VIDEO Gorka, Palin, Tea Party Push Roy Moore, McConnell PAC False Attack Ads Est Dark Money Try To Bury Roy Moore

Dr. Sebastian Gorka to Campaign for Judge Roy Moore Alongside Sarah Palin in Alabama

19 Sept 2017 by Matthew Boyle

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Dr. Sebastian Gorka will campaign for Judge Roy Moore here in Montgomery, alongside 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday evening. Breitbart News first reported that Palin was traveling here to campaign for Moore, and now Gorka confirmed to Breitbart News Tuesday morning that he is also hitting the trail in Alabama for Moore.

“President Trump told me he is still committed to the original MAGA [Make America Great Again] agenda,” Gorka, a former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, who has since left the administration, told Breitbart News on Tuesday morning. “We are here to support him in a time when he is surrounded by people who had nothing to do with the success of November 8 and the true MAGA agenda.”

Gorka added that he plans to back all candidates who are just as anti-establishment as Donald Trump was last year.

“Donald Trump was the quintessential anti-establishment candidate,” Gorka said. “The right- and left-wing elite are trying to undermine the people’s choice for president. We will work with any American who has had enough of the Swamp’s ‘business as usual’ attitude and their elitist policies.”

Gorka, Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and Mike Allen reported on Tuesday morning, has joined a group called the MAGA Coalition. MAGA Coalition, along with Great America Alliance, is co-sponsoring Thursday evening’s Palin-Gorka rally in Alabama. The new group MAGA Coalition will feature Gorka as “chief strategist,” which was the title that Stephen K. Bannon had when he was in the White House; Bannon is now back at Breitbart News and is also supportive of Moore’s candidacy in Alabama.

“He’s co-headlining a rally with Sarah Palin in Montgomery, Alabama, Thursday night,” Allen wrote. “The Palin-Gorka rally will promote Roy Moore, the controversial anti-establishment candidate running against incumbent Sen. Luther Strange.”

This is obviously significant because on Friday night President Trump is campaigning for Luther Strange, the establishment candidate whose incumbency in the Senate came under entirely questionable circumstances when he was appointed by now-former disgraced ex-Gov. Robert Bentley. Strange was the attorney general of Alabama and was investigating the governor for a corruption and sex scandal over which the governor eventually resigned. But first, the governor appointed Strange into the Senate seat vacated by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after Strange asked the Alabama legislature to hold off on impeachment proceedings and before the governor was eventually forced to resign.

Notably, the same Washington establishment forces that tried to stop Trump from getting elected last year are trying to help Strange defeat Moore.

“A month ago, Gorka and Steve Bannon were working in President Trump’s White House,” Allen wrote in Axios. “Now they are preparing to go head-to-head against the president to support an anti-establishment candidate who is loathed by the same establishment that originally loathed Trump.”

Details about the Gorka-Palin rally time and location are forthcoming, event organizers told Breitbart News. But Gorka’s hitting the campaign trail is a huge development.

Establishment Dark Money Swamps Alabama Senate Election

19 Sept 2017 by John Carney

A tsunami of Republican Establishment funding and dark money political contributions is hitting Alabama in support of Luther Strange’s high-stakes contest against Roy Moore for the Senate seat once held by Jeff Sessions.

A non-profit group called “America First Policies” has said it will spend nearly $500,000 for pro-Strange digital ads, direct mail pieces, and get-out-the-vote phone calls in the week ahead of Alabama’s run-off election, BuzzFeed News reported. The group was started by President Donald Trump’s former campaign aides shortly after the inauguration.

Strange has raised at least $3.2 million dollars in this election cycle, nearly double the average for a Senate candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He finished second in last month’s primary against first-place winner Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.  Most of that has come from large contributors, with less than one percent raised from small individual donors. Political action committees have donated nealy a million dollars.

Moore has raised just $459,807, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. More than a third of that came from small contributions and none from political action committees.

Outside money has poured into the race, which has become a critical battleground for the Republican establishment’s fight against conservative populism and economic nationalism.  The Senate Leadership Fund and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have invested around a million dollars on behalf of Strange, as has the National Rifle Association. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and his allies have pushed big-money Republican donors to support Strange.

Because political non-profits such as America First Policies are not required to disclose their donors, the money they spend to influence voters is known as “dark money.”

Mitch McConnell PAC Floods Alabama with More False Ads Attacking Roy Moore, President Trump’s Agenda

19 Sept 2017 by Matthew Boyle

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Senate Leadership Fund, a PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell backing Luther Strange, is flooding the state of Alabama here with more false attack ads against conservative Judge Roy Moore that hurt President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The attack ads—which have been proven demonstrably false by not just Breitbart News but also PolitiFact—falsely claim that Judge Roy Moore does not support President Trump’s border wall.

After Breitbart News and PolitiFact demonstrated that the first ad that Senate Leadership Fund did on this was untrue, Senate Leadership Fund came back with two more separate ads that also are untrue—and use the same quotes out of context to attack Moore.

“The ad uses video selectively,” PolitiFact wrote, rating the ad “mostly false.”

“The Senate Leadership Fund ad describes Moore as being on the ‘wrong side of Trump’s border wall,’” PolitiFact added in its ruling. “Based on that and the clips in the ad, most viewers might reasonably think that means Moore is against a wall. In fact, Moore doesn’t want to wait and would rather deploy the American military immediately to secure the border with Mexico. If after that a wall is needed, he said the country should build it. What we have is more of a difference on tactics, not overall strategy or outcomes. The ad makes it sound like the gap is more than that. The ad contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts the would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”

So, now after the first ad was demonstrated to be entirely untrue, Senate Leadership Fund is out with two new ones that do the same thing on Tuesday—and one that recycles old attacks against Moore’s work for a charity:

Of course, suggesting that a Republican who does support the president’s agenda does not support the president’s agenda—in other words, intentionally creating division inside the GOP between the president and frontrunner candidate for the U.S. Senate—hurts the president and his agenda.

Breitbart News has repeatedly asked multiple staffers for the Strange campaign whether he supports or disavows the Senate Leadership Fund ads that hurt the president and his agenda and falsely attack Moore with deceptively edited videos, and Strange has refused to answer.

What makes all of this even more odd is that Trump himself is heading down here to Alabama on Friday to campaign for Strange in the Huntsville area, despite the fact that Moore is more in line with the principles he espoused over the course of the campaign. Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to campaign for Strange next Monday here in the state.

Moore, meanwhile, enjoys a commanding lead—despite the millions upon millions of dollars in attack ads against him, most of which are false.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

VIDEO Donald Trump Gives Full-Throated Defense of ‘America First’ in U.N. Speech – ‘Rocket Man Is on a Suicide Mission’

Donald Trump Gives Full-Throated Defense of ‘America First’ in U.N. Speech

19 Sept 2017 by Adam Shaw

UNITED NATIONS — In a powerful nationalist speech to the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday, President Trump gave a full-throated defense of his “America First” agenda and called for other nations to emphasize their sovereignty as the foundation for international cooperation.

“In America the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people where it belongs,” he said, adding that his administration was “renewing this founding principle of sovereignty.”

However, Trump made it clear that “America First” does not mean “America Alone” and instead explained how other nations should embrace sovereignty as one of the building blocks to international cooperation—arguing that the U.N.’s strength is magnified when nation-states are “strong, independent, and free.”

“As President of the United States I will always put America first, just like you as the leaders of your countries will always and should always put your countries first,” he said to a rare moment of applause.

“All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition,” he said.

Since the departure of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in August, it has been unclear to what extent Trump remains committed to the agenda that got him elected. He has increased America’s presence in Afghanistan, flip-flopped on the repeal of DACA, and his administration has indicated that the U.S. may not leave the Paris climate accord.

But the Tuesday address, reportedly drafted by adviser Stephen Miller—one of the few remaining economic nationalists in the administration and the adviser responsible for Trump’s similarly strong speech in July—was a return to form and a speech likely to meet with approval from Trump’s “America First” base.

“As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else, but in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interests to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous and secure,” he said.

In the roughly 40-minute address, Trump praised the founding ideas of the U.N. and noted the U.S.’s role in its founding—but warned that under his watch, the U.S. would not be taken advantage of under the guise of globalism and international friendship.

“The United States will forever be a great friend to the world and especially to its allies,” he said, but warned, “We can no longer be taken advantage of or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.”

In particular, he criticized the Obama-era Iran deal as “an embarrassment” to the U.S and warned, “I don’t think you’ve heard the end of it.” The administration will decide in October whether or not to declare Iran in compliance with the deal, and Trump has indicated he will not declare the Islamic Republic as in compliance.

Yet Trump also called for countries to work together, to stand side-by-side and not just co-exist. In particular, he called on the international community to act on rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.

“If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few then evil will triumph,” he said. He also had tough words for North Korea in particular, warning that the U.S. will “totally destroy” the regime if attacked.

“Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime,” Trump said, referring to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

But balancing his defense of “America First” with outreach to the international community, Trump finished his speech on a conciliatory note, calling for the international community to give a resolute, united message to the world:

So let this be our mission and let this be our message to the world: We will fight together, sacrifice together and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity and for the almighty God who made us all.

Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics and U.N. reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY

In U.N. Speech, Trump Threatens to ‘Totally Destroy’ North Korea: ‘Rocket Man Is on a Suicide Mission’

19 Sept 2017 by Adam Shaw

UNITED NATIONS — President Trump gave his starkest warning yet to the North Korean regime Tuesday, telling the United Nations General Assembly that the U.S. is prepared to destroy the rogue regime if forced to defend itself.

“The U.S. has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump warned in his speech.

“Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime,” Trump said, referring to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. “The U.S. is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully, this will not be necessary.”

It is not the first time Trump has made the reference to “Rocket Man,” having done so in a tweet Sunday:

Trump was expected to focus on North Korea, particularly in the wake of its recent missile launches and a hydrogen bomb test last month, but diplomats and commentators are likely to have been surprised by the nickname and the stark warning.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed multiple rounds of sanctions on the rogue regime, limiting its exports by 90 percent — but Trump has warned that they are “not a big deal” and only a small step compared to what needs to be done.

In the full-throated speech, where he also took aim at Iran and Venezuela in particular, Trump also attacked nations such as Russia and China, although he did not mention them by name, for trading with North Korea even as it brings the world to the brink of nuclear war.

“It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict,” he said.

He also said that he hoped the U.N. would work to de-escalate North Korea’s aggression: “That’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.”

Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics and U.N. reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Mistake of Pandering to Antifa/Black Lives Matter – Phoniness of BLM – mobs don’t decide trial outcomes

Please black conservatives, do not pander to Leftists’ lies about our country in an attempt to prove your loyalty to your blackness

The Mistake of Pandering to Antifa/Black Lives Matter

Sept 17, 2017 By 

I cringed when I heard fellow black conservatives whom I respect on TV saying that while they condemn the violent behavior of Antifa/Black Lives Matter, some of their grievances against America are warranted. I wanted to scream at my TV, “Hogwash!”

These conservative blacks on TV are merely trying to create peace and civility by agreeing with some of the bogus accusations of racism dreamed up by Leftist intellectuals. They are also trying to prove they are not Uncle Toms. I think it is a huge mistake to pander to lies about America; acting as though very little has changed racially since the 1950s.

Everywhere you turn, American businesses and whites are walking on eggshells, pandering to blacks

As a black person, I know the Black Code. It is the same as what Michael Corleone said to his brother Fredo, “Don’t ever take sides against the family. Ever!” Many blacks and Leftists believe to qualify as an authentic black American, one must harbor a deep seated resentment against white America.

Watching black conservatives on TV saying Antifa/Black Lives Matter have some legit grievances regarding white privilege, I found myself scratching my head. For the life of me, I have no idea what millennial blacks who have never suffered a moment of “real” racism in their lives are so enraged about; whining, complaining and destroying property.

Let’s get real folks. Since the election of Obama, being black is in vogue like never before. Everywhere you turn, American businesses and whites are walking on eggshells, pandering to blacks. This is an undeniable truth that I am not allowed to say out loud, especially as a black person. Leftists will verbally beat the crap out of me on social media.

My 89-year-old black dad suffered “real” hardcore racism. He paved the way for these black ungrateful domestic terrorists created by Leftists’ lies.

After spending months at sea as a young Merchant Marine, Dad and the other black seaman were super excited about their much needed shore leave when their ship landed in St Petersburg, Florida. Dad and his fellow black shipmate were heartbroken upon hearing that they had to stay on the ship because of St Petersburg’s curfew for blacks. While his black shipmate went on a cussing rant, Dad said he cried.

Dad’s weapons for defeating racism were his faith in God, prayer and striving for excellence

When Dad was finally allowed to leave the ship, locals attempted to hang him just because he was black. Dad’s life was saved by white shipmates. I remember when Dad was in his 50s, he met for dinner with an old white friend. I later learned it was one of the sailors who saved Dad’s life.

In 1957, blacks were finally permitted to take the test to become a Baltimore City Firefighter. Dad passed the test. Working conditions at the firehouse were horrific for Dad. He was not permitted to use the same eating utensils or drink from the same coffee pot as the white firefighters. Despite humiliating working conditions, Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times.

Dad’s weapons for defeating racism were his faith in God, prayer and striving for excellence. Over the years, Dad mentored numerous blacks into becoming firefighters. One of Dad’s young black recruits became Anne Arundel County Maryland’s first black Fire Chief.

In the 1960s, an exclusive white country club offered free membership to Baltimore City firefighters. The club was stunned when Dad and my two younger brothers showed up. Dad said all the whites got out of the swimming pool when he and my brothers got in. Dad kept frequenting the club and the white members eventually got over it.

Folks, I could go on and on with horrific tales of “real” racism blacks suffered back in the day. But praise God, this is a new day in America. While Leftists claim a majority of white Americans are racist, white America voted for the worst president in U.S. history two times because he was black. I know. I know. As a black person, blacks consider me disloyal to my race for telling the truth about Obama.

Is there racism in America?

Is there racism in America? Absolutely, along with every other sin in the heart of man. Is there enough racism to stop anyone from achieving their American Dream? Absolutely not. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for everyone who chooses to go for it. Anything else promoted by fake news media, democrats and Leftist Hollywood is a lie. Pure and simple.

The loudest black voices trashing America are super wealthy Leftist blacks who could not have achieved their mega success without the enthusiastic support of white America. And yet, they are dissing our flag and national anthem. They are cheerleaders for the destruction of historical monuments and clamoring for us to throw out the U.S. Constitution. Shamefully, rich Leftist blacks are using urban blacks as pawns to further Leftists’ socialist/progressive agenda.

Colin Kaepernick is the pro football player who inspired youth across America to disrespect our flag. In essence, Kaepernick is also dissing the men who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our flag flying high.

In 2016, Kaepernick’s net worth was $22 million. Kaepernick signed a football contract for $126 million. After declining performances and him dissing our national anthem, Kaepernick was let go only receiving $39.4 million of his contract. Oh how racist white America has screwed this poor black man. I am being sarcastic, folks. I could call Kaepernick an ungrateful spoiled brat idiot. But Kaepernick is really a tragic example of how decades of Leftists spewing hatred for our country has infected the minds of our youths.

Please black conservatives, do not pander to Leftists’ lies about our country in an attempt to prove your loyalty to your blackness. Only by spreading the truth will we defeat Leftists’ insidious divisive evil and unite us as Americans.

Holden Caulfield would hate Black Lives Matter. It is just another leftist clique full of phonies

The unbearable phoniness of Black Lives Matter

Sept 18, 2017 By  — Eli David

Like Holden Caulfield, I am always on the alert for phonies, and one of the biggest phonies to come out of the political/ideological realm these days is the so-called Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. According to, BLM is “a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life… working to (re)build the Black liberation movement…(and) a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.”

This is a movement whose three instigating — and supposed racist — incidents were all completely manufactured. Trayvon Martin, contrary to the pictures of a cute 12-year-old that were circulated, was a 17year-old, troubled and aggressive muscle-bound teen, trained in mixed martial arts, who initiated the fight that led to his death. Michael Brown was the huge thug who attacked a cop, and got shot. In the Eric Garner case, a morbidly obese offender vigorously resisted arrest and then died because his diseased body could not withstand the stress.

This is a movement whose leadership includes ideological poseurs, and at least one white guy, Shaun King, posing as a black man.

This is a movement that first became prominent during the second term of the first black president, Barack Obama — despite all that “virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society” that the Left keeps lecturing us about.

I especially know the BLM is total BS because of how much it is promoted by the mainstream media. You know, more fake news from the media. So fake that millennials including my white cousin like to preach to me about it. Because it makes them feel, oh…so cool.

Anyway, the BLM types have lately gone after the supposedly racist statues in our midst. The most recent incident involved the statue of Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, and the third president of the United States. Jefferson was also the founder of the University of Virginia, which is why he is immortalized in statue form in Charlottesville.

Like virtually all of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson had slaves. So, the BLM phonies are going after him, to show how “woke” they are. Woke, “as in, someone who is past the process of waking up. They’re done with it. They’ve moved on. They’ve evolved from, you know, being asleep and hitting the snooze button 15 times…”

And whenever phonies are woke and preening about racism before the cameras, you can be sure that the Reverend Al Sharpton will be not far behind. You know, the corrupt agitator who promoted the fake Tawana Brawley incident and inflamed the situation in Crown Heights, New York, into a pogrom that left a visiting Australian Jew dead.

How appropriate for Sharpton to be involved in BLM.

BLM protesting bad statues does nothing tangible for the black community, which the protesters claim to be so concerned about. It ignores the fact that although people like Thomas Jefferson may have had their flaws, they also produced a lot of good for Americans, including for African-Americans, including blacks who may be descended from Jefferson.

And, most of all, the Left’s ongoing effort to tear down statues whitewashes history, which rarely unfolds in a neat and orderly way. Americans need to know about the country’s past, warts and all, so they understand the past, the present, and the future.

What is that saying about those who fail to learn from history?

Leftists use Black Lives Matter to smear Americans, attack our institutions, and paint an unduly gloomy picture of the nation’s past. And BLM’s assaults won’t stop anytime soon, especially since we now have a Republican president whom leftists are heavily invested in painting as an anti-black racist.

Holden Caulfield would hate Black Lives Matter. It is just another leftist clique full of phonies.

Constitutional protections for defendants benefit a lot of the people they support, but apparently they’re only to be applied if the racial makeup of the players is just so

Who is going to tell Black Lives Matter that mobs don’t get to decide trial outcomes?

Sept 18, 2017 By 

Before St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley was found not guilty on Friday of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith, black activists warned Judge Timothy Wilson that there would be riots if he did not find Stockley guilty. That was a clear attempt to intimidate the judge into tossing aside his assessment of the case on the facts and the legal merits, and to enter a verdict of guilty simply to appease the angry mob that would accept nothing else.

To his credit, Judge Wilson ignored this threat and ruled on the facts of the case as he saw them, and the result of that was that Stockley was found not guilty.

And as you might expect given the era in which we live, the mobs made good on their threat:

What seemed to be a relatively peaceful second night of protests near St. Louis suddenly turned violent late Saturday when a small group of demonstrators refused to disperse, police said.

The demonstrators were reacting to Friday’s acquittal of a white former St. Louis police officer who stood trial in the 2011 shooting death of a black suspect.

Saturday’s confrontation took place in the Delmar Loop of the St. Louis suburb of University City—known for concert venues, restaurants, shops and bars. The area had been the scene of a peaceful march earlier in the evening that ended with organizers calling for people to leave and reconvene Sunday afternoon.

But the small group that stayed behind drew hundreds of police in riot gear, who moved in and ordered them to leave. The demonstrators retreated down a street, breaking windows and throwing objects at police.

Some protesters were seen in handcuffs but the number of arrests was not immediately known.

Earlier Saturday, demonstrations consisted mostly of marching and chanting through University City in a change from Friday evening’s violence, which saw 11 police officers injured – several by bricks tossed from the crowd – and the smashing of windows at the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson.

The Friday demonstrations were relatively peaceful, but as you might imagine they gave way on Saturday to violence. It’s no different from Ferguson or Baltimore. And whether it’s officially Black Lives Matter or simply people influenced by and sympathetic to their cause, you can always count on the tactics being the same.

Judge Wilson’s decision showed character and courage, and I say that without having a firm conviction about Officer Stockley’s innocence or guilt. I didn’t follow the case closely. From what I did see, I thought there was a case to be made on both sides but in the end probably reasonable doubt. Murder is a very serious charge and it’s very difficult to prove, as it should be. And Stockely and his attorneys were wise to waive the jury trial and opt for a bench trial, since a jury would probably have been more swayed by emotional arguments or threats, whereas a judge is at least going to have a better understanding of the legal hurdles to a conviction.

And surely Judge Wilson must have been aware of the attempts to intimidate him. This is a profoundly disturbing development for American jurisprudence, even if Judge Wilson was brave enough not to give into the pressure in this particular incident.

Remember: The requirement that you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is established to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Many of the people for whom Black Lives Matter advocates are in that position, and they benefit from these protections. Does BLM not understand that the justice system can’t work fairly and equitably if these same protections are not afforded to all citizens, including white people accused of crimes against black people?

Because they certainly don’t seem to think this principle is worth respecting in situations like the one in St. Louis. When you publicly threaten violence unless a criminal case goes your way, you make it clear that you’re not interested in the rule of law, or in the evidence, or in constitutional protections. All you want is blood. And this has been the mode of BLM since it emerged on the scene, operating on the assumption that racist white cops are everywhere and are just looking for excuses to kill black people for no reason apart from sheer racism.

The media has also been extremely irresponsible in covering matters such as these, consistently leading stories by telling you the racial makeup of the participants, but only when it’s a white cop shooting a black suspect. In every other case they either don’t mention the racial makeup or don’t report the story at all, so you’re led to believe that police only shoot people when the cops are white and the targets are black. You’re also led to believe that every time a cop shoots a person, the cop must have done something wrong, or else it wouldn’t have been in the news.

All of this encourages the people who threaten violence absent their preferred trial outcome. So does Colin Kaepernick, but we’ll deal with him soon enough.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

VIDEO Russian investigators MB Obama, Clinton Axes to Grind – CoverUp Wiretapping Trump Blows Up In CNN,NYT Face

It is an insult to the intelligence to have the word “independent” used as an adjective to describe Mueller’s highly suspicious “investigation”

Mueller’s “Russian investigators” Come Equipped With Obama and Clinton Axes to Grind

Sept 17, 2017 By 

“The Conservative Alerts-dubbed “probe-that-became-a-witch-hunt ” that is Robert Mueller’s FBI investigation into Russia collusion has mushroomed, or should we say ‘‘metastasized’ ,  into ‘Old Home Week’ for lawyerly Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton partisans.

These anything but ‘independent’ lawyers are zooming in to Mueller’s special counsel’ probe like flies to you-know-what.

To date, some nine lawyers who, in total,  donated $65,000 to the coffers of former President Barack Obama and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, are in on the “independent” Mueller probe.

Here’s the google available profile on Mueller’s latest legal beagle, courtesy of Legal Newsline—even though her name among other attorneys whose conduct in a high-profile immigration case was called “unseemly and unprofessional” by a federal judge,  has already been scrubbed scrubbed from court documents..

“(Kyle)  Freeny, who joined DOJ in 2007, has something in common with at least eight of her Mueller team members. (DailyCaller, Sept. 16, 2017)

“According to documents maintained by the Federal Election Commission, Freeny has donated in each of the past three presidential elections to Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The U.S. Department of Justice won’t release the names of attorneys whose conduct in a high-profile immigration case was called “unseemly and unprofessional” by a federal judge, or whether those attorneys will face internal disciplinary action. (Legal Newsline, Sept. 29, 2016)

Not all stinking fish originate in faraway Denmark.

“The DOJ says it “emphatically” disagrees with Judge Andrew Hanen’s May order in State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al., in which he wrote that he was “disappointed” that the court even had to address the subject of lawyer behavior when it has “many more pressing matters on its docket.” (LegalNewsLines)

“Hanen concluded that DOJ attorneys “effectively misled” the plaintiff states into foregoing a request for a temporary restraining order or an earlier hearing on a motion for an injunction.

“Their names, following a court order, were redacted from the department’s response to the judge’s order.

“Their misrepresentations, the judge said, also “misdirected” the court as to the timeline involved in the implementation of a 2014 Department of Homeland Security directive, which included amendments to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“DOJ attorneys said Obama’s three-year amnesty plan wasn’t being implemented, but the judge says it actually was – and more than 100,000 aliens were to be affected.

“The Justice Department declined to release a complete list of all those attorneys involved, and their salaries, to Legal Newsline.

“Many DOJ lawyers are listed as participating in the case. They are James Gilligan, Daniel Hu, Adam Kirschner, Jennifer Ricketts, Daniel Schwei, John Tyler, Kathleen Hartnett, Bradley Cohen and Kyle Freeny.

“Freeny is listed as “Attorney-in-Charge” on one of the DOJ’s earliest filings – a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction.

“The lawsuit, filed by 26 states, took issue with the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, program.

“The program, announced by President Barack Obama in November 2014 as part of his plan for immigration reform, attempts to grant deferred action to illegal immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

“The program, combined with DACA, would have delayed deportation of millions of undocumented aliens in the United States.

“The United States Department of Justice has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements,” Hanen wrote in his 28-page order.

“The DOJ’s only explanation has been that its lawyers either ‘lost focus’ or that the ‘fact[s] receded in memory or awareness.’

“These misrepresentations were made on multiple occasions starting with the very first hearing this Court held. This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”

History seems to be repeating itself in Mueller’s special counsel probe which seems to have lost the same “focus” the lawyers lost in the Hanen case.

“The DOJ shot back at Hanen’s searing words in an email to Legal Newsline—after numerous requests for comment on the judge’s order. (LegalNewsLine)

“The Department of Justice takes with utmost seriousness the public trust committed to it to represent the interests of the American people in the courts of the United States, and insists that its attorneys adhere to the high standards of ethical conduct and professionalism required to carry out that critical mission,” a Justice Department spokesperson said.”

Sure, DOJ.

“The Court previously found that certain representations to the Court in this case were made in bad faith or with intent to deceive. We respectfully but emphatically disagree with that conclusion and welcomed the opportunity to provide additional information to the Court.” (LegalNewsLine)

“In the wake of Hanen’s order—as an affirmation of the DOJ’s “steadfast commitment” to its “solemn obligations”—Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Mizer directed all DOJ Civil Division attorneys complete supplemental training designed and led by an outside expert in attorney ethics and professional responsibility.”

“According to the Justice Department’s response, filed July 31 to a June 7 order, all Civil Division attorneys will be required to complete the one-hour training within the next 90 days.”

You can’t, as they say, make these things up.


“A DOJ spokesperson would not tell Legal Newsline who, exactly, would provide the training, what it would consist of, if there would be any sort of assessment after, and whether any other changes have been made within the department to prevent such “mistakes” in the future.(LegalNewsLine)

“The spokesperson also would not say whether the attorneys at the center of Hanen’s order will face any other disciplinary action.

“Mizer has said he hopes the training “will help to assure the Court that we are making every effort to maintain the trust placed in the Department of Justice.”

“The Government sincerely hopes that this significant measure will not only demonstrate the Department’s good faith generally, but also make evident that no sanctions are necessary in this matter,” the DOJ wrote in its response.

“Hanen, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, gave the government an opportunity, in a June 7 order, to submit evidence regarding the conclusions reached in his May 19 opinion and orders.

“The DOJ, in its response, said it did not intend to mislead or misrepresent the facts to the court about the implementation of the 2014 deferred action guidance.

“We do not dispute that we made mistakes that led to the unfortunate circumstances here: at critical times we provided incomplete information to the Court because of our failure to appreciate the scope of the questions asked of us; and we used imprecise terminology in our oral and written submissions to the Court,” it wrote.

“As a result, our submissions left the Court with an incorrect understanding of the facts regarding grants by the Department of Homeland Security of three-year terms of deferred action to individuals qualifying under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival eligibility criteria.

“We acknowledge and apologize for these mistakes, and for the valuable time the Court has expended on this matter as a result. But we did not intend to mislead the Court or to conceal any fact concerning implementation of the Guidance.”

“In a July 31 motion, the DOJ asked that the Texas federal court grant its leave to file their response under seal and in camera—meaning a hearing would be held before the judge in his private chambers.

“The department cited issues of privacy and attorney-client privilege.

“Defendants’ response and accompanying declarations will necessarily include a significant amount of information that is privileged. They will also contain sensitive personal information, and will necessarily identify the counsel named in the Court’s sealed order of May 19, 2016,” the Justice Department wrote.

“For all these reasons, filing Defendants’ response under seal and in camera is necessary to avoid the improper disclosure of these types of information.”

“The DOJ argued there was “no meaningful non-privileged, segregable” information that can be disclosed without also placing individual declarants’ personal privacy interests at risk.”

“There have been no public statements about the reasons for the dismissal and the U.S. Attorney’s Office cannot provide one, even now, months later.”


“Freeny, is a Justice Department attorney working in the agency’s international money laundering unit. (DailyCaller)

According to Politico, Freeny on Friday attended the grand jury testimony of Jason Maloni, the spokesman for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Politico notes that Freeny is the 17th attorney identified as a member of Mueller’s investigative team.”

“According to documents maintained by the Federal Election Commission, Freeny has donated in each of the past three presidential elections to Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“She donated $250 on three separate occasions, on Sept. 13, 2008, June 30, 2012 and Sept. 9, 2016.

“For seven months in 2011, Freeny worked as an attorney in the Obama White House on security clearance issues.”

Robert Mueller’s investigation into the media-hyped Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election is about as “independent, as Paul Volcker’s “independent” inquiry into the UN Oil for Food scandal that Senator Norm Coleman called “the most extensive fraud in the history of the United Nations occurring on Kofi Annan’s watch, the one in which the Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies cashed in on $11-billion worth of business from oil for food between 1996 and 2003.” (Canada Free Press, Dec. 8, 2004)

Mueller’s “Russian investigators” come to the investigation with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton axes to grind.

It is an insult to the intelligence to have the word “independent” used as an adjective to describe Mueller’s highly suspicious “investigation”.

Robert Mueller’s special counsel should be dismissed, his Russian investigators disbanded and sent back to the tainted DOJ for which they have always worked.


Obama administration caught spying on Trump campaign

Coverup Of Trump Wiretapping Blows Up In CNN / NYT Face! Trump 100% Correct

Sept 19, 2017


“How could the FBI director not know about this?!”

Judge Napolitano: Obama Wiretapping Trump Tower Could Have Been To Help Hillary

Sept 19, 2017 by Steve Watson

With confirmation that former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort was indeed wiretapped before and after the election by the Obama administration, Judge Andrew Napolitano has speculated that it may have been an effort to help Hilary Clinton secure the Presidency.

“Were they listening to Paul Manafort during the campaign in order to find out what Donald Trump was going to do next in the campaign and help Hillary?” Napolitano speculated.

“Were they listening to Paul Manafort because they thought he had committed a crime?”Napolitano followed up.

“Were they listening to Paul Manafort because they were looking for something with which to tarnish the future president?” he further asked.

Napolitano noted that it is not known whether the wiretapping was conducted under a FISA or a regular warrant, and explained the significant distinction.

He noted that the only way the government could have legitimately eavesdropped on Manafort to get information on Trump, is if they had evidence of crimes being committed.

Napolitano also noted that Trump’s assertions six months ago that Obama had wiretapped his building now appear to be completely accurate.

“They were surveiling Paul Manafort while he was in Trump Tower, which is absolutely consistent with allegations that Donald Trump and others made about this.” Napolitano said.

Napolitano also pointed out that both FBI director James Comey and Mike Rogers, head of the NSA both testified under oath that they knew of no surveillance of Donald Trump.

“How could the FBI director not know about this if his people had brought it about as part of a criminal investigation?!” an exasperated Napolitano exclaimed.

James Comey Tried to Discredit Trump’s Wiretapping Assertions That Proved True

18 Sept 2017 by Kristina Wong

The FBI had wiretapped President Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort before and after the election, contrary to what former FBI Director James Comey suggested earlier this year.

CNN reported:

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

The CNN report also noted that Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, although it said it was “unclear” whether the wiretapping took place there or not.

President Trump asserted in a series of Tweets on March 4 that the Obama administration had ordered a wiretap at Trump Tower during the election.

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” he tweeted.

“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”

“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

“How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

Later that month, then-FBI Director James Comey disputed Trump’s claims to the House intelligence committee.

“With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” he told the committee, according to the BBC.

Comey may have tried to skirt the question of wiretapping Trump’s campaign by denying wiretapping “directed at” Trump himself, since the surveillance warrant was on Manafort, according to the report.

However, it is clear from CNN’s report that the warrant targeted the Trump “campaign.” The report notes the warrant of Manafort “was part of the FBI’s efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives.”

The report also notes that surveillance of Manafort occurred during a period of time when Manafort “was known to talk to” Trump.

Earlier this year, Comey had also asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s tweets, “senior American officials” told the New York Times.

The Justice Department issued a court filing on September 2 stating, “Both FBI and [National Security Division] confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,” it said.

But about two weeks later, the FBI told reporters who had filed Freedom of Information Act requests that it could neither “confirm or deny the existence of records” pertaining to wiretapping of Trump Tower.

It is not the first time that Comey may have misled lawmakers.

He told the House Judiciary Committee last September that he had decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after the FBI interviewed her.

However, leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee last month obtained transcripts by two senior FBI officials that revealed Comey had drafted a statement exonerating Clinton months before the FBI interviewed her.

He also told senators in May that he had never been an anonymous source in news reports, but later told senators that he had made memos of his private conversations with Trump and given them to at least one friend to leak to the media.

Comey oversaw the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential elections and potential collusion with the Trump campaign, until he was fired by Trump in May.


The entire allegation is the brainchild John Podesta, who has deep ties with Russia

Roger Stone: The Russian Collusion Delusion

Sept 19, 2017

On September 26th I will testify to the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee in their ongoing investigation into whether Donald Trump, his family, campaign or associates colluded with the Russian State to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

I am testifying voluntarily and have requested nor received no grant of immunity.

I have been anxious to do so since several members of the Committee have made allegations in public session that I had advance notice of either the hacking of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails or advanced knowledge of the content of material published by WikiLeaks that proved embarrassing to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

As, a non-partisan news organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation concluded on March 28th, 2017 both assertions are false.

The torrent of leaks and allegations from our intelligence agencies on the question of Russian collusion demonstrate the extent to which these various agencies have been politicized.

Repetition of the mantra that “the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign” does not, however, make it true.

The New York Times reported on January 20th, 2017 that the Intelligence agencies were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts that proved that Trump associates Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Carter Page actively colluded with the Russian State to assist the Trump campaign.

It is important to note that The New York Times The Senate and House Intelligence Committees and our Intelligence services have yet to produce any of these claimed materials simply because they do not exist.

The entire allegation of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign is based on the premise that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and forwarded the hacked material to Wikileaks for publication.

In fact, the DNC refused the FBI access to their servers and this hacking charge is ascribed to CloudStrike, a forensic IT firm whose credibility is questionable.

A recent report by The Nation included the assertion by counter intelligence expert William Binney that more evidence exists that material stolen from the DNC was more likely downloaded to thumb drives and spirited out of the building, leaving no finger print of the Russians.

British Diplomat Craig Murray has said publicly that he was the recipient of these downloads and that he provided them to Wikileaks.

The reported meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian attorney who claimed to have documentation of malfeasance by Hillary Clinton was neither improper nor illegal.

That the Russian attorney was in the United States without a visa raises serious questions as to whether this meeting, which produced nothing was a setup designed to provide the impression of Russian collision where there was none.

The entire allegation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is the brain child of Clinton operative John Podesta, most likely to distract from the lucrative business contracts that he and his brother enjoyed with the oligarchs around Putin as well as the rich “speaking fees” paid to Bill and Hillary Clinton by this very same Russian clique.

In short the claim of Russian collusion with Trump is a politically motivated fairy tale.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO COVERUP: Top Dem Caught With Little Boys 5 X, Crickets – Bill O’Reilly On Sexual Harassment Allegations

SEATTLE COVERUP: Top Democrat Just Caught With Little Boys FIVE TIMES, And Nobody Is Talking



“Even Seattle Finally Had Enough!”

When a scandal hits the Republican party you will hear about it for weeks, months, even years. However, when a top Democrat, the Mayor of Seattle, if forced to resign in disgrace over FIVE underage sexual assault accusers nobody makes a sound.

“Best Thing To Happen In Seattle In A Long Time”

That’s exactly what happened yesterday when Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced his resignation.

This time the victim was Murray’s own cousin, Joseph Dyer. Mr Dyrer revealed that Murray had sexually assaulted him when he was only 13 years old and Murray was in his mid 20’s.

According to libertywriters:

One of his other victims, Lloyd Anderson, was reportedly happy that Murray finally was forced to resign but sad that it took 5 young boys being sexually abused by a respected Democrat Mayor for it to happen.

“I wonder how many other victims are out there,” Anderson said.

Murray denies the allegations, but the more that come out over decades and from people close to him, the more they seem to hold weight. Now with his resignation, it’s hard not to take the side of the victims.

This is the kind of filth allowed to prosper in the Democrat Party. Perverts like Ed Murray and Anthony Weiner have shown how dangerous they can be. It’s up to us to expose them by sharing this out to everyone everywhere so they see what’s REALLY going on behind the scenes.”

sources: photo credit – Joel Mabel


‘This was a political and financial hit job’

Sept 19, 2017

(TODAY) Six months since being forced out of his top-rated Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” over allegations of sexual harassment, Bill O’Reilly continues to deny them in a live interview on TODAY, saying, “in 42 years, not one time did I have an interaction with HR or any complaints filed against me.

He tells Matt Lauer that “this was a political and financial hit job.” He also talks about his latest book, “Killing England.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

GOP Congressman Proposes Pardon Deal For Julian Assange – Urge Trump To Meet With Assange

GOP Congressman Proposes Pardon Deal For Julian Assange

Sept 16, 2017 by Tyler Durden


Late on Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Julian Assange might be able to provide proof that there’s no truth to the Russia collusion narrative – even as Facebook’s claim it may have sold $100,000 worth of ads to Russians supposedly seeking to bolster Trump’s campaign has revived the narrative in the eyes of Trump’s political opponents.

According to WSJ, US congressman Dana Rohrabacher approached Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly this week and offered him a deal: in exchange for a presidential pardon, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would share evidence that could refute the narrative of Russian hacking into the DNC servers which released a trove of emails revealing that the DNC favored Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary. The leaked emails were widely blamed by liberals (and, of course, Hillary Clinton herself) for helping Trump win the 2016 election.

If, on the other hand Assange provided no definitive evidence, there would be no deal.

“The possible “deal”—a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “something like that,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. In exchange, Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election.”


‘He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof,’ Mr. Rohrabacher said.

During the call, Rohrabacher pushed for a meeting between Assange and a Trump representative, preferably someone with direct communication with the president. While WSJ didn’t speculate about who Assange’s source might be, the Australian-born hacker has repeatedly hinted that he received the emails from deceased Democratic staffer Seth Rich. Rich was shot and killed last year during a robbery, according to the DC police, however, the circumstances of his death have fostered suspicions that he may have been murdered as revenge for the leaks.

Rohrabacher travelled to London unofficially early last month for a meeting with Assange. At the meeting, Rohrabacher said Assange offered him “firsthand” information purportedly proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. Rohrabacher is the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats, which has jurisdiction over Russia-related issues within the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rohrabacher confirmed that he spoke to Trump’s chief of staff earlier this week, but declined to elaborate on the subject of their discussion. “I can’t confirm or deny anything about a private conversation at that level” the WSJ adds.

A Trump administration official confirmed to WSJ that Rohrabacher had spoken to Kelly about Assange, and that Kelly told him his proposal “was best directed to the intelligence community.” Trump was never made aware of the phone call, according to WSJ. For the record, that’s the same intelligence community that relied on an error-laden dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer to kick-start its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively conspired with Russian agents to swing the vote to Trump.

Rohrabacher was understandably skeptical about involving the intelligence community, as Kelly had suggested.

“I would be happy to go with somebody you trust whether it is somebody at the FBI; somebody on your staff,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. The California congressman said he would be pleased to talk to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, but that the agency “has its limitations” and wanted “to cover their butt by having gone along with this big lie.” The CIA was one of the intelligence agencies that helped determine in January that emails from prominent Democrats were stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.


Mr. Pompeo has said that WikiLeaks is akin to a foreign hostile intelligence service and is an adversary of the U.S. “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service,” Mr. Pompeo said in an April speech where he criticized the organization for stealing secrets from democratic governments all while receiving the backing of authoritarian states.”

AS WSJ further adds, US authorities have launched an investigation into the disclosure of classified material to WikiLeaks. The investigation was reportedly opened after the publication of hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents in 2010. However, neither Assange nor his organization have never been publicly accused of wrongdoing. Assange has defended the group’s actions, saying they were important acts of journalism and that the American public had a right to know that the DNC essentially conspired to tilt the primary in Clinton’s favor.

Rohrabacher added that the WikiLeaks founder never formally asked him to seek a pardon on his behalf.   

“Mr. Assange explained that the ongoing attempts to bring a prosecution against WikiLeaks and its staff for its work documenting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unconstitutional, widely condemned, should immediately cease and that the continuation is an abuse of process for improper purposes,” WikiLeaks said in a statement about the August meeting between Mr. Assange and Mr. Rohrabacher.


After the visit to London, Mr. Rohrabacher said in a statement that Mr. Assange “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Trump has already made one controversial commutation – pardoning former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio – since taking office. Like Arpaio, Assange, who isn’t a US citizen and was not eligible to vote during the election, was vocal in his support of the Trump campaign. And Trump, for his part, has praised Wikileaks for its journalistic efforts.

But as Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to dig into the financial records of Trump’s inner circle, the administration would definitely benefit from Assange’s disclosure – particularly if it proves reliable enough to forestall, or even end, the multiple inquiries which have so far turned up little in the way of legitimate evidence that Trump associates conspired with Russian. Instead, the inquiry is largely being used as a vessel to funnel damaging leaks about the administration to the press.

In short, Assange who as recently as a few months ago was worried the CIA would do everything in its power to do away with him for good, may have found some last minute leverage.

And now we await a response from Trump, who we imagine would be keen to hear what Assange has to say – despite his chief of staff’s efforts to prevent the meeting.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is urging President Trump to meet with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to once and for all put to rest the “lie” that the administration colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election.

“Determining whether Russia had colluded with the Trump campaign, by supposedly breaking into the Democratic National Committee and leaking those emails — that’s the pivotal issue in front of us,” Rohrabacher told WND. “A really significant factor in determining the truth – what the reality is – is being totally ignored: Julian Assange actually has that first-hand information.

“There are very powerful interests at play that have lied to undermine the outcome of an American election, repeated lied and misled the American people, in a very dramatic way.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

As WND reported, Rohrabacher met in August with Assange, who said he is seeking a pardon in exchange for “information that will be of dramatic importance to the United States” concerning the source of the DNC email leak during the 2016 presidential election.

WikiLeaks published a series of emails from the DNC during the 2016 presidential race that were damaging to former Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The emails revealed that high-ranking officials of the DNC and the Clinton team sabotaged Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy and used racist, anti-gay and sexist slurs when referring to constituents.

In a 25-page report published in January, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” that the Kremlin directed hacks against the DNC, Clinton campaign staffer John Podesta and other top Democrats before passing on the stolen material to WikiLeaks for online publication.

Rohrabacher, who serves as chairman of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee overseeing relations with Russia, refrained from elaborating on the details of his three-hour meeting with Assange. But he said he walked away from his encounter with assurances that Russia and Trump had nothing to do with leaking the emails.

“The only thing that I can tell you that he said is that he was adamant – adamant – that the Russians were not involved. He’s got a lot of further information that is going to be available to me and others once we go through a number of steps,” he said.

“There is a lot of other pertinent information that he is going to be willing to make available, but we’ve got to get certain things done first. I am not going to go into great detail on that, but that’s where it stands,” the congressman said.

“This is something the White House needs to pay attention to. The president has been severely attacked, and his ability to assume the lawful authority that was granted to him by the voters has been disrupted and undermined, aggressively. Those people who are doing this, by promoting a lie and repeating that lie, they need to be exposed. The White House right now has not been following through as fast as I think they should on determining this issue.”

Rohrabacher said he has not yet briefed the president on the details Assange conveyed to him, but he is urging Trump to reach out to the WikiLeaks founder to repair the damage his opponents and critics have done to his presidency and to strengthen national security.

“I have spoken to a very senior level person at the White House. I have not briefed the president, however. The president needs to be briefed on it. The enemies of the president and our country are trying to do great harm,” Rohrabacher said. “They should be exposed for the lie, but it will only be exposed once the agreements and understandings are reached. But the discussion has not started. The president needs to look at this.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Rohrabacher spoke to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly last Wednesday about striking a potential deal with Assange in exchange for information on the issue.

Rohrabacher predicted that Democrats and “enemies of the president and the country” will move away from the issue, hoping it will disappear.

“Our three intelligence agencies, the CIA, the FBI and the NSA, were politicized by Hillary and her clique – they verified a lie, a huge lie,” he said. “I am sure they are trying to exercise their influence now to let this case go away, so that they don’t have to be held accountable for this crime.

“They want this to be a dead issue now because they know that the American people no longer are buying the lie. There’s already been a technological analysis done by experts showing that it could not have been done by a hack from the Russians.”

The analysis Rohrabacher cited was conducted by a group of former NSA computer experts, published Aug. 9 by the Nation. The experts conclude in their analysis that “there was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year – not by the Russians, not by anyone else.”

A remote hack of the committee’s servers would have been technologically impossible, particularly in light of the volume of data stolen, the experts argued.

“Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak – a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device,” the experts wrote. “In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.”

Assange emphatically insisted to Rohrabacher that Russia had nothing to do with how he obtained DNC emails, the California congressman told WND.

Assange has not only repeatedly denied that Russia or any “state party” was involved in the leaking of DNC emails, he has hinted that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich might have been the source of the emails.

As WND reported, Rich was murdered July 10, 2016, in his affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Nothing was taken from him, yet the Metropolitan Police Department maintains that Rich was killed during a “botched robbery.”

The Profiling Project, a team of forensic psychology graduate students and instructors, concluded in June that Rich was likely murdered by a “professional killer or serial murderer.”

Jack Burkman, the head of the Profiling Project, has filed a lawsuit against the MPD, demanding the release of Rich’s medical examiner’s report, autopsy documents and ballistics reports, documents that are typically made public during murder investigations.

Americans should be suspicious and alarmed that the investigation into Rich’s murder is cast off as “conspiracy theory,” Rohrabacher said.

“I admire WND for investigating Rich – going to something that is really important, while everyone else is trying not to see it, [trying] not to acknowledge it. In this case, there’s a dead body, and he’s been murdered,” he said.

Rohrabacher said the details of Rich’s murder are deliberately being ignored “to accomplish something.”

“Everyone wants to try do their very best to ignore that dead body, ignore that there’s a crime, a murder, in order to accomplish something. What that something is remains unproven right now to the general public. But there are some people who know the answer,” he said. “When you have political operatives, who are tied into a political power structure, trying to convince you not to look at something, not to question and not to examine something – that is exactly what we should be doing. That is certainly the case with Seth.”

Following Rohrabacher’s meeting with Assange, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Aug. 31 called for Rohrabacher to be removed as chairman of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee overseeing Russia, claiming he has a “sympathetic” stance toward the country.

Rohrabacher spokesman Ken Grubbs dismissed the suggestion. Grubbs told the Hill that the DCCC is “obviously embarrassed by the [Democratic National Committee’s] antics last year, does not know how to think strategically about foreign affairs and has descended to the guilt-by-association tactics reminiscent of America’s Red Scares. It compounds its own embarrassment.”

Rohrabacher said the only country he is “sympathetic” to is the United States, and he wants to shed the light of truth on the “repeated lie that makes Russia a villain for an activity that they were not engaged in.”

“I consider myself a patriot. Anybody who thinks I am pro-Russia, they are showing their own ignorance and inability to take an honest look at the issues. I am not pro-Russia at all; I am pro-America. The only thing I am advocating is what I think is very important for the security, well-being and prosperity of the United States. That’s it. We need to work with Russia for the prosperity and security of our country. Those people who on a gut-level say ‘you never want to work with Russians’ are doing a great disservice to our country and to the cause of peace in the world,” he told WND.

“I am looking for truth, [that’s] all. I am looking for people who know what the truth is, so that they can make up their own mind about what type of relationship we should have with Russia.”

Rohrabacher said a “great disservice and harm” have been done to the president “by a lie, repeated by the media and political forces and by intelligence agencies in our country.”

“That lie needs to be disclosed and dealt with so the American people know that they should be supporting their president,” he said. “And we should be seeking, where possible, cooperation with Russia for national security purposes,” he continued.

“As soon as the White House can decide that they are to working out an understanding with Julian, we will hopefully be able to move forward and bring the fact and the truth to the American people, which will, I believe, convince the American people that they’ve been lied to, with the purpose of creating hostility between the U.S. and Russia and prevent us from working with Russia in a way which would be very beneficial to our country.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Why Did the Judge Acquit a St. Louis Police Officer of Killing a Black Man?

Sept 18, 2017 by  


The decision on Friday to acquit a white St. Louis police officer in the fatal shooting of a black man back in December 2011 predictably set off rioting in the city. It didn’t occur to the rioters that, according to the evidence in the case, Officer Jason Stockley’s use of force was reasonable, to defend his own life against a potentially lethal threat exhibited by Anthony Lamar Smith. It didn’t matter that the judge found that the state failed to prove its allegation that the gun found in Smith’s Buick that night was deliberately planted there by Stockley.

It didn’t matter that Judge Timothy Wilson has ruled both for and against the police during his 28 years on the bench. It didn’t matter that he is highly regarded by his peers, that he is viewed as an unbiased judge who has no ideological ax to grind except to get the facts straight and make the decision proper under the circumstances.

None of that mattered. Once Wilson’s decision was filed late Friday afternoon, the BLM rioters and their useful idiots brought out their pre-printed signs and started destroying property. When police arrived to quell the unrest, BLM thugs and others encouraged by them started attacking the police.

Much of the mainstream media have been willing — too willing — to uncritically circulate the anti-cop narrative that a white police officer should have been found guilty of murder for killing a supposedly unarmed black man, without including in their news accounts the evidence showing otherwise. Put simply: The white cop was guilty. Guilty. GUILTY! Let the rioting begin!

Yet the facts in the case tell a different story.

And the facts were examined by more than just Judge Wilson.

The FBI investigated the shooting right after it occurred, and never filed charges. The Civil Rights Division of Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated, and never filed charges. An internal investigation by the St. Louis Police Department revealed that Stockley violated a rule that had nothing to do with the case, and sanctioned him for that. No other charges were filed against Stockley until the spring of 2016, more than four years after the incident, when then-Circuit Court Attorney Jennifer Joyce charged Stockley with first-degree murder and armed criminal action by allegedly planting a gun in Smith’s vehicle.

For Judge Wilson, his ruling is clear: Stockley is innocent of both charges, and he is now free to get on with the rest of his life. Said Stockley, after learning that the charges against him had been dismissed, “It feels like a burden has been lifted…. My main concern now is for the first responders [in St. Louis],  the people just trying to go to work and the protesters. I don’t want anyone to be hurt in any way over this.”

Wilson is held in high regard in St. Louis. Jack Garvey, a lawyer and former judge himself, told the St. Louis Dispatch: “He’s very methodical and a very objective judge. He really will review everything before be makes a decision. I don’t think he’s ideological in any way. He just takes each case as they come to him.” Joel Schwartz, a defense attorney, added: “He’s been in St. Louis and has seen thousands of cases and understands evidence.… My feeling on Judge Wilson is he’s a man who will do the right thing.” Another defense lawyer in St. Louis, Terence Neihoff, said: “Over the years he’s been remarkably consistent. He doesn’t just automatically believe the police.”

In his decision, Judge Wilson began by reviewing the constraints under which he operates: “A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism,” adding that “a fair, impartial and independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family.”

Wilson then described what happened. When Stockley and another officer, Brian Bianchi, exited their police vehicle to investigate a suspected drug transaction in a parking lot, “Smith rapidly pulled forward … then frantically drove his Buick backward into the marked police vehicle twice, before speeding away at a high rate of speed.” Stockley testified that before the Buick exited the parking lot, he heard Bianchi yell “gun,” “indicating Smith had a gun in the car,” and that he (Stockley) also saw a gun. Stockley was struck in the arm by Smith’s car as Smith was fleeing the scene.

Stockley and Bianchi got back into their vehicle and pursued Smith, who, Wilson recounted in his decision, “drove at speeds up to 87 miles per hour, on wet roads, endangering other drivers and pedestrians. The pursuit ended when Smith drove into oncoming traffic and was bumped from behind by the police vehicle being driven by Brian Bianchi.”

Stockley got out of the police vehicle and approached Smith, who was still in the Buick. Wilson described what happened next:

Stockley told Smith to “show me your hands” repeatedly, but Smith continued reaching around [inside his vehicle]. Suddenly, Smith’s demeanor changed, around fifteen seconds after Stockley reached the driver’s window, when Smith reached between the seats, and Stockley said he thought Smith had retrieved the gun.

Stockley reached for his [service revolver] and stepped back because he was scared Smith would pull up his hand and shoot him. Stockley then fired several shots at Smith, which ultimately resulted in Smith’s death.

Judge Wilson reiterated what the dashcam video from the police cruiser, along with other video testimony provided by observers that night, revealed:

Stockley approached the driver’s side, appeared to attempt to open the door and, as testified to by the State’s own witnesses, ordered Smith to open the door and to show his hands. Stockley also warned another officer to “watch his hands.” It was not until fifteen seconds after Stockley arrived at the driver’s side door, that he unholstered his service revolver and fired several shots in succession.

What about the “planting” charge? DNA evidence indicated that Stockley had touched the gun, but Wilson noted that Stockley quite properly unloaded Smith’s weapon after the shooting, placing the empty firearm and the rounds on the passenger seat. Of course, if Wilson had actually planted the gun, as opposed to rendering the gun safe, he would have had to bring it to Wilson’s car to begin with. Regarding this scenario, Wilson concluded that, if the gun were planted, Stockley would have been observed with the gun. Wilson wrote:

Stockley can be seen on all sides while walking around the two vehicles [the Buick and adjacent police vehicle]. Stockley does not have a jacket on over his blue police uniform. There is no gun, other than his holstered service revolver, visible in his hands, in his pockets or tucked inside his belt, and there is no bulge from a gun in any pocket.

Later in his decision, Wilson added:

The gun [found in the car] was a full size revolver and not a small gun, such as a derringer, that can fit in the palm of one’s hand or into the side pocket on a pair of pants without being obvious. Stockley was not wearing a jacket; if he had such a gun in his possession it would have been visible on the cell phone video. The gun was too large to fit entirely within any of the pockets on the pants he was wearing, there was no bulge in any pocket indicating a gun within the pocket, and the gun would have been visible if it was tucked into his belt.

Also, Wilson noted that “one obvious question the State made no attempt to answer was how Anthony Smith could have been shot in the left lower abdomen by a person standing outside the car if Smith was simply sitting in the driver’s seat.” Wilson then referred to expert testimony of the doctor who conducted the autopsy, who “testified that the wounds in Smith’s left flank could indicate that Smith was reaching for something to his right at the time the wounds occurred.”

The state argued that a statement made by Stockley, and captured on audio, during the high-speed chase indicated that Officer Stockley intended to kill Smith. However, Wilson reasoned in his decision:

Commencing in the parking lot … when Anthony Smith rammed into the police vehicle twice, and then struck Stockley’s arm with the car while fleeing, officers Bianchi and Stockley were involved in a dangerous high speed pursuit. It is apparent from the dash cam audio and video that the pursuit was stressful both from the high speed nature of the pursuit and from confusion casued by the multiple radios and communications with a dispatcher. People say all kinds of things in stressful situations, and whether Stockley’s statement that “we’re killing this m*****f*****,” which can be ambiguous depending on the context, constituted a real threat of action or was a means of releasing tension has to be judged by his subsequent conduct.

Wilson concluded: “The Court does not believe Stockley’s conduct immediately following the end of the pursuit is consistent with the conduct of a person intentionally killing another person unlawfully,” elaborating:

Stockley did not approach the Buick and immediately shoot Smith multiple times…. Stockley approached the driver’s side, appeared to attempt to open the door and, as testified to by the State’s own witnessess, ordered Smith to open the door and to show his hands. Stockley also warned another officer to “watch his hands.” It was not until fifteen seconds after Stockley arrived at the driver’s side door, that he unholstered his service revolver and fired several shots in succession.

At the end of his 30-page ruling, Wilson “decreed that the State has failed in its burden of proof and the Court finds that defendant is not guilty of both charges in this case: murder first degree and armed criminal action.”

As noted above, none of this matters to Black Lives Matter radicals. What matters is that a white cop shot a black man and a judge found the cop to be innocent. That narrative is all that is necessary to justify rioting, looting, firing stores and businesses, and attacking police trying to quell the violence. In its war against the police, BLM radicals will use any excuse to light the match.


An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments