Study: Each Resettled Refugee Costs Taxpayers $15,900 a Year

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a pro-American immigration think tank, issued a study Monday showing a strikingly high price tag for resettling refugees in the United States.

When they combined resettlement costs with Medicaid, Food Stamps, public education, public housing, and a bevy of other government programs and benefits, the study’s authors, Matthew O’Brien and Spencer Raley arrived at a figure of $79,600 in taxpayer costs for the first five years of an average refugee’s stay in the U.S., which annualizes to $15,900.

The figures do not include an assessment negative societal impact, if any, from refugee resettlement. The authors write:

It is important to note that this analysis does not address the costs associated with any incurred national security and law enforcement costs associated with some refugees who pose a threat. The total price of additional vetting and screening expenditures, law enforcement and criminal justice costs, and federal homeland security assistance to state and local agencies is hard to quantify.

The $15,900 price tag does not tell the entire fiscal story of refugee resettlement. As advocates of permissive refugee and asylum policy are apt to point out, many refugees do work and contribute to the American economy after resettlement. That contribution has proven difficult to quantify, however. Left-leaning PolitiFact, for example, concluded the extent of that contribution is unclear after a draft Obama-era Health and Human Services report on the matter found a massive offsetting contribution, but was rejected in September.

The FAIR study’s authors, however, provide some data that suggest pessimism as to refugees’ ability to offset their welfare burden in the short-term. “According to [the Office of Refugee Resettlement] ORR, refugees’ earnings are meager throughout their first five years in the United States, increasing from $10.22/hour to $10.86/ hour – only a 6.3 percent increase over five years, on average,” they explain.

Unlike other types of immigration, refugee resettlement is an explicitly humanitarian endeavor. Refugee policy has never been based on a purely fiscal calculation. But, as FAIR’s authors stress, “As the nation considers what levels of immigration we can fiscally and environmentally sustain, it is important to understand the costs of resettling both refugees.”

“Reflecting America’s long tradition of providing refuge to the oppressed, we have admitted over 3.5 million people since 1980 and 96,900 refugees just in the last year in 2016,” reads the study’s summary, concluding:

We continue to admit refugees at a rate of roughly 50,000 to 100,000 refugees per year and 20,000-50,000 political asylees per year. Most of this cohort arrives here without financial resources and possessing few marketable job skills. And the American taxpayer is being asked to feed, clothe and shelter them, in addition to funding job training programs.

The FAIR study’s findings largely comport with the 2015 results of another pro-American immigration reform group, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). At that time, CIS found a figure $64,370 per Middle Eastern refugee during the first five years of resettlement.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

CNN Tries to Blame Trump for Not Deporting Illegal Who Killed NFL Player

It’s no secret that over the last several weeks liberal outlets like CNN have been aggressively trying to undermine President Donald Trump’s push for more border security and aggressive deportation of illegal immigrants  — even wrongly claiming that the illegal immigrant crime rate is lower than that of the general population when research has found that the crime rate is actually much higher.

But on Tuesday morning, after news broke that NFL player Edwin Jackson was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had a previous DUI conviction and was twice deported, CNN host Alisyn Camerota flipped to complaining that Trump is not doing enough to protect Americans as she alleged that he is spend too much time targeting the wrong kinds of illegal immigrants.

The CNN host even contradicted herself in mid-rant by complaining about ICE targeting a Polish-born doctor, Lakiesz Niec, for deportation even though her own New Day show has acknowledged that Dr. Niec has a DUI on his record, which would make him the kind of immigrant that it would make sense for the U.S. to deport if there is a goal of preventing drunk driving deaths.

While discussing a tweet President Trump had just sent out about the Edwin Jackson case, CNN’s David Chalian predicted that Trump will be “painting a picture of only one kind of illegal immigration — when bad actors are illegal immigrants,” adding, “That’s the kind of image of illegal immigrants he likes to leave in people’s minds.”

Camerota then began her rant by acknowledging that Trump had a point that some illegal immigrants should be deported, but she then pivoted to accusing Trump of spending too much effort deporting the wrong kinds of immigrants at the expense of deporting the right kind:

The problem with him talking about it now, I think, is that he has been President for a year, and we’ve seen him deport people who, you know, are doctors. I mean, you know, these cases — we’ve interviewed some of them here — so he said he was going to go after these exact guys, the hardened criminals, first, but that’s not what’s happening with deportations. And that’s why it’s sort of, you know, cognitive dissonance on some of this.

Camerota oddly spoke as if the handful of specially selected relatively sympathetic deportation cases the dominant media have been highlighting over the past few months were the only people ICE has been deporting in spite of the thousands of cases that go through the system each year.

Chalian agreed with her and suggested that Trump has mishandled the deportation of illegal immigrants by not deporting the right ones. After beginning by declaring “Yeah, and you’re absolutely right,” he soon added:

As the President constantly says — any President says — there is nothing more important to a President than keeping Americans safe. That did not happen here potentially because of this repeat offender of an illegal immigrant. You’re absolutely right to note that it is a textbook case for that, but you note, Alisyn, just how complicated this is. It makes me think of the President’s comment on health care, right? “Who knew it could be so complicated to figure out the right solutions to solve these kinds of problems?”

Camerota then repeated her claim that Trump is not deporting the right kinds of illegal immigrants: “Right, I mean, this is exactly the type of guy that he featured that should be deported — get out and stay out before something like this happens, but instead that’s not who’s being deported right now.”

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Watch: Conservative Media Orgs Detail Suppression by Social Media Giants

Conservative media organizations will discuss how Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and search engine giants like Google have stifled conservative and alternative viewpoints during a panel discussion Tuesday, February 6, at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

The event, hosted by The Gateway Pundit, will “feature several prominent online conservative and moderate voices who have been impacted by social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information. Panelists will discuss political bias by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and by search engines such as Google.”

The panel includes Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, John Hawkins of Right Wing News, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Margaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting, tech entrepreneur Marlene Jackel, and special video remarks from Michelle Malkin and James O’Keefe.

The Gateway Pundit writes:

A Harvard University study published on August 16, 2017, analyzed both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 election cycle. The study clearly shows that modern conservatives in America today have wholeheartedly rejected the liberal mainstream media. The 2016 election cycle was the first election cycle where conservatives used alternative media news sources to gather information rather than turning to traditional mainstream outlets.  Conservative Americans abandoned the mainstream media in 2016 and will not be returning anytime soon.  This paradigm shift forced left-wing tech-giants to take action.

Tech giants today understand they have the ability to influence what information consumers see through their complex, and non-public, algorithms. Often this power is abused. Several conservative outlets, and countless individuals have been targeted, shadow-banned, and silenced by these tech giants. By silencing these voices, big-tech is limiting information available to the American public and is a direct assault on First Amendment rights.

The program begins at 1 p.m. Eastern. You can watch here (a video will appear) or on Breitbart News’ Facebook page.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Report: Democratic memo filled with classified information to put White House in a bind

Democrats warned that releasing the Nunes memo would damage national security. Some who looked at the memo after its release didn’t really see how that would be the case. But it turns out Democrats could have been describing their own memo. According to a report at Fox News, the Democratic rebuttal memo is loaded with information on sources and methods in an effort to put the White House in a bind.

The Democratic rebuttal to a highly publicized GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse is filled with sensitive details, a source told Fox News – claiming this was done intentionally to pressure the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it…

The source who spoke to Fox News has read the Democrats’ rebuttal memo, and said it is filled with information on sources and methods taken from original documents.

While the source described this as a way to put the White House in a difficult spot, Schiff maintained publicly that he wants to make sure the White House “does not redact our memo for political purposes.” A Schiff aide referred Fox News back to those comments when asked about the claim that the memo intentionally contained sources and methods.

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Rep. Nunes expected the White House would need to redact the memo to conceal information on sources and methods:

Nunes has indicated to other committee members that the president might make significant redactions before allowing the Demo­crats’ memo to be released, according to one person familiar with the discussion, though accounts differed.

Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) said that he did not think the president would block the memo’s release but that Trump should redact information about sources and methods of intelligence collection. Such details do not represent the bulk of the Democrats’ memo, he added, calling it an inaccurate representation of what’s contained in underlying intelligence documents.

So it seems pretty clear that there is some sensitive information in the Schiff memo and that leaves Trump with three choices. First, he could release the memo as is, including all of the sensitive information. At that point, Democrats can whisper that he is harming national security and add that they warned all along that releasing the memo would harm national security. No one in the media will call them on this sleight-of-hand.

Second, Trump could refuse to release the memo at which point Democrats, led by Schiff, will make the rounds on every network complaining his memo is being suppressed, along with the truth.

Third, Trump could redact the memo and release it, at which point the Democrats will claim the redactions a) are partisan, and b) show we shouldn’t be talking about this in public. You can probably visualize Rep. Schiff appearing on MSNBC next week, holding up a redacted page of his own memo and claiming it’s part of a White House cover-up.

You have to hand it to Rep. Schiff. This is a clever partisan gambit. No matter what the White House does, Democrats can spin it to their advantage to a mostly fawning media. No one, except maybe Fox, will press them on why they included this information in their memo in the first place. And if they do, Democrats will claim it was all necessitated by the release of the Nunes memo. You see? Everything Dems do is really Republican’s fault. And once the media is on board with that premise, everything becomes so much easier.

The post Report: Democratic memo filled with classified information to put White House in a bind appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Hillary Clinton Thinks Climate Change Will Turn Women Into Men

Technically, feminism has already done that …

During a speech Monday at Georgetown University about women and human rights, failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton warned that “climate change” may force women to adopt the roles traditionally maintained by men.

“I would say that particularly for women … they will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking for the firewood, looking for the place to migrate to when all of the grass is finally gone as the desertification moves south, and you have to keep moving your livestock for your crops [that] are no longer growing — they’re burning up in the intense heat that we’re now seeing reported across North Africa, into the Middle East, and into India,” she babbled, according to The Daily Caller.

Apparently, nobody ever taught the failed presidential nominee and sexual abuse enabler to avoid run-on sentences …

“So yes, women once again, will be the primary … primarily burdened with the problems of climate change,” she concluded.

Uh huh …

First, I find it amusing how she appears to believe it’s been women who’ve “look[ed] for the food, look[ed] for the firewood, look[ed] for the place to migrate” throughout history.

Apparently, nobody ever taught her that prehistoric societies functioned with a hunter-gatherer dynamic wherein “men hunted while the women foraged.”

I swear it’s like this woman received an education from the How To Be A Dumbass Academy …

Here’s Nichole Cooper’s take on Clinton’s rant:

Hillary has an obvious game plan: Women are always the victim and need to be empowered. Men are the enemy. Climate change is going to ravage the earth. Noticing a pattern here? None of these hold true. Hillary isn’t concerned with women’s rights, merely women’s votes. If she wanted the best for women, she would encourage them to take control of their lives instead of playing victim to hot desert winds. She would encourage ladies to find men who act like strong providers. Not beta males. Or Bill Clintons.

True, but realizing this would require that Clinton look within. And well, if I were Clinton, I wouldn’t want to look at the mirror, let alone deep within into my evil soul.

H/T CNS News

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

‘Black Lives Matter Week of Action’ underway at Md. school district; all-black clothing encouraged

A “Black Lives Matter Week of Action” is underway at Prince George’s County Schools in Maryland — and on Monday, the first day of activities, wearing all-black clothing was encouraged, WTTG-TV reported.

District students and staff members are being asked to participate in activities and discussions about racial and social justice issues before, during, and after school hours as part of the week of action, which is a nationwide movement, the station said.

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

“We start this conversation at school because for many people and for many students, this is community. This is where you learn, this is where you talk to your peers,” Parkdale High School student Joshua Omolola told WTTG. “Maybe your professors and advisor that are going to advise you later on in life. So school is the most appropriate place to have these conversations.”

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

Is participation mandatory?

Participation in the Black Lives Matter Week of Action isn’t mandatory, only encouraged, the station said.

Does every teacher agree with the program?

No. In fact, a black teacher who didn’t want to go on camera for fear of retaliation told WTTG she doesn’t support Black Lives Matter Week of Action.

“I’m uncomfortable because I don’t believe in their 13 principles — and I’m an African-American,” the teacher told the station. “But I don’t believe in their cause. I don’t particularly want to try and teach anybody about their 13 principles because I don’t believe in their 13 principles. I’m also a parent, and my children go to Prince George’s County Public Schools, and I don’t want a teacher trying to teach my children about Black Lives Matters [sic].”

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

What are the 13 principles?

The 13 principles of the Black Lives Matter Week of Action are diversity, restorative justice, unapologetically black, black families, black women, black villages, globalism, loving engagement, empathy, queer affirming, transgender affirming, intergenerational, and collective value.

What are other teachers saying?

“I haven’t had a kid to walk out of my classroom,” Neville Adams, an English and student government teacher at Parkdale, told WTTG.

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

He added to the station that while there are “heated discussions” in his classroom, the students “are really good with respecting each other’s opinions.”

Prince George’s County Public Schools was one of the first school systems in Maryland to pass this type of resolution, WTTG-TV reported in an earlier story.

What are district officials saying?

“I think this is something that our students and our families see every day, especially being a largely minority population,” board member Raheela Ahmed told the station after the unanimous vote to approve the BLM week. “We have 60 percent of our students that are African American, 30 percent that Latin/Latina, and this is something that they see and hear every day on the news and day-to-day lives. It’s something that we felt was really needed and necessary at this time.”

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

Amanya Paige, the board’s student member, told WTTG she doesn’t believe the Black Lives Matter Week of Action is “political.”

“I believe it is a movement to encourage minorities and African-American students to be proud of who they are and to embrace who they are because we live it every day,” she added to the station. “I think that it’s important to understand our culture and understand where we are coming from in order to be productive citizens.”

Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot
Image source: WTTG-TV video screenshot

In regard to the 13 principles, the board’s resolution they “are a means of challenging the insidious legacy of institutionalized racism and oppression that has plagued the United States since its founding,” the station reported.

(H/T: The American Mirror)

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

LIVESTREAM VIDEO=> Social Media Neutrality Panel in Washington DC, Fighting for Diversity of Voice Online

LIVESTREAM VIDEO=> Social Media Neutrality Panel in Washington DC, Fighting for Diversity of Voice Online

Social Media Neutrality Panel at The Newseum in Washington DC

Fighting for Diversity of Voice Online

Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 1:00 pm (ET) at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. thought leaders and prominent voices in alternative media will gather for a panel discussion on social media neutrality and the fight for diversity of voices online.  The event will feature several prominent online conservative and moderate voices who have been impacted by social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information.   Panelists will discuss political bias by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and by search engines such as Google.

Watch the livestream below:

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Critics Bash Ram for Using MLK Voice During Commercial…King Estate Silences Them

Super Bowl ad for Dodge Ram trucks that included a voice-over from civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. received widespread criticism from the public for its alleged exploitation of MLK’s legacy. However, at least one segment of King’s family seems to support it.

That segment includes the MLK Estate, which the Chicago Tribune noted had to approve the ad before it could be aired:

“As caretakers of their father’s estate, Dexter King and Martin Luther King III had to clear the way for the executor to give Ram the go-ahead to use excerpts from their father’s little known sermon, ‘The Drum Major Instinct.’”

While it remains unclear if Dexter and MLK III personally authorized the ad, the Estate did issue a statement to Slate in defense of its decision to approve it.

“When Ram approached the King Estate with the idea of featuring Dr. King’s voice in a new ‘Built To Serve’ commercial, we were pleasantly surprised at the existence of the Ram Nation volunteers and their efforts,” said Eric D. Tidwell, the managing director of Intellectual Properties Management, Inc., which is the “exclusive licensor” of the MLK’s Estate.

TRENDING: Trump So Effective That Navy Officers “Baffled” by How Quickly Iran Retreated

Established in 2015, “Ram Nation is a grassroots volunteer corps of Ram owners and like-minded people willing and ready to come together to haul supplies, deliver equipment, clear debris, distribute food and water and even make donations that help people in their communities and around the world,” according to a news briefing from that year.

Continuing his statement, Tidwell noted that “the overall message of the ad embodied Dr. King’s philosophy that true greatness is achieved by serving others. Thus we decided to be a part of Ram’s ‘Built To Serve’ Super Bowl program.”

Writing for The Daily Wire, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro seemed to agree with this line of thinking, pointing out that the “message of the ad is that meaningful lives are those led helping others, and that a Dodge Ram might be able to help you do that. Is that really so terrible?”

Do you have a problem with the ad?

I agree with Shapiro, but our voices represent only a few. Many people, including some members of MLK’s own family, appear to disagree strongly.

In fact, both the King Center, a non-profit reportedly established by MLK’s wife, Coretta Scott King, and Bernice King, MLK’s daughter, have made it clear they do not approve of the ad.

“Neither @TheKingCenter nor @BerniceKing is the entity that approves the use of #MLK’s words or imagery for use in merchandise, entertainment (movies, music, artwork, etc) or advertisement, including tonight’s @Dodge #SuperBowl commercial,” the center tweeted during the game.

Many media pundits and contributors responded similarly:

Are they right, or are they making a big stink over nothing, especially given the ad’s purpose to promote volunteerism? You tell me.

Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about this controversy and which side you support.

What do you think about the ad itself? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://conservativetribune.com

Restaurant Demands Uniformed Officer Leave, Sparking Major Controversy

An Outback Steakhouse in Cleveland, Tennessee, is the center of a major controversy after employees there asked a uniformed officer to leave due to Outback’s “gun-free zone” policy.

Andrew Ward, an officer with the Tennessee Wildlife Management Agency, wrote about his experience in the restaurant Friday on Facebook.

“Well we had a first tonight…. while I was at work tonight (in uniform) I stopped by Outback Steakhouse to eat supper with my wife,” Ward wrote in the post that is no longer public.

“I was approached by the manager and asked if I would put my gun in my truck. I let her know that I couldn’t because I was in uniform. She then went and made a call and came back and we were asked to leave because Outback is a gun free zone.”

Here’s a partial screenshot from WTIC-TV:

TRENDING: Trump So Effective That Navy Officers “Baffled” by How Quickly Iran Retreated

While Ward said that he doesn’t “blame the manager … this is ridiculous and we will never go back there ever again.”

The chain has apologized for ejecting Ward from the restaurant, saying that it goes against policy.

“We’ve always allowed uniformed law enforcement officers to carry their side arms inside our restaurants,” a statement from the restaurant to WTIC-TV read.

Do you think Outback’s apology is enough?

“A manager made a mistake and we have discussed this with her. We have contacted the guest personally and apologized.”

However, the reason the restaurant gave Ward and his wife is a telling one.

“Outback has contacted us and has apologized for the incident,” Ward wrote.

“There was another customer that was ‘scared for her life’ who was seated across from us. This customer also stated that she was afraid because ‘police are shooting people‘ and this customer went on to demand to be escorted to her vehicle out of fear of being shot. Again I don’t blame the manager in this situation.”

RELATED: Boycott: Clothing CEO Says He Gets Rich off of Dumb Conservatives

No, I certainly don’t either, although they certainly could have been somewhat more sensible from the sound of things. This is how far we’ve come in this country: We’ve vilified police officers to the point where patrons actually fear them sitting in an Outback, as if they’ll just open fire indiscriminately.

This is where we are as a society, viewing those charged with protecting us not just as threats, but as psychopaths who enjoy inflicting death. That’s a truly sobering thing to consider.

“Folks we need to turn our attention to people like this who try and push their agenda on all those around them. When an entire restaurant full of other happy people were completely fine with my presence,” Ward wrote in the conclusion to his Facebook post.

“As a country we need to stand up for each other as so many who have shared this post have done. I am truly humbled by the support we received.”

Indeed, there was plenty of support, with over 216,000 shares as of Tuesday morning, though there must have been a backlash, too, considering Ward has changed the post’s settings.

To appease one anti-police customer, Outback now has 216,000 individuals who have stood up for Officer Andrew Ward and shared his story. How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have seen it in one way or another? And who’s going to feel more secure in an Outback because of it? How many people are going to be more likely to go to the restaurant?

Perhaps next time a restaurant wants to disrespect an officer — a man or woman of the law who needs to carry their firearm with them — by asking them to leave, they’ll think of just what happened to this Outback and think again.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.

What are your thoughts on what happened to this officer? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://conservativetribune.com

Shapiro at ‘National Review’: Was The FBI Out To Get Trump?

Was the FBI out to get candidate Donald Trump?

That’s the big question emerging from the much-ballyhooed memo from Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Nunes’s memo focuses on the application for a FISA warrant against former Trump foreign-policy aide Carter Page; the application supposedly relied heavily on the Hillary Clinton–funded Fusion GPS dossier compiled by British spy Christopher Steele. That dossier was filled with unverified information. According to Nunes, top actors at the FBI knew all of this and used the dossier as the basis for the application — all without informing the FISA court that the dossier was a political document.

Now, the memo admits that the Trump–Russia collusion investigation didn’t begin with the Page FISA application — it began, instead, with an investigation into former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, who has now pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Furthermore, Page is a longtime target for the FBI, which began monitoring him in 2014, thanks to his extensive connections to the Russian government.

But the case seems to be this: Fusion GPS funneled its dossier to the FBI; the FBI’s top officials, including director James Comey, worked with the DOJ, led by attorney general Loretta Lynch and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, to attain the FISA warrant based on the shoddy Steele information. This is evidence that the “deep state” wanted to get Trump, and that the same “deep state” wants to take Trump out now via the Mueller investigation.

It may well be true that the FISA application on Page was fatally flawed and driven by prosecutorial aggression. But in order for the most conspiratorial “deep state” claims to be true, a few other things have to be true. First, we have to assume there’s no there there: that the FBI had no reasonable grounds for suspicion regarding the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Second, we have to assume that the entire Steele dossier is pure garbage, and that all parts of it remain unverified. Third, we have to assume that the FBI’s attempts to get a warrant against Page were driven by anti-Trump bias, not by serious suspicions about Page. Fourth, we have to assume that all of this wasn’t bureaucratic incompetence, but malice. Finally, we have to assume that the same supposedly bad actors within the FBI and DOJ are now staffing the Mueller investigation, or at least that their legacy continues through Mueller.

Read the rest here.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml