VIDEO Trump Is the ‘Kryptonite of Political Correctness’

Gorka to Grassroots: Trump Is the ‘Kryptonite of Political Correctness’

21 April 2018 by Michelle Moons

RICHMOND, Virginia–President Donald Trump is the ice-breaker ship that broke through 30 years of thick permafrost, according to former Trump administration official Dr. Sebastian Gorka, who called on 200 grassroots activists to be the flotilla that keeps the ice from reforming behind him.

“We as a country have been frozen over for the last 30 years. There’s a massive, thick layer of permafrost, which was called political correctness … in media, education, in politics, even some parts of business,” Gorka told the Middle Resolution crowd in Richmond Virginia this week.

The audience was asked to think about how, under President Barack Obama, the government determined which sex can use which bathroom “and that boys could shower with girls if they felt they were a girl.”

Gorka used the illustration of an ice-breaker ship to represent President Trump, the “kryptonite of political correctness.” Trump sees a massive layer of ice and “like a million ton ship with a tungsten hull he just smashes through it and breaks a path forward to freedom.” But the physics of ice breaking dictates that a flotilla must come up behind the ice breaking ship. If it doesn’t, “almost instantly” the ice smashing ship will be surrounded by broken ice that quickly refreezes around the ship, re-forming to close off the sea lane that the ship just created. A following fleet prevents that from happening.

“You are the fleet,” Gorka told the crowd: 

You need to help make America great again. Whether it’s with local candidates, whether it’s with your checkbooks, whether it’s with volunteering, or whether it’s just pushing back on the fake news on Twitter, Facebook, every night for 30 minutes. It has a massive, massive impact.

Dr. Gorka explained that President Trump “is the most powerful man in the world, but he’s only one man.”

“Hold the line, have faith, be part of the solution and please, please trust the President. But be part of the solution,” Gorka said in closing.

Watch video here


Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO CDC Over 2 Million DGUs per year – Walkout Organizer Rights Ignorance, ‘Regulate 2nd Amendment” – GOP Survey

‘No Amendment Is Absolute’: D.C. Student School Walkout Organizer Says We Must ‘Regulate the Second Amendment’

20 April 2018 by Penny Starr

A small group of mostly high school students gathered in front of the White House on Friday as part of the National School Walkout, an anti-gun protest launched by a Connecticut teen following the shooting deaths of 17 people at a Florida high school in February.

Following a moment of silence plus 13 seconds to honor the 13 people shot and killed at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, the group walked to the Capitol where speakers lashed out at Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The organizers from schools in the D.C., Virginia, and Maryland region collected letters demanding gun control from protesters addressed to legislators and registered voters via text.

But like the March for Our Lives protest last month and the first National School Walkout on March 14, the anti-gun walkout protest is being pushed and funded by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, which spawned the Students Demand Action group that participated on Friday.

Politico reported:

Looking to seize on activist outrage in the wake of the Florida school shooting, Everytown for Gun Safety — the group backed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg — is launching a “five-action plan” to energize supporters ahead of the midterms.

The five points of the plan are: Pledge to vote on gun safety; research how much money local officials have accepted from the National Rifle Association, register friends to vote; force candidates to go on the record about gun policy through a provided candidate questionnaire; and urge people who are involved to run for office themselves.

National School Walkout, April 20, 2018, Washington, DC

Ian Berlin, 17, a student at a D.C. high school who told Breitbart News he organized the local protest, spoke from a small stage set up on the West Lawn of the Capitol.

Berlin said there are rules and regulations on the First Amendment, citing the permits the group needed to put on the protest.

“And so too must we regulate the Second Amendment,” Berlin said. “Just as the freedoms of the First Amendment are subject to rules and regulation so too must be those protected under the Second.”

“No amendment is absolute,” Berlin said. “Your right to a gun does not supersede my right to graduate high school.”

National School Walkout, April 20, 2018, Washington, DC

The teen noted that he was born shortly after the Columbine attack, and the government has taken “no meaningful action to protect our schools and our communities from this epidemic of gun violence.”

“So to the politicians, I say you’ve had 19 years and now you have until November,” Berlin said. “If you don’t act, we will vote you out.”

Another teen, Micaela Lattimer, 17, and a junior at Long Reach High School in Columbia, Maryland, said the anti-gun movement must be “intersectional” — a decades-old feministsocial theory that “asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers.”

“Intersectionality recognizes that identity markers (e.g. “female” and “black”) do not exist independently of each other, and that each informs the others, often creating a complex convergence of oppression.”

National School Walkout, April 20, 2018, Washington, DC

Lattimer said that the people who died at Columbine and in Parkland, Florida, are not the only victims of “gun violence.”

“I am here because when black activists have taken to the street to protest police shootings, members of law enforcement have responded in full riot gear and arrests,” Lattimer said, citing statistics she claims show that black men and Latinos are at much higher risk of dying from being shot.

“Let’s keep this intersectional,” Lattimer said.

The protesters also embraced the LGBT community and its link to “gun violence,” including suicide by a gunshot wound.

National School Walkout, April 20, 2018, Washington, DC

A teen from a high school in Rockville, Maryland, said she wanted to share her “identity” and then pointed out that “queer youth” are five times more likely to attempt suicide than their “cisgender, heterosexual counterparts.”

As Breitbart News reported, the National School Walkout was started by Lane Murdock, a 16-year-old teen in Connecticut, after the Florida shootings.

But her efforts were also boosted by liberal adults — in Murdock’s case, by the group Indivisible, which states on its website:

Our mission is to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump Agenda. In every congressional district in the country, people like you are starting local groups and leading local actions. Are you standing indivisible with us? Then sign up for weekly actions and updates.

And Murdock’s activism has evolved since she came up with the idea to walk out of school for 17 minutes to honor the dead in Florida, according to an interview she did with National Public Radio (NPR).

“She wants people to know that she’s imagining this day to be very different than the March For Our Lives or the 17 minutes of silence on March 14 in honor of the victims in Parkland, Fla.,” NPR reported. “This walkout will last from 10 a.m. through the end of the day.”

“People ask me, like, ‘Why? Why all day?’” Murdock said.

“That’s because ‘this is a topic that deserves more than 17 minutes,’” NPR reported.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter.

US Constitution & Historical Documents

Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our LibertiesAbraham Lincoln

James Madison wrote that “a people who mean to be their own governors must be armed with the power that knowledge gives”.

The founders knew that only an educated populace, jealous of their rights, would be strong enough to resist the usurpation of their liberties by government. Today many people know nothing of our true history, or the source of our rights. We believe that’s part of the reason our country is in such a mess.

Unalienable Rights v Inalienable rights

The Constitution of the Untied States guarantees we have Unalienable Rights – there IS a difference.

Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, these rights cannot be abridged.

Unpublished CDC Study Confirms over 2 Million Annual Defensive Gun Uses

21 April 2018 by Awr Hawkins

An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.

Since the early 1990s, Kleck has maintained that there is a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually. That is his low estimate; Kleck and research partner Marc Gertz have contended the actual number is closer to 2.5 million.

Kleck reaffirmed his numbers on February 17, 2015, explaining that while plenty of naysayers have criticized his findings, none have been able to offer empirical evidence to counter them.

Now, a CDC study conducted on data from 1996, 1997, and 1998 has been uncovered. The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year.

Kleck summarized the CDC findings:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU). They never released the findings, or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. I obtained the unpublished raw data and computed the prevalence of DGU. CDC’s findings indicated that an average of 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense in each of the years from 1996 through 1998 – almost exactly confirming the estimate for 1992 of Kleck and Gertz (1995). Possible reasons for CDC’s suppression of these findings are discussed.

On April 20, 2018, Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC findings; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at Sign up to get Down Range at


This is not how to win conservatives over

A national survey commissioned by the Republican Party asks what issues are most important to Americans, and includes two boxes that say “Gun Control” and zero boxes that say “Second Amendment.”

A survey from Pennsylvania’s 7th District shows a series of questions asking citizens what the most important issues are to them for President Trump to address, including “Secure our Nation’s borders” and “Address National Opioid Crisis.”

But the next section asks what issues are most important to you, which includes two “Gun Control” tally boxes and zero boxes for the Second Amendment.

Concerned citizen Jason Fyk noticed the oddity, marking in “Second Amendment” in the “Other” box before sending a copy to Infowars.

“As a key facet of our overall strategy to prevail in Making America Great Again, the Republican Party is conducting a Census of key members and supporters in Congressional Districts all across our nation,” the survey says.

“The opinions registered in this document will be used to build a nationwide grassroots network that will help us maintain our Republican Congressional Majorities and show that President Trump has the support of the American people to continue to move forward and act on the critical issues facing our country.”

As we’ve exhaustively reported, one of the critical issues facing our country is the left’s deep desire to enact gun control nationwide, apparently a sentiment the Pennsylvania GOP is on board with as well.

H/T: Jason Fyk

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Rejected Rominee: Came in 2nd, this time, at Utah GOP Convention, Must Face Senate Primary

Not the Rominee: Mitt Romney 2nd at Utah GOP Convention, Must Face Senate Primary

Former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney finished second at the Utah Republican Convention on Saturday behind State Rep. Mike Kennedy (R-Alpine).

Romney and Kennedy will now face each other in a primary election, because neither Romney (49.12%) nor Kennedy (50.88%) reached the 60% threshold necessary to secure the party’s nomination automatically.

Kennedy celebrated his win on Twitter, while Romney put a brave face on defeat:

During the convention, Romney declined to endorse President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

The Hill reported:

Mitt Romney says he is not ready to commit to endorsing President Trumpfor reelection in 2020.

“I will make that decision down the road,” Romney told CNN at the Utah GOP convention on Saturday. “As a person of political experience, if I endorse someone, I’ll want to know what’s in it for Utah and what help would he provide for us on key priorities in Utah.”

“So I’m not a cheap date,” he added.

Trump, however, had endorsed Romney for Senate in February, despite a history of rivalry between them.

Romney’s second-place finish surprised many observers, who presumed that he would win the party’s nomination easily, despite being from out-of-state.

He reportedly blamed his poor showing on delegates’ frustration over a procedural dispute, according to the Salt Lake Tribune:

Romney blamed his second-place finish — out of a dozen Republicans seeking the seat of retiring seven-term Sen. Orrin Hatch — on delegates’ dislike of candidates like him who hedge their convention bids by also gathering signatures to ensure at least a place on the primary ballot.

Romney collected more than 28,000 signatures and was the only Senate candidate to do so.

Conservatives have for several years fought in court and in the Legislature to overturn the state law allowing signature gathering, seeing it as weakening the power of the convention and its delegates.

The Utah primary election will be held on June 26.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Mitt Romney tweeted a photo of himself and actor Zach Braff on a flight to Salt Lake City in January 2014.

Mitt Romney tweeted a photo of himself and actor Zach Braff on a flight to Salt Lake City in January 2014.

Apparently, Mitt Romney is no shoo-in to win his bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Utah.

If you were expecting the 2012 Republican presidential nominee to experience a cakewalk at the Utah Republican Convention, thus avoiding a primary election – surprise, surprise. He actually lost the popular vote of delegates by a margin of 51-49 in favor of state Rep. Mike Kennedy.

Now the two will face off in a statewide primary election to see who runs against the Democrat nominee.

A candidate must secure 60 percent of the vote at the convention to avoid a primary.

Romney blamed his second-place finish – out of a dozen Republicans seeking the seat of retiring seven-term Sen. Orrin Hatch – on delegates’ dislike of candidates like him who hedge their convention bids by also gathering signatures to ensure at least a place on the primary ballot.

Romney collected more than 28,000 signatures and was the only Senate candidate to do so.

“I know there were many people who were not enthusiastic about someone gathering signatures,” Romney said. But, pursuing the nomination through the convention and signature gathering “was right for me. I’m glad I did it that way.”

Amid references to the Romney vs. Kennedy battle being akin to a David vs. Goliath, Romney had a good line: “First, none of us is David. David was anointed of God. And secondly, I’m not Goliath. Washington, D.C., is the Goliath.”

For his part, Kennedy handed out “stress stones” to delegates, dubbed them the true Davids and claimed for himself the role of the stone that they could use to bring down the giant of the Washington establishment.

The state lawmaker certainly was the underdog by the traditional measure of name recognition and campaign funding. Romney reported spending $526,516 of the $1 million he transferred from his leftover presidential account. Kennedy reported an outlay of $31,500.

“I’m tired,” Kennedy told delegates before the last vote. “You know what I’m really tired of? I’m tired of business as usual in Washington, D.C. If you want things to change, you need to vote for change.”


Romney did not run for re-election for Governor after installing Romney-Care because he was too far behind in the polls, he came in second to Ted Kennedy for the US Senate (2-1), choked against MB Obama and came in second.  He was also a vehement ant-Trumper. Time for Mittens to find a home and go there.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion – Assange “Physical Proof” Disproving Collusion

Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director.

April 19, 2018 By 

Journalist Mike Allen of Axios recently said that one word described Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and that word was “unafraid.”

The context for his remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report” was that Mueller had just spun off to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York a bit of his limitless investigation into President Donald J. Trump. Allen’s comment was like so many others from media and pundit types since the special counsel was launched. If there’s one word to describe the media’s relationship to Mueller, it’s “unquestioning.”

Pundits and politicians have said, repeatedly, that he is “somebody we all trust” with “impeccable credentials.” No matter what his office does, from hiring Democratic donors to run the Trump probe to aggressively prosecuting process crimes, he is defended by most media voices. Criticism of Mueller by people who aren’t part of the Trump Resistance is strongly fought, with claims that disapproval of anything related to Mueller and how he runs his investigation undermine the rule of law.

The media and establishment DC who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director from 2001 to 2013.

For instance, as I noted to Allen, Mueller was also “unafraid” at completely botching the anthrax killer case, wasting more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars, destroying the lives of multiple suspects, and chasing bad leads using bad methods. Let’s look at that and other cases involving how Mueller and those he placed in positions of power used their authorities and decided what charges to pursue.

The Anthrax Bungling

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others. The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man:

So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted:

Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’

The man the FBI decided was responsible for the anthrax killings killed himself as the FBI pursued him, but reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office were critical of the bureau’s scientific conclusions used to determine the man’s guilt.

Mueller placed Special Agent Van Harp in charge of the initial investigation. He had been “accused of misconduct and recommended for discipline for his role in a flawed review of the deadly Ruby Ridge standoff,” according to a Washington Post report. He had helped “prepare an incomplete report on the 1992 Ruby Ridge siege that had the effect of protecting high-level FBI officials, according to a confidential 1999 report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.”

After Hatfill sued the FBI, Harp admitted that he talked to the media about the anthrax case due to political concerns at the bureau. According to The Atlantic:

Special Agent Harp, who initially headed the anthrax investigation, conceded after Hatfill sued the government in August 2003 that the FBI had been sensitive to accusations that it had stumbled in other high-profile investigations, and that it had consciously sought to assure the public that it was working hard to crack the anthrax murders. Part of providing such assurance involved actively communicating with news reporters. Questioned under oath, Harp admitted to serving as a confidential source for more than a dozen journalists during the case, but he insisted that he had never leaked privileged information about Hatfill, or anyone else for that matter.

Hatfill’s attorney’s found the latter claim highly improbable.

The Democrat Berger Treated Gently

As aggressive as Mueller can be about pursuing the wrong man, he showed surprising leniency and laxity when it came to the case of Samuel “Sandy” Berger, a Clinton White House national security adviser. In the run-up to testifying before the 9/11 Commission that sought to examine the failures that led to those terrorist attacks, Berger visited the National Archives to review classified documents with his notes on them.

But instead he intentionally removed and destroyed multiple copies of a classified document the commission should have reviewed for national security purposes, and lied to investigators about it. He was found to have stuffed the documents in his socks and otherwise hidden them. His punishment was that he was allowed to plead guilty in 2005 to a single misdemeanor. He served no jail time but had to give up his security clearance for three years.

The staff of Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., authored a 60-page report about the theft of the documents, in which he said “The Justice Department was unacceptably incurious about Berger’s Archives visits.”

Republican Scooter Libby Charged, But Not The Leaker

As lax and lenient as the Department of Justice was with Berger, the opposite was true in other cases. After Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was leaked, a special counsel operation was set up to investigate the leak. Mueller’s deputy Comey pressured John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the case on the grounds he had potential conflicts of interest.

Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend and godfather to one of his children, to the role of special counsel. Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald all knew the whole time that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. Yet they set things up so Fitzgerald would aggressively investigate the Bush administration for three years, jailed a journalist for not giving up a source, and pursued both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Comey even expanded the investigation’s mandate within weeks of setting up the special counsel. Libby, who was pardoned by President Trump last week, was rung up on a process charge in part thanks to prosecutorial abuse by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald encouraged a witness to give false testimony by not providing exonerating evidence to her and Libby’s attorneys. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary have write-ups on the saga.

Republican Ted Stevens Railroaded

In 2016, the FBI kept getting involved in the presidential election. Political considerations rather obviously played a role in Comey showing deference to Clinton in July 2016 in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information. Political considerations also played a role — he says subconsciously — in Comey’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information had been reopened shortly before the election.

It wasn’t the first time the FBI meddled in a U.S. election. In 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted by a federal grand jury following a lengthy investigation by the FBI and found guilty eight days before Election Day. Stevens narrowly lost his re-election bid as a result and died in a plane crash a couple of years later.

The prosecutors in that case repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence that would have yielded a different verdict. The convictions were voided by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, who called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen. Stevens’ attorney complained about FBI abuses and said:

‘To us, while this is a joyful day and we’re happy that Sen. Stevens can resume a normal life without the burden that he’s carried over these last years,’ he said, ‘at age 85, it’s a very sad story too. Because it’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States.’

An Israeli Spy Ring That Wasn’t

Another black mark on Mueller’s record at the FBI was the pursuit of what the bureau dramatically claimed was an Israeli spy ring operating out of the Pentagon. The news broke in August 2004 that a spy working for Israel was in the Department of Defense.

It turned out that the bureau had gone after a policy analyst who had chatted with American lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Charges were also pursued against two AIPAC employees. Those charges were later dropped and the sentence of the first person was dropped from 13 years to 10 months of house arrest and some community service.

The Washington Post wrote:

The conspiracy case against two former AIPAC lobbyists came to an inglorious end in May when the government dropped all charges after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial maneuvers.

It was a curious case: First, the lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under an obscure section of the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that had been used only once before — unsuccessfully and never against private citizens for disclosing classified information. Second, they were targets of a bizarre sting in which they were fed false information suggesting that the lives of U.S. and Israeli operatives in Iraq were at risk and that American officials were refusing to take steps to protect them. The accusation was not that they brokered this information to some foreign enemy but that they offered it to everybody they could, hoping, among other things, to get a reporter from The Post to publish it so that it might draw the attention of the right U.S. officials and save U.S. lives. In short, even if the two were guilty as charged, they look more like whistle-blowers than spies.

It turned out the probe was led by David Szady, the same man who notoriously missed Russian spy Robert Hanssen in his midst while he spent years targeting an innocent man named Brian Kelley, an undercover officer at the CIA. For this good work, Mueller named him assistant director for counterintelligence.

Incompetent Supervision

Many of these examples of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse were done not by Mueller but by underlings. He should have been aware of what they were doing, which means he should take responsibility for the errors. If he wasn’t aware, that’s a very bad sign regarding his competence to supervise his special counsel deputy Andrew Weissman.

If Mueller had no effective supervision against the abuses of the above underlings, why would anyone trust him to supervise his good buddy Weissman, whom he picked to run lead on his probe of Trump? Weissman destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Anderson LLP, which once had 85,000 employees. Thanks to prosecutorial abuse, jurors were not told that Arthur Anderson didn’t have criminal intent when it shredded documents. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

Weissman also “creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron,” which sent four executives to jail. Weissman concocted unprecedented charges and did not allow the executives to get bail, causing massive disruption to the families before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed most of Weissman’s case.

One could also argue that the above failures, save the Stevens case, were actually Comey’s responsibility. That’s arguably true as well, but it also shows just how bizarre it is that Mueller was named to investigate a situation in which his friend and partner in prosecutorial abuse is so intimately involved.

This Is About More Than Trump

The media scoff in feigned outrage at President Trump’s claims that the FBI has a reputation that is in tatters. But the last 15 years of leadership of the FBI under Mueller and Comey have largely shown that to be true because of how the FBI handles it cases.

In recent months, the FBI lost a high-profile case against Omar Mateen’s widow Noor Salman, who was charged with material support of ISIS and lying to the FBI about it. The case was an absolute mess. The jury foreman said, “I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements.” The jury felt that the widow had been bullied into signing a false confession.

On the day after the Pulse shooting, Comey promised the bureau would provide transparency as the case was handled. Almost immediately, the claim of transparency was shown to be false when the FBI redacted the killer’s statements about his Islamist terrorism beliefs in a transcript of his calls with Orlando 911. The bureau was also less than transparent about the fact that Mateen’s father was a long-time FBI informant. James Bovard has much more.

Or what about the recent mistrial declared in the Cliven Bundy standoff? Here’s The Oregonian:

A federal judge Wednesday declared a mistrial in the prosecution of Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a co-defendant, citing the government’s ‘willful” failure to turn over multiple documents that could help the defense fight conspiracy and assault charges in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff…

The judge listed six types of evidence that she said prosecutors deliberately withheld before trial, including information about the presence of an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy ranch and documents about U.S. Bureau of Land Management snipers outside the ranch….

‘The failure to turn over such evidence violates due process,” the judge said…..

Yesterday, Comey told Meghan McCain on The View, “Public confidence in the FBI is its bedrock.” That’s true. And the lack of confidence in the FBI is not the result of Trump and his insults but a pattern of abuse of prosecutorial discretion going back 15 years or so. Mueller is responsible for 10 years of that.

The denizens of DC no doubt have had great interactions with Mueller and the men he put in charge of high-profile cases. But those who were wronged in the Anthrax, Libby, AIPAC, Enron, and other cases might have a different view. Those who observe how differing rules have been applied to people in seemingly partisan fashion should not be dismissed.

As former judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in the Wall Street Journalthis week, “Mr. Mueller is not a bad man, nor is Mr. Comey. It’s just that both show particular confidence when making mistakes, which makes one grateful for safeguards like the attorney-client privilege.”

The media should not be so quick to gloss over these mistakes solely because of anti-Trump animus. Journalists who take their role seriously should be skeptical of powerful government institutions and how they can abuse their authority.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

Mueller “Collusion” Probe Causes Assange to Sit on “Physical Proof” Disproving Collusion

April 21, 2018  by  

Mueller “Collusion” Probe Causes Assange to Sit on “Physical Proof” Disproving Collusion


Not only is the Trump/Russia collusion narrative “total baloney,” but “physical proof of that” could already have been presented if not for the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, according to Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart on Wednesday, Rohrabacher spoke of his August 2017 meeting with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (shown). Rohrabacher said:

By now, everybody knows that this idea that Trump was colluding with the Russians in order to get them to do things — like steal the DNC emails and then to release them through WikiLeaks — the public knows that’s just total baloney, that’s an excuse. In fact, all they’re doing is trying to cover up the fact that they themselves are undermining our Constitution by preventing this president from assuming the authority that was given to him by the voters.

Addressing the method he used to verify that, Rohrabacher said that in August 2017, he visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London:

I knew the one man who could prove that it was all baloney was Assange, there in London. So I went to see him and he confirmed for me that the Russians did not give him the DNC emails. And he had physical proof of that and he was going to let me see that and have that — but only once I found an agreement that he wouldn’t get arrested when he leaves the embassy.

Assange has been holed up in the London Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 because he fears being arrested and extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage due to WikiLeaks’ publication of classified U.S. files, including the Snowden leaks. On several occasions, he has publicly stated that he believes he would face the death penalty. His concerns are not unfounded, given that many — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — have called for Assange to be assassinated without any due process.

Rohrabacher — who had hoped he could secure such an agreement — ran into a brick wall: the Mueller probe. He explained:

Unfortunately, this was in the middle of the thing where we have a special prosecutor, [so] any discussion with Trump and myself that mentions Russia will be used as an excuse by that special prosecutor to just quadruple all the areas of investigation into me and into Trump. So it is standing there. I’ve been waiting because I know that we’re not going to give this special prosecutor any more ammunition than he needs to try to destroy this president.

As this writer reported in a previous article addressing Rohrabacher’s visit with Assange:

Assange has long claimed that the DNC e-mails that WikiLeaks published last year — much to the embarrassment of the Democrat establishment — were not given to WikiLeaks by Russians or hackers. Last month, he offered to prove it. But since Assange has lived in exile in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012 due to both criminal charges in Sweden for sexual misconduct (which Assange says were trumped up after he released thousands of diplomatic cables and other U.S. government documents) and fear of being arrested and charged with espionage by the U.S. government, he wants something in return for the evidence: He has asked for a pardon from President Trump.

But on September 23, Trump — who famously stated “I love WikiLeaks” when he was on the campaign trail — told the press he has “never heard” of Assange’s offer to make a deal in exchange for the evidence that would dismantle the Trump/Russia fake news narrative. Rohrabacher says that the information is being kept from President Trump by his own staff. “I think that when he hears that there’s been an offer made, he will insist on knowing about it,” Rohrabacher said.

In an interview with The Hill in August 2017, Rohrabacher said, “Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” adding, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.” Rohrabacher went on to say that “Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” but that “the rest of the message is for the president directly.”

Now, the reason that deal has not come to fruition is clear: “Any discussion with Trump and [Rohrabacher] that mentions Russia will be used as an excuse by that special prosecutor to just quadruple all the areas of investigation into [Rohrabacher] and into Trump.”

Let that sink in: The one definitive piece of proof that could solve the mystery and answer the question at the foundation of the Trump/Russia collusion issue hasn’t seen the light of day because to even discuss it with the president would give Mueller “more ammunition than he needs to try to destroy this president.”

Anyone else being investigated for crimes would have the liberty to gather information to mount a defense. But President Trump would be perceived as being “guilty as charged” for so much as having a conversation with Rohrabacher about getting his hands on a critical piece of evidence that would destroy the accusations against him and serve to demonstrate his innocence.

That Rohrabacher is correct in that assertion is evidenced by the fact that Trump’s enemies have already applied that tactic. In fact, all it took for them to crank up that machine was Rohrabacher’s visit to Assange. As this writer reported in that previous article:

The liberal establishment used both the occasion of Rohrabacher’s visit to Assange and Assange’s message to the president to continue propagating the myth of a Trump/Russia connection with Assange as the messenger boy. This time, though, they included Rohrabacher in their attacks. Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director, released a statement long on snark and short on facts. She wrote, “We’ll take the word of the U.S. intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin’s favorite Congressman.” Ah, the obligatory attempt at guilt-by-association. Given the fact that the intelligence community has been caught — time and again — in recent history lying to the American people, it requires something akin to blindness to follow them down the Trump/Russia rabbit hole. Assange, on the other hand, has spent more than 10 years proving his credibility. In that time, WikiLeaks has published literally millions of documents. Not one of those documents has ever been shown to have been manufactured by WikiLeaks.

So as the wheels continue to come off the Trump/Russia collusion cart, the president’s enemies have created a situation — by the appointment of another of his enemies as a special counsel to investigate baseless claims — that keeps him from having access to the single best piece of evidence that would finally lay those baseless claims to rest. Meanwhile, Julian Assange — the man who could (and says he would) provide that critical piece of evidence — remains in exile because he can’t get a deal to guarantee his freedom if he ever leaves the London Ecuadorian embassy.

Photo of Julian Assange: Cancillería del Ecuador

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Liar, Liar, DOJ On Fire – No official intel used to start FBI probe into Trump campaign-Russia collusion

No official intel used to start FBI probe into Trump campaign-Russia collusion

April 22, 2018 By 


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Sunday his review of FBI and Justice Department “electronic communication” documents shows no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

“We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Nunes, R-Calif., cited the Five Eyes agreement as a way of knowing no intel was used. The U.S., along with Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, make up the “Five Eyes,” or countries that share intelligence in a more-trusted fashion than other arrangements, like NATO, particularly due to years of trust and a common language.

“We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well,” he said. “And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government. And that’s why we had to see that original communication.”

The California Republican said he is now investigating the State Department due to signs of “major irregularities,” in an effort to figure out how information about former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos – who reportedly met with a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and Britain’s MI6 in London in 2016 – was obtained by the FBI.

“We know a little bit about that because of what some of the State Department officials themselves have said about that,” Nunes said, adding that “We have to make sure that our agencies talk and they work out problems. We have to make sure that they don’t spy on either American citizens or that we’re not spying on British citizens.”

Still, Nunes doesn’t know whether the former secretary of state and then-Democratic challenger to Trump in the election, Hillary Clinton, was pulling the strings of the investigation launched against her political opponent. However, he said it is known that two long-time Clinton associates – including Sidney Blumenthal – were “actively” giving information to the State Department, which “was somehow making its way to the FBI.”

Liar, Liar, DOJ On Fire? Comey and McCabe Offer Sharply Conflicting Accounts

440px-Comey-FBI-PortraitAndrew_McCabe_official_photopreviously wrote that President Donald Trump has the curious skill of bringing out the worst in his critics.  In the last two weeks, two of Trump’s greatest critics have not only faced their own investigations into leaks by the Inspector General (and McCabe is now the subject of a criminal referral for prosecution), they are increasingly at odds with one another. It is clear that either Comey or McCabe is offering a false account of leaks from the Justice Department.  With McCabe now promising defamation lawsuits and the possibility of a prosecution, this could get much worse before it gets better.

Comey has declared that McCabe is simply not telling the truth when he said that Comey knew of his leaking information to the media.  Indeed, he said that he ordered the investigation into finding the culprit.McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich has insisted that people should not buy Comey’s “white knight” account and that he is offering a false narrative.In the meantime, McCabe is lashing out at this accusers, including the career officials of the Inspector General’s office who took the unprecedented step of calling for the former acting FBI Director to be fired.Bromwich says that McCabe will not sue the Trump administration for defamation and wrongful termination.  Good luck with that.  The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General’s office is composed of career officials who decided that McCabe should be fired. The IG found that McCabe leaked the information for his own personal interest and not the public interest.  That hardly seems like a compelling basis for either wrongful termination or defamation unless Bromwich knows some major fact that that is not public.In the meantime, after raising over $500,000 on GoFundMe (a campaign that I criticized as being premature), Bromwich has announced that he is going back for more donations.  The last campaign ended just before the IG disclosed that McCabe lied not once but four times — and before Comey himself effectively called McCabe a liar.  Indeed, C0mey is invested in showing McCabe is a liar since he previously testified under oath that he never leaked or approved a leak as director.

Bromwich has morphed into Michael Cohen in throwing around threats, including President Trump, for “continuing slander.”  His client is a former public official and now a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, Justice William Brennan explained how the First Amendment was meant to give the free press “breathing space” to play its critical role in our democratic society. The result was not to bar lawsuits by politicians like Trump against the media but rather to require a higher showing of proof. He must prove that the media had “actual malice” where it had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.

That is a high standard for McCabe to shoulder. Moreover, a politician’s opinion of your service (like Trump’s) is generally not actionable unless it can be shown to be a false assertion of fact.

McCabe may be able to tap the thoroughly gullible for more money but he may find that discovery in litigation is the last place he wants to be with both Trump and Comey asserting opposing views of his conduct.

Liar, Liar, DOJ On Fire? Comey and McCabe Offer Sharply Conflicting Accounts

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Comey’s Memos: Dossier Briefing Of Trump A Setup – Desperate DNC – diGenova and Dershowitz….

Comey’s Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing Of Trump Was A Setup

Newly released memos from former FBI director James Comey indicate that an early 2017 briefing for Trump on the contents of an unverified dossier was part of a setup to enable media to report on the the most salacious details of the dossier.
 Comey’s Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing Of Trump Was A Setup

April 20, 2018  By 

Newly released memos written by former FBI director James Comey indicate that an early 2017 briefing for then-President-elect Donald Trump about the contents of an infamous dossier was held so it could be leaked to media outlets eager to report on the dossier’s allegations. In multiple memos, Comey specifically mentioned that CNN had the dossier and wanted a “news hook” that would enable the network to report on its most salacious allegations even though they had not been verified.

“I said the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013,” Comey wrote of his conversation with Trump in a classified memo that was released in redacted form late Thursday. “I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands.”

No media organizations had reported the allegations at the time Comey briefed Trump.

“I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Comey added in his memo about the briefing with Trump on January 6, 2017.

In another classified memo written on January 28, 2017, Comey wrote that in a separate meeting Trump mentioned the allegation about the alleged tape of prostitutes at a hotel and called it “fake news.”

“I explained again why I had thought it important that he know about it,” Comey wrote. “I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.”

Of the many thousands of articles promoting a still-unproven theory of treasonous collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, few were as significant as CNN’s January 10 story “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” Extremely well-placed sources told CNN that the Obama administration’s top intelligence appointees had briefed Obama, Biden, and Trump all about a dossier they took incredibly seriously and considered credible. And it sounded really bad, as the headline indicated.

“Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump,” CNN declared. BuzzFeed published the actual dossier within minutes of CNN’s story going live, showing the world that the dossier was riddled with salacious gossip that lacked even a possibility of corroboration.

Keep in mind that nothing we now know about the dossier had been reported at the time. It wasn’t yet reported that it was used by the FBI to provide a substantial basis to wiretap at least one Trump affiliate despite the fact it was unverified. It wasn’t yet reported that the product was bought and paid for as a Hillary Clinton campaign operation, or that it was secretly funded by the DNC using a law firm as a pass-through to hide its provenance in federal campaign filings. It wasn’t yet reported that its author’s working relationship with the FBI was terminated because he had lied to the agency about how he wouldn’t talk to the media.

After nearly a year of wrangling, the seven memos written by Comey were finally handed over on Thursday to Congress, which oversees the operation and funding of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The memos purport to show Comey’s version of his interactions with the president before Comey was fired last May. According to Daniel Richman, the original recipient of Comey’s leaks who now claims to be his personal attorney, Comey gave him four memos. Four of the seven memos are classified, meaning that at least one of the memos he leaked was classified. By his own account, Comey orchestrated these leaks to the media in order to launch an aggressive special counsel to avenge his firing by Trump in May 2017. The memos given to Congress on Thursday were quickly leaked to the media.

The first memo was sent on January 7, 2017, to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, and James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff. McCabe has since been fired from the FBI and referred to DOJ for criminal prosecution for repeatedly lying under oath about leaking. Baker was reassigned. And Rybicki was replaced in January of 2018.

There are two things in the memo that are worth highlighting as relate to that blockbuster CNN story from January 10, 2017.

First, Comey claims that briefing the president-elect was the brainchild of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to the [president-elect] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote. More on that in a bit.

“I then executed the session exactly as I had planned,” Comey noted before going into details of what he claimed he told the president-elect. He wrote that he told him about the now-infamous prostitute pee-pee videotape claims contained in the dossier. Then he wrote:

“I said I wasn’t saying this was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuses to write that the FBI has the material or [REDACTED] and that we were keeping it very close-hold. He said he couldn’t believe they hadn’t gone with it. I said it was inflammatory stuff that they would get killed for reporting straight up from the source reports.

Such a close-hold that someone at a very high level in the Obama administration gave the information to CNN almost immediately. CNN broke the news of the dossier and Comey’s briefing of the president just four days later.

With Comey claiming that Clapper wanted him to brief POTUS, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence final report on Russia has something of interest. The report, which was downplayed and panned by CNN, included a finding of interest related to discussions of the dossier with the media:

Finding #44: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.”

So Comey, at Clapper’s expressed behest, told Trump that CNN was “looking for a news hook” to publish dossier allegations. He said this in the briefing of Trump that almost immediately leaked to CNN, which provided them the very news hook they sought and needed.

This briefing, and the leaking of it, legitimized the dossier, which touched off the Russia hysteria. That hysteria led to a full-fledged media freakout. During the freakout, Comey deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in private — that the President of the United States was not under investigation. He even noted in his memos that he told the president at least three times that he was not under investigation. Comey’s refusal to admit publicly what he kept telling people privately led to his firing.

That led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

Rep. Keith Rothfus on Comey: “These Memos Create More Questions to Be Asked”…

Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA) appeared on Fox Business to discuss the release of the sketchy Comey memos and the questions surfacing from the continuing book tour.

Rep. Keith Rothfus on Comey: “These Memos Create More Questions to Be Asked”…

DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, WikiLeaks, Russia Is a Desperate Cry for Attention

April 4, 2018  by  

DNC Lawsuit Against Trump, WikiLeaks, Russia Is a Desperate Cry for Attention

As the myriad Trump/Russia collusion investigations continue to come up empty, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — which started the ball rolling by helping the Clinton campaign in financing the spurious Trump “dossier” — filed a lawsuit Friday against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia, claiming they colluded to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

The civil action is a sure sign that the DNC finally knows what most reasonable people have known for months: The multiple investigations into Trump/Russia collusion are a collection of wild goose chases and will continue to fail to prove collusion.

This move by the DNC is such a blatantly desperate attempt to gain attention that even Paul Callan, a legal analyst for CNN (which news outlet can never be accused of beng either pro-Trump or anti-DNC) called it a “publicity stunt” to get information and said it will likely be “tossed out of court eventually.”

WikiLeaks agreed on both points, tweeting Friday that the “DNC already has a moribund publicity lawsuit which the press has became bored of — hence the need to refile it as a ‘new’ suit before mid-terms.” As far as the lawsuit’s chances in court, WikiLeaks’ tweet went on to say, “As an accurate publisher of newsworthy information, @WikiLeaks is constitutionally protected from such suits.”

And it’s not just a CNN analyst and WikiLeaks that say the lawsuit is nonsense. A Democrat congresswoman from California, Representative Jackie Speier, says so, too, calling the lawsuit a “side-bar” that is “not in the interest of the American people.” Her remarks were made in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. The liberal Left-coast politician, who endorsed Clinton in 2016, went on to say that she is “not very supportive” of the legal tactic which she called an “ill-conceived idea.”

In essence, the multi-million-dollar suit charges that Trump campaign officials and the Russian government conspired against Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton by hacking DNC and Clinton campaign e-mails which were then published by WikiLeaks.

In a press release coinciding with the filing of the suit in a Manhattan federal district court Friday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said “The Russian government notified the Trump campaign in advance that it had stolen Democratic emails and other information about the Democratic Party that it was seeking to use in support of Trump’s candidacy,” adding, “Rather than reporting Russia’s offer to meddle in a U.S. election, the Trump campaign welcomed Russia’s help.”

The press release — which certainly was designed to “generate some headlines” — went on to say, ”During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” and “This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency.”

It is noteworthy that the filing of this suit seems to indicate that Clinton and the DNC realize that the myriad Trump/Russia collusion investigations are crumbling under their own bloated weight. If there was any real chance of those probes finding evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, the DNC would not need to grasp at straws by launching this suit.

They look desperate because they are desperate.

Trump Campaign Manager Brad Parscale asserted pretty much that same sentiment in a statement about the lawsuit, saying, “This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party.” He added, “With the Democrats’ conspiracy theories against the President’s campaign evaporating as quickly as the failing DNC’s fundraising, they’ve sunk to a new low to raise money, especially among small donors who have abandoned them.”

The suit makes 11 charges against the defendants, including computer fraud and conspiracy. This is typical Clintonism. Remember when Hillary’s husband was impeached for perjuring himself in a sworn civil deposition related to his sexual abuse of women under his control? Hillary trotted out the same excuses then, referring to the investigation and Bill’s impeachment as a “vast Right-wing conspiracy.” It appears that in the past 20 years, Hillary has not learned the value of personal responsibility — it is always someone else’s fault.

According to the Washington Post:

Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor who specializes in computer-fraud cases, said he thought the Democrats’ suit had merit and, despite predictions from Trump-allied lawyers, was unlikely to go away anytime soon.

“There is no way it’s going to be dismissed,” said Akerman, a partner in the New York office of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm. “At least not on the computer-fraud part of the case, which is really the heart of it. The Democrats have every right to bring this suit as they are aggrieved. My question is: What took them so long?

Let’s take a minute and unpack that. First, “what took them so long” is obvious: the vain hope that the Mueller probe or one of the other collusion investigations would pull a rabbit out of a hat. Now that it is painfully obvious that isn’t going to happen, it’s time to try this. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Second (and on this point, Akerman is correct), the computer fraud part of the case is at the heart of this whole thing. And that is another Achilles heel for the DNC — because there is a conspicuous lack of anything resembling evidence that Russia wasWikiLeaks’ source for the DNC and Clinton campaign e-mails.

In fact, as The New American reported Friday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims to have “physical proof” that Russia was not the source. There is one snag, though. Assange is in exile in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and in exchange for that proof wants a guarantee that he will not arrested and extradited to the United States to face espionage charges if he leaves the embassy. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) — who visited Assange last August — has said that he cannot speak to the president about that offer because “any discussion with Trump and [Rohrabacher] that mentions Russia will be used as an excuse by” Special Counsel Robert Mueller “to just quadruple all the areas of investigation into [Rohrabacher] and into Trump.”

Right now, it is a Catch-22 that protects the DNC and Clinton campaign by keeping the one definitive piece of evidence that would decimate the claim (which is really the heart of” the lawsuit and the Mueller probe) from seeing the light of day. If that deal is ever able to be made, the fraudulent claims of the DNC and Clinton campaign will be laid bare.

For his part, President Trump called the lawsuit “good news” since discovery works both ways. Not only would the DNC gain access to Trump campaign records and files if the case isn’t strangled in its cradle, but the Trump campaign — as part of mounting a defense — would, in turn, gain access to the records and files of the DNC and Clinton campaign.

Photo of the lawsuit filed by the DNC: AP Images

You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.  ~SD

During a Friday night segment of Sean Hannity former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova and former federal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz debate whether the actions taken by:

….President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Crowstrike, Fusion-GPS, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, John P Carlin, Mary McCord, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Lisa Monaco, Denis McDonough, Jim Rybicki, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele…

…in 2016, were all just accidentally working in exactly the same direction; on exactly the same processes and political approaches with intelligence use by government institutions; in accidental alignment,… or, perhaps, it was all coordinated.

diGenova says ‘coordinated’. Dershowitz says ‘accidental’.

While we wait for the underlying IG evidence release, you decide:

Conspiracy or No Conspiracy, That is the Question Debated by diGenova and Dershowitz….

Alan Dershowitz Discusses DNC Lawsuit, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Michael Cohen, etc…

Law Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on Fox News weekend to discuss the DNC lawsuit, Robert Mueller, and the ongoing FBI issues with James Comey.

Alan Dershowitz Discusses DNC Lawsuit, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Michael Cohen, etc…

President Trump Tweets: “Pakistani Mystery Man” – Media Run From Story Like Political Ebola…

You can always tell when President Trump hits upon a subject the media is desperate to avoid covering.  Yesterday President Trump tweeted about the “Pakistani Mystery Man” and the transparent media avoid the story like political Ebola.

Learn About Pakistani Mystery Man HERE

President Trump Tweets: “Pakistani Mystery Man” – Media Run From Story Like Political Ebola…

Trump to “Counter” DNC Lawsuit; Seeks Severs and Clinton Emails




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Susan Rice CYA Memo Gains Additional Context…

Two months ago Andrew McCarthy wrote an article in National Review discussing the email President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on inauguration day 2017.  With the latest discoveries from James Comey’s admissions amid the headlines, the February article by McCarthy is very prescient. {see here}

Susan Rice emailed herself to create a record surrounding a January 5th, 2017, meeting between top White House officials and senior intelligence members.  It was the next day, January 6th, when FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump on part of the Clinton-Steele dossier.  With hindsight, the White House meeting (1/5/17) and the Trump Tower briefing (1/6/17) take on additional meaning.

The departing administration’s highly-politicized intelligence apparatus, Comey (FBI), Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (DNI), conspired -strategically- to weaponize false intelligence in order to create a media narrative that would damage, and hopefully eliminate, the incoming president and his administration.  With full measure of context, contrast against the identifiable behavior that followed; and accepting the FBI team was working diligently on an “insurance policy” agenda; there is no other way to look at these events.

In his article, McCarthy rightly sets the stage:

[…] Let’s think about what was going on at that moment. It had been just a few days since Obama imposed sanctions on Russia. In that connection, the Kremlin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, had contacted Trump’s designated national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. Obama-administration leadership despised Flynn, who (a) had been fired by Obama from his post as Defense Intelligence Agency chief; (b) had become a key Trump supporter and an intense critic of Obama foreign and national-security policy; and (c) was regarded by Yates and Comey as a possible criminal suspect — on the wayward theories that Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak could smack of a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop the sanctions and might violate the never invoked, constitutionally dubious Logan Act.

What else was happening? The Justice Department and FBI had gone to the FISA court on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. That warrant relied largely on the Steele dossier, which alleged a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin involving (a) a cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election, (b) corrupt negotiations regarding the sanctions, and (c) the Kremlin’s possession of “kompromat” that would enable the Putin regime to blackmail President-elect Trump.

Significantly, by the time of this January 6 meeting with Trump, the 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant would have had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort around this time.) The Obama administration was therefore confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting would need to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president.  (read more)

McCarthy accurately predicted two-months-ago that James Comey did not brief President Trump on the full content of the Clinton-Steele Dossier. This suspicion has been confirmed as fact by the recent admissions of James Comey himself.

January 5th, 2017, an Oval Office meeting with President Obama, VP Joe Biden, James Comey (FBI), Michael Rogers (NSA), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Sally Yates (DOJ) and Susan Rice.   At the conclusion of the briefing, President Obama asks Sally Yates and James Comey to remain.  Together with Susan Rice, this is where the “by the book” CYA comment comes into play. As recounted by Rice: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

January 6th, 2017, the Trump Tower meeting with President-elect Trump, VPE Mike Pence, Mike Flynn, etc.  Where James Comey asks for a private discussion with the President-elect:

(Link To Comey Memos)

June 8th, 2017 – Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner (D) questions Comey during Senate Intelligence Committee hearing [Transcript Source]:

♦ Mark Warner […] I know members have said and press have said that if you were — a great deal has been made whether the president — whether you were asked whether the president was the subject of any investigation. My understanding is prior to your meeting on January 6th you discussed with your leadership team whether or not you should be prepared to assure then President-Elect trump that the FBI was not investigating him personally. Now my understanding is your leadership team agreed with that. But was that a unanimous decision? was there any debate about that?

♦ James Comey: Wasn’t unanimous.One of the members of the leadership team had a view that although it was technically true we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then President-Elect trump. His concern was because we’re looking at the potential, again, that’s the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia because it was president trump, President-Elect trump’s campaign, this person’s view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work and so he was reluctant to make the statement that I made. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true. There is not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump. And I decided in the moment to say it given the nature of our conversation.

One member of the FBI leadership team, a “he”, with understanding of the full scope of the counterintelligence operation, disagreed with Director Comey making an obtuse, disingenuous and highly misleading statement to President Trump that he was not under an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

Obviously there was a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, and by extension presidential candidate Donald Trump.   However, as noted in the Susan Rice email describing the content of the January 5th, 2017, White House meeting – the intent of the outgoing administration was to keep president-elect Trump under investigation, yet not allow him to know he was under investigation.  Hence the briefing on only the most “salacious and unverified content of the dossier”.

The goal of the “insurance policy” was to frame the target.  Therefore the target must be played by the officials doing the framing.

However, one official within the leadership of the FBI thought it was wrong to be disingenuous with discussions and briefing for an incoming President.  That one senior FBI official was a “he”.

Now who do you think that “he” was?

This same “he”:


The same “he” who was scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee; but for some mysterious reason the request to interview “him” and four others (Page, Strzok, Ohr and Baker) were all dropped.

The same “he” who, along with the four others, remains employed.

The same “he” who, unlike the four others, has never been removed, suspended, demoted or isolated from his job; and the same “he” who remains in his position through today.

The Susan Rice CYA Memo Gains Additional Context…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment