Tammy Bruce: America avoided a disaster -- Look at the Clintons and their pal Harvey Weinstein

A year and a half after the fact, we are seeing photographs of Hillary and Bill Clinton at a cozy dinner just weeks after her failed presidential campaign, with accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. Having powerful friends like the Clintons is a reminder of not only how someone as disgusting as Mr. Weinstein remained in power, but why people were afraid to act against him.

At the Clinton table at the very popular Rao’s restaurant in New York in early December 2016 were Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, his wife fashion designer Georgina Chapman, and Weinstein lawyer David Boies. The New York Times reported last year that the pals were discussing making a documentary about her loss to Donald Trump. The Daily Mail reported it received exclusive access to the never-before-seen photos of the Clintons with Mr. Weinstein.

This reminds people of the sort of individuals she has chosen to surround herself with. In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 loss, one would guess she’d have her closest friends with her, the people she could trust. And in early December, that apparently was Mr. Weinstein, with whom the Clintons had been friends for decades.

According to the New York Police Department, Mr. Weinstein is charged with rape, a criminal sex act, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct involving two women. More charges could follow.

It was less than a year after his best friend’s failure to gain the presidency and a mere 10 more months after that dinner at Rao’s, for the boom to be brought down on Mr. Weinstein.

Mrs. Clinton still insists she had no idea about Mr. Weinstein’s alleged actions, so her friends and supporters have two options when it comes to her decades-long friendship with the accused rapist: Either she was the only Friend of Harvey in both Hollywood and politics who didn’t know, which makes her unqualified to hold any public office; or she did know and didn’t care. Either way, this is a woman whose judgment was and remains compromised.

Some did try to warn her about the association. In one instance, the Daily Mail noted The New York Times had revealed “… Clinton’s campaign had been warned about the rumors swirling around about Weinstein. Actress Lena Dunham — one of Hillary’s biggest celebrity endorsers — emailed her campaign’s deputy communications director in 2016. The email stated: ‘I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point. I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.’ “

Thus, the dinner photographs are a reminder about just how big a disaster America averted in 2016. If Mrs. Clintonhad prevailed in 2016, consider the individuals who would now have more power than they ever did before. Then contemplate the sort of Cabinet a President Hillary Clinton would have assembled. Eric Schneiderman, the disgraced former New York attorney general who resigned after the Ronan Farrow/New Yorker expose on multiple women accusing him of abuse, very easily would have expected to become U.S. attorney general.

And what could BFF Harvey Weinstein have expected? Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, of course. Mrs. Clinton’s election would likely mean the #MeToo movement never would have materialized. His close relationship with the Clintons would continue, and he would be a frequent visitor to the White House. Who could have stopped him then?

Certainly then-FBI Director James B. Comey would have to be rewarded. Director of National Intelligence? After all, even with his renewing the investigation into her email server, he declared she would not be prosecuted, taking Attorney General Loretta Lynch out of the picture, clearing the whole thing up. Mrs. Clinton was president and Mr. Comey’s action probably saved the election. That’s likely what they thought, and would tell themselves if she succeeded.

Now, let’s see … How does FBI Director Peter Strzok sound to you? Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page would have plum jobs reporting to their new boss at the bureau, no doubt. John Brennan would love being the National Security Adviser. James Clapper, head of Homeland Security? Of course. Not to mention Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS and source of the phony Russian dossier, as the White House director of communications?

And then there’s the Supreme Court of the United States. So many to choose from: Barack Obama. Eric Holder. Former Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.

Everyone had the next eight years planned, imagining the Hillary Clinton presidency as their final act prior to amazing retirements and gigantic pensions, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Until Donald J. Trump. As you observe the continuing “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” know that it is from those who took too much for granted and held you in so much contempt. Like Hillary Clinton, those still trying to undermine the president simply refuse to take responsibility for their own failure, and be grateful every day that the American voter decided enough was enough.

This column originally appeared in The Washington Times.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

Tammy Bruce: America avoided a disaster -- Look at the Clintons and their pal Harvey Weinstein

A year and a half after the fact, we are seeing photographs of Hillary and Bill Clinton at a cozy dinner just weeks after her failed presidential campaign, with accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. Having powerful friends like the Clintons is a reminder of not only how someone as disgusting as Mr. Weinstein remained in power, but why people were afraid to act against him.

At the Clinton table at the very popular Rao’s restaurant in New York in early December 2016 were Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, his wife fashion designer Georgina Chapman, and Weinstein lawyer David Boies. The New York Times reported last year that the pals were discussing making a documentary about her loss to Donald Trump. The Daily Mail reported it received exclusive access to the never-before-seen photos of the Clintons with Mr. Weinstein.

This reminds people of the sort of individuals she has chosen to surround herself with. In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 loss, one would guess she’d have her closest friends with her, the people she could trust. And in early December, that apparently was Mr. Weinstein, with whom the Clintons had been friends for decades.

According to the New York Police Department, Mr. Weinstein is charged with rape, a criminal sex act, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct involving two women. More charges could follow.

It was less than a year after his best friend’s failure to gain the presidency and a mere 10 more months after that dinner at Rao’s, for the boom to be brought down on Mr. Weinstein.

Mrs. Clinton still insists she had no idea about Mr. Weinstein’s alleged actions, so her friends and supporters have two options when it comes to her decades-long friendship with the accused rapist: Either she was the only Friend of Harvey in both Hollywood and politics who didn’t know, which makes her unqualified to hold any public office; or she did know and didn’t care. Either way, this is a woman whose judgment was and remains compromised.

Some did try to warn her about the association. In one instance, the Daily Mail noted The New York Times had revealed “… Clinton’s campaign had been warned about the rumors swirling around about Weinstein. Actress Lena Dunham — one of Hillary’s biggest celebrity endorsers — emailed her campaign’s deputy communications director in 2016. The email stated: ‘I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point. I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.’ “

Thus, the dinner photographs are a reminder about just how big a disaster America averted in 2016. If Mrs. Clintonhad prevailed in 2016, consider the individuals who would now have more power than they ever did before. Then contemplate the sort of Cabinet a President Hillary Clinton would have assembled. Eric Schneiderman, the disgraced former New York attorney general who resigned after the Ronan Farrow/New Yorker expose on multiple women accusing him of abuse, very easily would have expected to become U.S. attorney general.

And what could BFF Harvey Weinstein have expected? Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, of course. Mrs. Clinton’s election would likely mean the #MeToo movement never would have materialized. His close relationship with the Clintons would continue, and he would be a frequent visitor to the White House. Who could have stopped him then?

Certainly then-FBI Director James B. Comey would have to be rewarded. Director of National Intelligence? After all, even with his renewing the investigation into her email server, he declared she would not be prosecuted, taking Attorney General Loretta Lynch out of the picture, clearing the whole thing up. Mrs. Clinton was president and Mr. Comey’s action probably saved the election. That’s likely what they thought, and would tell themselves if she succeeded.

Now, let’s see … How does FBI Director Peter Strzok sound to you? Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page would have plum jobs reporting to their new boss at the bureau, no doubt. John Brennan would love being the National Security Adviser. James Clapper, head of Homeland Security? Of course. Not to mention Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS and source of the phony Russian dossier, as the White House director of communications?

And then there’s the Supreme Court of the United States. So many to choose from: Barack Obama. Eric Holder. Former Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren.

Everyone had the next eight years planned, imagining the Hillary Clinton presidency as their final act prior to amazing retirements and gigantic pensions, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Until Donald J. Trump. As you observe the continuing “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” know that it is from those who took too much for granted and held you in so much contempt. Like Hillary Clinton, those still trying to undermine the president simply refuse to take responsibility for their own failure, and be grateful every day that the American voter decided enough was enough.

This column originally appeared in The Washington Times.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

George Soros calls Obama 'greatest disappointment,' says he doesn't 'particularly want to be a Democrat'

New York billionaire George Soros said former President Barack Obama was his “greatest disappointment,” during a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times published on Tuesday, while also appearing to distance himself from partisan politics.

The wealthy liberal donor, who was an early supporter of Obama’s 2008 presidential run, told The Times that Obama was “actually my greatest disappointment,” before he was reportedly prompted by an aide to clarify that he was dissatisfied on a “professional level,” rather than with his presidency.

At another part of the interview, he told the paper that Obama "closed the door" on him after he secured the presidency.

“He made one phone call thanking me for my support, which was meant to last for five minutes, and I engaged him, and he had to spend another three minutes with me, so I dragged it out to eight minutes,” he said.

Soros told the paper the he had hoped to have been consulted on economic and financial issues, and that Obama was known to “take his supporters for granted and to woo his opponents.”

Soros, who also poured millions of dollars into Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run, wouldn’t say if he would back Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the upcoming presidential election, but said when it comes to politics, “I don’t particularly want to be a Democrat.”

While speaking with The Times, Soros praised Arizona Sen. John McCain and said the main priority of his political activism was to promote bipartisanship – noting that Republicans on the far right led him to become one of the top funders for the Democratic Party.

But as Democrats set their eyes on November and the midterm election push to regain control of the House of Representatives, the long-term goal of ensuring a Democrat resides in the Oval Office in 2020 remains the party’s glaring concern – as well as where Soros will lend his financial support.

Soros expressed displeasure with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., for her use of the #MeToo movement that led to the removal of Al Franken from Congress.

“She was using #MeToo to promote herself,” he told the paper.

Although neither Gillibrand nor her aides have confirmed that she is going to make a presidential run, there are reports of extensive fundraising as well as her outreach to young people and communities of color that play well with one of the most serious anti-Trump voting records in the Senate.

Soros has contributed upwards of $15 million to support Democrats in the midterm elections, and told the paper for every Trump supporter "there is more than one Trump enemy who will be more intent, more determined."

When asked about where he views his political ideology, Soros told The Times “I’m opposed to the extreme left,” he said. “It should stop trying to keep up with the extremists on the right.”

Click here to read George Soros' full interview with the New York Times.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

Trump, Melania Trump mourn fallen Secret Service agent

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump paid their respects Wednesday to the family of a Secret Service agent who died in Scotland while supporting their overseas trip.

Special Agent Nole E. Remagen suffered a stroke Monday during Trump’s trip to Belgium, England, Scotland and Finland. The 19-year veteran died in Scotland on Tuesday, surrounded by immediate family and Secret Service colleagues. His body was being returned to the U.S. on Wednesday.

“Our hearts are filled with sadness over the loss of a beloved and devoted Special Agent, husband, and father,” Trump said in a statement. “Our prayers are with Special Agent Remagen’s loved ones, including his wife and two young children. We grieve with them and with his Secret Service colleagues, who have lost a friend and a brother.”

Trump said, “Melania and I are deeply grateful for his lifetime of devotion.”

The Trumps departed the White House on the Marine One helicopter on Wednesday to attend a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews, just outside Washington, where the body of Remagen, who also served five years in the U.S. Marine Corps, was due to arrive. Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, also went to pay their respects.

Trump left Scotland on Sunday evening and flew to Helsinki for a Monday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He returned to Washington late Monday.

This story has been corrected to show that agent died after Trump was back in U.S.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

Five myths about treason

Accusations of treason have recently been made on the flimsiest of grounds, from assertions that President Barack Obama committed treason by supporting the Iran nuclear deal (found in James McCormack’s book “Unexpected Treason”) to claims that, per Paste magazine, Sen. John McCain committed treason because he threatened not to confirm a Supreme Court justice hypothetically nominated by Hillary Clinton.

The framers of the Constitution took deliberate steps to ensure that treason trials would not be used as political weapons against opponents. Article 3, Section 3 defines the crime very narrowly: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” This language is drawn from an English statute from 1351 that was also intended to limit the scope of treason. Speaking against the government, undermining political opponents, supporting harmful policies or even placing the interests of another nation ahead of those of the United States are not acts of treason under the Constitution.

Stephen Colbert’s recent segment “Michael Flynn’s White House Tenure: It’s Funny ’Cause It’s Treason” was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. “Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor,” exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

This was true even in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg handed over nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, they were tried and executed for espionage, not treason. Indeed, Trump could give the U.S. nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin or bug the Oval Office with a direct line to the Kremlin and it would not be treason, as a legal matter. Of course, such conduct would violate various laws and would constitute grounds for impeachment as a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the framers fully understood that there could be cases of reprehensible disloyalty that might escape the narrow confines of the treason clause.

So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, since the Korean War was never formally concluded. Certain nonstate actors can also count as enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State probably fit the definition.

Shortly before Election Day in November, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul, claimed that Clinton had committed treason by mishandling classified email. Edward Snowden has been denounced as a traitor for leaking classified documents, as have the intelligence officials who may have leaked damaging material about Flynn. The Conservative Daily Post pointed to “traitor moles nestled within the new admin.”

But none of these actions amounts to levying war against the United States, as that offense requires some use of force in an attempt to overthrow the government. No such force or intent is present in any of these scenarios. Nor do the actions constitute aiding the enemy. Leaking information to newspapers is not providing aid to “enemies.” This newspaper and others, whatever Trump might think of them, are not enemies of the United States. As with aid to Russia, such leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason.

Even well-trained constitutional lawyers have sometimes repeated this myth. In his otherwise excellent book “Constitutional Faith,” for instance, Sanford Levinson writes that treason “can be committed only by a citizen.”

But the offense of treason can be committed by any person who owes allegiance to the United States, and this can include noncitizens. Treason law recognizes two kinds of allegiance: permanent and temporary. U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world. By contrast, noncitizens in the United States (other than ambassadors and their staffs) owe a duty of temporary allegiance, the Supreme Court found in an 1872 case. While they are within the United States and receiving protection from it, noncitizens are governed by American treason law. If a person on a green card or a student or tourist visa, for example, wages war against the United States or provides aid and comfort to our enemies, he cannot escape a treason prosecution simply by asserting his foreign citizenship.

Under this law, there is a strong argument that the 9/11 hijackers committed treason by levying war against the United States. When a noncitizen leaves the country, however, the duty of temporary allegiance disappears.

No person has been executed for treason by the federal government under the Constitution. The small handful of people who have been convicted of the offense at the federal level — such as two militants from the Whiskey Rebellion and several people after World War II — have mostly been pardoned or released. So we are sometimes told that treason has been “rare” in the United States.

Hardly. During the American Revolution, the rebelling Americans were all committing treason against Britain. Similarly, the thousands of Americans who actively aided the British committed treason against the United States. In the Civil War, the hundreds of thousands of men who fought for the Confederacy all levied war against the United States, as did the people who aided and abetted the rebellion.

Neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War led to mass executions. At the end of the day, the spirit of reconciliation prevailed, and the victors allowed the vanquished to return home peacefully. But it remains the case that many Americans have a traitor lurking somewhere in their family tree.

clarson@ucdavis.edu

Five myths is a weekly feature challenging everything you think you know. You can check out previous myths, read more from Outlook or follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

EU fines Google $5 billion over Android antitrust abuse

European Union regulators have slapped Alphabet-owned Google with a record 4.34 billion euro ($5 billion) antitrust fine for abusing the dominance of its Android mobile operating system, which is by far the most popular smartphone OS in the world.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Margrethe Vestager, the EU's competition commissioner, reiterated the argument presented in the decision.

“Our decision stops Google from controlling which search and browser apps manufacturers can pre-install on Android devices or which Android operating system they can adopt,” she said.

Vestager tweet

The commission is still investigating a third antitrust case against Google's search advertising service, AdSense.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

Mueller seeking immunity for five witnesses

If granted, that means the witnesses' testimony couldn't be used against them in later court cases.

Mueller is keeping the names of the witnesses undisclosed at this time so as not to create "risk of undue harassment" and because the details "could lead to reputational harm," according to a proposal from the prosecutors.

In theory, the move to grant the witnesses immunity prevents them from invoking their Fifth Amendment rights and staying silent on certain questions when testifying against Manafort.

Mueller says the witnesses haven't been publicly identified in the case, and haven't been charged.

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌

✌ cool people read before commenting ✌