Posted on

Will Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson Have to Kill Paul Manafort Before She’s Impeached and Indicted?

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed corrupt liberal judge with an angry disposition towards Americans who think differently than Obama, continues to put her own distorted interpretation of US law ahead of the US Constitution.

Her actions with Paul Manafort alone are ample cause for her to be removed or impeached.  She is going to kill this guy before she is brought to justice!

Yesterday we reported that Obama appointed corrupt DC judge Amy Berman Jackson claimed former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort “intentionally made multiple false statements to the FBI, the OSC and the grand jury concerning matters that were material to the investigation”.  Unfortunately, this radical ruling was not a surprise coming from Judge Jackson.

We reported months ago and again in May 2018, that Obama appointed liberal activist Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, was assigned to the most important court case in US history, the Manfort case in the Trump – Russia fake investigation.

Sadly, Judge Jackson has a horrible far left record on the bench. In 2013 Judge Jackson rejected arguments from the Catholic Church that Obamacare’s requirements that employers provide cost free coverage to contraceptive services in spite of being contrary to their religious beliefs. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.

In 2017 Judge Jackson dismissed the wrongful death suit against Hillary Clinton filed by two of the families who lost loved ones in Benghazi. The families argued that Clinton had done little to help their sons and then lied to cover it up.

Then on January 19, 2018, Paul Manafort’s case was reassigned to Judge Jackson on January 19th, a few weeks after being filed.

It is unknown why she was assigned to this case or by whom. What is clear is that with her atrocious and slanted record to date, the Deep State and the Mueller team certainly wanted Judge Jackson overseeing the Manafort case.

On January 3, 2018, we reported that Paul Manafort filed a suit against the “Deep State” DOJ (Jeff Sessions), Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein and Corrupt Investigator Robert Mueller that should have shut down Mueller’s corrupt investigation!

We reported for months on the many criminal and corrupt actions taken by numerous parties related to the Mueller investigation. Mueller never should have taken on the job in the first place due to numerous conflicts. He is best friends with fired leaker and former FBI Director James Comey. He met with Comey shortly before Comey testified with Congress and stratigized with him. For this alone he should have recused himself. The team Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is all Deep State liberal attorneys and crooks. Mueller’s record in the past is scattered with actions that let the Clintons off scot-free on numerous occasions when they should have been put in jail.

We now know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and moneys they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20% of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010 handing Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin. The FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward. This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.

We know that Mueller’s team illegally obtained documents related to the Trump transition team and these emails were protected under attorney-client privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this.

But perhaps one of the most damning aspects of the Mueller investigation is that it is not legal. The corrupt Mueller investigation is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett explained this in an article in 2017 that the entire Mueller investigation is lawless. Jarrett argued that:

… George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

Jarrett then turned his attention to Corrupt Hillary:

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.

The US statutory law is clear and Jarrett points it out. He concluded with the following –

…Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law.

Manafort’s case argued in paragraph 33 of its filing that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law. Mueller was given the latitude to investigate whatever he wanted to and that is not permitted by the law. Manafort’s filing paragraph 33 stated –

But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That grant of authority is not authorized by DOJ’s special counsel regulations. It is not a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

Manafort’s case was solid but the judge was Obama’s corrupt liberal Judge Jackson. On April 27, 2018, Judge Jackson dismissed Manafort’s plea.

Judge Jackson is not only wrong in her judgements, she is also overly abusive to Manafort. She scolded Manafort and his team for a statement his spokesman issued maintaining his innocence and said the comments appeared to run afoul of the order she issued in November limiting public statements about the case by lawyers involved and by the defendants. Of course she says nothing about the many leaks from the corrupt Mueller team.

In May 2018 Judge Jackson addressed another argument from the Manafort team and basically threw it out as well. (Back then it was more than clear that there’s no way Manafort is getting a fair trial with Judge Jackson overseeing his case.)

A federal judge delivered a setback to President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Friday by refusing to throw out some of the criminal charges against him.

Manafort’s legal team had argued in a Washington, D.C., court that he was being charged twice for the same offense of lying to federal officials. Manafort maintained that the stacking up charges could negatively influence a jury against him, The Associated Press reported.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, however, said in a ruling Friday that any harm or prejudice Manafort could face would be handled by giving the jury “proper” instructions, according to the AP.

The judge dismissed the motion from Manafort without prejudice, meaning he can revisit it after his trial in the case, which is scheduled for September, the AP noted.

The corrupt and criminal Mueller team next worked with Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson to place President Trump’s former Campaign Manager Paul Manafort in solitary confinement. This was a conscious action to literally torture Manafort for working with Trump during the campaign.

Bernard Kerik at Newsmax wrote an excellent post on why Manafort was placed in solitary confinement. According to Kerik –

In a very small regional jail in Warsaw, Virginia, sits Bob Mueller’s big fish, Paul Manafort.

Mueller, the U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel appointed to investigate any possible collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign, has charged Manafort with multiple counts of conspiracy, money laundering, tax crimes, false statements, and anything else they can wad into a big ball and throw up against the wall to see what sticks.

After his arrest, Manafort was placed on house arrest on a $10 million-dollar bail, until the government recently accused him of witness tampering and convinced U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to revoke his bail, and remand him to jail pending trail.

To a casual observer, this would seem justified, however, to anyone that has been through it, or has witnessed the government’s selective and political prosecutions over the past few decades, they would tell you that it is all a part of a prosecutorial strategy.

Solitary confinement in prison lingo is also referred to as a special housing unit (SHU), or punitive segregation unit (PSU), and their individual cells are called a box, hole, or cage.

It’s basically a deathtrap. A 12′ x 8′ solid steel or concrete box with a metal bed, stainless steel sink and toilet, and if you’re lucky, a small concrete or metal writing table and stool. On the solid steel metal door, there may be a 4 x 24-inch window that gives the inmate a slight view of the outside corridor, that can be blackened out by the correction staff at a moment’s notice.

Kerik continues –

Where prison itself demeans, degrades, and demoralizes a defendant, solitary confinement goes far beyond the normal deprivation of freedom, where the strain of isolation can cause a prisoner to suffer from manic depression, hopelessness and despair, paranoia, anxiety and, quite often experience hallucinations. It can send suicidal prisoners over the edge, and incite juveniles to act out.

Pre-trial inmates can easily be manipulated into confessions and or guilty pleas, with promises or suggestions of being released from the box, and quite often they will do anything to be freed from the mentally and emotionally breaking cell, including lying, and pleading guilty to something they never did.

Again later in 2018, corrupt Judge Jackson –

…denied a request by President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort to suppress evidence seized by the FBI from his home as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.

Manafort’s lawyers had sought to limit the scope of evidence that prosecutors can rely on for his upcoming September trial in Washington, D.C., claiming that the search warrant was overly broad and unconstitutional.

“Given the nature of the investigation, the warrant was not too broad in scope,” wrote Judge Amy Berman Jackson for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in her ruling.

No individual who disagrees with Obama will receive justice in Judge Jackson’s court.

Manafort’s only crime is he worked for and supported President Trump during his campaign for the Presidency. The Mueller team is a national travesty. It will go down in history as the most corrupt and criminal enterprise in US history. Corrupt Judge Jackson is part of this corrupt enterprise.

Attorney Sydney Powell discussed with Mark Levin the many corrupt actions that Mueller’s number one in command, Andrew Weissmann has taken during his career. Thousands of individuals lost their jobs with former accounting firm Arthur Andersen and four individuals who worked for Merrill Lynch were sent to prison with at least one in solitary confinement.

Today, as far as we know, Paul Manafort, charged with working as President Trump’s campaign manager, sits in jail. It is believed that he is still in solitary confinement.

Mueller, Weissmann and Judge Amy Berman Jackson should be thrown in jail for their blatant abuse of the US judicial system in torturing and destroying the lives of those who worked with President Trump. They should be held to the same criminal treatment that they have taken on too many people to date. Americans want justice!

God help Paul Manfort before Judge Jackson kills him in solitary confinement.  To think, Trump friend Roger Stone is now indicted by Mueller and Judge Jackson was ‘randomly’ selected to oversee his case as well.  God help us all!

The post Will Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson Have to Kill Paul Manafort Before She’s Impeached and Indicted? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

Top State Official: Venezuelan Military’s Dissatisfaction with Maduro ‘Spreading’

WASHINGTON, DC — “Growing dissatisfaction” within the Venezuelan military is spreading in the chaos-ridden South American country, a top U.S. Department of State (DOS) official testified before a House panel on Wednesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams conceded that there have only been a “few isolated cases” of defections from Maduro’s side since the country’s National Assembly inaugurated Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president last month. The United States and an estimated 50 other countries in the Western Hemisphere and beyond recognize Guaidó as the nation’s legitimate president.

Abrams’ comments came during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the humanitarian crisis, political chaos, economic destruction, and insecurity triggered by Maduro’s socialist regime in Venezuela.

Despite the few defections thus far, the top DOS official declared that the United States is aware of “a lot of discontent in the military” in Venezuela, adding:

I mean, for one thing, if you’re a general down at the ranks, you know that your own people in the army are starving. And what about their mothers and sisters and brothers and fathers? So we think that this opinion [of dissatisfaction] is spreading within the military that the current situation is untenable and we hope that there will be a decision on the part of many in the military first not to support the Maduro regime, but secondly not to block desperately needed humanitarian aid.

While the Trump administration has approved at least $140 million in humanitarian assistance, Maduro and his supporters are preventing the life-saving aid from reaching the Venezuelan public, Abrams noted.

An anonymous White House official recently told Reuters the Trump administration expects more defections and is holding direct discussions with members of Venezuela’s military urging them to abandon Maduro as the United States government prepares new sanctions aimed at boosting pressure on the dictator.

The Trump administration has sanctioned high-ranking military officials in Venezuela over corruption and undermining human rights.

Abrams noted in his written testimony:

As a result of this growing pressure, there is a storm brewing inside the inner circle; a growing dissatisfaction and distrust that will eventually bring about an end to Maduro’s reign of terror. While it is impossible to predict the moment this will happen, we believe the current political and economic environment is unsustainable and that he will not be able to weather it much longer.

Abrams also attempted to spur wider mutiny within the Venezuelan military, where many officers loyal to Maduro are allegedly benefiting from corruption and drug trafficking linked to the regime.

The State official proclaimed in his written testimony:

[F]or those remaining supporters of the former Maduro regime, we have one simple message: your time is up. A new, free, and prosperous Venezuela is rising, and your fellow citizens will remember who stood by them in their struggle. This includes especially the armed forces and all security forces, who will be needed in the future to build a secure Venezuela where law and order defeat criminality and violence. Now is the time for the armed forces to support the Venezuelan people, reclaim their own legitimacy, and turn to helping build tomorrow’s Venezuela.

Venezuela is currently facing the worst economic, political, and humanitarian crisis in its history as it nears the 20th anniversary of the socialist “Bolivarian Revolution” under late dictator Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s predecessor.

The average Venezuelan citizen, including many members of the military, cannot secure three meals a day and lost 24 pounds in 2017, the latest year for which that statistic is available.

Dictator Maduro has repeatedly denied the existence of any humanitarian crisis in the country, claiming both the alarming statistics and the millions-strong refugee exodus from his nation are American government fabrications.

The last remaining federal democratic institution in the country, the National Assembly, removed Maduro from power via constitutional fiat on January 23, replacing him with interim President Juan Guaidó.

Maduro, however, still controls the nation’s military and has refused to step down.

Eric Farnsworth, the vice president of the U.S.-based Council of the Americas think-tank, indicated to Reuters that “members of the South American country’s security forces fear they or their families could be targeted by Maduro if they defect, so the U.S. would need to offer them something that could outweigh those concerns.”

President Trump has said U.S. military force in Venezuela is on the table, without specifying under what circumstances he would employ such an option.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the chairman of the House panel that held the hearing Wednesday, explicitly declared that “Congress would not support military intervention in Venezuela.”

“I want to make clear to our witnesses and to anyone else watching: U.S. military intervention is not an option,” the chairman said in his opening remarks.

Before Trump took office, Abrams criticized the president’s fitness to be commander-in-chief.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

The Parris Island Marines Are Torching Christmas Trees With WWII Flamethrowers — And People Are Loving It

Next year sell tickets for a chance to operate a flamethrower. Via BI: Leave it to the Marines to turn a annual fire safety demonstration into a fun-filled flamethrower festival. Their annual Christmas tree bonfire is yearly event that was started by the Parris Island Fire Department to educate the public about the dangers of […]

via Weasel Zippers

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

Posted on

Trump To California: Give Us Our $3.5 Billion Back For That ‘Green’ High-Speed Rail

One of the much-critiqued goals of the since-disappeared FAQ Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sent to major news outlets and posted on her “Green New Deal” information page was the creation of so many high-speed trains across the country that “air travel stops becoming necessary” (don’t spend too much time parsing the grammar of that line). Right on cue, newly elected California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced in his State of the State address this week that he was…canceling most of the high-speed rail project that has already taken over a decade and is now projected to cost taxpayers a staggering $77 billion because, well, it’s just not realistic.

So now President Trump wants federal taxpayers’ money back.

“California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning. “They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a ‘green’ disaster!”

Newsom set himself up to be called out by the president. In his State of the State Tuesday, the liberal governor specifically mentioned trying to figure out a way not to pay federal taxpayers back.

“Let’s be real,” Newsom said in his State of the State address. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency. Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were.”

Having admitted that the Democrat-led California government could not be relied on to handle complex building projects and failed on the key issues of oversight and transparency, Newsom refused to entirely let go of the high-speed rail dream — in part because he didn’t want to give that $3.5 billion back to Trump.

“Abandoning high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions and billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises, partially filled commitments and lawsuits to show for it,” said the Democratic governor. “And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

As the Daily Wire noted Tuesday, the plan, as of now, is to complete only the Central Valley segment of the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles train. Newsom’s admission that the project, which is now 11 years in the making, is not realistic fiscally comes after a series of delays and significant increases in estimated costs. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

California voters approved a $10 billion bond in 2008 largely for the construction of bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The state finally broke ground in 2015 on a 119-mile segment between Madera and Bakersfield, but the project has lost popularity and become a growing political target as it blows through deadlines and budgets. A revised business plan adopted last year pushed back the completion of the project by four more years and estimated a final cost of $77 billion.

The issue of high-speed rails became a national conversation last week when Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the Green New Deal and her since-deleted explainer and FAQ, which promised among other things to “[t]otally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”

Related: WATCH: Students Love AOC’s Green New Deal, Till They Hear About Its Goals

via Daily Wire

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

Posted on

Sen. Menendez threatens to call police on reporter who asked about Green New Deal

A reporter for the Daily Caller found Democratic Senator Robert Menendez at a Capitol Hill subway stop and asked him what he thought about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.


Democrats have been screaming for two years about Donald Trump’s “war on the press.” But Trump’s got nothing on Menendez when it comes to going to war.



Fox News:


Menendez avoided the question and asked where Rodgers worked. Rodgers said that when he told Menendez he worked for the Daily Caller, the Democrat responded by saying he would not answer any questions. An intern who was with Rodgers asked a follow-up question, and tensions apparently rose.





You can hardly blame Menendez for trying to wriggle away. Expect to see this reaction from many Democrats whenever they’re asked their opinion of the Green New Deal. Between now and election day 2020, the GOP will be talking cow flatulence and the elimination of the airline industry to prove just how radical the Democratic party is. 


But threatening to call the police on a reporter? I don’t believe even our media-hating president has ever done that.


Reaction was pretty negatvie all around:






“Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” they used to say in ancient times when newspapers were king. Today, we might add not to argue with someone who buys pixels by the trillions. That said, politicians are far more eager today to pick fights with the press because partisanship has destroyed standards of media fairness and objectivity. 


But having a reporter arrested for doing his job? That’s a new one, even for Democrats.


 


 


 


 


A reporter for the Daily Caller found Democratic Senator Robert Menendez at a Capitol Hill subway stop and asked him what he thought about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.


Democrats have been screaming for two years about Donald Trump’s “war on the press.” But Trump’s got nothing on Menendez when it comes to going to war.


Fox News:


Menendez avoided the question and asked where Rodgers worked. Rodgers said that when he told Menendez he worked for the Daily Caller, the Democrat responded by saying he would not answer any questions. An intern who was with Rodgers asked a follow-up question, and tensions apparently rose.





You can hardly blame Menendez for trying to wriggle away. Expect to see this reaction from many Democrats whenever they’re asked their opinion of the Green New Deal. Between now and election day 2020, the GOP will be talking cow flatulence and the elimination of the airline industry to prove just how radical the Democratic party is. 


But threatening to call the police on a reporter? I don’t believe even our media-hating president has ever done that.


Reaction was pretty negatvie all around:






“Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” they used to say in ancient times when newspapers were king. Today, we might add not to argue with someone who buys pixels by the trillions. That said, politicians are far more eager today to pick fights with the press because partisanship has destroyed standards of media fairness and objectivity. 


But having a reporter arrested for doing his job? That’s a new one, even for Democrats.


 


 


 


 




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

More Deep State Lies: McCabe Disputes Rosenstein – Says FBI Discussed Impeaching Trump Through 25th Amendment “Several Times” (VIDEO)

Deep State Crooks Caught in MORE LIES!

As Cristina Laila reported earlier in September 2018 —

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein spoke with DOJ and FBI officials about wearing a wire and secretly recording President Trump to be able to build a case that Trump is unfit to hold office.  The Deep State anti-Trump Democrat operatives were plotting to remove Trump by the 25th Amendment on insanity charges… Because they disliked him and wanted Hillary to win.

DAG Rosenstein began plotting Trump’s removal shortly after FBI Director Comey was fired.

James Comey was fired on May 9th, 2017 and DAG Rosenstein was appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump-Russia collusion a week later.

Rosenstein was acting Attorney General after AWOL Jeff Sessions recused himself from his duties a day after he was sworn in.

Rod Rosenstein denied that the earlier accusations that he was discussing wearing a wire to take down Trump.

Rod Rosenstein signed a FISA warrant to spy on Trump in June 2017.

Rosenstein signed the final FISA Renewal – sometime around June 29, 2017. After Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned that Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire a SECOND TIME!

Now this…
Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will appear on ’60 Minutes’ on Sunday.

CBS News Correspondent Scott Pelley told teased the interview on Thursday. According to Pelley Andrew McCabe says the FBI and DOJ Democrats discussed wearing wires several times to spy on President Trump. This was AFTER they started spying on the Trump campaign, Transition team and Trump Administration illegally.

The Deep State FBI-DOJ can NEVER be trusted!

Via FOX and Friends:

The post More Deep State Lies: McCabe Disputes Rosenstein – Says FBI Discussed Impeaching Trump Through 25th Amendment “Several Times” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

Ilhan Omar already alienating even anti-Trump journalists

Representative Ilhan Omar is going to need every media friend she can scare up in the wake of her disgraceful Jew-hating tweets (followed by phony apologies) and her demonstration of foreign policy ignorance yesterday in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. In truth, she has no justification for occupying that much sought-after seat that Nancy Pelosi gave her for unknown reasons. The Republicans, by kicking Rep. Steve King off his committee assignments, have made it awkward for Pelosi and the Dems to keep her in that plum assignment, while President Trump has demanded her resignation from Congress.


But instead of cultivating good relations with reporters, she committed an on-camera sin in the eyes of most working reporters, even those who, like CNN’s Manu Raju, are very anti-Trump.



Watch her ask Mr. Raju, “What is wrong with you?” when he dared ask her about this tweet:


 



 




Her natural ally did not take such treatment kindly on his Twitter feed:


 



 



 



 



 



 



Raju’s CNN colleague Brian Stelter rose to his defense, carefully couching his criticism of her with the comment that it “is a problem on both sides of the aisle”:


 



 



The resulting cascade of angry tweets vilifying him for daring to criticize her is not making Stelter into a friend either.


If a Trump-hater loses CNN….


Representative Ilhan Omar is going to need every media friend she can scare up in the wake of her disgraceful Jew-hating tweets (followed by phony apologies) and her demonstration of foreign policy ignorance yesterday in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. In truth, she has no justification for occupying that much sought-after seat that Nancy Pelosi gave her for unknown reasons. The Republicans, by kicking Rep. Steve King off his committee assignments, have made it awkward for Pelosi and the Dems to keep her in that plum assignment, while President Trump has demanded her resignation from Congress.


But instead of cultivating good relations with reporters, she committed an on-camera sin in the eyes of most working reporters, even those who, like CNN’s Manu Raju, are very anti-Trump.


Watch her ask Mr. Raju, “What is wrong with you?” when he dared ask her about this tweet:


 



 




Her natural ally did not take such treatment kindly on his Twitter feed:


 



 



 



 



 



 



Raju’s CNN colleague Brian Stelter rose to his defense, carefully couching his criticism of her with the comment that it “is a problem on both sides of the aisle”:


 



 



The resulting cascade of angry tweets vilifying him for daring to criticize her is not making Stelter into a friend either.


If a Trump-hater loses CNN….




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

Coup kook a choo: McCabe admits pushing 25th Amendment to remove Trump after Comey firing

Did the “highest levels” of the Department of Justice attempt to foment a coup d’etat in May 2017? Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe told Scott Pelley that he quarterbacked a meeting to discuss removing Donald Trump from office after the president fired James Comey. In the interview, which will air on 60 Minutes this Sunday, McCabe says that the participants in the meeting included Rod Rosenstein and other less-senior officers in the Department of Justice and got to the point of “counting noses” to see whether invoking the 25th Amendment would succeed:

“The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about,” Pelley said on the show.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”

That’s some kind of admission — and McCabe may not realize how that looks. In his book, he probably casts this as some kind of attempt to deal with a rogue president, likely with himself as a hero. However, I’m checking my copy of the Constitution and can’t quite find where it says that the Department of Justice and the FBI has any role in the 25th Amendment process for removing an incapacitated president. Here’s the text of the relevant portion of the amendment:

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Talk about getting out over your own skis. “Principal officers of the executive departments” are the Cabinet officials themselves, not their subordinates. McCabe at the time was temporarily FBI director, an inferior officer to the Attorney General. So for that matter is Rod Rosenstein as a deputy AG. McCabe claims they were “counting noses” among the Cabinet members without ever bothering to raise the issue directly with any of them. The discussion McCabe describes would have been entirely inappropriate at best, not to mention constitutionally offensive and an abuse of power.

At worst … well …

Actually, yes. It’s the kind of admission that increases the perception of a “deep state” in the executive branch that considers itself the highest power in the land. It’s not up to “the highest levels of law enforcement” to remove an elected president, especially since Jeff Sessions was the highest level and apparently not part of this discussion. The only entity that can remove a president for misconduct is Congress, through impeachment and conviction. The 25th Amendment is strictly for incapacity, which does not include offending the sensibilities of law enforcement by firing an appointed inferior officer.

Also, McCabe shivs Rosenstein a bit as well. Rosenstein said last fall that any suggestion of wearing a wire when talking with the president was a joke. Nuh-uh, McCabe told Pelley:

Pelley said McCabe confirms in their interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with President Trump. Previously, a Justice Department statement claimed that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically, but McCabe said it was taken seriously.

“McCabe in [the 60 Minutes] interview says no, it came up more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it,” Pelley told “CBS This Morning.”

At least we know for sure who sourced the NYT on the meeting last September. Melissa Schwartz denied that McCabe or anyone associated with him provided her the material, but who else had enough of an axe to grind to leak that story?

By the way, McCabe also takes credit for starting the obstruction probe against Trump. McCabe claims he wanted to lay down a marker in case Trump fired anyone else:

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said he ordered an investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice as a way to preserve ongoing inquiries into Russian election meddling in case there was an effort to terminate them.

“I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision,” McCabe told Scott Pelley on “CBS This Morning” in an interview that aired Thursday.

At least that much was in McCabe’s authority. After this, though, it’s clear why McCabe needed to be fired, even apart from his other issues.

The post Coup kook a choo: McCabe admits pushing 25th Amendment to remove Trump after Comey firing appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

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

Posted on

Air Force Academy Criticized For Inviting Chick-Fil-A Exec

Lighten up, Francis. Via Miami Herald: A group that advocates for religious liberty in the military says the U.S. Air Force Academy should cancel a planned speech by a Chick-fil-A executive. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Wednesday the company has a history of supporting anti-gay causes and that Rodney Bullard, a Chick-fil-A vice president […]

via Weasel Zippers

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

Posted on

Huge: MSNBC Now Reporting Even Dem. Sources Indicate No Trump-Russia Conspiracy Evidence of a Direct Nature

For two years, the left, the establishment media, and those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome have accused President Donald Trump of “Russian collusion.”

Despite ongoing revelations that it may have well been former first lady Hillary Clinton and her campaign that “colluded” with Russia, the accusations continued.

Even when special counsel Robert Mueller hit former members and associates of the Trump campaign with unrelated charges that made no mention of “collusion,” the accusations have continued, with Trump critics pointing to the developments as some sort of “proof.”

Even when Republicans who read unredacted documents questioned the validity of the claim against Trump, they were accused of being partisan and therefore unreliable.

Now we have something bipartisan in Trump’s favor to consider. And even establishment media is being forced to admit Trump may be innocent of the accusation of collusion.

TRENDING: Beto Forced To Pause After Trump’s Thunderous Crowd Noise Fills Anti-Trump Rally

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has found no “direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” reported NBC’s Ken Dilanian for MSNBC. He cited sources on both the Democrat and Republic sides of the political aisle.

Dilanian explained that even though the head of the committee, North Carolina’s Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, had hinted at something similar the week before, Dilanian didn’t want a “partisan” opinion about a bipartisan investigation, so he checked with his own Democatic sources.

“What I’ve been doing since then is checking with my sources on the Democratic side to understand the full context of his remarks, because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side,” Dilanian said.

Do you believe Trump is innocent of “Russian collusion”?

“But this is a bipartisan investigation, and what I’ve found is that the Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.”

In other words, no direct evidence has been revealed in the investigation that points at a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Naturally, it won’t be that simple for Trump to be cleared. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the intelligence committee’s vice chairman, disagreed with that assssment, according to the New York Post. Warner refused to give any specifics on why he disagreed.

“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I’ve reached because my basis of this has been that I’m not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation,” he said. He added that there will be “a number of key witnesses to come back.”

Of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is separate from the Mueller investigation, which has yet to be conluded.

RELATED: Chair of Intel Committee Beats Mueller to the Punch, Confirms They ‘Don’t Have Anything’ on Trump Collusion

What the Senate Intelligence Committee says, particulary when in favor of Trump’s innocence, may be largely brushed aside by those pushing the Russian collusion narrative. To them it is what Mueller says that matters.

That being the case, how will they react if he finds that Trump is innocent of the collusion accusation? Will they accept it or claim he was corrupted, blackmailed, or otherwise unreliable?

In the meantime, Trump and his supporters are celebrating the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions.

Trump himself blared the news in a Twitter post on Wednesday:

Former Secret Service agent, author and conservative commentator Dan Bongino has been among those taking the news and running with it on social media. He particularly cited the work of anti-Trump author Seth Abramson.

It appears that the Russian collusion narrative is imploding. But what if the Mueller investigation also concludes there is no evidence that the Trump campaign worked with Russia? Even in the fall, before the midterm elections, the media had begun playing down what Mueller’s final report might hold.

So, if the Mueller investigation also ends up with nothing to back up the whole “collusion” story, will there be charges levied against those involved in “framing” Trump?

Not everyone believes justice will be done in that regard, but the president being cleared of any and all false allegations would be a step in the right direction.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

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