Lt. Rob Polans ret.

The Real Reason Democrats Went Nuts Over AG Barr’s Testimony
Alexander Downer Attorney General William Barr Carter Page Chuck Schumer Chuck Todd deep state FISA warrant George Papadopoulos government spying Hillary Clinton campaign media bias Michael Caputo Mueller investigation Obama Administration predicate Russia investigation Sen. Brian Schatz Senate Appropriations Committee Stephan Halper Trump campaign
George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 4/16/19
Spying Did Occur Barr
Democrats and their allies in the Leftwing media went nuts after Attorney General William Barr testified that the government did indeed spy on the Trump campaign.

"I think spying did occur," Barr said during an explosive hearing before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. "The question is whether it was adequately predicated. …Spying on a political campaign is a big deal."

Barr later clarified in the hearing: "I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred; I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all,” reported Gregg Re and Brooke Singman of Fox News.

These reactions, cited by James S. Robbins in an opinion column for USA Today, are exemplary of the Democrats’ panicked effort to quash any investigation by the Attorney General: Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, took immediate issue with Barr’s word choice, saying “the word ‘spying’ could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out.” NBC News’ Chuck Todd said this was a “conspiracy theory” for which there was “zero factual basis.” Furious Democrats on Capitol Hill denounced Barr for even raising the issue. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), tweeted that Barr should “retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up.”

That the participants in Trump campaign were spied upon, surveilled, had their communications intercepted or otherwise had their activities secretly or surreptitiously observed by the government is an irrefutable fact.

So, why did the Democrats and their Leftwing media do-boys go nuts about it?

Because the most important thing Mr. Barr said was that he intended to investigate whether the surveillance was “was adequately predicated.” (Click here for a legal definition of predicate.)
Definition is on bottom.
And if Barr does that it will reveal the Democrat-generated falsehoods behind the closed loop system that set-up and perpetuated the f**e predicate of the entire Trump – Russia investigation.

Let’s start with George Papadopoulos, the young energy policy expert and volunteer Trump advisor who was set-up by the Obama administration to give them a pretext to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos was arguably the most ill-used of all the figures in the Mueller investigation.

A neophyte in p**********l politics Papadopoulos, was lured to London and set-up by Obama administration consultant Stephan Halper to pass along the bait that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton to the Australian Ambassador, Alexander Downer.

Why and how the Ambassador found his way into contact with a junior figure like George Papadopoulos has never been explained, nor has the path of t***smission of the information from Papadopoulos to Downer to the Obama intelligence apparatus ever been disclosed.

What is clear, based on what has been disclosed, is that the basis for the surveillance and interrogation of Papadopoulos was a closed loop system of false information being generated by Obama and Clinton connected operatives who then fed the information to Papadopoulos through Halper and then back through Downer to the Obama intelligence apparatus.

After being threatened and swamped with legal bills, Papadopoulos pled guilty to the process crime of making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign. The guilty plea was part of a plea bargain reflecting his cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

However, after Papadopoulos pled guilty and served 12 days in prison, no other indictments or convictions have ever been attributed to Papadopoulos’ cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

Any investigation into whether the Trump – Russia investigation spying (I mean surveillance) was adequately predicated must investigate and reveal that closed-loop system.

Likewise, Attorney General Barr should look into why an FBI informant approached Michael Caputo, who served in the Army, worked for conservative luminaries such as Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, and advised numerous Republican political candidates before signing-on to the Trump campaign.

After being approached by the FBI informant, Caputo was d**gged through hell by the Mueller investigation and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence merely because he had lived in Ukraine and Russia and done public relations and campaign work in those countries… and worked for Donald Trump.

Caputo was forced to liquidate his children’s college fund to pay his legal expenses for the “crime” of being associated with Donald Trump.

The same goes for the investigation and surveillance of Carter Page, another minor figure in the Trump campaign who was set-up, spied upon and never indicted.

In each of these cases the government was the mover of the predicate. There was no action on the part of any of these individuals that justified an investigation until the government acted, under false pretenses, to generate a predicate.

Without even getting into the tangled web of the Steele Dossier, Caputo, Papadopoulos and Page are just three of the most obvious cases where the government falsely generated a predicate to justify an investigation.

We urge Attorney General Barr to exhaustively plumb the depths of this outrage to determine who authorized the intelligence operations to set-up these individuals and who fed that information back to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigators.

Definition of Predicate
Verb

To base something on something else.
Origin

1400-1450 Late Middle English praedicatum (to publicly declare or assert)

What is Predicate
Predicate is the act of basing something – a decision, action, or promise, perhaps – upon something else. Examples of predicate actions include:

The Crusades of old were a series of wars predicated on the expansion of Christian beliefs.
A jury’s verdict is predicated on the evidence presented at trial.
The police department’s public affairs officer had no first-hand knowledge about the case; her statement was predicated on information provided by the detectives.
Lorenzo’s decision to move to Hawaii was predicated on his belief that he had a new job there.
If something is predicated on something else, it is based on that thing, or occurs because of that thing. In criminal law, predicate relates to any crime that is part of a series of crimes, one that is committed in furtherance of the larger crime. In such a case, an example of a predicate offense somehow laid the groundwork for the current offense.

Predicate Offense
In criminal law, a predicate offense, also referred to as a “predicate act,” is a crime that provides the resources for, or contains some of the elements of, a more serious crime. A predicate offense is committed for the purpose of committing the greater crime. If someone is convicted of a serious crime – especially those requiring a complex plan and resources – predicate offenses may serve to enhance his sentence.

The Predicate Act Doctrine came as a result of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as “RICO.” The RICO Act targeted the rampant racketeering of the 1970s, allowing an individual directing these activities to be personally charged and tried for the crimes of the group. For this to occur, it is necessary to establish a pattern of crimes that lead up to, or comprise the larger crime. Predicate acts of RICO include such things as:

Bribery, Blackmail, and Extortion
Fraud
Theft
Money Laundering
Counterfeiting
Illegal Betting, or operating a betting ring
Crimes or actions may be considered predicate acts to a larger crime if they are related to, pave the way for, or have the same or similar purpose of the larger crime. As an example, predicate offenses are actions that include the same participants, the same victims (or victim group), strive toward the same results – in short, these are acts that are interrelated, and not isolated actions.

In modern times, the U.S. most often puts the RICO Act, and predicate offenses to use in the fight against terrorism. In this, the authorities are targeting the financial structure of terrorist groups, such as money laundering. This set of laws, relying on predicate offenses, is also used heavily to prosecute drug kingpins and heads of other large criminal organizations.

Using Predicate Offenses in Plea Bargains
The right to a trial by one’s peers is a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system. This constitutionally guaranteed right, found in the Sixth Amendment, helps ensure people cannot simply be accused of having committed a crime, then shut away by government officials or aristocrats. In an overburdened criminal justice system, however, more and more defendants are accepting a deal offered by the prosecutor’s office, known as a “plea bargain.”

Plea bargains offer defendants an opportunity to get a lighter sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to only some of the charges, or to reduced charges. This keeps the case out of the courtroom, freeing the court up to hear other cases. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance (“BJA”), approximately 95% of federal and state criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining.

Many have asked the question of what could possibly induce so many accused individuals to enter a plea of guilty (or no contest), tarnishing their reputations, and being labeled as felons for the rest of their lives. In many cases, prosecutors have strong-armed defendants, talking about predicate offenses, and threatening them with sentences that are so out of line they can only be described as panic-inducing.

What is offered to defendants to coerce them into accepting a plea bargain is a lighter sentence, such as fewer years in prison, or even probation instead of incarceration. This offer, however, is coupled with a promise to seek the maximum sentence should the defendant choose to exercise his right to trial by his peers. Prosecutors often turn to listing the defendant’s past deeds, hinting that the list can be used as predicate offenses, shoring up their threats of harsh punishments.

The law allowing the government to use prior criminal activity to enhance sentencing was intended to target drug trafficking and other organized crime. In recent decades, its use in pressuring defendants into accepting a plea bargain has risen in frequency to the point it is considered normal by many legal professionals and criminals alike.

Predicate Example in Money Laundering
Money laundering is the process of running money and other assets gained through criminal activity, referred to as “dirty money,” through legitimate business, turning it into “clean money.” In this way, the criminals attempt to disguise the source of their wealth. For instance, if Nicholas, who comes from a relatively poor community and family, is seen to suddenly rise in financial stature with no logical source of such income, it would be suspicious. Such suspicions draw the attention of the authorities – something no criminal desires.

Money laundering is a complex crime – one which relies on the authorities being able to track down and prove a set of predicate offenses. Methods used by terrorist organizations to launder money involve disguising the source of the proceeds, moving the proceeds someplace they won’t likely be noticed, or changing the form of the proceeds. The goal of this complex action is to get the money back to the person or group that originally generated it, without leaving a trail back to their criminal activities.

The actions of a person or organization to conceal or convert proceeds of criminal activity become the primary offense of money laundering. The crimes that produced the funds in the first place are predicate offenses. Some of these offenses may be prosecuted on their own merit, but many are used to enhance the charges or sentencing of individuals convicted of the larger crime.

Predicate Offenses in Securities Fraud Case
In the 1980s, American financier Michael Milken gained a reputation as the “Junk Bond King.” Through securities fraud and tax evasion, Milken padded his bank accounts with over $1 billion dollars in a four-year period before authorities caught up with him. In 1989, Milken was indicted by a federal grand jury on nearly 100 counts of racketeering and securities fraud.

The racketeering charge under RICO was propped up by a long string of predicate offenses. In the U.S., this was the first time anyone with no ties to organized crime was charged under the RICO Act.

In this example of predicate offenses proving a larger case, Milken took a plea agreement in which he would plead guilty to six felony counts of tax violations and securities fraud. These included:

Selling stock without required disclosures
Sending confirmation slips through the mail that did not disclose that he added his commission to the price
Aiding and abetting the filing of an inaccurate statement with the SEC
Aiding and abetting the filing of inaccurate broker-dealer reports with the SEC
Agreeing to sell securities to a customer, buy them back at a loss to the customer, in exchange for a promise to make up for the losses with a future profitable t***saction
Conspiracy to commit these crimes.