Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 3, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 283)

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller arrives at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Oct. 28, 2013. (Photo: AP)

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller arrives at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Oct. 28, 2013. (Photo: AP)

Legal experts are becoming increasingly concerned over the professional conduct of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. The special counsel has selectively and illegally leaked information concerning the investigation to friendly media outlets and secured indictments in a manner experts say make it clear political motives are trumping justice.

In the latest example, NBC News reported “multiple sources familiar with the investigation” told them the special counsel has gathered “enough evidence” to charge Lt. General Michael Flynn and his eldest son. The alleged charges have nothing to do with Russia or “collusion,” which many Americans might be surprised to learn is not an actual crime.

As People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) first reported in May, the special counsel piggybacked off of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and has been digging into the relationship between Lt. Gen. Flynn and a Turkish businessman. They are probing whether it played any role in his decision-making during the brief time he served as national security advisor for President Donald J. Trump.

Lt. Gen. Flynn was fired by President Trump after it was revealed he misled Vice President Mike Pence about conservations he had with the Russian ambassador. The FBI cleared Lt. General Flynn of any wrongdoing as it relates to the content of the conversation, but the investigation turned to his firm, Flynn Intel Group.

The firm received $530,000 from Inovo late last year to investigate Fethullah Gulen, the Turkish cleric with ties to Hillary Clinton currently residing in the United States. Turkish authorities claim he was behind the orchestration of a failed attempted coup against the government last year.

“He didn’t disclose the relationship in full until weeks after his resignation from the White House, and potentially wasn’t forthcoming with the FBI on the matter,” PPD reported. “Mr. Alptekin has claimed he hired Flynn’s firm to improve relations between the U.S. and Turkey, but he arranged the Sept. 19 meeting in New York between Mr. Flynn and Turkey’s minister of foreign affairs and minister of energy.”

Last week, Paul Manafort and his former business associate and protégé Rick Gates were told to surrender to federal authorities, making them the first to be charged by Special Counsel Mueller and his team.

The indictments, which were leaked by the special counsel to CNN the Friday before, were secured and unsealed in a manner that raises questions over whether the special counsel was trying to divert attention from several damning reports.

Only days before the indictment, it was revealed the campaign for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid for the infamous debunked Steele dossier. They had lied about their involvement for roughly a year. A nonpartisan election watchdog group then filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over the campaign’s failure to disclose the $10 million expense.

The discredited opposition research not only appears to have been used by the FBI as justification to spy on Trump campaign associates, but also was the catalyst for accusations of collusion.

Reports also implicated the Justice Department (DOJ) and the FBI under Mr. Mueller in a scheme to coverup potential crimes resulting from the controversial Uranium One deal. the FBI uncovered a massive bribery, corruption and racketeering scheme before the Obama Administration approved a nuclear deal that put 20% of U.S. uranium resources under the control of Moscow.

Also just before the indictments were unsealed, the Trump DOJ cleared a confidential informant for the FBI, lifting an unprecedented non-disclosure agreement. He will now be allowed to testify before Congress about what he witnessed undercover surrounding Russia’s efforts to corner the global uranium market. The witness has long-wanted to tell the American people about his knowledge of the corruption, but was gagged by the Obama Administration.

Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for another special counsel to investigate the controversial Obama-Clinton era deal, particularly given Mr. Mueller’s role in the cover up of the investigation. While his committee has launched a probe as well, only the powers granted to a federal prosecutor can get to the bottom of what appears to be a clear cut Clinton quid pro quo.

Experts say several details about the indictments indicate the special counsel was more concerned about timing, political and media narratives rather than accuracy or justice.

“The indictments were definitely rushed,” said high-profile defense attorney Robert Barnes, who said it lays out “a confusing conspiracy that charges three different conspiracies in one count.”

Mr. Barnes, who has extensive experience in white collar crime, noted that the tactic is a violation of the rules of conspiracy indictments. His assessment is backed up by Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who called the indictments “shaky and overcharged.”

“It reads like a draft alternative conspiracy theory,” Mr. Barnes said, adding “the factual error about the Ukrainian prime minister” supports the accusation it was written in haste. Yulia Tymoshenko was the first woman to be appointed as prime minister in Ukraine, but even with a team of lawyers the indictment incorrectly claimed she was the president.

“Third, the dubious claim that dodging taxes can be money laundering has been rejected repeatedly by Congress for decades,” he said.

But it’s also what Mr. Mueller didn’t want the public to know about the indictments that are equally disturbing. As PPD also previously reported, prosecutors for the special counsel peppered witnesses with questions about the role The Podesta Group played in advancing Russian interests at the State Department under Mrs. Clinton while working for Mr. Manafort.

Sources with knowledge of the interviews told PPD witnesses, one a former employee at The Podesta Group, told investigators The Podesta Group knew about the nature of Mr. Manafort’s clients and willfully violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Tony Podesta, the brother of co-founder and former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, resigned following the indictments.

The Podesta Group, the most powerful Democratic lobbying firm in D..C, is “Company A” in the indictments. “Company B” was Mercury LLC, another predominantly Democratic lobbying firm. Mr. Manafort hired The Podesta Group to work on a public relations campaign for the non-profit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU), which aimed to promote the image of the then-Russian satellite regime.

The law requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign agents to file disclosures with the Justice Department. Neither Mr. Manafort nor The Podesta Group were in compliance with FARA. By filing a retroactive FARA disclosure this April, the liberal firm admitted to the lobbying activities. Mr. Mueller not only didn’t charge them but also attempted to conceal their involvement.

“Mueller went out of his way to mask the involvement of Democratic-connected lobbying groups in the indictment,” Mr. Barnes said. “Mueller doesn’t think he has any limits or supervision in the way he handles this investigation. This is the most wayward indictment of any special counsel in the history of special counsels.”

Liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who likened the special counsel investigation to Stalin’s secret police, said Mr. Mueller is ignoring crimes committed by Democrats, which are the “mirror image” of what they have alleged of Team Trump. Recalling his experience with Mr. Mueller, he tells a very disturbing story that paints the former FBI head as the perfect person to lead a political witch hunt.

“’It’s a non-starter to talk to me about FBI misconduct or prosecutorial misconduct,'” Professor Dershowitz claimed Mr. Mueller once told him. “It’s a non-starter. He doesn’t want to hear about that. He is in the business of protecting the FBI, protecting prosecutors, at all costs.”

Professor Dershowitz and others, including Mr. Barnes, point to the team Mr. Mueller assembled to conduct the investigation. People’s Pundit Daily reviewed FEC records back in August and it was problematic, to say the least. Filled with Democratic donors and ethically-challenged prosecutors, it can accurately be characterized as a Democrat hit squad.

Gregg Jarrett, a defense attorney and anchor at Fox News, pointed to one of those team members when asked to react to the indictments.

“These indictments have Andrew Weissmann’s fingerprints all over them,” Mr. Jarrett said last week.

Mr. Weissman has given at least $4,300 to Democratic candidates, including Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. But it’s his reputation as a politically-motivated prosecutor is equally, if not more troubling than his political preferences.

Sidney Powell, who served as lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals, filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Weissman along with William Hodes, one of the bar’s leading ethics experts. It alleged he hid evidence and called “cooperating witnesses” who gave what he knew beforehand to be false testimony.

“During his years on the Enron Task Force, Prosecutor Weissmann was widely known for intimidating witnesses, hiding evidence, and unethical and heavy-handed, if not illegal, tactics,” said Powell, who has written about the case for the legal site Seeking Justice.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously overturned the conviction that Mr. Weissman and the Enron Task Force secured for the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Citing Mr. Weissmann’s unethical actions, the Court specifically cited him giving jury instructions that removed criminal intent from the law and improperly portrayed the law Andersen was charged with breaking.

“Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the opinion. “Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly corruptly persuade.”

Ms. Powell noted that jury was told “even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict,” which was not true.

Meanwhile, the Uranium One deal is currently under investigation by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the calls for Mr. Mueller to resign are growing.

Initially, the friendship with fired FBI director James Comey, who admitted under oath to leaking with the explicit purpose of forcing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special prosecutor, was the justification for those calls. Mr. Comey was Mr. Mueller’s protégé during and after the Bush Administration.

The law and DOJ policy governing special counsels states no person shall “participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome.”

Now, the new revelations about his role in overseeing the Uranium One investigation — along with none other than Mr. Rosenstein — has prompted new calls for Mr. Mueller to resign.

“The federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who first called for Mr. Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”

However, legal experts say that if fidelity to the law was his concern, then he would’ve already resigned.

Professor Dershowitz added that Mr. Mueller is “not going to be satisfied until he gets to the president, or people very close to him. That’s the danger of a special prosecutor.”

Legal experts are becoming increasingly concerned over

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal attends the traditional Saudi dance known as 'Arda', which was performed during Janadriya culture festival at Der'iya in Riyadh February 18, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal attends the traditional Saudi dance known as ‘Arda’, which was performed during Janadriya culture festival at Der’iya in Riyadh February 18, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a bitter and vocal rival of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, has been arrested in the royal family’s sweeping anti-corruption crackdown. Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz has arrested and removed a slew of corrupt and prominent officials, including dozens of princes and former ministers.

Al Arabiya, a Saudi state-run news outlet, reported bin Talal was among those arrested. People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) confirmed he was one of at least 11 princes arrested.

The billionaire chairman of Kingdom Holding Co. was once a business associate of President Trump. But his “America First” platform was a direct threat to the less reputable members of the Saudi royal family and the two engaged in a very public feud.

During the Republican nomination, Prince Alwaleed took to Twitter to call the then-frontrunner a “disgrace” in response to him calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States. He called on him to drop out of the race and proclaimed that he would never win.

Of course, he did win in an electoral vote landslide over the prince’s preferred candidate — Democrat Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump fired back at bin Talal at the time, tweeting that he wouldn’t be able to control U.S. politicians with “daddy’s money” when he was elected.

Worth noting, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not and is not allowing any Muslim refugees into their country. They’ve denied entry to all but a select few Sunni Muslims fleeing the violence in Yemen.

Nevertheless, Prince Alwaleed has an invested hand in Big Media and Big Business in the U.S., including corporate giants like Citigroup, Apple, 21st Century Fox and Twitter, among many others despite his controversial history. As even the liberal D.C.-based The Hill pointed out, bin Talal’s $10 million check after September 11, 2001 was rejected by then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over previous controversial remarks on Israel.

It has also been alleged that he has ties to terrorism and has funded terror groups. A whopping 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and top al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, previously implicated Prince Alwaleed by name, as well as other Saudi government officials.

READ ALSO — Hey Saudi Royal Family: Keep Your Blood-Soaked Hands Out of Our Elections

Moussaoui claimed bin Talal and others financed al-Qaeda, which was an embarrassing disclosure made during a segment on “Special Report” hosted by Fox News anchor Bret Baier. In addition to being a “major investor in the parent company” of Fox News, Prince Alwaleed is a very close friend of Rupert Murdoch and his family.

While the Saudis called the allegation “delusional” and pointed to Moussaoui’s own lawyer’s assertion that he was incompetent, it is well-known that Osama bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian contractor who had close ties to the Saudi royal family.

Worth noting, shortly after the report was filed by James Rosen, Prince Alwaleed announced his company was dumping most of its stake in Murdoch’s News Corp., down from 6.6% to 1%.

Not insignificant, President Trump was also a vocal supporter of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. The bill permitted the families of September 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, which Barack Obama vetoed. The U.S. Congress dealt the former president his first veto-override on JASTA.

President Trump also supported the release of a 28-page 2002 congressional report on the terror attacks, which confirmed long-held suspicions that some of the hijackers had ties to members of the Saudi government.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a vocal rival

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., listens to questions on health care and the Republican effort to repeal ObamaCare. (Photo: Reuters)

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., listens to questions on health care and the Republican effort to repeal ObamaCare. (Photo: Reuters)

Senator Rand Paul, R-Kty., suffered minor injuries following an incident at his home in Bowling Green on Friday. The alleged attacker was arrested and charged with fourth-degree assault.

UPDATE (Read Full Here): Rand Paul is recovering from 5 broken ribs and is in considerable pain. He’s having difficulty getting around, including flying. Doug Stafford said Sunday that the broken ribs include three displaced fractures, which can lead to life-threatening injuries. The severe pain can last for weeks or months.

Rene Boucher, 59, is in the Warren County Regional Jail in lieu of a $5,000 bond, according to online jail records available Saturday afternoon. The charge of fourth-degree assault is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail.

“Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault,” Kelsey Cooper, the senator’s communications director said in an email. “The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police.”

The news release from Kentucky State Police Post 3 in Bowling Green did not describe the circumstances surrounding the assault.

However, Boucher is an anesthesiologist and pain specialist in Bowling Green, who developed a product called Therm-a-Vest. It’s a cloth vest partially filled with rice and secured by Velcro straps that is designed to relieve back pain by delivering heat directly to the areas of the back where most pain is felt.

He’s also a registered Democrat.

Senator Rand Paul suffered minor injuries following an

A pharmacy employee looks for medication as she works to fill a prescription while working at a pharmacy in New York December 23, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)

A pharmacy employee looks for medication as she works to fill a prescription while working at a pharmacy in New York December 23, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)

My view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same way.

But I know that prohibition is a costly failure that leads to abusive government, such as intrusive money-laundering laws and Orwellian asset-forfeiture laws.

And even if one doesn’t care about individual rights, the Drug War is an irrational misallocation of law enforcement resources.

So does this make a libertarian on the issue? The answer is yes, of course, but I confess that legalization has a downside. And I’m not talking about more people wrecking their lives with drug abuse — indeed, evidence from Portugal suggests drug use may go down.

Instead, I don’t like the fact that politicians see legalization mostly as an opportunity to generate additional tax revenue.

My fears have materialized. sort of.

According to a CNN report, politicians in California want to be the biggest profiteers from legal pot.

Between customers, retailers and growers, taxes on cannabis may reach as high as 45% in parts of the state, according to a Fitch Ratings report.

…Consumers will pay a sales tax ranging from 22.25% to 24.25%, which includes the state excise tax of 15%, and additional state and local sales taxes ranging from 7.25% to 9.25%. Local businesses will have to pay a tax ranging from 1% to 20% of gross receipts, or $1 to $50 per square foot of marijuana plants, according to the Fitch report. In addition, farmers will be taxed $9.25 per ounce for flower, and $2.75 per ounce for leaves.

…Van Bustic, a specialist in the environmental impact of cannabis cultivation for Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources, said that registering with the state and becoming compliant will cost about $100,000.

Geesh, greedy governments can take the fun out of anything!

But not so fast. It seems that politicians are being so greedy that the geese with the golden eggs — or, in this case, drug-addled geese with golden buds — will stay in the shadow economy.

Not that we should be surprised. There is a wealth of evidence showing that high tax burdens lead to evasion and avoidance.

The Wall Street Journal looks at this issue and hits the nail on the head, editorializing that high tax rates on pot are a recipe for non-compliance.

…in California, where recreational pot was legalized last year, citizens now have a much clearer view of the unintended consequences that come from high tax rates. A new report from the global credit-rating firm Fitch Ratings highlights the effect of California’s high taxes on the marijuana market. The combined local and state rate on non-medical cannabis may be as high as 45% in some places, and Fitch says this acts as an incentive for Californians to shun legal pot dealers who pay the tax in favor of black-market sellers who don’t and can charge lower prices.

…The irony is that one argument for legalizing pot has been to reduce illegal trafficking. But by imposing taxes that are too high on legal weed, politicians give pot heads an incentive to go back on the illegal market. This will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the boon to illegal smokes from high cigarette taxes in places like New York City.

The CNN story cited above also addressed this issue.

Among the eight states where recreational marijuana is legal, only Washington has a higher tax rate at about 50%. Colorado and Nevada both follow with rates of 36%. Oregon has a tax rate of 20% and Alaska has a rate of up to 20%.

…If taxes increase the price of cannabis beyond a certain point, the legal market becomes less competitive than the illicit market and then consumers become less likely to make the transition from the illicit market to the legal market,” said John Kagia, analyst for New Frontier Data, which tracks the cannabis industry. The Fitch report says this dynamic has already prompted Colorado, Washington and Oregon to lower their “initially uncompetitive” tax rates.

Indeed. I wrote about Colorado’s experience with pot taxation back in 2015.

story in the Washington Post confirms that the buzzed version of supply-side economics is alive and well.

High taxes on legal marijuana in California could have the potential to turn many consumers away from the state’s cannabis shops and toward the black market, according to a report from Fitch Ratings.

…“The existing black market for cannabis may prove a formidable competitor to legal markets if new taxes lead to higher prices than available from illicit sources,” the report says.

…These high tax rates have the potential to drive customers toward the black market.

…Colorado, Oregon and Washington all reduced tax rates after the commencement of legalization to shift customers back toward the legal market.

That last sentence warms my heart. Isn’t it nice when politicians are forced to lower tax burdens even when they don’t want to?

Prohibition on drugs is a costly failure that leads

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during a press briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during a press briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

The swamp is pulsating with excitement. For the lobbying community, tax reform is like Christmas. No matter what happens, they win because of lucrative retainers and fat contracts.

And what about libertarian policy wonks? What do we get? Well, we look at the sausage-making process in Washington with disdain, but we hope that the final outcome is a less-destructive tax system.

And there are some interesting debates along the way. Here’s an interview I did a couple of days ago with Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We touch on several topics relating to tax reform, but pay close attention to the discussion on federal spending and red ink because you’ll see a very interesting mix of agreement and disagreement.

There are big areas of overlap. We both like spending restraint. We both favor getting rid of loopholes (though I fear she may favor the Haig-Simons definition of loopholes rather than the consumption-base definition). And we both seem to agree that lower tax rates can improve economic performance.

But it seems we might diverge on whether a stand-alone tax cut is desirable. My view is that the right kind of tax cut will boost incentives for productive behavior. Yes, that can produce more red ink, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing if it “starves the beast” and creates pressure to restrain the growth of spending. I’m motivated by a desire to limit the overall size of government.

Maya, by contrast, is not happy that Congress is considering a stand-alone tax cut. As a “deficit hawk,” she would prefer that the tax cut be “paid for” with spending restraint or by cutting back on tax preferences. She is motivated by a desire to limit red ink.

For what it’s worth, I think she’s focusing on the symptom or red ink when it would be better to focus on the underlying disease of excessive spending.

I think this 2×2 matrix is a good way of illustrating our areas of agreement and disagreement. Libertarians like me are in the top-left box. Indeed, in the top-left corner of the top-left box. I want less spending and lower taxes. Deficit hawks like Maya, by contrast, are going to be somewhere in the lower-left box since they want less spending but are open to higher taxes.

I also added other groups to the matrix, such as Reaganites (i.e. the Gipper), populists (i.e., Trump), and so-called compassionate conservatives (i.e., Bush). As well as some Democratic politicians such as Bill ClintonHillary Clinton, and Crazy Bernie. Since I’m going by gut instinct, I’m not going to claim everybody is in the exact right spot, but I do think this is a decent representation of the real debate in Washington.

But it’s not a perfect representation. For instance, we know the folks in the lower-left box care about red ink. But you can also find people in the top-left box and lower-right box who favor balanced budgets. Perhaps there should be a diagonal line from the top left to the lower right so that we can see who wants balanced budgets and/or budget surpluses.

So here’s a slightly more cluttered version of my fiscal matrix.

And I added Hong Kong and Sweden to the matrix to show that balanced budgets are possible with small government or big government.

Last but not least, I decided to create one more visual. The fiscal matrix is mostly designed to show preferences on spending and taxes, with the obvious implication that people below the diagonal line don’t like deficits.

But if we consider just red ink, here’s a spectrum showing how people view deficits. Maya and her group are in the deficits-are-horrible camp on one end, while the deficits-are-wonderful Keynesians are on the other end. And I put myself in the middle to represent the alleged voice of moderation.

Though even this spectrum isn’t really accurate since Keynes only believed in deficits during a downturn. And I confess I have no idea whether Maya would support red ink in that circumstance.

By the way, I can’t resist commenting on a few other moments in the interview.

  • First, Maya said that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. That’s true (except in rare circumstances), but it’s still very important to realize that supply-side tax cuts can produce some degree of revenue feedback.
  • Second, modest spending restraint would enable both huge tax cuts and a balanced budget.
  • Third, Republicans in Congress actually approved budgets that restrained spending when Obama was in the White House — hence, my reference in the interview to the Ryan budgets.

I’ll close with a grim prediction. The tax reform battle will be Part II of the ObamaCare repeal battle. I fear the effort will come to naught. Those 76,000 pages in the tax code are defended by too many powerful interest groups.

For the lobbying community, tax reform is like

Florida State Senator Jack Latvala, R-District 16, announced he is running for governor. (Photo: Courtesy of the Campaign)

Florida State Senator Jack Latvala, R-District 16, announced he is running for governor. (Photo: Courtesy of the Campaign)

Gainesville, Florida — State Senate Chair Jack Latvala, Fla-District 20, a Republican candidate for governor, responded to anonymous accusations of sexual harassment in Politico. This story is developing and will be updated, but below is the statement emailed to People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) after the leftwing magazine in D.C. published the story.

It’s hard to confront anonymous accusers, and even more difficult when the news is manufactured by a fake news entity like Politico who gave me less than a half hour to respond to this smear campaign.

I unequivocally deny the allegations that have been made against me. And I find it interesting that these anonymous complaints have only come forward after I began my campaign for governor.

I am in consultation with my attorney and will take all legal actions necessary to clear my name. I also welcome a complete review of these allegations by the Senate. If my political opponents want a fight, then it’s a fight they will get.

Politico reported 6 women accused Mr. Latvala of sexual harassment. When asked by a reporter on Thursday about a growing controversy surrounding Jeff Clemens, one of his closest allies in the Florida Senate, he said he’d never been accused of sexual harassment. The report claimed 5 of the 6 came forward after those remarks.

As People’s Pundit Daily previously reported, Mr. Latvala has landed big endorsements early in the Florida gubernatorial election. Firefighters in St. Petersburg, Coral Gables and Indian River County recently joined Miami, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton and Boynton Beach in endorsing the state legislator.

Shortly after, the Florida State Fraternal Order of Police also endorsed his candidacy, adding to a growing list of first responders who are throwing their weight behind the Clearwater Republican.

While Florida is characterized as a Battleground on the PPD Election Projection Model, Gov. Rick Scott’s economic success is likely to give the eventual GOP nominee a slight edge. PPD’s Battleground State Likely Voter Profiles shows the Sunshine State marginally favoring the Republican Party.

Mr. Latvala also represented District 16–including parts of Pasco County and Pinellas County–when he previously served in the Florida State Senate from 1994 to 2002. He chaired the Government Oversight, Banking and Insurance and Natural Resources committees.

His roots in District 16 and District 20 could prove key in a general election. They are both Pivot Districts, which means they host at least parts of one or more counties that have voted for Republican and Democratic candidates on the gubernatorial and/or presidential levels.

Representative Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., represented the Panhandle in the Florida House for three terms from 2010-2016 before being elected to Congress. He told Politico Mr. Latvala was known as an “absolute hound” in the Florida Capitol.

“He’s a hound. I mean, everyone in Tallahassee knows that Jack Latvala is an absolute hound,” Rep. Gaetz, the son of former Florida Senate President Don Gaetz, told Politico. “Jack believes that his power as a legislator gives him some special power with women. And, there are times when it’s clearly unrequited.”

State Senate Chair Jack Latvala, Fla-District 20,

The U.S. flag is displayed at Tesoro's Los Angeles oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Reuters)

The U.S. flag is displayed at Tesoro’s Los Angeles oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Reuters)

The Baker Hughes North American Rig Count is down 10 to 1,090 for the week ending November 3, as both the U.S. and Canada count declined yet again. Overall, the North American Rig Count is still up 367 on the year, far more than the 723 rigs in commission at this time last year.

The U.S. rig count was down 11 rigs to 898 and up 329 rigs from the 569 last year. The Canadian count was down 11 rigs to 191 and up 38 from last year.

For the U.S., rigs classified as drilling for oil was down 8 to 729, while rigs classified as gas are down 3 at 169. For Canada, oil rigs are up 4 to 100 and gas rigs are down 3 to 91.

Worth noting, Texas rigs were up 3 to 444 and Louisiana rigs were down 4 to 58. The Gulf of Mexico, which is a subset of the U.S. in the North American Rig Count, are down 2 at 18.

The Baker Hughes North American Rig Count

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie speaks at a campaign rally at the Washington County Fairgrounds on Saturday, October 14, 2017, in Abingdon, Va. Mr. Gillespie is in a neck-and-neck race against Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam. (Photo: AP)

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie speaks at a campaign rally at the Washington County Fairgrounds on Saturday, October 14, 2017, in Abingdon, Va. Mr. Gillespie is in a neck-and-neck race against Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam. (Photo: AP)

A new Virginia governor poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports has Republican Ed Gillespie running neck-and-neck with Democrat Lt. Governor Ralph Northam at 45%. Libertarian candidate Cliff Hyra is drawing 2%.

The polls have been all over the place, but the most reliable and accurate pollsters analyzed by People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) have the race a dead heat.

Mr. Gillespie slightly edges Lt. Gov. Northam on favorability ratings and both candidates are above water at 52/41 and 50/42, respectively. Fifty-five percent (55%) have never even heard of Mr. Hyra and only 12% have a favorable opinion of him.

Men, who are outnumbered but more likely to vote, prefer the Republican 47% to 45% while women back the Democrat 46% to 43%.

Thirty-two percent (32%) of likely voters in Virginia say the economy and jobs are the top issue for them, of which Lt. Gov. Northam leads. That result stands in contrast to most other surveys, but in this poll Mr. Gillespie leads in almost every other category. The two candidates are tied among voters who say cultural issues are their top concern.

Twenty-two percent (22%) say taxes and spending are most important, while cultural concerns including what to do with Confederate statues in the state are the top issue for 12%. Nearly just as many (11%) cite illegal immigration, a major issue for the Gillespie campaign. Nine percent (9%) are most concerned with law and order and another 12% cite something else.

Lt. Gov. Northam was once thought to have an advantage in the Virginia gubernatorial election. However, the race tightened even before events of the campaign trail backfired on him.

A widely-condemned ad depicting a rebel flag-flying pickup truck mowing down immigrant children in the streets of Virginia set off a political firestorm, from which the Northam campaign is now attempting to distance itself. As PPD reported, the ad was run by the Latino Victory Fund and campaign finance documents reveal the campaign received an “in-kind” contribution valued at $62,729 from the group.

The Northam campaign claimed it was for grassroots effort, but the explanation doesn’t appear to hold up to scrutiny. It was filed it as a coordinated expenditure, not an independent expenditure and the listed purpose was “media” on the form.

The state survey of 875 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted October 31-November 3, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

A new Virginia governor poll conducted by

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, center, leaves the courthouse after an arraignment for his court-martial, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on December 22, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, center, leaves the courthouse after an arraignment for his court-martial, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on December 22, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Disgraced Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face no prison time for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, despite the penalties for these charges calling for life in prison. As People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously reported, Bergdahl decided to plea rather than stand trial for deserting his post while serving in Afghanistan.

His penalty includes a dishonorable discharge and a reduction of pay and rank to private (E1), despite soldiers and special operators testifying about the casualties they received while searching for someone they knew to be a traitor. He will have to forfeit his pay of roughly $1,000 per month for only ten months.

Even though the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) easily justified life in prison, prosecutors had only requested a 14-year prison term following a week of emotional testimony from the survivors. Reports indicate up to 6 deaths were related to search and rescue operations. One Navy SEAL told the judge he was shot and will walk with a limp for the rest of his life.

“Sgt. Bergdahl does not have a monopoly on suffering as a result of his choices,” Major Justin Oshana, the prosecutor said contrasting Bergdahl’s suffering to those wounded while searching for the deserter. “The difference is, all the suffering stems from his choice.”

Because the offenses were committed during a time of war, the penalties are typically more severe. According to 899. Article 99. Misbehavior Before the Enemy, those found guilty “shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.” Under 885. Article 85. Desertion (c):

Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

But the judge was more concerned about his mental suffering.

Bergdahl, 31, who was serving with an Alaska-based infantry regiment, deserted his post in Afghanistan back in 2009. At the time, he was 23 years-old and was held captive by the Taliban for roughly 5 years. Bergdahl said he had been caged in the darkness, beaten and chained to a bed.

However, in December 2009, the Taliban released a second video showing him in good health as he delivered a lengthy statement criticizing the U.S. military. Eventually, the Obama Administration agreed to a controversial trade in exchange for 5 highly-dangerous Guantanamo detainees dubbed the “Taliban Five.”

The disgraced solider initially claimed he was lagging behind a patrol when he was captured. He also said he left his post to alert people about problems he perceived within his unit. Investigators said Mr. Bergdahl suffered from schizotypal personality disorder at the time he left his post, and had become deeply anti-American.

Meanwhile, of the “Taliban Five” — Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban army chief of staff; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban intelligence official; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban government official; and Norullah Noori and Mohammad Nabi Omari — at least three have attempted to reconnect with their old Islamic terrorist brothers.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GA) said in August 2014 that the Obama Administration failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange, which was a clear violation of the law. The executive branch is prohibited under law from releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees without first giving the aforementioned notice and receiving congressional approval.

This story is developing and will be updated.

Disgraced Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face

A campaign disclosure form ties Democrat Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam to a widely-condemned ad depicting a rebel flag-flying pickup truck mowing down immigrant children in the streets of Virginia. The racially-charged truck ad set off a political firestorm, from which the Northam campaign is now attempting to distance itself.

However, campaign finance documents uncovered by Phil Kerpen and his group American Commitment show the campaign received an “in-kind” contribution valued at $62,729 from the Latino Victory Fund. The campaign filed it as a coordinated expenditure, not an independent expenditure and the purpose listed on the form is even more damning.

The Northam campaign claimed it was for grassroots effort, but the explanation doesn’t appear to hold up to scrutiny.

“They listed ‘media’ as goods and services received right on their own disclosure form,” Mr. Kerpin noted when providing the form to People’s Pundit Daily (PPD).

Northam Disclosure Latino Victory Fund

“The problem for him is the same time he’s out there saying it was an outside group — ‘it wasn’t me’ — his campaign filed an official document with the state board of elections in Virginia disclosing that this was a coordinated expenditure,” Mr. Kerpen told One America News. “The only way I can think he might be telling the truth, that he didn’t see that ad and approve the content beforehand, is if the discussion went something along the lines of: ‘I want you to do something really outrageous and over the top and I want to be able to deny it so don’t show it to me.’”

Lt. Gov. Northam, who is running against Republican Ed Gillespie, was once thought to have an advantage in the Virginia gubernatorial election. However, the race tightened even before this ad backfired on him. Now, accurate and reliable pollsters show the race is a dead heat.

The candidate and Democratic surrogates were standing behind the ad before the terror attack in New York City, in which an Islamic jihadi used a truck to kill 8 and wound a dozen others.

A campaign disclosure form ties Lt. Gov.

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial