Also circulating on social media was a video of Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary during President Bill Clinton’s administration, that contradicts Clinton’s claim that Sanders has been ineffective on Capitol Hill.

“He was an effective legislator, in fact one of the most effective legislators,” Reich says, “because the more you work behind the scenes and don’t try to push yourself out there and don’t try to get the limelight, the more effective you can be — which ironically invites the complaint from some people that he was ineffective because he was not in the limelight. He was, behind the scenes, enormously effective.”

Looks like they are all turning on her. Nice person that Hillary. Apparently she wrote the book “On how not to influence your friends and negatively influence people.” Way to go Hillary.


Federalist logo.png

Why Criminal Prosecution Might Be The Least Of Ilhan Omar’s Legal Concerns

Rep. Ilhan Omar needs competent immigration counsel to ensure that there is no threat of her losing her citizenship, or, worse, deportation.

Matthew Kolken

By Matthew KolkenJANUARY 21, 2020

The Department of Justice has reportedly assigned an FBI special agent to work with Immigration and Customs and Enforcement and the Department of Education Inspector General Charge to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for alleged criminal violations relating to perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, federal student loan fraud, and bigamy.

As an immigration lawyer, the very first question that came to mind when I read these reports was what immigration consequences, if any, could attach in the event that any of the above allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. My analysis, unfortunately, has resulted in more unanswerable questions than definitive answers.

My analysis started with the fact that it is widely known Omar was born in Somalia, and immigrated to the United States as a Somali refugee. At some point after her admission to the country, she obtained U.S. citizenship. The Associated Press reported on November 5, 2009, that Omar fled Somalia to a refugee camp in Kenya with her family in 1991. She ultimately immigrated to the United States as a refugee in 1995.

If this report is correct, the analysis is fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, U.S. immigration law permits refugees to apply for permanent residence, commonly known as a “green card,” one-year after arrival. Five years after holding a green card, refugees may then apply to become a citizen through a process called naturalization.

Naturalization applicants must show they meet residency requirements, and have good moral character. It was reported that Omar became a citizen in 2000, five years after her arrival, at the age of 17.

This last detail is important, and is where things start to get murky. If Omar became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, she must have obtained it through automatic acquisition after the naturalization of at least one of her parents. Omar would not have been able to apply for citizenship on her own because individuals are ineligible to apply for naturalization until age 18.

Here is where it gets really complicated. The requirements for automatic acquisition have changed several times throughout the last century. The marital status of Omar’s parents would determine whether she could have acquired citizenship. I have no details about their marital status to be able to determine if these legal requirements were fulfilled.

However, if Omar did not have to apply for naturalization, it could eliminate one possible crime that she could be charged with: knowingly giving false information in furtherance of an application for citizenship. A conviction for this crime would lead to her denaturalization, resulting in the loss of citizenship, and the institution of removal proceedings to deport her.

But the analysis doesn’t stop there. For Omar to have automatically acquired citizenship, she must also have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and there are reports questioning the legality of her admission as a refugee.

David Steinberg has covered the Omar saga for several years and has openly questioned whether she is who she says she is. Steinberg has alleged that Omar assumed her name from an unrelated family that was being granted refugee status. Although I have no way to independently assess the veracity of this report, there is circumstantial evidence that this type of immigration fraud was rampant in the circumstances under which Omar was admitted to the United States.

Specifically, in 2009 the Obama administration assessed the viability of re-employing a Bush-era pilot program that unearthed widespread immigration fraud. It found that as many as 87 percent of applications claiming familial relationship were fraudulent. If the reports are ultimately found true, the immigration consequences would be severe, including loss of citizenship and the institution of removal proceedings. Moreover, there may be no defenses to removal in an immigration court setting to stop her deportation.

Assuming arguendo that it is determined that Omar is not a citizen of the United States, and if she is convicted for any of the crimes she is allegedly being investigated for, there would be bars from most forms of relief from removal. Most crimes relating to fraud constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, which would preclude Omar from applying for cancellation of removal as an immigrant who holds no status in the United States.

If she is convicted for tax evasion where loss to the government exceeds $10,000, she will be removable for having an aggravated felony conviction, which also precludes her from applying for asylum. If she is convicted for marriage fraud, she would be ineligible to be sponsored if she were to marry a U.S. citizen. Needless to say, the worst-case scenario is very bleak.

That said, I have more questions than answers, but my preliminary analysis is that Omar is in need of competent immigration counsel to ensure that there is no threat of her losing her citizenship, or, worse, the prospect of deportation back to a country she fled as a child.Matthew L. Kolken has served as an elected director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Board of Governors, where he has been a member since 1997. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on MSNBC, FOX News, and CNN. You may follow Matthew Kolken on Twitter @mkolken.Photo Lorie Shaull / Flickr


A Muslim rape gang in England was allowed to roam city streets and abuse young girls because police officers were told to “find other ethnicities” to investigate, according to a detective who spoke to the Telegraph of London.

The paper noted that at least 57 young girls are thought to have been exploited by a network of some 100 suspected perpetrators based in south Manchester in the 2000s.

The gang, mainly of Muslim immigrants, hooked victims on drugs and sexually abused them. A 15-year-old girl died after a 50-year-old man injected her with heroin.

A report of a two-year investigation commissioned by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham concluded vulnerable girls in care were groomed and abused in “plain sight.”

TRENDING: New photos of grinning Bill Clinton with sex slave and Epstein’s pimp on ‘Lolita Express’

The government report found fears over race relations played a role in how police handled the Muslim gangs, referred to by British government and media as “Asian grooming gangs.”

Officers were aware of “many sensitive community issues” concerning policing in south Manchester in 2002 and 2003, the report said.



A top New York Police Department union official on Friday called on Mayor Bill de Blasio to “own” the consequences of the city’s sanctuary policies — while insisting officers want to be allowed to work with federal immigration enforcement — after an illegal immigrant who was freed in November is alleged to have sexually assaulted and murdered a 92-year-old woman



Pelosi, Schumer and Nadler, three blind rats, are about to be trapped by Trump. Just a side bar here. Hillary, Lock Her Up, Clinton and the DNC broke more laws going into the 2016 election than can ever be counted. Think about the the Steele Dossier paid by Clinton, think about Slick Willie threatening Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, think about it, think about the 33,000 deleted emails, think about the BleachBit wipe of her computer, think of her being allowed to have two attorneys with her during questioning. Those two were witnesses to a crime. Think about her i-phone being crushed to bits. And the Democrats have the balls to Impeach Trump.

So the Demorats have resorted to impeachment because they still can’t get over the beating Clinton suffered at the hands of Trump in 2016. Since day one these rats have beaten the impeachment drums. But we have a word for Senator McConnell, “do what the Democrats have done to you, do to them in Spades.” Tell them one thing, “see you in November RATS.”

President Trump’s legal team on Saturday issued a full-throttled defense to the articles of impeachment, refuting the substance and process of the charges while accusing House Democrats of engaging in a “dangerous attack” on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. 



The judgement of history on the Trump impeachment is going to be that a group of scoundrels in control of the U.S. House of Representatives placed partisan interests above the country, undermined the Constitution, weakened America in the world, and lied about the duly elected president of the United States.



Anonymous - Prise de la Bastille.jpg

The Democrats entering the Senate chamber on Tuesday are expecting to see a Presidential hanging. Wrong! A Democratic hanging is about to take place. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, the three nincompooks will bear witness to their own demise. Their witnesses will be carved up, diced and sliced into rotten flesh. They will be held accountable for this come November 3, 2020. Bet on it.

They could not take it, they went to psychiatrist, to shrinks, to anyone who would listen to their malady. In the end though, help was not available for their affliction. There is no cure for “Trump derangement syndrome.

Democrats can lie, cheat, steal as they have in the past, they have continued on this path since the election of Donald J. Trump on November 8, 2016. This has caused anxiety among the Deep State, the swamp and to the well connected. For instance Hunter Biden has milked Ukraine for millions. He didn’t stop there, his next stop was China; he milked them for billions. All of this based on connections to his father. Brother Frank was also capitalizing on connections, click here for more details.

As this charade goes on and on, we know who the guilty are. The ones who have tried so far in vain, to bring down the Best President the United States has had in Two Hundred Years. The DOJ, FBI, CIA and SECRET SERVICE are full of Anti-Trumpers, slowly but surely they are being weeded out. One does not to be blind to understand the inner workings of these criminals who did their best to elect Hillary, lock her up, Clinton. We need not tell you more, but the list of those killed who were associated with the Clintons is long. The latest being Jeffrey Epstein.

We want justice. We want justice now. Bull Durham is closing in on the guilty, the James Comeys of this world. They saturated the government going into the 2016 election trying to frame Donald Trump. Mueller found zilch, not even a phone call in implicating Trump. They slippery weasel did his best to cast suspicion though, but in the end he was left holding a bag of hot air.

But journalists couldn’t bring themselves to celebrate. Instead, they freaked out because a Republican senator was curt to a CNN reporter.


The reason the thin-skinned press was more thin-skinned than usual was that the impeachment trial in the Senate that moves into high gear this week has about the same chance of removing Trump from office as the Cincinnati Bengals do of winning Super Bowl LIV. And the Bengals aren’t even in the playoffs.

So it was no wonder that journalists were angry when Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., called CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju a “liberal hack.” Twice. The news media responded in hilariously histrionic ways. Washington Post Media Critic Erik Wemple called the comment “vile” and “chilling.”

CNN was especially offended, pounding the story hour after hour like McSally had assaulted Raju in the hallway. Anchors practically lined up to take on McSally. Wolf Blitzer referred to her comment as “disgusting” and “awful.” Anderson Cooper called the comment a “slur” and Jake Tapper said it was “obviously indecent.”

Chris Cuomo was determined to outdo them all. The foam-at-the-mouth anti-Trumper practically turned part of his show into an anti-McSally/anti-Trump commercial. He readily honored McSally’s military service, but then emphasized how she wasn’t similar to the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who was also a veteran.

Cuomo told viewers that McSally “bears no resemblance to McCain’s dignity, decency, discretion.” Then he amped up the attack even more, declaring: “I can’t believe people would vote for her to fill McCain’s seat.”

Lost in the uproar was any attempt to discuss facts.

First, Raju’s employer is a major party to the three-year phony Russian collusion claim. Then Raju has his own history. He falsely reported that WikiLeaks had emailed Team Trump on September 4, 2016, with a way to access embarrassing documents. It turned out the email was dated 10 days later and Raju had to go on air and admit his error. He received no discipline.

All of that was swept under the rug and many in the press embraced the “liberal hack” label themselves. CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin had already given his ruling on the case. “The other thing to remember about witnesses is all the witnesses will show that the president is guilty because he is guilty.”

CNN was especially thrilled by the Democrats’ choices for impeachment managers, noting that many were people of color. And anchor Jim Sciutto was excited to show that Democrats had made their picks from many different states. He told co-anchor Poppy Harlow, “you made the point territorial, geographic diversity as well.”

Mapmaker, mapmaker, make me a map!

The media oohed and ahhed about the seriousness of the impeachment. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow scored ratings gold with a last-minute hit-job interview. Chris Matthews called the impeachment “sacramental.”

Fellow MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell claimed to “The Al Franken Podcast” that CNN isn’t Never-Trump territory after all. “One-third of the people on their payroll love Trump,” he argued, pretending that “one-third of the programming will be supportive of Trump.” (He doesn’t actually watch CNN, apparently.)

O’Donnell vowed MSNBC would be worse than CNN about Trump, saying “on MSNBC there will be no one defending him because we don’t bring on liars. I don’t bring on a liar. I won’t do that.”

The MSNBC gang was after Trump, his family and his supporters.  “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski joined comedian Stephen Colbert on the CBS “Late Show” Monday to bash Trump.


Scarborough ranted, asking: “When is Donald Trump going to pay for this? When is Donald Trump going to pay for all the lies? When is he going to pay for the recklessness?” He and Brzezinski were hopeful for a Democratic landslide in the November elections.

Scarborough went further on his own show just a few days later, cautioning that “everyone who defends Donald Trump right now will be exposed.” Scarborough listed Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, warning about the “bleak” tide of history.

"Where Revolution is the Solution" Taking back the Empire