Grace “Gucci Gucci” Mugabe [above the law] got her ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ today after her violent acts against several models at Sandton Hotel!

We can now officially say that First Lady of Zimbabwe are now standing above the laws of South Africa, a republic where she doesn’t reside, but because the relationship between Mugabe family and South African government, the RSA laws doesn’t matter to the Princes of ZANU-PF and their Family members. Grace Mugabe can now assault with battery and with intent, and get away it it. Since it was internal family matters, a visit to look after her long-lost kids who lives in luxury, while the Zimbabweans are starving. Such justice there, but the point now, is that Grace Mugabe can assault not only one person, but more with help of her bodyguards. Just take a look, first the ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ and then eyewitness stories from what she is free of charges from, because of her stature and place of life. The law isn’t the same for all kind, especially not when you have powerful friends, it seems.

Government Notice number 850 of 20th August from Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperations wrote: “In accordance with the powers vested in me by section 7(2) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, 2001 (Act No. 37 of 2001) and acting in the interest of Republic of South Africa, I hereby recognize the immunities and privileges of the First Lady of Zimbabwe, Dr. Grace Mugabe, in terms of international law and as set out in the attached Notice” (Government Gazette, 20.08.2017 – Government Notice No. 850 of 2017).

Victims of Grace Mugabe’s rage:

One of the three women, who describes herself as a promotional model, told of her terror as Mugabe lashed out at them. Mugabe was accompanied by about 10 bodyguards and hotel security guards and she was looking for her sons, Robert jnr, 25, and Chatunga Bellarmine, 21. Both men had fled the room when they heard their mother coming. The attack took place in Sandton’s The Capital 20 West hotel. The woman said that at the time she did not know who her assailant was or why she and her friends were being beaten. “I really thought she was going to kill me … From the moment she stormed into the room she was ready to murder someone,” the woman said. “The electrical cord-cable was tightly wrapped around her hands. No one could stop her. The guards and hotel security guards just stood there and watched as she whipped me with the cord and dragged me across the floor by my hair.” Mugabe’s sons have recently been in the news for their behaviour. The brothers were kicked out of a Sandton hotel last month, allegedly for bad behaviour” (…) “When the three friends could not tell her where her sons where, Mugabe lashed out at them with the electrical cord. The woman said the attack carried on for 20 minutes. While she was being assaulted, her friends fled. “She dragged me by my hair and held me tight. She slashed me viciously with the electrical cord. She then dragged me by my hair across the floor and threw me on a couch where she forced me to call our mutual friend and Bellarmine’s best friend, but their phones were off. “She continued beating me with the cord; I was rescued by the hotel manager, who rushed to the room after hearing my screams for help.” Engels’s two friends said they were too frightened of Grace Mugabe to lay criminal complaints, but said they would support Engels in court” (Ndabeni, 2017).

This should be insulting to the victims, the families and to the justice system of South Africa. That a foreign dignitary can carry out assaults and violence on their citizens. Than, run home with immunity from her crimes. The violence done because of the sons wish of partying with models and expensive bottles wine. The sons of Robert Mugabe have already caused trouble on the same hotel in past, but because of their standing and ranks they are allowed back. If someone else did similar acts, they would be banned from the premises.

Still, as that is awful enough – Grace Mugabe put-up the ante and attacked fellow guests of her sons. She violated them and harassed them. Grace Mugabe actually torn them and used violence. The First Lady did not act against her sons in this way, but against strangers who was invited by her sons. She attacked innocent South African girls, who had no ill-intent and was invited to the hotel. This is vicious and insane!

So with this in mind, the RSA and the Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane should offer a leaf of faith. This should be investigated and taken to the law. First Lady Mugabe should stand trial and answer for the possible misgivings and assault with battery. This isn’t flattering, this is a clear violation of ordinary and civilian courtesy. The First Lady could have talked ordinary to the woman and asked why they we’re there and why her sons was gone. Instead, she attacked them with the force of 10 bodyguards and left no-one with wounds. The witnesses even fear the woman after this and that is not strange, she attacked them viciously.

What is more insulting, is that the State offers no sympathy for their own citizens and leaves them behind. They are just flesh-wounds and exchangeable, they can be traded with someone else. The next time the Mugabe boys looking for a fling. No big-deal, but the Mugabe family is so unique and special. So they can assault strangers without any consequence or facing justice. They are above the law, not only in Zimbabwe, but also in the proud Republic of South Africa.

This is just proving that the First Lady of Zimbabwe can do whatever she wants, the same for her sons and also the President. Since they are dignitaries and state officials with different passports, but that doesn’t mean they should get away with everything. Also, this shows how accommodating the RSA is the Mugabe family and therefore, accept this sort of behavior. It is okay and nothing wrong, apparently that is the message. Peace.

Reference:

Ndabeni, Khanyi – ‘ First Lady, Grace Mugabe ‘was ready to murder’ (20.08.2017) link: https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2017-08-19-first-lady-grace-mugabe-was-ready-to-murder/

A ACLU Paper of October 1934: Teaches us how to address Nazis today!

It is hard to believe, but it is true that, President Donald J. Trump, who says there are good people and great people within groups of White Supremacists, White Nationalists and Nazis; because of this are obviously racist. There are only fools, that can deny that now. Those who do is apologists for the President and his fellow complicit aides. This could be said for a number of reasons, also because of the people around him, and not denouncing fellow leadership of organizations who spread hatred in the United States.

President Trump has clearly supported the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville and the way it has been done with violence. Clearly, shows the problems of the alt-right and the neo-Nazis. Still, the ACLU of old, are still with their wisdom showing how a just and free society should make sure their transgressions and their hatred get perceived in society. The ACLU in the 1934 shows their paper on free speech for Nazis are still relevant today. It shouldn’t be, but clearly it is. Because the ideals of the ACLU are noble and shows the openness, to a society where ideas get spread and get to streets. Still, there should be allowed to address the differences without breaching the laws and statutes of the law. If so, then the Nazis should serve for their crime, as all of the ones who breaks the law.

The ideal of ACLU of 1934, the argument and the approach are one of the best I have read, even if it is in defense of despicable, this was done before the holocaust and all the hatred of the Nazis was known. Before, they could do so, when they took to power in Germany and started their dictatorship that led to the second World War. Still, with the knowledge of the results of all the hatred and disgusting ideals and ideology, the ACLU shows with their paper, an understanding we should follow in this day. Not because the streets, the airways, the TV-Channels or any other platform should have Nazis and their teachings on their, but if should mock it or fact-check their ignorance. Than it needs to be in the open and not make it underground to grow into an unknown force, that can come with militias and destroy the freedom of speech.

This is what the ACLU of 1934 believed and we should be like that today. Just take a look!

To whose who advocate suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask – where do you draw the line? They can answer only the terms of revolutionists – at our political enemies. But experience shows that “political enemies” is a broad term, and has covered the breaking up even of working class meetings by rival work class organizations. It illustrates the danger, and the impractically of making any distinctions in defending rights sought by all” (…) “To those who urge suppression of meetings that may incite riot or violence, the complete answer is that nobody can tell in advance what meetings may do so. Where there is reasonable ground for apprehension, the police can ordinarily prevent disorder” (…) “To whose who would suppress meetings where race or religious hatred is likely to be stirred up, the answer is simple – that there is no general agreement on what constitutes race or religious prejudice. Once the bars are so let down, the fields is open for all-comers to charge such prejudice against any propagandists – Communists, Socialists, atheists, – even against Jews attacking the Nazis. On that ground the Union has opposed the anti-Nazi bills introduced in the New York and New Jersey legislature punishing propaganda which “stirs up race or religious hatred” or “domestic strife”. No laws can be written to outlaw Nazi propaganda without striking at freedom of speech in general” (…) “Further, we point out the inevitable effect of making martyrs by persecution. Persecute the Nazis, drive them underground, imitate their methods in Germany – and attract to them hundreds of sympathizers with the persecuted who would otherwise be indifferent. The best way to combat their propaganda is in the open where it can be fought by counter-propaganda, protest demonstrations, picketing, – and all the devices of attack which do not involve denying the rights to meet and speak” (…) “If and when Nazi meetings results in breaches of the peace, their organizers can be prosecuted under the criminal law. If their speakers libel individuals by reason of race and religion, recourse to the criminal libel statutes is open as a remedy. Short of that, and of overt acts of interference with others’ rights their freedom to carry on their agitation should be unrestricted” (ACLU, 1934).

It is proof that the knowledge and the arguments of old can be useful today as it was yesterday. The people, the organizations and their ideals might be the same, the problem might be a resurrected one. But the Nazis should be allowed to speak and have their meetings, as long as they are not breaching the law and the statutes. If they do, then they should be prosecuted!

The ACLU of 1934, have understood certain aspects of life and also the martyrdom of the political enemies and revolutionaries might give soil for further extremes. Also, give the platform and the leadership of these organization more power. Therefore, to silence them totally and ban them, does not make them go away, but make them underground.

This paper shows the importance of free speech, but also the grandeur of fighting the Nazis within just acts, to counter their propaganda and their ideology. That we should do, undress the hatred and white supremacy, which should be buried. Since the Nazi ideology shouldn’t be needed to be in our time, as it wasn’t needed even in the 1930s when the ALCU wrote this paper. Still, we should counter it and show the misgivings and the worthlessness of the Nazism, instead of banning it. The bans of their acts will only enforce it more.

It doesn’t help that President Trump defended the Charlottesville ‘Unite the Right’ rally and their violence. While attacking the counter-demonstrators. Also, neglecting the fear and the violence created by the right-extremists. That is why peaceful marches, the peaceful demonstrations and addressing the lacking clues of justification for their ideology and their belief is needed. Instead, of making them a fringe organizations, who can suddenly pop-up like wild-flowers. Therefore, the need to address them at public courts are more important than ever. To not give them a free-pass, but for their disgrace, their misunderstood arrogance of race and for their devilish ideology, who are to take total control and to terminate others. That cannot be shadow and put in the dark, the violence and viciousness of the Nazis, cannot be silenced and their will of doing evil. Should be known!

To say anything else is ignorant, they should not become martyrs, but make fooled and mocked. They should understand, that they are not all-powerful, but people we can bring down from the pedestal and put in the trash-bind of history. Peace.

Reference:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – ‘Shall we defend free speech for Nazis in America’ (October 1934

A brief look into Fox News defense [this week] of Trump considering the Russian Probe!

Walter Kirn on Fox News Nework the 6th August 2017 : “Every 6 months people are gonna look up and see this country changed, they’re still gonna be talking about Russia”.

There always certain types of apologist, just as some defend Martin Luther, other defend John Calvin and even some Judas. At this point in the political spectrum as the evidence and the leaks of investigation into the President Trump Campaign of 2016 are hitting the public. There will be drawbacks and be speculations. Certainly, there are hoover-crafts and snipers trying to debunk every single piece of clue or tarnish the investigation. The grandest part of that is the Fox News Network and their allies. Who are embedded with the Presidency. They are not like the rest, who question the evidence and asks why the President and his associates acted like they did. They are like State TV at this point. That is why I have looked into this weeks special efforts to defend Trump. Because it shows the strangeness of it all. Especially, since these conservatives and these patriots would be horrified if Barrack Obama had a collusion practice with a foreign power and with an adversary. However, when it concerning the master and ideal prince of hope Trump, he cannot do nothing wrong, even if he do? Does it matter. The defenses from Fox News, should not surprise anyone. Therefore let’s take a look at just a few!

It’s Okay that the President is a Crook!

So does it matter to you whether or not the president is a crook? The answer for a lot of Americans may be no. With the revelation that a grand jury is looking at evidence against members of President Trump’s 2016 campaign team, we move closer still to the possibility that someone could be in very big trouble. Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his squad are moving fast, and the likelihood that some charges will be brought can no longer be ignored. It is not hard to imagine a moment in the very near future where some associate of the president is in the dock, charged with misdeeds relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election” (Stirewalt, 2017).

YES, it should matter if the President are a criminal and done illegal activity, he is not above the law. If he worked with foreign powers to gain the presidency, he could be blackmailed and could be forced not to work in the faith of the constitution, but of the will of the foreign powers. That is worrying for any independent office and any state official if they are colluding with foreign powers. If it didn’t matter, why had the National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had to resign just days into the Presidency for the paid work for the Turkish. If that is an issue, than it should be bigger issue if the President are doing the same for Kremlin and the Russians. That is why it matters.

Judge Jeanie defense of Trump:

““Folks, this was a cover-up of an illegal meeting, collusion, between Bill Clinton and the attorney general after which the FBI interrogated Hillary then exonerated her after which Hillary brazenly proclaimed, if she won, she would hire Loretta Lynch as her attorney general,” said Pirro. “So while this country is now virtually paralyzed with fake news stories of collusion, I ask you, what evidence, give me one piece of evidence, one iota of something that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin. … You haven’t heard one piece of evidence for 8 months, 24/7 collusion between Donald Trump and Russians.” (Baker, 2017).

The investigations, the 6 of them, with even public hearings and questioning has showed no clear evidence. So that the “judge” are still directing and wanting to detain and to criminalize Clinton is just sad. It shows the double-moral of the Fox News Broadcaster, which can address the Clinton’s for their misgivings, but if Trump does the same or even worse. It doesn’t matter, because he is Republicans and Republicans can acts as they like. Trump has questionable connections with Russians, both in business and during the campaign. The ones that are picked to positions are also connected with Russian associates. It is hard not to find anyone who isn’t connected, who hasn’t had agreements and had trades with Russians at some point in the cabinet and in the White House. Everyone has met and done shadow agreement with Kremlin associates. So Judge Jeanie should boggle about that and wonder why there are no-one who are in the public light who hasn’t had something with an oligarch or with anyone associated with the Kremlin to do.

Normalizing “Grand Jury” of Mueller investigation:

As an old Justice Department reporter, I can tell you this is utterly routine. Prosecutors regularly convene grand juries to question witnesses and gather evidence. It’s what they do. The shocker would have been if Mueller completed his investigation without bringing in a grand jury. In fact, as the Journal story notes, there already was a grand jury, across the river in Alexandria, that the FBI was using in this case before Mueller was appointed. But in the public mind, “grand jury” is associated with “indictment.” And notwithstanding the old adage that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the former FBI director could conclude that nothing in the case rises to an indictable offense—at least as far as the president and his inner circle. We have no way of knowing that, and neither does Mueller” (Kurtz, 2017).

This is the only little sense from the Fox News commentators. Since it is an ordinary thing to do, but not with an investigation into a President. Since the Grand Jury are signaling that the prosecutor planning to dig deeper and look into Trump and his associates with more subpoena’s, where he can legally get more paperwork and more evidence for criminal conspiracy. This is not a short-con, but taking down a long-con. Who has not been open with business transactions and Trump Organization before getting public office. The business model and the transactions done can be in question, since the President never revealed this and might only happen through a criminal investigation.

Katrina Pierson on Fox News on the 6th August 2017 said: “There has been no evidence found. Even Democrats are saying we have no evidence. Collusion is not a crime”.

He has been sued over 1000 times for all sort of financial tricks and frauds. Still, the vision of a clean business are not something that seem likely, if so, he would have released the IRS Tax Returns like the Clinton’s did within their campaign. There are some secrets that will reveal some shady stories the Trump family and associates wants to hide from the public. Peace.

Reference:

Baker, Trent – ‘Judge Jeanine: Meeting Between Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Proves U.S. No Longer True to Declaration of Independence’ (05.08.2017) link:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/05/judge-jeanine-meeting-between-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-proves-u-s-no-longer-true-to-its-declaration-of-independence/

Kurtz, Howard – ‘Grand jury bombshell rocks media, but calm down: This is what prosecutors do’ (04.08.2017) link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/04/grand-jury-bombshell-rocks-media-but-calm-down-this-is-what-prosecutors-do.html

Stirewalt, Chris – ‘Would you even care if he was guilty?’ (04.08.2017) link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/04/would-even-care-if-was-guilty.html

NASA Urges Speedy Acceptance of US, UK offer in IEBC Killing, Proposes International Oversight of ITC Area (01.08.2017)

IGP Joseph Boinnet Statement: Investigation Launched Following the Murder of later Mr. Christopher Msando, the Depuy Director of ICT at the IEBC (31.07.2017)

Rep. Green’s Draft Amendment on the Presidential Pardon: A good unnecessary deed!

On the 25th of July 2017, the now Texas Democratic Party Representative Al Green has written a resolution to clarify and secure none obstacle and secure the laws of the land. Since, there is clearly a dispute going-on, if the President can pardon himself from self-conflicting crimes. Even if there been studies of this in past, like in the 1970s and 1990s when it came to both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, therefore, Trump should not be different from any of them.

The Draft Resolution is very specific and rare. It would be an amendment to the Constitution for the simple matter of the authority and legislative branch of the Presidential Office. In simple terms, this is what he wants to be added as law:

“The President shall not have no power to grant himself a reprieve or pardon for an offence against the United States”.

It is so powerful, even as the codes and the discussion around it shows it would be self-inflicting wounds if he would dare to pardon himself or anyone around him. That being family-members, associates and political allies. So, President Trump. Must feel the heat, as even Representatives will try to add on the constitution to secure that he will no code or law, that his lawyers can twist in his favor. Even if the past cases that has stated the fact and proven that he cannot do so. Since, the law clearly are addressing the functions of the office and if the President happen to do criminal activity previously to being elected into office.

This sort of amendment seems more of a precaution if someone more criminal and sinister are elected into office. However, this sort of idea would not have come under Barrack Obama, One of Bushes and even Jimmy Carter for that matter. This just proves the liability Trump is and are for the Republic. That their own representatives see the need to amend the constitution. So that the President cannot question his powers.

Since that is something, he is up to and that Representatives are clearly following up now. President Trump is only proving his guilt and that the deed is done, if he starts pardoning himself or others. Then, you know by his acts that he is a crook. Since he had to use the state to forge himself and by the seal of office. In addition, it should not be necessary, since the investigations are just beginning and the digging are just revealing more and more every single day.

But the documents of Marcy C. Lawton of 1974 should be clear enough, though not as direct and clear for a President of Trump preempted mind. Who stated on the 5th August 1974:

“Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President: Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself. If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon the President” (Lawton, 1974).

If that is too deep for the President to understand. Then, some of his advisers or the Mooch should explain the matter to him. The constitution should not need a new amendment in this case, because the powers are already clear. However, to bury a body twice sometimes helps the criminals to understand that the victim is already dead. Peace.

Pardon me Trump, you are not above the law Part II

I have to continue since you are so persistent in your belief that you are greater and grander than the law. It should be insulting the American people and the Constitution to have such a President like you Trump. Who has the audacity to put himself on the pedestal and think he could do anything to anyone and then get away it with it. It is insulting and beneath the office and beneath the possible position your are holding at the moment. Donald J. Trump, you act like thief and act like disgrace in the White House. If you we’re innocent and your family we’re the same? Why need to be pardoned. If the Trump Campaign and the Trump Organization was clean of guilt, why need the pardon? Do you think the American people are that ignorant and stupid, to not see this. The whole world see it and how you are eaten inside by the guilt of your association and use of Russian questionable financial transaction to keep yourself afloat.

Because of this and your continues allegations and attacks on peers. Your misuse of power and your wish to undermine the American democracy and institutions. It is time to again. Go back in time, last time it was the advice Richard Nixon asked for days before his impeachment for obstruction against justice. The same sort of acts President Trump is currently doing and undermining the law as much as he can. Therefore I have to go back to a document based in 1998, when Law Professor Rotunda are writing to Judge Kenneth Starr on indictment. This was on the matter of then President Bill Clinton. But worth noting certain fragments of document to show the capacity President Trump has under current legislation. Not that he understands it, unless it 140 words or explained to him on ‘Fox and Friends’. Still, worth noting though!

For Example, if the President in a moment of passion slugs an irritating heckler, he has committed a criminal battery. But no one would suggest that the President should be removed from office simply because of an assault. Yet the President has no right to assault hecklers. If there is no recourse against the President, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law. Clinton vs. Jones rejected such an immunity; instead, it emphatically agreed with the Eight Circuit that: “the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens”. The “rational for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is a issue”. The President has no immunity in such a case. If the Constitution prevents the President from being indicted for violations of one or more federal crime statutes, even if those statutory violations are not impeachable offences, then the Constitution authorizes the President to be above the law. But the Constitution creates an Executive Branch with the President under sworn obligation to faithfully executive the law. The Constitution does not create an absolute Monarch above the law” (Rotunda, P: 5, 1998).

As Nixon vs. Sirica carefully noted: “Because impeachment is available against all ‘civil officers of the United States’ not merely against the President, it is difficult to understand how many immunites peculiar to the President can emanate by implication from the fact of impeachability”. Moreover, it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, P: 7, 1998).

Later, in Clinton v. Jones, the Court rejected any notion of Presidential immunity (even a temporary immunity) for the President who is sued by a private civil litigant for damages involving acts not within his Presidential duties. In that case, President Clinton’s “strongest argument” supporting his claim for immunity on a temporary basis, the Court said, was the claim that the President occupies a “unique office” and burdening him with litigation would violate the constitutional separation of powers and unduly interfere with the President’s performance of his official duties” (Rotunda, P: 36, 1998).

These factors all buttress and lead to the same conclusion: it is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).

This conclusion does not imply that a President must be required to serve an actual prison term before he leaves office. The defendant President could remain free pending his trial, and the trial court could defer any prison sentence until he leaves office. The defendant-President may petition the courts to exercise its discretion in appropriate cases. It is one thing for the President to petition the court to exercise its discretion; it is quite another for the President to announce that he is above the law and immune from criminal prosecution” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).

This letter of Law Professor Rotunda states very clearly the provisions and special place within the Republic the President has and the laws that needs to be extended to prosecute him/her. So with this in mind, no one not even President Clinton was above the law. The same scenario remains today with President Trump. That Nixon tried to find ways to pardon himself is clear, the same does now President Trump.

The possible collusion and collaboration with foreign officials and entities will be more clear as the investigation and drops of information leaks to the press. The more meetings, lack of disclosure from the Trump Organization and the Trump Campaign. The same is it his family and associates, as long as the narrative still exists and there are plot-lines to define. The story will live on and the investigators will look into the possible breaches. The Office of Special Council Robert Mueller has lots of power. Something, President Trump cannot stop. Therefore, Tucker Carlson and others trying to gain leverage and saying the investigation makes everything in Mosciw illegal, like buying cigarettes in Moscow. That show’s the disrespect of a criminal investigation by the Trump Friendly Press like Fox News and Sinclair Media.

While that goes on, the 1998 letter show’s that the President can be prosecuted and is not a person who cannot be put on trial. What is different unless there is a special court and trial, the criminal offenses done before his Presidential Term and his sentencing has to be served after his term. That because of the Executive Branch and the august role of government the President are. Certainly, ironic writing that while describing Trump.

This will be lines from the letter, that says the most for me, because the criminal offenses before the Presidential Term: “it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, 1998).

So obstruction of justice, which is witness tampering and destruction of documents are likely things that people knows Trump has done or wanting to do. That is why Special Investigator Mueller has asked the government and White House to keep their documents relating to Russian affairs and the known meetings with Russians. So the investigation looks into the possible crimes of the Presidency before and also, within, but the impeachment would happen with a federal grand jury, where the President is sentenced for crimes, which is not in the President’s Office duties. So, the possible grand jury are there as much as it was for Nixon and was for Clinton. No difference for Trump, unless the House of Representatives and Senators at the Congress are spineless individuals who are all loyal to Moscow and Russians like Trump. Peace.

Reference:

Ronald R. Rotunda letter to Judge Kenneth W. Starr – ‘Re: Indictability of the President’ (13.05.1998)

Representative Waters tables bill (HR. 442) to inquire documentation of Trump businesses financial transactions to Russia!

In the House of Representative, one of the Representative Maxine Waters of California have introduced a new bill on the 13th July 2017. This one is an assault directly on the cash flow to the Trump Organization and it’s possible connection to the Russian businesses and associates. This becomes important, as the President and his business hasn’t been transparent. Therefore, this is another try to get the President and his family to deliver the connections and funds earned from foreign sources like the Russians. Especially, since the revelation and revealing companies that the Trump Organization has been working with.

The Representative in Congress has gotten Co-Sponsors on the bill, they are Daniel Kildee, Gwen Moore, Al Green and Ed Perlmutter, they are all Democrats, but set the standard for their persistence wish to find the truth and within reason for what is seem as just in the American society.

The important parts of the bill is this:

Of inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide certain documents in the Secretary’s possession to the House of Representatives relating to President Trump’s financial connections to Russia, certain illegal financial schemes, and related information” (Waters, 2017).

(1) loans, guarantees, or other forms of credit, made or extended by Deutsche Bank AG, the Bayrock Group LLC, Vnesheconombank Group (VEB), Sberbank of Russia, Alfa Group, VTB Group, Gazprombank, any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing, the Russian government, or any Russian senior foreign political figure (as defined under section 1010.605 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations), to

(A) President Trump;

(B) President Trump’s family members—

(i) Donald Trump Jr.;

(ii) Eric Trump;

(iii) Ivanka Trump;

(iv) Melania Trump;

(v) Tiffany Trump;

(vi) Jared Kushner; and

(vii) Seryl Stadtmauer (aka Seryl Kushner);

(C) President Trump’s associates—

(i) Paul Manafort;

(ii) Carl Icahn;

(iii) Felix Sater;

(iv) Gary Cohn;

(v) Carter Page;

(vi) Roger Stone;

(vii) Rick Gates;

(viii) Wilbur Ross;

(ix) Rex Tillerson;

(x) Michael Flynn;

(xi) Jeff Sessions;

(xii) Michael Cohen;

(xiii) Rhona Graff;

(xiv) Rob Goldstone;

(xv) Boris Epshteyn; and

(xvi) Michael Caputo;

(D) any Trump-owned, -branded, -licensed, or managed hotels, casinos, and golf courses, previously identified by the Department of the Treasury, including—

(i) the Trump Taj Mahal Associates, LLC, d/b/a Taj Mahal Casino Resort;

(ii) the Trump National Doral Miami; and

(iii) the Trump International Hotel, Washington, DC;

(E) any individual described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) in connection with—

(i) the property located at 666 5th Avenue, New York, NY; and

(ii) the property located at 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY; and

(F) the Imperial Pacific International Holdings Ltd., or the Best Sunshine Live Casino;

(2) any financial accounts located outside of the United States and any individual described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1);

(3) Deutsche Bank AG’s 2011 “mirror trading” scheme;

(4) the “Russian Laundromat” (also known as the “Global Laundromat” and the “Moldovan Scheme”);

(5) any money laundering violations involving individuals, businesses, or property described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1);

(6) any violation of U.S. sanctions, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or section 953 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the “Logan Act”), by any person or entity described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1);

(7) any “business rule” developed by the FinCEN to screen data under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91–508, or subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code (collectively, commonly known as the “Bank Secrecy Act”), to identify financial transactions involving Russian senior foreign political figures, or any individual described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1); and

(8) any Egmont Group requests made to a foreign Financial Intelligence Unit, including Cyprus’ Financial Intelligence Unit, the Unit for Combating Money Laundering (MOKAS), pertaining to the financial transactions of any individual described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1)” (Waters, 2017)

In our time, there are enough questions to the ethical behavior on the New York Gang, which in implied in the current administration of running both the United States Government and the Trump Administration. This all puts all the dots together. If the New York Gang needs funding and gets it through agreements and deals done with Russians, clearly they will collude with them when they get into power. Like its seemingly has done and there are more than enough banks, transactions and unrevealed trades that has to surface to make the unanswered questions gone away. The President and his men are now in hot water. All of the fiscal and financial business together with all of this Russian operatives really proves the possible connections. That long before the Trump Campaign and other political aspirations. Even if he tried to run in the past as well.

It is time for the New York Gang to be transparent and open up. If not with time it will get ugly and the revealed truth will never disappear as long there are unanswered questions. Especially, since the President and his affiliates never reveal their true value or company profits. Therefore, the need for oversight and look into the businesses owned by him. They are still run by the family and within his reach. So he will know what Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and other leaders of the Organization are up-to. To think otherwise is foolish. Peace.

Reference:

Waters, Maxine – ‘H.Res.442 – Of inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide certain documents in the Secretary’s possession to the House of Representatives relating to President Trump’s financial connections to Russia, certain illegal financial schemes, and related information’ (13.07.2017) link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/442/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Russia%22%5D%7D&r=1

The Presidential Handshake report doesn’t say much, but it was a clear “error” by Museveni!

I finally got the whole COSASE report of the Presidential Handshake, what has been reported on my blog or page, has been comments of it. This time it would be direct quotes from the report that was put forward in Parliament from the Parliamentary Committee. That the President had an “error” was been weak, the whole ordeal was a bribe and the Committee didn’t have the courage to say so. Even as the position of every one was spelled out in the Report. Every single person paid out bribe was spelled out and the whole part of the allocation was broth to the daylight. Not that the insights was saying much new. But it still, shows how the President is controlling the Parliament and the use of funds. Since he was shocked of certain acts and that he was making it bonafide, but it wasn’t so. This story has been written back- and fourth.

Before more comments, let’s look at quotes from the report!

The Committee was informed by the management team of URA led by the Commissioner General that before the final arbitration ruling, the Uganda Government team briefed Cabinet on the 19th of November 2014 on the progress of the HOGL arbitration and H.E. the President promised to reward the team if they won the case” (…) “The Final Award on the merits of the arbitration was delivered on the 24th February, 2015 wherein the full panel of three Arbiters agreed in favour of Uganda Government and dismissed the entire claim of HOGL and awarded USD 4,083,840 in cost. The then Attorney General Hon. Fred Ruhindi on the 13th April 2015 (App. B1) wrote to H.E. the President reminding him of his promise to reward the team and requested him to consider a reward for noble team. He also attached a list of 24 proposed beneficiary” (…) “The Committee was informed that the Attorney General further led the Government team to meet H.E. the President at his country home in Rwakitura on the 17th May 2015 where the victory in the Heritage arbitration case was among other things discussed. That the H.E. The President thanked the team and directed the Commissioner General of URA to propose an appropriate reward for the team. H.E. The President also guided that the other Public Officers who had tremendously Contributed to the success of the case but had not been included on the first list generated by the Attorney General be included too” (COSASE, P: 8-9. 2017).

As a follow up to the H.E. the President’s letter of 16th November, 2015, the Commissioner General of URA wrote to the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to Treasury (PS/TS) in a letter dated 11th December, 2015 (App. B6) requesting him to formally designate her as accounting Officer through whom the reward would be paid and to formally requisition for the UGX 6,000,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Six Billions Only)” (…) “The Commissioner General, as advised and in a letter dated 5th May 2016 (App. B8) sought authority from the Hon. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to reallocate UGX. 6 Billion (Uganda Shillings Six Billion Only) from URA Tax Refund Account to URA Expenditure Account so that the 42 Public Officers could be paid and suggested that a supplementary to URA for that amount to be considered and handled by the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development did not grant this authority. However, by letter dated 19th October, 2016 (App. B10) he requested the Auditor General to issue an audit warrant for UGX 6 Billion” (COSASE, P: 10-11, 2017).

The Committee reviewed the budget for Financial Year 2016/2017, which was approved by the Board and subsequently appropriated by Parliament for URA activities and the UGX 6 Billion “handshake” was not budget for. The Committee further received evidence from the Board of URA to the effect that such money had not been provided for and they were hearing of that expenditure for the first time” (COSASE, P: 29, 2017).

The Committee observers therefore:

1. That it is true that USD 157 Million, which would have accrued as part of the Capital Gain Tax, was waived.

2. The contention arose out of a clause in the PSA which provided for waiver of tax signed by the then minister Hon. Syda Bbumba.

3. That the dispute would not have arisen if the PSA did not have a waiver of tax.

4. The then Ministry of Energy, Hon. Syda Bbumba, did not have authority to waive tax in that transaction and her auction of not having read the agreement before signing was irregular.

5. All the then Ministry of Energy who signed PSAs with similar clause acted ultra vires the law” (COSASE, P: 44, 2017).

Conclusion:

This “handshake” expenditure was not budgeted URA activity and therefore, a diversion of the UGX 6 Billion without lawful authority was contrary to the PFMA” (…) “H.E. The President’s approval of this “handshake” was bonafide. However, it was an error of judgement” (…) “That all funds paid out of URA account to the beneficiaries of the “handshake” should be refunded” (…) “The Executive should come up with a Bill within 90 days to regulate and streamline the Presidential Donations Budget” (COSASE, P: 45, 2017).

The Presidential Handshake has clearly showed the proof of how a visit at the Presidents farm in 2015 can lead-up to. President Museveni offered honorarium and bonuses to all the staff in the Tullow/Heritage Oil Tax Case, so all their work would benefit them. Without having it in budgets, without any votes or any sort of procedural activity, therefore it was an illegal allocation. That the Uganda Revenue Authority did allocations without proper actions, that the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and Ministry of Energy all actors did wrong in this scenario. They misused the tax to their own benefit and the President allowed it to happen. Therefore, it is weird that the only thing the Committee concludes with a new legislation to stop it. Secondly, also refunds of the benefits for the civil servants and the NRM cronies. That the act was done without lawful authority, but that was well-known and not rocket science. IT was clear misuse of government funds to give someone an extra payday, which wasn’t allocated or had the proper legal stamp. Therefore, a clear bribe… not solicited funds which the state should pay their civil servants. Peace.

Reference:

The Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and the State Enterprises (Cosase) – ‘Report of the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and the State Enterprises (COSASE) on the Investigations into the Circumstances under which the reward of UGX 6 BN was given to 42 Public Officers who participated in the Heritage Oil and Gas Arbitration Case’ (May, 2017)