Schiff’s Whistleblower and the Mueller Report

The whistleblower complaint against President Trump alleges acts very similar to those examined by the Mueller Report which occurred during the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, Donald Trump, Jr., and several other participants.  In both episodes there was the possibility of a foreign government giving Trump opposition research information relevant to his campaign opponent. 

The Mueller Report examined the June 9, 2016, meeting in great detail.  Its conclusion was that there was no violation of campaign finance laws.  The same conclusion should apply to Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  The Report said:

Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.

In particular, on the question of whether opposition research provided by a foreign government constituted a thing-of-value, the Muller Report said:

… no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues. 

The Democrats working on impeachment refuse to mention the Mueller Report, although it is clearly relevant to their investigations.  Since the factual situations are so similar it is important to review the Mueller Report’s extensive analysis of the June 9, 2016, meeting between Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya.  The Democrats would no doubt argue that they are different because Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, but in fact, Trump asked Zelensky to do him a “favor.”  A favor is not something you pay for.  It is something done at the other party’s discretion, and need not be done at all.  Zelensky did not do anything in response to Trump’s request, and Trump did not withhold the aid.  In that sense it was like the June 9 meeting in that nothing happened with regard to providing opposition research. 

Because it is so relevant, following is the complete text from the Mueller Report of its legal analysis of the June 9 meeting. 

Begin quote:

3. Campaign Finance

Several areas of the Office's investigation involved efforts or offers by foreign nationals to provide negative information about candidate Clinton to the Trump Campaign or to distribute that information to the public, to the anticipated benefit of the Campaign. As explained below, the Office considered whether two of those efforts in particular- the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump

Tower Harm to Ongoing Matter ---:-eonstituted prosecutable violations of the campaign-finance laws. The Office determined that the evidence was not sufficient to charge either incident as a criminal violation.

a. Overview Of Governing Law

"[T]he United States has a compelling interest... in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process." Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 (D.D.C. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., for three-judge court), ajf'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012). To that end, federal campaign- finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, donations, expenditures, or other disbursements in connection with federal, state, or local candidate elections, and prohibits anyone from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such contributions or donations. As relevant here, foreign nationals may not make- and no one may "solicit,' accept, or receive" from them- " a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" or "an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(l)(A), (a)(2).1283 The term "contribution," which is used throughout the campaign-finance law, "includes" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). It excludes, among other things, "the value of [volunteer] services." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(i).

Foreign nationals are also barred from making "an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(l)(C). The term "expenditure" "includes" "any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 52 U.S.C. §,30101(9)(A)(i). It excludes, among other things, news stories and non-partisan get-out-the-vote activities. 52 U.S.C. § 3010I(9)(B)(i)-(ii). An "independent expenditure" is an expenditure "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" and made independently of the campaign. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(17). An "electioneering communication" is a broadcast communication that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office" and is made within specified time periods and targeted at the relevant electorate. 52 u.s.c. § 30104(f)(3).

The statute defines "foreign national" by reference to FARA and the Immigration and Nationality Act, with minor modification. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b) (cross-referencing 22 U.S.C. § 61 l(b)(l)-(3) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20), (22)). That definition yields five, sometimes- overlapping categories of foreign nationals, which include all of the individuals and entities relevant for present purposes-namely, foreign governments and political parties, individuals

outside of the U.S. who are not legal permanent residents, and certain non-U.S. entities located outside of the U.S. ·

A and willful[]" violation involving an aggregate of $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i); see Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (noting that a willful violation will require some "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law"); United States v. Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d 573, 577 (E.D. Va. 2013) (applying willfulness standard drawn from Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998)); see also Wagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1, 19 n.23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en bane) (same). A "knowing[] and willful[]" violation involving an aggregate of $2,000 or more in a calendar year, but less than $25,000, is a misdemeanor. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(ii).

b. Application to June 9 Trump Tower Meeting

The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.

In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.

This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donationsbyforeignnationals,52U.S.C.§3012l(a)(l)(A). Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.

The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; the solicitation of an illegal foreign- source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i).

i. Thing-of Value Element

A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign "documents and information" of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2) (emphasis added). And the term "contribution" is defined throughout the campaign-finance laws to "include[]" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value." 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

The phrases "thing of value" and "anything of value" are broad and inclusive enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information. Throughout the United States Code, these phrases serve as "term[s] of art" that are construed "broad[ly]." UnitedStatesv.Nilsen,967F.2d 539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) ("thing of value" includes "both tangibles and intangibles"); see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 20l(b)(l), 666(a)(2) (bribery statutes); id. § 641 (theft of government property). For example, the term "thing of value" encompasses law enforcement reports that would reveal the identity of informants, United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979); classified materials, United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 1991); confidential information about a competitive bid, United States v. Matzkin, 14 F .3d 1014, I 020 (4th Cir. 1994); secret grand jury information, United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 680 (6th Cir. 1985); and information about a witness's whereabouts, United States v. Sheker, 618 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.

1980) (per curiam). And in the public corruption context, " ' thing of value' is defined broadly to include the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received." United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731,744 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at least some forms of information, stating that the term "anything of value" includes "the provision of any goods or services without charge," such as "membership lists" and "mailing lists." 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(l). The FEC has concluded that the phrase includes a state-by-state list of activists. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing the FEC's findings). Likewise, polling data provided to a campaign constitutes a "contribution." FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-12 (Strub), 1990 WL 153454 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 106.4(6)). And in the specific context of the foreign-contributions ban, the FEC has concluded that "election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns," including "flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material," constitute "anything of value," even though "the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain." FEC Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2007 WL 5172375, at *5.

These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value. At the same time, no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues.

ii. Willfulness

Even assuming that the promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" constitute a "thing of value" under campaign-finance law, the government would encounter other challenges in seeking to obtain and sustain a conviction. Most significantly, the government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove that a defendant acted "knowingly and willfully," the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 123 (8th ed. Dec. 2017) ("Election Offenses"); see Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (noting that a willful violation requires "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law"); Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 577 ("knowledge of general unlawfulness"). "This standard creates an elevated scienter element requiring, at the very least, that application of the law to the facts in question be fairly clear. When there is substantial doubt concerning whether the law applies to the facts of a particular matter, the offender is more likely to have an intent defense." Election Offenses 123. ·

On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or effo11s at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting. While the government has evidence of later efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting that could circumstantially provide support for a showing of scienter, see Volume II, Section II.G, infra, that concealment occurred more than a year later, involved individuals who did not attend the June 9 meeting, and may reflect an intention toavoidpoliticalconsequencesratherthananypriorknowledgeofillegality. Additionally, in light of the unresolved legal questions about whether giving "documents and information" of the sort offered here constitutes a campaign contribution, Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law. Given his less direct involvement in arranging the June 9 meeting, Kushner could likely mount a similar defense. And, while Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.

iii. Difficulties in Valuing Promised Information

The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l). The type of evidence commonly used to establish the value of non-monetary contributions-such as pricing the contribution on a commercial market or determining the upstream acquisition cost or the cost of distribution-would likely be unavailable or ineffective in this factual setting. Although damaging opposition research is surely valuable to a campaign, it appears that the information ultimately delivered in the meeting was not valuable. And while value in a conspiracy may well be measured by what the participants expected to receive at the time of the agreement, see, e.g., United States v. Tombrello, 666 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1982), Goldstone's description of the offered material here was quite general. His suggestion of the information's value-i.e., that it would "incriminate Hillary" and "would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father"-w as non- specific and may have been understood as being of uncertain worth or reliability, given Goldstone's lack of direct access to the original source. The uncertainty over what would be delivered could be reflected in Trump Jr.'s response ("if it’s what you say I love it") (emphasis added).

Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.

Mueller 183-188

Census Citizenship Question Should Be Asked

The Democratic Party is just as dishonest and corrupt in its opposition to putting a citizenship question in the census as the Republicans are in proposing one.  The Democrats are stuffing the ballot box by bringing in as many immigrants as they can, legally or illegally, believing that these immigrants from poor countries will be dependent on welfare for years to come, and since the Democrats are the party of welfare, they will vote Democratic. 

The immigrants may not be able to vote right away, but as soon as they are in a position of power, the Democrats will pass some kind of expeditious naturalization law that will allow newly arrived immigrants to vote.  Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, legalizing illegal immigrants who had entered the US before 1982, basically legalizing them after only five years.  Already the Democrats are passing legislation in several states to give the vote to felons who have served their time, believing that they will all vote Democratic.  The Democrats see immigration as a much more powerful means of increasing their voters than reforming gerrymandering, for example. 

The Democrats are opposed to the census citizenship question because it would reveal the enormous changes they are making to the character of the United States.  They argue that lack of information is a good thing; there are facts Americans should not know.  The Democrats are hiding the truth.  Americans should not be permitted to know who is an American citizen.  Big brother only allows you to know what he wants you to know.  The Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing, but they are even more dishonest and devious about it. 

The Democrats argue that they oppose the citizenship question because its presence would prevent Hispanics from participating in the census. First, this implies that Democrats think Hispanics are dishonest scofflaws, who routinely break laws, as illegal aliens certainly did to enter this country.  Second, the Democrats want to make sure all Hispanics are counted because their plan is to give them all welfare to persuade them to vote Democratic.  Thus, for them it is important to get the highest possible head count to support federal expenditures that are linked to population.  It better enables them to buy Hispanic votes for Democrats. 

The idea that the Democratic effort to prevent the census from counting citizens while increasing the count of non-citizen immigrants is motivated by high-minded love of the poor is balderdash.  It is simply to increase the power of the Democratic Party vis-à-vis the Republican Party.  Preventing the count of citizens is like hiding library books that the Democrats don’t want you to read.  They want you to be ignorant.  They want to manipulate the vote for all national elections. 

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court ratified this powerplay by the Democrats, but perhaps it is a payoff to them for its making George W. Bush President over Al Gore, in a similarly corrupt decision that was basically a coup.  The Supreme Court has fouled its nest, but Trump is right to accept its decision because it is the final legal arbiter, although decisions like this will continue to undermine the court’s moral authority. 

Hearing Foreign Info about Political Opponents

I have heard enough criticism of Trump for saying he would listen if a foreign government representative said they had deleterious information about his political opponent.  What gets lost in demanded that he should not listen to it, is freedom of speech and the truth.  I think a politician should be able to talk to anyone he wants to. He should not be placed in a cage by the FBI and told whom he can talk to and whom he cannot talk to.  And what if a foreign government has seriously damaging information about a politician?  What if Putin wanted to tall Trump that when Hillary was Secretary of State, she used to tell him highly classified information about how the CIA was collecting intelligence on him.  Shouldn’t Trump be allowed to hear this, or would Hillary be safe forever because Putin was not allowed to speak of it to Trump.  To the Democrats, truth is unimportant; only the process is important. 

The Democratic Party’s position on talking to foreign people about politics is opposed to free speech and opposed to learning the truth. 

In order to operate in the world today, you need to talk to foreigners.  Yet the Democratic Party would prohibit Americans from talking to foreigners.  It’s a bad, bad policy.  It’s ironic that the Democratic policy is not “America first,” but “America only.”   If you talk to someone who is not an American citizen, how do you know that he might not causally mention something nasty about your political opponent, while making conversation?  Even if you talk only to Americans, there is the risk that a foreign government will hire an American to say something nasty about your opponent.  Foreign governments routinely hire American lobbyists. 

Even the strictest interpretation of the law seems to require that whatever you get has to have monetary value.  It’s not clear that political scuttlebutt would have real value to which you could assign a dollar amount.  The law is clearly meant to bar foreign political contributions, not conversations.  And what about foreign lobbies.  Under the Democratic interpretation, AIPAC should be disbanded as a prohibited organization. 

Art Exhibit on Anti-Semitism

The New York Review of Books reviews an art exhibit about anti-Semitic art, “A Terribly Durable Myth,” by Sara Lipton, who has written a book on the subject.  The earliest artwork she describes of an unflattering depiction of Jews dates from 1233.  In her article she lays a lot of the blame for the creation of anti-Semitism on Saint Paul’s epistles in the New Testament Bible, although Paul was a Jew.  She cites Paul’s distinction between materialistic Jews and spiritually minded Christians.  She quotes the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary definition of Jew, “… a name of opprobrium: spec. applied to a grasping or extortionate person.”  The first question that arose for me was, “If this myth of Jewish financial rapaciousness is unfounded, how has it lasted 2,000 years?” 

To offset the unfavorable images of Jews, she says the show displays art that characterizes Jews as charitable givers helping the poor, and art that depicts the most common Jews in Britain as poor tradesmen, rather than bankers.  She says that many Jews went into banking in Britain because that was the only occupation open to them, but she says little else to discredit the stereotype.  She mainly emphasizes how it has endured through centuries.  So, I ask, “Why aren’t there contrasting caricatures?”  The Jewish hooked nose she describes as common in art, is also a Roman nose.  Why is it so unflattering for Jews and not for Italians?  Where are the counter-examples? 

She doesn’t mention what to me is the main lesson of today’s emphasis on “diversity,” that not all Jews are the same.  Some may be rapacious; others may be indistinguishable from their non-Jewish counterparts.  She doesn’t mention that 20% of Nobel prize laureates are Jewish.  Are there no portraits of them? 

Democratic Party Has Become Racist

The Democratic Party has become biased against white men.  When Joe Biden, who is a white man, announced his candidacy for President, he did it by attacking the white me who took part in the Charlottesville demonstrations.  He was trying to say, “I’m not this kind of white man; I’m a good white man.”  The very fact that he had to start out his campaign by distancing himself from other white men indicates the disfavor with which white men are regarding in the Democratic Party.  It explains why so many of the the 20-plus Democratic candidates for President are women, non-white, gay, or Jewish.  They are:

Bennet – Jewish

Biden – White

Booker – Black

Bullock – White

Butigieg – Gay

Castro – Hispanic

De Blasio – White (married to black woman)

Delany – White

Gabbard – Woman

Gillibrand – Woman

Harris – Black Woman

Hickenlooper – White

Inslee – White

Klobuchar – Woman

Messam – Black

Moulton – White

O’Rourke – White (tries to appear Hispanic)

Ryan – White

Sanders – Jewish

Swalwell – White

Warren – Woman

Williamson – Woman

Yang – Asian

According to the Congressional Research Service:

Less than half of those running as Democrats are white men.  Fifty years ago, it would have been 100% white men of Western European descent.  You can argue that the diversity shows lack of racism, but on the other hand, the insistence on diversity is evidence of racism.  While the bulk of the Democrats in the House and the Senate are white men, there are fewer and fewer of them. 

Of the 239 Democrats in the House, 91 are women, 54 are African-American, 37 are Hispanic, 25 are Jewish.  Many of the Democratic Representatives may belong ot more than one group. 

Of the 45 Democratic Senators, 25 are women, 2 are African-American, 2 are Hispanic, 9 are Jewish. Again, Senators may belong to more than one group. 

On the Republican side, in the House, of the 199 Republicans, 15 are women, 1 is African-American, 8 are Histpanic, 2 are Jewish. 

In the Senate, of the 53 Republicans, 8 are women, 1 is African-American, 3 are Hispanic, none are Jewish. 

The Democrats are trying to bring in Central Americans by the trainload and the busload.  They say it is just because these people have terrible lives in their home countries and are looking for a better life.  But the Democrats are motivated by more than sympathy.  Their plan is to fill the US with brown and black people who will vote Democratic, mainly because the Democrats will offer them welfare.  For now the Democrats are not pushing for these immigrants to vote, but as soon as they have power – say with a Democratic House, Senate and President – they will start to press to give new immigrants the vote expeditiously.  This is the Democratic plan to put the Democrats in power permanently.  Blacks vote in a block for Democrats – 80 or 90%, or more.  Hispanics are not so homogenous, but they still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. 

Democrats do deservedly have the reputation as the party of the poor, but they have another agenda behind their embrace of new immigrants: to make the Democratic Party the ruling party in the US for the indefinite future.  The Republicans are justified in questioning the need to bring in so many immigrants so quickly, who are coming here not because they love the US, but because they hate their home countries.  We run the risk that if things don’t go well for them, they will hate the US in the future like they hate their home countries now. 

Trump and the Jews

What is Trump’s relationship to the Jewish community?  Liberal American Jews attack Trump as an anti-Semitic racist.  Conservative Israeli Jews see him as a great friend of Israel.  His daughter is married to a Jew and converted to Judaism.  The Democratic Party attacks on Trump are led by Jews, but it’s not clear to me whether these attacks are racist, or whether they are just politically motivated.
The refrain from Charlottesville that “Jews will not replace us” illustrates the white people’s concern that Jews have the goal of displacing whites from the leadership of the United States.  If you subscribe to this theory, you see the Jews joining with other non-whites, blacks and Hispanics, who also oppose white leadership.

In this view, Hillary Clinton was the stalking horse for the Jewish takeover.  Jews are worried that there is still resistance to a Jewish President, and therefore they need someone whom they can control, but who presents a non-Jewish face.  Even here, however, the situation is not clear, since Hillary’s main Democratic opponent was Bernie Sanders, a Jew.  It looked like the insider, politically powerful Jews backed Hillary, while the outsider,  progressive Jews backed Bernie.  Hillary got most of the big-money Jews who contribute millions to the Democratic Party in every election cycle.

On the other hand, many of the conservative, big-money Jews, like Sheldon Adelson, backed Donald Trump.  These donors seem concerned about supporting Israel militarily, while the Democratic donors seem more concerned about domestic issues.  However, there is some concern among the “Jews-will-not-replace-us” crowd that one goal of all the politically motivated Jews is the support of Israel.  Jews see America as the big brother who will defend Israel from any threat from her Arab neighbors.  The  American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have both benefitted Israel militarily, if only by stirring up the Middle East so thoroughly that Muslim countries have dropped their rhetoric about Israel because they have more immediate threats to worry about.  Saudi Arabia may see Iran and Yemen as bigger threats than Israel, for example.  Syria’s civil war implosion has removed most of its threat to Israel.

So, Trump comes on stage as a huge supporter of Netanyahu, conservative Israelis, and conservative American Jews, which means that many American Jews support him.   On the other hand, Jews are extremely powerful in the Democratic Party, which is threatened by Trump.  It appears that the Democrats see their salvation in the arrival of millions of poor Latin immigrants, who along with American blacks, will constitute the voters that Democrats need to regain and retain power.  Jews also see themselves as recent immigrants, and therefore espouse protections for immigrants as protection for themselves.   Although these Democratic Jews have the defense of Israel as a secondary objective, they are more concerned about increasing the power of Jews in America.
Jews often seem to be split between Jews who dominate financially and politically and Jews who defend the poor and downtrodden.  Income inequality has probably benefitted Jews more than any other group in America.  Every year there is a greater percentage of Jews in the top 10%, the top 1%, and the top 0.1%, as new Jewish money tends to displace older, non-Jewish money.  So, America is home to many ultra, super-rich Jews, while may Jewish politicians advocate for the poor and helpless, most of whom are black and brown.  Jews expect to be able to manipulate these voters.  Blacks already vote something like 97% for Democrats; it is a bloc vote.  Hispanics are not as unified, but vote predominately (maybe 75%) for Democrats.  Jews see this underclass as their powerbase, which they can manipulate.

Trump does not seem to single out Jews as political enemies.  He is recruiting them to the Republican Party through his friendship with Netanyahu and support for Israel.  If any occupation would seem like a Jewish one, it would be Manhattan real estate; yet Trump has flourished there and become something like a billionaire.  He inflates is wealth, but he is rich, and he turned out to be more successful than many Jews in that Jewish world.  It’s not surprising that a New Yorker would be surrounded by many Jews, like Michael Cohen, the Kushners, Roy Cohn, and many others.  He does not see Jews as threats, and yet we find many of those opposing him in Washington are Jews.  He and Jerry Nadler apparently have a history of animosity, going back to the early days of Trump’s real estate empire and Nadler’s political career in New York City, according to the Washington Post.  Perhaps Trump is more interested in the benefits from the conservative, Israel-loving Jews than he is about the problems presented by the Jews in the Democratic Party like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff.  Trump doesn’t seem to see his political problems as originating with powerful Jews.  I will be curious to see how this dynamic plays itself out.

Split on Israel among Democrats

The article about the split on Israel among Democrats in the latest New York Times Magazine, “How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics,” indicates that there may be some difficult times ahead for the Democrats and their Jewish supporters.  Typically, the Democratic Party has been the home of Jews, with about 70%-80% of Jews voting Democratic.  This article points out that the entry of blacks and Muslims into the party has muddied the waters.  Liberal Jews preach diversity, but many of them don’t like it when it affects their interests.  American Jews are split in their attitudes toward Israel.  Some back Israel 100%; others are critical of Israeli human rights violations, particularly toward the Palestinians.  This article says, however, that virtually all of the big-money, Jewish donors to the Democratic party are uncritical, strong backers of Israel.  There is a split between the two main Jewish lobbying froups.  AIPAC is unquestionably loyal to Israel, while J-Street questions some aspects of Israeli politics. 

I wonder whether this turmoil among American Jews played some role in Netanyahu’s decision to return to Israel just before he was scheduled to speak to the AIPAC convention.  He sent virtual remarks from his plane or something, but they apparently were not well done and were not well received.  Maybe Netanyahu did not want to come, but felt that he had to get Trump’s blessing to help his re-election campaign. 

This NYT Magazine provides some interesting reading about the political influence of American Jews, and how the Democratic strategy of building its base on black and brown voters and immigrants is complicating the Jewish role.  Will Democrats lose Jewish big-money donors by recruiting increasing numbers of black and brown voters?  Will they go for the money or the votes?  All of the current publicity about Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rouke and others getting millions of dollars from many small donations may signal a current perception that new voters’ contributions may offset any lost big-money contributions, but it is still early in the campaign to see if that strategy will work throughout the election cycle.   

Attacking Trump on Finances

Since the Democratic attack on President Trump for colluding Russia to win the 2016 election seems headed for failure, they will switch their attacks to looking for financial crimes.  I think it will be easy to find some questionable things that Trump has done in the past, but it will be less clear whether they rise to the level of serious crimes.  What they find is unlikely to be campaign related, except for the payments to the two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.  Other misdeeds probably predate the campaign and prosecuting them will smack of political motivations, rather than legal ones.  If he did something wrong in 2012 (or whenever) he should have been accused and prosecuted then, not now. 

The Democrats moved too quickly on the collusion with the Russians allegation.  They were the ones who decided to believe the internet rumors and innuendo, the Facebook myths about Trump.  They were actually accusing Trump of treason.  Trump may be a lot of things, but he is probably not a traitor.  He believes to the bottom of his heart that he is not a traitor, and that is why he found the allegations so abhorrent.  I find it interesting that his harshest accusers were mostly Jews, who often have divided loyalties, whether they are more loyal to Israel or the United States.  Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler appear to be hypocritical, two-faced accusers.  They enter this battle as soiled as Donald Trump. 

On the other hand, impeachment is not about law or justice; it is about politics.  If the Democrats can persuade enough of their colleagues to vote for impeachment, Trump will be gone.  But with a Republican Senate that will be hard to do, unless some new really sordid scandals (worse than all the sordid stuff that has already come up) come to light. 

The Democrats have a better chance of indicting and convicting Trump after he is no longer President.  If they do, it will look a lot like sour grapes and political retribution, but it may stick. 

Will There Be a Jew Coup?

Now that the Mueller report does not appear to have provided the basis on which to impeach Trump, the Democrats will try to depose him by some other method.  Many of the leaders in this effort to unseat Trump are the Jews in Congress and the Jews in the media.  These include:

·        Congressman Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee;

·        Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee;

·        Congressman Elliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee;

·        Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader of the Senate;

·        Senator Richard Blumenthal;

·        Senator Ben Cardin;

·        Senator Ron Wyden;

·        Senator Michael Bennet;

·        Senator Brian Schatz;

·        Senator Dianne Feinstein;

·        The New York Times, including the Sulzberger family, and many of its editors, reporters and columnists, such as David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Michelle Goldberg, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, and Bret Stephens;

·        The NBC network, where the News Division includes Ben Rhodes, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Richard Engel

·        The CNN network, whose executives, anchors and correspondents include Jeff Zucker, Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, Dana Bash, John King, Jeffrey Toobin, and Gloria Borger

·        Multiple billionaires, such as Tom Steyer, George Soros, Haim Saban, Donald Sussman, J.B. Pritzker, and Daniel Abraham, who were among the biggest contributors to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

I have become increasingly worried about the influence of Jews on the future of America.  They may save it for posterity, as the long-time ruling group – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) – falls from its leadership position.  The whites’ concern about this possibility was clearly presented at Charlottesville by the chant, “Jews will not replace us.”  Whites are losing, or have lost, their grip on power, but it is not clear to me that Jews have replaced them. 

The battle cry today is “diversity,” but this is a codeword for “non-white.”  Diversity means giving power to Jews, blacks, Muslims, Asians, Latinos, anybody but whites.  Like any other race, Jews are different from one another, and many sincerely care about other races, but I think that in their hearts, most (not many, most) Jews believe they are superior to other races, although they probably see whites and Asians as their closest competition.  That is why we see Jews supporting may anti-white agendas, particularly claiming that all whites are white supremacists in Hitler’s mold.  In Europe it looks as if much of the anti-Semitism emanates from Muslim and Arab immigrants.  In the US, Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, focus charges of anti-Semitism on whites, while claiming to unite with the Arab community.  I think this is a false front for both Jews and Arabs in the US, but at the moment it serves the purposes of both groups.  If Jews do become the new power in the US, I think the watchword of “diversity” will be replaced by “obedience.”

Jews naturally excel, usually by hard work and intelligence.  As a result Jews are vastly over represented in political power, financial power, academic leadership, and artistic accomplishments.  Unfortunately, the average Jew is also often seen as offensive, loud, pushy, aggressive and thus tends to put off many people who prefer a kinder, gentler lifestyle, which at the moment seems to be WASPs.  Many WASPs are not very happy about living in a country dominated by Jews, and Jewish lifestyles.  WASPs and other Western European whites dominated the US for two hundred years.  The non-white and Jewish rise has occurred mainly since the huge influx of Jews from Eastern Europe after World War II.  To many whites, this appears to be like a corporate hostile takeover.  After World War II, the US was the most powerful country militarily and economically.  The Jews have worked their way up through the corridors of power in the political and financial worlds, becoming immensely powerful and rich, taking more and more control of this power. 

One goal of the Jewish rise has been to benefit individual Jews and their community living in the US.  Another, however, has been to use America as the protector of Israel.  America has become a military arsenal for Israel.  This was not always true.  While America has always supported Israel, it has not always given Israel a blank check or unlimited firepower to use against its enemies.  Over the years, as Jews in America have become more powerful, America’s commitment to Israel has become stronger.  This has created the impression that American Jews are not 100% loyal to the United States.  They support the American defense establishment as much for Israel as for America.  It is not clear, but it is arguable that America’s support for Israel led to bin Laden’s 9/11 attack on the United States.  He focused on New York and Washington, because that’s where the powerful Jews are.  The strongest lobby in the United States, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has just held its annual meeting here, attended by many prominent Americans. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to speak, but said he had to return to Israel because of an Israeli national emergency.  Jews have typically supported the Democratic Party, but Republicans are trying to outdo the Democrats in loyalty to Israel, as illustrated by President Trump’s decisions to move to the American Embassy to Jerusalem, to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and to voice strong support for Netanyahu’s re-election. 

Despite the Republicans’ appeal to Jewish supporters of Israel, I think the leading Jewish Democrats in the House will use their positions on three of the most influential committees to try to get rid of Trump.  It is not clear how they can oust him, however, since impeachment seems more and more unlikely, especially after the Mueller report, which found Trump largely innocent of all the charges against him, particularly of any collusion with the Russians.  The Democrats and their media allies may be reduced to trying to defeat him in the 2020 elections, but that will mean non-stop hearings, speeches, broadcasts and appearnces attacking Trump in the harshest way possible.     

Congressional Anti-Semitism Resolution

The US House of Representatives resolution condemning anti-Semitism only illustrates the depth of the race hatred that Jews hold toward non-Jews.  Of course, not all Jews are virulent racists, but many are.  The resolution was edited to condemn all sorts of racism and discrimination, but it begins with a number of condemnations of anti-Semitism and emphasizes it throughout.  It remains a Jewish attack on non-Jews.  It is a Jewish declaration of war against non-Jews. 

The following is a link to H. Res. 183 condemning anti-Semitism, etc. 

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190304/BILLS-116hres183-SUSv1.pdf

While the House attempted to clean up the final version of the resolution, it is clearly a Jewish document aimed at vilifying non-Jews.  Its claim to support various minorities other than Jews is just window dressing.  It is really just Jewish congressmen attacking Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, trying to intimidate her into not criticizing Jews in the future.  It is a demonstration of the power of Jews in Congress, and of course of Jewish pressure groups such as AIPAC.

According to the New York Times:

The resolution was the product of a deal brokered by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, whose district has the highest Jewish population of any congressional district; Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a leading Jewish progressive; and Representative Cedric L. Richmond, Democrat of Louisiana and a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. 'https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/politics/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-vote.html

The House attack on President Trump is being led by two Jews, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, who have a racist agenda to diminish the power of white people - represented at the moment by Donald Trump - and to increase the power of Jewish people.  Schiff and Nadler chair the two House committees that are most directly attacking Trump: the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee.  The fact that the New York Times mentions Nadler as one of the brokers of the House resolution makes it clear that he is motivated by racial animus. 

I have been worried that Jews may be trying to take over the United States government, but I have kept telling my self that it’s crazy.  However, it appears that at least twice in fairly recent history they have been involved in overthrowing governments.  Jews were significantly involved in the overthrow of the Russian imperial government of the Czars in the early 1900s.  Marx and Trotsky were two notable participants, but there were a number of lower level Jews, too, although they eventually lost out to Lenin and other non-Jewish Communists.  Then in the 1930s after World War I, the Jews became very powerful in Germany and Austria.  The Jews were perceived as the imposers of the rigorous reparations demanded from Germany because of the war.  Many Jews were becoming wealthy while average, ethnic Germans were suffering under horrendous inflation and other economic deprivation.  The movie “Woman in Gold” shows a Jewish family with paintings by old masters, a Stradivarius cello, and the Woman in Gold painting by Gustav Klimt that gave the movie its title.  If you follow all the lawsuits that have been filed by Jewish families for art stolen by the Nazis, it appears that Jewish families in Germany owned much of the art that is now so valuable that it became part of museum collections rather than being owned by individuals.  German Jewish families owned much of the most valuable art in the world while ethnic Germans were struggling to feed themselves, buying a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow of cash.   Jews sat atop an unequal economy much more exaggerated than the one we currently face in the US.  Meanwhile other Jews, such as Rosa Luxemburg, became powerful in the German government, frightening many Germans who believed that German would be forced to follow the Russian model into a Communist government.  Unfortunately, the fact that ordinary Germans saw Jews as rich, cruel oppressors let them to accept the Nazi government that eventually led to the Holocaust. 

The House resolution was clearly intended to intimidate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and prevent her from exercising her First Amendment right of free speech, even as a member of Congress.  It smacks of fascism.  Jews have attacked her particularly for her tweet that “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” saying that it repeated an anti-Semitic trope that Jews influence government through money.  Unfortunately, the Jews reinforce these “tropes” by doing the same things over and over again.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to this undemocratic resolution because the Democratic Party is very dependent on Jewish political contributions.  She and the resolution are living proof that this Jewish characteristic described by Omar is alive and well.  The Jews in Congress should have remembered Shakespeare’s warning in Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  The resolution is itself evidence that the Jews are guilty as charged.   

Rather than reacting with vitriolic anger, the Jews could have factually refuted Omar’s assertion, if it is not true.  The fact that they did not respond factually tends to indicate that the allegations are true.  AIPAC is a lobby for a foreign government.  Jews do have divided loyalty.  Just one example: NYT columnist David Brooks’ son fought in the Israeli military.  Another example is Sheldon Adelson’s enormous campaign contributions to assure that US foreign policy support Israel, about $100 million to support Trump because of his strong support for Israel.  Two respecting political scientists have written a book about AIPAC and its powerful influence on foreign policy The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.  The Jews in Congress and their lobbyist supporters chose not to respond to the factual allegations made by Omar, but just to vilify her personally.  Again, that lends credence to the truth of her accusations. 

Why is it that Jews never admit that they might need to change?  If anyone criticizes a Jew, the immediate response to vilify the critic as an anti-Semite, not to look at whether there might be some justification for the criticism.  Jews believe they are perfect, God’s chosen race, and that anyone who criticizes them is an evil racist.

Fortunately, the Jews still perceive that they need America.  They need American weapons to defend themselves against the Arabs who surround them.  America is the big brother whom the Jews threaten to bring in and beat up their neighbors if there is trouble in the neighborhood.  This is the main concern of AIPAC and the Jews in Congress. 

In tandem with this security objective, Jewish financiers are engineering a hostile takeover of the United States economy.  Jews have gone from being minor players in the US economy when the US was formed, to being dominant today, constituting almost half of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, and controlling many of the largest corporations, such as Facebook, Google, Goldman Sachs, and many others.  There are non-Jews like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and several Walmart Walton family members near the top of the list, but many others are Jewish, led by Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and Larry Page, and including Michael Bloomberg, Sergey Brin, Sheldon Adelson, and Steve Balmer, among many others.  There were Jews in Forbes’ earlier lists, but not nearly as many.  In the 1985 list the first Jews were two Newhouse family members and included the Annenbergs and other wealthy Jews. 

Jews are consolidating their political power and they increase their financial clout.  They constitute about ten percent of the Senate, including Schumer as minority leader, and hold three powerful committee chairmanships in the House.  Back during the first Bush administration during the 1990s, there was huge opposition to the outsized role of WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) in the government and society.  Now the WASPs are pretty much gone.  Whether they self-destructed or Jews greased the skids for them, I don’t know, but they are gone.  At least part of the reason is that WASPs did not have enough children to keep their line alive.  In any case they faded out, and Jews moved into the vacuum. 

Currently it’s not mainly Jews who are calling for America to turn to socialism, although Bernie Sanders is one of the leaders.  Americans seem less concerned about following Russia down the rathole of Communism than Germans were in the 1930s, but in the past, Jews have been connected to this movement, ironically as some rich Jews have become the biggest beneficiaries of American capitalism. 

For me, the fascist House resolution condemning Ilhan Omar is a warning sign that Jews are increasing in power and are not afraid to demonstrate their strength.  The Jews should have responded civilly and reasonably, not with such hatred.  I see rough times ahead for non-Jewish Americans.