An FBI that is corrupt and dishonest — latest reports offer only more proof-

New York Times: FBI opened counterintelligence probe on Trump to investigate potential of him working with Russia

Reaction from Fox News Contributor Doug Schoen, former Mike Pence Press Secretary Marc Lotter, and Daily Caller Editorial Director Vince Coglianese on ‘Fox News @ Night’ with Shannon Bream.

Dishonesty and corruption are endemic at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The latest proof comes in a New York Times report that the FBI initiated an investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Donald Trump was serving as a covert Russian agent.  The accusation itself was ludicrous on its face.  But from a legal standpoint, the FBI’s probe constituted an egregious abuse of power.  The Bureau had no probable cause, no evidence, and no reasonable suspicions.  They investigated Trump because they could.  They defied the law, ignored or perverted facts, and debased the integrity of a heretofore-respected law enforcement agency.

Why did these rogue officials commit such an outrageous act of malfeasance? In a word, vengeance.  Already incensed that Trump had defeated their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, they grew furious when the president fired Director James Comey on May 9, 2017. In reaction, they sought retribution. What better way to avenge Comey’s firing than to launch a counterintelligence investigation of Trump under the false pretense that he committed treasonous acts for the benefit of the Kremlin and at the direction of President Vladimir Putin. Absent credible proof, information could be manipulated to frame Trump while a compliant media would gobble up the leaks and report the damaging charge. The election results could then be undone when the president was driven from office.

To readers of my book, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton And Frame Donald Trump,” this comes as no surprise.  As detailed therein, Comey and his faithful confederates at the Bureau twisted facts and contorted the law to absolve Clinton of all criminal acts she most certainly committed in the mishandling of her classified emails while Secretary of State.

On the same day Comey exonerated Clinton, his FBI was furtively meeting with the author of the fictitious anti-Trump “dossier” funded by Clinton and the Democrats.  Although nothing in the phony document was true or ever verified, the FBI used it as a pretext to commence and advance a malicious investigation into whether Trump “colluded” with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election.  They also exploited the “dossier” as the basis to gain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, concealing the truth from the intelligence court and deceiving the judges.

Over the next ten months, the FBI failed to corroborate anything in the “dossier.”  Bureau agents uncovered no evidence that Trump had somehow conspired or coordinated with Russia to influence the election. Then came the firing of Comey for just cause.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Comey’s direct boss, volunteered to author a memorandum recommending his termination for multiple acts of misconduct and serious violations of Justice Department and FBI rules in the Clinton case.  Six former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties endorsed his termination.  Comey was canned for reasons that were entirely merited and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Russia probe.  The president was constitutionally authorized to take such action, which Comey confirmed in a letter to his colleagues at the FBI.

As I noted in my book, “Almost immediately, demands for impeachment of President Trump were heard in the corridors of Congress.  The liberal media were crazed with excitement over the prospect that the president had obstructed justice in trying to block the Russian investigation.  In truth and in law, neither scenarios were remotely rational.”

When the people we entrust to enforce the law become the lawbreakers, they must be held accountable.

Among those who were aggrieved over Comey’s firing was his loyal lieutenant, Andrew McCabe, who became Acting FBI Director, as well as bureau lawyer Lisa Page and her paramour, Peter Strzok, a top counterintelligence agent.  Page and Strzok were intimately involved in the “collusion” investigation and were virulently opposed to the president both politically and personally, as evidence by their numerous anti-Trump text messages.

In the eight-day period after Comey’s termination, top officials at the FBI decided to take action.  They would originate a counterintelligence investigation of Trump for being a foreign agent of Russia.  Critically, they had no evidence or even reasonable suspicion to support their operation.  They simply despised Trump and chose to misuse their positions of power in an illegal act of reprisal.

Once again, the FBI needed a pretext.They coalesced around the idea that Comey’s firing might constitute obstruction of justice if it was intended to stop or impede the original Russian probe. In other words, the president must surely be a Russian agent if it can be shown that he wanted to halt the Russian probe.  According to the New York Times, Trump made two comments that served the FBI’s improper purpose.  They are worth examining.

First, Trump wrote a letter to Comey thanking him for telling him three times that he was not under investigation. Comey later confirmed that he had, in fact, told the president he was not under investigation. Obviously, Trump wanted the American public to learn that he was not personally being investigated for Russian “collusion.”  Yet, Comey refused to disclose this truth.  How this letter can, therefore, be viewed plausibly as obstruction of an investigation is baffling. Trump wanted to promote the truth, not conceal it.

Second, Trump gave an interview to NBC News two days after Comey was dismissed in which he made reference to the Russia investigation. How is this evidence of obstruction?  It is not.  As I explained in my book, “A rigorous reading of what Trump said confirms that his intent was not to interfere with or end the Russia investigation, but to place someone who was neutral and competent in charge.”  In fact, Trump told NBC that he might want to lengthen the investigation to get to the bottom of any wrongdoing.  This is hardly evidence of a corrupt purpose to interfere in an investigation as the law of obstruction demands.

The FBI’s illegitimate decision to begin an investigation of Trump as a Russian agent based on an obstruction premise was a false and fabricated excuse.  This is shown by the testimony of McCabe who appeared before the Senate Intelligence committee after Comey was fired.  He stated, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”  Days later, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Congress, “There never has been…any political interference in any matter under my supervision in the Department of Justice.”  Six days before he was fired, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one had told him to stop something for a political reason.  “It’s not happened in my experience,” he said.

Not only did these key people involved in the Russia case affirm that the president never interfered or obstructed, there was no other evidence that Trump was working for the Russians that would have justified the FBI’s punitive decision to launch its investigation. Both Comey and Page testified before House investigators that by the time the director was fired and Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed there was no hard evidence of “collusion.”  The investigation had been running for ten months. Comey admitted, “In fact, when I was fired as director, I still didn’t know whether there was anything to it.”  Nevertheless, top officials at the FBI opened their investigation of Trump in May of 2017 without sufficient evidence and in direct violation of FBI and DOJ regulations.  They broke the law.  And they did it to depose Trump.

The FBI was not alone in its attempt to remove Trump from office.  According to another New York Times story, Rosenstein also sought retribution by proposing to secretly record the president in an attempt to gain some damaging information about him. He allegedly suggested that he and others wear hidden devices to record their conversations with Trump and discussed recruiting Cabinet members to remove him under the Constitution’s 25th Amendment.  Three top FBI officials confirmed various elements of Rosenstein’s efforts to mount the equivalent of a palace coup.  The Deputy Attorney General has consistently resisted requests by Congress to question him about his actions.

It is now undeniable that critical decisions made by senior FBI leadership were driven by political bias and personal animus, not sustainable facts or credible evidence. These powerful officials could not abide that Donald Trump had emerged, against their wishes, as the duly elected president of the United States.  They could not accept that he had unceremoniously shown Comey the door.  In an act of rank retaliation, they decided to abuse their positions of power to drive him from office.  They invented facts and ignored the law to subvert our system of justice and undermine the democratic process.  They compromised essential principles and betrayed the nation’s trust.  Their conduct was, and is, unconscionable.

When William Barr takes office as our nation’s next Attorney General, he must review their actions and present all evidence of wrongdoing to federal prosecutors and, if appropriate, a grand jury.  When the people we entrust to enforce the law become the lawbreakers, they must be held accountable.  No one is above the law.

source- Gregg Jarrett-fox-

Advertisements

Pelosi’s daughter praises mother’s leadership

— ‘She’ll Cut Your Head Off and You Won’t Even Know You’re Bleeding’—1.2.19

Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is likely to be elected the next Speaker of the House, praised her mother’s experience and leadership.

“She’ll cut your head off, and you won’t even know you’re bleeding. That’s all you need to know about her,” the younger Pelosi told CNN “New Day” host John Berman Wednesday. “No one ever won betting against Nancy Pelosi.”

She added, “You have to give her credit. No matter what you think of her, you have to give her credit because, think about it, think about all those presidents she’s endured, right? The Bush, the Bush, the Clinton. She’s been through it all. So, she’s been around. This is not her first rodeo, as your friend George Bush would say. She knows what she’s doing. And that should let you sleep at night, knowing that somebody in this town knows what she’s doing.”

the documentary filmmaker also commented on the new Democratic majority Congress, saying “it’s going to be a beautiful America.”

Pelosi stated, “We should just take one moment to exhale and say, ‘We should be proud of ourselves because we have a beautiful-looking Congress.’”

source- trent baker—breitbart-cnn-john berman

Sweden isn’t socialist-

InternationalCommentary January 04, 2019

John Stossel  /the daily signal

For years, I’ve heard American leftists say Sweden is proof that socialism works, that it doesn’t have to turn out as badly as the Soviet Union or Cuba or Venezuela did. But that’s not what Swedish historian Johan Norberg says in a new documentary and Stossel TV video. “Sweden is not socialist—because the government doesn’t own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea,” says Norberg.

“We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. And that’s the period in Swedish history when our economy was going south.” Per capita gross domestic product fell. Sweden’s growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased. Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.

Astrid Lindgren, author of the popular “Pippi Longstocking” children’s books, discovered that she was losing money by being popular. She had to pay a tax of 102 percent on any new book she sold.

“She wrote this angry essay about a witch who was mean and vicious—but not as vicious as the Swedish tax authorities,” says Norberg. Yet even those high taxes did not bring in enough money to fund Sweden’s big welfare state.

“People couldn’t get the pension that they thought they depended on for the future,” recounts Norberg. “At that point the Swedish population just said, ‘Enough, we can’t do this.’” Sweden then reduced government’s role.

They cut public spending, privatized the national rail network, abolished certain government monopolies, eliminated inheritance taxes, and sold state-owned businesses like the maker of Absolut Vodka. They also reduced pension promises “so that it wasn’t as unsustainable,” adds Norberg. As a result, says Norberg, his “impoverished peasant nation developed into one of the world’s richest countries.”

He acknowledges that Sweden, in some areas, has a big government: “We do have a bigger welfare state than the U.S., higher taxes than the U.S., but in other areas, when it comes to free markets, when it comes to competition, when it comes to free trade, Sweden is actually more free market.”

Sweden’s free market is not burdened by the U.S.’s excessive regulations, special-interest subsidies, and crony bailouts. That allows it to fund Sweden’s big welfare programs. “Today our taxes pay for pensions—you (in the U.S.) call it Social Security—for 18-month paid parental leave, government-paid childcare for working families,” says Norberg. But Sweden’s government doesn’t run all those programs. “Having the government manage all of these things didn’t work well.”

So they privatized. “We realized in Sweden that with these government monopolies, we don’t get the innovation that we get when we have competition,” says Norberg. Sweden switched to a school voucher system. That allows parents to pick their kids’ school and forced schools to compete for the voucher money.

“One result that we’ve seen is not just that the private schools are better,” says Norberg, “but even public schools in the vicinity of private schools often improve, because they have to.”

Sweden also partially privatized its retirement system. In America, the Cato Institute proposed something similar. President George W. Bush supported the idea but didn’t explain it well. He dropped the idea when politicians complained that privatizing Social Security scared voters.

Swedes were frightened by the idea at first, too, says Norberg, “But when they realized that the alternative was that the whole pension system would collapse, they thought that this was much better than doing nothing.” So Sweden supports its welfare state with private pensions, school choice, and fewer regulations, and in international economic freedom comparisons, Sweden often earns a higher ranking than the U.S.

Next time you hear Democratic Socialists talk about how socialist Sweden is, remind them that the big welfare state is funded by Swedes’ free-market practices, not their socialist ones.

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.  The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.  President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

 

source-John Stossel  /the daily signal- Johan Norberg- Astrid Lindgren,

Racist – me?—

“This is an interesting and different point of view from Britain. Food for thought.

Does this make you stop and think. When does political correctness go too far?”

A thought-provoking passage written by an
ENGLISHMAN about the current situation in HIS homeland  this is thought provoking and is equally relevant in other countries.
I have been wondering about why whites are racists, and no other race is?

There are British Africans, British Chinese, British Asian, British Turks, etc., etc., etc.
And then there are just British. You know what I mean, plain ole English people that were born here. You can include the Welsh, the Scottish and the people who live off our shores of Great Britain on tiny islands. Yes, we are all true Brits.

The others that live here call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’ ‘Caveman’ ‘White trash’ and that’s OK…

But if I call you, Nigger, Spade, Towel head, Paki, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook or Chink, you call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you. So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

You have Black History Month.

You have swimming pools for Asian women.

You have Islamic banks for Muslims only.

You have year of the dragon day for Chinese people.

If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we’d be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives, we’d be racists.

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black Britain or Miss Asia, but any colour can be in the Miss UK.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we’d be racists.

There are over 200 openly proclaimed Muslim only schools in England. Yet if there were ‘White schools only’, that would be racist!

In the Bradford riots and Toxteth riots, you believed that you were standing-up for your race and rights. If we stood-up for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

We fly our flag, we are racists. If we celebrate St George’s day we are racists.

You can fly your flag and it’s called diversity. You celebrate your cultures and it’s called multiculturalism.

You rob us, carjack us, and rape our daughters. But, when a white police officer arrests a black gang member or beats up an Asian drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud…. but you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let’s see which of you are proud enough to send it on.

I sadly don’t think many will. That’s why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won’t stand up for ourselves!

BEING PROUD TO BE WHITE! It’s not a crime, YET… but it’s getting very close!

 

It has been estimated that ONLY 55% of those reaching this point in this e-mail, will pass it on.

 

 

 

 

 

ICE, CBP-remove thousands of murders, dope dealers, and sex fiends in fiscal 2018

-December 18, 2018

The nation’s immigration police are working day and night to detain and deport the thousands of illegal-alien criminals who cross our borders.

But the numbers that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released in its final report on removals during fiscal 2018 show that their assiduous effort is a akin to sweeping back the tide.

It’s a never-ending job. The totals in the report are staggering. ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) removed more than 250,000 illegal aliens last fiscal year, including more than 1,000 convicted murderers.

Some good news in the report: The Trump administration has more than doubled the number of gang removals over the last year of the Obama administration.

The Data
The two agencies removed 256,085 criminal aliens in fiscal 2018, a 13.25-percent increase from the 226,119 removed in 2017, and the highest number since 2014. CBP took out 160,726, while ICE removed 95,360. Of the total removed, 145,262 had criminal convictions, a 14-percent increase from 2017. Another 22,796 faced pending criminal charges, a 39-percent increase from 2017, and 88,027 were designated as “other immigration violator[s].”

How big a figure is 256,085? Federal authorities removed the equivalent of the 255,214 people who live in Madison, Wisconsin, or nearly all the 258,612 residents of Buffalo, New York.

Frightening thing is, thousands of the illegals were murderers, dope dealers, sex fiends, and gang members. Dozens were terrorists.

Immigration gumshoes collared and removed 1,641 illegals convicted for some form of homicide, and 1,294 convicted of kidnapping, plus 4,975 sex criminals, not including those with sex-assault convictions. Authorities removed 3,740 of those in the latter category. Robbery and burglary convicts numbered 14,257. Another 8,094 of the removed aliens had weapons convictions.

Of course, most Americans aren’t likely to run into illegal-alien murderers. But they might well encounter a border-jumping drunk. Authorities removed 54,630 illegals convicted of drunk driving. They removed 55,109 convicted of offenses involving dangerous drugs.

Federal authorities also issued 177,147 immigration detainers, a 24-percent increase over fiscal 2017. The number was a staggering 106-percent more than the final fiscal year of the Obama administration.

Proving the Donald Right
And the numbers also show, as The New American has reported, that President Trump is right in his assessment of illegal aliens in general — that many of them are dangerous criminals. That would include the illegal aliens in Tijuana known now as “migrants.”

Authorities took out 5,872 known or suspected gang members, an 8.8-percent increase over the 5,396 removed in fiscal 2017. But it was an amazing 185-percent more than the 2,057 removed during the last year of the Obama administration.

Officials also removed 42 known or suspected terrorists, three less than fiscal 2017, but 15 more than the 27 removed during fiscal 2016.

Removals from the interior of the country also increased about 17 percent from 81,603 in fiscal 2017 to 95,360 in 2018. The removals for 2018 increased 46 percent from 2016.

Where They Were From
Unsurprisingly, the four countries that contributed the most removals were Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

The number of Mexicans removed was 141,045, a 9.5-percent increase from 2017. Another 50,390 were Guatemalans, a 50-percent increase from fiscal 2017. Hondurans numbered 28,894, a 29-percent increase, and Salvadorans, 15,445, an 18-percent decrease.

From there, the number removed per country dropped precipitously to less than 2,000 for every country on the list. China, with 726 removals, was 12th on the list.

ICE also reported 158,581 “administrative arrests.” Those constitute the “arrest of an alien for a civil violation of U.S. immigration laws, which is subsequently adjudicated by an immigration judge or through other administrative processes.”

That figure is a 10.5-percent increase from fiscal 2017, and a whopping 44-percent increase from 2016, again, the last year of the Obama administration when removing illegal aliens was not a priority of the former president’s administration.

Waiting in Tijuana
These figures notwithstanding, advocates to open the borders to the migrant horde squatting in Tijuana ignore what the president has said since the invaders began marching for the U.S. border on October 12.

The teeming mass of humanity likely contains innumerable criminals, the president said, a claim borne out by figures from the Mexican government: Nearly 10 percent of the 6,000 are criminals.

How many of the 500 are murderers, rapists, or dope dealers is unknown. But given the figures in the ICE report, the question migrant lobbyists won’t answer is why they want to bring in more criminals whom authorities must track down and deport.

source-The New American – by R. Cort Kikwood—   Politics amac

 

 

Judge blocks Trump admin from adding citizenship question to 2020 census-

1/13/19c

A federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration Tuesday from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 United States Census.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said that while a citizenship question is constitutional, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross failed to follow the correct procedure to include it in the forthcoming census. “Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question in the 2020 census — even if it did not violate the Constitution itself — was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside,” Furman wrote in his 277-page opinion. “To conclude otherwise and let Secretary Ross’s decision stand would undermine the proposition — central to the rule of law — that ours is a government of laws, not of men.”

The question which Ross sought to add reads: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” A question of such nature has not appeared on the census since 1950. The issue of asking whether someone is a U.S. citizen on the 2020 census will likely end up in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Questions about citizenship status haven’t been asked by census takers since the 1950s.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined California and New York in fighting the citizenship question on grounds that undocumented immigrants might be afraid to respond to the census, resulting in an inaccurate tally. Tuesday’s ruling came at a time the Trump administration is raising concerns of a humanitarian crisis at the southern border and requiring $5.7 billion to build a wall. The stalemate with Congress has caused the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Ross first proposed the citizenship question last March as a way to better enforce Voting Rights Act provisions that protect racial and language minorities from discrimination. The administration is also facing five other lawsuits against the citizenship question, though they have not started yet.

Reacting to the rule, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky, said federal law gives Ross the authority to select which questions should appear on the census. “It will also prevent us from getting accurate census data on citizens and noncitizens from across the country — since the ACS is limited in scope — which is vital in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, distribution of federal funds and having an informed debate about immigration policy,” von Spakovsky said in a statement.

The issue of asking whether someone is a U.S. citizen on the 2020 census will likely end up in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Questions about citizenship status haven’t been asked by census takers since the 1950s. The American Civil Liberties Union joined California and New York in fighting the citizenship question on grounds that undocumented immigrants might be afraid to respond to the census, resulting in an inaccurate tally.

Tuesday’s ruling came at a time the Trump administration is raising concerns of a humanitarian crisis at the southern border, and requiring $5.7 billion to build a wall. The stalemate with Congress has caused the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.Ross first proposed the citizenship question last March as a way to better enforce Voting Rights Act provisions that protect racial and language minorities from discrimination.

The administration is also facing five other lawsuits against the citizenship question, though they have not begun.The case is State of New York v. United States Department of Commerce, No. 1:18-cv-02921-JMF in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SOURCE-UP-BREITBART-. JOSHUA CHAPLIN- Judge Jesse Furman- Hans von Spakovsky