OUT FOR THE KILL

“The Donald” defeated a left wing progressive criminal in 2016; this lying “B” would be in jail now if it weren’t for the politicized FBI; a cover-up that makes Watergate look like a candy store heist. Any other person would be doing time and a lot of other things. But she is still mouthing off like nothing happened. Having the FBI, once a sacred institution, become an arm of a political party is pure unadulterated Treason. Trump won fair and square, they lost and now have suffer the consequences. However, this is not the case with a swarm of do nothing liberal progressive criminals. They will do anything, including murder, to stifle Trump and his agenda. Insiders loyal to Clinton crushed any evidence that would confirm here guilt. This was an independent agency of the U.S. government involved in a KGB scheme to protect one of their own. Remember the progressive agenda of Socialism is actually a true and tested autocratic dictatorship the likes of Marx, Lenin, Chavez and Castro.

The hearings go on and soon Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court. This will be a milestone for the conservative movement. Since the court took a left turn with Earl Warren and continued on through Kennedy the social anarchists have basically gotten their way. Now, it is in our grasp to change the courts political philosophy. The ANTIFA crowd is out for the kill; they see their hedonistic political agenda taking a big time hit that will last for decades. They can’t get things done on the legislative side so they relied on the courts at every level to legislate from the bench.

Republicans let Obama’s two picks, Sotomayor and Kagan, slip right through – no protests from the conservatives. (from the Washington examinerDemocrats are upset about where the Supreme Court has been heading not because it isn’t doing its job, and not because it is overly partisan, but because they don’t like the fact that cases going there are increasingly being decided based on the Constitution and the law and not on motivated reasoning in search of liberals’ pet causes.

Any outside observer with a minimal intelligence knows full well that the FBI colluded with Hillary Campaign to bring down Trump from the get go. This inner coup started with the hiring of Fusion GPS.  SEE BELOW FOR PREVIOUS POSTS.

ANKLE BRACELETS WARRANTED

Finally, the truth has come out – how, when and why? We are not of the uninitiated, we are well informed, knowing full well a bald face lie from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The guilty have been outed notwithstanding the Mueller investigation. By the way his investigation is a complete sham. He is a shill for Comey and company, protecting the guilty while harassing the innocent, therefore any indictments he brings or arrests he makes borders on collusion.

They have delved into areas that were never authorized, squeezed heads with far fetched codes, but they will never come clean on why they have failed to investigate the Russian colluding democrats under Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Podesta Group head honcho Tony Podesta, Fusion GPS, Wasserman-Schultz, Huma Abedin, etc.  For instances bringing a charge against Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI is a farce. His whole investigation is built on animosity against the Republicans and specifically Trump. But we must move on because the real criminals are escaping from the grasp of the law.

Back to Attorney General Sessions – yes he recused himself from the Russian investigation, not relevant to what has to come, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the power to arrest Hillary “jail the bird” Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, Rice, Slick Willie, Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin, Loretta Lynch, Koskinen, Strozk, McCabe, Tony Podesta and any other number of lying, cheating, thieving players in this scam of scams.

The question we have regarding Sessions; has somebody threatened to chemically alter his manhood?

COMEY CAUGHT HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN – THEN PAGE AND STRZOK COVER UP THE CRIME

Fox News Channel logo.svg

The original script read like this,  “grossly negligent” when referring to Hillary Clinton’s crimes. Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner. But what happened?

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term ‘gross negligence,’ and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Metadata shows that on June 6, the FBI’s lead investigator on the case, Peter Strzok, sat down at his office computer to cleanse his boss’s statement of the vexing term, “gross negligence.”  With the help of his paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the words “extremely careless” were substituted to make Clinton appear less criminally culpable. Page told the IG that “to use a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing.”

Strozk and Page also expunged from Comey’s statement his reference to another statute that Clinton had plainly violated. She should have been charged under the statute’s “intent” provisions.  With Comey’s consent and encouragement, the pair sanitized his findings of fact and contorted his conclusions of law. Clinton, who had not even been interviewed by the FBI yet, was free and clear. The investigation was a sham.

Comey may not have remembered writing the words that should have indicted Clinton, but he had complete recall of his inability to read the law. He told the IG he thought “Congress intended for there to be some level of willfulness present even to prove a ‘gross negligence’ violation.” If Comey had ever read the legislative history, he would have known that in 1948, Congress amended the original Espionage Act of 1917 to add a “gross negligence” provision that did not require intent or willfulness.

Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation into Trump and his campaign. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored.  The law enforcers became the law breakers.  Comey’s scheme to leak pilfered presidential memos in order to trigger the appointment of his friend, Robert Mueller, as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. Comey’s insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media.  Sure enough, they became his witting accessories.

Compare all of this – that there was never any credible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency – with the fact that there was ample evidence that Clinton had broken the law.

This is the story of “The Russia Hoax.”

HARRY REID – A CRIMINAL BY NO OTHER NAME – A VAIN ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN THE FREELY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

To protect Hillary “lock her up” Clinton in the run for the White House FAKE information given to pugnacious Senator, “Harry Black Eye” Reid was the meal ticket utilized to sabotage the Trump run for the Presidency of the United States.  JOHN BRENNAN! Yes Brennan, under the head of the CIA under Obama told Reid not to release it, but did he?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sends a letter to then-FBI Director Comey voicing concern over Russian interference in the election and asking Comey to open an FBI investigation.

 – The Washington Times – Saturday, May 12, 2018

Then-Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid released a letter in the heat of the 2016 election alleging Trump-Russia collusion even though the CIA director at the time urged him not to, according to a person familiar with their conversation.

Mr. Reid’s Aug. 27 letter to the FBI appears to mark the first time a Democrat officially accused President’ Trump’s campaign of colluding with the Russian government to hack his party’s computers.

The letter has come to represent for conservatives the “deep state” — Obama loyalists leaking unproven allegations to the press against Mr. Trump and his people to ruin the campaign, the transition and the White House.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote to FBI Director James B. Comey.

Mr. Reid wrote and leaked his letter after receiving a secret telephone briefing from then-CIA Director John Brennan.

The retired senator has portrayed the letter as having the blessing of Mr. Brennan, a fierce Trump critic who suggests the president is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin for fear of blackmail.

But now the Brennan side rebuts Mr. Reid’s contention that the then-CIA director was actively trying to leak damaging anti-Trump information during the election.

Nick Shapiro, former deputy chief of staff for Mr. Brennan as CIA director, told The Washington Times that his ex-boss considered the information sensitive. He expressly urged Mr. Reid to confine the information to private discussions with Mr. Comey.

That August, Mr. Brennan was briefing the so called “gang of eight” congressional leaders on Russian computer hacking and on suspicious that Trump people were involved.

Mr. Shapiro, now a Brennan adviser, provided this version of the Brennan-Reid phone call:

“Brennan used the same exact notes to brief Reid as he used with the other members of the Gang of Eight. In fact, most of the conversation was spent with Senator Reid telling Brennan what he had heard about Russians and the Trump campaign. Senator Reid informed Brennan that he was in the process of drafting a letter to Comey about his concerns. When Senator Reid asked Brennan whether he could reference this information in the letter to Comey, Brennan said ‘no,’ as the intelligence was being tightly controlled and he was worried that the letter would get out into the public. Brennan told him that Comey had been fully briefed on the intelligence and if he wanted to, it would be better to talk to him about it in a secure manner when he returned to D.C. instead of putting it in a letter.”

Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, wrote the letter anyway. And it was leaked to The New York Times and then migrated throughout the mainstream media.

It contained references to a Trump aide traveling to Moscow and allegedly meeting with two sanctioned Kremlin figures — an allegation contained in the Democratic Party-financed dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. The unnamed person is Carter Page, who has denied under oath he ever met the two people named by Mr. Steele.

The dossier at that point had not been published. The FBI possessed copies and had opened a counter-intelligence investigation into Russia meddling the previous month.

Mr. Reid’s version of his phone call from Mr. Brennan is contained in the best-selling book, “Russian Roulette,” which embraces the Trump-Russia conspiracy and promotes the Steele dossier.

The book says:

“Reid also had the impression that Brennan had an ulterior motive,” the authors said. “He concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russian operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign. When Reid later was asked if Brennan directly or indirectly had enlisted him to push information held by the intelligence community into the public realm, he told an interviewer, ‘Why do you think he called me?’ “

Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Brennan’s adviser, said that specific book excerpt is inaccurate. He also told The Times that rather than trying to sell Trump-Russia collusion during the campaign, the Obama White House and Mr. Brennan stayed silent.

The Washington Times submitted questions to Mr. Reid’s associates at a public policy institute in Nevada where he serves as co-chairman. The queries went unanswered.

Mr. Reid did not stop his drumbeat on Trump-Russia. After Mr. Steele leaked his dossier narrative to selected reporters in Washington, Yahoo News, whose Michael Isikoff co-authored “Russian Roulette,” wrote a story.

But The New York Times dampened the narrative with an Oct. 31 story headlined, “Investigating Donald Trump, FBISees No Clear Link to Russia.”

Mr. Reid was furious

Adam Jentleson, his deputy chief of staff, tweeted, “I’ll say it: NYT interviewed Reid for this story. He said things contrary to the story. NYT discarded the interview.”

“Maybe some want to know why the NYT seemed to cover for Comey’s FBI? Maybe even some at the NYT? Maybe not? I’m just asking questions,” Jentleson said. The New York Times would go on to become one of journalism’s chief proponents of Trump-Russia collusion.

The Washington Times has examined Mr. Steele’s series of collusion charges and found that none has been confirmed independently and publicly at this point. Special counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate.

However, the FBI’s investigation remained a secret during the campaign. Despite public pressure, including public letters from then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on August 29 and October 30, 2016, the latter claiming that the FBI was concealing “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Trump and his top advisers, and the Russian government,” the FBI did not disclose its investigation until after the election. In fact, on October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported that FBI officials had not found evidence demonstrating links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
David Kris is a founder of Culper Partners LLC. He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington.

The Carter Page FISAs are out via the Freedom of Information Act. Here are a few observations, relatively brief but still just a bit too long for Twitter.

First, a huge amount of information is redacted in these FISA applications, but they still represent a monumental disclosure to the public. The government considers FISA applications to be very sensitive—and their disclosure, even heavily redacted, may have long-term, programmatic consequences long after we’re finished with President Trump. The government seems to have accepted that FOIA applies to FISA. Without taking a position on the issue it made me recall this Lawfare post that argues to the contrary.

Second, for those who don’t remember, the controversy about these FISA applications first arose in February when House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes released a memo claiming that the FBI misled the FISA Court about Christopher Steele, the former British secret agent who compiled the “dossier” on Trump-Russia ties and who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Page. The main complaint in the Nunes memo was that FBI whitewashed Steele—that the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.”

In response to the Nunes memo, the Democrats on the committee released their own memo. That memo quoted from parts of the FISA applications, including a footnote in which the FBI explained that Steele was hired to “conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia,” and that the man who hired him was “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.

There’s also more detail on the previous disclosure from the House intelligence committee Democrats’ memo on how Steele went to the press with the “dossier” when FBI Director James Comey sent his October 2016 letter to Congress disclosing the possible newfound importance of the Weiner laptop in the Clinton investigation. According to the FISA applications, Steele complained that Comey’s action could influence the election. But when Steele went to the press, it caused FBI to close him out as an informant—facts which are disclosed and cross-referenced in the footnote in bold text.

While I am sure people will try, my initial impression is that with all the redactions it is going to be very tough to figure out the full scope of information supporting the Court’s repeated finding of probable cause to believe that Carter Page was an agent of Russia. There is a mention of two Russians, one of whom pleaded guilty to being an unregistered agent of a foreign government and was sentenced to 30 months, but even that is disconnected from the redacted discussion that precedes it. Substantively, the government seems to have hewed as closely to the prior disclosures as it could in applying FOIA.

But it is worth noting that—and as the Democrats previously pointed out—the judges who signed off on these four FISA applications were all appointed by Republican presidents, including one George H.W. Bush appointee (Anne Conway), two George W. Bush appointees (Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman) and one Reagan appointee (Raymond Dearie). I know some of those judges, and they certainly are not the types to let partisan politics affect their legal judgments.

This illusion to the Republican appointed judges is in fact not telling the whole story because,  the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.”

JAMES COMEY’S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

Steve Hilton: Will Comey be held accountable for his behavior? Law enforcement cannot be above the law

 

Here are four specific areas where there are serious grounds to suspect that James Comey broke the law while he was FBI Director:

First, his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Why was no Grand Jury empanelled in this case? Why was no search warrant issued? Why was immunity granted to Clinton aides, which effectively stripped Congress of its power to issue subpoenas to gather evidence from phones and laptops before they were destroyed?

And does all this amount to Obstruction of Justice?

Second, the manner in which James Comey closed the Clinton email investigation. He testified to Congress that he made the decision to clear Hillary Clinton after she was interviewed by the FBI. But FBI documents suggest that it was before. Does this constitute Perjury/Lying to Congress?

Third, Comey has publicly admitted that he gave memos recording his interactions with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with the intention that the contents would be leaked to the media in order to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. These were documents created on an FBI computer and which dealt with an ongoing, highly sensitive investigation. Reasonable observers would conclude that these memos were FBI property. So: does leaking them in this unauthorized way mean Comey is guilty of Theft of Government Property or Records?

Finally, the infamous Russia dossier which was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Two Congressional Committees have already established that the FBI knew the dossier was largely fabricated – indeed James Comey himself described it as “salacious and unverified.” The FBI also knew that it was paid for by the Clinton campaign (as part of the campaign), and that the dossier was compiled by someone with a clearly stated bias against Donald Trump. The FBI knew that they needed the dossier to spy on the Trump campaign, and so relied on it to obtain the FISA warrant anyway.

All of this may be profoundly unethical and disturbing. But the legal question is: do these actions pass the threshold for Abuse of Power, Perjury, Making False and Misleading Statements, and again, Obstruction of Justice?

THIS SESSION IS OVER

Gregg Jarrett – FOX NEWS

Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States.  His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this.

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.  Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe.  Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal.

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so.  “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else,” said Trump at a news conference.  The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him.  Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General.  This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve.

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent.  He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.  He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation.  The evidence is compelling.

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration.  Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons.  Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally.  And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime.  Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs.

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey?  The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media.

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General.  He should resign.  But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her.  He testified, “After.

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony.  A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton.  Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath.  If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged.  What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect beforethe evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses?   No prosecutor I know of.  Unless, of course, the fix was in.  Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance.

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice.  It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation.  It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing.

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there.  As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media.  As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media.  Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,”, as Comey claims.  They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director.

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records.  This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege.  They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents.  If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI.  If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director.  The irony is lost on no one.  Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action.

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey.  In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case.  The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey.  Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received.

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident.  She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place.  It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act.

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.”  This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you.  The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials.  Clinton clearly intended to do these things.

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior.  Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.”  However, the two terms are synonymous under the law.  Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior.  So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice.  All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena.  She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them.  She did not.  Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence.  Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction.  Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature.

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband.  If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS.  Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank.  It has also been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation.

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal.  After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Coincidence?  Or criminal “pay-to-play?”

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton.  Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.

Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration.  Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative.  When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime.  And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred.  Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose.

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others.  Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned.  As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations.

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same.

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president.  Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation.  But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice.

Then he should quietly bow out.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/19/gregg-jarrett-sessions-should-resign-but-not-before-taking-action-against-clinton-comey-and-rice.html

SUSAN RICE THREATENED WITH “WannaCry”

Susan Rice, the former U.N. ambassador, has agreed to TESTIFY, but behind closed doors. What is it that changed her mind? She was responsible for unmaking civilians in the wake of the Clinton debacle. This was done under the auspices of ex-President in thief Obama. Our take is that she was threatened with the WannaCry virus. This alone was enough to scare the living daylights out of her. This virus is akin or worse than a frontal lobotomy; and for that matter waterboarding. Unmasking for political purposes is a serious crime which may, depend on the negotiations, may involve jail time. Does she wanna cry? We shall see.

Rice will definitely be the prime witness in what now has become, not a Trump investigation, but more serious an investigation into the internal doings of the Obama criminal network. The door has been opened by the scheming liars on the other side of the isle. Schumer and friends are about to suffer the consequences. More to come, including Loretta Lynch, who by the way was given orders on the side by the most racist attorney general in decades, Eric Holder.

SIDE BAR: In case you missed it, the Michael Brown payout to the family amounted to over one million greenbacks. This was to put to rest the killing of a two bit punk who got what he got. These types of payments are similar to those given to the families of suicide bombers.

First, Michael Brown robbed a store. Then he assaulted a policeman, fighting for the officer’s gun.

The officer was left badly bruised and worried he might lose consciousness.

Only when Brown charged once again did the officer fatally shoot him. As I show below, there is no debating the facts about the August 2014 shooting.

Yet, what has Ferguson, Missouri done?

On Saturday it was revealed that they “secretly” awarded Brown’s family a “wrongful death claim” of $1.5 million.

But if that doesn’t get you angry, look who is getting the money.n payment raises serious questions.  

Are Ferguson city officials worried about more violence if they don’t pay up?

First, Michael Brown robbed a store. Then he assaulted a policeman, fighting for the officer’s gun.

The officer was left badly bruised and worried he might lose consciousness.

Only when Brown charged once again did the officer fatally shoot him. As I show below, there is no debating the facts about the August 2014 shooting.

Yet, what has Ferguson, Missouri done?

On Saturday it was revealed that they “secretly” awarded Brown’s family a “wrongful death claim” of $1.5 million.

But if that doesn’t get you angry, look who is getting the money.

After a grand jury declined to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, Brown’s stepfather incited demonstrators to “Burn this motherf—er down” and “Burn this b–ch down.” At least 14 people were injured and twelve buildings set on fire in the ensuing violence.

Compensating people for legitimate harm done to them is one thing, but this $1.5 million payment raises serious questions.  

Are Ferguson city officials worried about more violence if they don’t pay up?

While this might buy Ferguson some safety, will it cause others to seek big payoffs in other parts of the country?

After the shooting President Obama told Americans that Michael Brown’s death awakened our nation once again to the reality that [black people] have long understood” and that the shooting demonstrated why “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THE STORY

 

LIBERALS TRIP ON OPIODS – GONE BOMBASTIC – CLINTON AND OBAMA ARE THE CULPRITS

Those who scream the loudest are in most cases the ones guilty of a crime. The bank robber always returns to the scene. Pointing fingers at others is their only hope in taking the focus off their crimes. This is the Obama/Clinton/Comey/Lynch game plan; blame Trump for crimes that they committed.

Why the concern? Trump is withering the liberal-progressive attack by the left wing fourth estate. This is to be expected from the alt-left bombardment.  Cry babies are pretty much used to getting their own way. Spoiled brats rattling in their cribs for more attention, find that making their case is several  degrees harder than yelling at the top of their lungs. But what troubles us is the free pass that Hillary (jail the bird) Clinton got from FBI director James Comey. Something just does not sit right when a situation calls for an investigation and arrest, but because of ineptitude or just plain old politics the criminals go off scot free. This is akin to Alphonse Capone getting a free pass from his buddies at the IRS. Bottom line: “The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time due to Comey.

Loretta Lynch and the crew that gave immunity from prosecution to a half dozen witnesses. By the way all of the evidence they possessed has been sanitized.  And speaking of crimes committed and lies to the American people, Obama  is the one whose truth was a BIG LIE.  Remember, “you can keep your PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOU DOCTOR” and on top of that each family will save $2500 per year. Please correct us if were wrong here! And slick Willie, “I did not have sex with that women.”  Pleasantries aside, but we must go after BIG GOVERNMENT because it is stacked with the progressive wing of a chronological criminal organization. TRUMP’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT must bring these criminals to justice once and for all. He can do this by instructing his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to level charges against the following;  HILLARY CLINTON, JAMES COMEY, LORETTA LYNCH, SUSAN RICE, CHERYL MILLS etc.

Sessions must question the five so-called immunity agreements granted to Clinton’s State Department aides and IT experts. Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, along with two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson, were afforded immunity agreements, as was Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River networks, the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department.

OBAMA – DESERVING OF THE NOBEL “WAR PRIZE”

Remembering back to the day when Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize baffles us, probably the bulk of free thinking initiated Americans too.

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama’s promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a “new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.

The Nobel Committee’s decision drew mixed reactions from US commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum, as well as from the rest of the world.

Obama accepted the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2009. In a 36-minute speech, he discussed the tensions between war and peace and the idea of a “just war” saying, “perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.

Baffled may not be the word to describe this prize, a more intense definition is needed, say confused, delirious, maybe we were disoriented. Maybe these are the words to describe the Nobel committee. Because it seems to us that they were disoriented, delirious and confused. Well how did it work out for the man of PEACE?

Not too well; 400,000 Syrians dead whose kin can thank Obama’s Red line. Iran waging havoc throughout the Middle East and on the verge of a nuclear capability, signed on by Obama and Kerry. Hezbollah backing up Assad in Syria and running roughshod in Lebanon. The aftermath of Obama’s peace overtures have not turned out as expected. The exclamation point here is last weeks message sent via airmail to Syria. Russia has got the message too, but all is not said and done. We sincerely hope the Nobel committee recognizes their mistake and claws back Obama’s prize and then hands it over to Donald Trump. 

Susan Rice, you remember her, a liar of first rate. It was she who fell hook line and sinker for Russia’s money back guarantee that no chemical weapons remain in Syria; was she smoking some of Obama’s  stash during her time at the U.N? But we will get to the bottom of it one way or another. Obama’s peace overtures to dictators will stand out as a ruthless ticket for them to go on killing with abandon.

Trump’s man as State, “T Rex”, is not a man to mess with. For instance China and Russia are feeling the first heat in a decade. North Korea is incapable of accepting their fate, therefore Trump will most likely send them a message via the tomahawk.

 “To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” -George Washington, 1st address to Congress – 1790

TIME TO COOK RICE – LOCK HER UP

Lies stream from Susan Rice’s mouth reminds us of an asteroid heading toward earth in the dark of night streaking across the sky and then burning up in the earth’s atmosphere. The time has come for Obama’s and Clinton’s water carrier’s to feel the heat of a Republican rice cooker. She must testify in front of Congress  under oath.

Americans want to know who put her up to this; why did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign? Who else was involved: Did it reach to the top? If Obama were still in office there is no doubt impeachment proceedings would be in full swing. We have Watergate all over again. An enemies list with Donald J. Trump as enemy number one. By the way, has anyone heard from Obama? We hear he is off on a sojourn in Tahiti.

Van Jones weighs in. Did anyone expect him to keep his mouth shut? To bring the uninitiated up to speed,  Van Jones was one of Obama’s Czars; he was forced to quit under allegations, which were true that he had a connection to the communist brotherhood. Click here for Van Jones crying like a baby on election night, “this was a whitewash.”

A Yale graduate, Van Jones, resorts to the Race Card.  We are not surprised or alarmed by what this guy had to say concerning Susan Rice. Listen to his take on Susan Rice “for doing her job.” Pardon us if we got this wrong, but doing her job? Does he mean spying on Americans, outing them, providing our enemies with state secrets? During his eight years in office Obama’s East German Stasi worked in the shadows targeting innocent individuals who did not share his beliefs?

On 8 February 1950, East Germany saw the establishment of the Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi. The Stasi sought to “know everything about everyone”.  We learned of the depth of the administrations paranoia when Lois Lerner, who by the way took the 5th, because she did not want to pin the targeting of Tea Party groups on Obama, would not come clean on what she knew. 

Americans are beginning to understand depth of surveillance by the Obama administration on those who posed a threat to him and his progressive new world order global agenda. Trump was elected to stop the New World Order in its tracks. America is now on the right track and we will prevail.

“D” DAY TOMORROW FOR HILLARY CLINTON

Tomorrow HRC will lower her derriere into the hot seat; the main target of the House Benghazi committee headed by Trey Gowdy (enemy number 1 in Hillary’s book). Leading up to her appearance has been nothing but a circus. Ms. Clinton’s old paradigm, “rip, tear down, demean, arouse suspicion and personally attack your adversaries” has come full circle.

In other words, go to Saul Alinsky’s playbook, Rules for Radicals. Personally attack the executioner and their motives. Rule 10, 11 and 12 follows:

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

She and her cadre of progressive liars are at it night and day, but the evidence is there, the witnesses are there and in fact the cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens (who was one of the four killed in the Benghazi attack) requested more support in the form of men, troops, security and firepower to protect the embassy went unheeded by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Therefore, it can be stated that Clinton is directly responsible for Chris Steven’s murder.

And don’t forget the cover-up on what caused the bombardment of our embassy. No it was not a Muslim film as Susan Rice would have us believe, but a well coordinated attack by Islamic Jihadists who incidentally never heard of the film. By the way the film was three months old. Gowdy, will do his best to get answers on  who was the one who pushed the film as an explanation. Remember that Ambassador Steven’s requests fell on deaf ears. Where was Clinton on the night of the Benghazi attack? She was sleeping.

Tomorrow is “D” day for Clinton. Either way she will be wounded, maybe not mortally but enough to put fear in her and her supporters.  Blood will flow tomorrow. We don’t expect the 5th, but don’t be surprised if it is invoked. Expect, “I don’t remember” or “my secretary never told me so.”  “Obfuscation” will be Clinton’s plan tomorrow. As the Russian General said, “mistakes will be made, but others will be blamed.” What the public will know when tomorrow is said and done is that Hillary Clinton is a bold face liar.lies

CAUGHT RED HANDED WITH THE BENGHAZI SMOKING GUN

More than two years have passed, but the super sleuths detected gun powder residue on (click)President Obama’s hand.  U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was thrown into the lime light as she weaved her way through Sunday news programs touting the line that a film denigrating Muhammad was responsible for the murder of our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three others. However, the investigation continued and the Johnny Gum-shoes delving into a cover-up have exposed the holder of the smoking gun;  President Obama’s finger prints are all over it. No surprise here.

Trent Gowdy opening statement. We will get to the bottom of the killing of our Ambassador Stevens.