Real Crime is Leftist Collusion


John R. Houk

© June 14, 2017

 

What is collusion? Dictionary.com:

1. A secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. A secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries through in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

 

Testimony after testimony from Intelligence heads and even disgraced Clinton-liar former Director James Comey have said there has been NO collusion between then candidate Donald Trump and Russia to steal the election from proven Crooked Hillary. The Dems have closed their ears so badly to the truth, they keep on propagandize American voters there is an act collusion by President Trump, the Dems just can’t prove it yet.

 

The more provable collusion is between former AG Loretta Lynch telling former FBI Director not to say Crooked Hillary was under investigation. That Lynch directive included using the words “a matter” rather than investigation and a steely stare against Comey when showing the former AG a yet undisclosed document suggesting Crooked Hillary wrong-doing.

 

It is the American Left that gets away with the criminality of collusion in the USA!

 

David Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress (CMP) that released a series of undercover videos demonstrating that Planned Parenthood was killing live-birth babies to deliver the murdered babies intact for research purposes and monetary profit to private research labs.

 

AND YET Planned Parenthood nor the murderous perpetrators have been prosecuted for the crimes. BUT CMP, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are being criminally persecuted – err I mean prosecuted – for exposing Planned Parenthood crimes.

 

The collusion between Leftist prosecutors and Planned Parenthood has to be a crime, right? Who prosecutes the prosecutors?

 

EVEN WORSE!

 

Now there is ample evidence between a judge adjudicating the trial against Daleiden and Merritt by placing a gag order on showing past and future CMP videos exposing Planned Parenthood criminality! You see, U.S. District Judge William Orrick has been on the Board of Directors of a clinic housing Planned Parenthood operations. Friends this is MORE LEFTIST COLLUSION protecting a Leftist agenda to perpetuate Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform America”.

 

JRH 6/14/17 (Hat Tip: Breaking Christian News)

Please Support NCCR

***************

Judge who censored undercover Planned Parenthood videos was on pro-abortion group’s board

 

By Claire Chretien

June 9, 2017

Life Site News

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick

 

CALIFORNIA, June 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is seeking to disqualify the judge who censored its undercover footage of an abortion conference because of his ties to a pro-Planned Parenthood organization that lets the abortion company run a clinic on its premises.

 

When David Daleiden began releasing his now-famous exposé on the abortion industry’s participation in the baby body parts trade, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) took him to court. Daleiden had undercover recordings of its abortion trade show. NAF succeeded in getting U.S. District Judge William Orrick to issue a gag order preventing the release of this footage.

 

Last month, Daleiden’s attorneys released the footage. Some of the extended footage had already been leaked by Got News, but the video released by the CMP attorneys was more condensed and contained a compilation of the most shocking statements from abortionists at the conference.

 

Orrick then ordered Daleiden and his attorneys, Steve Cooley and Brentford J. Ferreira, to appear in court on June 14. They may face contempt of court charges for having released the video.

 

But CMP is arguing that Orrick should be disqualified from the case because he served on the board of an organization that houses a Planned Parenthood clinic. CMP’s motion to remove Orrick from the case says that Orrick’s affiliation with this organization shows “bias in favor of the plaintiff and prejudice against the defendants.”

 

The organization is Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC) in San Francisco. It describes its relationship with Planned Parenthood as a “key partnership.” Orrick is a former GSFRC board member. He was GSRFC’s secretary of the board in 2001 “when GSFRC entered ‘key partnership’ with PPSP [Planned Parenthood],” the motion states.

 

“The video recordings that are the subject of this case include recordings of PPSP/PPNC staff members,” it says.

 

“At no time did Judge Orrick disclose to Defendants that he sat on the board of an organization that had as a ‘key partner’ an organization Defendants alleged, both in public statements and as part of their defense, was involved in violations of state and federal law,” CMP’s motion continues. “Judge Orrick did not disclose his close and long-standing relationship with an organization that houses a facility and hosts Planned Parenthood staff, whom NAF claims are in physical danger from ‘anti-abortion extremists’ incited by Defendants.”

 

The motion goes on to detail Orrick’s wife’s support of abortion on Facebook. Mrs. Orrick “liked” a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Facebook post that criticized CMP as “a sham organization run by extremists.”

 

In 2015, “Mrs. Orrick ‘pinkified’ her Facebook page and added ‘I stand with Planned Parenthood’ as a Facebook profile picture overlay.”

 

CMP’s attorneys explained:

 

Planned Parenthood urged its supporters to add these elements to their Facebook pages as part of a campaign orchestrated specifically in response to the release of videos by Mr. Daleiden and CMP. ‘Pinkifying’ showed one’s support for Planned Parenthood and one ’s belief that the videos were fraudulent.

 

Another cause for CMP’s concern is Mrs. Orrick “liked a Facebook Post by ‘Keep America Pro-Choice’ that applauded Mr. Daleiden being indicted in Texas.” It, and the “like” of the NARAL post, “were juxtaposed with a profile photo featuring Judge Orrick and Mrs. Orrick.”

 

As The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway uncovered at the time Orrick issued the initial gag order on the video, he is a major financial backer of pro-abortion former President Obama.

 

“He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen,” she reported.

 

He also donated more than $5,000 to GSFRC.

___________________

Real Crime is Leftist Collusion

John R. Houk

© June 14, 2017

_______________

Judge who censored undercover Planned Parenthood videos was on pro-abortion group’s board

 

All Content Copyright 1997-2017 LifeSiteNews.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

About LifeSiteNews.com 

 

LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.

 

LifeSiteNews.com Daily News reports are widely circulated reports on important developments in the United States, Canada and around the world. Their purpose is to provide balance and more accurate coverage on culture, life and family matters than is usually given by other media. Available by free daily email subscription and on LifeSiteNews.com.


LifeSiteNews Principles

 

  1. Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com’s writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

 

  1. LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the big picture and  READ THE REST

 

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?


John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

 

The Dems have tried to frame President Trump with getting the Russians to fix the November elections to Trump’s favor. Indeed, traitor former President Obama has been exposed with his own self trying to sway the election with the Russian Fake News story combined with some Watergate style campaign spying in the name of National Security.

 

FINALLY! President Trump is pushing back! Our President is letting the cat out of the bag and the Dems are trying to obfuscate the push back with typical denials in their defense of treasonous Obama.

 

Here is some more Obama/Dem Deep State documentation of the travesty of pulling a legal coup against President Trump. I have to wonder. WHEN the legal coup fails, will the Obama/Dems begin a violent coup as evidenced in the streets with violence against Pro-Trumpers? Can you say Loretta Lynch?

 

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch Calls for MARCHING, BLOOD and even DEATH in Resistance to Trump in new Facebook Video

 

Posted by The Tolerant Left

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

As to the push back against Obama, Mark Levin outlines the very same thing Trump refers to on Fox & Friends yesterday. The irony! The sources cited by Levin are Left oriented rags (Levin uses the term “another Right Wing” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to get his point across).

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump | Fox & Friends 3/5/17

 

Posted by KagenOfficial

Published on Mar 5, 2017

 

Mark Levin interview on Fox News Fox & Friends on March 5, 2017 3/5/17 and provides proof of Obama Administration Wiretapping Spying by FBI and NSA. Mark Levin proves wiretap trump tower

 

If you are foolish enough to watch other news outlets castigate President Trump for his tweets against treasonous Obama, YOU have to see the hypocrisy that Levin sources the Left for Obama meddling in the 2016 election cycle!

 

JRH 3/6/17

Please Support NCCR

************

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

March 5, 2017 

Noisy Room

 

Obama Spying

 

Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.

 

Levin has laid out exactly how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof, when they provided said proof. This is insane.

 

From Conservative Review:

 

Mark Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.

 

“The gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.

 

Levin – who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese – explained the potential scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:

 

“We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.

 

“The question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”

 

Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup. And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.

 

A myriad of things now look very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself, and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally calling for blood and death in our streets: …They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again– Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.

 

[Noisy Room Video posted above]

 

Full Interview [Fox & Friends Weekend]: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/mark-levin-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping

+++

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals why scandal is ‘bigger and worse than Watergate’

 

By JOSEPH FARAH

March 5, 2017

WND

 

After Donald Trump blew the whistle on the eavesdropping of his 2016 campaign headquarters by Barack Obama’s administration, few in the media or elsewhere seem to be asking the obvious questions:

Was it legal?

 

Was it ethical – in the American way?

 

One thing is for certain: If the roles were reversed and the Trump administration bugged Democrats, you can imagine the media would take a much different view.

 

Let’s first take a look at how the media reported this travesty of justice, political decorum, the Constitution and American legal tradition:

 

  • Washington Post: President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.

 

  • CNN: Trump’s baseless wiretap claim

 

  • Atlantic: Trump’s Unfounded Claims of a “Nixon/Watergate” Wiretapping Scheme

 

  • Huffington Post: Obama Refutes Allegation that He Wiretapped Trump Tower During Campaign

 

  • New York Daily News: Trump’s poor understanding of national security investigations may prove dangerous

 

  • New York Times: President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.

 

The emphasis of all of these “fake news” reports is disingenuous to say the least. Obama didn’t deny his administration wiretapped Trump. He said no one at the White House did. That is a virtual admission that his administration did, probably Justice Department, meaning the “apolitical Loretta Lynch” who just called for “blood and death” in the streets to stop Trump, much to the approval of Senate Democrats. It’s an obvious parsing of words by the slick Obama.

 

The accusation is indeed bigger than Watergate, which began with an attempt not to eavesdrop directly on Richard Nixon’s opponent in the 1972 presidential election, but on Larry O’Brian, the head of the DNC, whose offices were in the Watergate Hotel. He was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of his day, but she and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta didn’t bother securing their email communications, and you could read them all on WikiLeaks.

 

And that brings us to the excuse for Trump’s campaign being undoubtedly bugged – the elusive evidence for Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

If you doubt there is no evidence, just carefully read every New York Times story on the fake scandal. Way down near the bottom of every story, the paper that has trumpeted this story the most admits there’s no evidence.

 

So, here’s the way this thing obviously went down.

 

Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to investigate the Russian fantasy. The judge turned it down.

 

It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request. The judge turned it down.

 

Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in October. Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping began.

 

Not one of these big news organizations will tell you that.

 

It’s the attorney general who would request such wiretap authorizations for heavy-duty, politically charged requests such as this – not that any have ever been requested or authorized in the history of the republic.

 

Do news organizations really want to be covering up stuff like this? Don’t they understand the same tactics can be used against them? Obama, or (wink-wink) Lynch, just set the precedent.

 

Nixon never did anything remotely like this – and he was forced from office as a result. Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the Trump administration. And one or both probably should be.

 

Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.

 

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information” as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.

 

Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian hacks?

 

That’s what makes this scandal, pardon the expression, “bigger than Watergate.”

 

Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration to investigate the Russia deal were. What does that tell you?

 

It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary.

 

Since the election, the hysteria over Russia’s role in the election has only increased exponentially.

 

And that’s why:

 

1. I believe Trump.

2. I don’t believe Obama.

3. I don’t believe the “fake news cartel,” which is all in for finding the elusive Trump-Russia link.

 

What we’ve got here at first glance is a prima facie case for “bigger and worse than Watergate.”

 

But the Washington Post and New York Times have already signaled they won’t be investigating. They are already publishing front-page editorials that stake out a rather shrill “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” approach.

 

Was it legal? No.

 

Was it ethical in the American political tradition? No.

 

Is it one of the most dangerous developments in American political history? Yes.

 

+++

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Originally NATIONAL REVIEW

March 5, 2017

Israpundit

Posted by Ted Belman

 

President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

 

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony. In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.

 

As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

 

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

 

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.

 

It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page.

 

The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts. Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:

 

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

This seems disingenuous on several levels. First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates.

 

The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Second, the business about never ordering surveillance against American citizens is nonsense. Obama had American citizens killed in drone operations. Obviously, that was not done in the U.S. or through the FISA process; it was done overseas, under the president’s commander-in-chief and statutory authority during wartime.

 

But the notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd. Third, that brings us to a related point: FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Consequently, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with a president’s ordering national-security surveillance of a potential foreign agent who may be helping a foreign power threaten American security and interests.

 

That is one of the president’s main jobs – there would be something wrong if a president, who truly believed the nation was threatened by a foreign power, failed to take action. Prior to FISA’s enactment in 1978, courts had no formal role in the surveillance of foreign agents for national-security purposes – it was a unilateral executive-branch function. Beginning with the Carter administration during FISA’s enactment, it has been the position of presidential administrations of both parties that, despite the enactment of the FISA process, the president maintains inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to order surveillance even in the absence of court authorization. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures.

 

But it would not be inappropriate  e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

 

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.  [I have updated the post, as indicated, to reflect that I meant “not unconstitutional” in a passage in which I erroneously said “not constitutional.] -[Blog Editor’s bold text]

__________________

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

_______________

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

© 2017 NoisyRoom.net

______________

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

 

Copyright 2017 WND

_______________

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

 

Israpundit

 

About National Review

 

OBAMA DOJ: HANDMAIDEN OF CLINTON CORRUPTION


bho-lynch-bill-hillary-corruptin

There should be impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch and/or anyone in the Obama Administration involved in the blatant corruption that has spread like a malignant cancer throughout the U.S. government. Forget the lying Democrats and the Mainstream Media! It’s time for Congress to utilize all nuclear options to tie the hands of Congress members (THAT WOULD BE THE DEMS) who have joined the corruption class. If there is some kind of unwritten protocol not in the Constitution to take no action during an election – IGNORE IT!

lynch-swears-to-get-hillary-elected

JRH 11/3/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

OBAMA DOJ: HANDMAIDEN OF CLINTON CORRUPTION

How the Clinton machine is perverting U.S. federal law enforcement to shield Hillary.

 

By Joseph Klein

November 3, 2016

FrontPageMag.com

 

The Obama Department of Justice has been corruptly aiding and abetting the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to escape legal accountability for her actions. From Attorney General Loretta Lynch on down through the Justice Department’s political ranks, the Department has blocked the FBI from searching for the truth and following the evidence of potential criminality to its logical conclusion. Whether it is Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State or her involvement in the pay-for-play Clinton enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, the Obama administration is applying a banana republic-style double standard to pervert justice and the rule of law in order to shield her.

 

Lynch and President Obama were reportedly furious with FBI Director James Comey for sending a letter to Congress on October 28th indicating that new evidence potentially pertinent to the e-mail case had come to light, which required further investigation. This evidence consisted of a batch of e-mails FBI investigators had found on one or more computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, Clinton confidante Huma Abedin’s estranged husband, while they were searching for evidence in an unrelated case involving Weiner’s alleged sexting to an underage girl. Comey sent his letter after months of agonizing over his previous decision to let Hillary off the hook in the e-mail case last July. He was said by a source close to him to have been particularly disturbed by the mounting number of resignation letters from FBI agents who felt betrayed by that decision.

 

Department of Justice officials had leaned on Comey not to send the letter to Congress, claiming that it would violate Department protocols and procedures against taking any action that could be perceived as interfering with the upcoming presidential election. To his credit, Comey ignored the Department officials’ objections, claiming he had an obligation to keep the Congress and the public informed of any potentially significant new developments in the case.

 

Democrats, who had lavished praise on Comey for his July decision, lashed out at Comey for sending his letter updating Congress. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid went so far as to make the baseless charge that Comey may have violated the law by informing Congress, because, Reid argued, he appeared to be taking sides in an election. The disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder, held in contempt of Congress for withholding information relating to the Fast and Furious scandal, said about Comey’s action, “I fear he has unintentionally and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people.”

 

Since when has Holder been genuinely concerned about protecting our system of justice and best serving the American people? Holder had already contributed to the erosion of public trust, with his blatant politicization of the Obama Department of Justice.  As evidenced by the Obama Department of Justice’s handling of the multiple FBI investigations involving Hillary Clinton, the Department has continued its slide into the muck of corruption. It interfered with both the normal course of criminal investigations and the election by stacking the deck in Hillary’s favor, ensuring that no indictment would occur to derail her path to succeed Obama and preserve his legacy.

 

First, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to empanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empaneled [sic], and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”

 

Kallstrom’s belief that Lynch acted to influence the results of the FBI probes in Hillary’s favor is buttressed by Lynch’s 30 minute private tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before FBI Director Comey faced the cameras on July 5th with his exculpatory announcement.

 

Second, at least five immunity agreements were handed out in the e-mail case, including to Hillary’s lawyer and confidante Cheryl Mills and to Platte River Networks’ Paul Combetta.  It appears that Combetta had previously lied to government investigators – a crime in itself – while trying to cover up the fact that he had evidently Bleachbited e-mails to delete them, even though they had been subject to a previously issued Congressional subpoena. The immunity agreements garnered nothing in return, but had the effect of blocking access to the computer devices of the immunity beneficiaries in the FBI’s separate Clinton Foundation investigation.  Apparently, the Department decided against the alternative option of subpoenaing the computer devices or seeking a search warrant, rather than granting useless immunities, in order to obtain any evidence relevant to the e-mail investigation that might have been contained in those devices.

 

Third, the Department and FBI did not conduct their last minute interview of Hillary Clinton under oath and allowed Cheryl Mills – herself a material witness – to sit in during Hillary’s interview. They did not ask pertinent follow-up questions. There was no verbatim transcript of the interview to use in checking the veracity of Hillary’s statements during the interview against her sworn Congressional testimony or her many public statements.

 

Fourth, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. In fact, senior Department officials reportedly would not authorize a more thorough FBI investigation because they claimed there was not sufficient evidence gathered thus far to justify going further. Such a circular argument was a mere cover to prevent seasoned career investigators from learning the full extent of foreign government donations while Hillary was Secretary of State, their true motivations and any favors extended by the State Department in return.

 

Finally, the cross-connections between the Clintons and some high level Department of Justice and FBI officials cry out for recusal. But not so in this administration. For example, the wife of the deputy FBI director who was involved in the laggard Clinton Foundation investigation, Andrew McCabe, just happened to have received a large donation from close Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to her 2015 run for the State Senate.

 

To make matters worse, the Obama Department of Justice assigned Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik, a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, to communicate with Congress about what Kadzik promised would be a “thorough” review of the newly discovered e-mails from Anthony Weiner’s online account.

 

Podesta praised Kadzik in an e-mail to an Obama campaign official back in 2008 as a “Fantastic lawyer,” and said about his pal, “Kept me out of jail.” Their history together goes further back than that. During the waning days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, it was Kadzik, then representing the infamous billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who lobbied Podesta, then serving as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, for a presidential pardon on his client’s behalf. Kadzik’s lobbying effort, no doubt helped along by contributions to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to Bill Clinton’s presidential library, paid off. Bill Clinton delivered the requested pardon on his last day in office.

 

Kadzik joined the Department of Justice in April 2013, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, and then as the Principal Deputy. With the Podesta connection intact, Kadzik has served as a highly placed Clinton campaign mole in the Department. An e-mail dated May 19, 2015 from Kadzik to Podesta, released by WikiLeaks, proves the point.  Bearing the subject heading “Heads Up,” Kadzik advised Podesta about upcoming Congressional testimony by the head of the Department’s Civil Division, and about another filing in the Freedom of Information case that would mean “it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.” Podesta forwarded Kadzik’s heads up e-mail to several senior Hillary Clinton campaign officials with the admonition: “Additional chances for mischief.”

 

Exploiting his coordinating role in the re-opened e-mail investigation and contacts with FBI investigators, Kadzik will now be in a position to relay inside information to his pal Podesta and to provide inside information to the Clinton campaign’s supporters in Congress as well.

 

The Clintons manage to turn virtually everything they touch into a cesspool of corruption. The Obama Department of Justice is no exception.

_________________

 ABOUT JOSEPH KLEIN

 

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to READ THE REST

 

America Needs to Lock Up Crooked Hillary


Edited by John R. Houk

November 2, 2016

dems-dont-care-hillary-a-criminal

Here are a couple of news stories that you probably will not see on the Mainstream Media pertaining to Crooked Hillary. I have to mention that I understand that an avowed Dem voter would not vote for Donald Trump. Most Dems are happy in the direction has been moving toward Leftist unaccountable utopianism. AND YET, why in the world an American Dem voter would vote for someone as wickedly corrupt as Crooked Hillary is beyond my comprehension.

hillary-100-crooked

JRH 11/2/16 (Hat tip for first story to Sean McCorkindale  & altyria valenci on the G+ Hillary for Prison 2016/Trump for POTUS 2016 [now mysteriously unavailable there] AND the second story I found on Facebook group that I forgot to source.)

Please Support NCCR

*************

G+ Hillary For Prison 2016 / Trump For POTUS 2016

11/1/16

 

After acting like she has nothing to hide in the emails seized by the FBI, Hillary Clinton managed to… sabotage the NEW investigation before it even began

…Hillary’s good friend Loretta Lynch assigned a man named Peter Kadzik from the Department of Justice to oversee the case…

…. Kadzik is a personal friend of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

…Peter Kadzik was mentioned more than TWENTY TIMES in Podesta’s emails!

^^^

BREAKING: FBI Has Been Compromised! Look What Hillary Did to Sabotage New Investigation

 

By Danny Gold

November 1, 2016

Liberty Writers News

 

Hillary Clinton has gone and done it now! After acting like she has nothing to hide in the emails seized by the FBI, she managed to pull some strings and sabotage the NEW investigation before it even began…

 

It turns out that she got her good friend Loretta Lynch to assign a man named Peter Kadzik from the Department of Justice to oversee the case against her.

 

peter-kadzik

Peter Kadzik

 

So who is Peter Kadzik? Well, thanks to Wikileaks we know that he is a good, personal friend of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager and future Chief of Staff if she wins.

 

In fact, Peter Kadzik was mentioned more than TWENTY TIMES in Podesta’s emails!

 

kadzik-20-times-in-podesta-emails

Kadzik mentioned 20 times in Podesta Emails

 

Now just try and tell me that is not as rigged as it gets.

 

This is gonna be an all out war between the FBI and the Department of Justice, and if we want Hillary to get her just deserts, we gotta be ready to help Director Comey fight back!

 

Now, step one to beating Hillary Clinton is to share this out to everyone you know. We the people need to demand a FAIR investigation.

 

+++

BREAKING: The Source for Podesta’s Email Leaks Has Been REVEALED–They’re Coming From

 

November 2, 2016

Girls Just Wanna Have Guns with Regis Giles

 

So much for Hillary’s theory that Trump is in bed with Russia over the hack. Maybe she should do some research on her own people. It looks like they have turned against her.

 

According to former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, the now infamous Podesta and Democratic National Committee emails were not leaked by Russian hackers, but by a Washington insider.

 

In an exclusive interview with Sputnik, Mr. Murray said:

 

“The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam’s whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow.”

 

When asked about whether or not WikiLeaks have ever published information at the behest of Moscow, Mr. Murray said:

 

“WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from any proxy of the Russian government. It’s simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert attention from the content of the material.”

 

The Podesta leaks are a trove of emails that have been dropped almost daily by WikiLeaks and consist of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. The leaks, along with the DNC troves, have provided insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, leaving the presidential nominee red-faced. Clinton’s allies have accused the whistleblowing website and Russia of working in cahoots with the Trump campaign.

 

The role of WikiLeaks as a thorn in the side of the US government dates further back than the Podesta and DNC leaks.

 

The whistleblowing site is renowned for leaking information on sensitive US policy positions, such as the much excoriated relationship with the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying in reference to Mr. Assange, “can’t we just drone this guy?”

 

Radio Sputnik Sound Cloud Audio: EXCLUSIVE: ‘A source close to Washinigton [sic] leaked Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks’ – Craig Murray

_______________

BREAKING: FBI Has Been Compromised! Look What Hillary Did to Sabotage New Investigation


© Liberty Writers News

_________________

BREAKING: The Source for Podesta’s Email Leaks Has Been REVEALED–They’re Coming From

 

COPYRIGHT © 2016. GIRLSJUSTWANNAHAVEGUNS.COM IS A MEMBER OF LIBERTY ALLIANCE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

About Girls Just Wanna Have Guns

 

About This Website

 

Girls Just Wanna Have Guns goal is to motivate women all over the world to prepare themselves for any threat they may encounter.

 

Whether the weapon of choice is a gun, tazer, knife, spear, pencil or some form of martial arts, the most important thing is that women arm themselves with the right attitude and skills necessary to effectively and efficiently turn from prey to formidable defender.

 

About Regis Giles

 

Regis Giles is the creator and owner of Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.com and is a leading voice for Second Amendment rights, self-defense and conservation. Unafraid to speak her mind, Regis takes no prisoners.  Her media appearances include: ELLE Magazine, Variety, The Daily Mail, BBC, ABC, CNN, CBS Miami, & Fox News.

 

FBI’s James Comey Seeks Redemption With New Clinton Probe


is-humpty-hillary-falling

This article professes reopened Crooked Hillary out of guilty conscience. It also tells us that Attorney General Loretta Lynch excoriated Comey. Lynch’s displeasure probably signals the current Leftist-in-Chief Obama exploded at her. If all this is true, I have a suspicion Comey will be fired by Obama before any further FBI action moves forward that may indeed also finger the Obama Administration.

 

JRH 10/31/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

FBI’s James Comey Seeks Redemption With New Clinton Probe

 

By Jack Davis

October 31, 2016 at 9:36am

Western Journalism

 

Despite laying out a clear case that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” with classified information on a private email server, FBI Director James Comey has appeared to be a rock, never budging in his decision to not recommend an indictment of Clinton.

 

However, according to author Ed Klein, Comey has been suffering from the wounds he has since come to realize he inflicted on his agency.

 

In a column for the Daily Mail, Klein portrayed Comey’s decision to inform Congress about the new phase of the FBI’s investigation into the Democratic presidential candidate as his chance at professional redemption. Friday, Comey told Congress the investigation was reopened due to newly discovered evidence. That evidence has since been revealed to be 650,000 emails found on the computer of disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

 

 

Klein said that the July announcement that Clinton would not be indicted proved to be a watershed moment for Comey.

 

“The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,” Klein wrote, quoting a source close to Comey.

 

“Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,” Klein quoted the source as saying. “They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.”

 

As Comey defended the FBI in public, in private he was dealing with agents who were quitting the agency due to the results of the Clinton probe.

 

“He’s been ignoring the resignation letters in the hope that he could find a way of remedying the situation,” said the source, saying that Comey “jumped at the excuse to reopen the investigation.”

 

“He talks about the damage that he’s done to himself and the institution (the FBI), and how he’s been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It’s taken a tremendous toll on him,” Klein quoted the source as saying. “It shattered his ego. He looks like he’s aged 10 years in the past four months.”

 

Comey went against the will of Attorney General Loretta Lynch in sharing with Congress the fact that the Clinton probe was alive once again.

 

The Washington Post reported Saturday that Comey, who had told Lynch of his plan to tell Congress about the Clinton probe — was told by her aides “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election.”

 

The Post reported, according to a Justice Department official it did not name, Comey fully understood what he was doing.

 

“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” the official said. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

 

_____________

About Western Journalism

 

by Floyd Brown September 8, 2008 at 5:20pm

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast).

 

Western Journalism has a distinguished team of journalists and support staff who work together to achieve common goals. WesternJournalism.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according to NewsWhip. Fifteen million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, ranking the site as READ THE REST

 

Editor Intro to FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal …


public-enemy-1-2-comey-hillary

Editor John R. Houk

October 4, 2016

 

Over the last few days I have posted some info that shows Comey, his FBI or both involved not only in a cover-up to protect Obama and Crooked Hillary’s hindquarters but also to make Crooked Hillary untouchable enough to get elected. Shades of Obama Administration 2012 Benghazi lies to reelect Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Here are some examples of Comey corruption from those two posts:

 

The more that details about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices come to light, the more their efforts appear to have been a sham designed to exonerate her of wrongdoing from the very beginning. …

 

 

Upon further review, it appears that Mr. Comey’s investigation was highly unusual, given the five immunity agreements that were handed out. …

 

“Instead of asking Attorney General Loretta Lynch to revoke his immunity deal and squeezing him, Comey let [Combetta] go because he was a ‘low-level guy,’ he testified at the House hearing. …

 

… Comey insisted that the immunity agreement was necessary to ensure that the FBI got the facts.

 

“There’s no doubt Combetta was involved in deleting emails,” said Comey. …

 

… Secretary Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson also received immunity agreements meant to ensure that they gave the FBI access to their laptops. …

 

 

To add insult to injury, the FBI allowed Samuelson and Mills to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s interview with the bureau.

 

… (Was The Fix In On FBI Investigation Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails? By Roger Aronoff; SlantRight 2.0; 10/1/16)

 

And the other post:

 

Gowdy was after a document called a 302, which is essentially a summary of interviews of key witnesses. The FBI wasn’t giving those to Congress, and instead was getting a “summary of a summary of an interview” instead. This is something the Committee, and Gowdy in particular, was not pleased with. 

 

 

FBI Director James Comey appeared before Congress for the third time.

 

Once again, he fumbled through another session, trying to explain away the reasons why he overlooked Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior.

 

 

Suspicions were raised when the FBI handed out five grants of immunity to Hillary’s underlings – including former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was the mastermind behind the private server.

 

Many wondered why immunity was given to so many people and no charges were filed.

 

“GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department’s decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

 “Laptops don’t go to the Bureau of Prisons,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills.”

 The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.”

 

… (2 News Pieces on Crooked FBI; Compiled by JRH; SlantRight 2.0; 10/2/16)

 

NOW I FIND OUT that the immunity deals were based ONLY on a limited search AND that after the limited search the laptops were to be destroyed by THE FBI! Here’s the story.

 

JRH 10/4/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal To Destroy Clinton Aides’ Laptops

“… doesn’t that undermine the claim …?”

 

By Charles Campbell

October 3, 2016 at 2:16pm

Western Journalism

 

Sources from the House Judiciary Committee told Fox News Monday that the immunity deals struck with Hillary Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, included the Justice Department agreeing to destroy their laptops after they had been turned over to federal investigators.

 

The House Judiciary Committee sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch inquiring about the arrangement, and why it also included a limited search of computers files dating no later than Jan. 31, 2015.

 

“Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News.

 

Goodlatte states that the agreements, which were signed on June 10, meant that investigators could not review documents after the email server became public and they abandoned “any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.”

 

“Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?” he added.

 

It was revealed last month that the DOJ granted Mills and Samuelson immunity for any information recovered from their laptops.

 

The House Oversight Committee exposed the immunity agreements publicly, and it raised questions about why two Clinton aides were given permission to sit-in with Clinton during her July interview with the FBI.

 

The FBI claimed that because the interview was voluntary, the investigators had no control over who Clinton brought with her.

 

“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte wrote.

 

Last week, FBI Director James Comey said that he agreed to grant immunity because he wanted to avoid a drawn-out legal battle, but he also failed to mention that part of the “agreement” was for the laptops to be destroyed.

 

After the news of the laptops being destroyed broke, Twitter users expressed their contempt for how the case has been handled.

 

Shannon Bream 

✔@ShannonBream

 

BREAKING from Catherine Herridge: FBI made side deals with 2 HRC associates to “destroy” their laptops after inspecting them

+++

Raymond Smith 

@RaymondSmith54


@ShannonBream
 I am soooooooooo sick of this corrupt “administration” I am getting physically ill.

1:27 PM – 3 Oct 2016

+++

Shannon Bream 

✔@ShannonBream

 

BREAKING from Catherine Herridge: FBI made side deals with 2 HRC associates to “destroy” their laptops after inspecting them

+++


Tom Hannan 

@tomh2739

 

@ShannonBream @ByronYork I’m no lawyer but I think James Comey & The FBI just committed SEVERAL FELONIES

11:48 AM – 3 Oct 2016

 

“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Coodlatte concluded.

__________________

Editor Intro to FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal

Editor John R. Houk

October 4, 2016

__________________

FBI, DOJ Make Side Deal To Destroy Clinton Aides’ Laptops

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast).

 

READ THE REST

 

Newbill Conspiracy insights & Propositions Part 2


List of Why Hillary Lies Matter

Tony Newbill examines Crooked Hillary insinuated her goals in the matrix of a clandestine government. (Part One can be read HERE.)

 

JRH 7/19/16

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Newbill Conspiracy insights & Propositions Part 2

Tony Newbill

Posted July 19, 2016

 

Wed 7/13/2016 10:07 AM

Hilary is 2 Candidates in One

 

Hilary is 2 Candidates in One, first she’s a candidate for POTUS and then She’s a candidate for the “Deep State” and this is where the problem with maintaining USA Sovereignty exists.

 

The Deep State is who gave Hilary a Pass on accountability to the Civilians of the USA thus making US Citizens Subjects of the DEEP STATE!!!!!
These 2 links give insight to the Concept that Hilary Clinton is 2 candidates in one:

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/

Deep State America

 

[Blog Editor: Newbill also used the last two links are also used as a comment to the dual post “Deep State USA” which includes the Deep State Conspiracy thoughts of Daniel Gladstein. Newbill has several comments on that post largely related to Gladstein’s thoughts. Newbill’s comments to the Deep State post will show in a later blog post because they are a little different than here even though the links are the same.]

 

It has frequently been alleged that the modern Turkish Republic operates on two levels. It has a parliamentary democracy complete with a constitution and regular elections, but there also exists a secret government that has been referred to as the “deep state,” in Turkish “Derin Devlet.”

 

The concept of “deep state” has recently become fashionable to a certain extent, particularly to explain the persistence of traditional political alignments when confronted by the recent revolutions in parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. For those who believe in the existence of the deep state, there are a number of institutional as well as extralegal relationships that might suggest its presence.

 

Some believe that this deep state arose out of a secret NATO operation called “Gladio,” which created an infrastructure for so-called “stay behind operations” if Western Europe were to be overrun by the Soviet Union and its allies. There is a certain logic to that assumption, as a deep state has to be organized around a center of official and publicly accepted power, which means it normally includes senior officials of the police and intelligence services as well as the military. …

 

 

As all governments—sometimes for good reasons—engage in concealment of their more questionable activities, or even resort to out and out deception, one must ask how the deep state differs. While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable, there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.

 

But for players in the deep state, there is no accountability and no legal limit. Everything is based on self-interest, justified through an assertion of patriotism and the national interest. …

 

 

If all this sounds familiar to an American reader, it should, and given some local idiosyncrasies, it invites the question whether the United States of America has its own deep state.

 

 

In truth America’s deep state is, not unlike Turkey’s, a hybrid creature that operates along a New York to Washington axis. Where the Turks engage in criminal activity to fund themselves, the Washington elite instead turns to banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, operating much more in the open and, ostensibly, legally. U.S.-style deep state includes all the obvious parties, both public and private, who benefit from the status quo: including key players in the police and intelligence agencies, the military, the treasury and justice departments, and the judiciary. It is structured to materially reward those who play along with the charade, and the glue to accomplish that ultimately comes from Wall Street. “Financial services” might well be considered the epicenter of the entire process. Even though government is needed to implement desired policies, the banksters comprise the truly essential element, capable of providing genuine rewards for compliance. As corporate interests increasingly own the media, little dissent comes from the Fourth Estate as the process plays out, while many of the proliferating Washington think tanks that provide deep state “intellectual” credibility are READ ENTIRETY (Deep State America: Democracy is often subverted by special interests operating behind the scenes; By PHILIP GIRALDI; American Conservative; 7/30/15)

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

 

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

 

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

 

 

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

 

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

 

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

 

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

 

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

 

 

… She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department; By DAVID SIROTA and ANDREW PEREZ; IBT; 5/26/15)

 

 

This link shows how the DEEP STATE is Protecting Hilary Clinton: [Blog Editor: The link below is actually a comment to the article entitled ‘Loretta Lynch Ducks 74 Questions From Congress: “Either Avoiding Appearances or Protecting Hillary”’. The identity of the commenter is “Tommy”. This means Tony Newbill and Tommy are one and the same. Since “Newbill” is a pseudonym, the mystery: has the anonymity been revealed? Or is it another pseudonym? The mystery continues. After the comment link is an excerpt from the actual article which I believe is Newbill’s actual intention.]

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact-and-theory/ag-lynch-ducks-74-questions-from-congress-either-avoiding-appearances-or-protecting-hillary_07132016#comment-3586197

 

Did Attorney General Loretta Lynch lie about or obfuscate her role in clearing Hillary in the investigations concerning the handling of classified emails on her private server?

 

Is there a quid pro quo among the two women, in which Lynch could have been promised a role in the next Clinton Administration in exchange for her help in calling off potential criminal charges that might derail Hillary’s campaign.

 

Lynch claims there is no such relationship. But she also refused to answer at least 74 of Congress’ questions about her private meeting with former President Bill Clinton and her relationship with the Clintons and/or their staff.

 

Recall, that the announcement that Hillary was off the hook, as it were, came immediately after the Attorney General and former president met.

 

As The Daily Caller reported at the time:

Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

 

 

As example to this, Loretta Lynch refused an entire line of questions from Rep. Jason Chaffetz about whether or not it was hypothetically legal or illegal to retain classified information.

 

Despite the straightforward nature of this questioning, Attorney General Lynch refused to even acknowledge whether or not it is illegal to lie under oath.

 

Wow. This is stonewalling of READ ENTIRETY (Loretta Lynch Ducks 74 Questions From Congress: “Either Avoiding Appearances or Protecting Hillary”; By Mac Slavo; SHTFplan.com; 7/13/16)

 

++++++++++

Fri 7/15/2016 12:45 PM

Hilary’s Red and Blue Camps Plan to deal with peoples conflicting Religious views

 

Hilary’s Red and Blue Camps Plan to deal with peoples conflicting Religious views:

 

http://tinyurl.com/jecht9f 

[Blog Editor: The tiny url is to a Youtube post that demonstrates that Hillary Clinton intends to continue Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the USA away from American values by further diluting the Christian faith’s moral standards.]

 

VIDEO: Clinton Demands Christians Deny Jesus!

 

 

Posted by NicholasPOGM

Published on May 26, 2015

 

As I stated in the video, before making public statements, political candidates do demographic research so as to see what the public will accept or reject. And this is especially true with presidential campaigns! What Hillary Clinton says during a campaign speech confirms the powers that be, know for a fact that the majority of the churches in America no longer bow to Jesus, His Word, or even common sense for that matter! Her comments CONFIRM the leaders in the USA will remove religious liberty soon! The fact they have proof there will be little opposition is the green light they have been looking for.

(original video)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4220594877001/same-sex-marriage-case-raising-religious-liberty-concerns/?#sp=show-clips

 

http://tinyurl.com/j3abcsw

 

[Blog Editor: This tiny url is to a Youtube video in which Hillary Clinton says she believes Americans need “Adult Camps” to teach them how to relate to cultural socio-religious mores acceptable to modernity (i.e. transform minds). Hmm… Crooked Hillary’s speech should make you think of Communist Chinese re-education camps or old Soviet re-education camps]

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Says ” We Need Camps For Adults” (Concentration Camps)

 

 

Posted by DTAShieldOFaith

Published on Apr 14, 2015

 

At an event for camp professionals, Hillary Clinton pitches camp for grownups, where the “red” and “blue” cabins would have no choice but to work together.

.All praises to Yahawah Bahasham Yahawashi Shalawam ahchyam Double Honors to the Apostles and Elders of GMS
(The Elect) around the world teaching the word in sincerely and truth

 

And we have General Wesley Clark saying the same kind of thing about Camps:

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/20/chattanooga-wesley-clark-calls-internment-camps-disloyal-americans/

 

[Blog Editor: I am guessing the link about General Clark suggesting that radicalized Muslims be rounded up and placed in camps is Newbill’s shot at being fair and balanced. Clark is a Leftist in the Dem Party thus making his statement against Muslim be castigated by Obama and the current Crooked Hillary campaign. Think of the clamor if Trump made such a statement! I sense the point Newbill is reaching for is the willingness of Dems to form re-education camps – PERIOD.]

 

Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday called for World War II-style internment camps to be revived for “disloyal Americans.” In an interview with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts in the wake of the mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Clark said that during World War II, “if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.”

 

He called for a revival of internment camps to help combat Muslim extremism, saying, “If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”

 

READ THE REST (Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for “Radicalized” Americans; By Murtaza Hussain; The Intercept; 7/20/15 9:12 a.m.)

 

And there has been a lot of debate within the Policy making positions of authority regarding Radical Religious people, https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

 

(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

 

7 April 2009

 

(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

 

(U) Scope

 

(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

 

 

(U) Key Findings

 

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

 

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

 

— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

 

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other READ THE REST (Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment; By Homeland Security Department – posted by Federation of American Scientists (FAS); Unclassified version released 4/7/09)

 

And Justice Scalia [was] saying we will see Camps in the USA, so it seems there is an Ideology within the hierarchy of Government of this train of thought: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-antonin-scalia-says-world-war-ii-style-internment-camps-could-happen-again/article/2543424

 

Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another a wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

 

“You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

 

The local Associated Press report quotes Scalia as using a Latin phrase that means “in times of war, the laws fall silent,” to explain why the court erred in that decision and will do so again.

 

READ THE REST

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any information enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill Content