The Pronk Pops Show 820, January 19, 2017, Story 1: CNN Should Change Their Name To CFF — Collectivist Fanatic Fantasies — Trump and Cabinet Assassinated At Inauguration — Big Lie Media of The Lying Lunatic Left — Videos — Story 2: Will President Obama Pardon Hillary Clinton and Co-conspirators? Will President Trump Call For A Independent Special Prosecutor? — Videos

Posted on January 20, 2017. Filed under: Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, College, Constitutional Law, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Law, Life, Second Amendment, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Story 1: CNN Should Change Their Name To CFF — Collectivist Fanatic Fantasies — Trump and Cabinet Assassinated At Inauguration — Big Lie Media of The Lying Lunatic Left — WHAT IS CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT? —  Videos

Image result for cartoons CNN designated survivorImage result for cartoons CNN designated survivor

CNN Speculates What Would Happen If Trump Is Assassinated

Who is ‘designated survivor’ at inauguration?

WHAT IS CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT?

Designated Survivor – Official Trailer

Real-Life ‘Designated Survivor’ Stories Behind New ABC Show | ABC News

Continuity of Government- That’s classified

Classified? What is CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT (COG)?

CNN Slammed for Report on Who Would Take Power If Trump Were Assassinated

If Trump is Killed During Inauguration, Obama Appointee Would Be President

RUSH: CNN Report On Trump Assassination ‘An Act Of Total DERANGEMENT, IRRESPONSIBILITY, And DANGER’

CNN Tries To Assassinate Trump

CNN has been slammed for a “what if” report on what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump was assassinated during Inauguration Day on Friday.

The report, titled “Disaster could put Obama cabinet member in Oval Office,” drew the ire of some conservative news outlets and many commentators, but it did not specifically mention a threat targeting the inauguration.

The report goes on to speculate on “who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president” as the transfer of power takes place. It explained that an Obama administration official would be taking power—if the entire top-level of the presidential line of succession is wiped out.

CNN noted that if Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and president pro tempore are killed, then the line of succession is turned over to the cabinet, starting with the Secretary of State John Kerry. Since Trump’s cabinet wouldn’t have yet been confirmed, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon—an Obama appointee—would be in line to take Kerry’s place.

The U.S. Secret Service has said there’s no credible threat against Trump’s inauguration, although possibly thousands of demonstrators are heading to Washington, D.C., to protest Trump.

After it was posted on CNN’s YouTube channel, the video saw an incredible number of “thumbs-down” ratings. Some 96.6 percent of people (or 5,443 out of 5,633) downvoted the video as of press time.

And the comments were overwhelmingly critical of CNN. “Flagged for inciting violence,” wrote one person. “This is really morbid, something we need to know,” wrote another sarcastically. “Totally not suggesting anything here, huh CNN?” asked another.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2212216-cnn-slammed-for-report-on-who-would-take-power-if-trump-were-assassinated/

CNN: Assassinating Trump Could Keep Obama Administration in Power

As the nation prepares for the peaceful transfer of power on Inauguration Day, CNN is dreaming up scenarios whereby the Obama administration can keep power if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were blown up as they prepared to take to oath of office.

On the Wednesday, January 18 broadcast of CNN’s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer aired a segment with a chyron featuring the headline “Developing Now.” During that “developing” segment, Blitzer and correspondent Brian Todd discussed what would happen if the unthinkable occurred on January 20.

Blitzer introduced the segment, saying, “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?” and from there, CNN contributor Brian Todd took over to outline the line of succession if an attack blew up the inaugural dais, killing both Trump and Pence.

The upshot was that in the case of both heads of state being killed, the Secretary of State would take over. Currently that man is Secretary of State John Kerry, But in case some objected because his office would also end as of noon on Inauguration Day, then it would be the Speaker of the House — Republican Paul Ryan — or even Obama’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon.

The report also noted that the designated survivor appointed by the Obama administration could also become president in the case of a disaster. So, in CNN’s analysis, most of the people who would take over in the worst-case scenario would keep the Obama administration in power, at least indirectly.

So while most of the country is looking to enjoy the day’s events and waiting expectantly to hear what our new president will have to say for his first address as our leader, CNN is wondering what will happen if he is assassinated.

Perhaps CNN is still stuck in anger, the second stage of grief.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/18/cnn-airs-segment-saying-obama-admin-keep-power-trump-pence-blown-inauguration-day/

Continuity of Operations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Continuity of Operations Plan)
For other uses, see Continuity of government.

Continuity of Operations (COOP) is a United States federal government initiative, required by U.S. presidential directive, to ensure that agencies are able to continue performance of essential functions under a broad range of circumstances.

The National Security Presidential Directive-51 (NSPD-51), the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20 (HSPD-20), and the National Continuity Policy specify certain requirements for continuity plan development, including the requirement that all federal executive branch departments and agencies develop an integrated, overlapping continuity capability.

The Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD 1) is a 2012 directive that applies to all federal organizations and which they must follow when planning their continuity program. FCD 1 also serves as guidance to state, local, and tribal governments.

The Federal Continuity Directive 2 (FCD 2) of July 2013 is a directive to assist federal Executive Branch organizations in identifying their Mission Essential Functions (MEFs) and candidate Primary Mission Essential Functions (PMEFs).[1]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) together with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and in coordination with other non-federal partners in July 2013, developed the Continuity Guidance Circular 1 (CGC 1) and CGC 2.

The preamble of the CGC 1 states that its function is to provide “direction to the non-Federal Governments (NFGs) for developing continuity plans and programs. Continuity planning facilitates the performance of essential functions during all-hazards emergencies or other situations that may disrupt normal operations. By continuing the performance of essential functions through a catastrophic emergency, the State, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector support the ability of the Federal Government to perform National Essential Functions (NEFs).”

CGC 1 parallels the information in FCD 1 closely, but is geared to states, territories, tribal and local governments, and private-sector organizations.

The purpose of Continuity Guidance Circular 2 (CGC 2) is to provide “non-Federal Governments (NFGs) with guidance on how to implement CGC 1, Annex D: ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS. It provides them with guidance, a methodology, and checklists to identify, assess, and validate their essential functions. This CGC includes guidance for conducting a continuity Business Process Analysis (BPA), Business Impact Analysis (BIA), and a risk assessment that will identify essential function relationships, interdependencies, time sensitivities, threats and vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies.” [2] [3]

FEMA provides guidance to the private sector for business continuity planning purposes.[4] FEMA realizes that when business is disrupted, it can cost money, so a continuity plan is essential to help identify critical functions and develop preventative measures to continue functions should disruption occur.[5]

History

A Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government Plan) has been a part of U.S. government operations since at least the Cold War,[citation needed] when President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided (via executive order) various measures designed to ensure that the government of the United States would be able to continue operating after a nuclear war.

These measures included construction of underground facilities such as “Mount Weather“, a hollowed-out putatively nuclear-weapon-proof mountain in western Virginia with a mailing address in Berryville, Virginia. The public can now tour one such facility, intended to house the entire United States Congress, on the grounds of the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. (See also Project Greek Island) Other provisions of the plans included executive orders designating certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive-branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary officeholders are killed.

There has been a formal line of succession to the presidency since 1792 (currently found in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, 3 U.S.C. § 19). This runs from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then through the Cabinet secretaries in a sequence specified by Congress.

Continuity of government plans are not limited to the federal government. The majority of states have constitutional provisions that provide for the succession of government in the event of an “enemy attack”.[6]

National-level continuity exercises under DHS

Date Name Scenario (If any) Emphasis (If any)
2004 June 12–13 Exercise Forward Challenge – TOP OFF
2005 June 20–24 Exercise PINNACLE / Forward Challenge – TOP OFF 2 Terrorism
2006 June 19–22 Exercise PINNACLE / Forward Challenge – TOP OFF 3
2007 May 25 Exercise PINNACLE / TOP OFF 4
2008 May 7–8 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 08)[7]
2009 June 17 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 09) [8]
2010 May 23 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 10) [9] “Dirty Bomb”
2011 June 23 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 11) “Dirty Bomb” Devolution
2012 June 18 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 12) [10] Cyber Attack
2013 April 18 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 13) [11] Pandemic Alt. Emergency Response Group (ERG)
2014 April 1–2 Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 14) TBD
2015 TBD Exercise Eagle Horizon (EH 15) TBD

COG activated

The George W. Bush administration put the Continuity of Operations plan into effect for the first time directly following the September 11 attacks.[12] Their implementation involved a rotating staff of 75 to 150 senior officials and other government workers from every federal executive department and other parts of the executive branch in two secure bunkers on the East Coast. Friends, family, and co-workers were only able to reach them through a toll-free number and personal extensions. The Bush administration did not acknowledge the implementation of the COG plan until March 1, 2002.[13][14]

Since its inception, the newly created Department of Homeland Security has conducted at least three exercises to test continuity plans. The first, named “Forward Challenge ’04”, took place from May 12 to May 13, 2004, and included more than 40 government agencies.[15] The second major exercise took place from June 20 to June 24, 2005. Titled “Pinnacle”, the exercise tested responses to various emergencies, including a hypothetical act of terrorism.[16]Forward Challenge ’06” was the third major exercise, and took place on June 19, 2006. It reportedly involved nearly 4,000 government personnel.[17]

In 2007, Larry Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia, criticized the incomplete nature of the plan in his book A More Perfect Constitution. In particular, he objected to the fact that there is no constitutional procedure for replacing U.S. House members in the case of a large-scale attack which could potentially kill a large number of representatives. In regard to the Continuity of Operations Plan, Sabato said it “failed outright” during the September 11 attacks.

Lack of Congressional oversight

[needs update] On July 18, 2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), a member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security at that time, requested the classified and more detailed version of the government’s continuity-of-operations plan in a letter signed by him and the chairperson of the House Homeland Security Committee, which is supposed to have access to confidential government information.

The president refused to provide the information, to the surprise of the Congressional committee.[18][19] As of August 2007, efforts by the committee to secure a copy of the plan continued.[20][21]

Documents

A document named in italics supersedes the following document.

George W. Bush administration

Clinton administration

  • Federal Preparedness Circular 65, “Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP)”, July 26, 1999
  • “Federal Response Plan” [FEMA 9230.1-PL], April 1999
  • Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”, October 21, 1998
  • 41 Code of Federal Regulations 101-2, “Occupant Emergency Program”, revised as of July 1, 1998
  • 36 Code of Federal Regulations 1236, “Management of Vital Records”, revised as of July 1, 1998
  • Presidential Decision Directive 63, “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)”, May 22, 1998
  • Presidential Decision Directive 62, “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas”, May 22, 1998
  • FPC 65 Federal Response Planning Guidance 01-94, “Continuity of Operations (COOP)”, December 4, 1994

George H. W. Bush administration

  • PDD 67 National Security Directive 69, “Enduring Constitutional Government”, June 2, 1992
  • FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 61, “Emergency Succession to Key Positions of the Federal Departments and Agencies”, August 2, 1991
  • FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 62, “Delegation of Authorities for Emergency Situations”, August 1, 1991
  • Federal Preparedness Circular 60, “Continuity of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government at the Headquarters Level During National Security Emergencies”, November 20, 1990
  • NSD 69 National Security Directive 37, “Enduring Constitutional Government”, April 18, 1990

Reagan administration

An unknown contingency plan (which some believe was Rex 84) was publicly mentioned during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987.[23] Transcripts from the hearing in the New York Times record the following dialogue between Congressman Jack Brooks, North’s attorney Brendan Sullivan and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee:[24]

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

  • Executive Order 12656, “Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities”, November 18, 1988

Section 202

The head of each Federal department and agency shall ensure the continuity of essential functions in any national security emergency by providing for: succession to office and emergency delegation of authority in accordance with applicable law; safekeeping of essential resources, facilities, and records; and establishment of emergency operating capabilities.

  • Executive Order 12472, “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions”, April 3, 1984
  • NSD 69 NSDD 55, “Enduring National Leadership” September 14, 1982

Carter administration

Eisenhower administration

Truman administration

Hardware and facilities

The Continuity of Operations Plan involves numerous bunkers, special airplanes, and communication systems. Much of the information about them is classified, however information on various systems has been released by the government or described to the public by reporters and writers. Since many of the details are classified, the public information may be incorrect. Also they are subject to change without public notice so this list may not reflect current plans.

Facilities

During the Cold War, the United States constructed bunkers to help provide survivability to military command and government officials. Some have been decommissioned since the Cold War. The ones that are still considered to be in operation are listed here.

The United States Congress was formerly housed in the Greenbrier Bunker, but since it was discovered in the early 1990s the new location of the Congressional bunker is unknown.

Airplanes

  • Air Force One is the radio call sign of any Air Force plane the President of the United States travels on. However, the term typically refers to a Boeing VC-25A the president normally uses. While the VC-25A is equipped with numerous systems to ensure its survival, in an emergency it is recommended that the president use the National Airborne Operations Center.

“Nightwatch” in flight

  • National Airborne Operations Center (codenamed Nightwatch) is a Boeing E-4 specially built to serve as a survivable mobile command post for the National Command Authority (NCA). Either the President or the Secretary of Defense may use it. It is also possible that the president would authorize the vice president or others to use it, depending on the circumstances.
  • Looking Glass is USSTRATCOM‘s Airborne Command Post, designed to take over in case NORAD‘s Cheyenne Mountain Directorate is destroyed or incapable of communicating with strategic forces. Beginning February 3, 1961, an Air Force Looking Glass aircraft was in the air at all times 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. On July 24, 1990, Looking Glass ceased continuous airborne alert but remained on ground or airborne alert 24 hours a day. On October 1, 1998, the U.S. Navy replaced the U.S. Air Force.[clarification needed] In addition, a battle staff now flies with the TACAMO crew.[27]

Ships[edit]

The USS Wright (CC-2)

Two National Emergency Command Posts Afloat were:

  • USS Northampton was converted into Command Ship CC-1 about 1962.
  • USS Wright was converted into Command Ship CC-2 between 1962 and 1963 and included the National Military Command System.

These vessels were decommissioned in 1970.

Communication

Communication is vital during a catastrophic event. Military communication links are designed for extreme situations such as nuclear war and thus considered more “survivable” than civilian networks. The Defense Communication Agency was tasked in 1963 with maintaining an active backup of all communications for any event that could disrupt communications and the management of command and control communications systems as the National Communications System. This mission was partially transferred to Defense Information Systems Agency in charge of supporting command, control, communications, and information systems for the military in the 1990s and would support the National Command Authority. These functions were later transferred to Joint Forces Command and STRATCOM but the backup contingency systems continue to operate. It is assumed that the various bunkers and airplanes have been equipped with special communication equipment to survive a catastrophe.

  • Internet – The Internet began as the ARPANET, a program funded by the U.S. military. The Internet is designed with the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks, but was never designed to withstand a nuclear attack. Due to the huge numbers of people using it, it would likely be jammed and unable to handle communication if it suffered a large amount of damage.[citation needed] During a localized emergency, it is highly useful. However, the loss of electrical power to an area can make accessing the Internet difficult or impossible.
  • Communications satellites – Basically immune to any ground catastrophe, it is expected that military communication satellites would provide the government with the ability to communicate in any situation other than one that includes a direct attack upon the satellites.
  • Telephone – The authority for the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize official traffic on public communication infrastructure, such as the Plain Old Telephone System [2]

See also

Story 2: Will President Obama Pardon Hillary Clinton and Co-conspirators? Will President Trump Call For A Independent Special Prosecutor? — Videos

UPDATE: President Obama Does Not Pardon Hillary Clinton!

Image result for cartoons branco clinton foundationImage result for cartoons branco pay to play hillary clintonImage result for cartoons branco clinton foundationImage result for cartoons branco pay to play hillary clinton pardon

Image result for cartoons branco clinton foundationImage result for cartoons branco no obama pardon for hillary clinton

“If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,”

~Donald J. Trump

Trump vows to get special prosecutor to investigate Clinton

Trump Pledges Probe of Clinton Foundation

Will Donald Trump hire a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton? 11-13-16

Donald Trump Softens Stance On Prosecuting Hillary Clinton | MSNBC

Judge Napolitano: Trump’s ‘Special Prosecutor’ Vow Is ‘Very Serious & Substantive’

Trump backing off calls for Clinton special prosecutor?

Trump signals he may not prosecute Clinton

Jeff Sessions Says He Will Recuse Himself From Any Hillary Clinton Investigations | NBC News

New Document Dump Hillary Clinton Can impact Hearings, Russia, China and Israel recieved CC emails

Sessions: Clinton Foundation ‘not fully investigated…

Sen. Sessions on the FBI’s new investigation of Clinton’s email case

SR 1442 – Dick Morris Predicts that Obama Will Pardon Hillary Clinton Today!

The Clinton Foundation: Largest Unprosecuted Criminal Global Charity Fraud and Conspiracy Ever

Trump Inauguration: Liberal Fake News Alt-Left Meltdown, Obama and Michelle at Each Other’s Throats

The Clinton Criminal Enterprise Defies Description and Belief

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton “guilty as hell” in email investigation

Trump on Clinton: She has to go to jail, she’s guilty as hell

TRUMP: FBI WAS ‘NICE’ TO HILLARY CLINTON, WHO WAS ‘GUILTY AS HELL’

Donald Trump Warns President Obama Not to ‘Pardon Hillary Clinton and Her Co-Conspirators’

Donald Trump: FBI documents on Hillary Clinton prove ‘corruption at the highest level’

America Talks Live | Andy McCarthy: Obama Will Pardon Hillary For His Own Preservation

WHY is Hillary Clinton GUILTY of Espionage Act Violations? SECRECY AGREEMENTS!! Dr Kawa Explains

Hillary Clinton should be charged under Espionage Act 18 US Code 793 and 1924

Published on Nov 1, 2016

Hillary Clinton cannot be President because she is committed a felony. She should be charged and stand trial. Her candidacy is now tainted. The Chicago Tribune called for her to step aside. There is substance behind the reasons she cannot serve as President.

Here is the smoking gun. FBI Director Comey wrote to Congress informing them that the FBI was again investigating Clinton because Clinton’s emails had been discovered on a laptop shared by Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.

Here is why Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime:

Espionage Act 18 US Code 793 and 1924. Clinton intentionally and knowingly exposed classified information to someone who does not have a security clearance. Just possessing classified information beyond your employment is a felony and we know from her personal server that this information was shared with Cheryl Mills and other attorneys. Additionally, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner possessing her emails is also a crime as they were shared with them by Clinton.

Secrecy Agreements are signed by anyone who receives a security clearance.

OF109 – separation statement – Clinton did not sign this.
DS1904 – Department of State Form – Clinton did not sign this.
SF310 – Separation Statement – when signed Clinton admitted that if she continued to possess classified information she was guilty of a crime.

Jen Psaki previously stated in a press briefing that she had no knowledge if Hillary Clinton had signed the mandatory separation agreements.

This was all accidentally mailed and emailed to Dr. Larry Kawa. There was also a cover-up to stop these documents from being delivered. To see the document that was sent by the State Department to Dr. Kawa view this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0DE…

Still Report #1179 – Why Did FBI Director Comey Refuse to Indict Crooked Hillary Clinton? Corruption

CLASSIFIED: Security Expert on Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal

Will Obama Pardon Hillary at 11:59 PM? MSM Silent about FBI Classified File Dump

Should Obama pardon Hillary Clinton?

THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON

Can Obama Pardon Hillary If She Hasn’t Been Indicted?” Is Trump Playing Obama?!

Obama Prepares Pardons For Hillary

Would Obama pardon Clinton before he leaves office?

Trump Demands That Obama Not Pardon Hillary! This Video is Explosive! Best 15 min Of Trump To Date!

If Trumps Wins, Hillary and Bill Clinton Go To Jail!

Rev. Jesse Jackson asks President Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton

Napolitano: If Trump wins, Obama will pardon Clinton

Meet Individuals Prosecuted For Mishandling LESS Classified Material Than Hillary Clinton

Trump: Nevada, US need a president who obeys rule of law

The United States of America is a land of laws, and Americans value the rule of law above all. Why, then, has our Congress allowed the president and the executive branch to take on near-dictatorial power? How is it that we have a president who will not enforce some laws and who encourages faceless, nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy? In Nevada, the lack of enforcement of immigration laws and the draconian rule of the BLM are damaging the economy, lowering the standard of living and inhibiting natural economic growth. The only way to change these circumstances is to bring to Washington a president who will rein in the federal government and get Congress to do its job. It’s not that we don’t have talented people in D.C. It’s that we have no leadership there.

The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada. In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians. Far removed from the beautiful wide open spaces of Nevada, bureaucrats bend to the influence that is closest to them. Honest, hardworking citizens who seek freedom and economic independence must beg for deference from a federal government that is more intent on power and control than it is in serving the citizens of the nation. In and around Clark County, the situation is even worse.

Because the BLM is so reluctant to release land to local disposition in Nevada, the cost of land has skyrocketed and the cost of living has become an impediment to growth. Where are the city and county to get the land for schools, roads, parks and other public use areas if they have to beg Washington for the land and then pay a premium price for it? How are people who see a future in Nevada to find housing and employment if the federal government is inhibiting economic development? How are businesses to find the employees to fill the jobs that could be created if there were better leadership in Washington? Unfortunately, many of the jobs are filled by those who came to this country illegally.

Illegal immigration costs the people of Nevada over $1.2 billion a year. That is nearly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the state. Those are tax dollars that could go to build those schools, roads, sewers, water treatment plants and all the other services needed for a growing economy. Illegal immigrants absorb tax dollars from public schools, public health and public safety. Illegal immigration suppresses wages and undermines the ability of workers to organize and seek better working conditions. Illegal immigration is an affront to the very rule of law valued by all Americans and most assuredly by all Nevadans.

What is needed in Washington is a president who will rein in the executive branch and work with Congress to make sure the legislative branch does its job. What is needed in Washington is a president who has the will, strength and courage to lead. What is needed in Washington is a president who is not beholden to special interests and who is only interested in putting America and Americans first.

When I am elected president, I will bring the executive branch back inside the Constitution and will work with Congress to put America first. I will lead the effort to gain meaningful tax reform, trade reform and education reform. I will lead the effort to protect your right to worship as you see fit and your right to protect your family and property with the right to keep and bear arms. Together, we will make America great again.

Donald J. Trump, a Republican, is a businessman and a candidate for president of the United States.

http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/07/trump-nevada-us-need-president-who-obeys-rule-law/78422530/

Andrew Napolitano: Why the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back to front and center

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published January 12, 2017

The criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back front and center now that the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill.

Even though the case against her — which was closed and then reopened and then closed again — is old news and she obviously is no longer a candidate to become president of the United States and has been staying below the radar for the past two months, recent developments have regenerated the case.

Here is the back story.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced publicly that the FBI would recommend against seeking an indictment of Clinton for espionage — the failure to safeguard state secrets that had been entrusted to her. He argued that though the case against her was strong — as secretary of state, she had been extremely careless with secrets; exposed hundreds of materials that were confidential, secret and top-secret; and used non-secure mobile devices while in the territory of hostile governments — no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.

Why was the decision of whether to prosecute Clinton left to Comey?

The FBI’s job is to gather evidence of federal crimes and to present that evidence to career prosecutors in the Department of Justice for evaluation. The FBI has numerous investigative tools available to it. One of those tools is presenting evidence to a grand jury and requesting subpoenas from it. Another is presenting evidence to a federal judge and requesting search warrants from the judge. A third is obtaining the indictment of someone who is in the inner circle of the person who is the true target of the investigation and then persuading that indicted person to become a government witness.

None of those tools was used in the Clinton case.

As well, a major interference with the case occurred when Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed to meet privately with former President Bill Clinton. He was — and still is — also the subject of an FBI criminal investigation. Though both Lynch and Mr. Clinton denied talking about the investigations, the attorney general took herself and senior DOJ management off the Hillary Clinton case, leaving the FBI director with the authority to decide whether to prosecute. So based on Comey’s decision that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case against Mrs. Clinton, it was closed.

The case was briefly reopened 11 days before Election Day. The FBI announced it had stumbled upon a potential treasure-trove of emails contained in a laptop jointly owned and used by Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner. The FBI believed at the time that the laptop contained nearly every email Abedin had received from Clinton. Weiner was under investigation for various sexual crimes, and the FBI had obtained the laptop in its search for evidence against him.

Then, a week later, the FBI announced that it had found nothing among the 650,000 emails in the laptop that would cause it to reopen the Clinton case, and it closed the case a second time.

Donald Trump argued during the last weeks of the presidential election campaign that Clinton had exposed state secrets to hostile foreign governments. FBI agents who disagreed with their boss’s decision not to seek the indictment of Clinton made the same arguments. Clinton denied vehemently that she had caused any state secrets to pass into the hands of hostile foreign governments.

Then Trump was elected president of the United States.

Then Clinton left the public scene.

Then, last Sunday evening, during the NFL playoff game between the New York Giants and the Green Bay Packers, the FBI posted on its website more than 300 emails that Clinton had sent to an unnamed colleague not in the government — no doubt her adviser Sid Blumenthal — that had fallen into the hands of foreign powers. It turns out — and the Sunday night release proves this — that Blumenthal was hacked by intelligence agents from at least three foreign governments and that they obtained the emails Clinton had sent to him that contained state secrets. Sources believe that the hostile hackers were the Russians and the Chinese and the friendly hackers were the Israelis.

Last Sunday’s revelations make the case against Clinton far more serious than Comey presented it to be last summer. Indeed, Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated by Trump to be attorney general and who has been a harsh critic of Clinton’s, told the Senate Judiciary Committee this week that he would step aside from any further investigation of Clinton, thereby acknowledging that the investigation will probably be opened again.

One of the metrics that the DOJ examines in deciding whether to prosecute is an analysis of harm caused by the potential defendant. I have examined the newly released emails, and the state secrets have been whited out. Yet it is clear from the FBI analysis of them that real secrets were exposed by the nation’s chief diplomat — meaning she violated an agreement she signed right after she took office, in which she essentially promised that she would not do what she eventually did.

The essence of the American justice system is the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law’s protections or above its obligations.

Should Clinton skate free so the Trump administration can turn the page? Should the new DOJ be compassionate toward Clinton because of her humiliating election loss and likely retirement from public life? Of course not. She should be prosecuted as would anyone else who let loose secrets to our enemies and then lied about it.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/12/andrew-napolitano-why-criminal-investigation-hillary-clinton-is-back-to-front-and-center.html

Comey Is Not the One Whose Unorthodox Actions Are Casting a Cloud over the Election

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY October 31, 2016 4:00 AM

July: Comey has exonerated me!

October: Comey is undermining our republic!

How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal investigation on the eve of an election.

Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning months of the campaign has been Comey’s decision not to prosecute her — a decision outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics, than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale exoneration, which it most certainly was not.

Just to remind those whose memories seem so conveniently to fail, Comey is the FBI director, not a Justice Department prosecutor, much less the attorney general.

The FBI is not supposed to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The FBI is not supposed to decide whether the subject of a criminal investigation gets indicted. The FBI, moreover, is not obligated to make recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.

Yet, in the Clinton e-mails investigation, it was Comey who made the decision not to indict Clinton. Comey, furthermore, made the decision in the form of a public recommendation. In effect, it became The Decision because Attorney General Loretta Lynch had disgraced herself by furtively meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband a few days before Comey announced his recommendation. Comey, therefore, gave Mrs. Clinton a twofer: an unheard-of public proclamation that she should not be indicted by the head of the investigative agency; and a means of taking Lynch off the hook, which allowed the decision against prosecution to be portrayed as a careful weighing of evidence rather than a corrupt deal cooked up in the back of a plane parked on a remote tarmac.

Now, suddenly, Mrs. Clinton is worried about law-enforcement interference in politics. And her voice is joined by such allies as Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump). Like Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson were delighted by Director Comey as long as his departures from orthodoxy were helping Clinton’s candidacy. But now, as they wrote in the Washington Post on Saturday, they are perturbed by the threat Comey purportedly poses to “long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations . . . in a way that might be seen as influencing an election.”

I will repeat what I said yesterday (at PJ Media) about the Justice Department’s received wisdom that the election calendar should factor into criminal investigations:

Law-enforcement people will tell you that taking action too close to Election Day can affect the outcome of the vote; therefore, it should not be done because law enforcement is supposed to be apolitical. But of course, not taking action one would take but for the political timing is as political as it gets. To my mind, it is more political because the negatively affected candidate is denied any opportunity to rebut the law-enforcement action publicly.

The unavoidable fact of the matter is that, through no fault of law enforcement, investigations of political corruption are inherently political. Thus, I’ve always thought the best thing to do is bring the case when it’s ready, don’t bring it if it’s not ready, and don’t worry about the calendar any more than is required by the principle of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Now, as I also discussed in that same column, the problem with which we are currently grappling is caused by Comey’s initial flouting of protocol back in July — the one that thrilled the Clinton camp. There should never be any law-enforcement commentary at any time about a criminal investigation in which charges have not been filed publicly.

The FBI and Justice Department should resist confirming or denying the existence of investigations; and if (as frequently happens) it becomes publicly known that an investigation is being conducted, law enforcement should still refuse to comment on the status of the investigation or any developments in it.

The public does not have a right to know that an investigation is under way. The subjects of an investigation do not have a right to know whether the investigation is continuing or has been “closed” — a status I must put in quotes because any dormant investigation can be revived at the drop of a hat if new information warrants doing so.

As Director Comey and the rest of us are being reminded, the demands of ethical law enforcement are forever in tension with the currents of partisan politics. In law enforcement, one is always required to correct the record if a representation made to a court, Congress, or some other tribunal is rendered inaccurate by new information. To put it kindly, correcting misrepresentations is not a habit of our politicians.

There is a very good argument — I would say, an irrefutable argument — that Comey should never have pronounced that the Clinton e-mails investigation was closed (in fact, it would have been appropriate if he had made no public statement about the investigation at all). But having made that pronouncement — which, again, Mrs. Clinton was thankful to have and which she has ceaselessly exploited — he was obliged by law-enforcement principles to amend it when it was no longer true. What if he hadn’t done so? Then, after the election, when it inevitably emerged that the investigation was actually open, those who had relied on his prior assertion that it was closed would rightly have felt betrayed.

For now, everyone ought to take a deep breath. All we have here is a statement that an investigation is ongoing. No charges have been filed, and none appear to be on the horizon, let alone imminent.

The Clinton camp is in no position to cry foul about anything. In announcing his recommendation against indictment, Comey not only gave Clinton the benefit of every doubt (preposterously so when one reads the FBI’s reports). He also based his decision primarily on his legal analysis of a criminal statute, which is far removed from the responsibilities of the FBI. Indeed, Comey gilded the lily by claiming that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with his analysis — which was a truly outrageous claim coming from an investigator with no prosecutorial responsibilities, even if it did not inspire a lecture from Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson on Justice Department traditions. There were other worthy Democrats, but the party chose to nominate the subject of a criminal investigation. That is the Democrats’ own recklessness; Jim Comey is not to blame.

On the other hand, Comey hasn’t said anything more than that the investigation of the mishandling of classified information by Mrs. Clinton and her underlings remains pending. That is a true statement. Again, it does not mean charges will be filed. Indeed, I didn’t hear Director Comey say he had changed his mind about the requirements for proving guilt under the espionage act. The fact that I think he is dead wrong on that subject is beside the point, since the Justice Department has endorsed his reasoning. So it’s not like the recovery of additional classified e-mails from a Weiner/Abedin computer — if that happens, which we are not likely to know for a while — would automatically result in indictments.

It is fair enough to say that Director Comey should not have started down the wayward road of making public comments about pending investigations in which no charges have been filed. Such comments inexorably lead to the need to make more comments when new information arises. Not that the director needs advice from me, but at this point, he ought to announce that — just as in any other investigation — there will be no further public statements about the Clinton investigation unless and until charges are filed, which may never happen.

As for the election, Mrs. Clinton is under the cloud of suspicion not because of Comey but because of her own egregious misconduct. She had no right to know back in July whether the investigation was closed. She has no right to know it now. Like any other criminal suspect, she simply has to wait . . . and wonder . . . and worry.

There were other worthy Democrats, but the party chose to nominate the subject of a criminal investigation. That is the Democrats’ own recklessness; Jim Comey is not to blame. And if the American people are foolish enough to elect an arrantly corrupt and compromised subject of a criminal investigation as our president, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441593/fbi-email-scandal-hillary-clintons-fault-not-james-comeys

Will Obama pardon Clinton? And if he does, will she accept?

Executive orders barring offshore drilling in most U.S. Arctic waters; an abstention at the U.N. permitting the Security Council to declare all Israeli settlement activity to be illegal and an obstacle to peace; the possibility of further action at the U.N. to formalize the administration’s comprehensive vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — President Obama is sprinting, not jogging, to the finish line.

In dashing through his last few weeks in office, will one of Obama’s final acts be to pardon Hillary Clinton for any violations of federal law she might have committed while she was secretary of State?

It’s an interesting and complex question.

We should first note that the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute Clinton would not bind the Trump administration. Until relevant statutes of limitations have expired, she could still be prosecuted by the new administration. It is possible, in my opinion, for Clinton to be prosecuted for either her improper handling of classified information on her “home brew” email server or allegations of “pay to play” arrangements between the secretary of State and donors to the Clinton Foundation, which could constitute bribery.

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years from the commission of the offense; that would apply to the two categories relevant to Clinton. Her tenure as secretary of State ended Feb. 1, 2013, so it is possible that the statute of limitations will not run until Feb. 1, 2018, more than a year after Donald Trump takes office.

What looks like one question — will the president pardon Clinton? — turns out, on analysis, to be two. The first question is: Would Clinton wish to receive a pardon?

That question seems to be a proverbial no-brainer. Surely, any person who had been in federal government would be eager to receive a presidential pardon, because it eliminates even the possibility of federal prosecution. That looks like all upside and no downside.

But there is a downside, and it isn’t trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned.

If acceptance of a pardon by Clinton would amount to confession of guilt, would she nevertheless accept it? A multitude of factors would go into her decision.

She, together with her attorneys, would have to decide how likely it is that the Trump administration would prosecute her, and, if it did decide to prosecute, how likely the administration would be able to prove she had committed crimes.

Since being elected, Trump has been remarkably warm towards the person he used to call “Crooked Hillary.” But how confident could Clinton be that the Justice Department, under a Trump administration, would not prosecute?

Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be independent of political considerations, so Trump’s recent friendliness should not be controlling once the new attorney general is in office.

If Clinton believes prosecutors might be able to make a strong case against her, the value to her of a pardon increases. If she is confident that any case against her would be weak or even futile, the pardon has less value.

If Clinton decides that, everything considered, she would prefer to receive a pardon, she would no doubt be able to convey that message to Obama, and then the ball would be in his court. Thus, the second question is: Would Obama grant Clinton’s request for a pardon?

From Obama’s perspective, the decision to grant or withhold a pardon is a political and a personal one. Legal considerations do not directly arise.

Like all presidents at the end of their terms, he is concerned about the legacy he leaves for history. Does he want his legacy to include a pardon of the secretary of State who served under him during the entirety of his first term in office?

Because acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession of guilt, the acceptance by Clinton would, to a degree, besmirch both Clinton and also Obama. After all, Clinton was Obama’s secretary of State. If she was committing illegal acts as secretary, it happened literally on his watch.

On the other hand, if the new administration were to prosecute and convict Clinton of crimes committed while she was secretary, that might be an even greater embarrassment for Obama post-presidency.

In addition to calculations regarding his legacy, Obama and Clinton surely have developed over many years, both as opponents and as teammates, a personal relationship. If Clinton were to ask Obama for a pardon, how would that personal relationship play into his response? I cannot say.

Days after Trump won the election, the White House press secretary was asked by Jordan Fabian of The Hill whether Obama would consider pardoning Clinton. He carefully avoided a direct answer.

Instead, the press secretary said that, in cases where Obama had granted pardons, “[w]e didn’t talk in advance about those decisions.” He also expressed hope that the new administration would follow “a long tradition in this country of people in power not using the criminal justice system to exact political revenge.”

Of course, there is also a long tradition in this country that no one is above the law, no matter how high a position in government he or she might have formerly occupied.

So, those are the main considerations that would go into deciding a very complex question. It’s time for all of us to show our hands.

I’m saying yes, he will pardon her. Can you beat that?

David E. Weisberg is a semi-retired attorney and a member of the New York state bar. He currently resides in Cary, North Carolina, and has published pieces on the Social Science Research Network and in The Times of Israel.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311883-pardon-the-interruption-clinton-allegation-may-force

Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, former assistant US attorney says

ec

A New York lawyer appealed to President Obama Wednesday in an opinion piece to pardon former-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and others who may be “potential targets” of an investigation into the use of her private email server.

Robert Begleiter, a partner at Constantine Cannon LLP and former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York, wrote in The Daily News that the Constitution permits a president to pardon someone who has not been charged with a crime.

President-elect Donald Trump has said he has no intention of investigating Clinton, despite the familiar chant by supporters at his primary rallies, “Lock her up.” He even refered to her as “Crooked Hillary.”

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Trump told editors at The New York Times shortly after the election. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I’m not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

Begleiter wrote that he wishes Trump well as president, but said it would be a gamble in the event Clinton ever criticized Trump during his presidency. He called it “sideways” to believe that a person who accepted a pardon is admitting guilt.

He wrote that a pardon for Clinton could, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “restore tranquility to the commonwealth”

John Crudele, a financial columnist with The New York Post, wrote that Obama is the most forgiving president in U.S. history, and commuted the sentences of 1,000. He theorized that Obama likely does not personally like Clinton very much and the email scandal put him in an “embarrassing” situation.

“But the best reason for not giving a pardon is simple: Obama doesn’t really know what kind of trouble Hillary might be in. And she would have to admit to things she might not be ready to reveal to get completely out of trouble,” he wrote.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/19/obama-should-pardon-hillary-clinton-former-assistant-us-attorney-says.html

Will President Obama Pardon Hillary Clinton? – Will She Seek a Pardon?…

An interesting and thought provoking op-ed in The Hill outlines the issues, and asks the question.  The author,

hillary tongue(Via The Hill) […] We should first note that the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would not bind the Trump administration. Until relevant statutes of limitations have expired, she could still be prosecuted by the new administration. It is possible in my opinion for Clinton to be prosecuted for either her improper handling of classified information on “home brew,” or allegations of “pay to play” arrangements between the secretary of state and donors to the Clinton Foundation, which could constitute bribery.

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years from the commission of the offense; that would apply to the two categories relevant to Mrs. Clinton. Her tenure as secretary of state ended Feb. 1, 2013, so it is possible that the statute of limitations will not run until Feb. 1, 2018, more than a year after Mr. Trump takes office.

What looks like one question—will the president pardon Mrs. Clinton?—turns out, on analysis, to be two. The first question is: Would Mrs. Clinton wish to receive a pardon?

That question seems to be a proverbial no-brainer. Surely, any person who had been in federal government would be eager to receive a presidential pardon, because it eliminates even the possibility of federal prosecution. That looks like all upside and no downside.

huma-hillary-corruptionBut there is a downside, and it isn’t trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned.

If acceptance of a pardon by Mrs. Clinton would amount to confession of guilt, would she nevertheless accept it? A multitude of factors would go into her decision.

She, together with her attorneys, would have to decide how likely it is that the Trump administration would prosecute her, and, if they did decide to prosecute, how likely it is they would be able to prove she had committed crimes.

Since being elected, Mr. Trump has been remarkably warm towards the person he used to call “crooked Hillary.” But how confident could Mrs. Clinton be that the Justice Department, under a Trump administration, would not prosecute?

Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be independent of political considerations, so Mr. Trump’s recent friendliness should not be controlling once the new Attorney General is in office.

If Mrs. Clinton believes prosecutors might be able to make a strong case against her, the value to her of a pardon increases. If she is confident that any case against her would be weak or even futile, the pardon has less value. (read more)

Will President Obama Pardon Hillary Clinton? – Will She Seek a Pardon?…

An appeal to President Obama: Pardon Hillary Clinton

The power is his

The power is his

(ANDREW GOMBERT/EPA)

Dear Mr. President,With just two days left of your presidency, there is still one thing you can, and should, do for the benefit of our country. When you consider exercising your pardon power, pardon Hillary Clinton and the other potential targets of a prospective investigation into any unauthorized use of a private email server.There is no question that the Constitution’s broad pardon power permits you to pardon someone who has not been convicted, or even charged, with a crime. The most famous pardon of all, President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, a month after Gerald Ford took office. It occurred in the absence of any indictment. It has been the law since at least 1867 that the President may pardon someone anytime after the offense is committed.But, you may ask, why bother? Hasn’t the President-elect already said his Department of Justice would not prosecute?Obama commutes mastermind of ’70s Puerto Rican terror group

For the sake of this country, I wish the President-elect a successful term. But he has shown himself to be inconstant in his actions. It was just three months ago that his supporters were chanting and shouting “lock her up” at campaign rallies.

Do any of us want to gamble on President Trump keeping his word if Secretary Clinton or her allies criticize his actions? I don’t.

But, some might ask, wouldn’t acceptance of the pardon be an admission of guilt? In an opinion whose 101st anniversary is next Wednesday, the Supreme Court stated just that, but gave no compelling explanation of why that is so.

For the good of the country

For the good of the country

(MIKE BLAKE/REUTERS)

An offhand remark a century ago, which did not affect the outcome of the case, should be given little weight. Indeed, one would expect a pardon to occur precisely when the person is not guilty of a crime, but may be on the wrong side of an explosive personality. It is sideways to say that an innocent person has admitted guilt by accepting a pardon for a crime she didn’t commit.

Obama commutes sentence of WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning

When the Nixon pardon was challenged, a federal judge refused to set it aside, quoting in the process Alexander Hamilton’s prescient statement that there are critical moments when a President should use his pardon power “to restore tranquility to the commonwealth.”

After a contentious, outrageous election year leaving many in this country raw and angry a pardon of Hillary would help do just that.

Pardon Hillary Clinton, Mr. President. It’s the right thing to do for our country.

Begleiter is a partner of Constantine Cannon LLP in Manhattan and a former assistant U.S. attorney and civil division chief in the Eastern District of New York.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/appeal-president-obama-pardon-hillary-clinton-article-1.2949407

Doesn’t look like Obama has any interest in pardoning Hillary

MORE FROM:

Hillary Clinton has just a few hours left to secure a pardon from President Obama. After that, she takes her chances with whatever the mercurial Donald Trump has in store for her.

Obama has pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,000 people — in fact, he’s the most forgiving president in history. And while Hillary has until noon Friday to get a pardon for any crimes she may have committed, Obama as of noon Wednesday does not intend to pardon Madame Secretary.

Why not?

One reason: He probably doesn’t like her very much. The two were opponents for the White House in 2008 and harsh words were exchanged. And her appointment as secretary of state was more of a business transaction than anything else.

And, as you can probably figure out yourself, Obama likely doesn’t want his legacy eroded any more than it already has been and will be as Trump undoes his actions.

Plus, Hillary’s recklessness with her emails could have put Obama personally in an embarrassing situation. Months ago, I explained that Hillary needed permission from the White House to use her beloved BlackBerry inside the State Department, even though that ran afoul of security protocol.

ADVERTISING

And it was Obama, a very reliable source told me, who personally had to grant that approval.

But the best reason for not giving a pardon is simple: Obama doesn’t really know what kind of trouble Hillary might be in. And she would have to admit to things she might not be ready to reveal to get completely out of trouble.

On top of that, if Obama pardoned her, how would others feel who might be equally jammed up because of her possible wrongdoing? There are long lists of people who had to be complicit if crimes were committed.

Trump has said he would not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary. The Clintons have been through enough, he said.

But that doesn’t really matter. In fact, a special prosecutor would have to start from the beginning and that would slow things down.

Several investigations are already ongoing, including:

  • The one involving the laptop of Hillary’s longtime aide Huma Abedin. The laptop was found in the apartment Abedin shared with her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner.
  • Probes into possible obstruction of justice related to the disappearance of all of Hillary’s private emails
  • An investigation into the now-famous “secret” meeting of Bill Clinton with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a number of other things.
  • The probes into the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising.

Several people have come up to me and begged me to leave Hillary alone. They are liberals who were broken up about her loss.

The thing I don’t understand is this: The first commandment of liberal thinking is that everyone should be treated equally in America.

And I agree totally with that.

So, why should Hillary and Bill get preferential treatment?

Should a person in rags who steals from a department store be treated more harshly than a shoplifter with a tiara?

Hillary Clinton’s chance for a pardon ends Friday at noon. And with the way her supporters behaved after she lost the election, I doubt that Donald Trump is going to feel very compassionate.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/18/doesnt-look-like-obama-has-any-interest-in-pardoning-hillary/

18 U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b)

For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)

In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a)

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a)

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b)

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c)

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d)

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g)

If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)

(1)

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2)

The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3)The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—

(A)

property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B)

any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C)

any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4)

Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

Special prosecutor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A special prosecutor generally is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office. A reasoning for such an appointment is that the governmental branch or agency may have political connections to those it might be asked to investigate. Inherently, this creates a conflict of interest and a solution is to have someone from outside the department lead the investigation. The term “special prosecutor” may have a variety of meanings from one country to the next, from one government branch to the next within the same country, and within different agencies within each government branch. Critics of the use of special prosecutors argue that these investigators act as a “fourth branch” to the government because they are not subject to limitations in spending, nor do they have deadlines to meet[citation needed].

United States

Attorneys carrying out special prosecutor functions in either federal or state courts of the United States are typically appointed ad hoc with representation limited to one case or a delineated series of cases that implicate compelling governmental interests, such as: Fraud (SEC, Complex, Cybercrime, Mortgages), Public Corruption, Money Laundering & Asset Forfeiture, Civil Rights, Racketeering Across State lines, Environmental Protection, National Security, Tax & Bankruptcy, Organized Crime, or International cases where the US is a party).see, USDOJ (SDNY) website.

Federal appointment

Special prosecutors in courts of the United States may either be appointed formally by one of the three branches of government in a criminal proceeding, or when dictated by federal law or regulation, or informally in civil proceedings, and also by one of the three branches of government, or by a non-governmental entity to prosecute alleged unlawful conduct by government agents. When appointed by the judicial branch to investigate and, if justified, seek indictments in a particular judicial branch case, the attorney is called special prosecutor.[1] When appointed/hired particularly by a governmental branch or agency to investigate alleged misconduct within that branch or agency, the attorney is called independent counsel. [2] When appointed/hired by the state or political subdivision to assist in a particular judicial branch case when the public interest so requires, the attorney is called special counsel.[2] When appointed/hired by an organization, corporation, person or other non-governmental entity to investigate and, if justified, seek indictments against one or more government officials for acts committed under color of law, the attorney may be called special counsel or special prosecutor, but not independent counsel.[2]

On January 3, 1983, the United States federal government substituted the term independent counsel for special prosecutor.[3] Archibald Cox was one of the most notable special prosecutors. However, special prosecutor Archibald Cox today would be called independent counsel Archibald Cox in the United States.

The term is sometimes used as a synonym for independent counsel, but under the former law authorizing the independent counsel, the appointment was made by a special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999, and was effectively replaced by Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600, under which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to look into the Plame affair.

State appointment

Special prosecutors are required and utilized by local State governments in circumstances similar to those requiring their need in federal jurisdictions, but are appointed at the state level with greater frequency and often in cases where a conflict of interest arises, and at times to avoid even the mere appearance that one or more conflict of interests exists. Special prosecutors in local state governments may be appointed by a judge, government official, organization, company or citizens to prosecute governmental malfeasance and seek indictments for individual acts taken under color of state law. [4] Unlike courts with federal jurisdiction where terms such as “special counsel” and “independent counsel” specifically appear and are uniformly defined by law & regulations, in state jurisdictions where legal terms & definitions inherently vary from state to state, the umbrella term special prosector is generally accepted and the term most often used by state courts and tribunals.

References

  1. Jump up^ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) Prosecutor.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) Counsel.
  3. Jump up^ United States Public Law 97-409 (January 3, 1983) as enacted from A bill to change the coverage of officials and the standards for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the special prosecutor provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and for other purposes.
  4. Jump up^ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) Prosecutor.

Further reading

  • Doyle, James (1977). Not Above the Law: the battles of Watergate prosecutors Cox and Jaworski. New York: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 0-688-03192-7.

External links

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: