Posted by: Dr Churchill | August 24, 2018

SpyGate – Chapter Fifty One – “Fake News”


This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
Chapter Fifty One
“Fake News”

If you were to hear the MSM, watch CNN or MSNBC, or follow Social Media — you would be convinced that the President has already been impeached for something or other…

That part of the offense, the reason for, and the process of impeachment is never made clear…

But in the minds of the snowflakes — of course, the 45th has been impeached, is being impeached, or has got to be impeached, and of course that’s the only thing that matters.

And that is the essence of all the Fake News of today — because as it turns out, all the top legal experts agree that no matter what, Trump is not going to be impeached.

Not for this Cohen matter, or for any of all that Non-Russian matters, or for any financial matters of his errant ex-colleagues — any time soon. Crimes by association are not impeachable offenses. This is not NAZI Germany under Adolf Hitler where the whole family disappears if one member committed a crime against the Fuhrer — no matter how the Democrats would have liked this to be the case, as their socialistic views and current policies, edge closer and closer, to the National Socialism of the fvckin Adolf Hitler during the 1930’s, the holocaust, and beyond.

As a matter of fact no matter how crazed and unhinged the Democrat American NAZIs become, no matter how unbridled the SS corps of angry Democrats led by the dirty cop Robert Mueller act, and no matter how difficult the “Trial of Jesus” that the President is subjected to — this Giant amongst Men, will never quit, he will never flinch, nor will he give in, to the petty barbers from the dwarves that surround him. Trump is not Lilliput and he is never going to be weakened or impeached. As a matter of fact, he will persevere, he will keep the faith, and by the Grace of God — he will execute the best policies for America and he will go on to finish his two terms with the utmost success, before he retires to his gilded winter palace of Mar-A-Lago to perfect his golf game and to get his much needed R&R.

Still, all that withstanding, or not — it is now clear as the day is fresh, that Cohen’s hush-money paid to hoes, porns, and pros, shouldn’t and couldn’t lead to indictment, criminal charges, or impeachment, for the 45th President of the United States.

So the snowflakes all around, should get back to waterboarding themselves, or stoning with medical ganza, or stoking up with their crack pipes — all in their despairing moments of untold pain for their loss as they are still pining for alcoholic hag Hillary Clinton. Their heads are exploding all over, because even though on August 21st Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, pled guilty to charges of tax evasion and banking fraud — and then tried to hoist his own crimes to the 45th — none of that implicates the President.

But for the fake news — of course it was all a violent storm in a tea cup, that indeed caused a tremor that rocked the day’s political windows of the talking heads on the TV-lands, when Cohen confessed to criminal violations of campaign finance laws. But all that was quickly eclipsed, when the news of an illegal alien killing beautiful teenager Mollie Tibbetts of University of Iowa, broke.

And even though CNN makes Cohen’s admissions as if it were some really explosive political situation — it is not. And because Cohen is alleging that, rather than acting on his own, as he said so many times prior to this time where he was poised to profit by lying, as he now claims that he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in hush money, under the direction of Donald J Trump.

So even if that were in reality some far fetched scheme for shutting up these “hoes” with NDA and Confidentiality agreements — it would still be a legal and perfectly useful method of normal procedure for famous people who want to keep their business of where they dunk their quill, private. As for all those crying “wolf” and seeing Russian collusion in the panties of the porn stars — these were not some kind of secret campaign contributions. So for us to now believe the new story of Mr Cohen, that supposedly he acted at the explicit direction of his then-client, Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump — it would be a bridge too far to connect the President to his Attorneys’ ethical, moral, and criminal violations.

Seeing the repetitional gap, and the difficulty for bringing about a certain suspense of disbelief — in recent days, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis (friend of Hillary Clinton), unearthed this gem: There’s “no doubt President Trump committed a crime” but he cannot be indicted. To this the world yawned, and all of the GOP, the Republicans, and the Independents, in Congress and Senate — simply disagreed. As for the Democrats — well, they have already branded Trump as traitor, racist, and even as the UFO alien candidate form another planet and the equivalent of “an un-indicted co-conspirator” and some of the most crazy amongst them, like Maxine Waters, and Richard Blumenthal, have even asserted that a criminal indictment of the President “should be on the table.”

To this, I say — well said: Look at the children, they can even talk under the influence … but that is the regular drug addled brain of them talking. Please lay-off the crack pipe for a second…


Indeed, my suggestion to the crazed Dems, and their Socialist ilk, is to put down the crack pipe, and wait for a few weeks of Detox before they operate any heavy machinery, like the bathroom toilet, or the shower — let alone pass judgement on an innocent man.

But for the sake of expediency we have to ask this: Do the facts of the Cohen case actually present any evidence that Trump committed a crime, as his former personal attorney is reportedly willing to testify?

To get a unbiased perspective of how a federal prosecutor would view the evidence so far — we asked a group of white collar defense attorneys who had served as Prosecutors or even as heads of the Public Corruption Section, and had successfully prosecuted politicians in the past…

And this is the attorneys’ analysis that cuts through the fog of politics to assess the available facts through the lens of a seasoned prosecutor. The conclusion is that that the evidence from Cohen plea is far from decisive, and that the facts, don’t meet standard of clear criminal misconduct that, on their own, would justify an indictment or impeachment.

With guidance from these attorneys, let’s examine four questions to clarify the legal danger Trump faces from the Cohen guilty plea.

What crime could trump be charged with?

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, which brought the Cohen case, states that Cohen pled guilty to violating two separate campaign finance laws. Both breaches arose from hush money payments made to two women who threatened to go public just prior to the election with revelations that they’d had affairs with Trump. In each instance, the U.S. Attorney relies heavily on the Cohen’s characterization of the state-of-mind that motivated his actions. As the U.S. Attorney’s press release and indictment state, “Cohen caused and made the payments… in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.”

First, Cohen orchestrated a complex scheme in which “the company,” obviously a reference to the Trump Organization, paid $150,000 to a “woman-1,” the code name for former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal. The U.S. Attorney states that since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 bans corporations from making any direct contributions to presidential candidates, and that Cohen admits the money went to bolster Trump’s candidacy, the payment amounts to a criminal violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Second, Cohen made a $130,000 payment from his personal funds to a second woman (“Woman-2” in the indictment, identified from previous reports as pornography actress Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, threatening to sell her story about an affair with Trump. Federal campaign laws set a $2,700 limit on an individual’s contribution to a presidential campaign; Cohen’s hush money payment therefore violated a second provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act applying to contributions for individuals. Once again, it’s allegedly a crime because Cohen admits that the $130,000 was targeted to shield Trump’s presidential bid from bad publicity, and is therefore a campaign contribution.

According to press reports detailing Cohen’s statements to prosecutors, and Davis’ assertions on TV news shows, Trump knew about the threats and demands for payments at the time they were made. Cohen further asserts that Trump instructed him follow both of the illegal routes–using corporate funds and paying with Cohen’s personal cash–and to keep the payments secret. Most potentially damaging, Cohen alleges that he and Trump shared the same motives: shielding the candidate from a flood of negative stories weeks before the election.

The case boils down to the intent of Trump, rather than Cohen, and whether federal campaign laws are as black and white as Cohen’s team is claiming.

Does Trump have a convincing defense?

The attorneys point out that for Trump to be guilty of a crime, prosecutors would need to prove that he ordered the payments chiefly to influence the election. That’s the crucial link in proving that the hush money actually amounted to campaign contributions.

“Cohen talked about his mental state, and that he was motivated by helping his campaign.” “But what was the mental state of the President? Those who suggest a direct link between Cohen’s thinking and that of the President are missing crucial steps. Just because Cohen says that Trump was buying the women’s silence for electoral purposes isn’t in itself proof.”

Indeed, note the attorneys: “Trump may have acted for reasons not motivated by the election. He could have been motivated by protecting his wife and children from embarrassment.” They say, that a conversation between Cohen and Trump that Cohen secretly taped, in which they discuss how to channel money to McDougal — though damaging in other ways — “does not provide proof of Trump’s intent.”

The attorneys draw from their own experience as prosecutors on the process of weighing evidence to determine whether or not to bring an indictment. “It’s not a slam dunk to conclude that just because he’s a presidential candidate, that he’s motivated principally by electoral purposes to suppress something as personal as an affair,” he says.

In an August 22nd interview on Fox News, Trump appeared to be charting a defense strategy. He stated that he knew nothing about both payments until after they were made. That statement may be plausible in the case of Clifford (Stormy Daniels), but contradicts the secretly-recorded tape, where he talks to Cohen about paying off the Playboy model McDougal. Trump also asserted on Fox that the hush money “came from me” and not from campaign funds. In effect, Trump is arguing that the payments weren’t campaign contributions at all. Trump didn’t say what motivated him to kill what he characterizes as “false and extortionist” allegations. But he’s clearly saying he had a motive apart from protecting his campaign.

Can Trump be indicted while in office?

As the attorneys point out, the law isn’t clear on the issue. During the 1990s Whitewater probe, independent counsel Kenneth Starr asserted that a sitting president can be indicted while in office. The most influential opinion, however, is contained in 1973 memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, reaffirmed in 2000. That opinion holds that indicting a sitting president implies a violation of the Constitution because it could hobble his ability to govern, preventing the leader of the executive branch from “accomplishing his constitutional duties.”

In the end, Special Councel Kenneth Starr decided not to seek an indictment, instead submitting his findings to Congress, effectively deeming that the removal of a president should best proceed through the impeachment process.

Based on today’s evidence, should Trump be indicted or impeached?

Besides speaking to these attorneys, I sought the views of a former prosecutor with deep experience bringing criminal cases and who is no fan of Donald Trump. We’ll call this revered veteran Top Cop. For Top Cop, any potential case against Trump for criminal campaign law violations seems weak. “It’s really an attenuated way to get him,” he says. “These were really attempts at extortion, where the women were saying: “If you don’t pay us, we’ll go public and hurt you.” They will say things that are embarrassing to your family, so you suppress it. Is that a campaign contribution?”

The attorneys basically agree: “To charge a sitting president based on a discrete offense committed before he was president, and relying on the word of Cohen, would be a highly aggressive prosecutorial act,” he says. “For a criminal prosecution of a sitting president, the evidence must be very strong and arguably go the heart of extremely serious misconduct.”

The attorneys reckon that the recent verdicts may prolong the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. “The combination of the Cohen and Manafort verdicts have bought him some time against critics who believe he should be wrapping up the case,” says Collins. “From what I know about Mueller, he’s a careful, don’t-push-the-envelope prosecutor.”

Still, the attorney doesn’t think that Mueller will assert impeachable offenses based on the Cohen evidence as it now stands. “We need to see what Mueller determines from the totality of his investigation and not this referral he made to the Southern District of New York for the Cohen case,” says Collins. “Those charges though politically explosive, will not determine what Mueller will ultimately do as it relates to the President.”

So fake news is like bad jokes – but those bad jokes in some circles are truly considered as bad as fake news are today.

And indeed, many years ago I heard a good joke about JFK and his force of habit for smoking those small Cuban cigars that he had to bypass the very Embargo that he was imposing upon Cuba, so he can satisfy his craving for these stinking yet weirdly aromatic smudging cheroots…

Story goes that JFK sent his Chief of Press from Washington DC, all the way to Havana, in order to grab for him a big ass box of cigars in the last minutes, before the embargo he ordered, got started…

Now although this sounds like fake news — it is entirely true. Indeed it is true that President John F. Kennedy managed to secure for himself 1,200 Cuban cigars — as it turns out a lifelong supply – in that James Bond in-and-out-of-Cuba-in-a-hurry, fashion.

JFK’s press secretary flew to Havana, bought the cigars, and left again with mere minutes to spare, before the United States enacted the Cuban trade embargo of 1962. John Fitzgerald Kennedy indeed had requested this favor from his head of press, Pierre Salinger, by asking him “to get me 1,200 Petit Upmanns” and now as the United States rolls into its 56th year of the trade embargo with Cuba — we must remember that these are some of the finest cigars to be smoked by man and enjoyed by a woman.

And the amazing part about this is that this is not a hoax, not a joke, and certainly not fake news.

Now the old club joke goes as follows: “Where a President jams his cigar is private, and best forget about it, because its none of anyone’s business.”

Sage advise, and I would think that would go for a private citizen as well. But as the current 45th president of the White House, DJT doesn’t even smoke any cigars — one can only hope that he has some other uses for porn stars and attention whores, and all assorted hoes.

And since some of that stash of Cubans still exist in the White House smoke room today, one can only hope that the President still has some uses for them. Hopefully uses that are not restricted to the humidifier effect these uber-wet ladies circulating around Men of Power, have. Those “stormy hoes” that flutter around powerful men, like moths circling in ever closing arcs, to the candle light flaming imbroglio. And maybe DJT can derive some uses for the Cuban cigars left over from the Cold War, that will appeal to both the ladies and to the man around whom, these butterflies swirl, fly, and eventually get their wings singed, their antennae picking up all things, their mouths agape working over time, and their minds unhinged…

Enough now…

We spent too much time on the subject of Cuban cigars and their many unusual, strange, and entertaining uses — besides corroding a Man’s lungs.

And for now — so much, for the politically incorrect jokes — but I con’t resist this last one because it is a true gem from that JFK era, and especially from the time that the President was betrothed to Jacklyn Bouvier Kennedy, but was also bedding both Marilyn Monroe and a bevy of other young starlets, and this made Marilyn jealous and drove her to suicide.

Yet apparently Jackie O’ was unmoved…

Now if you can believe that … I’ve got a bridge to sell to you, if you can come meet me on the Brooklyn side of it with a truckload of Bitcoins…

But as fake news go, nothing trumps the fake news from George Washington’s era, that made an unreasonably big impact on the war of Independence of this Nation.

The fake news that haunted George Washington, was a series of letters attributed — falsely — to George Washington. These letters said that the Americans had “grasped at things beyond our reach” by revolting against Britain… at a time that the Revolutionary War was at a crucial point in 1777. That is when a remarkable set of documents surfaced in London that cast doubt on Yankee resolve to continue fighting the war…

Seems the Brits were always masters of the subterfuge and disinformation game as we see from the compositional literature and bogus stories, that the “Russian Dossier” author Christopher Steele has been engaging lately as he peddled successfully his fake news in the form of the Russian election meddling to the security agencies of these United States and to the DOJ that spent a couple of years and untold millions assigning an unchecked and out of control Special Prosecutor to disrupt the life of this nation for the sole benefit of the Chinese enemies of our State, who are the real paymasters behind the Russian hoax.

But I digress, and let’s get back to the revolutionary war times where George Washington himself had to battle the fake news and the Redcoats at the same time that he was fighting against Congress and their niggardly way of apportioning support, funds, materiel & men, for the war effort…

With France not yet helping the struggling American colonist rebels, a packet of letters said to have been intercepted from General George Washington’s postal service, showed up in London. And the reading of those letters exposed that the American leader was far from committed to the cause of American independence. In eloquent, plaintive language, he told his closest family that he was miserable, and that the war was a mistake.

“But we have overshot our mark,” read a letter to Lund Washington, a cousin who managed Mount Vernon, “we have grasped at things beyond our reach: it is impossible we should succeed; and, I cannot with truth, say that I am sorry for it; because I am far from being sure that we deserve to succeed.”

Oh, George, say it ain’t so!

Screen Shot 2018-07-31 at 8.36.31 AM

It wasn’t. The letters were forgeries. It took a long time for that to be widely known, though, and the letters dogged Washington for the rest of his life. They resurfaced two decades later, during his presidency, when critics were slamming him for being too accommodating to the former British overlords.

Turns out that fake news — that most disorienting symptom of modern political dysfunction — isn’t so modern after all. People were making stuff up and foisting it on the public back when it was spelled publick. Ye olde fake news, you might say.

One of the “spurious letters” attributed to George Washington but known to be forgeries. From a pamphlet published around 1796.
The seven missives — known to scholars as the “spurious letters” — are a particularly sophisticated example of the craft. Written with a close ear for Washington’s style, full of intimate personal details, they go just a few shrewd steps beyond statements the great man actually made when bemoaning his plight. Their origin remains a mystery, though Washington spent years trying to track down the author.

Somebody put serious effort into the way they were presented, complete with a preface from an unnamed “editor” who used the salesman’s trick of seeming to side with a doubtful audience.

“The public will naturally be inquisitive as to the authenticity of the following letters,” the trickster wrote in a pamphlet that was widely distributed on both sides of the Atlantic. “For everything else they will speak for themselves: and, for their genuineness, the editor conceives himself concerned to give only such vouchers as he himself has received.”

From there the editor laid out the tale: A Loyalist friend serving under British Brig. Gen. Oliver De Lancey of New York had come across a familiar-looking prisoner after the Yankees fled Fort Lee, N.J. — a “mulatto fellow” named Billy whom he recognized as a slave owned by Washington. Apparently, Billy had gotten separated from the general in the confusion of the retreat and was left holding a small trunk belonging to Washington.

In the trunk, the British soldier found some stockings and shirts — and a packet of letters. “I read these with avidity,” the editor quoted the soldier as saying, “and being highly entertained with them, have shewn them to several of my friends, who all agree with me, that he is a very different character from what they had supposed him. I never knew a man so much to be pitied.”

By now the Colonial-era reader could not help but be intrigued. The basic elements are true — Washington fled Fort Lee in haste, and he had a personal slave named William. And the letters were being presented with due skepticism and with sympathy for their supposed author.

After all, poor George comes across as noble — he tells his stepson that he is married to both his sword and to Martha, and “death alone shall divorce me from either” — but also henpecked. He opens a letter to Martha by declaring how wounded he is that she suspects him of being less concerned about her.

“The suspicion is most unjust,” he writes, “may I not add, it is most unkind?” Yes, he confesses, he hasn’t written as often lately. But, um, he’s a little distracted with this whole war thing: “But think of my situation, and then ask your heart, if I be without excuse.”

Then, with all the smoothness of somebody who fathered a whole country, he proclaims that his heart “must cease to beat, ere it can cease to wish for your happiness, above any thing on earth.” Plus, he urges her to get inoculated against smallpox.

All pretty charming so far, right?

Yet it’s all fake news, written and designed in order that you are placed off guard, and off balance, when you get to the part where George Washington pines for reconciliation with Britain, and supposedly avows that “I love my King.”

Indeed, the letters are so well crafted that Washington himself was impressed. “These letters are written with a great deal of art,” he actually wrote to his friend Richard Henry Lee. But Washington lamented the “villainy” that produced them and urged his friends to track down the author.

He came to believe that they had been written by John Randolph of Virginia, a Loyalist who fled to England during the war and died there. Looking back at the evidence in the late 1800s, Library of Congress scholar Worthington Chauncey Ford felt the case for Randolph being the author was compelling.

Ford also pointed out that there were several errors in the letters that undermine their authenticity, starting with the fact that Washington’s slave William Lee was never captured by the British.

For his part, Washington appealed to friends and acquaintances over the years to consider that the letters did not reflect his character. But with a restraint that seems very foreign today, he appears not to have responded in any newspapers or gazettes, and to have let his reputation stand on its own.

Until almost at the very end.

Yet in the final days of his presidency, he put a statement into the public record disavowing each of the seven letters: “I have thought it a duty that I owe to myself, my country, and to truth . . . to add my solemn declaration, that the letters herein described are a base forgery, and that I never saw or heard of them until they appeared in print.”

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering sent that letter out to all the newspapers and gazettes that had printed the fakes, and publishers updated the official collection of Washington’s papers.

And it’s heartening to realize that Washington’s faith in posterity was well placed — more people today believe that he chopped down a cherry tree than that he doubted the rightness of the Revolution.

Of course, the cherry tree was fake news, too…

And so is the story of President Trump’s impeachment, too…

All Fake News, all the time.

Just like CNN.


Dr Churchill


“Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.”
–Theodore Roosevelt

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: