continued from above... RATCLIFFE: I can offer you no explanation for that. I would hope, you know, that Director Wray would care enough about the 13,000 folks at the FBI that instead of just offering platitudes about how great an organization it is would defend those 13,000 by holding accountable agents like Peter Strzok and others who, you know, tarnish the badge that the 13,000 other agents hold. And to me there's no excuse for him to be employed at the FBI at this point in time. I would hope that both Director Wray at the FBI and Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice would be asking and taking the hard stances and questions that they need to, to defend their people and their institutions and hold them accountable. They should be asking tougher questions than members of Congress are asking. BARTIROMO: Yes. On to the second point, and that is the second subset which was the Hillary Clinton investigation. You say this was supposed to be a serious investigation. I want to ask you about that because there are texts here too from one agent to another saying "I'm with her." The person, four days before Hillary was supposed to be interviewed, the agent -- or one of the agents who was going to interview her sends a text to her -- or one of the colleagues and says "just so you know, I'm with her." And this was the person that was going to be interviewing her. So let's take a short break. I want you to go through what you learned from this IG report about the Hillary Clinton investigation as well as the Trump investigation. We'll take a short break and come right back with Congressman John Ratcliffe. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BARTIROMO: Welcome back. And I am back with Congressman John Ratcliffe. And, Congressman, let me ask you about the Hillary Clinton investigation and what you gleaned from the IG report, because you said to me this weekend when we were talking about this, this was supposed to be a very serious investigation. RATCLIFFE: Right, Maria. I mean, you referred to it as the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And we do that. But remember what it really was supposed to be was an investigation into whether the secretary of state of the United States violated the Espionage Act by mishandling classified information. That's a very serious matter and it should have compelled a serious investigation. And yet the IG report confirms that exactly the opposite happened, a very light touch where Hillary Clinton got preferential treatment, limited use of a grand jury, limited use of subpoenas, immunity agreements handed out like candy to witnesses that destroyed evidence and lied to the FBI. And, you know, really speaking to the lack of seriousness, we have this tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, and five days later a team of DOJ and FBI agents and lawyers sit down with Hillary Clinton and she doesn't get asked a single question about the meeting between their boss and her husband. And, of course, there's that exoneration memo that was drafted, written, revised by the entire investigation team before 17 important witnesses, including Hillary Clinton, wherever interviewed. So, again, she was never going to be charged by Obama administration officials for the types of things that we're now finding out many of the folks involved have been accused of as well. BARTIROMO: This is all quite extraordinary. Let me ask you, is there a chance that there will be charges against Jim Comey on the very same issues that he was looking at for Hillary Clinton, the misuse of classified information? RATCLIFFE: I think there's certainly a chance. I mean, a lot of this will come forward in testimony. We expect that former Director Comey will come back because there's a lot in this IG report that is inconsistent with testimony or appears to be inconsistent with testimony that he and others have given under oath to various congressional committees. So, again, to that point, I mean, we have Andrew McCabe accused already of potentially giving false testimony. Jim Comey is certainly not out of the woods with respect to testimony that he has given or action that he has taken with regard to the handling of classified information. And there is Peter Strzok. I mean, how he is not seriously considered for obstruction of justice charges based on the text messages and the emails that we have seen that really cannot be taken out of context or read any other way. When you say you're going to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, it doesn't get any more clear than that. BARTIROMO: No. We're going to be watching your committee testimony on Tuesday. You're going to be one of the people asking the questions of Michael Horowitz. We will be watching that and certainly with great interest. Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much. RATCLIFFE: Thanks, Maria. BARTIROMO: We appreciate it. Finally, a video of the interview with Alan Dershowitw and a segment from that interview, DERSHOWITZ: Well, remember, FBI agents are allowed to be biased. They're allowed to support political candidates. That's part of the law. Where I draw the line is when an FBI agent says, we'll stop him. That's not an expression of bias. That's not saying who we're going to vote for. That sends a message to the American people that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is going to interfere in an election, in an effort to try to stop the election of one candidate rather than the other. I don't understand how Strzok can remain an FBI agent after saying, we'll stop that, we'll stop him from being president. That, to me, is where the red line was crossed. When he said, you know, we need an insurance policy, I support her, you're entitled to support a candidate if you're an FBI agent. But you're not allowed to try to use your office to stop somebody from being elected president of the United States. BARTIROMO: Exactly, we've been showing that text all morning where Lisa Page says to her boyfriend, Peter Strzok, is Donald Trump going to become president? No, right? And he says, we will stop him. And this was eight days after he was put in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation. So here's the guy who is basically running the investigation saying, we'll stop him. And by the way, four days later was the other text that you just referred when he said, we need an insurance policy. DERSHOWITZ: Right. But there are things here that are more general than just the election. For example, the jailing of Manafort on the basis of a prediction or on the basis of an assumption that he did something. You know, there are thousands of people in jail today in America, mostly poor people, who are there on the basis of preventive detention, predictions that they will do something bad or belief that they did something bad, without a trial. I would hope the Trump administration would use the Manafort case to look into the thousands of poor people who are today in prison based on an assumption or a statement by a judge that this person has committed a crime, without a trial, without any opportunity to dispute. What's happening here is we're seeing elements of denial of civil liberties. Now Republicans are concerned about these denials, as they should be. But they ought to generalize. And they ought to do the same thing they would be doing if it were poor people who were in prison rather than their friends who are in prison. This is a time to look at civil liberties from a neutral, objective point of view and improve our system considerably on both sides. Take partisanship out of it and have real reform. BARTIROMO: Right, which is why I always say this is not about Donald Trump, this is about the rule of law and this is about America. We don't want the tipping of the scales from people who have those powerful positions.
Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up? Who is he and what does he want to do? PHILIP GIRALDI • JUNE 19, 2018 I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the “free world.” The Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain their cultural and political identifies. Trump’s vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of “democratization,” which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7 group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the prospect and it just might take place. One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump’s insulting behavior towards America’s traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump’s basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of “mercantilism” over “imperialism.” The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone. My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the “agreement” are perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on. And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of “uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right.” Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post’s Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI’s website predictably calls for “fresh thinking” and envisions “the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond.” It argues that “Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left.” There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a “de-escalation zone” in the country’s southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country’s legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. And then there is also Donald Trump’s recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington’s stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating – and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden. And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with “respect.” The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn’t. Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.” As one of the twentieth century’s leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don’t be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-stand-up/
Interesting article. How differently he perceives Trump from the way Trump's supporters see him. Lots of takeaways but my biggest one is save us from the rise of the neocons!!! Anything Bill Crystsl is promoting can't be good.
This so called "investigation" of Hillary that the Dems/Libs have promoted as some kind of equal type of investigation that has been unloaded upon Trump as formal but really a witch hunt.....never really existed (well, we knew that they used some type of sham investigation in order to permit her to continue to run for President)....and here it is established that they knew that nothing was officially or formally being done against Hillary!!! HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Clinton Was Not Formally Under FBI Investigation at Any Time in 2015-2016 On Tuesday, Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified in a joint Congressional hearing to the House Oversight and House Judiciary panels about his review of the FBI’s (mis)handling of the Clinton email investigation. ....... Horowitz revealed the FBI never named a target or even a subject in the Clinton email probe! Sperry tweeted: BREAKING: IG Horowitz revealed in Senate testimony FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe. Not Mills, Abedin, Combetta or Clinton herself. “Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising” for a crim probe So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by the FBI at any time in 2015-2016, tweeted Sperry. IG HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL DURING SENATE TESTIMONY: “Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising” So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016! President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton reacted to this bombshell bias from the FBI: .@RealDonaldTrump is a subject, but Hillary Clinton was never a "subject." Outrageous. Shut the Strzok-Page-Comey-McCabe-Lynch-Yates-Glenn Simpson-Steele-Brennan-Fusion GPS-Muller special counsel "stop @realDonaldTrump" investigation down. The entire ‘FBI investigation’ into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server was a complete sham. No subjects were named, immunity was handed out like candy and Hillary was exonerated before witnesses were interviewed, including Hillary Clinton herself. Hillary Clinton’s ‘interview’ with the FBI wasn’t even under oath. Even more egregious, Hillary discussed pregnancy and babies during the majority of the 2.5 hour FBI interview because one of her lawyers was pregnant at the time. Inspector General Horowitz also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...r-fbi-investigation-at-any-time-in-2015-2016/
Even if you can only watch the first 5-10 minutes of the following video I think it is worth your time to do so. The first 27 minutes of the video discusses the current immigration crisis in the USA regarding our border with Mexico. I am praying that some progress is made very soon in addressing this crisis. There are also two other stories covered in this video. At the @27 min. mark, there is story about a secondary school in Chicago, Ill. in which a principal approved a speaker who turned his speech into a hate speech encouraging the students to hate policemen. And at the @30min. mark, the last story is about a jogger in Oakland, Calif. who "cleaned up" part of a park by throwing a homeless person's belongings into the garbage and a lake. I believe that he was out of line but I also think that this incident escalated very quickly. Imo Carlson Tucker was trying to highlight that the charges, first-degree robbery, that were brought against the jogger appeared to be false. In case you are interested in reading more about the two other stories in the video here are two related articles. Principal who sparked backlash for inviting anti-police extremist to 'Career Day' suddenly retires www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/18/principal-who-sparked... Jun 17, 2018 ...Mary Beth Cunat [principal] personally invited the anti-police activist, Ethan Ethos, to speak to sixth through eighth-grade students at Wildwood Elementary School. Ethos is a self-described “radical” who routinely posts violent anti-police rhetoric online. After a Chicago police commander was shot and killed execution-style in February, Ethos posted online, “F HIM [and] HIS FAMILY.”...Some of the parents also said Cunat brought in Ethos because she recently had been pressured to introduce anti-police philosophies to students... Jogger caught on camera throwing homeless man’s things into lake arrested: report www.foxnews.com/us/2018/...camera-throwing-homeless-man-s... Jun 12, 2018 A jogger in California who was caught on camera tossing a homeless man’s belongings into the garbage and a lake was reportedly arrested Monday on suspicion of first-degree robbery...
FBI lover Peter Strzok is escorted OUT of the agency but still in a job after his 'Stop Trump' message was revealed The FBI lawyer who had a senior role in the Hillary Clinton probe was revealed to have exchanged anti-Trump text messages with his FBI lover He was taken off the Russia probe after anti-Trump messages were revealed He texted: 'We'll stop it' in response to a message about Trump before the election He was escorted out of the FBI Tuesday, sources told CNN Still has a job in Human Resources Department (and interesting comment): Rep. Mark Meadows unmasked two of the unidentified FBI officials in the IG report. The unnamed FBI officials ¿Agent 1¿ and ¿Agent 5¿ were involved in the FBI Clinton investigation and were also engaged in a romantic relationship just like fellow FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page. One of the FBI lawyers is Sally Moyer, the other is Kevin Kleinsman (sp). Paul Sperry reported: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) just outed 2 of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG & both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in ¿counterintelligence¿ as the FBI claimed as an excuse to w/hold http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5862743/FBI-lover-Peter-Strzok-escorted-FBI.html
Watching some of the hearings today, I have a niggling suspicion that the fix is in. Comey will take the fall along with the two FBI lovebirds. Clinton is home and dry and the Muller conclusions will let Trump off the hook. The Inspector General's report was a real whitewash. All the hype over Russian interference is a distraction from the real scandal which is that the FBI in collusion with the Justice Department attempted to rig the Presidential election in Clinton's favour. That their attempts failed doesn't change or lessen the implications of what they tried to do. What I saw today looked like a show being played out to reassure the public that all is well when really it isn't. Clearly the people in control (on both sides) have no intention of putting things right. Russians spied and probably also tried to influence the election but that's what foreign governments do. The FBI, on the other hand, were like an enemy within. It's beginning to look like Comey may have been the most honest person in the entire business. His was a lose-lose situation from the get-go. I wouldn't have had his job for all the tea in China.
I stopped watching the hearings today because they were pissing me off . Sorry about the colorful word there but I was just getting angrier as I listened. I just feel, sometimes, that this is all a dog and pony show and the whole government thinks we are stupid and insignificant and they run some kind of side show to make us think something is going to change. Maybe I am just tried of all the years of bs. I believe that Trump is doing things but boy do we have a long way to go
Here is a link to the official copy of that video, sorry about that... 40:50 Tucker Carlson Tonight - Monday, June 18
I think this is the beginning of the beginning....where the undeniable situation of the weaponized Justice Dept/FBI is exposed for what it was and would continue to be w/o the forced exit now of the key traitors. Truly amazing how such plans are coming back to bite the crooks, publicly being displayed, due to their own cocky self assurance that somehow they could carry off such a coup w/o anyone finding out. What was predicted is beginning to happen...that once the exposure occurs, with the written evidence that can't be denied....by the characters themselves who believed they were beyond any kind of consequence....rather Shakespearean.....they would begin, in order to cover their own _ _ _ _ _, the attempt to throw the rest of the guilty, one by one, under the proverbial bus. We know now that Comey is himself under investigation! Today was some evidence of that beginning to occur by one of the leaders of the gang, Mr. Comey himself, as his own crimes are now reflecting partially those he had been in charge of calling out in Hillary!: Comey: Hillary Clinton Still Doesn’t Understand Why She Was Under FBI Investigation ....Moderator Holger Stark asked Comey if he would apologize to Clinton after the Department of Justice Inspector General report revealed that Comey had used his personal email to conduct FBI business. “No, and here’s why: again I don’t want to criticize her, but it shows me that even at this late date she doesn’t understand what the investigation in her case was about,” Comey said. “It was not about her use of personal email system, and she didn’t get that during the investigation.” “That was not what it was about. It was about communicating about classified topics on that system,” Comey said. https://ntknetwork.com/comey-hillar...derstand-why-she-was-under-fbi-investigation/ It was obvious in those hearings today....just the beginning, since Horowitz is leading up to the ongoing investigations that will delve into the real action which took place later that completed the written promises of "we'll stop it". I'm still getting in a supply of the popcorn for that!
In this video, Sean Hannity covers the IG hearings from June 19, 2018 and a little on the immigration crisis at the southern border of the USA, US withdraws from UN Human Rights Council as Haley decries 'cesspool of political bias' by Frank Miles June 19, 2018 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...as-haley-decries-cesspool-political-bias.html Haley announces US withdrawal from UN Human Rights Council U.S. ambassador to the United Nations blasts the Council for its 'politicized scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records.' The Trump administration announced Tuesday it was withdrawing the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council, with U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley calling the 47-member council “a protector of human rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.” Haley noted the move came after a year where “we did not see any progress.” Haley threatened the pullout last year, citing longstanding U.S. complaints that the council showed a “chronic bias” against Israel. Calling it “an organization that is not worthy of its name,” Haley decried the membership of countries like China, Cuba and Venezuela — which also have been slammed for human-rights violations. The announcement, though, also came just a day after the U.N. human rights chief denounced the Trump administration for separating migrant children from their parents. “I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from our human rights commitments. On the contrary. We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights,” Haley said. “We did not make this decision lightly. When this administration began 17 months ago, we were well aware of the enormous flaws in the Human Rights Council. We could have withdrawn immediately. We did not do that. Instead, we made a good faith effort to resolve the problems.” Haley said that if the council does reform, the United States “would be happy to rejoin.” “The Human Rights Council has long been the foe of those who truly care about human rights around the world. The United States has proven, yet again, its commitment to truth and justice and their unwillingness to allow the blind hatred of Israel in international institutions to stand unchallenged,” Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon reacted. “We thank President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Ambassador Nikki Haley for their leadership and call on the moral majority at the UN to hold all of its institutions accountable.” Trump long has been critical of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, which he has accused of showing a bias against Israel. Haley last year slammed the body for its “relentless, pathological campaign” against Israel. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton opposed the creation of the body when he served as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under President George W. Bush. Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for Secretary-General António Guterres, spoke for the greater U.N.: “The Secretary-General would have much preferred for the United States to remain in the Human Rights Council. The U.N.’s Human Rights architecture plays a very important role in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.” “The U.N. Human Rights Council is headed up by some of the worst human rights violators in the world. They are actually in the leadership of the Council year after year after year,” Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said. “They are anti-Israel, over and over again. That is their constant drumbeat. So, I get it, we can try to be there, so we can try to be a participant in it. But when you are there, we vote no every time, and it just becomes a problem every time as well. So it doesn’t seem to make a difference whether we are there or not there.” A senior official added that the U.S. gave the United Nations’ Human Rights Council a year to reform, and said it had failed to do so. The council, according to the official, protects human rights abusers and shows bias in rendering decisions. The official claimed countries like China, Egypt and Russia worked to undermine U.S. reform efforts, and that the council has passed more resolutions this year condemning Israel than Iran, Syria and North Korea combined. The official says the Trump administration believes staying in the council lends it credibility, and only will rejoin if it reforms. The move extends a broader Trump administration pattern of stepping back from international agreements and forums under the president’s “America First” policy. Although numerous officials have said repeatedly that “America First does not mean America Alone,” the administration has retreated from multiple multilateral accords and consensuses since it took office. Since taking office, the administration has announced its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, the U.N. educational and cultural organization and the Iran nuclear deal. Other contentious moves have included slapping tariffs on steel and aluminum against key trading partners, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. Embassy to the holy city from Tel Aviv. Haley has been the driving force behind the latest move, which would be unprecedented in the 12-year history of the council. No country has ever dropped out voluntarily. Libya was kicked out seven years ago. The move could reinforce the perception that the Trump administration is seeking to advance Israel’s agenda on the world stage, just as it prepares to unveil its long-awaited peace plan despite Palestinian outrage over the embassy relocation. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is visiting the Middle East this week as the White House works to lay the groundwork for unveiling the plan. Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly, Rich Edson, Ben Evansky and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tucker is probably the most honest, courageous and professional journalist in America today. And he has a wonderful family.
It looked more like a winding down than a beginning. Horowitz did in his report what Comey had done - let Clinton, Obama and others off the hook. More than likely, there are a few influential Republican Never Trumpers named Romney and Bush who would have had some explaining to do had all the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing been exposed. In a similar situation to Comey, it's CYA time for Horowitz just as it was for Comey. A real cleaning of the swamp would remove the immunity given to all the Clinton operatives and have them testify before a judge. Not all of them would plead the 5th Amendment.
The "drip drip" approach is slowly winding its way through the corruption and slowly exposing the rotten system. Don't wish for overnight destruction....just pray....and look for an eventual involvement throughout the world...which btw we're also witnessing in those European countries suddenly rebelling against the globalists. It will only be as great as the will to detach from the "goodies"...and that will be a painful adaptation for the better. HERE’S WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO FBI AGENTS WHO TOOK GIFTS FROM REPORTERS The Department of Justice’s inspector general is investigating a series of episodes where FBI employees received free perks from journalists. The probe is still underway, but the inquiry’s general contours are well-established, and penalties surrounding the alleged conduct will likely be rigorous, former assistant FBI director Ron Hosko told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Because this conduct was highlighted in the report and diminishing to the FBI’s reputation, I think the Office of Professional Responsibility will take it very seriously,” Hosko said. “We’ll likely see some examples come out where people are getting harsh punishment.” The Thursday report focused on how the Justice Department and the FBI handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server. It also identified specific instances where employees accepted gifts from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks, meals and admittance to nonpublic social events. http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/fbi-agents-investigated-over-gifts/ MARK MEADOWS DROPS MULTIPLE BOMBSHELLS IN HEARING ABOUT CLINTON, RUSSIA PROBES North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows made two startling claims in a House hearing on Tuesday, asserting that there is “growing evidence” that FBI officials altered documentation of witness interviews in the Hillary Clinton and Russia probes. The Republican also revealed the name of an FBI attorney he believes is the bureau employee who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation in February after he was found to have sent anti-Trump text messages. Meadows made the revelations in a round of questioning with Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. ...... “I think the other thing that I would ask you to look into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed,” Meadows said. “Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.” Meadows was referring to forms that FBI agents use to summarize witness interviews. He told reporters after Tuesday’s hearing that he has seen evidence that 302s filled out during the Clinton and Russia investigations have been changed. He also said he has “more information” about the alleged alterations. Horowitz appeared to acknowledge that he is aware of allegations about edited 302s. “If I could just mention, we have been getting those kind of referrals and as often happens when we issue reports like this we get other information coming to us, and we are intending to follow up on that,” Horowitz said. Meadows was not finished dropping bombshells. http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/meadows-clinton-probe-bombshells/
In the Sean Hannity video that I posted above, Gregg Jarrett states at @ the 22min. mark, "wait until the second part of the inspector general's report comes out it will not be good for James Comey". This was in reference to IG Michael Horowitz and FBI Director Christopher Wray stating that James Comey is under investigation. The "part 2" is not officially a part 2 but it will consist of any investigations like that of James Comey that came about as a result of this initial investigation into the 2016 election. I believe that other MOG members have stated as much on this thread already. These investigations are like spider plants sprouting new spider plants - new investigations, which makes sense. So this is not the end at all, the MSM would like you to believe that it is the end because they want the focus to be on the immigration crisis which is their new way to garner votes at the mid-term elections. With that said, there is a discrepancy in opinions between the FBI Director Christopher Wray and the IG Michael Horowitz. Wray says that there was no political bias or improper considerations in the investigation regarding the 2016 election and Horowitz along with many others including the House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy believe that there was. From the following video Wray states, "The report does identify errors of judgment, violations of or even disregard for policy and decisions at the very least with the benefit of hindsight were not the best choices.". He also accepts the findings of the report which state that there is a culture of leaking at the FBI. I hope that behind closed doors FBI Dir. Wray appears much stronger than he did during this press conference, he does want to give the impression that this is the case. Imo, it appears that at least 5 FBI employees should be fired but possibly as many as 20. **** Here is Tucker Carlson's program from last night on the topics of immigration, the IG report and a few other stories. The latest in regard to the immigration crisis is that the Democrats are blatantly referring to President Trump and others in his administration as Hitler. Here are some articles related to some of the other topics included in the above video, New Jersey arts festival shooting leaves 22 injured, 1 suspect dead, officials say · June 18, 2018 Nearly two dozen people were injured after gunfire broke out early Sunday during a fight at an all-night art event in New Jersey’s capital city, leaving one suspect dead which authorities said appeared to be caused by "neighborhood beef."… School honoring Confederate general to be renamed for Obama · June 19, 2018 ...The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports the Richmond School Board voted 6-1 Monday to rename J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School to Barack Obama ... Attacking ‘toxic masculinity’ won’t stop sexual assault · November 10, 2017 ...But guess what? Masculinity is not toxic after all. In the hands of someone who’s been raised in a religious home, with parents who stayed together, and with the influence of good role models, masculinity can be very positive, indeed... In addition, I will give you another copy of Tucker's previous night's program just in case the one in my other post is unavailable to you,
You can read the extremely sick tweet by this uncontrolled Fonda brain at the link. But then....it's another "Fonda". The poison within the boils being lanced lately is overflowing with the diabolical effect. MELANIA CALLS SECRET SERVICE AFTER ACTOR PETER FONDA CALLS FOR BARRON TRUMP TO BE KIDNAPPED The Office of the First Lady has notified the Secret Service after actor Peter Fonda called for kidnapping Melania and Donald Trump’s son, Barron, The Daily Caller has learned exclusively. In a tweet sent Wednesday, the actor called for Barron to be “ripped” from Melania’s arms and put in a cage “with pedophiles.” ..... Spokesperson for the first lady Stephanie Grisham told The Daily Caller that the Secret Service has been “notified” of the threat. “The tweet is sick and irresponsible and USSS has been notified,” Grisham said. Fonda has been on a twitter tirade against White House officials, particularly females and children, over the past few days. He called for the public caging and rape of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen in a tweet Tuesday. In the vulgar tweet, Fonda said “Kristjen Nielsen is a lying gash that should be put in a cage and poked at by passersby.” He continued, “The gash should be pilloried in Lafayette Square naked and whipped by passersby while being filmed for posterity.” http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/20/m...peter-fonda-threatens-to-kidnap-barron-trump/ There are other horrendous spewings by this sicko but enough is enough for here.
The libs are desperate to divert public attention from the damning DOJ/FBI criminal acts being zeroed in on now, so their own long tolerated and instigated methods of holding families of illegal immigrants over the many years from Bush throughout the Obama years is now being used to attempt to lay the current but ongoing conditions at the feet of those who inherited this massive problem. Linked to from Drudge headline today: HERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF OBAMA’S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DETENTION FACILITIES THE MEDIA WON’T SHOW YOU http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities
Guess I ought to post this at "The Vatican Has Fallen" as well: A Catholic Bishop Threatening Excommunication Over Immigration Policy? By Deal Hudson Last week, Bishop Edward Weisenburger of Tucson called upon his fellow bishops to issue a “prophetic statement” on immigration that would support “canonical penalties for Catholics who are involved” in implementing President Trump’s immigration policy. Why would the thought of excommunication even enter the mind of Bishop Weisenburger? Does he mean to say that any Catholic Border Patrol Agent or ICE Officers enforcing the law are “obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin”? If so, what is the “grave sin” that meets the criterion of excommunication according to Canon 915? The 19,500 employees of the U. S. Border Control and the 20,000 of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have the job of enforcing the law of securing our national borders. (There are approximately 20,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements Officers. Of the 19,437 Border Agents, 16,605 are assigned to the Southwest Border.) None of these are responsible for our nation’s immigration laws or for the administrative policies of implementing them. These are the same agents and officers who, under President Obama, deported a record 2.4 million immigrants between 2009 and 2016. Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of La Raza called Obama the “Deporter-In-Chief.” Where was the bishop’s outrage then, towards President Obama or the ICE and the Border Patrol employees enforcing his policies? Bishop Weisenburger believes that these same employees, working under President Trump, are now in spiritual danger; canonical penalties are needed “for the salvation of those people’s souls.” It should be noted that Bishop Weisenburger mentioned other “border bishops” who shared his pastoral concern. Imagine being a Border Patrol officer reading the paper at breakfast and learning you are targeted for “canonical penalties” just for doing your job. He asks himself, "Do I have to confess my occupation to my priest in confession?" So much for the “who am I to judge” spirit expressed by Pope Francis. The Bishops have already started preparation to deny President Trump a second term in office. I’m sure I'm not the only Catholic to think it unnecessary, even cruel, to threaten all the Catholics among the 39,500 federal employees of ICE and the Border Patrol with excommunication. Some bishops justify their high dudgeon by arguing that asylum is a life issue, “an instrument to preserve the right life.” By using the term “asylum,” the bishops are trying to link immigration directly with escape from torture or persecution. That argument digs the Bishop’s hole deeper. Let’s assume immigration actually has the status of a life issue. If so, where are the bishop’s public threats of excommunication toward all the Catholics in Congress who support abortion-on-demand and the funding of Planned Parenthood? (Only two of the 89 Catholic Democrats in Congress are pro-life.) Let’s face it, the bishops have lost all credibility when it comes to abortion. Any attempt to connect the moral seriousness of abortion to immigration is a non-starter. The laity won’t buy it any more than they did in the 2016 election. Bishop Weisenburger himself resides in a state where three of its Catholic members of Congress are rated 100 percent pro-abortion by Planned Parenthood (Tom O’Halleran, Raul Grijalva, and Ruben Gallego, all Democrats). Has he publicly stated any concern for the salvation of their souls? What makes the situation all the more absurd is the fact that immigration is not a life issue the way abortion is a life issue. There is no single solution to the immigration problem — it’s a prudential matter allowing disagreement among Catholics regarding law and policy, including disagreements with the Bishops. Many bishops have become dismissive of this point when it is raised. Newark’s Cardinal Tobin thinks those who call immigration a prudential matter are seeking to reduce its importance, concluding, “I don’t have a whole lot of time for people who reduce things to prudential judgment.” What does the Cardinal think about the Catechism’s teaching on just war? “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (2309). Immigration policy is precisely that kind of issue. Abortion, however, is wrong “under any circumstance” (2258). Cardinal Tobin has no time for such distinctions. However, the crucial distinction is alive and well in the 2015 “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” — “Decisions about candidates and choices about public policies require clear commitment to moral principles, careful discernment and prudential judgments based on the values of our faith.” The intention of using excommunication to force Catholics into line about immigration policy is demeaning. It won’t be viewed as an opportunity for spiritual healing but as punishment for being part of the Trump administration. For decades, pro-life Catholics have begged the bishops to get tough with pro-abortion politicians. A few stepped up to the plate only to be scorned and isolated by their brother bishops (Bishop Gracida, Bishop Bruskewitz, and Cardinal Burke). This level of hostility towards Trump, his staff, employees, and supporters is dividing even further an already divided Church. I’ve yet to hear a single bishop object to threats of excommunication over disagreements on immigration policy. None of them, evidently, wants to disrupt the episcopal momentum towards the defeat of President Trump in 2020. https://www.newsmax.com/dealhudson/...eisenburger-immigration/2018/06/20/id/867276/
Now you can breath again....as if this wasn't expected...."Trump's policy??" Pope must not be all that happy with Italy's new populist govt either. Then again I wouldn't think he and his Vatican personnel are effected all that much by the consequences of the globalist goals. Exclusive: Pope criticises Trump administration policy on migrant family separation VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis has criticised the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant families at the Mexican border, saying populism is not the answer to the world's immigration problems. Speaking to Reuters, the Pope said he supported recent statements by U.S. Catholic bishops who called the separation of children from their parents "contrary to our Catholic values" and "immoral". "It's not easy, but populism is not the solution," Francis said on Sunday night. In a rare, wide-ranging interview, the pope said he was optimistic about talks that may lead to a historic agreement over the appointment of bishops in China, and said he may accept more bishops' resignations over a sexual abuse scandal in Chile. Reflecting at his Vatican residence on his five years as pope, he defended his leadership of the Roman Catholic Church against criticism by conservatives inside and outside the Church who say his interpretation of its teachings is too liberal. He also said he wanted to appoint more women to top positions in the Vatican administration. One of his most pointed messages concerned President Donald Trump's zero-tolerance immigration policy, in which U.S. authorities plan to criminally prosecute all immigrants caught crossing the Mexican border illegally, holding adults in jail while their children are sent to government shelters. The policy has caused an outcry in the United States and has been condemned abroad as videos emerged of youngsters held in concrete-floored enclosures and an audio of wailing children went viral. U.S. Catholic bishops have joined other religious leaders in the United States in condemning the policy. "I am on the side of the bishops' conference," the pope said, referring to two statements from U.S. bishops this month. "Let it be clear that in these things, I respect (the position of) the bishops conference." ....... The pope said populists were "creating psychosis" on the issue of immigration, even as ageing societies like Europe faced "a great demographic winter" and needed more immigrants. Without immigration, he added, Europe "will become empty." https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusiv...stration-policy-migrant-family-092151372.html Don't you love the use of "immigration" as some kind of explicit definition for the unbridled loss of control of cultures and borders? How disingenuous, to be kind!
http://www.thechristianreview.com/bishop-gracida-calls-excommunication-over-immigration-policy-scandalous/ Bishop Gracida Calls Excommunication Over Immigration Policy “Scandalous” 5 mins ago The Christian Review In a radio interview taped today with me, Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, sharply criticized comments made by Bishop Edward Weisenburger of Tuscon regarding canonical penalties for civil servants implementing present immigration policy. “It’s scandalous for the bishop to say that! They did not write the law but are enforcing it….it’s absurd and it’s idiotic.” In the early 1970s, Bishop Gracida was appointed Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Migration and Tourism with the responsibility for overseeing the work of the large Migration and Refugee Services Department of the N.C.C.B. During his spent 14 years in that position, he worked with both the United States and Mexican governments, and their border patrols, on immigration reform — “to relieve the suffering of people crossing the deserts led by ‘coyotes.'” He knows what he is talking about. Bishop Gracida went on to say that Catholics must recognize, first of all, that the “current administration is charged with enforcing laws passed by President Obama.” Neither the Trump Administration nor the GOP has passed any immigration laws, he added. This above is only a portion of what Bishop Gracida had to say about the present controversy over immigration. The conversation naturally turned to the issue of abortion which he said had become “toxic” among his fellow bishops. My interview with Bishop Gracida on ‘Church and Culture‘ will be broadcast on the Ave Maria Radio Network this Saturday at 3 pm and Sunday at 7 am. Prepare for some straight talk!
