Stories about
Hillary Clinton


Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and diplomat who served as the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election.

Frontpage Mag

Published  8 hours ago

Daniel Greenfield

So far the path to the White House for most 2020 Dems appears to lie through shameless racial, radical and economic pandering.

Reviving slavery reparations, once an insane radical idea and more insane than ever in a country with a black population that is increasingly, like Obama or Kamala Harris, not even from this country during the slavery era, is now more popular than ever.

But for 2020 Dems it unites the two r's and the one e.

Take all that wealth redistribution and funnel it through race, a major chunk of the Dem base anyway, and match it to some bashing of the United States.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.

The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing,

As Kamala Harris proved, to her black father's shame and regret, she's willing to say absolutely anything on a radio show.

Neither of them appears to have thought it out much, and appear to be painting the usual sort of affirmative action and racial wealth redistribution that we've been pursuing for generations, with few results other than for folks at the top. Like Senator Kamala Harris.

Her mother was an internationally famous cancer researcher and the daughter of P.V. Gopalan, a high-ranking Indian diplomat from the Brahmin caste. Her father was a professor of economics at Stanford who served as an adviser to multiple Jamaican prime ministers.

As a Los Angeles Times article described her, she was the “privileged child of foreign grad students”.

Kamala’s mother taught at universities in France, Italy and Canada. She smugly told Modern Luxury magazine “When Kamala was in first grade one of her teachers said to me, ‘You know, your child has a great imagination. Every time we talk about someplace in the world she says, “Oh, I’ve been there.”’ So I told her, ‘Well, she has been there!’ India, England, the Caribbean, Africa—she had been there.”

Modern Luxury also quoted “one of Harris’s Nob Hill friends” as saying that “her Brahmin background accounts for her ease around wealthy, powerful people.”

We really need reparations to give half-Jamaican privileged politicians descended from slave owners a leg up.

Newsweek

Published  15 hours ago

A new rule adopted by the Democratic National Committee may block Bernie Sanders and other political outsiders from seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential election.

Randi Weingarten, a member of the DNC and president of the American Federation of Teachers, posted a photo of the rule change on Twitter saying that the rules and bylaws committee had “changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be a Democrat.”

@DNC #RBC just changed the rules to ensure to run for President as a Democrat you need to be A Democrat pic.twitter.com/RyHhV0Exhr

— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten) June 8, 2018

In order to seek the party’s nomination, a candidate must publicly announce that they are a registered Democrat, will accept the Democratic nomination, and will “run and serve” as a member of the Democratic Party.

This rule seems to be in direct response to Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont who fiercely battled Hillary Clinton in a surprisingly close primary race in 2016. Running on a platform of universal health care and free college for all Americans, Sanders gained popularity, especially among young voters.

Sanders received 43 percent of the delegates votes at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 after a heated battle in which he initially refused to bow to some establishment Democrats' calls to throw in the towel.

Currently, Sanders is running for re-election to the United States Senate in Vermont. His campaign strategy will be the same as his previous two Senate races, which includes running as a Democrat, declining the party’s nomination when he wins a majority of the votes and then running as an independent instead. This strategy allows Sanders to get rid of any possible threats by blocking any other liberal candidate from getting the approval of the Democratic Party.

But the DNC’s proposed rule change would not allow Sanders to do the same in 2020.

While Sanders has not said anything concrete about running for president again in two years, his 2016 campaign manager Jeff Weavers hinted at the possibility during an interview with C-SPAN host John McArdle in May.

“He is considering another run for the presidency and when the time comes I think we'll have an answer for that. But right now he's still considering it,” Weavers said.

Correction 12/17/18: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Bernie Sanders did not concede until after the 2016 Democratic convention. In fact, he conceded before.

Talking Points Memo

Published  16 hours ago

Meet The Lone US Attorney Leading Trump’s Non-Citizen Voting Crusade

TheHill

Published  1 day ago

President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency in order to circumvent Congress and secure funds to build a wall on the Mexican border puts him on a collision course with lawmakers from his own party. 

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  1 day ago

The “Notorious R.B.G.” has become, well, a bit of an urban legend–like Sasquatch or Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. We all can talk about these stories in general, but the details get a little fuzzy, even as a major (though inaccurate) movie about the life and times of the Left’s favorite living (we think) Supreme Court justice is released. Here is what we know about Justice Ginsburg: at the age of 85, when most people her age are spending their days sipping soup through a straw at a nursing home and playing bingo, Ginsburg has remained an active jurist in the highest court in the land. In December of last year, she checked herself in to a hospital for major surgery. Afterward, she went into seclusion. What was dubbed as “routine” surgery (respectfully, no surgery at 85 is “routine”) became a quasi-missing persons case.

RBG missed three previously scheduled court appearances, despite her representatives having claimed that she was the picture of health after her successful surgery in December. Toward the end of January, when RBG was scheduled to appear at a two-hour speaking event honoring her career in Los Angeles, she had to cancel at the last minute, citing personal reasons. All of this, despite public assurances from her team and a defensive Democratic Party that she was healthy and would reappear. Then came the great test: the February 5th presidential State of the Union Address. The “Fake News” Industrial Complex assured weary Americans that the “Notorious R.B.G.” would be present in the House Chamber when President Trump spoke. Any claim that RBG was sicker than her representatives were letting on was deemed the work of fantastical conspiracy theories.

Yet, when it came time for the State of the Union, Justice Ginsberg was conspicuously, even notoriously, absent! So much for conspiracy theories, Will Sommer?

Just when it couldn’t get any worse for the Phantom of the Supreme Court, RBG, a play honoring her life premiered earlier this month. Ginsburg was the guest of honor. Yet, when the curtains went up and the spotlights turned on, RGB seemingly wasn’t there either. Some reporting from the Fake News Industrial Complex claimed that Ginsburg was seated in the back of the theater. Yet, theater etiquette would dictate that plays honoring living persons will have their subject seated prominently in the front row, in order for them to be recognized by the production that is based off their life.

How strange, no?

Fact is, the “Notorious R.B.G.” that Leftists hold up as the paragon of modern virtue and feminism has been absent from her essential duty while at the same time shirking public appearances. Despite what her rabid defenders would say about alleged conspiracy theories, Ginsburg has a job that requires her to be physically and mentally engaged with whenever the Supreme Court of the United States is in session (such as it currently is). Missing some work due to a major surgery is one thing. Checking out of work months after the surgery supposedly went without a hitch is very different all together. The media cannot help but to pile on the President when he has unstructured periods of time on his presidential schedule (despite the fact that he keeps doing his job–and doing it exceedingly well). Ruth Bader Ginsburg is incommunicado, however, and the Left shrugs indifferently.

This is not about piling on an old woman. This is about the fact that, as a leading member of a co-equal branch of our federal government, one that decides some of the most consequential aspects of our country’s legal and cultural mores–with long-lasting impacts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not there. Elsewhere, the media reported that Ginsburg has finally returned to the Supreme Court. Whatever the future may hold, we must remember just how old Ginsburg is. Inevitably, she will have to replaced. Yet, the Left continues propping her up like the titular character in the Weekend at Bernie’s film. Soon, Ginsburg will have to step aside. The Left will not stop propping Ginsburg up because they know that there are few people who could replace her as long as Donald Trump is in the White House.

The true problem is that there is no mechanism for removing a decrepit judge who refuses to surrender to the reality of her age. This is also only about denying President Trump another pick for the United States Supreme Court. The Left knows that the President will choose a young, conservative jurist who will protect the culture and institutions of this country from the once-unstoppable Leftist assault upon our great land. Together with Congress, President Trump should propose a new set of rules and standards that will allow for America’s leaders–regardless of their political orientation–to ensure that the important work of the Judicial Branch is realized unimpeded by the potential obstinacy of one or more of its elderly, highly-partisan members. The Supreme Court is simply too important to be left in the hands of those who otherwise would be in a retirement home.

Fox News

Published  1 day ago

Two leading Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- have reportedly said they support reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, reflecting a shift in the importance of race and identity issues within the party.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Harris doubled down on her support for reparations after agreeing with a host on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” that the race-conscious policy was necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination in the United States.

"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," Harris said in the statement to the Times. "I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."

Warren also supports reparations.

DEM MOCKED FOR IGNORING SLAVERY, CLAIMING 'NEVER IN HISTORY' HAVE PEOPLE WORKED WITHOUT PAY IN US

“We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations,” she told the Times. “We need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

"We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences."

— U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Julian Castro, another Democrat running for president, has indicated that he would support reparations.

Fox News reached out to all three campaigns but did not immediately hear back late Thursday.

Reparations would involve the federal government’s acknowledgment of the ongoing legacy of slavery and discrimination and providing payment to those affected. Policy experts say it could cost several trillion dollars.

Scholars estimate that black families earn just over $57 for every $100 earned by white families, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is also running for president, has proposed helping poor children by giving them government-funded savings accounts that could hold up to $50,000 for the lowest income brackets, the Times reported. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., supports a plan to allow Americans without checking accounts bank at their local post office.

Other prominent Democrats have stopped short of backing reparations, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who dismissed the idea in 2016. Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama have also expressed reservations.

Supporting reparations could come with much political risk. Republicans have long attempted to paint Democrats who support policies aimed at correcting racial inequalities as anti-white, according to the Times, and polling shows reparations for black Americans remains unpopular.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 day ago

So the news is out that then-FBI Director James Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents during her stint as Secretary of State, passing around some of the U.S. government’s most secret documents on an illegal private account attached to a server in some guy’s bathroom.

“No reasonable prosecutor” would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate completely off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey, none other than FBI General Counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton’s dishonest act merited prosecution.

According to Fox News’s Catherine Herridge:

The FBI’s top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling “highly classified” information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails’ contents sent through her private server. And he believed she should have been prosecuted until “pretty late” in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Dan Bongino

Published  1 day ago

In this episode I address the stunning new revelations by an FBI lawyer about the efforts to cover up this Obama/Clinton scandal. I also discuss the efforts by Andrew McCabe to fabricate an obstruction case against President Trump. Finally, I address bizarre comments by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about Amazon.

News Picks:

Was there another dirty dossier used to attack the Trump team?

Andrew McCabe continues to conjure up reasons for his witch-hunt investigations.

This key player in the FBI believed Hillary Clinton should have been charged with a crime.

Mike Pompeo shuts the door on the ISIS bride.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 day ago

"[L]eft-wing activists are quite content using every tool at their disposal to silence influential voices on the right." 

dailycaller

Published  1 day ago

The Inquisitr

Published  1 day ago

Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist who was brutally killed in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey, gave a secret last and wide-ranging interview to Newsweek’s Rula Jebreal. The transcript of the interview was unpublished up until yesterday when Newsweek reported about Khashoggi’s thinking on the reforms carried out by Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman, as well as on Khashoggi’s belief that the only important American political leader who was calling to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia was Bernie Sanders.

Khashoggi disappeared on October 2 when he went to collect some paperwork in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul. Soon, reports quoting Turkish investigators suggested that the Saudi Arabian administration had sent agents to brutalize and kill Khashoggi. The New York Times, citing an audio recording of the incident, reported that Khashoggi had been dismembered at the consulate, with one of Saudi Arabia’s most-known forensic experts leading the task to get rid of the body.

Khashoggi’s murder sent shockwaves in the international community, with leaders all over the world calling Mohammad Bin Salman to launch an investigation into the killing, even as Donald Trump continued to hail the prince for what the American president said were “credible” responses to the incident.

• Saudi Arabia admits #JamalKhashoggi was killed inside its Istanbul consulate

• Saudi says he was killed in a ‘fist fight’ when a brawl broke out with people he met there

• Saudi sacks two senior officials and arrests 18 Saudi nationals over his death https://t.co/2iTuZrOAgL pic.twitter.com/iz9B5jlmZm

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) October 20, 2018

Trump said that the killing of a journalist is not enough reason to cut off ties with America’s most important ally in the Middle East, which is also a big buyer of American arms. Bernie Sanders, who lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic race, however, called on the U.S. to re-evaluate its ties with the Wahabbi Islamic nation.

“I have long been troubled by the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia,” Sanders said in a video posted on Twitter.

“And in light of the likely Saudi murder of critic Jamal Khashoggi, I think it is time for us to thoroughly re-evaluate that relationship. Saudi Arabia is, and has always been, a despotic dictatorship in which dissent is not tolerated, in which women are considered third-class citizens and which has spent the last several decades exporting an extreme form of Islam, Wahhabism, around the world.”

And now Khashoggi’s last interview published in Newsweek shows that the journalist desired for more American leaders to become tougher with Saudi Arabia and that he, in fact, admired Sanders for standing up to the Middle Eastern country.

“First of all, there is no political movement in Saudi Arabia that could pressure him, number one,” Khashoggi said about the possibility of combining the extreme view of Islam that Saudi Arabia espouses with its king’s newfound intent to liberalize society.

“And the world is happy with him. Do you see anybody in America except for Bernie Sanders who is calling for putting pressure on MBS? I only saw Bernie Sanders, but no one else.”

Khashoggi had also spoken about the impossibility of overthrowing the Saudi Arabian government, having watched the royal court in action for a long time. Instead, he told the interviewer that Mohammad Bin Salman must bring in judicial reforms to Saudi Arabia, something Wahabbi Islam prohibits.

“Why does MBS not see that part of reform?” Khashoggi said. “Because it will limit his authoritarian rule, and he doesn’t want that. He doesn’t see the need for that. So sometimes I feel that…he wants to enjoy the fruits of First World modernity and Silicon Valley and cinemas and everything, but at the same time he wants also to rule like how his grandfather ruled Saudi Arabia.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 day ago

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is not shy about saying he’s a Democrat Socialist. It’s not exactly a secret.

During a recent CNN interview, Democrat Congressman Gregory Meeks says Bernie should NOT be running for president as a Democrat.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

Sounds about right.

From American Mirror:

Meeks — who endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary — told CNN that Sanders is not a Democrat and therefore should not be “allowed” to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

When asked if he agreed that a “flaw” for Sanders is that he’s an old white male, Meeks said, “The difference for me is that he’s not a Democrat.

“So I don’t understand why Bernie Sanders, who does not want to become a member of the Democratic Party,” he said.

POLL: Should Jim Acosta Be BANNED FOR LIFE From The Press Pool?

Sanders is being sued “over claims that he used his own political clout to punish a local businessman who ran an attack ad against Sanders.”

His wife ran a small college into the ground, by the way – but that’s another story, entirely.

From Daily Caller:

Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee, the CEO of St. Albans-based gasoline distributor and retailer R.L. Vallee, is alleging that Sanders and his senior press adviser, Daniel McLean, conspired against the business owner by drumming up a class-action lawsuit, according to federal court documents.

Vallee, who owns more than 45 gas stations in and around Vermont, produced an anti-Sanders television advertisement that aired locally in September 2014. The advertisement criticized Sanders for lambasting “the rich” over receiving tax breaks and golden parachutes, while his wife Jane Sanders received a $200,000 golden parachute after her involvement in a land deal helped to bankrupt Burlington College while she was president.

Bernie spent $300,000 on private flights in a single month. No joke.

“According to federal campaign finance reports, Friends of Bernie Sanders, the senator’s official 2018 Senate campaign committee, spent $297,685.50 with Apollo Jets, a private charter jet service headquartered in New York,” the website VtDigger.com reported. “The report does not break down the number of trips or where they were taken. The check was issued on Oct. 10, according to the report.”

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s 9-day, 9-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokesman Arianna Jones told VtDigger.com. “This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” she said.

Jones said Sanders used private jets “to allow the senator to campaign in all of the states where candidates wanted his help and get back to Vermont in order to join the Vermont Democratic Party coordinated campaign’s final GOTV efforts. As Bernie often said while encouraging voters to get involved leading up to Election Day, this was the most important midterm election in our lifetimes and he wanted to have maximum impact.”

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 day ago

Chicago Police on Thursday held a press conference on the Jussie Smollett hate hoax and the actor’s arrest. Jussie Smollett turned himself in around 5 AM on Thursday. Here is his mugshot. Chicago Police Superintendent told reporters Jussie Smollett wrote the brothers a check! WATCH: Police say 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett wrote a $3500 check […]

WSJ

Published  1 day ago

The collusionists need a “new phase” as signs grow that the special counsel won’t help realize their reveries of a Donald Trump takedown. They had said Mr. Mueller would provide all the answers. Now that it seems they won’t like his answers, Democrats and media insist that any report will likely prove “anticlimactic” and “inconclusive.” “This is merely the end of Chapter 1,” said Renato Mariotti, a CNN legal “analyst.”

Opinion Live Event

Join us on March 4 as WSJ Opinion’s Paul Gigot leads a “State of TV News” panel discussion including Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo, CBS’s Christy Tanner and “Network” actor Tony Goldwyn. Included in your admission to the event is a ticket to see “Network” on Broadway at a subsequent date.

Mr. Schiff turned this week to a dependable scribe—the Washington Post’s David Ignatius—to lay out the next chapter of the penny dreadful. Mr. Ignatius was the original conduit for the leak about former national security adviser Mike Flynn’s conversations with a Russian ambassador, and the far-fetched claims that Mr. Flynn had violated the Logan Act of 1799. Mr. Schiff has now dictated to Mr. Ignatius a whole new collusion theory. Forget Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos—whoever. The real Trump-Russia canoodling rests in “Trump’s finances.” The future president was “doing business with Russia” and “seeking Kremlin help.”

So, no apologies. No acknowledgment that Mr. Schiff & Co. for years have pushed fake stories that accused innocent men and women of being Russian agents. No relieved hope that the country might finally put this behind us. Just a smooth transition—using Russia as a hook—into Mr. Trump’s finances. Mueller who?

What’s mind-boggling is that reporters would continue to take Mr. Schiff seriously, given his extraordinary record of incorrect and misleading pronouncements. This is the man who, on March 22, 2017, helped launch full-blown hysteria when he said on “Meet the Press” that his committee already had the goods on Trump-Russia collusion.

“I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Mr. Schiff declared then. Almost two years later, he’s provided no such evidence and stopped making the claim—undoubtedly because, as the Senate Intelligence Committee has said publicly, no such evidence has been found.

At an open House Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20, 2017, Mr. Schiff stated as fact numerous crazy accusations from the infamous Steele dossier—giving them early currency and credence. He claimed that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page secretly met with a Vladimir Putin crony and was offered the brokerage of a 19% share in a Russian company. That Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort tapped Mr. Page as a go-between. That the Russians offered the Trump campaign damaging documents on Hillary Clinton in return for a blind eye to Moscow’s Ukraine policy. Mr. Schiff has never acknowledged that all these allegations have been debunked or remain unproved.

Newsletter Sign-up

There was Mr. Schiff’s role in plumping the discredited January BuzzFeed story claiming Mr. Mueller had evidence the president directed his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. The special counsel’s office issued a rare statement denying the report. There was Mr. Schiff’s theory that the mysterious phone calls Donald Trump Jr. placed before his 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump Tower were to Candidate Trump. Senate Intel shot that down. And don’t forget Mr. Schiff’s February 2018 memo claiming the Steele dossier “did not inform” the FBI probe, because the bureau didn’t obtain it until long after the probe’s start. Testimony from Justice Department officials shot that one down, too.

With a track record like this, who wouldn’t believe Mr. Schiff’s new claim, in the Ignatius interview, that the key to collusion rests in Trump finances—in particular something to do with Deutsche Bank ? But hold on. Where did we first hear that Deutsche Bank theory? That’s right. See pages 64 and 117 of the wild House testimony of Glenn Simpson—head of Fusion GPS, the organization behind the Steele dossier. It’s right there, stuffed in between Mr. Simpson’s musings that Ivanka Trump might be involved with a “Russian Central Asian organized crime nexus,” that there is something nefarious happening on the “island of St. Martin in the Caribbean,” and that Roger Stone is part of a “Turkey-Russia” plot.

Mr. Schiff is taking his cue for Phase 2 of his investigation from the same Democrat-hired opposition-research group that launched the failed Phase 1.

At the start of all the Russia craziness, Mr. Schiff had a choice: maintain the bipartisan integrity of his committee by working with Republicans to find honest answers, or take on the role of resident conspiracy theorist. He chose his path. The rest of us should know better than to follow him.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Appeared in the February 22, 2019, print edition.

Spectator USA

Published  1 day ago

Andrew McCabe, second-in-command at James Comey’s FBI, is at it again. First, he and his boss shredded the Bureau’s reputation as the world’s leading law enforcement agency. Now, McCabe is compounding the damage by making wild, self-serving charges to sell his new book. In one TV interview, he said it is ‘possible’ that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.

Serious charges need serious proof. Simple fairness demands it. But McCabe presents none. That’s par for the course. Simple fairness was not the hallmark of the Comey-McCabe era. No disinterested observers think the Bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server was treated the same way as the amorphous charges against the Trump campaign. That bias wasn’t the fault of FBI field agents. Comey pulled the investigation away from them and gave it to his inner circle. They were men on a mission. It was not a mission for blind justice.

Their double standards were clear when they passed out immunity to all Hillary’s top aides without demanding full testimony in return, when they destroyed Clinton staffers’ computers and cell phones without preserving the evidence, and when they wrote a memo clearing Mrs Clinton before she had been interviewed. Comey, whose incompetence is rivaled only by his smug self-righteousness, then held a press conference that both smeared and cleared Hillary. It smeared her with evidence that should never have been revealed unless she was charged. It cleared her by whitewashing the crimes she should have been charged with.

Comey, McCabe, and their cronies had no intention of serving up the same softball to Trump. No, siree. The Bureau relied on thin, biased evidence to obtain warrants to spy on Carter Page (really, on the Trump campaign). That evidence consisted mainly of opposition research against Trump, conducted by a former British spy and paid for by Clinton through two cut-outs. The FBI and DOJ knew the political origins, the dicey source, and the lack of verification. Instead of disclosing all that to the courts, they falsely said it was verified and hid the source’s bias. They put a cherry on this cow patty by including a Yahoo news article as additional evidence. They never told the judges it came from the same source as their other ‘evidence,’ not from independent reporting. There are words for this kind of dodge. They are found in the criminal statutes.

McCabe’s central role in this sleazy operation comes on top of a scathing report about his conduct from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General. It concludes that McCabe leaked information to the media and then lied about it to investigators on three occasions. He is now under criminal investigation for those actions. (McCabe doesn’t exactly deny the leaks but says Comey authorized them. Comey denies it.) That leaking and lying (alleged, alleged), plus McCabe’s lack of proof for his recent claims, suggest his comments are little more than hyperbole, designed to inflate his standing among Trump-haters.

Make no mistake: McCabe’s charges against Trump are extremely serious, especially since they come from a former top law-enforcement official who was involved in pertinent investigations. Any president who acted as agent of a hostile foreign power would have committed ‘a high crime and misdemeanor,’ worthy of impeachment and conviction. In fact, it would be the gravest crime against our nation since the Confederate states seceded.

So far, the public evidence does not support McCabe’s grave accusations. That’s significant because multiple investigations have been underway for a long time. The intensive probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yielded a single charge of conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russians. Finding out if there was such collusion was one of the two reasons Mueller was appointed. (The other was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, whether or not it involved either campaign.) A number of Russians have been charged with interfering with US elections and some US citizens have been charged with various offenses, but none involve collaboration between US citizens and the Russians during the 2016 campaign. The charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are serious, and he has already been convicted on some of them, but, once again, none involve the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia.

There is a major caveat here. Mueller’s investigation is not finished and we don’t know if he will conclude his work with some conspiracy charges. But, as McCabe knows, the Special Counsel would already have brought such charges against Manafort and others if he could substantiate them. He hasn’t brought any.

The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn’t found any conspiracy either, and they have been investigating on a bipartisan basis for two years.

McCabe knows all that, but he’s still flinging dung. After we wipe it off, we can ask of him, as the Army’s Chief Counsel, Joseph Welch, once asked of Joe McCarthy, ‘Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’

In McCabe’s case, as in McCarthy’s, the question answers itself.

Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he is founding director of PIPES, the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security.

Fox News

Published  1 day ago

Just when you think no one could be a sleazier swamp creature than fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe comes along.

McCabe and Comey have a lot in common. They’re both leakers. They’re both liars. And they’re both lousy political hacks who’ve written books that attempt to bleach history just like Hillary Clinton did with her emails.

Comey and McCabe, of course, will forever be remembered for their horribly botched investigation of the Clinton email case in 2015-2016. How can anyone forget that McCabe’s wife received $675,000 in campaign funds for her race for Virginia State Senate from groups closely associated with longtime Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe as the email probe was being conducted by the FBI.

DAVID BOSSIE: MUELLER SHOULD END HIS PROBE AND MAKE HIS REPORT PUBLIC – TRUMP DIDN'T COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA

This week “Leakin” Andy McCabe has been giving interviews to his allies in the media to promote his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.” Like Comey’s book before it, it’s destined for the fictional ash heap of history.

McCabe is espousing the qualities of a desperate man. He’s been under investigation by a federal grand jury for months for allegedly lying under oath and is actively trying to impugn the integrity of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the career investigator who made the criminal referral against him that could result in jail time.

In a blatant attempt to get more unhinged resistance Democrats to buy his book, McCabe is busy weaving tall tales about his biased investigations against candidate Trump, as well as his knowledge of a failed deep state coup attempt against President Donald Trump, the duly elected 45th president of the United States.

To cover his backside, McCabe is changing his positions on the phony obstruction of justice and Russia collusion investigations of President Trump. For instance, in May 2017 McCabe testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was “completely within the president's authority” to fire then-FBI Director James Comey, and that “there has been no effort to impede our investigation today.”

Furthermore, this week, McCabe made the political calculation to falsely label Russia as “our most fearsome enemy” to try and explain part of his rationale for ordering a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump in 2017.

Surely McCabe, the former acting director of the FBI, knew at the time that label wasn’t accurate. Even his former boss President Barack Obama didn’t believe that. Just months before, President Obama confided to President-elect Trump that North Korea was our biggest threat. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “The Obama administration considers North Korea to be the top national security priority for the incoming administration, a view it has conveyed to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.”

This determination by President Obama is consistent with his decision not to confront Russia over their interference during the 2016 election. If you recall, it was Obama administration policy to “reset” relations with Russia and was President Obama’s hope to have “more flexibility” to work with Russia after his 2012 reelection campaign. The idea that McCabe is not aware of this is simply not to be believed.

What’s also unbelievable is what McCabe told Savannah Guthrie in his recent interview on NBC. McCabe claimed to have no recollection of the infamous “insurance policy” meeting in his office with former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. McCabe wants the American people to believe he doesn’t remember a meeting in which he allegedly discussed the strategy of launching a counterintelligence investigation of a duly elected president of the United States just in case he’s elected? This is just a boldfaced lie coming from a disgraced leader of the deep state.

These inconsistent answers that have twisted McCabe into a pretzel underscore the need for a thorough “investigation of the investigators” by the Senate Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

As the former chief investigator for the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during the Clinton administration, I believe that Sen. Graham must probe McCabe’s troubling discussions with outgoing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office without delay.

Additionally, Graham must do a deep dive into why James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and James Baker have all either been fired or have resigned as a result of their destructive activities at the FBI. As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, describes them, “All unelected and all plotted against the president.”

The American people deserve some honest answers about the most glossed over scandal in American history.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As House Democrats plow forward with their shameful witch hunt into every aspect of President Trump’s life, Sen. Graham must go toe to toe with them with his very important investigation every step of the way.

The resistance leaders in the House should not be allowed to ignore the FBI scandal as they attempt to destroy President Trump with their hyper-partisan subpoena cannon.

David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United, a Fox News contributor and the former deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump for President. He is the author of "Let Trump Be Trump" and co-author of “Trump’s Enemies.”

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 day ago

Crazy Bernie

02/21 8:03 am

Crazy Bernie Sanders announced his run for a 2020 bid on Tuesday. Bernie had a very surprising run in 2016, but he could not make it past Crooked Hillary Clinton’s corruption.

Bernie says he is running because we have a “racist in the Whitehouse.” It is obvious 2020 will be no different than any other year. Democrats will be using the same hateful rhetoric that saw them get destroyed in every single swing state in 2016. Sad!

Bernie will be once again running as a Democrat Socialist, joining the playing field with other far left hopefuls. Like the others, Socialist Bernie is a massive hypocrite. For all his Socialist leanings, that Bernie sure does like his Capitalism…taking high-paid speaking engagements, partnerships, and even has a spouse standing on Wall Street’s corporate ladder.

Bernie wants to get (more) rich but wants everyone else to share the same bowl of porridge. With this message, POTUS will win in a landslide.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Published  1 day ago

The Australian government issued the document after deciding he was not likely to be arrested for a serious criminal offence in a foreign country.

The Gaily Grind

Published  1 day ago

The federal judge presiding over Roger Stone’s criminal case on Thursday banned him from speaking publicly about his case or the special counsel investigation on Thursday, after hauling him back to court to answer for a social media post personally attacking her.

“Publicity cannot subside if it’s the defendant that’s fanning the flames,” District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Thursday.

Before Berman Jackson’s ruling, Stone took the stand to beg for forgiveness.

“I am hurtfully sorry for my own stupidity. I am kicking myself, not as much as my wife is kicking me,” Stone told the court. He called the Instagram post “a momentary lapse of judgement” before saying that the photo was selected by someone who works for him, which he estimated was about “five or six people.”

“I heard political commentators talking about the likelihood that I’ll be raped in prison. It’s been a stressful situation. I’m having a hard time putting food on the table and making rent,” he said, reports NBC News.

Roger Stone: "I let myself down, my family down, my attorneys down. It was a momentary lapse of judgement. I heard political commentators talking about the likelihood that I’ll be raped in prison. It’s been a stressful situation."

— Allan Smith (@akarl_smith) February 21, 2019

The judge said the former Trump adviser “couldn’t keep his story straight on the stand” when she allowed him the opportunity to explain his decision to post the inflammatory photo on Instagram of her with what appeared to be small crosshairs next to her head over the weekend.

Got a notification for another Roger Stone Instagram post…it’s the judge presiding over his case. And in the upper left hand corner it looks like the symbol for crosshairs. pic.twitter.com/m6IW3QznTF

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again [sic] Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime. #fixisin Help me fight for my life at @StoneDefenseFund.com,” the now-deleted post read. Included in the picture was a banner at the bottom with Berman Jackson’s name displayed under her face.

Fox News

Published  2 days ago

The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the contents of the emails sent through her private server -- and believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October. 

Breitbart

Published  2 days ago

About 1-in-10 eligible voters in the United States will be foreign-born by the 2020 election cycle, new research finds. 

POLITICO

Published  2 days ago

A U.S. Coast Guard officer has been arrested after federal investigators discovered a stockpile of illegal drugs and weapons in his home that they allege were part of a plot to commit acts of mass terrorism.

Prosecutors say Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson, who was arrested Friday, was intent on committing white-supremacist terror attacks. Though he was initially arrested on charges of illegal weapons and drug possession, a court filing says that those charges are “the proverbial tip of the iceberg.”

“The defendant is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect government conduct,” the filing alleges.

While searching Hasson’s suburban Maryland home, investigators found a number of files on his computer suggesting that Hasson planned to target members of Congress and media figures in the hopes of creating a “white homeland.”

“Liberalist/globalist ideology is destroying traditional peoples esp white,” Hasson wrote in a draft email, according to court documents. “No way to counteract without violence. It should push for more crack down bringing more people to our side. Much blood will have to be spilled to get whitey off the couch.”

Hasson referred to his targets as “traitors,” and appears to have named figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman John Podesta. He appeared to find inspiration in Russia for its antipathy toward American liberalism, and his browser history revealed searches including “what if trump illegally impeached” and “civil war if trump impeached,” according to the court filing.

“Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west’s liberalism. Excluding of course the muslim scum. Who rightfully despise the west’s liberal degeneracy,” Hasson wrote in a draft email according to the filings.

Hasson was also apparently inspired by Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian far-right terrorist who carried out two attacks in 2011 in Oslo and at a political youth camp. Breivik took a cocktail of steroids and other drugs, believing they would help him carry out the attacks. Similarly, investigators found steroids and the pain reliever Tramadol — a highly addictive controlled substance — in Hasson’s home.

Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, first reported Hasson’s arrest Wednesday afternoon.

realclearpolitics

Published  2 days ago

On January 8, the restaurant chain Red Lobster became the 20th major advertiser to stop running ads on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program. It’s not because advertising on Carlson’s...

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Elizabeth Warren is the first Democratic presidential candidate to push for reparations for black Americans.

Warren made headlines last year for lying about her own heritage for decades.

Warren told employers she was Native American to lift her career.

DNA testing revealed she was only 1/1024th Indian, less than the average white American.

Now Liawatha wants reparations for black Americans.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she supports reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, The New York Times reports.

Warren said in an interview with the Times that “we must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.” She also said that “we need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

Warren did not provide any specifics about what her plan would be, but the Times notes that this is significant given that it’s a policy previous Democratic presidential candidates chose not to support. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who recently announced his 2020 bid, was not in favor of reparations in 2016, saying at the time that it would not pass Congress and would be “very divisive.” For that matter, neither was former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 days ago

A top FBI official admitted to Congressional investigators last year that the agency had contacts within the Trump campaign as part of operation "Crossfire Hurricane," which sounds a lot like FBI "informant" Stefan Halper - a former Oxford University professor who was paid over $1 million by the Obama Department of Defense between 2012 and 2018, with nearly half of it surrounding the 2016 US election.

According to portions of transcripts published on Tuesday by the Epoch Times of a Aug. 31, 2018 deposition by Trisha Anderson, the FBI relied on sources who "already had campaign contacts" in order to surveil the Trump team.

"To my knowledge, the FBI did not place anybody within a campaign but, rather, relied upon its network of sources, some of whom already had campaign contacts, including the source that has been discussed in the media at some length beyond Christopher Steele," said Anderson - who was the #2 attorney at the FBI's Office of General Counsel, and had extensive involvement with the Trump counterintelligence investigation.

Halper is reportedly a longtime CIA and FBI informant, and has been involved in US politics at the highest levels for decades, becoming George H.W. Bush's National Director for Policy Development during his presidential campaign. After Bush lost to Reagan, Halper worked as Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State - where he served under three different Secretaries.

He then became a senior advisor to the Department of Defense and DOJ between 1984 and 2001. Halper's former father-in-law was Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA. He also allegedly spied on the Carter administration - collecting information on foreign policy (an account disputed by Ray Cline).

Stefan Halper was indeed married to Ray Cline's daughter, Sibyl Cline, now known as Sibyl MacKenzie.https://t.co/bT3xLY4XM5https://t.co/oOByAmgi5R pic.twitter.com/n2IuDC9FId

— The_War_Economy (@The_War_Economy) March 26, 2018

Apparently Halper and his team of Central Intelligence Agency people during the Reagan / Bush ticket actually collected inside information on the Carter Administration's foreign policy - with Halper in charge - although Ray Cline rejected this account.https://t.co/h4bIIjgB4U pic.twitter.com/8qgEe1OJOO

— The_War_Economy (@The_War_Economy) March 26, 2018

Halper's involvement in surveilling the Trump campaign was exposed by the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross, who reported that the 74-year-old spook was enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election.

Halper received a DoD contract from the Obama administration for $411,575 - made in two payments, and had a start date of September 26, 2016 - three days after a September 23 Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff about Trump aide Carter Page, which used information fed to Isikoff by "pissgate" dossier creator Christopher Steele. The FBI would use the Yahoo! article along with the unverified "pissgate" dossier as supporting evidence in an FISA warrant application for Page.

Halper approached Page during an election-themed conference at Cambridge on July 11, 2016, six weeks after the September 26 DoD award start date. The two would stay in contact for the next 14 months, frequently meeting and exchanging emails.

He said that he first encountered the informant during a conference in mid-July of 2016 and that they stayed in touch. The two later met several times in the Washington area. Mr. Page said their interactions were benign. -New York Times

And as the Daily Caller reports, Halper used a decades-old association with Paul Manafort to break the ice with Page.

In September 2016, the FBI would send Halper to further probe Trump aide George Papadopoulos on an allegation he made that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. According to Papadopoulos in an interview with Dan Bongino, Halper angrily accused him of working with Russia before storming out of a meeting.

Halper essentially began interrogating Papadopoulos, saying that it’s “obviously in your interest to be working with the Russians” and to “hack emails.” “You’re complicit with Russia in this, isn’t that right George” Halper told him. Halper also inquired about Hillary’s hacked emails, insinuating that Papadopoulos possessed them. Papadopoulos denied knowing anything about this and asked to be left alone. -Bongino.com

Just don't call Halper a spy...

Daily Wire

Published  2 days ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders officially announced his 2020 presidential bid. He promptly raked in 6 million dollars in campaign donations within 24 hours of the announcement. He obviously remains an immensely popular figure on the Left. Even those on the Right tend to attribute certain positive qualities to Sanders, like authenticity and honesty. I've heard some Republicans describe him as the least repulsive Democrat on the national stage. Hardly a high honor, but I'm not sure he deserves even that much credit. Let's not be fooled by the eccentric grandpa routine. Sanders is, in fact, an arrogant, power-hungry, hypocritical, cowardly, morally-deranged, communist. Let's go through each of those carefully-chosen adjectives, point by point.

Arrogant and power hungry. Sanders is 77 years old. If he were to be elected president, heaven help us, he'd be 79 on inauguration day. There is nothing wrong with being elderly. We will all be elderly one day, should we be fortunate enough to live so long. But the presidency is an enormously stressful, physically-taxing, mentally-draining job. There's a reason why Obama and Bush went into office as relatively young men and came out looking like they had the life-force sucked out of them by the Vulture from Spider-Man. Presidents age in dog years. Every year in office is like seven in civilian life. You have to be extraordinarily arrogant to think that you can effectively take on that kind of physical and mental stress at the age of 80. You have to be extraordinarily power-hungry to want it.

The problem with presidents is that they want so badly to be president. There hasn't been a reluctant leader in the White House since at least Coolidge. All of them since that point, and most of them before it, have desperately desired to be the most powerful men on Earth. A few of them have been pretty good at the job in spite of the character flaw that prompted them to pursue it. It is understandable, though, for a younger man to have such blind ambition. But a man (or woman) who is still grasping for the throne even in his final years of life? Someone who will pursue power even if it literally kills him? We should be very suspicious of such a person.

Hypocritical. Sanders has been living on the public dime for 40 years. During his time as a "public servant," he has managed to amass a fortune and a seven-figure income that puts him firmly in the same "1 percenter" camp he has spent decades decrying. He hasn't cashed in on his political career to the same extent as, say, Hillary Clinton, but he is no middle-class champion. While lamenting "income inequality" and railing against the evils of capitalism, Sanders has done quite a bit of capitalizing himself. Indeed, he just bought his third house recently — a modest little $600,000 lakefront property in Vermont.

I believe Americans are entitled to buy as many homes as they can afford and make as much money as the market allows. But I also believe in consistency. Someone who lectures others about "greed" and deliberately fosters hatred and suspicion toward the wealthy with overheated class warfare rhetoric, cannot buy three homes and collect millions in book royalties without being guilty of rank hypocrisy. Most Americans can barely afford one home. Sanders has three, and his third is three times more expensive than the national average. Why doesn't he sell it and use the money to pay off a bunch of student loans? Why doesn't he donate all of his book royalties to poor families who need it more than he does? As a matter of fact, why does he charge money for his books at all? Surely, Bernie's fans must see the irony of a man making millions on a book advocating a socialist revolution.

Cowardly. Sanders has earned a reputation as a scrappy freedom fighter who stands up against the dark and powerful forces in our country. He is about as convincing in this role as in the blue collar hero role. It takes no courage for a Democrat to pump his fists and shout about Wall Street or "corporations." He risks nothing with this kind of sloganeering. But there are dark and powerful forces in his own party. He should know about those forces since they rigged the primaries against him in 2016. Yet, in the end, Sanders still bowed to the Clinton Machine, kissed the ring, and played nice.

Morally deranged. I could provide many examples here, but none more pertinent than his pro-abortion extremism. Sanders supports abortion at every stage of pregnancy for any reason. When asked, he could not name one single scenario or circumstance, at any point in pregnancy, where he thought any form of restriction should apply. Sanders not only tolerates but advocates for the legal execution of fully-formed, perfectly healthy, third-trimester babies. This view is mainstream in the modern Democratic Party, but no less abominable. No one who holds such a view is fit to serve in any public office, in any capacity whatsoever.

But wait — there's more. Sanders is also, as mentioned at the beginning, a lifelong communist. He is on tape heaping praise on Fidel Castro and admitting that he provided advice to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Sanders' communism is more than a mere personality quirk. He has been providing PR cover to murderous communist regimes for years.

As we've already established, Sanders is no spring chicken. He is not some stupid college student who champions communism because he has no idea what happened in the world prior to 2005. He lived through much of the 1900s and very well knows that it was a century bathed in the blood shed by communist governments. He knows that communism very recently killed 100 million people, and that it continues to add to the body count even today. Yet he advocates for communist policies and wishes to see the great evil of the 20th century reborn in the 21st. What else can we call this but morally deranged?

The ideas Bernie Sanders espouses aren't just wrong but wicked. And he espouses them in a hypocritical fashion, steeped in cowardice and arrogance. He is not suited for the Senate, much less the White House. God help us if he ever gets there.

Listen to Matt's latest podcast.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  2 days ago

So far the path to the White House for most 2020 Dems appears to lie through shameless racial, radical and economic pandering.

Reviving slavery reparations, once an insane radical idea and more insane than ever in a country with a black population that is increasingly, like Obama or Kamala Harris, not even from this country during the slavery era, is now more popular than ever.

But for 2020 Dems it unites the two r’s and the one e.

Take all that wealth redistribution and funnel it through race, a major chunk of the Dem base anyway, and match it to some bashing of the United States.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.

The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing,

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

WND

Published  2 days ago

There were more than a dozen stunningly explicit videos that were released by the Center for Medical Progress several years ago that revealed the unabashed profit motive in Planned Parenthood for their sales of baby body parts to middlemen who then sold them to researchers.

Mediaite

Published  2 days ago

Independent Vermont Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders gave a lengthy interview in 1985 in which he praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, defended Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, and slammed then-President Ronald Reagan as a liar.

The interview originally aired on August 8, 1985 on Vermont’s Channel 17/Town Meeting Television, and followed then-Burlington Mayor Sanders’ visit to Nicaragua, where he attended a rally at which Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega railed against the United States government.

The video resurfaced during the last presidential campaign when Buzzfeed posted it in June of 2015, and given Sanders’ decision to run again in 2020, will likely be circulated again. Indeed, it already has.

In the interview, Sanders said that he was “impressed” by the leaders of the Sandinista government, singling Ortega and others out for praise. The comment that got the most attention in 2016, though, was his praise for Fidel Castro.

Sanders drew an analogy between Cuba and the situation in Nicaragua,

“Way back in, what was it, 1961, they invaded Cuba,” Sanders said, “and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world and all of the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids healthcare, totally transformed the society.”

“Not that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect, they certainly are not,” Sanders added, “but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people doesn’t mean that people in their own nations feel the same way.”

Sanders had many choice words for then-President Reagan, including one jab that might sound familiar to modern-day voters. While answering a question about helping the Sandinistas get their message out to the American people, Sanders remarked “Reagan and his people are so sophisticated, they own the airwaves… the media, every time Reagan gives them a photo opportunity, thousands, ‘Thank you, Mr. President, thank you very much for telling us another lie!'”

Both the Sandinistas and the U.S.-backed Contra forces were found to have committed gross human rights abuses, but Sanders was correct that an overthrow of the Sandinista government never occurred, and they continue to commit abuses. As for Reagan, he would go on to admit that his administration financed the Contras with the sale of arms to Iran, but claimed he had no knowledge of it.

Sanders defended his remarks from that interview during a 2016 debate with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Clinton slammed him in response.

Confronted with footage from the interview, Sanders said “The key issue here was whether the United States should go around overthrowing small Latin American countries. I think that that was a mistake… both in Nicaragua and Cuba.”

“Look, let’s look at the facts here. Cuba is, of course, an authoritarian undemocratic country, and I hope very much as soon as possible it becomes a democratic country,” Sanders continued, after an interruption from the moderator, “But on the other hand… it would be wrong not to state that in Cuba they have made some good advances in health care. They are sending doctors all over the world. They have made some progress in education. I think by restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, it will result in significant improvements to the lives of Cubans and it will help the United States and our business community invest.”

Moments later, Clinton responded.

“I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves,” Clinton said. “I just couldn’t disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.”

Rather than relying on chopped-up clips and spittle-flecked tweets, watch the full interview above, via Channel 17.

[Image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Breitbart

Published  2 days ago

Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) confirmed in a Thursday interview with the New York Times that she supports slavery reparations for American blacks.

The New York Times reported that Warren expressed her support for a policy that would pay money to black Americans who have been affected by slavery.

Warren’s campaign staff declined to elaborate on how she would support reparations, but the calls for reparations came after she said the federal government should provide financial assistance to residents in poor communities affected by “redlining,” a practice where lenders refuse mortgages to people in financially risky areas.

Warren is not the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for reparations. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced in a Monday radio interview with New York City’s Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club” that “some type of” reparations should be provided to black Americans impacted by slavery.

Harris confirmed her comments calling for reparation in the radio interview with the Times on Thursday.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris said in the statement. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Other Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have not expressed support for this policy.

Warren has received a lot of pushback on the campaign trail for her exaggerated claims of Native American ancestry. One heckler at Warren’s campaign rally in Georgia on Saturday yelled, “Why did you lie?” and held up a “1/2020th” sign before being escorted out of the campaign event.

The Massachusetts Democrat released results of a 2018 DNA test which revealed that she had between 1/64th and 1/1,1024th Native American ancestry after President Donald Trump and other Republicans criticized her for falsely claiming Native American ancestry.

Trump has frequently called Warren “Pocahontas,” most recently using the term to refer to Warren after she launched her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination this month.

The Massachusetts Democrat issued an apology in January to the Cherokee Nation for taking the DNA test shortly after the results of the DNA test went public because Cherokee leaders thought modern DNA tests undermined centuries-old laws and traditions defining tribal heritage.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 days ago

The FBI's top lawyer, General Counsel James Baker, initially thought that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server, according to transcripts from a 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony reviewed by The Hill's John Solomon.

While being questioned by Rep. John Radcliffe (R-TX), Baker was clear that he thought Clinton should face criminal charges.

"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law - various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" asked Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor.

After a brief pause to consult with his attorney, Baker responded: "Yes."

Baker later explained how he arrived at his conclusion, and how he was "persuaded" to change his mind.

"So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them," said Baker. "And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)."

Baker says he was persuaded to change his mind "pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end."

Recall that in December, 2017 we learned that James Comey's original exoneration letter was drafted in a way that would have required criminal charges - changing Clinton's conduct from the legally significant "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" - which is not a legal term of art. This language - along with several other incriminating components was altered by former FBI counterintelligence agent and attorney, Peter Strzok.

Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged."

His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department's inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought "they were in the country's best interest." -The Hill

Baker noted that had he been more convinced that there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, "I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view."

Daily Torch

Published  2 days ago

By Robert Romano “I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that [...]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft A 2016 DOJ criminal investigation was suppressed and buried by the DOJ/FBI that involved a major NY Democratic power broker, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The investigation revolved around the illegal sale of controlled US Homeland Security technology to Russia and China in the years before the […]

POLITICO

Published  2 days ago

A coordinated barrage of social media attacks suggests the involvement of foreign state actors.

Homeland Security

Published  2 days ago

Former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said Tuesday evening that he does not believe former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's claim that he informed Republican and Democrat leaders in 2017 that the bureau had opened a second counterintelligence probe of President Donald Trump.

McCabe told Savannah Guthrie on NBC's Today show Tuesday that the FBI briefed the "Gang of Eight" about the investigation he himself opened into Trump to probe whether he was a national security threat, and none of the lawmakers objected.

Gowdy, a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, was on Fox News' The Story with Martha MacCallum to talk about McCabe's latest claims.

He said he didn't know about the investigation, and he doesn't think the Gang of Eight — the leaders of two parties from the House and Senate, along with the leaders of each chamber's intelligence committee — knew about it either.

Gowdy said that the reason McCabe would level an accusation like that is because he knows that the lawmakers are not allowed to discuss anything that is said in a Gang of Eight meeting, so they can't refute him.

"I listened to Devin [Nunez] and Paul [Ryan] quiz the DOJ and the FBI for hours on multiple occasions about the one counterintelligence investigation we all knew about," said Gowdy. "I find it stunning that they would know about a second one and not say a single, solitary word. And I will continue to not believe they knew about it unless one or the other contradicts it."

The first probe -- which everyone knows about -- was the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign to see whether it conspired with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That one is being investigated by the DOJ's inspector general.

"Now McCabe says there was one in May of 2017 in addition to the criminal investigation into obstruction of justice," Gowdy said incredulously.

On The View Tuesday, Meghan McCain asked McCabe if he believes the Russians ordered Trump to fire then-FBI Director James Comey. McCabe replied: "We don't know and we certainly didn't know that at the time."

Stop Illegal Immigration!

As taxpayers, we need to make sure immigration laws are upheld.

judicialwatch.org

Asked to respond to McCabe's view that Trump could be a Russian agent, Gowdy exclaimed: "If thinking that Jim Comey is not a good FBI director is tantamount to being an agent of Russia, then just list all the people that are agents of Russia!" Some other possible suspects he suggested included "Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Rod Rosenstein -- who wrote the memo getting rid of Comey -- Michael Horowitz, who's the inspector general."

"I mean, look, I know McCabe liked Jim Comey.... But lots of people thought that Jim Comey had lost the ability to lead that department," Gowdy said. "And the fact that President Trump got rid of him in May of 2017 is not sufficient basis to launch a criminal obstruction of justice probe!"

100PercentFedUp.com

Published  2 days ago

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders loves to talk about sacrifice. The lifetime politician never talks about hard work, however.

Like a true socialist, Sanders doesn’t sacrifice much in his own life, however. The lifetime politician owns three homes—one of them is located on the prestigious shores of the Champlain Islands, in Vermont.

Immediately after Sanders agreed to endorse his opponent, Hillary Clinton, the Burlington resident plopped down nearly $600,000 for the lakefront home.

Sanders’ lakefront crib has four bedrooms and 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island — facing Vermont, not New York. The Bern will keep his home in Burlington and use the new camp seasonally.

Besides having an incredibly superior lifestyle to most Americans, the socialist Senator who just announced he’ll be taking another shot at becoming president in 2020, also has a reputation for being lazy.

According to Washington Free Beacon – in 1971, Bernie Sanders was asked to leave a hippie commune for “sitting around and talking” about politics instead of working, according to a forthcoming book.

We Are As Gods by Kate Daloz, scheduled for release April 26, chronicles the rise and fall of the Myrtle Hill Farm in northeast Vermont. Daloz, a Brooklyn writer, was in a special position to write a history of Myrtle Hill: she was raised near the commune in a geodesic dome residence with an outhouse called the Richard M. Nixon Memorial Hall. Her parents were close acquaintances of the commune residents, who offered them tips about wilderness living.

In 1971, when a young Bernie Sanders heard news of the first baby born at a recently established Vermont commune, he rushed over to interview the mother. In a simply designed outbuilding, with the help of the communards’ all-night chanting and a midwife, the woman had given birth to a daughter who claimed no father in particular but rather belonged to the commune as a whole. Kate Daloz’s fascinating, well-told exploration of the 1970s back-to-the-land movement, We Are As Gods, details the encounter, as Sanders gathered information for an article he was writing about home births: “As Loraine nursed Rahula in the Star House, he gently peppered her with questions in his thick Brooklyn accent. Loraine was happy to oblige. She liked Bernie and appreciated his thoughtful interest in her experience.” It was the beginning of a lifelong connection — over the next several decades, whenever the two would meet, Sanders would ask after her daughter. Other members, however, were not so welcoming of the future presidential candidate, put off by Sanders’ “penchant for sitting around and talking about ideas when there was so much work to be done.”

During labor, Loraine said she was surrounded by a circle of hippies chanting “a meditation mancha” that “seemed to really bring in good energy.” This group included “the couple of men who were potentially the baby’s father,” according to Deloz. When Rahula was delivered at dawn, “someone ran out into the field and blew a long blast on a hunting horn.” Loraine then ate her afterbirth, a detail that does not appear in the book, but that appeared in the second part of Sanders’ essay.

When not reporting on the miracle of life, Sanders spent his time at Myrtle Hill in “endless political discussion,” according to Deloz.

Sanders’ idle chatter did not endear him with some of the commune’s residents, who did the backbreaking labor of running the place. Daloz writes that one resident, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.”

Sanders was eventually asked to leave. “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on,” Daloz writes.

LifeNews.com

Published  3 days ago

It’s one of the most bizarre quotes ever and Chelsea Clinton just gave it legs.

Years ago, Chelsea Clinton made the strange comment that she was upset her maternal grandmother did not have access to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

As LifeNews reported at the time, Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.” If her grandmother had gone to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, Chelsea would not have been born.

In a new interview with Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen, Clinton re-upped the comment:

When I was on a panel recently with Cecile [Richards], I said how much I wish that my grandmother — my mom’s mom — had been able to go to a Planned Parenthood. She had unwed teenage parents who abandoned her multiple times throughout her life. She had to start working to support herself before her 14th birthday. She was aware that there was something deeply unjust about her situation, dealing with questions of menstruation and reproductive healthcare without somewhere to go.

Of course, when I shared this, the anti-choice movement translated it as saying I wished my grandmother had aborted my mother. Which is, of course, not what I said and not what I meant.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Although some pro-life people responded to Chelsea’s comment by saying she wanted her grandmother to have an abortion of her mother Hillary Clinton — that was not the reaction most people had. Most pro-life people were surprised Chelsea made the comment because her grandmother could have had an abortion.

After all, Planned Parenthood has the biggest abortion business in the United States and routinely kills more than 300,000 unborn babies and abortions. And when it comes to pregnant women, 95% of pregnant women who go to a Planned Parenthood get an abortion as opposed to giving birth or finalizing an adoption plan for their baby.

So the question remains. Why would Chelsea Clinton want her maternal grandmother to go to a Planned Parenthood abortion business when the likelihood is great that her grandmother’s intention for going would be to terminate her own mother’s life?

She brought it up merely to trash pro-lifers. Chelsea Clinton makes her rationale clear. Her only goal is demonizing pro-life Americans by engaging in juvenile name-calling, referring to pro-life people as anti-choice even though abortion denies each and every choice a baby would ever make.

“It was my first, and hardly my last, experience with the bad faith in which the anti-choice movement operates,” she said, adding, “I refuse to refer to the anti-choice movement as anything other than anti-choice.”

It’s not bad faith to accurate quote you Chelsea and to point out the obvious ramifications of your comments.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

As the slow-motion coup against Trump takes place, at its heart is the Deep State’s desire to protect Hillary Clinton.

Raw Story

Published  3 days ago

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is demanding that Fox News host Jeanine Pirro file financial reports from her failed 2006 campaign against then-incumbent Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The Center for Public Integrity’s Dave Levinthal was first to report on Wednesday that the FEC had sent a letter to Pirro suggesting that she had 24 hours to reply.

“It is important that you file this report immediately,” the letter stated. “The failure to timely file a complete report may result in civil money penalties, an audit or legal enforcement action.”

The commission went on to recommend that Pirro use an “overnight delivery or courier service” so that the report is not subject to further delays.

Levinthal noted that Pirro has not filed a report since 2011, when she acknowledged owing nearly $600,000 to 20 different vendors.

Read the FEC letter below.

The @FEC wants @JudgeJeanine's old U.S. Senate campaign to explain why it won't comply with federal law — something it hasn't done for years by not filing mandatory campaign finance reports. pic.twitter.com/TSHPCJHWGT

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) February 20, 2019

The last time @JudgeJeanine's campaign committee filed a mandatory @FEC report was the end of 2011.

At that time, it reported having 20 creditors owed a combined $589,194 in debt, including to @verizon and the @USPS. Also reported $19,458 cash on hand: https://t.co/ufdCbKkP5t pic.twitter.com/ZwaIpX9J13

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) February 20, 2019

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

The entry of Sen. Bernie Sanders and 11 other White House challengers has not changed the gambling odds on the expectation that President Trump will win re-election.

Medium

Published  3 days ago

Both CNN and the Washington Post are reporting that Robert Mueller’s investigation into a possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign…

Judicial Watch

Published  3 days ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign dominates the news, but behind the scenes another bombshell story is coming together piece by piece. Was the Clinton network knee-deep in Russians and did the FBI shut down an investigation that would have provided answers about Clinton collusion?

Judicial Watch is one of the few organizations in pursuit of the story. We filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department after it failed to respond to our request for “all communications” related to “the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation” in 2016. Last week, in a separate lawsuit, we uncovered evidence pointing to undisclosed documents related to controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe and potential charges against Mrs. Clinton. We sued for records of a meeting between a top FBI official and an attorney for a Clinton-connected law firm related to then-candidate Trump and Russia, a story first reported by Fox News. And we’ve taken a skeptical look at the appointment by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of U.S. Attorney John Huber to “evaluate certain issues” rising from the 2016 election.

One of those issues is the Uranium One controversy. Russia’s Rosatom atomic energy corporation in 2010 received U.S. permission, including a sign-off from Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company that owned significant American uranium assets. Was the Russian purchase of Uranium One connected to payments to the Clinton network and improper actions by Secretary of State Clinton?

Judicial Watch is lonely on the story but not alone. The Hill’s indefatigable John Solomon a year ago broke the news that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation. “The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state,” Solomon reported.

Earlier this month, Solomon was at it again. Revisiting an episode that has “escaped significant attention,” Solomon reports that there is “clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefitting Russia.”

The episode centers around the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a high-tech business center launched in Moscow in 2009. Five years later, as Skolkovo entities expanded in the U.S., the FBI issued an extraordinary public warning, saying that the Skolkovo connection “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies.”

Solomon notes that Secretary of State Clinton’s “handprint was everywhere” on the Skolkovo project, part of an attempt by the U.S. to reboot Russia relations. Leading the Russian side of the project was oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin-connected billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor. Firms connected to the oligarch donated at least $75,000 to the foundation. As the Skolkovo collaboration got underway, Solomon reminds us, Bill Clinton made his way to Moscow and was paid a jaw-dropping $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital.

Solomon reports that Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department to meet with Vekselberg and “Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom,” during the Moscow trip. This was at the time Rostom was “seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One.” The Washington Examiner notes that the Clintons’ “relationship to Vekselberg continued throughout Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department.”

Solomon adds additional details on possible Clinton collusion with the Russians—read his full report here. And Viktor Vekselberg certainly is a busy man, making a cameo in the Mueller probe and turning up in various other sketchy endeavors. Not everything in the Russia story comes up as collusion, cover-up or crime, but Solomon correctly notes that evidence related to Skolkovo, Rosatom and Uranium One “shows that the Clintons financially benefitted from Russia—personally and inside their charity—at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.”

Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Follow him on Twitter @micah_morrison. Tips: mmorrison@judicialwatch.org

Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: jfarrell@judicialwatch.org

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, in his new book, rails against President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, for her decisions and actions while the FBI investigated Hillary Clinton’s email server during the 2016 campaign, saying Lynch should have been recused from the probe and a special counsel should have been appointed instead.

McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that “the tarmac meeting was a horrible lapse in judgment by Loretta Lynch.”

Lynch came under fire in 2016 after an infamous tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against his wife for her handling of classified information on her private email server. Lynch, reacting to the criticism for meeting with Clinton while the FBI investigated his wife, has claimed she and Clinton only discussed “innocuous things.”

But McCabe said Lynch, after the outcry over the meeting, should have stepped away from the probe – which was code-named "Midyear Exam" by the FBI.

“She should have recused herself from Midyear at that point,” McCabe wrote. “She did not—she made things worse.”

McCabe suggested things would have turned out better had Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, both appointed by Obama, recused themselves even earlier from the case.

“It was a fatal choice. Had there been a competent, credible special counsel running Midyear Exam independently—the way Bob Mueller’s Russia investigation has been run – I think circumstances might have been very different, and we would not have been where we ended up in July,” McCabe said.

That's in apparent reference to when then-FBI Director James Comey came under heavy criticism during the campaign for his choice to make a public announcement explaining why Clinton was not being charged. He later explained he felt compelled to take the lead on the announcement because of the questions over Lynch’s credibility.

McCabe argued that for Lynch and Yates, “Recusal would have been a reasonable and, I would argue, better decision for those political appointees to have made." He added, "I don’t know why they didn’t do that.”

“Somehow, they saw the investigation of Hillary Clinton – former first lady and former secretary of state, current candidate for the presidency, likely nominee of the Democratic Party, who was being supported by the president of the United States, to whom they owed their jobs – as a case they could handle without prejudice,” McCabe wrote.

McCabe also said FBI agents mocked Lynch’s insistence to Comey to characterize the probe as a “matter” instead of an “investigation” – an apparent attempt to downplay the seriousness of it.

“This became a running joke whenever anyone at the FBI felt like Justice was dragging its feet,” McCabe wrote. He said agents would joke, “What have we become, the Federal Bureau of Matters?”

Still, McCabe said Comey was concerned about it.

“The matter of the ‘matter’ did have a serious effect on the director,” McCabe said. “It planted the question, Was the attorney general trying to minimize what we were doing? The question festered. He’d heard that the Clinton campaign was trying to avoid the word ‘investigation,’ too.”

Like Lynch, McCabe’s involvement in the Clinton case has also come under scrutiny. Trump himself has suggested McCabe was in the tank for the Clintons, drawing attention to how McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's super PAC while she ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015. McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally. McCabe did not recuse himself from the Clinton investigation until a week before the election.

MEGHAN MCCAIN STUNS ANDREW MCCABE ON 'THE VIEW,' ASKS IF HE WAS NEW YORK TIMES LEAKER

In the book, McCabe denied a conflict of interest, and dismisses the accusations as a “conspiracy theory.”

McCabe was eventually fired last year by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after an inspector general report said McCabe lied about leaking to reporters about the Clinton investigation. He defended himself, but declined to write much about that episode, citing legal reasons.

“As for my own firing and the ostensible reasons behind it, the demands and risks of an ongoing legal process put tight constraints on what I can say, although I would like to say much more,” McCabe said. “I am filing a suit that challenges my firing and the IG’s process and findings, and the unprecedented way DOJ handled my termination. I will let that action speak for itself.”

Sara A. Carter

Published  3 days ago

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker originally believed Hillary Clinton's mishandling of highly classified information was "alarming" and "appalling."

TheHill

Published  3 days ago

Ohr told Congress in testimony not yet public that he gave to the FBI information his wife assembled against Trump at Fusion GPS.

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Hillary Clinton took to Twitter on Monday to slam President Trump for declaring a national emergency along the United States southern border.

In her tweet, the former secretary of state said the “real national emergencies” were “Relentless gun violence. Children separated from their families at the border. Climate change” and “Americans dying for lack of health care.”

Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 presidential race, has been one of his harshest critics since his election. On Instagram on Monday, she appeared to troll Trump by posting a photo of the three living former Democratic presidents – Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and, her husband, Bill Clinton – as well former First Lady Michelle Obama alongside the message “Happy Presidents Day.”

TRUMP WILL SIGN BORDER SECURITY BILL, DECLARE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

Clinton’s national emergency tweet follows Trump declaring a national emergency Friday to shift billions of federal dollars earmarked for military construction to the border after lawmakers in both parties blocked his request for billions of dollars to fulfill his signature campaign pledge for a border wall.

Democrats are planning to introduce a resolution disapproving of the declaration once Congress returns to session and it is likely to pass both chambers. Several Republican senators are already indicating they would vote against Trump — though there do not yet appear to be enough votes to override a veto by the president.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller told "Fox News Sunday" that "the president is going to protect his national emergency declaration." Asked if that meant Trump was ready to veto a resolution of disapproval, Miller added, "He's going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed."

Miller insisted that Congress granted the president wide berth under the National Emergencies Act to take action. But Trump's declaration goes beyond previous emergencies in shifting money after Congress blocked his funding request for the wall, which will likely factor in legal challenges.

Trump aides acknowledge that Trump cannot meet his pledge to build the wall by the time voters decide whether to grant him another term next year, but insist his base will remain by his side as long as he is not perceived to have given up the fight on the barrier.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Conservative News Today

Published  3 days ago

An Ohio music store owner who was willing to risk his business by refusing to serve Trump “sympathizers” now says he made a mistake. The owner of Joe’s Music in Willoughby is feeling the heat after posting a sign declaring he would rather “starve and close the store” than take money from customers who support President Donald […]

POLITICO

Published  3 days ago

President Donald Trump has derided CNN as a leading purveyor of “fake news,” and now, a recently departed administration official is joining the network in a senior role.

Sarah Isgur, who served as the Justice Department’s leading spokeswoman under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is joining the network as a political editor next month, where she will coordinate political coverage for the 2020 campaign.

Isgur joined the administration in 2017 after overcoming resistance from the president, who balked at bringing on a political operative who had trashed him on the campaign trail. As deputy campaign manager for Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign, and in the months after Fiorina bowed out of the race, Isgur repeatedly laced into Trump.

“Saying you will criminally prosecute your political opponent when you win is a scary and dangerous threat,” she wrote on Twitter in October of 2016, in reference to Trump’s repeated threats to jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Isgur, who did not respond to a request for comment on this story, was equally critical of Clinton during the campaign.

While it is common for departing administration officials to join cable news networks as analysts or contributors, it is less common for them to oversee news coverage. Isgur has no experience in news but a long history as a political operative, most recently with the Trump administration and the Fiorina campaign. Before that, she worked for the Republican National Committee and on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, according to her LinkedIn profile. She began working with Sessions before his confirmation hearing, guiding him through the process and preparing with him in mock hearings.

At CNN, Isgur will not play a role in covering the Department of Justice, according to a CNN official, who also said she will occasionally appear on air analyzing politics.

After Sessions recused himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe in March 2017, causing an irreparable rupture in his relationship with the president, Isgur took on an awkward role inside the administration. She served not only Sessions’ public defender in the face of news reports that the president was routinely deriding him, but also as the spokeswoman for Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein, who assumed ownership of the Mueller probe and has had a similarly tense relationship with the commander in chief.

Isgur’s discussions with the network have sparked a whisper campaign among Trump supporters in and out of the government who are arguing — with no evidence — that she was the source of damaging leaks against the administration.

The president’s latest clash with CNN came on Friday when he dismissed a question from CNN’s chief political correspondent, Jim Acosta, calling it “a very political question.”

“You have an agenda, you’re fake news, you have an agenda,” Trump said.

Disclosure: Eliana Johnson is a political analyst at CNN.

realclearpolitics

Published  3 days ago

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

Read Full Article »

Show comments

NaturalNews.com

Published  4 days ago

(Natural News) On Thursday reports noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired last year on the recommendation of the Justice Department inspector general’s office for lying to officials, revealed in interviews that he one of the ringleaders involved in an attempted coup against POTUS Donald Trump.

To be clear, McCabe didn’t come out and say, “Hey, we tried to oust a duly elected president and have our ‘preferred’ candidate installed,” but given actions he has admitted to and deeds he claims to have done or orchestrated, it’s obvious a coup is precisely what he was attempting.

According to excerpts of an upcoming “60 Minutes” interview, McCabe not only said he ordered the ‘obstruction of justice’ probe into POTUS Donald Trump, allegedly because he was “concerned” about ‘Russian collusion,’ but he also admitted that he was involved in “discussions” with the Justice Department to “remove” our duly elected president under terms outlined in the 25th Amendment after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey over his pathetic handling of the Hillary Clinton classified email probe.

In order to convince Cabinet members that POTUS Trump was ‘unfit’ to serve, McCabe and others, specifically Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, conspired to entrap the president by sending Rosenstein to see him while wearing a wire. The objective was to get the president to say something outrageous and unhinged, or something that could be spun that way, and use it to trigger his removal under the Constitution.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley said Thursday on CBS; Pelley interviewed McCabe for the “60 Minutes” segment.

Rosenstein and the Justice Department are, of course, denying McCabe’s account, but the former FBI official has not only insisted that the wire idea was actively and seriously discussed, but he also claims Rosenstein brought it up repeatedly.

“Either McCabe is fabricating everything in his book and, thus, will need to reimburse his publisher — or he’s being honest, which means he just laid out a case for being charged with” sedition, at a minimum, The National Sentinel suggested.

Let’s remember Obama was smack-dab in the middle of this

McCabe also told 60 Minutes that he was responsible for ordering the “counterintelligence investigation” against the president after Trump fired Comey (on the recommendation of Rosenstein — which now smells suspiciously like a set-up from the get-go) because he was allegedly “concerned” about Russian influence. This is the same line of reasoning that led Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller, a long-time friend and ally of Comey, as special counsel to investigate “Trump-Russia collusion.”

All of this came after the FBI under Comey launched a probe against Team Trump 2016 based on allegations contained in the now-infamous “Russia dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who relied on Russian sources. The dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Comey knew all along it was garbage — a prop used to justify FISA court surveillance warrants against Team Trump advisor Carter Page. The FBI knew it too.

And let’s never forget that this attempted coup began under the administration of one Barack Hussein Obama, who was well aware it was taking place and, according to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, ordered it. (Related: It’s time for the American people to declare our own national emergency and remove destructive Dems from power.)

There are a number of figures — McCabe, Clapper, Comey just for starters — who took an active role in attempting to pull off a coup against a president who was chosen lawfully and constitutionally. It’s patently obvious now. A ringleader has arrogantly admitted it.

If newly appointed Attorney General William Barr doesn’t prosecute McCabe and those involved in the coup attempt, the Deep State will try this again with the next president they don’t ‘approve’ of.

And maybe next time they’ll be successful.

Read more about the Deep State’s corruption at Corruption.news.

Sources include:

Raw Story

Published  4 days ago

Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone on Monday attacked the federal judge presiding over his criminal case in the special counsel’s Russia probe.

In an Instagram post, Stone lashed out at U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again Hillary Clinton [sic] and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime,” he wrote. Stone then asked for donations.

The Guardian’s Jon Swaine noted that the picture Stone posted on Instagram placed crosshairs next to Jackson’s head.

Last week, Jackson prohibited Stone from commenting on the case near the Washington, D.C., courthouse. But he remains otherwise free to discuss his situation. However, Jackson has warned that she could amend the limited gag order in the future if necessary.

“This is completely out of bounds. The cross hairs will likely lead prosecutors to ask for revocation of his pre-trial release. At best, this is a cheap stunt designed to get the judge to recuse, at worst, an outright threat,” former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance said.

Stone later deleted the photo, and re-posted it on Instagram after cropping the crosshairs out of the image. He then deleted that photo as well.

(Note: This article was updated after Roger Stone deleted his original Instagram post.)

The Daily Beast

Published  4 days ago

Friends of Timothy Dean, the second black gay man to die inside the powerful Democratic donor's home, say he had warned them away from Ed Buck.

The Federalist

Published  4 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

MintPress News

Published  4 days ago

Pierre Omidyar has become a politically sophisticated data monarch through his purchase of a media empire and national security state ties.

Breitbart

Published  4 days ago

#RedforEd threatens to tilt political balance nationwide in the direction of Democrats across the country. | 2020

Conservative News Today

Published  4 days ago

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs is furious that Republicans aren’t demanding the arrest of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe after he admitted in a shocking “60 Minutes” interview that he had plotted to overthrow President Trump. “Why is the establishment in Washington D.C. not screaming for the arrest of Andrew McCabe and all of his […]

vpr

Published  4 days ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders has confirmed to VPR that he is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

American Greatness

Published  4 days ago

Autopsy of a Dead Coup

02/18 12:16 am

Post by @theamgreatness.

BrexitCentral

Published  4 days ago

The BBC’s blatant pro-EU partisanship in the Brexit domain is in clear breach of its Charter, and has reached crisis proportions. Could its influence be a factor in sabotaging the prospect of implem

Conservative News Today

Published  5 days ago

Chris White, DCNF

California Rep. Adam Schiff said Sunday morning that there is plenty of evidence suggesting the Trump campaign and Russia colluded to tilt the 2016 presidency away from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion — pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Now there’s a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt,” the Democrat noted before turning his attention to Republican North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr.

“Chairman Burr must have a different word for it because when you look, for example, at a meeting in Trump Tower, it was offered to the Trump campaign to the president’s own son dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what was described as the Russian government’s effort to help Donald Trump in the campaign,” he said.

Schiff, who is heading the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling, was referring to Burr’s admission that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been unable to find any evidence that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia.

Burr’s panel has conducted more than 200 interviews and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents as part of an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Burr told CBS News on Feb. 7.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BizPac Review.

Mediaite

Published  5 days ago

In light of new details in the investigation of the alleged assault on actor Jussie Smollett, fingers have been pointed at “the media” for jumping the gun on the story.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  5 days ago

Disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner has been released from prison and placed in a residential re-entry facility. He had been sentenced to 21 months in prison for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor.

Weiner had been sending graphic and sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old North Carolina girl in 2017.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has Weiner listed as being in the custody of a Residential Re-entry Management office in Brooklyn, New York, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The investigation into his chats with the girl led to a laptop being seized from the home Weiner shared with his wife Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton. Two weeks before the election, FBI Director James Comey announced that emails related to the candidate’s private email server may have been found on a laptop used by both Weiner and Abedin, prompting the agency to reopen their probe into the scandal.

In 2011, Weiner tweeted a photo of his crotch, which lead to his resignation from Congress.

During his run for mayor of New York, Weiner’s weiner made headlines once again after porn star Sydney Leathers went to the media with their explicit chats.

During the 2016 election season, the New York Post obtained new graphic chats between Weiner and a “busty brunette,” including a photo of his crotch — taken with his five-year-old son sleeping in the bed in the background.

Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin has worked closely with Clinton since the 1990s, during Bill Clinton’s presidency. She has been a top aide to the former First Lady ever since.

Weiner’s sexual scandals were chronicled in a now-popular documentary called Weiner, in which Abedin’s contempt for him was impossible to miss.

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

There is another person besides President Trump who stands to greatly benefit from the stunning array of socialists, race-baiters, and cranks who will comprise a Democratic party field that promises to have more clowns than a small circus.

That beneficiary of her own party’s radicalism and ineptitude would be Hillary Clinton who continues to leave open the possibility that she is itching for a rematch with Trump and would immediately become the frontrunner if she decides to jump into the race.

Mrs. Clinton has never gotten over the humiliation of being rejected by voters in 2016, a loss that nobody saw coming – especially her – and has frequently conducted herself like the leader of a government in exile ever since her bitter concession to the billionaire outsider who pulled off the upset.

SURVEY: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

Even though her former campaign manager – the creepy John Podesta – has denied that she intends to launch another White House bid, Hillary herself has never closed the door.

Once again, she left the possibility dangling that she would declare her candidacy when asked during the memorial services for recently deceased longtime Democrat John Dingle, the penultimate career politician who spent six decades as a member of the House Of Representatives.

Via The Daily Caller, “Hillary Refuses To Answer Question On 2020 Run”:

Hillary Clinton refused to answer questions from reporters Friday about whether she plans to run for president in 2020.

Clinton was attending the funeral for former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Dingell, who passed away Feb. 7. Video shows reporters asking Clinton about Dingell’s legacy before moving on to the topic of her long-rumored 2020 run.

“Secretary Clinton, one other question for you about 2020,” the reporter says, to which Clinton laughs. “Are you — what do you think of the candidates? Are you happy?”

The second reporter then interjects, asking, “Are you going to run?”

Clinton puts off the question, saying, “We’ve got — we’ve got to think about John Dingell and his legacy.”

Clinton has cultivated mystery around her possible candidacy since 2018. Clinton associate Mark Penn published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in November 2018 claiming Clinton would almost certainly run again.

“Do not underestimate Hillary’s positioning to run again,” Penn said on Fox News days after publishing the op-ed. “Clintons never stop until they get where they want to go.”

Ironically, another Clinton campaign may be the only thing that could prevent the party from going totally socialist because if there is anyone who has the backbone to stand up to Ocasio-Cortez and her Twitter mob it would be Hillary

She would crush AOC like an annoying gnat and then proceed to chew up and spit out the rest of the dismal field of wannabes and amateurs who would be dispensed in short order. The carnage would be horrific and the damage would be lasting.

No matter what one may think about Hillary and the reign of terror that would be launched if she ever did win the presidency, she is a force of nature and nothing would be left standing after the primaries if she decides to launch her revenge tour.

The greatest show on earth may be about to get even more entertaining and hell hath no fury like this particular woman scorned.

Just imagine the steel cage death match that Trump-Clinton II would be.

AOL.com

Published  5 days ago

Unable to play video. HTML5 is not supported!

House intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) insisted Sunday there is no question that evidence points to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluding with Russia, despite what his Republican counterparts in the Senate say.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” the congressman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” However, he noted, “there’s a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Earlier this month, Senate intelligence committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told CBS News his panel had discovered nothing to indicate collusion had occurred, though Schiff has stood firmly against that conclusion.

Schiff cited the 2016 Trump Tower meeting in which Donald Trump Jr. was promised dirt from Russians on then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, as well as Trump’s soon-to-be national security adviser Michael Flynn discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition.

“All of this is evidence of collusion, and you either have to look the other way to say it isn’t or you have to have a different word for it, because it is a corrupt dealing with a foreign adversary during a campaign,” Schiff added. “But again, it will be up to [special counsel Robert] Mueller to determine whether that amounts to criminal conspiracy.”

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

More from HuffPost US:

Japan's leader nominated Trump for Nobel Prize at Washington’s urging: Report

Ann Coulter slams back at Trump: The only emergency is our 'idiot' president

Jim Acosta spars with Trump over national emergency: ‘I believe in facts’

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

Former President Barack Obama has been working behind the scenes and met with four top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

While he has not commented publicly on the field of candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination, a new report from The New York Times states that Obama has been privately speaking with some of the leading contenders on how to defeat President Donald Trump.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

The Times reports that Obama-era advisers have been holding “auditions” with presidential hopefuls like “Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Sherrod Brown” about how they are planning to run their 2020 campaigns.

The former president is apparently using his advisers to serve as third-party interviewers, meaning they meet with a candidate and then report back to Obama.

Obama reportedly plans to sit back and “let the primary unfold as a contest of ideas” before making any official endorsements.

As noted by The Daily Wire, that doesn’t mean Obama will stay on the sidelines during the Democratic primaries, which will kick off in a few months.

Like failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, Obama has been taking audiences with prospective nominees and giving them advice on how to handle a national campaign. So far, he’s believed to have spoken to Harris, Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and some more unfamiliar potential candidates, like his former Attorney General, Eric Holder, who says he’s waiting until later in the process to decide whether to toss his hat into the ring.

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke admitted to Oprah, in his landmark interview with the daytime talk queen, that he’d pursued Obama’s advice in a sit down last year.

“During these informal conversations, usually at his office in Washington, Mr. Obama has offered a combination of supportive advice and sober warnings, cautioning candidates that running for president is a more punishing process than they could ever imagine, according to seven people who have spoken with him directly or were briefed in detail on the meetings,” the Times reports.

He’s mostly concerned, some sources told the Times, that candidates be ready and willing to “push back” on Donald Trump’s economic rhetoric, which Obama’s friends refer to as “bleak.” He’s still surprised, they say, that Trump won with a message of turning back the clock on Obama’s agenda, and doesn’t really understand how such an anti-Obama message resonated with Americans.

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

Obama’s current close aides admitted to the Times that the former president will speak to any 2020 Democratic contender who comes seeking his advice.

Wow, how arrogant!

While Obama certainly could help a candidate draw bigger crowds and get more attention on their campaigns, the former president is likely still reeling from his defeats in the 2019 midterm elections.

Obama campaigned with and fought hard for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum — both of which suffered bitter defeats.

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

Former President Barack Obama's daughter, Malia Obama, haS a secret Facebook page where she described President Trump as "evil" and exchanged messages with Former Vice President Joe Biden's granddaughter, Finnegan Biden. It appears that the Facebook

Mail Online

Published  5 days ago

Disgraced former New York congressman Anthony Weiner, 54, has been transferred from prison in preparation for his release from jail in May.

Raw Story

Published  5 days ago

Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky has a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a “bad mistake.”

On both moral and practical levels, Chomsky told Al Jazeera‘s Medhi Hasan, the choice was clear.

“Do you vote against the greater evil if you don’t happen to like the other candidate?” asked Chomsky, who spoke out during the election against Trump’s candidacy—and in fact predicted his rise six years ago. “The answer to that is yes.”

With an argument similar to the one made by political scientist Adolph Reed prior to the election, Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton’s serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat.

“I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of,” the professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told Hasan. Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary.

Chomsky also objected to philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s post-election argument that Trump’s victory would “shake up” status quo. “Terrible point,” Chomsky said of Zizek’s take. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early 30s.”

“He’ll ‘shake up the system’ in bad ways,” Chomsky said of the president-elect. “What it means is now the left—if Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights…gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. That’s completely regressive.”

Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: “The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.”

The GOP “is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.”

the Guardian

Published  5 days ago

A director of the controversial data company Cambridge Analytica, who appeared with Arron Banks at the launch of the Leave.EU campaign, has been subpoenaed by the US investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

A spokesman for Brittany Kaiser, former business development director for Cambridge Analytica – which collapsed after the Observer revealed details of its misuse of Facebook data – confirmed that she had been subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller, and was cooperating fully with his investigation.

He added that she was assisting other US congressional and legal investigations into the company’s activities and had voluntarily turned over documents and data.

Kaiser, who gave evidence to the UK parliament last April in which she claimed Cambridge Analytica had carried out in-depth work for Leave.EU, is the second individual connected to the firm subpoenaed by the special counsel. The Electoral Commission has said its investigation into Leave.EU found no evidence that the campaign “received donations or paid for services from Cambridge Analytica …beyond initial scoping work”.

Damian Collins, chairman of parliament’s inquiry into fake news, said it was “no surprise” that Kaiser was under scrutiny by Mueller because “her work connected her to WikiLeaks, Cambridge Analytica and [its parent company] SCL, the Trump campaign, Leave.EU and Arron Banks”.

He said it was now vital Britain had its own inquiry into foreign interference: “We should not be leaving this to the Americans.”

Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour party, echoed Collins’s statement, saying: “This is the first evidence that a significant player in the Leave.EU campaign is of interested to the global Mueller inquiry. People will be bewildered that the British government has no interest in establishing the facts of what happened.”

In August, Sam Patten, a US political consultant who had worked for Cambridge Analytica on campaigns in the US and abroad, struck a plea deal with Mueller after admitting he had failed to register as a foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.

He became a subject of the special counsel’s inquiry because of work done with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, in Ukraine. He had also set up a business with Konstantin Kilimnik, a key figure who Mueller has alleged has ties to Russian intelligence and who is facing charges of obstruction of justice. In a 2017 statement to the Washington Post, Kilimnik denied any connection to intelligence services. Kaiser, however, is the first person connected directly to both the Brexit and Trump campaigns known to have been questioned by Mueller.

The news came to light in a new Netflix documentary, The Great Hack, which premiered at the Sundance film festival last month and is expected to be released later this spring. Film-makers followed Kaiser for months after she approached the Guardian, including moments after she received the subpoena. She claims the summons came after the Guardian revealed she had visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while still a Cambridge Analytica employee in February 2017, three months after the US election.

One part of Mueller’s investigation focuses on whether the Trump campaign sought to influence the timing of the release of emails by WikiLeaks before the election. Investigators are looking at communications between them. In the film, Kaiser says that she has gone from being a cooperating witness to a subject of investigation because of her contact with Assange.

In October 2017, it was revealed that Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, had contacted Assange in August 2016 to try to obtain emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – which indictments from Mueller’s team say were obtained by Russian military intelligence – to use in Donald Trump’s campaign. When Kaiser gave evidence to parliament last year, she was asked about her relationship with Assange and WikiLeaks but failed to reveal that she had met Assange.

In the documentary, Kaiser is shown after receiving an email from the Guardian last June asking about meeting Assange and alleged donations of cryptocurrency to WikiLeaks. Kaiser did not respond to the email at the time, but on camera says: “She knows I met Assange. And she knows I donated money to WikiLeaks in bitcoin.”

Her legal representatives later wrote to the paper to say that the allegations, including that she had “channelled” donations to WikiLeaks, were false. Kaiser said she had received a small gift of bitcoin in 2011 – long before she worked at Cambridge Analytica – and, not knowing what else to do with it, gave it to WikiLeaks, because she had benefited from material it had released over the years.

Her lawyer told the Observer that the meeting with Assange came about after a chance encounter in London with an acquaintance who knew him. It lasted 20 minutes and consisted mainly of Assange telling her “about how he saw the world”. He said they did not discuss the US election.

Patten and Kaiser were involved in a controversial election campaign in Nigeria in January 2015, which former Cambridge Analytica employees say had “unsettling” parallels to the US presidential election.

The Guardian revealed that the data firm had worked alongside a team of unidentified Israeli intelligence operatives on the campaign. Ex-Cambridge Analytica employees described how the Israelis hacked the now-president of Nigeria’s emails and released damaging information about him to the press weeks before the election.

American Greatness

Published  5 days ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

TMZ

Published  6 days ago

Anthony Weiner is no longer behind bars, but the disgraced ex-U.S. Congressman still has a few months in federal custody before he's freed ... still earlier than originally expected.

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... Weiner's been transferred out of a Massachusetts prison and into the custody of a Bureau of Prisons residential re-entry center in New York. We're told he's either in a halfway house or home confinement.

Weiner's now in pre-release status, which inmates often get as they approach the end of their federal sentence. The purpose is to prepare them to transition back into society.

As we reported ... Weiner started serving his 21-month prison sentence in November 2017 after pleading guilty to sexting with a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. He was slated to get out August, 2019, but good behavior slashed the sentence 3 months to May 14.

We're told that is still his scheduled release date.

Weiner resigned from Congress after his first sexting scandal in 2011. He ran for NYC mayor but that bid was derailed in 2013 when he was found sexting Sydney Leathers under the infamous alias, "Carlos Danger."

The convicted sex offender saw his marriage fall apart the third time around. Huma Abedin filed for divorce just hours after Weiner struck a plea deal in the latest sexting scandal. Making matters worse ... Huma was a top aide to then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton when federal investigators found hundreds of thousands of Clinton's emails in Weiner's laptop ... forever changing the course of the 2016 Presidential election.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

Corrupt Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson may jail Roger Stone over an Instagram post he published this week.

On Tuesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Roger Stone to appear in court this week to explain his since-deleted Instagram post where he slammed the judge assigned to his case.

The Judge said Roger Stone needs to show cause at a hearing as to why his Instagram post did not violate a limited gag order on the case, reported Reuters.

Roger Stone shared an image of Judge Amy Berman Jackson with a neo-pagan symbol in the background — and the media immediately erupted and claimed Roger Stone was “sending a message” to the judge by placing “crosshairs” behind her head. (screenshot below)

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime,” Stone wrote in the caption.

Roger Stone later “humbly” apologized for sharing the image on his Instagram page.

“A photo of Judge Jackson posted on my Instagram has been misinterpreted. This was a random photo taken from the Internet. Any inference that this was meant to somehow disrespect the Court is categorically false. What some say are crosshairs are in fact the logo of the organization that originally posted it something called corruption central. They use the logo in many photos.” Stone said in a statement to ABC News.

dailycaller

Published  6 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued in the past that the government should not support groups that advocate for or perform abortions, but her position, along with those of a large cohort of Democrats, has changed dramatically.

“No funds could go to organizations that in the course of family planning advocate, promote or perform abortions,” Pelosi said on the House floor Oct. 7, 1997 in support of a “Global Gag Rule,” also known as the Mexico City Policy, mandating that overseas organizations receiving U.S. aid do not promote abortion.

Now Pelosi calls a ban on late-term abortions a sad event. “It’s really quite a sad thing when you know that we’ll be talking about something that applies to the health and life, health and ability to have other children of women,” she told The Daily Caller Feb. 6.

A number of Democrats in 2019 have lauded late-term abortion as a women’s prerogative and introduced measures aimed at permitting women to have abortions until birth.

Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam made remarks in January appearing to condone infanticide and late-term abortion. His comments centered around Virginia Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran‘s proposal, HB 2491, which would repeal the state’s current restrictions on late-term abortions and allow a woman to abort her baby even while dilating.

New York passed the Reproductive Health Act Jan. 22 codifying a woman’s right to abort under state law and allowing women to have abortions after 24 weeks to preserve the mother’s mental health. Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Mexico are also considering similar bills expanding abortion access.

Merely a decade ago, Democrats held a very different stance on abortion. “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise,” former President Barack Obama said at a presidential debate in New York on Oct. 15, 2008. (RELATED: Capitol Hill Democrats Respond To Late-Term Abortion Debate Within Party)

“We can support a woman’s right to choose that makes abortion safe, legal, and rare, and reduces the number of abortions,” former Democratic presidential nominee and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said July 25, 2005 in an address to the Democratic Leadership Council.

“Washington Democrats embrace of partial birth abortion puts them well outside the mainstream, and it is another sign of the Democrat Party’s drastic move to the radical left,” Republican National Committee spokesman Steve Guest told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email Friday.

Seventy-five percent of Americans support significant abortion restrictions and say abortion should not be legal after a woman is three months pregnant, according to a Jan. 15 Marist poll.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Breitbart

Published  6 days ago

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Conservative News Today

Published  6 days ago

Chuck Ross, DCNF

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe claimed in an interview that aired Sunday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was “absolutely serious” about wearing a wire during White House meetings with President Donald Trump.

“The deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House,” McCabe said in an interview with “60 Minutes.”

“Now, he was not joking. He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had,” added McCabe.

McCabe, who was fired on March 16, 2018, also claimed Rosenstein expressed confidence he could successfully record Trump at the White House.

“I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there,” McCabe quoted Rosenstein as saying.

McCabe’s remarks are in line with reports about what the former FBI official wrote in memos following his meetings with Rosenstein and other Justice Department officials. The New York Times first reported McCabe’s claims on Sept. 21, 2018, though McCabe’s “60 Minutes” interview is the first time he’s confirmed the matter on the record. Other FBI officials have told Congress that McCabe discussed Rosenstein’s remarks with them.

Rosenstein and the Justice Department have disputed McCabe’s claims. Unnamed Justice Department officials have told reporters that Rosenstein was joking about wearing a wire. The Justice Department called McCabe’s claims “inaccurate and factually incorrect,” in a statement to “60 Minutes.” The agency also claimed the “deputy attorney general never authorized any recording [of the president].”

McCabe said that Rosenstein brought up the idea of wearing a wire during a discussion about whether Trump was thinking about the Russia investigation when he decided to fire former FBI Director James Comey.

Rosenstein helped Trump in that effort by writing a memo recommending Comey’s ouster over his handling of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.

McCabe claimed he did not consider taking Rosenstein up on his offer to surveil Trump.

“I never actually considered taking him up on the offer. I did discuss it with my general counsel and my leadership team back at the FBI after he brought it up the first time,” he said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BizPac Review.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

The Democratic presidential candidates are, with only a few exceptions, shunning the 'moderate' label as they court the party base.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

On Fox Nation's "The Russia Hoax," Gregg Jarrett and his guests questioned why former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe hasn't been indicted.

Hosted by Jarrett, "The Russia Hoax" is an in-depth discussion based on the Fox News legal analyst’s best-selling book about the “illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.

The first two episodes are available on-demand on Fox Nation, a subscription-based streaming service for Fox News superfans.

Jarrett argued there was a "cabal of corruption" at the FBI under former Director James Comey, noting that numerous anti-Trump officials involved in the Russia investigation either quit or were fired, including lovers Peters Strzok and Lisa Page, James Baker, James Rybicki and McCabe.

Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell agreed and said what is really appalling is that none of those individuals have faced legal consequences.

"McCabe's still under investigation. Where's the indictment? The inspector general found three counts of lying under oath, and there's been no indictment," Powell said.

McCabe was fired from the FBI in March 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after it was determined he lied to investigators about a leak.

Doug Burns, also a former federal prosecutor, said the lack of attention given to McCabe's misconduct just highlights the "double standard and the hypocrisy" of the left and the mainstream media.

"He can lie three times, at least, that we know about. And that's just passed as though it's nothing," Burns said. "And then, in the Mueller probe, somebody lies [under oath], and it's like World War 8."

Watch a clip above, and see all of "The Russia Hoax" and much more on Fox Nation!

'It Is Simply Not There': GOP Sen. Risch Says There's Still No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion

Fox Nation is a subscription streaming service offering daily shows, documentaries, & on-demand video content that you can not watch anywhere else. Watch from your computer, tablet, phone, and select TV devices.

Crooks and Liars

Published  6 days ago

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy did his best to undermine the new Democratic House Intelligence Chairman during an appearance on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.

Time

Published  6 days ago

From the 6-year-old millionaire to the style icon who isn't actually real

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who is planning unmerited and aggressive partisan investigations of President Trump, has plenty of questions he should be answering about his own activities.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

Posting on his popular Facebook page, Stone Cold Truth, longtime Trump advisor and NYT bestselling author Roger Stone has promised to call lead Russian Collusion Delusion proponent Adam Schiff to the stand in his upcoming trial.

Stone has railed against members of Congress for using their congressional immunity to leak and lie in relation to the Mueller probe or parallel Senate and House investigations. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and fellow California Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell have been two of the biggest leakers and liars on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. They have both used their positions repeatedly to snipe at Stone with unfounded statements or leaked out-of-context half-truths to mainstream media reporters in an effort to turn the American public against Mr. Stone and President Donald Trump.

Schiff was recently exposed for having a secret meeting with Fusion GPS Founder Glenn Simpson, who authored the now debunked “dossier” on Trump, which reads more like Resistance fan fiction than a serious investigative report with actual evidence.

Getting people like Adam Schiff, and hopefully others like Eric Swalwell on the stand would require them to be truthful about their targeted misinformation campaign against the President of the United States and high-profile allies who helped him defeat their handpicked puppet Hillary Clinton.

While they are able to hide behind congressional immunity to grandstand on cable news and in committee hearings, there will be no room for such games in an actual court of law. If you want to see hypocrites and Russia hoaxers like Schiff held accountable for their crimes against American democracy, donate to Roger Stone’s legal defense fund and lets place them under oath!

The Federalist

Published  6 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

National Review

Published  1 week ago

Those peddling the “Putin hacked the election” story have always lacked credible evidence that Trump was complicit in the Kremlin’s “cyber-espionage.”

Truth And Action

Published  1 week ago

Journalist Matt Stiller shared in a recent report that during the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton was unhinged, and that various NBC insiders can substantiate his account.

According to Still, during last year’s presidential campaign at the Commander-In-Chief Forum on September 7, 2016, moderator Matt Lauer went “off script” and asked Hillary about her using an illegal, private email-server when she was secretary of state.

According to Bill Still’s source — an unnamed “NBC associate producer of the forum” — Hillary was so enraged that, after the forum, she went into a ballistic melt-down, screaming at her staff, including a racist rant at Donna Brazile, calling Brazile a “buffalo” and “janitor”. Brazile recently turned against Hillary — now we know why.

This is what the NBC insider had to say. Scroll down to view the video!

“Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of the assistant, and the screaming started.

She was in a full meltdown and no one on her staff dared speak with her — she went kind of manic and did not have any control over herself at that point. How these people work with this woman is amazing to me. She really didn’t seem to care who heard any of it.

You really had to see this to believe it. She came apart — literally unglued. She is the most foul-mouthed woman I’ve ever heard. And that voice at screech level — awful!

She screamed she’d get that fucking Lauer fired for this. Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said, ‘If that fucking bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished, and if I lose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.’

Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably as she screamed to get an executive at Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, on the phone. Then two rather large aides grabbed her and helped her walk to her car.”

And she wonders why she lost…

Here is the video!

Source: Fellowship of the Minds

Image: Sparta Report

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

How far left has the Democratic Party shifted? Here's one answer: A violent antifa leader, recently charged with assaulting two Marines on the street in Philadelphia, had been working with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Democratic members of Congress to implement regulations on consumers and small businesses.

On Nov. 17, two U.S. Marines were attacked in Philadelphia by a group of antifa activists. One of those recently charged in the attack with aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation, and terroristic threats was Joseph Alcoff. Alcoff also ran Smash Racism D.C., the organization that laid siege to the home of Tucker Carlson and chased Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife out of a restaurant where they were dining.

On social media, Alcoff, using an alias, has called for the overthrow of capitalism and the institution of communism in the United States.

Meanwhile, as campaign manager at a liberal “consumer advocacy” group called Americans for Financial Reform, or AFR, Alcoff reportedly helped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, draft financial regulations which have had a harmful effect on consumers and small businesses. In fact, he sat in on three meetings with former CFPB Director Richard Cordray to discuss rule-making.

Alcoff’s past work has also been praised by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. He has also appeared with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and with House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

It's deeply disturbing to learn that a radical individual who promoted anarchy and allegedly committed physical violence was able to help shape sweeping financial policy and regulation impacting millions of Americans. But that's just one symptom of a much deeper problem that is the Democratic Party's radicalization.

The 2020 election is just around the corner, and the leading Democrats’ plans to defeat President Trump are just warmed over socialism with an attitude. It's a grab bag of "big government" fantasies, featuring job-crushing financial regulations and a confiscatory tax regime. Add to that violence and intimidation, and you have a toxic cocktail of economic depression, class resentment, and unbridled rage.

For his part, Trump is making the Democrats own the failures of socialism. In his recent State of the Union address, Trump delivered words that were both a warning and a call to action. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” he said. “America was founded on liberty and independence, not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

These words should hearten all lovers of liberty and free enterprise in America, especially since socialist and other radical policy proposals are being proposed more frequently by the Democratic Party’s radical left wing than ever before.

New and emerging Democratic leaders, such as freshmen Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., are openly embracing the label of “socialist.” This past fall, Politico ran a symposium with left-wing figures titled, “What Would a Socialist America Look Like?” The Guardian has covered the surge in support for socialism among young Americans. And upon the emergence of Sen. Bernie Sanders. I-Vt., as a popular alternative to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary ahead of 2016, the progressive magazine The Nation declared: “Socialism in America is closer than you think.”

In response to President Trump’s warning, Ocasio-Cortez took to MSNBC to accuse the president of an “ad hominem” — no, the term doesn't fit — attack on socialism, and defended the socialist economics of Venezuela by claiming that the conflict there is really “an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy.”

Now, Ocasio-Cortez has introduced her “Green New Deal,” which would eliminate cars, air travel, and nuclear power, among other things. Even liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a “green dream.” Regardless, it seems that Ocasio-Cortez intends to create socialism even if it means putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

As out of step as these ideas might seem, it's not enough just to mock them. We must not only educate our fellow Americans on the benefits of capitalism and free enterprise, but more importantly work to ensure that those who promote intimidation and violence are exposed and brought to justice. Additionally, those who associate with these kinds of individuals in any way must be held accountable.

As President Trump said just last week: “We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls.”

Ken Blackwell, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, is a member of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's board, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, and Ohio's former secretary of state.

Live Action News

Published  1 week ago

Abortion supporters falsely claim late-term abortions — especially those done in the third trimester — aren’t done on healthy babies. Abortionists, however, tell a different story. Late-term New Mexico abortionist Susan Robinson has admitted that not all women are seeking such late abortions for reasons of maternal health or fetal indication. She said: Women whose fetuses […]

Big League Politics

Published  1 week ago

Maricopa County Police have released police body camera footage that shows an 18 year old Muslim man lunging toward a sergeant with a knife. On January 7, 2019 Sgt. Brandon Wells shot Ismail Hamed, who was charged with aggravated assault and terrorism, where he approached the sergeant outside of a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office substation. […]

house

Published  1 week ago

As the Senate Intelligence Committee nears the end of its years-long investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia, NBC News reported Tuesday that after interviewing over 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewing over 300,000 documents, the committee has “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

The Senate’s findings are consistent with its House Intelligence Committee counterpart, whose members announced last year that they too found no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Undeterred by these bicameral and bipartisan findings, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and other House Democrats are planning to aggressively expand their probe of the president in an investigation that is sure to, according to Axios, “include multiple committees and dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.”

Before the Chairman commits to such a partisan agenda, this is an appropriate time to discuss a recently-surfaced issue involving Chairman Schiff and a witness of an open congressional investigation.

Chairman Schiff stated in March of 2017, he had evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that his “evidence” was more than circumstantial but not quite direct. To date Chairman Schiff has produced no evidence to support that claim.

In addition, The Hill reported last week on a meeting between Chairman Schiff and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson in July of 2018 at the Aspen Security Forum.

Recall that Mr. Simpson has been one of the most controversial subjects in the Russian collusion investigation and was a key witness in the House’s probe. In fact, Mr. Simpson appeared and gave sworn testimony before Chairman Schiff and the rest of HPSCI in November 2017 on the subject of how FBI and Justice Department officials handled the Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

In addition, Chairman Schiff and House Democrats went to great lengths to keep investigators from finding out Fusion GPS was hired by a law firm at the direction of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Investigators ultimately had to go to court to secure access to who was behind the still unvetted Steele Dossier. Chairman Schiff obstructed and opposed efforts to identify the funding behind the salacious, still unverified report.

During Mr. Simpson’s testimony before the House, Chairman Schiff even sought direction from Mr. Simpson on where the investigation should go. This is virtually unprecedented: that a now Chairman of an investigative committee would seek direction from a fatally biased witness who was actually paid by political opponents to uncover dirt on the President.

At the time of Chairman Schiff’s conversation with Mr. Simpson in Aspen, the Committee had already decided to take a closer look at Mr. Simpson’s 2017 testimony after subsequent revelations drew doubt on its credibility.

This highlights questions about Chairman Schiff’s interactions and is incredibly provoking.

Recall again that less than two years ago, Chairman Schiff called for then-Chairman Devin Nunes to be investigated for holding undisclosed meetings with White House officials and later demanded Nunes recuse himself from the investigation, saying he could no longer objectively oversee the case.

Also, recall then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions being forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after he failed to disclose a meeting he had with a Russian diplomat during the campaign.

The American people would be well-served if Chairman Schiff answered a few questions on the interaction before the committee moves forward with their investigations, to ensure that these investigations are pursued in a fair manner:

Along with this Aspen Security Forum meeting, how many other meetings did Chairman Schiff have with Mr. Simpson over the past three years?

What did Chairman Schiff and Mr. Simpson discuss at the Aspen Security Forum meeting, along with any other meetings?

Why did Chairman Schiff go to such great lengths, including supporting Chuck Schumer’s former staffer who was representing Mr. Simpson – even going to court – to keep secret who was behind paying for the political attack piece on then candidate Trump?

Why did Chairman Schiff seek investigatory guidance and suggestions from Mr. Simpson, a witness whose credibility has been called into question but whose bias is unmistakably anti-Trump?

If Chairman Schiff is really interested in who provided false or misleading testimony to Congress, why not start with Mr. Simpson?

Given Chairman Schiff’s previous underlying rationale when calling for others to recuse themselves from Russia-related investigations, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or perceived bias, should Chairman Schiff recuse himself from his intended investigations after meeting with a witness of an ongoing investigation?

House Republican Leader

Published  1 week ago

As the Senate Intelligence Committee nears the end of its years-long investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia, NBC News reported Tuesday that after interviewing over 200 witnesses from multiple countries and reviewing over 300,000 documents, the committee has “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

The Senate’s findings are consistent with its House Intelligence Committee counterpart, whose members announced last year that they too found no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Undeterred by these bicameral and bipartisan findings, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and other House Democrats are planning to aggressively expand their probe of the president in an investigation that is sure to, according to Axios, “include multiple committees and dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.”

Before the Chairman commits to such a partisan agenda, this is an appropriate time to discuss a recently-surfaced issue involving Chairman Schiff and a witness of an open congressional investigation.

Chairman Schiff stated in March of 2017, he had evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that his “evidence” was more than circumstantial but not quite direct. To date Chairman Schiff has produced no evidence to support that claim.

In addition, The Hill reported last week on a meeting between Chairman Schiff and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson in July of 2018 at the Aspen Security Forum.

Recall that Mr. Simpson has been one of the most controversial subjects in the Russian collusion investigation and was a key witness in the House’s probe. In fact, Mr. Simpson appeared and gave sworn testimony before Chairman Schiff and the rest of HPSCI in November 2017 on the subject of how FBI and Justice Department officials handled the Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

In addition, Chairman Schiff and House Democrats went to great lengths to keep investigators from finding out Fusion GPS was hired by a law firm at the direction of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Investigators ultimately had to go to court to secure access to who was behind the still unvetted Steele Dossier. Chairman Schiff obstructed and opposed efforts to identify the funding behind the salacious, still unverified report.

During Mr. Simpson’s testimony before the House, Chairman Schiff even sought direction from Mr. Simpson on where the investigation should go. This is virtually unprecedented: that a now Chairman of an investigative committee would seek direction from a fatally biased witness who was actually paid by political opponents to uncover dirt on the President.

At the time of Chairman Schiff’s conversation with Mr. Simpson in Aspen, the Committee had already decided to take a closer look at Mr. Simpson’s 2017 testimony after subsequent revelations drew doubt on its credibility.

This highlights questions about Chairman Schiff’s interactions and is incredibly provoking.

Recall again that less than two years ago, Chairman Schiff called for then-Chairman Devin Nunes to be investigated for holding undisclosed meetings with White House officials and later demanded Nunes recuse himself from the investigation, saying he could no longer objectively oversee the case.

Also, recall then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions being forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after he failed to disclose a meeting he had with a Russian diplomat during the campaign.

The American people would be well-served if Chairman Schiff answered a few questions on the interaction before the committee moves forward with their investigations, to ensure that these investigations are pursued in a fair manner:

Along with this Aspen Security Forum meeting, how many other meetings did Chairman Schiff have with Mr. Simpson over the past three years?

What did Chairman Schiff and Mr. Simpson discuss at the Aspen Security Forum meeting, along with any other meetings?

Why did Chairman Schiff go to such great lengths, including supporting Chuck Schumer’s former staffer who was representing Mr. Simpson – even going to court – to keep secret who was behind paying for the political attack piece on then candidate Trump?

Why did Chairman Schiff seek investigatory guidance and suggestions from Mr. Simpson, a witness whose credibility has been called into question but whose bias is unmistakably anti-Trump?

If Chairman Schiff is really interested in who provided false or misleading testimony to Congress, why not start with Mr. Simpson?

Given Chairman Schiff’s previous underlying rationale when calling for others to recuse themselves from Russia-related investigations, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or perceived bias, should Chairman Schiff recuse himself from his intended investigations after meeting with a witness of an ongoing investigation?

The Daily Signal

Published  1 week ago

A report asserts “at best aggressive—and at worst fraudulent—procurement of absentee ballot applications.”

Petition2Congress

Published  1 week ago

To the 116th Congress of the United States:

As you know, there has been a recent push by The Democratic Party to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. On January 29, 2019, the Colorado State Senate passed a bill, which would require Colorado Electors for the Electoral College to cast their vote for the winner of the National Popular Vote. Additionally, other elected officials have called for the abolition of the Electoral College entirely.

This comes as a result of Donald J. Trump winning the Electoral College votes required and the 2016 election, despite Hillary Clinton winning the Popular Vote. President Trump had widespread support and won 2,626 counties across the country. Hillary Clinton's support was clustered under the same State

Electors for the Electoral College, and she won only 487 counties.

The Electoral College is enshrined in our Constitution as a vital part of the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers designed. It was proposed by James Wilson and accepted by the Constitutional Convention. Our Founding Fathers supported the Electoral College because it compels Presidential candidates to address the issues that are important to all Americans, including those in smaller and more rural states, instead of addressing only the issues important to those in areas with concentrated or clustered populations.

The Electoral College is a critical tool that serves to broaden the Presidential campaign and give equal voice and representation to all Americans. It is particularly important for states like West Virginia because it gives the state a voice in Presidential elections. Without the Electoral College, smaller, less populated states, such as West Virginia or Wyoming, would have less influence on the National Political Discourse. The ideas and voices of the people of those States would be entirely excluded from the National Conversation, and become completely irrelevant in Presidential Elections. This is entirely unacceptable and our Founding Fathers sought to prevent this from happening.

Currently, 12 states & 172 Electoral Votes are moving to a system that makes them subject to the National Popular vote and will disenfranchise voters of states with lesser populations, forcing Americans' to forfeit their voice in Presidential Elections & their right to equal representation, over to states with higher populations like CA, NY, FL, etc.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected officials. The Republicans must fight The Democratic Party's most recent push to disenfranchise American Voters as vehemently & ferociously as they opposed The Democratic Party's previous disenfranchisement of Black American voters! Without an equal voice for all Americans, we are denied equal representation, which is Constitutionally obligated!

Furthermore, Americans previously fought the American Revolutionary War over the concept that no one should be taxed without equal representation: "No taxation without representation!" The Democratic Party's recent push to abolish and/or manipulate the Electoral College not only goes against our Constitution, it goes against the very ideas that founded our great Nation!

To the Democratic Party attempting to disenfranchise American Voters again, by advocating the abolition of the Electoral College or implementing State laws to force the State's Electors for the Electoral College to cast their vote for the winner of the National popular vote: please stop this and reverse course, concerning this issue and the #Resistance. Violating the Constitution, denying Americans equal representation, and disenfranchising American voters again to unfairly and unconstitutionally control the outcome of future elections will certainly cost your party dearly.

We are a two-party Nation meant to achieve balance through compromise, of which our politicians are elected to negotiate the terms! The American Electorate voted for Donald J. Trump in 2016. Democrats control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Work together to benefit all Americans of every State, as Constitutionally obligated!

Take Action! First, Enter Your ZIP Code

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Once again Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Friday it received another tranche of documents from a January 2018 FOIA lawsuit that revealed the FBI actively covered up a ‘chart’ of potential violations by Hillary Clinton. The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order by U.S. […]

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Events in the 2016 elections were unprecedented. Top FBI officials knowingly used information paid for by the campaign ...

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

A clown-faced Vogue editor who looks like the obese version of the Red Queen from a dystopian Alice in Wonderland criticized Melania Trump's fashions.

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Federal prosecutors charged Ryan Jaselskis, a 22-year-old health and wellness coach from Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, alleging he attempted to burn down Comet Ping Pong, the pizza restaurant allegedly at the center of an internet conspiracy theory that falsely claims a sex ring run by celebrities and prominent Democrats is based out of its nonexistent basement.

The so-called Pizzagate conspiracy has been promulgated by far-right adherents since October 2016. It led to a shooting in the shop where no one was hurt in December 2016, when conspiracy theorist Edgar M. Welch demanded to see the child sex ring and fired a rifle several times. Welch is now serving a four-year prison sentence for the crime. And on Jan. 23, a fire broke out at Comet Ping Pong, which prosecutors allege was set by Jaselskis, citing surveillance footage.

A video posted to Jaselskis’ parents’ YouTube account the night of the fire seems to provide a possible link between the alleged arson and the disturbing conspiracy theory that became popular among a fringe group of Trump supporters during the 2016 election, and inspired a shooting in the restaurant that same year.

A video titled “Melissa Video” was posted to the YouTube account run by Paul and Chrissy Jaselskis at 8:07 p.m. ET on Jan. 23, alleging that the world is run by a Satanic global pedophile ring fronted by most major celebrities and Hillary Clinton.

One hour later, at 9:17 p.m., federal prosecutors allege the Jaselskis’ son Ryan attempted to set fire to Comet Ping Pong, where Pizzagate conspiracy theorists falsely believe the global pedophile ring is partially located.

Jaselskis was apprehended after a physical fight with law enforcement officials directly outside the Washington Monument on Feb. 4, a brawl that was captured on video. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives released surveillance video in an attempt to find the alleged arsonist days after the fire, in which no one was hurt. Charged with malicious property damage, Jaselskis is being held without bond.

David Bos, a public defender representing Ryan Jaselskis, said it was too early to comment on the case.

The video posted by Paul and Chrissy Jaselskis’ account, which was deleted Thursday evening, is a repost of a notorious YouTube Qanon and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist named JoeM, who has 125,000 subscribers and often warns of an impending great awakening that will include mass arrests of democrats and the global cabal. It was the first Qanon video posted by the account, which usually featured testimonials about health supplements aimed at Christians.

Qanon is a conspiracy theory that alleges the same pedophile cabal is secretly being destroyed by Donald Trump, along with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom Qanon believers think is quietly working with the president. Qanon is centered around Q, an anonymous account that posts to far-right politics forums on 4chan and 8chan which claims to be run by a government, and whose elaborate prophecies of a mass arrests against the cabal have repeatedly failed to occur.

The video claims President Donald Trump is secretly taking down the global cabal, which it says has been hiding secret cures to “our most deadly diseases” as well as an unspecified free energy source that will abolish the use of fossil fuels as well, and will soon abolish all income taxes.

The original video has been viewed over 1.2 million times, and is a favorite in QAnon circles, posted in Facebook groups and on Twitter as an introduction to the conspiracy theory.

Reached by phone, Chrissy Jaselskis declined to comment on her son’s arrest or the YouTube post on her account.

At least two names for Ryan Jaselskis (ryanjaselskis.net and ryanrimas.com) were purchased using Chrissy Jaselskis’ email address and phone number, dating back to 2014, according to Domain tools, a domain analysis tool used by security researchers.

In 2013, Ryan Jaselskis was arrested for malicious destruction of property during a fight over chores and the family car. In the fight, Jaselskis pushed his father into a wall and caused damage to his parents’ home, according to an arrest report provided by South Carolina’s York County Sheriff's Office. Prosecutors at the time declined to pursue it further.

Facing persistent public pressure about the company’s role in the proliferation of false conspiracy theories, YouTube vowed last week to limit the reach of certain conspiracy theories, including “flat Earth” videos.

Qanon theories readily surfaced in basic searches on YouTube for public figures over the last year. A simple search for “Tom Hanks” or “Hillary Clinton” returned almost exclusively posts about Qanon last summer, falsely tying them to a global cabal in the crosshairs of Donald Trump. Last month, a search for Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned mostly videos that falsely claimed the Supreme Court Justice was dead, a conspiracy theory created by Qanon fans.

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that circulated before the 2016 election, predicated on the idea that emails leaked by Wikileaks from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta reveal a secret pedophile cabal if readers were to replace words like “pizza” with “boy.”

After many Pizzagate communities were banned across major social media platforms, elements of Pizzagate were later folded into the conspiracy theory Qanon, which launched a year later.

Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis, who has been bombarded with threats since the release of the emails, told The Washington Post last month he did not believe the recent attempted arson was tied to Pizzagate. He didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and team have been hard at work attempting to prove the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. After all this time (and massive

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

The New York Times revealed that the FBI investigation of Trump was retaliation for firing James Comey, an incompetent and corrupt FBI director.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Major broadcast networks excluded from their evening news the results of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Yet, in the past two years, the evening newscasts dedicated over 2,200 minutes, nearly fifth of their Trump-related reporting, to the Russia investigation, according to the right-leaning nonprofit Media Research Center (MRC), which went through coverage on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” the CBS “Evening News,” and the NBC “Nightly News” between Jan. 21, 2017 and Feb. 10, 2019.

After interviewing more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 300,000 pages of documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of collusion between the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russian government, according to both Democratic and Republican sources on the committee.

But the networks not only shut the news out of the nighttime news, but, in case of the NBC and CBS, from their flagship morning shows as well.

“NBC’s failure to mention this on either Today or the Nightly News is especially egregious, since the story was broken by the network’s own Ken Dilanian on Feb. 12,” MRC stated in a Feb. 14 report.

“Over the past two years, broadcast evening news shows have spent more than 36 hours haranguing viewers about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Given their keen interest in the subject, you might expect a bipartisan group of investigators finding ‘no material evidence’ of collusion to be newsworthy. But evidently, you’d be wrong.”

ABC’s “Good Morning America” dedicated less than one minute to the news on Feb. 13.

Extensive Investigation

The committee’s investigation started more than two years ago and appears to be close to a conclusion. Its chairman, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), told CBS in an interview published Feb. 7 that investigators have found no evidence to support the allegations of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. Anonymous Democratic sources on the committee did not dispute Burr’s statements, according to Dilanian’s report.

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, disputed Burr’s characterization of the evidence, but didn’t offer examples.

The president has denied the allegations. Instead, Trump suggests that his opponent, former State Secretary Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia. The president has pointed to the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for a dossier of the opposition research on him compiled by a former British spy using sources with ties to the Kremlin. The FBI used the dossier, without due verification, to spy on a former Trump-campaign associate Carter Page.

The findings by the Senate mirror those released last year by the House Intelligence Committee, which concluded that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating the collusion allegations concurrently with the congressional investigations. Mueller issued multiple indictments, but none for colluding with Russia.

Both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee are expected to conclude their investigations soon. Burr said there were “no new questions” left to answer. Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, who is overseeing Mueller’s probe, said the investigation is “close to being completed.”

Epoch Times staff members contributed to this report.

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

The Daily Beast

Published  1 week ago

The prominent lawyer fiercely denies ever meeting her.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The failure to get a border wall built lies with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans who held a majority in both the House and Senate for two years prior to this latest border funding battle.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Andrew McCabe, you see, has reminded us once again that there really is a powerful deep state, and that there has not been a full accounting of rampant FBI misconduct during the presidential campaign of 2016.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Former Texas Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke said Thursday that he would "absolutely" support tearing down existing barriers along the southern border with Mexico, in a full-throated embrace of open-borders rhetoric that has left conservatives wondering where other potential 2020 Democratic White House hopefuls stand on the issue.

O'Rourke's comments came as the House and Senate passed a compromise spending bill that would partially fund President Trump's proposed border wall, to the tune of $1.4 billion. Trump, who had been pressing for billions more, has vowed to declare a national state of emergency to fund the remainder of the project.

Amid the congressional debate, Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw wrote on Twitter earlier Thursday that he wanted O'Rourke to answer a simple question: "If you could snap your fingers and make El Paso’s border wall disappear, would you?" He cited Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures suggesting that illegal border crossings dropped sharply in El Paso following the construction of a wall there.

WHAT'S IN THE BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS THURSDAY NIGHT? MORE DETENTION BEDS FOR ICE, MONEY FOR WALL

MSNBC host Chris Hayes posed a version of that question to O'Rourke on-air: "Would you, if you could, would you take the wall down here -- knock it down?"

"Yes, absolutely," answered O'Rourke, who is widely thought to be a potential candidate in 2020 but has not formally announced his intention to run. "I'd take the wall down."

Asked whether El Paso residents would support that move in a referendum, O'Rourke replied, "I do."

He continued: "Here's what we know. After the Secure Fence Act [of 2006], we have built 600 miles of wall and fencing on a 2,000-mile border. What that has done is not in any demonstrable way made us safer. It's cost us tens of billions of dollars to build and maintain. And it's pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrats, including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of some 700 miles of fencing at the border. As of 2015, virtually all of that fencing had been completed, according to government figures.

"More than 4,000 human beings, little kids, women and children, have died," O'Rourke continued. "They're not in cages, they're not locked up, they're not separated -- they're dead, over the last 10 years, as we have walled off their opportunity to legally petition for asylum, to cross in urban centers like El Paso, to be with family, to work jobs, to do what any human being should have a right to be able to do, what we would do if faced with the same circumstances they were."

In response, Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, asked on Twitter whether other possible or declared Democratic White House hopefuls agreed.

Earlier this month, Trump challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called the White House's proposed southern border wall "an immorality," to explain why she is not insisting on the removal of existing physical barriers, or opposing ongoing construction of new wall projects near San Diego.

"If Nancy Pelosi thinks that Walls are 'immoral,' why isn’t she requesting that we take down all of the existing Walls between the U.S. and Mexico, even the new ones just built in San Diego at their very strong urging," Trump tweeted. "Let millions of unchecked 'strangers' just flow into the U.S."

Some progressives in Congress, including Democratic Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, insisted this month that "we know walls don't work." Escobar, signaling she may support removing some barriers, called walls "ugly" and "monuments to division."

The San Diego Union-Tribune has reported that physical barriers, including walling and fencing, encompass some 46 miles of the city's 60-mile border with Mexico. In February, construction is slated to begin on 14 miles of additional secondary walling, with work to begin on 15 miles of replacement wall this summer.

Earlier this month, in an interview with CNN, Democratic California Rep. Juan Vargas acknowledged that those physical defenses were effective and enhanced security for local residents.

"I mean, you go to the border and you see long lines of people waiting to come in. ... So we do have a problem of having huge wait lines to come in,” Vargas told anchor Don Lemon. “You know, there is fencing already there, to be honest with you. There are places where we already have fencing where it made sense for some security.”

O'Rourke's comments to MSNBC on Thursday, however, were the most stark anti-wall comments yet by a prominent Democrat -- and set up another potential confrontation between Trump and the progressive star. On Monday night, Trump held a campaign-style rally in El Paso — just as O'Rourke led a border wall protest roughly a half-mile away.

Fox News' Nicole Darrah contributed to this report.

courthousenews

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON (CN) – Contending that the leak of his indictment allowed reporters to film his predawn arrest last month, Roger Stone lobbed contempt charges Wednesday against the Special Counsel’s Office.

Filed in Washington this morning by Buschel & Gibbons attorney Robert Buschel, the 6-page motion for an order to show cause says that a news crew set up a camera on Jan. 25 outside Stone’s home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, more than an hour before federal agents arrived.

CNN is not named in the filing but obtained exclusive footage of Stone’s arrest.

Well before Stone had a chance to do so himself, the motion says a reporter called one of Stone’s attorneys just five minutes after the arrest, later forwarding the lawyer a copy of Stone’s indictment.

“The copy of the unsigned indictment provided by the reporter appears to have come from the Special Counsel’s Office,” the motion says. “The reporter offered that the copy had been received from the Special Counsel’s Office.”

Buschel claims the document was leaked in violation of the court’s sealing order in the case, and “compromised the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.”

A former FBI director, Mueller has for nearly two years been leading an investigation of Russia interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and whether the Trump campaign coordinated with that effort.

None of the charges against Stone accuse him of conspiring with that effort.

The longtime GOP strategist has pleaded not guilty to allegations that he lied to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign, obstruction and witness tampering.

In his motion Wednesday, Stone claims that PDF metadata from the indictment forwarded to his lawyer shows that someone with the initials “AAW” was the last to modify the document before the reporter obtained it.

Stone does not name a suspect directly but appears to suggest involvement by Andrew Weissmann, who is prosecuting the Paul Manafort case.

“That a member of the Special Counsel’s office has the initials ‘AWW,’ supports a reasonable inference that that office is responsible for the unlawful public disclosure of a grand jury document sealed by order of the Court,” the filing says.

The special counsel’s office declined to comment on the filing, and has not yet filed a response with the court.

Stone notes that his indictment did not hit the public docket until 8:55 on Jan. 25, nearly four hours after the news crew set up cameras outside his house.

Also on Wednesday right-wing author Jerome Corsi filed an amicus brief that says Stone should be bound by a gag order.

Corsi has not yet been charged in the case but acknowledges that he is the unnamed “Person 1” in Stone’s indictment, alleged to have been an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks before the website published stolen Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 election.

Anticipating that he will be subpoenaed to testify, Corsi contends that Stone “has already begun a public relations campaign meant specifically to influence the outcome of his upcoming trial.”

“Defendant Stone is attempting to smear, defame, and discredit, tamper and threaten Dr. Corsi so that when Dr. Corsi is called as a witness, the jurors will have a false impression of Dr. Corsi as a liar, perjurer, and alcoholic,” the brief says.

Corsi is suspected among other things of having lied to prosecutors on Sept. 6, 2018, about whether Stone asked him in 2016 to contact WikiLeaks about the release of emails that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Wednesday’s brief is the latest salvo in the escalating feud between Corsi and Stone. Last week Corsi sued Stone in Washington, D.C., for defamation.

National Review

Published  1 week ago

The text of the funding bill was released last night/this morning, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the 1,169-page measure as early as this evening. The bill is disappointing in many respects, but if it had been as advertised earlier, it might have been tolerable.

But my fears that senators Durbin and Leahy would trick the Republican conferees (none of whom knows the first thing about immigration policy) were realized. Standing out among the many distasteful provisions are two poison pills that I hope the Republican committee members either didn’t know about or didn’t understand.

The first regards the fence. I’m not fence-first guy, but physical barriers really are needed on some parts of the border, and the president has been flexible on this in the face of implacable Democratic opposition. Thus the news that the Dems agreed to $1.375 billion for the construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” (i.e., high barriers, not the low ones intended simply to stop vehicles, in places where there’s none now) seemed like a win.

It’s not. That’s because the bill allows the fencing to be built only in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in South Texas. It’s surely needed there, but real barriers are also needed elsewhere, such as the parts of the Arizona or New Mexico borders where there’s only vehicle fencing.

But the Democrats had a reason for this limitation. The bill states:

Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place…Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place.

In other words, local governments would have an effective veto over whether barriers would be constructed. And which party controls all local government in South Texas? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait. Rio Grande City is the least Democratic community in the area, and even there voters supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than three to one.

Add to that the bill’s prohibition on border barriers in a range of public parks and spaces — such as the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, La Lomita Historical Park, or the National Butterfly Center — and the 55 miles of new fencing supposedly provided for in the bill might never get built at all.

The second poison pill is even worse. Section 224 states:

None of the funds provided by this act…may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child.

In other words, this would mean that ICE cannot detain or remove anyone who has effectively any relationship with an “unaccompanied” minor — either because they’re sponsors, in the same household as sponsors, or even just “potential sponsors” (or in the household of potential sponsors!) of such a child.

There’s already a huge incentive to bring a child with you if you’re planning to infiltrate the border, because kids can’t be held more than 20 days, according to the Flores agreement, and we don’t separate parents from kids, so if you sneak across with a kid in tow, you’re released into the U.S.

The new provision would create an incentive for illegal aliens already here to order up kids from Central America as human shields against deportation. After all, 80 percent of the sponsors of unaccompanied children are in the country illegally in the first place — usually parents or other relatives paying criminal gangs to bring the kids to the U.S., knowing that the likelihood that they’ll be repatriated is virtually nil.

One of the members of the conference committee supposedly writing the funding bill, Tom Graves (R-Ga.), refused to sign the report because he wasn’t permitted even to see the text until shortly after midnight this morning, and was given an hour to read the whole thing and decide.

This is no way to run a government. The president should make clear his earlier willingness to sign the package was based on the summaries that had circulated, not this specific language. The responsible thing to do now would be to pass a continuing resolution (extend spending at current levels) for a week or so, to avoid another partial government shutdown but give lawmakers time to actually go over the thing carefully and pull out the poison pills.

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

Meanwhile, the Democratic-led House committee is gearing up for a reinvigorated inquiry.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 week ago

"I’ll make sure Andy tells Mike to keep these in his pocket"

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

‘it’s Outrageous That The Fec Has Sat Around And Done Nothing—especially With Such A Detailed, Comprehensive Paper Trail Handed To Them,’ Lawyer Dan Backer Told The Federalist.

Tuesday evening the Committee to Defend the President (CDP) filed a motion in a D.C. federal court seeking to supplement the complaint it had filed against the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in April 2018. In its original complaint, the CDP alleged that the agency responsible for enforcing campaign-finance law failed to act on an administrative complaint the CDP had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged that, during the 2016 presidential election, Democrats illegally funneled approximately $84 million through the Hillary Victory Fund to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which then illegally coordinated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

To understand the alleged scheme requires familiarity with controlling campaign-finance law and campaign contribution limits. As I explained at the time CDP sued the FEC last April:

Under federal law, ‘an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.’

This legal loophole allows ‘bundlers’ to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.

During the 2016 election cycle, Democrats followed this formula, with Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees establishing the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors. To comply with the law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees. – READ MORE

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 week ago

James Comey is by most accounts is the most reviled man in America and for good reason. His days as a showboat came to an end when Trump sent him packing, but his scandal-plagued tenure at the FBI has continued to do damage slowly but surely.

He was a disgrace – he let Hillary off the hook when under no circumstances should the abuse of the rule of law by Hillary and her team been tolerated. No excuse for doing it unless…

Many have long suspected the fix was in and now, after some intrepid reporting from the folks at FOX News, it seems America’s worst fears may be true.

From The Daily Wire:

Over two years after the fact, newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request confirm that James Comey’s FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help minimize the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.

Fox News’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne first reported on the alleged deal back on October 15, 2016, but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government transparency watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.

“FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a ‘quid pro quo’ between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News,” Herridge and Browne reported in 2016.

“This is a flashing red light of potential criminality,” Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” he said.

On Monday, Fox News’ Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a “quid pro quo” deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI’s access is ordinarily restricted.

The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place.

Katrina Pierson

Published  1 week ago

As reported by Kevin McCarthy Kevin McCarthy is the Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives. As the Senate Intelligence Committee nears the end of its years-long investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed corrupt liberal judge with an angry disposition towards Americans who think differently than Obama, continues to put her own distorted interpretation of US law ahead of the US Constitution. Her actions with Paul Manafort alone are ample cause for her to be removed […]

Judicial Watch

Published  1 week ago

‘I’ll make sure Andy tells Mike to keep these in his pocket’ (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 186 pages of records from the Department of Justice that include emails documenting an evident cover up of a chart of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch...

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

The media is giving clues that they know they're wrong, but pushing the collusion story makes them money, so why stop now?

The Last Refuge

Published  1 week ago

The actual budget appropriations bill is seven compartments consisting of more than 5,000 pages. However, here is the 29 page summary outlining the key elements as negotiated by congress. WARNING: …

NaturalNews.com

Published  1 week ago

It is widely reported today that President Trump is declaring a national emergency over the continued migrant invasion of the United States of America that's taking place via a largely [...]

Conservative Review

Published  1 week ago

Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s book tour began with a “60 minutes” interview this week in which he confirmed that he commenced an effort to remove President Trump from office, citing his concerns with the president’s supposed ties to Russia, for which no evidence has ever surfaced.

Citing several thoroughly debunked Russian collusion narratives, McCabe, under the impression that President Trump was somehow compromised as commander in chief, attempted to gather votes inside the administration to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O'Donnell (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

In a “60 minutes” preview clip, McCabe forwarded the baseless conspiracy theory that President Trump won the election with the assistance of the Kremlin.

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency. And who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage,” McCabe said during the interview. “And that was something that troubled me greatly.”

“I was speaking to the man who had just … won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia." Former FBI acting director Andrew McCabe, Sunday on 60 Minutes. https://t.co/IVwcM11BGc pic.twitter.com/m6HwHMOqY9

Putting aside that Russia is not “our most formidable adversary” (it’s China, by a mile), to date, not a single piece of evidence has emerged that the “Russia case” was anything but a complete hoax based on opposition research sourced to anonymous Russians that was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision,” McCabe continued.

Unfortunately for McCabe, there was no “solid ground” to be found. The Russia investigation came up entirely empty, and the FBI bureaucrats’ leak-and-smear campaigns were not enough to oust the duly elected president through other means.

And the president was not even behind McCabe’s ultimate removal from his post. The former FBI deputy director was fired after a Department of Justice internal probe found that he committed gross misconduct on multiple occasions. The devastating report found that McCabe lied under oath several times. That wasn’t all. He also attempted to sabotage his own FBI colleagues for his personal leaks to the media. McCabe later excused his activity, claiming his lies under oath were a result of the “chaos inside the FBI under siege from [President] Trump and his allies.” Currently, McCabe is under a Department of Justice-authorized grand jury investigation.

Of course, McCabe’s long list of alleged criminal activities and his extreme credibility problem have been almost entirely overlooked in the legacy media stories promoting his “60 Minutes” interview. The same applies to the reality that McCabe’s Russia probe never amounted to anything.

Andrew McCabe was far from the only FBI official to disgrace himself. Other now-fired FBI officials, such as James Comey and Peter Strzok, helped transform the FBI into a political weapon to sabotage the president through the baseless Trump-Russia investigation. There are still only two primary explanations for their conduct. The first is they were simply incompetent and commenced a probe without sufficient nonpartisan evidence. The second and more likely explanation is that McCabe and his cohorts were on a hell-bent quest to overturn the results of the election. Call it what it was: a soft coup attempt. Luckily for our republic, the coup attempt failed.

Sign up to get The Dossier in your inbox twice a week.

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Moscow routed millions of dollars to the U.S. expecting the funds would benefit ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable initiative while his wife, Hillary Clinton, worked to reset relations with Russia, an FBI informant in an Obama administration-era uranium deal stated.

In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.

“APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,” Campbell stated.

The so-called Uranium One deal in 2010 handed Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear giant Rosatom.

FBI agents and the confidential informant made secret recordings, gathered records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Russian officials had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks. However, the Department of Justice did not bring charges until 2014.

In a statement to The Hill, APCO said its activities involving client work for the Clinton Global Initiative and Tenex, a unit of Rosatom, were “totally separate and unconnected in any way” and that “any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, told the outlet that Campbell’s statement is being used as a distraction from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians in the 2016 election.

“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that—a charade,” Merrill said Wednesday. “Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own president’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses.”

Judicial Watch

Published  1 week ago

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it sent an official complaint to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG) calling for investigations into leaks of information about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The complaint asks for an investigation of any leaks to CNN about the controversial raid on the home of Roger...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Longtime political operative Roger Stone on Wednesday filed a motion requesting a federal judge force special counsel Robert Mueller to prove he did not tip off CNN about his January 25 arrest.

Stone’s legal team argues CNN showed it a draft copy of the indictment, stamped without a PACER, after their client’s arrest, suggesting the document had been released prematurely. “A person with privileged access to a ‘draft’ of Roger Stone’s Indictment, identical to that which had been filed under seal … had — in violation of the Court’s Order — publicly distributed the Indictment prior to its release from the sealing ordered by the Court,” the filing reads.

Since his arrest, Stone has contended CNN was given notice of his arrest ahead of time. The filing states a CNN camera crew began camping outside Stone’s Fort Lauderdale, Flordia residence at 4:58 a.m. EST. The FBI arrested Stone at 6:06 a.m. EST, after which a CNN journalist contacted the political operative’s lawyer and texted over a “draft copy of the still sealed indictment” at 6:22 a.m. EST.

CNN denied being tipped off about the indictment, claiming that it was their reporters’ “instinct” to send a crew to Stone’s home before dawn on the morning of his arrest. “[FBI agents] walked me out in the middle of the street to make sure the CNN camera could get great footage of the whole thing. The street was sealed off, so how CNN had a camera right outside the door; that’s very hard to understand, because nobody else was allowed on the street,” Stone said of his arrest in an interview with Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow.

On January 28, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation into whether details of Stone’s indictment were leaked to the media ahead of his arrest.

“It is hard to believe that this reporter and camera crew showed up at the home of Mr. Stone, on the right day at the right time, on a hunch,” the Republican congressman wrote. “This leads me to believe that CNN may have received advance notice of the date and time of the arrest.”

Stone has also lamented what many are arguing was an excessive use of force by the FBI during his arrest. “I’m 66 years old, I do not own a gun, I do not have a valid passport, I have no prior criminal record, I’m charged with nonviolent process crimes,” he told reporters. “To storm my house with greater force than was used to take down bin Laden or El Chapo or Pablo Escobar, it’s unconscionable.”

Stone was charged with lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering related to discussions he had during the 2016 election about WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that released material stolen from Democrat groups including Hillary Clinton’s campaign. U.S. intelligence agencies have said that Russia was the source of the hacked material, and last year Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking.

Prosecutors have tied that case to Stone’s, saying they share a common search warrant and involve activities that are “part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction.” However, they have not accused Stone of being directly involved in any Russian election conspiracy.

Stone, who remains free on $250,000 bond, has denied having any direct contact with WikiLeaks. The Trump ally has said he only sought to encourage voter interest in the group’s public disclosures. He also has denied discussing the issue with President Trump.

Stone pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

Meetings were held at the Department of Justice on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office with the 25th Amendment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe writes in a new book.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News’ Scott Pelley said Thursday in a preview of his forthcoming interview with McCabe.

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O’Donnell???????? (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

Pelley noted that these meetings were part of an extraordinary 8-day period after Comey’s firing in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also suggested to senior FBI officials that he should wear a secret recording device in his meetings with Trump.

Rosenstein’s discussion of wearing a wire and talk of the 25th Amendment was first reported by The New York Times in September 2018. (RELATED: Rosenstein Discussed Wearing A Wire In Meetings With Trump)

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the president of the United States if a majority of his Senate-confirmed cabinet believe he is no longer capable of discharging his duties while in office. Rosenstein reportedly speculated that he could convince at least two cabinet officials to sign on to a plan to oust Trump from office.

The deputy attorney general played a key role in authoring a memo justifying Comey’s firing, which faulted the former FBI director for his conduct during the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified emails.

Rosenstein disputed TheNYT account of the meeting in September saying, “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda.”

“But let me be clear about this,” he continued. “Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 week ago

The Clinton Collusion

02/13 2:29 pm

Two years and more than 50 million dollars later, the Senate Intel Committee has finally released a statement: There was no collusion between Trump and Russia. Suck it Libs!

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

This whole investigation was a farce to begin with, and we all knew it, but fake news ran with it like it was the next Watergate, screaming impeach trump all the way to the bank. My question is this: when does the REAL investigating begin? What about the wiretap on then-candidate Donald Trump, initiated by Barack Obama and his cohorts?

What about Hillary and her team of flunkies coming up with this whole collusion thing to begin with?

When are we going to see some real justice? It was Hillary and the rest of the Democrats who are guilty of colluding with the Russians. It was Hillary who ran illegal servers, who put the nation’s security at risk, and who had her shit stolen. Bleaching the servers and lying about everything to try to get away with it.

What about the Clinton Foundation?

Oh yeah, and then there’s this thing called the Steele Dossier….

Hillary and her cohorts, the DOJ and the FBI hired former British spy and FBI informant Chris Steele, together with Fusion GPS to manifest a Russian narrative. To invent one…To lie. Hillary’s campaign and the DNC paid a cool $1million for the dossier. The FBI and DOJ then used the phony document as basis for a FISA warrant to bug Trump Tower. Congress is now in possession of various emails and texts to this effect.

These are all serious felonies. Question is, which one will they charge Hillary and Obama with? All? Some? None? My patience is growing thin. These people are stupid, these people are un-American, and it’s time they’re punished for what they’ve done.

Clinton’s friend, and big time 25 million dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, Alexander Downer, tells the FBI the Russians have some dirt on Hillary.

The FBI launches an investigation.

Hillary then pays former British spy, British spy to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, with Russian officials’ help. The resulting dossier is used as a reason for launching a spying operation against Trump.

Meanwhile, Comey and a bunch of NeverTrumper FBI officials, including James Strzok and Bruce Ohr, collude to stop the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unlawful email server. Intelligence officials are certain it was hacked by foreign governments. NOT good…

Finally, after two years, they admit it’s a big nothing burger… what’s funny though, is the damage has been done…the bullying of patriots, the defamation and undermining of our great president, the constant hate spewed forth by the left chanting, “Russia Russia Russia,” has already done irreparable damage…

Somebody owes us a big apology, and a court date set for Clinton and Obama.

So..i wonder if I will still be called a Russian bot on Twitter….

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 week ago

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy just made his move on Adam Schiff. Schiff is under fire for taking some secret meetings with Fusion GPS, a firm at the heart of the investigation he is launching

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

Top political appointees at intelligence agencies are engaged in a dangerous and discrediting full-scale war against Donald Trump.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Over two years after the fact, newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request confirm that James Comey’s FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help minimize the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.

Fox News’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne first reported on the alleged deal back on Oct. 15, 2016, but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government transparency watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.

“FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a ‘quid pro quo’ between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News,” Herridge and Browne reported in 2016. “This is a flashing red light of potential criminality,” Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” he said.

On Monday, Fox News’ Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a “quid pro quo” deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI’s access is ordinarily restricted.

The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place. – READ MORE

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

‘It’s outrageous that the FEC has sat around and done nothing—especially with such a detailed, comprehensive paper trail handed to them.'

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Veteran criminal defense attorney John Dowd has savaged Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as a "terrible waste of time" and questioned whether a report will ever be produced.

Dowd, who served as a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team from June 2017 until March 2018, made the explosive comments during an interview with ABC News.

“I will be shocked, if anything regarding the president is made public, other than, ‘we’re done’,” the 77-year-old said.

This is one of the greatest frauds this country's ever seen

— John Dowd

“I know exactly what he has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result is.”

When pressed on what he believes the conclusion of the probe will be, Dowd unleashed a blistering attack.

“It's been a terrible waste of time… This is one of the greatest frauds this country's ever seen,” he said. “I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, ‘I'm being used.’ I would’ve done that.

FBI SCRAMBLED TO RESPOND TO HILLARY CLINTON LAWYER AMID WEINER LAPTOP REVIEW, NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW

“I'd have gone to Sessions and Rosenstein and said, "Look. This is nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.”

The 77-year-old’s explosive remarks fly in the face of public comments made by members of the Justice Department.

While being quizzed on the Russia probe during an oversight hearing last week, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said he respects Mueller and his “ability to conduct this investigation”.

President Trump has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt”.

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

All politicians are egomaniacs and narcissists. They’re all searching for love and adulation — even (or especially) from strangers. And they’re all pathological — and prolific — liars.

The Washington Post has been keeping track of President Trump’s lies. As of December 21, Trump had "made 7,645 false or misleading claims over 710 days," the Post wrote. President Obama was a prodigal liar, too — although the Post never bothered to tally up all his lies.

They’re all liars. Every last one of them. Take this lie, told just Monday by Sen. Kamala D. Harris, California Democrat. The 2020 hopeful was trying to be hip and cool, so she said she smoked weed back in college, chilling with friends and listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac. But she graduated in 1986. Tupac didn’t release his first album until 1991, and Snoop’s first record hit the shelves in 1993.

Then there’s Sen. Elizabeth Warren. For decades, the Massachusetts Democrat and the 2020 candidate claimed she was American Indian, putting the designation on all sorts of employment and government forms. But a DNA test she took to prove it showed she’s 98.4 percent to 99.9 percent white. So, liar.

Politicians sometimes tell completely pointless lies. It’s like the joke by comedian Norm MacDonald: "You ever lie for no reason at all? Just all of sudden, a big lie spills out of your evil head? Like a guy will come up to you, 'Hey, did you ever see that movie with Meryl Streep and a horse?' And you go, 'Yes.' In the back of your head, you’re like, 'What in the hell am I lying about over here? I stand to gain nothing by this lie.'"

Like Sen. Cory Booker, another presidential candidate. The New Jersey Democrat often cited a guy named "T-Bone," a drug dealer, saying he once told him, "If you ever so much as look at me again, I'm going to put a cap in your ass." Turns out he "was a 'composite' of various people Booker knew in Newark," Reason wrote this month.

Politicians lie especially to each other’s faces — even when they hate each other’s guts. "To my good friend from Arkansas, let me say…" one senator will bluster, even though it’s clear he can’t stand the guy. "With all due respect to the gentle lady from Missouri, whom I greatly admire, I must say that …" another will say, even though privately he loathes her.

Trump is changing all that. He doesn’t pretend to like someone he clearly hates, even if he has to work with them on important issues. He calls Warren "Pocahontas." To the Democratic House speaker, he tweeted: "Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally & has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat." And he makes no pretense of being able to stomach Senate Minority Leader "Cryin" Chuck Schumer.

Members of his own party — and even his Cabinet — are not immune: "Who should star in a reboot of 'Liar Liar' — Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz?" he said, referring to the Texas Republican senator whom he defeated in the 2016 primaries. Of his former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump tweeted: "The Dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting — UNTIL I FIRED HIM! Immediately he became a wonderful man, a saint like figure in fact. Really sick!"

Trump has even taken aim at one of the most famous actresses in the world. "Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a Hillary flunky who lost big."

The former reality TV show host is making other politicians get real. During Trump’s State of the Union address, Pelosi acted just how she feels: She mockingly applauded Trump — and liberals nationwide loved it.

Newcomer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is also part of The New Honesty. On Monday, she said Trump is "a man who can’t even read briefings written in full sentences." She deeply detests Trump, and she says so. That is because Trump, who also abhors Ocasio-Cortez, has made no bones about his feelings.

So Trump — the crude and petty and vindictive little man — has done at least this: He has gotten rid of the false camaraderie that has colored so much of politics for eons.

And in the end, that’s really not a bad thing.

* A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

WSJ

Published  1 week ago

Ms. Omar, a freshman lawmaker, apologized on Monday after Democratic and Republican leaders condemned her suggestion that lawmakers’ support for Israel was driven by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group. “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,” she said on Twitter.

Mr. Trump on Tuesday said Ms. Omar’s comments were “deep-seated in her heart” and called her apology “lame.”

Ms. Omar didn’t immediately respond to Mr. Trump’s call for her resignation. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Mr. Trump’s call was “ridiculous,” noting that Ms. Omar had apologized.

At issue were two tweets, in which Ms. Omar first remarked “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” referring to $100 bills and U.S. politicians defending Israel, and then named Aipac—a pro-Israel lobbying group—as the organization she said was paying them.

Mr. Trump has faced his own rebukes for comments that were criticized as anti-Semitic, including an image he posted on Twitter during his presidential campaign showing Hillary Clinton against a backdrop of cash, with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever” inside a six-pointed star that looked to some like the Star of David.

The campaign deleted the tweet after a backlash, though at the time Mr. Trump was unapologetic. “You know they took the star down,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign rally. “I said, ‘Too bad, you should have left it up.’ I would have rather defended it.” Mr. Trump called people who were offended by the tweet “sick people.”

Mr. Trump described himself in a 2017 news conference as “the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”

The public rebuke of Ms. Omar comes amid a split in the Democratic Party between supporters of Israel’s policies and a newly empowered progressive wing critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In the first few weeks of the new Congress, Ms. Omar and Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first Muslim women elected to Congress, have both come under fire over prior statements about Israel, though mostly by Republicans.

—Natalie Andrews contributed to this article.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

For over a year, the Hillary Clinton campaign, other Democrats and liberal pundits have pummeled President Trump and his men with one main weapon: a dossier.

humansarefree

Published  1 week ago

A staggering 30,000+ scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to ma...

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Published  1 week ago

RUSH: He said this in a podcast that has been reported by ABC News. ABC News is devastated by this news.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 week ago

In a new interview, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, says she left the Baptist Church at the age of 6 because it has a strongly pro-life position opposing abortions.

Clinton made the comment at a recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in an attempt to address evangelicals who question her mother’s faith in God. She said she was upset when teachers in a Sunday School class talked about the wrongness of abortion.

“I find it quite insulting sometimes when people say to my mom, my dad or me . . . that they question our faith,’ said Chelsea. “I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”

“My mother is very deeply a person of faith,” Chelsea said. “It is deeply authentic and real for my mother, and it guides so much of her moral compass, but also her life’s work.”

“I recognized that there were many expressions of faith that I don’t agree with and feel [are] quite antithetical to how I read the Bible,” Chelsea said. “But I find it really challenging when people who are self-professed liberals kind of look askance at my family’s history.”

A New York Post columnist quoted her comments from a Democrat who took notes at the event.

Here’s more:

The Southern Baptist Convention added Sanctity of Human Life Sunday — marking the Sunday nearest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade — to the denominational calendar in 1985. An accompanying sanctity of life Sunday school lesson was added to LifeWay Christian Resources curriculum in 1991.

Her father was baptized at age 9 in Park Place Baptist Church in Hot Springs, Ark. He dropped out of church when he got older, but the shock of losing his reelection as governor of Arkansas in 1980 — coupled with the birth of his daughter — drove him back to church.

Bill Clinton joined the 4,000-member Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Ark., singing in the choir and studying the Bible under tutelage of the congregation’s longtime pastor, W.O. Vaught.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

President Trump declares a state of emergency at the southern border to keep Americans safe and the left goes bananas. President Obama declared 13 national emergencies during his time in office, 11 of which continue

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough reacted to President Donald Trump’s rally from the night before in El Paso, Texas.

Supporters at the rally chanted, “Lock her up” in regards to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Scarborough blasted the people chanting to lock Clinton up when multiple members of Trump’s campaign have been in legal trouble.

“The thing is, Mika, you can really understand why people are still chanting “lock her up” for Hillary Clinton,” Scarborough sarcastically said. “After all, you go back and you look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign and State Department — the most corrupt in American history. Her national security adviser, you know, pled guilty to federal charges, her campaign manager pled guilty to campaign charges, her number two in the campaign pled guilty to federal charges, you had her — oh, wait a second.”

“Yeah, I think you’re getting her mixed up,” co-host Mika Brzezinski chimed in. “That’s Donald Trump.”

“Oh, wow. About eight or nine of his associates,” Scarborough added. “I’m confused. Why are they saying, ‘Lock her up’ when everybody around Donald Trump, including his longest-serving political adviser also taken out of his house in handcuffs? The guy he told the Washington Post was one of his top foreign policy aides thrown in jail. His lawyer thrown — I’m sorry. I don’t understand who were the adults chanting, ‘Lock her up’ for Hillary Clinton because her people didn’t go to jail. All of Donald Trump’s people have gone to jail.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

New FBI emails have been released that show that the FBI, under the fired director James Comey, tried to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department.

The purpose of this? To minimize Hillary Clinton’s email scandal — and this happened just weeks before the 2016 presidential election.

SPECIAL EDITION Trump/Reagan Coin – Limited Time Offer

This revelation isn’t necessarily “new news.” Fox News’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne reported on this back in 2016 but full confirmation did not come until this past week when the Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to this quid pro quo deal.

Check out what Gregg Re from Fox News had to say:

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI’s access is ordinarily restricted.

The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place.

Pretty alarming, right?

Corruption runs deep in Washington and the more that we find out, the worse it seems to get.

Re later accuses anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page of “orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president,” while citing the following conversation between the two:

“Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation,” Page wrote. “These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.

Page continued: “As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else.”

The evidence shows that Comey was not misunderstood, but was acting in a corrupt manner to defend Hillary Clinton and advance his own twisted agenda.

The American people understand perfectly what his intentions were.

If anyone else had committed the same crimes that Clinton committed, they would certainly be in jail.

James Comey outlined a series of federal crimes committed by Hillary Clinton that would've led to anyone who was not a certified member of the elite being put in federal prison. "Lock her up" chants are not some sort of wish to oppress opponents but a demand for equal justice. https://t.co/zz1rCgibxE

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) February 12, 2019

Trump was completely right to fire Comey. The more we learn, the more we see how corrupt the FBI really was under Comey.

What are your thoughts? Comment below!

[RELATED: Senate Intel Committee Reveals Final Report On Russia Probe – We Knew It!]

infowars

Published  1 week ago

Progressives furious that the cover didn't feature a black person

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

An FBI employee who texted with her in-house lover about blocking Donald Trump's presidential ambitions wrote in 2016 of a 'quid pro quo' with the State Department to hide the fact that an email found on Hillary Clinton's home-brew email server was considered classified.

Lisa Page fretted in the closing days of the presidential campaign about a pending Freedom of Information Act disclosure of a discussion between top State and Justice Department officials about the potential trade.

Under the arrangement, the State Department would have given the FBI more legal attachés for its overseas division in exchange for altering the basis for keeping one of the Clinton emails from the public.

At the time, the email in question was exempt from FOIA requests because it was classified – a fact that was ultimately made public. The FBI had asked the State Department to 'change the basis of the FOIA withhold [decision] ... from classified to something else.'

The plot was never consummated. But Page, an FBI lawyer, was worried enough about it at the time to alert her colleagues that other employees had told investigators about it.

One of those colleagues was Peter Strzok, the married FBI agent she was having an affair with.

'Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness interview reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation,' Page warned.

'These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.'

'As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in the FBI's International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else.'

The email came to light on Monday as part of a raft of material released by Judicial Watch, a conservative government transparency group whose standard practice is to sue government agencies that slow-walk the disclosure of public records.

Page and Strzok became poster children in 2017 for conservatives' claims that the Burean was biased against Trump and took actions to tilt the election in Clinton's favor despite the national security threats posed by classified material found on her unsecured private email server.

Text messages between the pair, both of whom worked on Special Counsel Robert Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, have given Republicans ample fodder to question the ongoing investigation.

Strzok was a respected, veteran counterintelligence agent who helped lead the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. That operation ultimately cleared her despite the presence of classified material among her messages and a conclusion that some of that material was accessed by foreign agents.

Strzok was removed from the Russia probe in the summer of 2017 after the Justice Department found out about the texts.

The furtive messages between him and Page included observations about the 2016 election and criticism of Trump using words like 'idiot,' 'loathsome,' 'menace' and 'disaster.'

In one August 2016 exchange, Page wrote Strzok: '(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!'

Strzok responded: 'No. No he won't. We'll stop it.'

The couple also discussed an unnamed 'insurance policy' against Trump's White House ambitions.

A DOJ inspector general report released Thursday found that exchange 'is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.'

HuffPost

Published  1 week ago

The Texas rally included cameos from QAnon conspiracy theorists, a Pewdiepie fan and the leader of a far-right militia group.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

Contents of various Department of Justice records obtained this week by the watchdog group Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act filed last year suggest that the FBI interacted with both the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team in potentially sinister ways just prior to the general election on Nov. […]

YourVoice America

Published  1 week ago

FOXNEWS: Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency’s highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer in the days prior the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid-pro-quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the agency abroad. There was no indication such a quid-pro-quo ever took place.

And, in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI, the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”

The FBI did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the released emails.

On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey upended the presidential campaign by informing Congress that the FBI would quickly review the Weiner laptop. The Justice Department’s internal watchdog later faulted the FBI for failing to review the Weiner laptop through much of the fall of 2016, and suggested it was possible that now-fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok may have slow-walked the laptop analysis until other federal prosecutors pressured the FBI to review its contents.

Source: FBI scrambled to respond to Hillary Clinton lawyer amid Weiner laptop review, newly released emails show | Fox News

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Jews should stop supporting the Democratic Party in the wake of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by freshmen Democratic House members. Trump and Republicans are now the true friends of Israel and the Jewish people.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 week ago

State senators have passed a bill that would change how Colorado’s electoral votes are cast at the college, essentially joining a compact with other states that would award its presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The measure passed along a party-line vote with Democrats in support.

There are a total of 538 electors among the 50 states, including three votes allotted to the District of Columbia. Currently, 270 electoral votes are needed to win the U.S. presidency.

The Constitution and subsequent legislation specifies the number of electors allocated to each state and how they meet to select the president. Each state determines how electors are chosen. Colorado has nine electoral votes.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Republican George W. Bush. In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Republican Donald Trump.

A bill proposed by Democrat state Sen. Mike Foote, and legislators in other states, seeks to change this process – hoping to avoid outcomes like the 2000 and 2016 elections.

Foote’s bill would add Colorado to the list of states that already joined a newly formed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. According to NationalPopularVote.com, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in 12 states with a total of 172 electoral votes, including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C.

The compact would require electors to the Electoral College in each of these 11 states to cast their vote for the winner of the national popular vote.

Currently, Colorado electors vote for the candidate who wins in Colorado, as do all electors except for those in Maine and Nebraska.

"This really is a victory for those who believe that every vote should be counted equally," Foote, D-Lafayette, said. He also tweeted, "The #onepersononevote is on its way to becoming a reality in Colorado."

In order to become official, the measure would first need to be approved by the Democrat-controlled House and the Democratic governor, by other states involved in the pact, and once states totaling 98 or more electoral votes commit.

The Colorado Republican Party said in a statement that the Colorado Senate Democrats "took a step forward in eliminating the Electoral College and adopting a popular vote system." Colorado Republicans opposed the bill, arguing it is unconstitutional.

"It is unclear whether this is constitutional, that will have to be hashed out in the courts," Jon Caldara, president of the Denver-based Independent Institute, told Watchdog.org. "I just can’t figure out why our legislature wants our presidential electors to be beholden to forces outside of our state."

According to Ballotpedia, Colorado has voted the same as the winner of the Electoral College winner in 11 of the last 14 presidential elections. The only election years when the votes differed were in 1976, 1996, and 2016.

According to the compact, if Colorado voters voted the same as the Electoral College, Colorado electors would be required to vote with compact members for the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless if that candidate lost the popular vote in Colorado.

"Proponents of the National Popular Vote are saying that Colorado voters just don’t matter," Caldara added. "I disagree."

If the compact were to gain the number of states totaling 270 electoral votes, it most likely would be opposed in federal court.

Whether the Colorado bill is challenged and taken to the state’s supreme court remains another matter.

Hot Air

Published  1 week ago

To quote the famous ethicist Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Faced with a serious crisis in Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret and unauthorized use of a private e-mail system to transmit classified data, the FBI took action to, er … benefit the State Department? A newly released series of e-mails unveiled by a Judicial Watch FOIA action confirms that the FBI proposed allowing more legal attachés from State as a trade for changing the basis for withholding a classified Clinton e-mail:

Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency’s highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the agency abroad. There was no indication such a quid pro quo ever took place. …

“Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation,” Page wrote. “These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.

Page continued: “As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else.”

This offer emerged almost two and a half years ago, but at the time the report suggested that the offer went in the other direction. The release last night confirms that the offer went from the FBI to the State Department, which the FBI acknowledged at the time. This makes more sense than the original narrative floated in October 2016, since the FBI has no authority to declassify material that it does not itself produce. In order to declassify State Department material, State would have to take that action itself. And if they did that, they wouldn’t need to bargain with the FBI to make it happen.

But this still raises the question as to why investigators at the FBI would want to have it declassified, especially in light of the FOIA request. It doesn’t appear that the FBI wanted to make the e-mail subject to the FOIA demand, but just that the agency didn’t want the refusal to be on the basis of classification. Why? James Comey had staked out a no-crime position in July, a position that the Weiner laptop threatened in a big way. The timing certainly suggests that some in the FBI found it in their interest to keep Hillary from coming up again at the end of the election, which a FOIA refusal on the basis of classification would certainly do.

However, there’s another timing issue in play here too. These e-mails started on October 13th and ended on October 16th, prompted by an inquiry from Fox’s Catherine Herridge, but it wasn’t until the 28th that Comey told Congress that Hillary’s e-mails had been found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. At the time, no one outside the FBI knew about Weiner’s connection to the e-mail scandal. They may have also wanted to keep the e-mail scandal from popping up again in order to cover their new Weiner problem. Getting State to change its basis for FOIA denial would have been handy in that regard.

As it turns out, Comey never wavered from his July 2016 position despite finding classified e-mails on Weiner’s server. That’s not because the FBI didn’t find more classified material and more new material on the laptop, but perhaps because Hillary’s lawyer David Kendall did a full-court press to shut it down. In another newly released e-mail, FBI general counsel James Baker proposed a meeting with Kendall and his team. A few days later, Comey told Congress that the FBI had found nothing new or interesting on Weiner’s laptop, but that turned out to be false:

However, at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin’s account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop. And, despite Strzok’s apparent claim, FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop, but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached.

“It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”

Never, probably. That won’t remove the smell from it, but it’s water under the bridge now that the election is in the past. Jeff Sessions didn’t want to take it on, and it seems doubtful that William Barr will start off his tenure at Justice by launching a divisive probe into a partisan minefield.

However, at least we unearthed this nugget of humility from the former FBI director:

And, in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI, the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Not when to be understood is to be embarrassing.

Quillette

Published  1 week ago

This is a response to “Who Controls the Platform?“—a multi-part Quillette series authored by social-media insiders. Submissions related to this series may be directed to pitch@quillette.com. Many conservatives believe that social media companies are biased against their views. This includes Donald Trump, who last year accused Twitter of “shadow banning” Republicans, and promised to “look into this discriminatory and illegal practice.” A few months later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made a categorical denial of any bias while testifying before Congress: Let me be clear about one important and foundational fact: Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially. Recently, Mr. Dorsey appeared on two different podcasts, on which he similarly denied any bias against the right. Not everyone is convinced. A June, 2018 Pe

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Over two years after the fact, newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request confirm that James Comey's FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help minimize the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.

Fox News's Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne first reported on the alleged deal back on Oct. 15, 2016, but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government transparency watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.

"FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a 'quid pro quo' between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News," Herridge and Browne reported in 2016. "This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. "In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed," he said.

On Monday, Fox News' Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a "quid pro quo" deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI -- in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI's access is ordinarily restricted.

The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place.

Page, along with her lover, anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok, has been accused of "orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president," Re notes. He provides the following excerpt from an email by Page in which she cites "a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement":

"Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation," Page wrote. "These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.

Page continued: "As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else."

In a notable moment highlighted by Fox, soon-to-be-fired FBI Director James Comey, who was eventually reprimanded for his botched handling of the Clinton investigation, responded to the mounting pressure surrounding the investigation by quoting the famous American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, reassuring his team, "To be great is to be misunderstood." But the evidence reveals that rather than being "misunderstood," the FBI was attempting to quietly shield Clinton and benefit its own agenda. Read Re's full report here.

Related: After Report On 'Damning' FBI Email Chain, Trump Hits Alleged FISA Abuse

This article has been updated to include more details about the newly released emails.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton's lawyer in the days prior the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 week ago

In addition to supporting such economy-wrecking Democrat-Socialist ideas as "Medicare for all” and the “Green New Deal,” Senator Cory Booker has come up with one of his own proposals to distinguish his run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. It’s called the "baby bonds" program, under which all children born in the United States – presumably including anchor babies – would be given a $1000 initial “bond” at birth to be deposited in a trust account. Each year thereafter, so long as the income of the child’s parents remains below 500% of the federal poverty guidelines, the child would receive additional government payments of as much as $2000 into the account until the child reaches the age of 18.

According to the 2019 poverty guidelines, 500% of the poverty guideline for a family of 4 would be $128,750. Senator Booker estimated that his proposed baby bonds program could cost as much as sixty billion dollars a year, according to an article appearing in the New Yorker last December. He would pay for his give-away proposal by, unsurprisingly, imposing more taxes on upper income taxpayers.

Although the program would be structured as racially neutral, the New Yorker article reported that “Booker’s staff has calculated that the average white child would accrue about fifteen thousand dollars through the program, and the average black child would gain twenty-nine thousand dollars.”

Jordan Weissmann, Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent, wrote that while Senator Booker has not expressly called for reparations to fix the disparity of wealth between white and black Americans, his baby bonds proposal “might be the closest thing that we can expect to see from a serious presidential contender going into 2020.” Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics and urban policy at the New School who worked with Senator Booker on the proposal, is quoted by Mr. Weissmann as telling him, “The most parsimonious way to address racial wealth inequality is a system of reparations. But if we’re not at the political moment for reparations, then baby bonds are a very good mechanism.” In short, Senator Booker’s baby bonds proposal is his weapon of choice with which to engage in a form of combined race-based and economic class warfare.

The baby bonds proposal is not as new a Democrat idea as it may seem. Hillary Clinton was pushing the idea back in 2007. However, in addition to its significant cost, baby bonds would not help families with children struggling to make ends meet while they are raising their children. Instead, it would redistribute wealth to trust accounts for children of parents with incomes of as much as six figures. These accounts would not be available for productive use for 18 years from the child’s birth. On the other hand, child tax credits are already available, which provide money to families while they most need it. A new refundable credit, up to $1,400 if the child tax credit would bring one’s tax liability below zero, was established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017. Yet today’s far left Democrat party bizarrely dismissed this law, including its real life benefit to help people of need through the expanded tax credit.

Senator Kamala Harris, who is also running for her party’s presidential nomination, wants to turn the tax credit idea into a vast wealth redistribution program, paid for by imposing more taxes on corporations and on taxpayers in the higher income brackets who already pay a disproportionately high amount of the nation’s income taxes. Her proposal would provide up to $6,000 a year per family, in the form of a refundable tax credit, for households earning under $100,000 annually. This government subsidy would be in addition to the public benefits that some people already receive. The subsidy would also be extended to people higher up the economic ladder than is the case today. The cost could amount to as much as $200 billion a year. In short, Senator Harris’s proposal would transform the original intended purpose of the earned income tax credit to incentivize work as well as offset federal payroll and income taxes into a socialist style wealth redistribution scheme. She uses class warfare rhetoric to justify what she would plan to do if given the chance. Senator Harris, like Senator Booker, also backs “Medicare for all” and the “Green New Deal.”

Indeed, Democrats such as Senators Booker and Harris are running to the far left, pushed by the progressive base of the party to mainstream the radical class warfare ideas of Democrat-Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Democrat-Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The official Green New Deal Resolution, introduced by Representative Ocasio- Cortez, is a manifesto against what it calls “systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices.” Ranging far beyond its pie-in-the-sky proposals to create a fossil fuel free economy within 10 years, the resolution demands that the federal government “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities” and of other so-called “frontline and vulnerable communities.” It would provide all people of the United States with “economic security.” As a top adviser to Representative Ocasio-Cortez has now admitted, a "Green New Deal" document posted by her office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work."

History is littered with failed socialist policies to guarantee everyone “economic security,” which end up sapping the incentives to work and create wealth. The Booker baby bonds proposal and Harris wealth distribution tax credit plan would operate along the same lines. As Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.”

iPatriot

Published  1 week ago

The Democrats’ and President Trump’s positions on the wall are diametrically opposed. Hillary Clinton insists: ‘There’s No National Emergency At Our Border’*; while the President insists we have a National Crisis.

Obviously, someone is lying. Just consider the facts:

Drug Cartels have turned Mexico into an extremely dangerous and violent country. In 2018, Mexico suffered 40,000 murders. A Mexican Mayor was shot and killed the day he took office. Just today, Hugo Figueroa, a cattle rancher was kidnapped, tortured, tied up and then killed. In 2018, Cancun had 540 homicides. Last week, dismembered body parts were dumped outside the Mayor’s office. In January 2019 alone, there were another 30 executions in Cancun.

Drug Cartels bribe Mexican Politicians and get co-operation in return: In a NY Court, El Chapo’s accountant admitted they regularly bribe Mexican politicians; and that they paid a $100 million bribe to former President Enrique Pena Nieto The Mexican Government, in turn, colludes with the Cartels; provides temporary visas, food and housing for the illegals; and clears the way for the busses to bring them to our border.

El Paso is a major smuggling route for drugs, illegals and even Islamic Terrorists: Today, the President had a massive rally at the border. Beto O’Rourke (D) who represented El Paso, claims Ciudad Juarez, just across the border, is perfectly safe and the wall is unnecessary. Yet in 2018, 1123 people were murdered in Ciudad Juarez vs 23 in El Paso. Juarez is renowned for beheadings, gunfights, kidnappings and drug trafficking; and is among the world’s most dangerous places, and the most dangerous city in the Western Hemisphere!! El Paso itself is headquarters of a sophisticated narco-terror ring operated by two of the FBI’s most wanted.

The Border Patrols says they are completely overwhelmed by Central American Migrant Families There was a 70% rise of illegals in FY 2019. The El Paso Sector (New Mexico and parts of West Texas), witnessed a 1,588% rise of illegals in Jan ‘19 compared to Jan ‘18. Multiple 12,000-strong caravans are on the way. According to Gallup, 42 million Latin Americans want to enter America, 5 million plan to enter within the next 12 months!!

Various Entities, including the American Taxpayer, are providing the funds for the smuggling operation: These “penniless” migrants are very well dressed. Someone is soliciting them; supplying them with new clothes, knapsacks, sleeping bags, food and lodging; and paying for their busses. Democrats and Leftist billionaires who want their votes and cheap labor are supplying funds via NGO’s they control. The UNHCR is in Mexico supplying funds for “migrants.” But ultimately, a large amount comes from the American taxpayers themselves. We provide money to our government, which provides a major portion of the UN & its UNHCR budget. Thanks to our corrupt Judges; we are forced to provide funds for attorneys for illegals who haven’t even entered America; health care for those who arrive sick; and board and lodging for the nearly 100% of those who arrive and claim “asylum.”

Bringing illegals into America is big business. Drug Cartels collect people from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador and bus them to the border. Drug Cartels use the strategy of tying up border patrol by sending in large family groups through remote areas and then moving drugs through other locations. The cartels also smuggle Islamic Terrorists at double the fee of regulars. These Special Interest Aliens, (SIA’s) are stashed in Acala and then mingled with illegals attempting the crossing.

The Cartels collect up to $15,000 per person they bring in, about $50 million a month. Illegals frequently borrow the cost of their passage from relatives/friends in America. But illegals remain under the control of the coyotes. Some smuggle in drugs to pay for their transport. Some use their US benefits &/or wages to “pay back” the “costs” of their transport. Others remain, slaves of the cartels, working for a pittance and even working as sex slaves. Allowing a massive influx of illegals into America results in America also falling under the control of Drug Cartels.

The Cartels’ Drug Business is estimated to bring in a staggering $40 Billion a year: They bring in 90% of the deadly Fentanyl and 70,000 Americans have died each year. On January 31, 2019, Customs and Border Patrol seized enough Fentanyl to kill 115 million people. Court records show how wealthy the drug lords are: Juan Carlos “Chupeta” Ramirez Abadia, told jurors that he forfeited a Billion in assets. Vicente Zambada, the son of El Chapo Guzman’s partner, told the court he also forfeited a Billion.

Democrats never support Americans, not even when MS-13 gangs kill us. MS-13 has taken control of many American cities. Last week, an MS-3 gang member shot and killed a man at a subway platform in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ NY district! Illegals commit a huge number of crimes against Americans, including 4000 murders; but Democrats argue they are not as bad as native Americans, as though that is a reason to bring more illegals in here. Democrats won’t even allow Gold Star Moms and Dads to speak of their murdered family members.

Illegals are bringing in Third World diseases, long eradicated in America: Diseases like drug-resistant TB, Chikungunya, Dengue Fever, Meningitis, Hepatitis, flesh-eating bacteria and even medieval diseases like Typhus, are popping up all over California. Typhus epidemics are now raging in Los Angeles, Burbank, and Huntington Beach.

Drug Cartels are helped by Democrats’ public funding of drug use & protection of criminal illegals. We give money to the government, which gives addicts EBT cards, which are converted into cash to buy drugs from dealers. Thus, our money goes up the chain to the Cartels. Democrat politicians further Cartel business by creating “sanctuary cities;” writing laws like CA’s AB47 and AB57 which minimize penalties for cartel members who use and sell guns engage in drug dealing etc; refusing to hand over convicted criminal illegals for deportation and instead releasing them onto our streets. Democrats’ demonization of ICE as Racists, Nazis, Hitler, KKK are just another means of protecting Cartel agents. Right now, Democrats are trying to convert all of America into a Sanctuary Country by holding up wall funding; demanding reductions in the number of ICE agents, restricting ICE’s ability to detain illegals, and capping the number of criminal aliens who could be deported.

Drug Cartels Businesses are promoted by Democrats who affirmatively encourage increased drug use by providing free needles (41,000 a month in San Francisco alone); creating “safe spaces” for drug addicts to inject their drugs; allowing public vagrancy; and failing to provide proper drug treatment or even pass laws which would force addicts to go into treatment. As a result, Democrat-controlled cities like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle are now Third World shit holes with massive mounds of trash, feces, rats and used needles. In Portland, because of harassment and threats by the homeless, residents make a 911 call every 4 minutes! See: Portland, Shithole City: Capital of Antifa, Drug Addiction, Degeneracy & Depression.

Drug Cartel Businesses are protected by Democrat Politicians who insist on keeping the border open at all costs. They make absurd arguments: the wall is immoral, racist, costs too much, won’t work, won’t deter illegals, people can climb over or dig under etc. But 65 countries have built walls since the Berlin Wall fell. Hillary, Nancy, Chuck and Hollywood hypocrites all have armed bodyguards and live behind walls. They claim they “want to secure the border;” but Democrats are doing everything in their power, using Congress and corrupt judges, to prevent President Trump from securing the border. Obviously, they want the border kept open.

Why do Democrats want open borders? If we built a wall, everyone would have to come in through our ports of entry; and the Cartels couldn’t make $50M/month smuggling illegals. Smuggling drugs would also be much more difficult, and this would cut into the Cartel’s $40B/year drug business.

Pretty obviously, Democrat Politicians are colluding with the Drug Cartels. Equally obviously, exactly like Mexican Politicians, American Politicians are also accepting funds from the Drug Cartels.

Meantime, ordinary Americans are being replaced by Illegals. We think we’ll be able to vote out the Democrats. But they are importing illegals and giving them the right to vote. Therefore, our votes will no longer matter. In California alone, more people voted that there were adults who could vote!! Obviously, illegals voted. The Democrats and the Swamp will continue to rule us; except they will replace American citizens, who will not vote for them; with illegals, who will.

Are you still going to sit silently while they do everything possible to destroy our PresidentTrump? Or are you going to use all your energies to help him win again so he can protect our country?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft

As layers of information are uncovered and unscrambled, the facts behind the Russia collusion scam come to light. As the light begins to shine on the truth, a silhouette of former President Barack Hussein Obama appears.

Barack Obama had the opportunity to be the greatest President in US history. America was ready for a change after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economic collapse. A big change was needed and this is what Obama promised.

Unfortunately, Obama’s changes led the US to more misery. The economy barely fluttered out the market collapse of 2008 and even worsened immediately after Obama took office. The wars in the Middle East increased, ISIS was formed and American guns were provided to terrorists and drug cartels. Billions were given to Iran and four Americans in Benghazi were left to die on foreign soil despite calls for help. Regulations were the norm and the economy never reached its potential. But the gravest of Obama’s actions were left hidden, until now.

All roads in the Trump – Russia collusion hoax lead back to Obama.

By piecing together available information, some are only starting to appear.

We now know that corrupt FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were part of a plan to implicate candidate Trump with Russia. Strzok was assigned to the Trump – Russia collusion investigation shortly after having interviewed and exonerated Hillary Clinton of all wrongdoing related criminal actions in her email scandal. As noted by the Daily Caller in December of 2017 –

Another bit of information is found in the fictional writings of Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book –Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. These same authors who were instrumental in pushing out the fake Russia dossier story, next put in the work to create a greater fiction in their creative writing work about the fake Trump – Russia conspiracy. But in their work, they do drop glimpses of truth, which when taken with other pieces of information, lead us back to the Obama White House.

Isikoff and Corn write that John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director, was so convinced of Russia meddling in the 2016 election that he formed a team that met in Obama’s White House that looked into this meddling (by spying on candidate Trump) –

While Brennan wrangled the intelligence agencies into a turf-crossing operation that could feed the White House information on the Russian maneuver, Obama convened a series of meetings to devise a plan for countering whatever the Russians were up to. The meetings followed the procedure known in the federal government as the “interagency process.” The protocol was for the deputy chiefs of the relevant government agencies to meet and hammer out options for the principals — that is, the heads of the agencies — and then the principals hold a separate (and sometimes parallel) chain of meetings to discuss and perhaps debate before presenting choices to the president.

But for this topic, the protocol was not observed. Usually when the White House invited the deputies and principals to such meetings, they informed them of the subject at hand and provided “readahead” memos outlining what was on the agenda. This time, the agency officials just received instructions to show up at the White House at a certain time. No reason given. No memos supplied. “We were only told that a meeting was scheduled, and our principal or deputy was expected to attend,” recalled a senior administration official who participated in the sessions. (At the State Department, only a small number of officials were cleared to receive the most sensitive information on the Russian hack; this group included Secretary of State John Kerry; Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state; Dan Smith, head of the department’s intelligence bureau; and Jon Finer, Kerry’s chief of staff.)

For the usual inter-agency sessions, principals and deputies could bring staffers. Not this time. “There were no plus ones,” an attendee recalled. When the subject of a principals or deputies meeting was a national security matter, the gathering was often held in the Situation Room of the White House. The in‑house video feed of the Sit Room — without audio — would be available to national security officials at the White House and elsewhere, and these officials could at least see that a meeting was in progress and who was attending. For the meetings related to the Russian hack, Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, ordered the video feed turned off. She did not want others in the national security establishment to know what was under way, fearing leaks from within the bureaucracy.

The Secretary of State (John Kerry) was invited to these meetings but not Admiral Mike Rogers? Could it be because Rogers, the Director of the National Intelligence Agency, was not part of the spy on Trump team because he had already initiated an audit into the FISA program due to irregularities he noticed in early 2016? Did Obama and Brennan not want Rogers on the team because they were afraid he was too honest?

At the same time that Brennan was creating his team that met in the White House to spy on Trump, the FBI created its investigation into Trump – Russia collusion. The entire scam was in place.

Obama was out to stop Donald Trump from being President.

Hat tip D. Manny

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

It’s no secret that Twitter censors and shadow-bans conservatives. The Gateway Pundit has reported on this extensively over the past few years. We reported in July 2018 that Twitter has long been accused of censoring conservatives.  Twitter was indeed censoring and shadowbanning the President of the United States, Donald Trump’s twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. Twitter is […]

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

Was it something he said?

On Tuesday night, as Washington journalists talked about how bored to death they were of CNN’s town hall with Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Fox News’s Laura Ingraham reeled in the ratings.

“Has anyone ever been this annoying?” asked New York Mag’s Olivia Nuzzi on Twitter.

“If he could just smile more,” cracked The Bulwark‘s Sally Jong-Fast.

[Insert triple shot expresso coffee joke here.]

Schultz didn’t just depress viewers with his boring factor, he also raised eyebrows by saying he doesn’t see color.

When asked about a racial profiling incident at a Starbucks, he said, “As somebody who grew up in a very diverse background as a young boy in the projects, I didn’t see color as a young boy and I honestly don’t see color now.”

Adam Parkhomenko, a Democratic strategist and adviser to Hillary Clinton, apparently didn’t like what he heard. “Howard Schultz said he doesn’t see color,” he tweeted. “Motherfucker apparently can’t see polling data either.”

Back to those pesky ratings, “The Ingraham Angle” toppled the Schultz town hall, ranking number one with over 2.5 million viewers and 464K in the coveted younger demo market.

According to early Nielson Market Research, CNN’s town hall with the Starbucks CEO crashed in third place.

Some observers wondered why Schultz warranted a town hall in the first place.

Cue up NYU’s geeky journalism prof Jay Rosen, who sought help from CNN’s Brian Stelter: “@brianstelter I know you’re always looking for ideas for @ReliableSources. Here’s one. Invite the relevant CNN executive to explain: why a town hall for Howard Schultz? Has he declared? No. Does he have a vast network of support? He does not. Is he polling well? Nope… Then why?”

New York Mag Business Columnist Josh Barro also couldn’t comprehend why Schultz earned the hoopla of a town hall.

“I will be interested to see how the Howard Schultz town hall rates,” he wrote. “Why does he get a town hall? Probably because he’s controversial and controversy is interesting. That is, Democrats feeling white hot rage at him: This is your fault, you’re why CNN thinks people would watch.”

wikileaks

Published  1 week ago

Julian

02/11 3:22 pm

WikiLeaks is Courage's newest benificiary, as the US ramps up its war on journalism.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

'There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow...'

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

DailyMail.com is picturing Beth Inabinett, 63, for the first time. She faces a March trial in Maryland for second-degree assault. Inabinett could also face a federal felony charge, according to a DOJ official.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Ranking member of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said in an interview with The Hill TV’s Buck Sexton that GOP lawmakers are combing through Russiagate transcripts from interviews conducted over the last year and will make referrals to the Justice Department.

“We’re continuing to work with the task force that was set up late last year between the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee that was led by Goodlatte and Gowdy with our recommendations,” Devin Nunes told The Hill TV’s Buck Sexton.

“We will be continuing that task force, except at that the House Intelligence Committee Republicans will be involved,” Nunes continued.

“We’re now combing through the transcripts that came last year from the roughly 15 interviews or so. We’ll comb through those and we will be sending those recommendations on to the Department of Justice when the timing is appropriate,” he said.

Buck Sexton asked Congressman Nunes where the Mueller investigation is going to end up regarding President Trump and Russian collusion.

“They’re not going to find any Russian collusion,” Nunes said, adding, “As we’ve known from the very beginning the Mueller team was stacked with hard partisans and two were fired — Strzok and Page were fired.”

Last April, former Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and 10 other lawmakers sent a letter to the DOJ, criminally referring Comey, Hillary Clinton, McCabe and Loretta Lynch for their investigations into Trump.

That same week in April, Inspector General Michael Horowitz criminally referred former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the US Attorney’s office about the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

So far, none of these Deep State criminals have been indicted or sentenced to prison — meanwhile Trump associates are being indicted on process crimes.

There will be no justice as long as Mueller and Rosenstein are running the DOJ.

USA TODAY

Published  1 week ago

As the special counsel probe grinds toward its conclusion, there are growing signs that Mueller will never say anything about his own investigation.

Neon Nettle

Published  1 week ago

Newly released emails show FBI jumping through hoops for Hillary Clinton's lawyer

The Independent

Published  1 week ago

A group of renowned computer scientists and lawyers have urged Hillary Clinton to challenge the election results in three key states after they gathered "evidence" to suggest the election results were potentially manipulated.

The group of activists, including voting rights lawyer John Bonifaz and J Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan's center for computer security and society, believe their evidence shows that results in these three battleground states - which lost Ms Clinton the election on 8 November - might have been hacked.

As reported by New York Magazine, the group is not speaking on the record but is privately lobbying Clinton’s team to challenge the election results.

In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to countries that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

The group has already held a call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to argue that while they have not found conclusive evidence of a hack, the pattern in their results merits an independent review.

Ms Clinton has made no indication she would challenge the results and the White House is intent on a smooth transition.

The deadline to file for a vote recount is between Friday and next Wednesday for the three states.

The vote in Michigan has still not been called as the results on 8 November were very close - and the 16 electoral votes in the state have not been proportioned to either Mr Trump or Ms Clinton.

Mr Trump has 290 electoral college votes, compared to Ms Clinton’s 232 votes. Michigan is likely to be given to the Republican side.

Ms Clinton would need to win Michigan and overturn the results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to win the electoral college.

Another factor is so-called "faithless electors" who will not vote for the candidate which won in the popular vote in their state. So far, six electoral college voters said they would not vote for Mr Trump.

Meanwhile more than 4.5 million people have signed a petition for more electoral college delegates to defy the instructions given to them in their state.

There have only been 157 faithless electors throughout history but they have never overturned an election.

Mr Trump said on Tuesday during a meeting with the New York Times that he was “never a fan” of the electoral college and he would have preferred to win in the popular vote.

Heba Abedin, the sister of Ms Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin, called on Facebook for people to phone the justice department and request an audit of the vote.

"They are starting to recognise there really is something off about the election results as they come in," she wrote.

Ms Clinton said during the third presidential debate that Mr Trump's refusal to definitely accept the election result if he lost was "horrifying".

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Hours after Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren kicked off her 2020 campaign, President Trump tweeted he would see her on the “trail,” twisting the knife deeper into a potent political wound.

Trump is relishing a match-up with Warren because he views her as damaged beyond repair. On that point, he might have found a rare piece of common ground with his liberal opposition. In the aftermath of the recent scandal around Warren, a column in her hometown Boston Globe – which has always treated the Cambridge Democrat with kid gloves – declared: “With latest revelation, Elizabeth Warren can’t beat Donald Trump.”

The president is partly responsible for Warren’s campaign being on life support. By using his bully pulpit to introduce a mass audience to the Native American controversy that has followed Warren since 2012, Trump goaded Warren into releasing the results of her DNA test last fall.

WARREN FORMALLY LAUNCHES 2020 CAMPAIGN, MAKES NO MENTION OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONTROVERSY

But at its core, much like Hillary Clinton’s email server, the fiasco is a problem of Warren’s own making. It’s a result of her being deceitful about questions about honesty and integrity. It’s never really been about ancestry – it’s always been about character.

From high cheekbones to family lore, Warren has trotted out a range of excuses to explain her decision to self-identify as a minority. But she has never addressed why her ethnicity changed – or whether it benefitted her professional career.

Last week’s bombshell revelation came from the Washington Post, which found conclusive evidence that Warren had called herself an American Indian. The smoking gun came in Warren’s own handwriting on her application to join the Texas bar in the 1980s.

The revelation shed more light on Warren’s bizarre decision last week to proactively apologize to a leader of the Cherokee Nation. Her best efforts to get ahead of bad news did no good.

From high cheekbones to family lore, Warren has trotted out a range of excuses to explain her decision to self-identify as a minority. But she has never addressed why her ethnicity changed – or whether it benefitted her professional career.

Warren was soon back in all-out apology mode. Give her credit for one thing: Warren may be lagging in the polls, but she’s the undisputed leader of the Democratic apology tour. Ironically, during her first campaign for public office in 2012, Warren was demanding apologies from her opponent, then-Sen. Scott Brown (on whose campaign I served as communications director) when he raised similar questions. Now, the issue is the same, but the apologies are coming from the other side.

Warren’s presidential exploratory committee endured a rocky first month. The rollout of her only significant policy proposal, a wealth tax, didn’t go off without a glitch. First, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hardly a right-wing demagogue, dismissed the scheme as “probably unconstitutional.” Then phenom freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, stole headlines with her own 70 percent tax proposal.

Since her New Year’s Eve announcement, at least seven viable contenders – including four fellow Democratic senators – have joined the field with dozens more potential heavyweights not far behind. One of her colleagues, Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif, has eclipsed Warren not just in media coverage but also fundraising dollars. Harris raised $1.5 million dollars in her first 24 hours as a candidate, a haul nearly four times larger than Warren’s $299,000.

Which brings us back to the other fundamental problem of Warren’s candidacy. Hardly 24 hours after announcing, Warren’s news cycle was hijacked by another liberal Democratic senator, Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar. By Monday, as a fresh news week begins, the political world has already moved on, and Warren feels a lot like yesterday’s news. Meanwhile, there are still dozens of other Democratic luminaries – including former vice president Joe Biden and last time’s runner-up, Bernie Sanders – moving closer to campaigns of their own.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Even if Warren could do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t and put her character questions to rest, the damage is done. That bell can’t be unrung. Unlike 2016, liberal voters drawn to Warren’s message have other options to choose from. If you think Warren’s attacks on free enterprise or her wealth distribution schemes are what this country needs, there’s a host of other candidates to choose from without Warren’s scar tissue.

In a press conference with reporters before her announcement, Warren was asked if she was considering dropping out. She avoided the question, but the political consequences of her past decisions have caught up to her and won’t be ignored – by the media, her opponents or voters.

Colin Reed is a former campaign manager for Scott Brown and is a Republican strategist and managing director at Definers Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C. communications firm.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Adam Schiff in 2017 kicked off the House's most publicized hearing into Russia election interference by leveling a number of felony charges against President Trump's associates, citing news repor

Grrr Graphics

Published  1 week ago

The New York Times, a declining and laughable rag filled with fake news, had the audacity to criticize the president for ‘racism’ because he criticized Elizabeth Warren for pretending to be a ‘native American.’ Warren lied

TheBlaze

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Rand Paul is on the right track

MintPress News

Published  1 week ago

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has been the subject of bipartisan bullying since she explicitly called out the number one Israeli lobby group, AIPAC.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Did you notice how, during the Andrew McCabe interview with "60 Minutes," the former FBI acting director kept talking about “articulable facts?”

Like ex-CIA boss John Brennan and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe was coining his own phrase to explain why the intelligence community started spying the Trump team. But the justification for mounting a probe should not lie in weasel words. It belongs in something known in law enforcement circles as “Paragraph One.”

Paragraph One in federal investigations lays out precisely why the investigation began and how. You can’t skip over it with fanciful phrases or empty verbiage. Yet, in the case of the counter-intelligence probe that targeted Team Trump, it has been two years and we are still waiting for someone to articulate a clear reason why the program began.

MCCABE: 'NO ONE' IN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP OBJECTED WHEN TOLD OF FBI’S TRUMP PROBE

McCabe told Scott Pelley the FBI had a bunch of "articulable facts," but he didn’t bother to articulate them. Earlier, Comey told Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier the investigation was justified by a "mosaic of facts." The impetus was described by Brennan in still another interview as the "corpus of intelligence."

Is anybody ever going to describe what this is? Put yourself in Trump's shoes. He is being investigated as a potential traitor to the United States for colluding with a foreign power and no one has yet described why they were investigating the Trump team during the campaign.

Here’s why they can’t say what the “articulable facts,” “mosaic,” or “corpus” really are. Because it was the dossier, commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and later thoroughly discredited that prompted the never-ending probe. It was compiled by Trump-hating ex-British spy Christopher Steele, on behalf of Fusion GPS, which was hired by a law firm which in turn contracted with Clinton to get dirt – real or fake – on Trump. The dossier was the “predicate crime,” but now that it has been debunked, it is pretty hard to acknowledge what a house of cards this whole investigation has been.

McCabe has already admitted the Justice Department would never have gotten a FISA warrant to investigate Trump, which gave them the power to monitor him, without the dossier. But you won’t hear him, Brennan or Comey say that anymore.

When the truth is no longer “articulable,” you have to get creative.

U.S.

Published  1 week ago

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporte...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Western Free Press

Published  1 week ago

The Benghazi scandal is back in the headlines. This time, some unlikely players were added to the fray. One of the players, Nancy Pelosi, was added to the scandal due to a hack leak released by Guccifer 2.0.

The hacker or hackers known as Guccifer 2.0 publicly released documents claiming to come from the computer of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). As you may recall, the Original Guccifer, Marcel Lazăr Lehel, is a Romanian hacker responsible for high-level computer security breaches in the U.S. and Romania. Lehel targeted celebrities, Romanian and U.S. government officials, and other prominent persons. (RELATED: Margaret Hoover Grills Democrat Eric Swalwell Over Russia Obsession)

Lehel was jailed in January 2014 in Romania, then later transferred to the US. Lehal’s arrest was the beginning of his predecessor, Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0’s identity is still unidentified.

Guccifer 2.0, who allegedly breached the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC), released the documents to the WordPress blog used in other public releases. The information includes a cache of documents on congressional races in Florida and Pennsylvania.

According to The Daily Caller, The documents show the Democrat party trying to call the Benghazi scandal “conspiracy theory.”

The Daily Caller wrote:

“The document casts the controversy surrounding Benghazi as “Legitimate outrage over the deaths of American diplomats mixed with partisanship.” The document also admits that then Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice “gave incorrect information on television” in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

The document’s central talking points revolve around ignoring the facts revealed by congressional investigations, and instead on rhetorical flourishes that emphasize patriotism.”

Interestingly, the Democrats were trying to paint the Benghazi incident as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.” This would fit with all the other things that the Democrats do to hide information. By having all the Democrats on the same page, if the Benghazi scandal was ever investigated again, they would all claim the scandal was a “right-wing conspiracy to use against Hillary Clinton and Suzan Rice.” (RELATED: Exclusive: Roger Stone Interview on Legal Battle With Bob Mueller)

In the leaked document, the following information is available.

“This tragedy highlights the challenges our diplomats face when they serve as frontline civilians, representing our nation in harm’s way. Isolating America and sequestering these professionals in fortress embassies is not a solution. We must value and support their important work, as well as protecting their physical security.”

The second section highlights the many attempts at calling for accountability as “pandering to conspiracy theorists.”

“Benghazi is a tragedy, not a scandal. At this point, most public discussion is pandering to conspiracy theorists or harping on the death of an American ambassador to score political points.”

Finally, the third section denigrates the Republican-led Congress for investigating the specific circumstances involving the events of Benghazi.

“These tragic events have been investigated more than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Reports ordered by a Republican-led Congress have repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories of criminal negligence or cover-ups, and media coverage has exhausted the issue from every angle. Even incoming House Speaker McCarthy admitted the investigations were more about hurting Hillary Clinton than finding truth. We should remember the sacrifice of these Americans, not reduce their names to political talking points.”

This document, if it was truly taken from Nancy Pelosi’s laptop, leaves more room for additional questions about the tragedy. No more information is available. We will inform you as this story develops. (RELATED: Voluminous Amount of Dems Beginning to Support Border Wall)

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

Dolly Parton's new album just hit No. 1. Her diplomacy, success, and patriotism make her the president we need during this time of national chaos.

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress last fall — is accused of sending a string of "anti-Semitic" tweets regarding the Israeli lobby in the U.S.

Omar, a proponent of the BDS — Boycott, Divest and Sanctions — movement aimed at putting economic and political pressure on Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, first tweeted Sunday night that money was driving U.S. politicians to defend Israel.

She then tweeted that AIPAC — The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee — was paying politicians to support Israel.

Omar, a Somalian refugee, came under fire from some Democrats.

AIPAC, a non-profit that does not donate directly to candidates but works to promote a staunchly pro-Israel message in Washington, D.C., responded to Omar, tweeting that it is "proud that we are engaged in the democratic process to strengthen the US-Israel relationship."

"Our bipartisan efforts are reflective of American values and interests," the group's tweet continued. "We will not be deterred in any way by ill-informed and illegitimate attacks on this important work."

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted that she would reach out to Omar's office on Monday to discuss "anti-Semitic tropes." Omar tweeted that she would be happy to chat with Clinton.

Omar was originally responding in her earliest tweet to criticism from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy over her prior comments regarding Israel. McCarthy and other Republicans have called on Democratic leadership to "take action" regarding Omar and fellow Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, another recently elected Muslim woman, over their criticism of Israel. McCarthy compared it to Republicans having taken action regarding the racist remarks made by Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

Updating World

Published  1 week ago

Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced a bill that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper probably won’t like.

The “Justice For All Act” would require equal punishment for those who have lied or lie to Congress, no matter who they are.

“Unfortunately, it often seems that we have a two-tiered justice system at work; certain people have the book thrown at them, while others face no consequences at all for their behavior. This is unfair and wrong, and I hope to correct this with my resolution,” said Gaetz.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Following the disastrous rollout of her long-awaited "Green New Deal" which was met by widespread criticism and mockery, socialist sweetheart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is desperately trying to change the subject. The plan for a radical socialist transformation

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

On Friday, America was treated to a preview of things to come when House Democrats turned a hearing with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker into a grotesque spectacle of the sort of nasty politics and

The Daily Dot

Published  1 week ago

If you spend even the slightest amount of time talking about politics on Twitter, you will eventually notice a great mass of nearly-identical looking conservative accounts.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 week ago

Hillary Clinton just can’t stay off the anti-Trump soapbox. She was on it again Sunday on Showtime’s The Circus. She maintains the left’s talking points, saying that there is no emergency to be dealt with at the U.S.-Mexico border and that the president is basically fighting a one-man battle that he’s doomed to lose.

Sunday on Showtime’s, “The Circus” former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said President Donald Trump should not declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border because she argued there was “no national emergency at our border.”

Clinton said, “I just don’t think you should call national emergencies unless there truly is a national emergency. There’s no national emergency at our border. And he’s frustrated because he can’t even get his own party to support his request. And he shouldn’t be breaking new ground and causing new precedents that really may come back to not only haunt him, but our country. He should go through regular order. He couldn’t get Congress when he had Republican control. He can’t get it now. Then work with Congress. Every Democrat, every Republican wants to do what is right to secure our border. They disagree with his demand that there is only one way to do that.”

I can’t speak for anyone else, but my instinctive response to hearing Hillary talk is to yell “SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!” at the top of my lungs. Her voice gets on my nerves, but her attitude bugs me even more. If ever there was a national emergency, she is the walking embodiment of it.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Adam Schiff in 2017 kicked off the House's most publicized hearing into Russia election interference by leveling a number of felony charges against President Trump's associates, citing news repor

dcclothesline

Published  2 weeks ago

(Natural News) Stunning new video footage released exclusively by InfoWars.com shows FBI personnel directing the CNN camera man who filmed the armed raid of Roger Stone. The new footage exposes the pure theater of the armed “Gestapo” raid on Roger Stone, which was carried out by 29 armed, geared-up FBI agents who now function as Robert Mueller’s domestic terrorism mercenaries.

The shocking video footage proves that the corrupt FBI was complicit in the theatrical staging of the arrest for CNN’s cameras, further proving that CNN was tipped off by someone in Robert Mueller’s office. Leaking this information to the media is a felony crime, demonstrating that Robert Mueller’s deep state mafia is, itself, a criminal operation engaged in domestic terrorism tactics against Americans.

The FBI attempted to confiscate this footage but reportedly failed to find and remove the DVR that captured it. Some of the video footage shows the FBI placing tape over the lens of one of the cameras, confirming that the FBI is actively engaged in attempts to cover up their crimes of violence that target innocent Americans for political purposes.

See the video screen grabs below, and share everywhere. This is now the America in which we live: A deep state, police state bureaucracy run by federal terrorists who stage armed raids against political enemies while collaborating with the anti-Trump media to stage such raids for propaganda “news” broadcasts. (All while the tech giants censor the independent media to silence the truth.)

Both CNN and the FBI are now clearly enemy combatants in a civil war being waged against America’s President and anyone linked to him. It’s time for all Americans to stand up and demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of Robert Mueller, James Comey, top FBI officials and CNN collaborators. The rogue deep state is out of control and has crossed the line into total criminality. The bureaucracy is now run by actual enemy combatants who are attempting to carry out a political coup in America, and they are now using Gestpo-style terrorism tactics to accomplish their intended goals.

Help support Roger Stone’s mounting legal costs by donating at StoneDefenseFund.com.

The CNN production vehicle arrives, having been illegally tipped off about the imminent raid:

FBI thugs meet with CNN personnel and direct them to capture the footage of the imminent raid:

Armed FBI “Gestapo” thugs launch the raid, carrying numerous rifles and handguns which are aimed at Roger Stone and his innocent wife:

Roger Stone is handcuffed and arrested for “lying to Congress” — something that James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly done on countless occasions. Notice the armed, rifle-wielding FBI mercenary on the right side of this frame as he’s pointing his rifle at the front window of Roger Stone’s home:

Stay informed. More video footage is coming. This is why the tech giants are desperately censoring all independent media, so that they can dominate the news narratives with their fake news and staged acts of terrorism. Twitter banned Natural News yesterday, and Apple has threatened to ban the Natural News app if we continue to publish stories that expose the lies and terrorism of the lunatic Left.

Learn the truth at StoneColdTruth.com.

A Note From The Publisher: On January 17th I received another 30 day suspension from Facebook for sharing this article. The truth is a violation of community standards. We will keep publishing the truth, but please understand that we just lost a lot of traffic and I need you to help spread the word if we are to keep growing. I can't share anything on Facebook, but YOU can. Please do what you can to help. God Bless You, Dean Garrison

NBC News

Published  2 weeks ago

NBC News uncovered graphic and offensive tweets sent by Russian trolls in an attempt to further divide an already-divided nation.

amazon

Published  2 weeks ago

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal Bestseller!

"'Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump,' is terrific. He's tough, he's smart, and he really gets it. His book is on sale now. I highly recommend!" —President of the United States, Donald J. Trump

“An explosive account of the biggest scandal in American history, and the political players that tried to pull it off.”—Sean Hannity

The comprehensive story of how the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton campaign, and foreign entities tried to sabotage the Trump campaign in the 2016 presidential election.

Everyone has an opinion about whether or not Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. The number of actors involved is staggering, the events are complicated, and it’s hard to know who or what to believe. Spygate bypasses opinion and brings facts together to expose the greatest political scandal in American history.

Former Secret Service agent and NYPD police officer Dan Bongino joins forces with journalist D.C. McAllister to clear away fake news and show you how Trump’s political opponents, both foreign and domestic, tried to sabotage his campaign and delegitimize his presidency. By following the names and connections of significant actors, the authors reveal:

Why the Obama administration sent a spy connected to the Deep State into the Trump campaign

How Russians were connected to the opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump

How the FBI failed to examine DNC computers after they were hacked, relying instead on the findings of a private company connected to the DNC and the Obama administraton

Why British intelligence played a role in building the collusion narrative

What role Ukrainians played in legitimizing the perception that Trump was conspiring with the Russians

How foreign players in the two events that kickstarted the Trump-Russia collusion investigation were connected to the Clinton Foundation, and

What motivated the major actors who sought to frame the Trump campaign and secure a win for Hillary Clinton

Homeland Security

Published  2 weeks ago

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the new House Intelligence Committee chairman, is facing calls to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after photos emerged of him at an undisclosed meeting (colluding?) with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key figure in the Russia collusion scandal.

This comes as the Democrat-led committee is massively expanding the Russia probe to include Trump's business dealings.

The photos in question were taken at a prestigious Aspen security conference last July, The Hill's John Solomon reported. They show Schiff wearing a "sport coat and open-neck dress shirt, and Simpson wearing casual attire," according to Solomon, who has seen the pics.

Fusion GPS, which was hired on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to find dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump, has a long history of smearing Republicans for profit. In 2012, for instance, Barack Obama's presidential campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as his donors, to literally create an enemies list.

During a November 14, 2017, closed-door deposition before the House Intelligence Committee, Simpson said Fusion GPS was originally hired in the fall of 2015 by the Free Beacon to take "an open-ended look at Donald Trump's business career and his litigation history and his relationships with questionable people, how much he was really worth, how he ran his casinos, what kind of performance he had in other lines of work."

Work for the Free Beacon ceased in spring 2016, he said. Fusion GPS was later hired by law firm Perkins Cole, which had been retained by the DNC. "We began to review what we had learned over the previous months and talk about what we would do, you know, now that we would have resources to pursue this - some of these matters further," Simpson said.

"Specific lines of inquiry" into the GOP presidential candidate "were a lot of Mr. Trump's overseas business deals, his history with regard to tax disputes" and labor practices with his clothing line.

Simpson hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the unverified anti-Trump dossier and went on to work closely with the FBI and DOJ official Bruce Ohr before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election. The Steele dossier was used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

After the FBI officially stopped using Steele as a confidential source (because he had leaked to the media), they used then-associate deputy attorney general Ohr as a backchannel to Steele.

As Solomon notes, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee's Russia probe at the time of his encounter with Schiff in Aspen.

Townhall

Published  2 weeks ago

'Russian Collusion' by Saul Alinsky - Wayne Allyn Root: Do you know Saul Alinsky? He was the mentor of .02/09/2019 15:18:32PM EST.

LifeNews.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Hillary Clinton Defends Late-Term Abortion: OK to Kill Those Babies Because It's Just 12,000 a Year

LifeZette

Published  2 weeks ago

Christian singer Jason Crabb took the honors for this

True Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of @thehill

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

“Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion , who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff,” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday, referencing a Thursday column in The Hill by John Solomon.

Solomon wrote:

show Schiff meeting at the event with Fusion GPS Founder Glenn Simpson, one of the key and most controversial figures in the Russia collusion scandal. Both men insisted to me through spokesmen that they met only briefly last July.

At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Schiff is chair of the House Intelligence Committee and was the committee’s ranking member when the security conference in Colorado took place. Schiff said Wednesday he has a broad plan to investigate Trump, including whether foreign actors have leverage over the president, his family or associates.

Simpson, through his research firm based in Washington, D.C., employed Christopher Steele, who authored a salacious dossier “best known for the vast conspiracy it alleges between the Trump campaign and Russian government during the run-up to the 2016 election,” reported The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross on the two-year anniversary of the dossier’s publication.

Trump launched a flurry of tweets about Russian collusion allegations Friday morning.

“The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between ‘Trump’ & Russia,” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning.

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

“It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!” he continued.

…It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

Trump had touted Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Richard Burr’s Thursday statement that there was no evidence of Russian collusion on Twitter Thursday night and again Friday.

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Burr said.

“Highly respected Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of Senate Intelligence, said today that, after an almost two year investigation, he saw no evidence of Russia collusion. … Thank you!” Trump wrote Friday.

Highly respected Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of Senate Intelligence, said today that, after an almost two year investigation, he saw no evidence of Russia collusion. “We don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.” Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft We’ve already reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, working with Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, likely set up the entire Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner as a way of entrapping the Trump campaign. An additional review of evidence from testimonies of events that day provides […]

Dan Bongino

Published  2 weeks ago

House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson at a Aspen “social event” and never bothered to tell his colleagues on the committee–a standard he hypocritically set for his Republican counterpart, Rep. Devin Nunes (CA).

John Solomon of the Hill reports that photographs taken at a prestigious July 2018 Aspen media event show Schiff meeting with Simpson.

He writes:

“At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Simpson ran the firm hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party to find dirt on Trump in Moscow. He employed retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose infamous and unverified dossier became the main evidence for the FBI’s probe of the Trump campaign, particularly the surveillance warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

And by the time of the meeting, the House Intelligence Committee had already received evidence from a senior Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, that called into question Simpson’s testimony to lawmakers.

**LISTEN: Dan discusses the outrageous Green New Deal and the latest in the Russia collusion hoax story

Both Schiff’s office and Simpson’s responded to Solomon with statements:

Schiff spokesman, Patrick Boland wrote, “The chairman did not have any pre-planned meeting with Glenn Simpson, and any conversation with him at the Aspen conference would have been brief and social in nature.”

Fusion GPS wrote, “In the summer of 2018, Mr. Simpson attended a media-sponsored social event where he exchanged small talk with Rep. Schiff and many other people who were in attendance. The conversation between the two was brief and did not cover anything substantive. There has been no subsequent contact between Mr. Simpson and Rep. Schiff.”

While Solomon notes there is nothing illegal or improper about a congressman meeting a witness in an ongoing investigation, Schiff’s encounter smacks of hypocrisy: Two years ago Schiff wanted then-Chairman Nunes to be investigated for meeting with National Security Council officials at the White House without notifying the committee.

Schiff said “I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman,”

Schiff’s spokesman declined to answer if the congressman disclosed his meeting with Simpson to the committee, however, multiple sources told Solomon that there was no evidence of his doing so.

President Trump reacted to the news today, tweeting, “Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion [sic], who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of @thehill”

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of @thehill

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

For the full story, click HERE.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Purple Heart triple-amputee vet Brian Kolfage underwent an invasive TSA pat-down at Tucson International Airport on the morning after the “We Build the Wall” town hall. A TSA agent groped and searched under Brian Kolfage’s hips, buttocks, groin and his half arm searching for what exactly? In addition to groping Kolfage, agents also swabbed his […]

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  2 weeks ago

Well, well, well. What do we have here? Remember how former AG Jeff Sessions was essentially forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he briefly met with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak? Surely, Rep. Adam

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald Trump ridiculed House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff Friday for reports that he spent time with Fusion GPS Founder Glenn Simpson in Aspen.

“Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff,” Trump wrote on Twitter, citing a report by writer John Solomon in a column for The Hill.

Both men told Solomon that their encounter at the Aspen security conference was brief, despite photographs of the two together in July of 2018.

“The chairman did not have any pre-planned meeting with Glenn Simpson, and any conversation with him at the Aspen conference would have been brief and social in nature,” Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland said in a statement.

Trump dismissed the new and ongoing Russian collusion investigations as hoax.

“It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election!” he said.

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of @thehill

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

…It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

americanthinker

Published  2 weeks ago

A while back, then-attorney general Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the investigation into President Trump's campaign's supposed collusion with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. The grounds for it? Sessions had shaken hands and made small talk with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak, meaning he had a conflict of interest. Sessions, being the honorable naïf he was, obliged.

Well, now the shoe is on the other tootsie.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, who's vowed a kitchen sink–style investigation against President Trump (now that no Russian collusion has been found), has been caught in photographs taken at the Aspen security conference last year with none other than Hillary Clinton's bought-and-paid-for smear artist Glenn Simpson, chairman of Fusion GPS.

John Solomon of The Hill has the scoop on the pictures:

They show Schiff meeting at the event with Fusion GPS Founder Glenn Simpson, one of the key and most controversial figures in the Russia collusion scandal. Both men insisted to me through spokesmen that they met only briefly last July.

At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Simpson ran the firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic Party to find dirt on Trump in Moscow. He employed retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose infamous and unverified dossier became the main evidence for the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign, particularly the surveillance warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

So here we have one of two things going on: Schiff has this friendly social relationship with Simpson that allows the two to get together at whatever conference they may find themselves at (think about how many people there are to meet at such a big conference and how many of them would have liked to meet with Schiff), and Schiff chooses to meet with Simpson from among all the people he could have kaffeeklatsched. Schiff's buddy-buddy relationship with Simpson, who was the bankroller of the phony "pee dossier" from Christopher Steele, cobbled together by his buddies in Moscow in a bid to smear Trump, doesn't constitute a conflict of interest?

And that's the nicest way of explaining it. Far more likely, Schiff is lying, and in reality, he was busy plotting with Simpson to smear Trump in the name of getting revenge for Hillary Clinton's refusal to campaign in Wisconsin. What was he doing with Simpson other than something political? And who's to say he's not still plotting with Simpson as he gears up his kitchen-sink investigation, something President Trump has called "harassment"?

Simpson is a central player in Schiff's Russia investigation of Trump, as well as a partisan operative with a history of discredited slimings. That's not an investigation. Working cheek to cheek with Simpson is nothing but a bid to make partisan slimings investigative fact and the basis for the use of political muscle to legally oust Trump. This is partisan. This is back-scratching at its worst. This is a conflict of interest, in spades.

Where is the pressure for Schiff to recuse himself from this entire Russia farce? Sessions did it. It's now time for Schiff to live by these same rules he created for others.

Image credit: Caricature by DonkeyHotey via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

On Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr stated to CBS that his committee’s investigation into Russia has found absolutely no collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Burr went into more detail saying that his committee has investigated over 200 witnesses and examined over 300,000 pages.

READER POLL: Should Hillary Be In Jail?

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Burr said.

Check out what President Trump had to say about the news:

Highly respected Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of Senate Intelligence, said today that, after an almost two year investigation, he saw no evidence of Russia collusion. “We don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.” Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

Check out what Politico had to say about Burr’s comments:

Burr also described an environment of bipartisanship within the committee, which he oversees with Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.). Burr told CBS he found it difficult to believe the committee would splinter along partisan lines, as was the case in the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation, which was shuttered by its then-GOP majority last year.

The House Intelligence Committee, now chaired by a Democrat, has announced plans to reopen and expand its Russia probe. That committee voted Wednesday to share interview transcripts with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, potentially to catch any additional witnesses who lied to the committee.

How many investigations do we need? If the Democrats truly cared about injustice and criminal activity, they would start investigations into Hillary Clinton. She deleted thousands of emails, lied under oath and even destroyed her hard drives with hammers. But as we all know by now, the laws don’t seem to apply to Democrats in Washington D.C.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

This whole situation seems like a bombshell story, right? Well, this news didn’t gain any traction with the main stream media, most likely because it didn’t fit their narrative. President Trump took to Twitter to explain his frustrations:

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

…It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

When will this nonsense end? President Trump has every right to be angry. We are two years into his presidency and we have seen absolutely no evidence that suggests that he colluded with Russia.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft There are numerous reasons the Deep State has provided to support the phony Trump-Russia collusion investigation and Mueller witch hunt.  Here is a list of 19 reasons for the investigation to date – none of which are sufficient enough to implement the investigation in the first place. Here’s our list […]

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Candace Owens is not playing around with Chelsea Clinton or her "racist parents." It all started after the "miserable" former first daughter responded to a tweet... Get Your "Build The Wall" Coin For 50% Off And

B B C

Published  2 weeks ago

Ms Clinton made stories for NBC about service-focussed themes such as a New Mexico diner that helped children with homework and a Detroit gym that also offers mentoring.

The Business Insider website calculated that her appearances over a 31 month period after being appointed in 2011 totaled just short of 58 minutes. That meant that she earned $445 (£268) per second, or earned $26,724 (£16,124) per minute, that she was on air.

She previously worked as a management consultant with a Wall Street hedge fund. She and Mr Mezvinsky, an investment banker, live in a $10 million (£6 million) apartment overlooking Madison Square Park.

Announcing her departure on Facebook, she wrote: “I am profoundly grateful to NBC viewers who responded to the stories I shared, providing funds to help expand the reach of those programs and who encouraged their schools’ principals, their mayors and local activists to think about how to build similarly transformative programs in their own communities, It’s been a privilege to be part of the NBC Family.”

At an appearance in San Francisco this week, Hillary Clinton was asked whether the baby would be a boy or a girl. “I don’t know because my daughter and her husband don’t want to know,” she said. “So they have tried very hard not to find out. When they do the ultra sound I think they have their hands over their ears and their eyes.”

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

The abortion extremism of Govs. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Ralph Northam (D-VA) crossed a line in American public opinion.

Disobedient Media

Published  2 weeks ago

If the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute such crimes as detailed in the Awan scandal and as committed by Snipes, how can the public hope to hold their government accountable for election interference and other forms of corruption?

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

Paul Sancya/AP

President Trump has a way with women, though it’s not what you might think.

Despite being condemned as a sexist and worse by Democrats and the media, women who voted for Trump in 2016 have become his most loyal supporters, even more than men.

What’s more, he is turning most into dedicated Republicans, according to exclusive new polling provided to Secrets.

“One of the great untold stories for Trump is how he is connecting with women,” said Anne Sorock, a pollster and president of the Frontier Lab, which uses behavioral science to explore the cultural and political landscape.

In the election, Trump did surprisingly better with women than Hillary Clinton, winning 47 percent to her 45 percent.

Sorock, who has been studying the president’s female supporters, said that many went out on a limb for Trump, viewing him as strong, confident, and anti-swamp. And when he beat Clinton, it was a confirmation that they were right, giving them a feeling of empowerment.

“When they initially supported him, they went against many of their communities and friends; when they were then proven correct, they told us that the empowerment was exhilarating. In contrast to the Tea Party women, who were energized by the gathering together of like-minded people to fight for Americanism, the new Trump women relate to an attitude that has been missing from our national culture: America is good and worth defending,” she said.

And that Trump “attitude” in office has reinforced their loyalty and helped to turn many previously politically unaffiliated women voters into Republicans.

In her new polling for Frontier Lab’s Ear to the Ground, for example, Sorock found that 85 percent of female primary Trump voters said that they will definitely vote Republican in the future, compared to 78 percent of male Trump voters.

“Most striking is that women who voted for Trump generally support the party more than men who voted for him in the primary and other (non-Trump) Republican primary voters,” said Sorock. “This may be an area for Republican leaders to explore as they express concern about suburban women disaffiliating from the Republican label,” she added.

That is exactly what a pro-GOP women’s group is trying to do.

Winning for Women, a 2017 startup that has over 300,000 members and plans to play big in the upcoming election, has launched a recruiting campaign to get more Republican women elected.

The group, which hopes to compete with the liberal EMILY’s List, stepped up its campaign last week after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced plans to target three female Republican House members for defeat.

In a fundraising letter to supporters, the group said, “Liberals claim to want more women in office, but they’re already coming after women on the right.” It added, “2020 is closer than we think, so we need your help now if we’re going to push back against another wave of liberal women. Help us fight the left’s hypocrisy and protect conservative women.”

Sorock said that her polling suggests that the outreach from Winning for Women and other GOP groups is perfectly timed.

“We found a fundamental value realized by their support for Trump was empowerment,” she said of female Trump backers. “This empowerment was a new experience as it relates to politics. It would follow that they are now clearly the most loyal to him and to his party.” she said.

[Also read: Democratic women celebrate on the House floor in reaction to Trump's State of the Union shoutout]

newsobserver

Published  2 weeks ago

Judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned North Carolina’s 2013 elections law that included a provision requiring voters to show ID at the polls.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

It appears that there was plenty of collusion when it comes to allegations of Russian interference, it just doesn’t involve President Donald Trump. In what’s being dismissed as a coincidental crossing of paths, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at […]

BuzzFeed News

Published  2 weeks ago

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, still facing calls to resign as governor a week after the revelation that his page in a medical school yearbook features a racist photograph, is now tightly focused on coming up with plans to survive.

His office has begun to explore how it might recalibrate Northam’s legislative agenda to focus closely on race and equity, sources close to the governor tell BuzzFeed News. The move would mark a brazen attempt to hang onto his office by shifting the conversation away from Northam’s admission of having once worn blackface and his denials that he is featured in the racist yearbook photo, either as the person in blackface or the person in a Klan outfit. Northam’s policy team is looking at crafting a set of proposals based on the premise that the governor’s mistakes have rendered him keenly aware of inequity and the lack of justice faced by black Virginians 400 years after the first African people arrived in the Commonwealth, at Point Comfort, in 1619.

The centerpiece proposal is not complete in its scope or in terms of what it will seek to accomplish. But there are many possibilities being considered for a broad platform: increasing resources for affordable housing; setting new, more equitable standards in small business procurement; implementing programs that expand economic opportunity for entrepreneurs; pumping money into public services like education and transportation.

“Now that he knows better he is going to do better,” a Northam adviser said.

But Northam is still struggling to convince those around him that he should be able to complete his term in office, and that he was not in fact in the yearbook picture.

His chief argument as he has huddled with advisers and staff that he was not: The people in the picture were holding beers in their right hands.

That stuck Northam as odd, a source close to his office said. In medical school, Northam told advisers, he’d been so awkward with his right hand that he had to force himself to hold the scalpel with it. His left hand was his dominant hand, and indeed, the hand with which he was holding a beer in the picture of him alone in a cowboy hat — next to one that could yet alter the course of his political career.

The picture was the first missive that sparked an uproar that has plunged Virginia’s politics into a seemingly bottomless pit of disarray, and especially the state’s Democratic Party, which had been in the midst of a political revival buttressed by Hillary Clinton’s winning performance in the state in 2016. Soon, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax would face allegations that he had sexually assaulted a woman in a 2004 encounter. He's denied the allegations but the woman, Vanessa Tyson, has attached her name and put details of the incident in a statement putting pressure on Fairfax to step down. And Mark Herring, the attorney general, admitted to dressing in blackface at a college party.

Backed by Northam’s assertion that he is neither person in the photo, strategic communications and PR firm IR+Media to help him try to recover. The team, led by top strategist Jarvis C. Stewart, a veteran of Capitol Hill, will try to determine how the photo got into the yearbook — an obscure artifact of national political importance that Northam says he didn’t buy at the time and claims he had never seen.

But if it is indeed not him in the photo, Northam’s political problems are a set of circumstances that are difficult to parse. Why would he put out a statement of apology suggesting he was in the picture soon after it was published, only to rescind it the next day, and then admit guilt of using blackface in an attempt to impersonate Michael Jackson years earlier?

Northam is telling those close to him that the answer lies in his character: Northam, who hails from the Commonwealth’s Eastern Shore, a somewhat isolated locale, has explained privately to advisers that both his training and experiences at the Virginia Military Institute and as a serviceman fostered an ethos of accepting responsibility in the interest of moving on. Northam’s team was not ready for the maelstrom that ensued from the photo and his immediate responses, an adviser said. In school, Northam had a reputation for being somewhat socially-awkward and bookish, so much so that someone close to him questioned whether the inclusion of the photo on his yearbook page was a gag designed to rag him by classmates who had given him a hard time.

The civil rights community, led by Rev. Al Sharpton and the Virginia black legislative caucus, are keeping the pressure on Northam to resign. Sharpton, in some nimbly-crafted political strategy, appeared Thursday at the historically-black Virginia Union University. Flanked by other religious leaders, Sharpton suggested that even if he was not in the picture, his admission that he had put some shoe polish on his face to impersonate Jackson was still more than enough cause to resign. On Thursday, Sharpton told BuzzFeed News that Northam’s attempt to explain away the picture was pointless. “It’s tantamount to saying, ‘I didn’t rob Wells Fargo bank, but I did rob Bank of America.’ Well, you’re still a bank robber, he said.”

Northam doesn’t plan to hold any more press conferences any time soon. Advisers are in the midst of negotiations with major networks for a nationally televised interview they hope will humanize him. Additionally, his advisers have assigned the governor homework: He’s begun to read Alex Haley’s “Roots”, and “The Case for Reparations,” the seminal essay in The Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald Trump blasted Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff for his party’s ongoing “presidential harassment” by launching yet another pointless investigation into his finances and personal life. In a fiery tweetstorm (see below), Trump underscored that the ongoing “Russia collusion” investigation has yielded no evidence after two years. Former NYC Police Chief Bernard Kerik noted that Adam Schiff […]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump called out his nemesis Adam Schiff on Friday morning over his secret meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July.

As previously reported, the new Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had an undisclosed meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at a security conference in Aspen.

In other words, Congressman Adam Schiff was colluding with Russia-dossier-Hillary Clinton-waterboy Glenn Simpson at the height of the Russiagate cover-up.

Award winning investigative journalist John Solomon reported that there are photographs of Adam Schiff, in sport coat and open-neck dress shirt, and Glenn Simpson, wearing casual attire.

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of @thehill

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

Schiff, who is leading the massive investigation into President Trump’s finances and personal life, and Simpson, one of the key figures who helped Hillary push her phony Russia dossier to the DOJ and FBI both insisted to John Solomon that they only met briefly last summer.

Under House Committee rules, there is nothing illegal about Schiff’s meeting with Glenn Simpson, however, Schiff hit Devin Nunes with an ethics investigation last year for much less.

Schiff hit Nunes with an 8-month long investigation for meeting with a source outside of the committee, calling it “a dead-of-night-excursion” because the committee was not informed.

John Solomon taunted Schiff on Thursday and asked, “Did Adam Schiff’s attack on Devin Nunes boomerang?”

Did Adam Schiff’s attack on Devin Nunes just boomerang https://t.co/TACYqrEALD

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) February 7, 2019

On Thursday, Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) told CBS that after over two years of investigation, there is zero evidence Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians.

Burr’s remarks to CBS come as House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff launched a massive investigation into President Trump’s finances and personal life.

Trump has had it with endless investigations into his campaign, inauguration, finances and personal life and unleashed on his Twitter account Thursday, calling it “presidential harassment.”

Reason.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Deadline has broken the news that Netflix is paying $10 million for the rights to distribute Knock Down the House, a documentary that follows the campaigns of four women running against incumbents. One of the women is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.).

The film was apparently the darling of this year's Sundance Film Festival, which wrapped up last weekend. It won the Festival Favorite Award, beating out more than 100 other candidates. Deadline says this appears to be the biggest documentary deal ever hammered out at a film festival.

There will, no doubt, be all sorts of jokes about how a documentary partly about a socialist is benefitting immensely from a massive capitalist company. But keep in mind that the deal isn't with her; it's with the filmmakers. And she's not the only person the movie's about, even if she's the only one who has become a household name.

What I do want to point out is that Deadline's coverage of this documentary about four progressive candidates does not include the phrase "Citizens United." But it's the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC which makes it clear that no government forces can censor Netflix from showing the documentary however and whenever it wants.

Ocasio-Cortez hates the Citizens United decision and wants a constitutional amendment overturning it. This has been a pretty steadfast position among Democrats: They believe the Citizens United decision has ushered in an era of "dark money" and of massive, manipulative mega-corporations buying elections.

All of that fundamentally ignores what the Citizens United case actually involved—an attempt, just before the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, to censor advertisements for a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. It was a case about censoring the media.

Prior to the Citizens United ruling, it still would have been perfectly fine for Sundance to have shown Knock Down the House. The law that was being challenged banned certain types of political communications close to elections. The ruling guaranteed that Netflix can air this documentary whenever it wants, even close to Ocasio-Cortez's next election race.

And that's good! Prior to this Supreme Court decision, the law was being used to censor what the media could and could not do. That makes anger at the decision, particularly from challengers facing uphill battles, all the more confusing. Laws that limit campaign spending and the ability to get support from outside the political parties ultimately benefit entrenched incumbents, who have legislative history and lots of simple political inertia on their sides. It's the challengers who desperately need of financial support and avenues to increase the reach of their messages. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. Challengers like the ones in Knock Down the House.

Ocasio-Cortez has benefited greatly from press coverage—both positive and negative—and that coverage most certainly played a role in her win. Tellingly, when people on the left talk about the money that comes in to help candidates in getting their message across, they bring up "big oil" and "big pharma" but tend to leave out Hollywood and the media. (Conservatives do bring it up, of course. They yell it from the rooftops.)

Should Netflix be allowed to air this documentary come 2020 when Ocasio-Cortez is looking to get re-elected? Yes, absolutely. Does the information in the documentary magically become more sinister and a threat to democracy now that $10 million is changing hands to make sure people can view it? Absolutely not. That money doesn't magically transform into votes. The candidate still needs to make her case. It's just that enough people like her message that they're willing to spend lots of money to provide the megaphone. That's known as the marketplace of ideas, and we need it for a functioning democracy.

swampdrain

Published  2 weeks ago

America’s Watchdog, Tom Fitton, the President of Judicial Watch, is doing all the heavy lifting for the truth and the rule of law.

In a press release, Fitton uncovered a big batch of emails that confirm a bribery offer by the State Department to the FBI in order to protect Hillary Clinton. (Videos Below)

Judicial Watch caught the FBI in another cover-up to protect Hillary Clinton. The records indicate that the FBI is hiding a chart detailing possible violations of law by Hillary Clinton and the supposed reasons she was not prosecuted.

The press release states that Judicial Watch obtained the records through a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch is seeking all communications between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.

The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to the FBI to begin processing 13,000 pages of records exchanged exclusively between Strzok and Page between February 1, 2015, and December 2017. The FBI may not complete review and production of all the Strzok-Page communications until at least 2020, according to JW.

JW further states, three days after then-FBI Director James Comey’s press conference announcing that he would not recommend a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, a July 8, 2016 email chain shows that, the Special Counsel to the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he was producing a “chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of Clinton’s server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute…” (Videos Below)

From Judicial Watch:

Redacted] writes: I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation, and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms…

Strzok forwards to Page, Jonathan Moffa and others: I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case, particularly when we have the D’s [Comey’s] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my opinion, there’s too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely be asked for comment. (Videos Below)

[Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others: The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn’t inclined to send them to anyone. But, it’s great to have them on the shelf in case they’re needed.

[Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page: I’m really not sure why they continued working on these [talking points]. In the morning, I’ll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn’t ever have a moment to turn these off with Mike like he said he would.

Page replies: Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.

Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released.

[Read here] for the full press release and more of the exchanges between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

The direct link to the emails can be [read here]

Judicial Watch recently released 215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues. The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”

(Videos Below)

Tom Fitton explains more in detail:

(Related: Fitton UNLEASHES After Attempted Presidential Coup: ‘Bill Barr Needs To Step Up & Defend Trump’)

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says “there’s no national emergency” at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

In an interview that aired Friday on Showtime’s “The Circus,” Clinton suggested President Donald Trump was merely “frustrated” at his inability to push border wall legislation through Congress and was resorting to other means of getting his way.

“I just don’t think you should call a national emergency unless there truly is a national emergency. There is no national emergency at our border,” Clinton said, adding that the president is “frustrated because he can’t even convince his own party to support his requests.” (RELATED: Pelosi Wants To Keep White House Out Of Border Wall Negotiations)

Clinton suggested that Democrats were just as supportive of border security as Republicans. “They just disagree with his demand that there’s only one way to do that.”

However, reports indicate an increasing number of Democrats actually side with Trump on the wall and are willing to support funding it.

The former first lady also commented on the anticipated release of a report from the ongoing Mueller probe into alleged Russian collusion by the Trump campaign. Clinton suggested the president “has a duty to keep the American people informed. “I would expect that duty to be performed,” she said. (RELATED: Trump Says He Will Leave Mueller Report Decision To DOJ)

”If there is a report, that report should be sent to Congress and made public.”

True Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for fairness in punishment to those who lie to Congress, singling out former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and several others.

Introducing a resolution this week, Gaetz pointed out a longtime ally to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone — who pleaded not guilty after he was arrested for five counts of lying to Congress — while others go unpunished, according to the Washington Examiner.

I thought Robert Mueller was supposed to be investigating #RussianCollusion, now he has become a glorified hall monitor enforcing the provisions of lying to #Congress. The problem is he is enforcing them unequally. So, I am introducing the Justice for all Act. @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/HQUCYsGuIr

“Unfortunately, it often seems that we have a two-tiered justice system at work; certain people have the book thrown at them, while others face no consequences at all for their behavior,” Gaetz said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This is unfair and wrong, and I hope to correct this with my resolution.”

Gaetz’s “Justice for All” resolution, H.Res.97, calls for those lying to Congress to be “prosecuted equitably.”

“That stops today,” Gaetz wrote on Twitter, discussing his bill.- READ MORE

Eurasia Future

Published  2 weeks ago

During Sunday’s Super Bowl, American and many international viewers witnessed the debut of an advertisement for the Washington Post. The Tom Hanks narrated advertisement spoke of the ideal values of honest journalism, before paying tribute to journalists who had lost their lives in recent years, including the Saudi born Jamal Khashoggi who had worked for the Washington Post prior to his murder inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

But when it comes to journalists being harmed inside the consulates or embassies of foreign nations, there is one incredibly brave journalist, publisher and peace activist who continues to rot inside the tiny chambers of Ecuador’s Embassy in London.

Julian Assange founded Wikileaks in late 2006 in order to expose the war criminality and other misdeeds of the powers that be. Among his most important and one of his first major breakthroughs was his publication of US Army whistle-blower Chelsea Manning’s leaks regarding the extent of the atrocities committed by US and allied forces in Iraq. Since then, Wikielaks has exposed the grim realities of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, campaign fraud in the United States, intelligence agencies spying on innocent civilians and even fellow world leaders, geo-economic corruption and illegal political meddling by the US into the affairs of sovereign nations.

Crucially, not a single item that Julian Assange has published has ever been challenged on a factual basis. This is something that is unheard of in journalism and is a record of which Assange can be proud. And yet instead of being granted a Nobel Peace Prize for opening the eyes of the world to the criminality that occurs under the fog of war, instead of being granted major journalistic awards for his commitment to holding authority to account, Assange instead languishes in a small room with no access to the outdoors.

Assange is a prisoner of conscious whose only option is to trade his present prison cell for an even less humane one and almost certainly execution shortly thereafter. It must never be forgotten that Hillary Clinton once remarked that Assange’s execution should be conducted with a military grade drone. Imagine if a Saudi politician said this about a dissident journalist? The Washington Post might actually feign shock in such an instance, but this was not the case when a major US politician said so about Julian Assange.

Julian Assange is beyond a shadow of a doubt, not just the greatest journalistic figure of this age, but of all time. No one has shown an ability to better harness cutting edge technology to tell world changing truths that would have been far more easily suppressed in a previous epoch. But because Assange’s publications could not be suppressed, instead the powers that be decided to suppress, repress and oppress the man.

For nearly a year, Assange has been cut off from his single lifeline to the outside world – the internet, as Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno has conspired to stab Assange in the back rather than pursue the humanitarian cause of his predecessor, former President Rafael Correa, a man who is now himself persona non grata in Ecuador due to Moreno’s decision to abrogate the policies of his predecessor.

Assange has not been exposed to the light of day for nearly seven years. Over the last year in particular, doctors who have visited Assange offered reports detailing his severe degradation in both physical and mental health.

Whilst the Washington Post’s advertisement convoyed some pleasant ideals, those who have followed the last three years in US politics are aware that the open feud between Donald Trump and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos was self-evidently one of the main motivators for the Washington Post to purchase some of the world’s most expensive air time during the Super Bowl. In reality, the Washington Post’s advertisement was little more than the world’s most expensive attempt to troll Donald Trump. Clearly it worked as Donald Trump Jr. offered Bezos the response he apparently sought to provoke.

You know how MSM journalists could avoid having to spend millions on a #superbowl comercial to gain some undeserved credibility?

How about report the news and not their leftist BS for a change.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 4, 2019

But while US television screens and computer screens are being dominated by a family feud between two ultra-wealthy Americans, Julian Assange is being left alone both physically and metaphorically. The Washington Post’s slogan is “democracy dies in darkness”. And yet, a man called Julian Assange tried to democratically empower men and women throughout the world with knowledge and as a result – Julian Assange is literally dying in darkness.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Glenn Simpson (L), Adam Schiff (R) The new Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had an undisclosed meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at a security conference in Aspen. In other words, Congressman Adam Schiff was colluding with Russia-dossier-Hillary Clinton-waterboy Glenn Simpson at the height of the Russiagate […]

The Federalist

Published  2 weeks ago

'Many lawyer groups have volunteered to ensure that the security staff will cooperate. But we have declined, since this will look like a coup...'

The Daily Signal

Published  2 weeks ago

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discusses the latest updates in the Hillary Clinton email scandal and how the emails relate to the Benghazi talking points in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Mail Online

Published  2 weeks ago

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill said they 'wholly condemn' the 'abhorrent' photos published 40 years ago in the 1979 yearbook. Governor Roy Cooper featured on another page.

American Greatness

Published  2 weeks ago

The Art of the SOTU

02/06 6:53 am

Post by @theamgreatness.

The American Conservative

Published  2 weeks ago

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” declared President Donald Trump to bipartisan applause belied by many of the assembled lawmakers’ actual voting records.

The State of the Union address is often where presidential promises go to die. This is especially true once at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Let us hope Trump’s stand against forever war—unmistakable, if not as bold as I’d originally hoped—is an exception to the rule.

“Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years,” Trump said in the highlight of his speech. “In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.”

Trump has cited these sad statistics many times. In recent weeks, he appears to have renewed his commitment to acting on them. It was therefore noteworthy he repeated his calls to withdraw from Syria and begin to draw down troops in Afghanistan, our country’s longest war.

“As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach,” Trump said. And here it was: Declare victory and bring our courageous men and women home.

Trump crowed that the United States and its allies against ISIS “have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty monsters.” The difference is what he said next. “Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.”

In Afghanistan, Trump pledged talks with the Taliban that would have caused a Republican meltdown under former President Barack Obama. There too Trump said that “the hour has come to at least try for peace.”

Trump called for bipartisanship throughout his speech, but didn’t flinch from taking shots at the Democrats. He condemned socialism, once again in fashion among progressives. He made note of comments by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam—currently in the headlines for other reasons—in defense of late-term abortions bordering on infanticide. He was booed as he warned of the migrant caravans massing at the southern border.

While Trump credited the economic boom to the enactment of the agenda he shared with congressional Republicans—“historic” tax cuts and deregulation, energy innovation, and the repeal of the penalty enforcing Obamacare’s individual mandate, making House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hesitate to applaud low unemployment figures—his wedge issues against the Democrats were more distinctively Trumpian.

Trump defended his tariffs and urged Congress to ratify the trade pact with which he would “repeal and replace” NAFTA. He called for a robust infrastructure program and efforts to tamp down on drug prices that would only only partially be endorsed by free-market conservatives. He said he would pull out of the Middle East and guard the southern border.

The president’s apparently ad libbed endorsement of “record” legal immigration isn’t exactly what some of his more populist supporters want, though it is consistent with his rhetoric on the issue dating back to the early days of his campaign. He has given serious restrictionists a place at the table but has mostly doubled down on the politically smart yet oversimplified Republican talking point that the only immigration problem that America faces stems from its frequent illegality.

Even on foreign policy, Trump’s appeals to the nation’s war-weariness sat uneasily alongside his hawkishness on Iran and perhaps Venezuela, his junking of arms control treaties, and the unmentioned atrocities in Yemen. It is clear, however, that Trump would prefer to go down in history as a dealmaker—even a peacemaker.

“If I had not been elected president of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea,” Trump said. “Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good one.”

Trump had clever lines designed to make even the sea of liberal women dressed in white in protest stand to applaud, including his tribute to their unprecedented numbers in Congress (thanks in no small part to the Resistance). But foreign policy and ending the wars gives him the best chance at a meaningful bipartisan achievement as the Democratic Party’s center of gravity shifts from Hillary Clinton to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and perhaps even Tulsi Gabbard.

Intense opposition to Trump has liberal hawks flying again too. And Trump almost certainly had more leverage to accomplish his less conventionally Republican goals when he first took office than now, when Democrats think they have him on the ropes and many GOP insiders agree.

Nevertheless, Trump made the case that renewing American greatness means summoning it to peace. That could be a winning message for a Republican candidate in 2020 too.

W. James Antle III is editor of The American Conservative.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Tuesday night the president clearly laid out a vision of compromise, cordiality and working together. He highlighted areas of commonality with Democrats

Time

Published  2 weeks ago

After he applauded at his own State of the Union address in 2018, Donald Trump went viral. This year, it was his archrival, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who got all the applause online.

For Americans watching along at home, the moment was so brief you might miss it. But a a New York Times photographer Doug Mills captured a photo of Trump appearing to turn back to face Pelosi as she clapped with outstretched arms.

As always in the grand tradition of memes, the people see what they want to see, with Trump critics coming to the immediate conclusion that she was trolling the president.

Viewers got right down to captioning with the snapshot with takes ranging from pointed to silly. See below for various takes on the Nancy Pelosi SOTU meme.

The Brief Newsletter

Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample

Sign Up Now

Another joke? The Nancy Pelosi papers moment that hat had people wondering “what is Nancy Pelosi reading?”

Someone compared the Nancy Pelosi photo of the clapback to Lucille Bluth of Arrested Development.

Besting them all, of course 2019 Super Bowl Maroon 5 halftime show singer Adam Levine was invoked

Not everyone was into her clapping style. Criticism of clapping follows in the grand tradition of Nicole Kidman clapping memes.

This isn’t the first time she got this kind of treatment. When she emerged from the White House wearing a burnt orange, high neck peacoat and a pair of sunglasses and it resonated.

Fans of the internet-crowned “power move” assembled behind Pelosi’s exit, which called to mind a certain vibe of as the 2016 viral photo of a Hillary Clinton checking her phone on a plane while wearing shades, captured by TIME’s White House photographers.

But she has also gotten her share of Twitter jabs at her expense. When Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to a single podium to deliver their rebuttal following Trump’s Oval Office address last month, Twitter immediately moved in with a harsh meme offensive joking about them awkwardly sharing one podium.

Another take? The pair looked like two stern, disappointed parents.

Write to Ashley Hoffman at Ashley.Hoffman@TIME.com.

TheHill

Published  2 weeks ago

The FBI sin from two decades ago, which lingers over the Russia case, involves agents omitting material facts when applying for warrants.

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 weeks ago

Republicans with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence submitted a motion Tuesday to immediately publish dozens of witness transcripts in the Russia Trump investigation.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

During President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address (SOTU) on Tuesday evening, the president slammed the country’s political elite and donor class for supporting open borders for the nation while living “behind walls.”

“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration,” Trump said. “Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls, and gates, and guards.”

As Breitbart News has chronicled, this is true as many of the country’s political elite and donor class advocate for mass illegal and legal immigration while living in gated communities, walled-off mansions, and behind enormous barriers designed to keep intruders out.

Most notably are the gates, walls, and fences surrounding the homes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY), tech billionaire Bill Gates, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), and former President Barack Obama.

PHOTOS: From Vatican Walls to Obama’s Fence, 20 Barriers Around the Worldhttps://t.co/oHkPOTwIzx

The Clintons enjoy a massive white security fence around their Chappaqua, New York, home where onlookers can barely get a glimpse of their house because of the widescale barrier.

Billionaire Bill Gates, who dishes out hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle to pro-mass immigration lawmakers, enjoys safety and security at his mansion off Lake Washington as it is surrounded not only by enormous gates but also a natural lake and tree barriers.

Outside Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) Cambridge, Massachusettes, home stands an iron fence that surrounds not only her front entrance but her entire yard to keep pedestrians off her property.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

IJR - Independent Journal Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for fairness in punishment to those who lie to Congress, singling out former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and several others.

Introducing a resolution this week, Gaetz pointed out a longtime ally to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone — who pleaded not guilty after he was arrested for five counts of lying to Congress — while others go unpunished, according to the Washington Examiner.

Watch the video below:

I thought Robert Mueller was supposed to be investigating #RussianCollusion, now he has become a glorified hall monitor enforcing the provisions of lying to #Congress. The problem is he is enforcing them unequally. So, I am introducing the Justice for all Act. @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/HQUCYsGuIr

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 1, 2019

“Unfortunately, it often seems that we have a two-tiered justice system at work; certain people have the book thrown at them, while others face no consequences at all for their behavior,” Gaetz said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This is unfair and wrong, and I hope to correct this with my resolution.”

Gaetz’s “Justice for All” resolution, H.Res.97, calls for those lying to Congress to be “prosecuted equitably.”

“That stops today,” Gaetz wrote on Twitter, discussing his bill.

Lying to Congress is a serious offense. Unfortunately, it appears certain people have the book thrown at them while others face no consequences at all.

That stops today. My "Justice For All" bill requires equal punishment for those who lie to Congress. #Hillary #Comey #Clapper

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 4, 2019

According to the resolution, Comey claimed he never authorized anyone to leak information to the media, “despite reports from the Office of the Inspector General indicating his response was likely untrue.”

Clinton said “there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received,” but it was “proven untrue” by FBI and the Office of the Inspector General reports, according to the resolution.

Additionally, the resolution states that Holder “provided false information” about the “Fast and Furious” program, along with two other instances of providing false information.

Gaetz’s resolution also targets former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service Lois Lerner.

The Federalist

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats will protect American children from the evils of trans fats and gay conversion therapy, but not from doctors who will kill them through negligent homicide in the first few hours of their lives. This is the ugly reality of the contemporary abortion debate. It’s why most advocates will do about anything to avoid describing the unpleasant realities and consequences of their increasingly radical position.

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked Republican Ben Sasse’s effort for unanimous consent on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It must be stressed that this bill wasn’t technically about abortion, but rather about protecting babies who survived the procedure. It seems that the already risible argument of “my body, my choice” has transformed into “not my body anymore, still my choice.”

Sasse’s bill, which exempted mothers from prosecution, would have required “any health care practitioner present” to help ensure “that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital” and to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Now, it would have been one thing if Sen. Patty Murray objected on grounds of states’ rights or the broad nature of the bill, but she did not. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed. “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore, I object.”

She is wrong. There are laws that allow for infanticide. We have one of those laws in New York. The failed Virginia bill that precipitated this debate would also have allowed the killing of unborn babies until birth for virtually any reason—and, if those babies happen to survive an attempt on their lives, after birth, as well.

When asked if her bill would allow abortions for woman dilating in the “40th week,” Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran said, “My bill would allow that, yes.” Her mistake was being honest. When Gov. Ralph Northam tried to make Tran’s infanticide bill sound humane, explaining that the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” his mistake was also honesty.

Northam, as his defenders pointed out, was merely talking about euthanasia—though they would never call it by its appropriate name—as if terminating the lives of infants with fetal abnormalities like Down syndrome for the convenience of the parents is more morally palatable. The Virginia bill, however, also allowed for the abortion, or post-birth termination of, viable, once-healthy infants for nearly any reason.

The reality of the bill hasn’t stopped people from continuing to act as if every abortion is a life or death decision for the mother. This, it seems, is rarely the case. The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute found that both medical literature and late-term abortion providers show the majority of late-term procedures are not performed for “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.” The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute also found that a majority of women who seek these abortions “do not do so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment,” either.

In any event, every bill limiting post-20 week abortions makes exceptions for the life of the mother. Sasse’s bill does not stop parents and doctors from making tough decision about critically ill infants. This is a myth.

When late-term abortion defenders are honest, as feminist writer Jessica Valenti was recently, they sound like old-school eugenicists. Reacting to National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis’s excellent piece in The Atlantic, Valenti first tries to distract from the law itself by complaining that “the author writes about ‘third trimester abortions’ while linking to research about abortion post-20 weeks (which is about when you get an ultrasound for fetal abnormalities.)”

Yes, it’s true that most 20-week bans are opposed by Democrats because the abortions in question are used to weed out imperfect children. But the reason it’s easy to conflate the two is that viability keeps expanding and going well beyond the third trimester. Let’s start using the phrase “viable babies,” then.

One of those kids, Lyla Stensrud, was born after 21 weeks and four days, weighing just 14.4 ounces. It is almost certain that technology will advance to a place where there will be many more children like Lyla. Does anyone really argue that a single week makes that fetus a mere clumps of cells? According to the Guttmacher Institute, around 15,000 Lylas are aborted every year.

Valenti, though, goes on to tweet, “the GOP is bankrupting parents with kids in the NICU – stays that cost literally millions of dollars.” Not only can you abort a completely healthy baby for reasons of emotional stress, but you can also choose not to care for viable infants because it puts unfair fiscal pressure on parents and hospitals. Do you know how much an autistic child costs? Why not them, as well?

If this is really an argument for post-birth termination, can someone explain the moral distinction between going to a NICU unit and injecting poison into a premature baby that is either causing the mother emotional fiscal stress or injecting poison into another baby–same exact age, same exact reasons–that’s in the womb? If you’re honest, like Valenti, there is none.

Most people circumvent the reality of late-term abortion (and post-abortion killings) for convenience by claiming it never happens. This is a highly dubious contention. But if it’s true, why pass state laws protecting doctors who might engage in the practice? Seems like a good way to incentivize it. And if there is no market for infanticide, why do people like Kermit Gosnell exist? And, by the way, what is the difference between what Gosnell did and what you want to legalize—other than cleaner facilities?

For many years, Democrats have been allowed to get away without any kind of serious questions regarding their opposition to post-20 week abortion restrictions. Despite interference from fact checkers and other Democratic Party surrogates, for example, their 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supported, from conception to crowning, not a single restriction on the procedure. This fact become obvious in the rare times they’re honest about what abortion means.

Newsweek

Published  2 weeks ago