Thursday, April 7, 2016

Hillary Clinton Sock Puppet Sends Whiney Letter to DOJ ... Cruz Supporters Confuse Letter for Something Significant

Here's an address you might want to have:
The United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
You can use that address to send letters to the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch. You could, for example, inquire why the investigation into criminal wrongdoing in the matter of the Clinton email server seems to be taking so long.

Or, if you are a sock puppet of Hillary Clinton, you can write up a nonsense laden accusatory jeremiad alleging criminal wrong-doing against Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

That's what American Democracy Legal Fund has done.

It seems that, when ADLF is not busy filing complaints against Republican members of the House and the Senate, or Bernie Sanders, or other Republican candidates for the Presidency, the organization takes the time to nose up some horrific tale of public corruption latent in Ben Carson's public statement that he would have an advisory role in the Trump administration, a role he connects with his decision to endorse Trump.

I realize that the allegation is suspiciously lacking in details. What position of government service was Carson offered, for example, seems to be fairly significant when an organization is going to accuse a candidate of having offered an appointment to Carson to obtain his endorsement of Trump.

Perhaps it would help to read the accusatory instrument.

Careless members of the lap dance media refer to this letter as a "criminal complaint." It is not a "criminal complaint," I caution you to remember, because that term, "criminal complaint" is legal jargon with a specific meaning, limited to a charging document prepared by and filed by a government agency.

Here's the letter.

The webpage for ADLF appears to provide an incomplete rendering of the letter. Perhaps when the ADLF staff is not busy nosing out publicity, they can repair their page and make its oh so important information available rather than illusory.

You get the essence, though, in this juicy tidbit of a paragraph:
Former presidential candidate Dr. Carson endorsed Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination on March 11, 2016.  Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson met the day before to discuss and finalize the endorsement.  Three days later, on March 14, Dr. Carson gave an interview to Newsmax TV to discuss his recent endorsement of Mr. Trump.  During the interview, Dr. Carson stated that he believed Mr. Trump would “surround himself with very good people.”  When asked if he would be one of those people, Dr. Carson responded, “I will be doing things as well.”  When the interviewer asked whether that meant in a Trump administration, Dr. Carson replied, “Certainly in an advisory capacity.”  The interviewer then asked Dr. Carson if “that’s been determined” and followed by asking, “When you sat down with [Mr. Trump] that was discussed?”  Dr. Carson openly admitted, “Yes,” and said that while they “hadn’t hammered out all the details,” “it is very important that we work together.”  When asked if this meant a cabinet position, Dr. Carson declined to “reveal any details about it right now, because all of this is still very liquid.”
Now, there is no denying that there is a federal statute that makes it a crime for a candidate to pledge or promise an appointment to any public or private position in order to gain support for his candidacy. Here's Title 18 USC 599, the statute in question:
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Carson, in an interview, says that he will be acting "certainly in an advisory capacity."

Scour that federal statute. Find the place where it is made a crime to agree to listen to guidance and advice from a person as a condition of accepting their political endorsement or support. Search all day. Take your time. It isn't there.

What is there is a prohibition on the promising of something remunerative, a position, appointed or otherwise, public or private. That, after all, is the essence of bribery, offering financial benefit for some act.

Now, let's wrap this up and see if we can't get the big picture.

Ben Carson gives an interview and states that he will be "doing things as well ... [c]ertainly in an advisory capacity." No evidence of a crime there. But surely there must be more to the story. Or, at least, if you are a progressive statist, you want folks to think and believe there is more. You want them to confuse your fog of confusion with the smoke of a real fire of scandal.

Now, how do I go around accusing ADLF of being a progressivist, statist organization?

Well, I suppose I can start by pointing out that ADLF registered itself with the District of Columbia government. When it did so, it identified three "governors," with the top name on the list being David Brock.

Here's a screen capture of the ADLF registration page, followed by a screen capture of the listing of ADLF's governors:

Then, of course, there is the all important question, who is David Brock?

There is no "short answer" to the question, but if there is, it is this: David Brock was, at one time, a seemingly conservative journalist whose investigative writing exposed Bill Clinton as a lethario. Somewhere along the way, however, Brock changed his views and opinions. With the assistance of money from George Soros, the Darth Vader of American politics, he founded "Media Matters for America," the first in a string of progressive, leftist attack groups.

To get the skinny, the low down, I'd recommend this quick read brought to you by David Horowitz.

So, there you have it.

Hillary's henchman, David Brock, created the American Democracy Legal Fund. To fund the organization, which is set up as a IRS 527 organization, ADLF has received $100,000.00 in reported donations, half of that from the National Education Association, the other half from a David Brock PAC, the American Bridge 21st Century PAC.

Here are the screenshots showing the 2014 and 2016 donations to ADLF:

The American Bridge 21st Century PAC is led by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Maryland Lieutenant Governor and failed candidate for Governor there. The PAC is associated with the American Bridge 21st Century Fund; in electronic records for that organization, David Brock is shown as the sole governor. And here are screenshots showing Brock's connection to the American Bridge 21st Century Fund and its PAC:

Now, at the bottom of this pile of crusted crud, I found a question remaining:

Why are Republicans picking up this story and circulating it?


Why are folks who know that David Brock is a shrill shill for Hill-ary, who loathe the work and role of the National education Association in foisting the statism and progressivism of the liberal agenda, pretending that there is any "here" "here"? Yet they are doing so; the "criminal complaint" (read that as "whiney nonsense letter") came to my attention because of a reposting of the "news story" about the "criminal complaint" posted on his news feed by a man I know to be reliably Christian, conservative, pro-life, and Republican.

I also know from being connected to him on Facebook that he is rooting for a Republican candidate other than Donald Trump.

Could this be the reason to wade in the sewage of David Brock?

Is there no unjustifiably low low to which one should not go in the effort to destroy a Republican primary opponent who is saying so many things so correctly, and whose life evidences the qualities that normally appeal to Republicans: hard work, hard work, and hard work.

So, now you know why I had to get this information in front of you. Because I want you to think about whether you really want to be Hillary Clinton's stooge, David Brock's turd burglar? Is your preference for Ted Cruz so important that you would wallow in the filth of these smears, from a known and catastrophic smear agent?