s office is ruling a suicide.
â€œHe shot himself in the head,â€� said Veronica Lamar, Miami-Dade medical examiner records supervisor. She listed his time of death at 12:19 p.m.
The address where Eberweinâ€™s body was discovered according to police, 14501 S. Dixie Hwy., is a Quality Inn.
A supporter of former Haitian President Michel Martelly, Eberwein served as director general of the governmentâ€™s economic development agency, Fonds dâ€™assistance Ã©conomique et social, better known as FAES. He held the position from May 2012 until February 2015 when he was replaced.
<!– AD CAN GO HERE
END: AD CAN GO HERE –>
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=51247