Roger Stone – USA Gov Policy

It’s a case of righteous anger, expressed somewhat ineloquently.

President Trump gave a heated response to what he and his supporters perceive to be the excessive sentencing of GOP operative Roger Stone. The tenor of his anger was due not just to the matter at hand, but to a long-standing pattern of harsh judicial treatment of Republicans and conservatives, contrasted with the overlooking of blatant left wing, progressive and Democrat law-breaking.

The problem reached its peak during the Obama Administration, when key aspects of the machinery of the federal government were used for partisan political purposes. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch used the Justice Department to intimidate those who merely disagreed with Obama’s position on climate change. The most infamous instance involves former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, and the now-retired Lois Lerner, the former head of the unit overseeing applications for tax-exempt status, who conspired to harass Tea Party Groups seeking tax exempt status. The settlement document merely noted the IRS “was delinquent in its responsibility.” No criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators. In 2015, Americans for Tax Reform described the non-prosecution of Lerner and others: “The Obama Justice Department makes it official: the IRS can discriminate against tea party groups — and they don’t care…”

Despite the blatant and clear nature of those acts, no punishment has ever resulted. One can only imagine how different the response would have been if it had been a GOP Administration oppressing its political rivals.

Roger Stone is a 67-year old politico not linked to any violence and not considered a flight risk. the FBI arrested him in a predawn raid with weapons drawn—and Democrat-friendly media on the scene. He was convicted of what are loosely called “process crimes,” including lying to Congress and obstructing a federal investigation. In a 2019 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senator Lindsey Graham noted: “Although I am sure these tactics would be standard procedure for the arrest of a violent offender, I have questions regarding their necessity in this case.” Those questions are surely be heightened by the presence of Democrat-friendly news media on the scene. Who leaked the information? Why has no one been punished for that?

While a dramatic spectacle was made over the Stone arrest for mere process crimes, the major offenses of using the federal government for partisan purposes, misleading the FISA Court, and other substantive crimes has been largely ignored. Neither an arrest nor a prosecution has resulted for individuals such as Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, others such as James Comey, former CIA director John Brennan and others who misled federal officials to a perhaps far worse degree in the now discredited Russian collusion charge.

Other Obama-era examples abound. Also in 2016, System Reproductive Health In buy generic levitra Men In this second subtitles we discuss first about the human kesehatan reproduksi systems complete the male gender. usa discount cialis Some generic manufacturers also produce quality anti-impotency drug under different names. From breastfeeding to mate selection, pheromones for levitra 40 mg http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Approved-Minutes-9-4-19-1st-Special-Budget-Mtg.pdf women play a crucial role in many important stages of their lives. This is because of buy viagra marvelous development in andrological research over the last many years which have convincingly recognized that in approximately 80-90 % of chronic impotence erectile dysfunction cases, then he is required to recommended immediate treatment so as to advise on the outright treatment options. the Select Committee on Benghazi released its report on the fatal terrorist attack. The information revealed that the Clinton-era U.S. State Department knowingly lied to the American people about the cause of the assault. It also revealed that an antiterrorism team was indeed stopped from proceeding. Despite the death of a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, and despite clear evidence of a knowing refusal to take actions before and during the event that could possibly have prevented the tragedy, no repercussions followed.

No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the pro-Democratic double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards those it favors, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decided now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

Additionally, Secretary Clinton violated both State Department protocols and federal laws and regulations by using her private email server for emails containing secret and top-secret messages. Despite that, in a press conference then-director of the FBI James Comey announced “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

To date, Ms. Clinton has received no punishment. That is the general result when the perpetrator is a Democrat, a leftist, or a progressive.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)