More at DAILY CALLER.
DOJ
Former U.S. Attorney: Shoes Will Drop! (+ Article Dump)
“We Are Going to See Several Criminal Charges Against a Number of DOJ-FBI”
Here are the recent articles I have been reading….
- Jail the Guilty, Repeal FISA
- ‘NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!’: Trump blasts out revelations about new messages between FBI lovers showing Obama wanted to be briefed on EVERYTHING happening in Clinton email investigation
- FLASHBACK: OBAMA INSISTS HE DOESN’T GET INVOLVED IN FBI INVESTIGATIONS
- Grassley-Graham Memo: Obama Administration Utilized ‘Pee’ Dossier Four Times to Spy on American
- Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations to Congress
- ACE OF SPADES: The Morning Report 2/8/18
- 90% of VIOLENT CRIME SPIKE in Germany attributed to REFUGEES…
- AMAZING! President Trump’s Approval Rating Tops Barack Obama BY 4 POINTS at Same Time of His Presidency
- FBI Informant: Russians Routed Big Bucks To Clinton Foundation To Grease Skids For Uranium Monopoly
- Steele’s Credibility—and the FBI’s—Keeps Unraveling
- DOJ Official Who Worked On Clinton, Russia Investigations Steps Down For Personal Reasons
- LESS REDACTED
Where Is The Dangerous Irresponsibility Jeopardizing National Security
HOT AIR pulls out an excellent point/quote by Jonathan Turley:
….However, he points out another problem which isn’t getting nearly as much attention. What happened to the dire threats to national security we were told were contained in this memo?
My greatest concern is what is not in the [memo]: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”
Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.
The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security…
The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.
In that first paragraph above, Turley is quoting the statement Pelosi put out about the memo on Tuesday. However, she made a similar claim on CNN during that contentious interview with Chris Cuomo. “Putting this aside in terms of tit for tat, which you seem to—well, with all due respect to you—trying to make it look like Democrats vs. [Republicans]. It isn’t about that,” Pelosi said. She added, “It’s about our national security.” In the same interview, she said, “We’re not talking about some issue that we’re having a fight about, we’re talking about our national security.”
The point is, this was raised many times this week by Democrats eager to prevent the release of the memo. In retrospect, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought it represented a grave threat to national security. Maybe the subsequent release of the Democrats’ own memo will shed some additional light on whatever threat they see in it, but at the moment it looks as if those warnings were overblown. As Turley puts it, “it proved to be an empty ‘grave’ after weeks of overheated hyperbole.”
Brian Mudd Fills In For Mark Levin — Nunes Memo
Brian Mudd fills in for Mark Levin, on the day of the Nunes’ memo release. Brian goes through the incontrovertible facts… which have not (and will not) be shown to be false. Here is Mudd’s TWITTER:
READ THE MEMO (Via Powerline)
Greg Jarrett & Tom Fitton Discuss The Memo
Hannity interviews Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and Greg Jarrett of Fox News regarding the legalities and criminal activity involved in the Nunes Memo revelations. KEY PLAYERS are named!
✦ Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch | Twitter
✦ Greg Jarrett of Fox News | Twitter
READ THE MEMO (Via Powerline)
Obama Admin/DOJ Broke FISA Law
GATEWAY PUNDIT says of the following report:
A Report was released in April of 2017 that received no publicity until recently.
The report was a ruling on the results of an investigation or audit into FISA searches made by Obama’s FBI and DOJ during Obama’s time in office.
The report shows Obama’s FBI and DOJ participated in widespread criminal searches and criminal sharing of data with non authorized entities outside of government.
On April 26, 2017, an unsealed FISA Court Ruling unveiled a number of criminal activities that Barack Obama’s FBI and DOJ participated in during his time in office. The report to date received little attention. Now interest is brewing due to the recent actions of Congress and the report that is expected to be released in the upcoming weeks….
Here is the report referenced in GP’s post:
FISA searches can be conducted on any foreign person without issue. All non-U.S. citizens on the entire planet can be searched 24/7/365 no issues. FISA searches on foreign people have no restrictions at all.
However, when the FISA search returns data identifying a U.S. citizen, everything changes. Those changes are under the identifying term “702”. A “702” is an American person.
All U.S. citizens are protected by the fourth amendment against unlawful search and seizure. All searches of U.S. people must have a valid reason. Title III says any search for a potential criminal investigation must have a judicial warrant. Additionally, any criminal search of the FISA database must also have a warrant (technically, ‘approval’).
Any FISA searches of foreign subjects, might need FISA Court approval if the returned data includes a U.S. subject (“702”).
[…..]A non-compliance rate of 85% raises substantial questions about the propriety of using of [Redacted – likely “About”] query FISA data.
(SEE ALL the pertinent released FISA/FBI documents at THE MARKETS WORK)
To wit, Democrat Representative Adam Schiff — leading on the “Russia Collusion” and impeachment thingies — says the public should not view the memo because the American public would not understand its talking points without the accompaniment reports to which the memo refers (GP h-t):
CABRERA: “Why not allow peel to look at it and let Americans make the decision for themselves about whether it’s useful information or not?”
SCHIFF: “Well, because the American people unfortunately don’t have the underlying materials and therefore they can’t see how distorted and misleading this document is. The Republicans are not saying make the underlying materials available to the public. They just want to make this spin available to the public. I think that spin, which is a attack on the FBI, is just designed to attack the FBI and Bob Mueller to circle the wagons for the White House. And that’s a terrible disservice to the people, hard working people at the bureau, but more than that, it’s a disservice to the country.”
Lo-and-behold… Schiff’s wish is gonna be granted — although I doubt that is what he wanted. Ooops.
Again, GATEWAY PUNDIT:
According to the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) huddled together Saturday to discuss a “never-before-used procedure” for releasing the “shocking” FISA abuse memo.
Washington Examiner reports:
There’s no doubt Republicans want the public to see the classified memo. To get it out, they are studying a never-before-used procedure whereby House Intelligence Committee members would vote to make the memo public, after which the president would have five days to object.
If the president had no objection, the memo would become public after those five days. If the president did object, the matter would go to the full House, which could vote to overrule the president’s objections and release the memo anyway.
In addition to the procedure, the three lawmakers are plotting how to go about releasing additional intelligence in support of the FISA memo. In a statement to CNN, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said he is in favor of the move.
CNN reports:
Republicans appear to be charging ahead with their plan to publicly release the document and potentially some of the underlying intelligence so long as sources and methods are not disclosed. “If we’re going to go through the process anyway of declassifying the memo, are there some of the supporting documents that might not reveal sources and methods but might answer key questions that the memo does raise?” said Rep. Matt Gaetz […] “Chairman Goodlate and Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Nunes each sort of have jurisdiction over elements, and they are meeting and discussing a process now that I think will lead to greater transparency.”
[…..]While one may not think these are related…. they are. We are uncovering a massive cover up of illegal activity meant to sway an election:
- Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?
- ‘Unbelievable’: FBI Agents’ Missing Text Messages Compared To Lois Lerner Email Scandal
- The Obama Administration’s ‘Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton’ Starting To Leak Out, According To Former Fed Prosecutor
- Texts Between Peter Strzok And Lisa Page: AG Lynch Knew How The Clinton Email Case Would End
- Report: FBI Agents’ Texts Suggest Loretta Lynch Knew Outcome of FBI Hillary Probe in Advance
- BREAKING: FIVE MONTHS Worth of Peter Strzok Text Messages GO MISSING – FBI Cites Mystery “Glitch”
- Justice Department admits IRS wrongdoing, agrees to $3.5 million settlement with tea party groups
- Obama’s Weaponization of Government
Sean Hannity Making Clear Democrat Crimes
Hannity brings on Reps. Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz to discuss FISA (1-18-18)
Sean Hannity (1-19-18) — will start at the 8:25 mark:
Rush Limbaugh Talks About the DOJ/FBI/FISA Memo
The news that was revealing to me was that Christopher Steele didn’t write the dossier much at all. It was turned over to Russian sources who wrote most of it. WOW! Hillary and the DNC literally paid for Kremlin propaganda to use against another campaign/sitting President.It is worse than Watergate because it is using U.S. resources and intelligence agencies to overthrow another political figure. Rush Limbaugh touches on the Intelligence Committee (FBI/FISA) memo that all of Congress has seen now.
The revealing it to all of Congress was a party line vote by-the-way… the Democrats who originally saw it did not want others to see it. And the reason Democrats haven’t leaked the information therein so far is because they KNOW it will harm their efforts against Trump… nor is the anti-Trump media wanting the information, as, they want to protect Democrat efforts. The plot has thickened a while back as well.
Rep. Devin Nunes Wants To Share What He Saw
Last night on Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream, there was an interesting segment with a relatively unfamiliar face. Policy Advisor and Author, Sidney Powell, appeared on the show to discuss the concluding DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, aspects to the current congressional investigations. (CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE )
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told fellow Republicans he has witnessed evidence demonstrating a clear “abuse” of government surveillance programs by FBI and Justice Department officials, according to a new report. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)….
…House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told Republican colleagues in two closed-door meetings this week he has seen evidence that shows clear “abuse” of government surveillance programs by FBI and Justice Department officials, according to three sources familiar with the conversations, raising more questions about whether the controversial anti-Trump dossier was used by the Obama administration to authorize surveillance of advisers to President Trump.
The California Republican made his comments in private meetings with GOP colleagues as he tried to round up votes in favor of renewing a key section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as Section 702, which eventually passed in the House on Thursday.
That part of the law specifically gives the U.S. government the power to get access to communications, such as emails or phone calls, of foreigners outside the United States who may be plotting a terrorist attack but does not allow the government to target Americans.
[….]
Nunes privately told GOP lawmakers that he will be pushing as early next week to secure access for all 435 members of Congress to see the same documents to decide for themselves what happened, as some of his Republican colleagues have already said they believe the dossier was a significant factor in surveillance of Trump officials.
“But I think that there is a broader question here,” conservative North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows told Fox News this week. “Why would the FBI use a Democrat paid-for dossier to actually surveil another campaign?”…
When a Congressman want to show ALL of Congress something — you know it is serious.
The DOJ Cannot Indict a Sitting President
Mark Levin is the master at this stuff. He takes his legal knowledge to his radio show:
On his Monday radio program, Levin cited a DOJ memorandum from 2000 affirming the department’s position in 1973 that the Constitution does not allow the president to be criminally indicted. In 1973, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum stating that indictment proceedings would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency,” as criminal proceedings would severely handicap the president from performing his “onerous” and “unique” duties under the Constitution, thereby short-circuiting the entire executive branch.
“A criminal proceeding against the president is in some respects necessarily political in a way that criminal proceedings against other civil officers would not be,” Levin read from the memorandum. “In this respect, it would be incongruous for a jury of only 12 to undertake the unavoidably political task of rendering judgment in a criminal proceeding against a sitting president.”
Levin explained that the memorandum is arguing that it is incredibly difficult for 12 people on a jury and a judge to leave politics out of a verdict on a legal matter involving the president.
Soon after, Alan Dershowitz got the cue and he explained on FOX (http://tinyurl.com/y72l2ozl):
✦ “The Justice Department has twice ruled in a long extensive memo, which I just read this morning, for the second or third time, stating clearly that the president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, and tried while serving in office. The only mechanism the Constitution provides is that he could be impeached, and once impeached and removed from office, he can then be charged with a criminal trial. But a sitting president cannot — according to the Justice Department, be tried.” ~ Dershowitz (BREITBART)
It looks as though the Democrats are stuck in the mud a bit. But they will continue to hurl mud… it’s what they do:
“Why the hell isn’t the press covering this?” ~ James O’Keefe
Via HOT AIR:
If a Trump SuperPAC was exposed inciting violence at Hillary rallies, do you think the media would cover it? The question answers itself, doesn’t it?
Yet the latest bombshell videos from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas have been reduced to “kid on a milk carton” status by network news outlets and most of the cable news networks.
Yesterday on WMAL in Washington DC I interviewed O’Keefe about the videos and the apparent MSM blackout…
ZERO HEDGE IS ON IT!
Earlier today we wrote about a new Project Veritas undercover video that uncovered several democratic operatives openly discussing, in explicit detail, how to commit massive voter fraud. One of the operatives was a person by the name of Robert Creamer who is a co-founder of a democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners. Within the video, an undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally by having them work as contractors, to which Creamer can be heard offering support saying that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick” (see: “Rigging Elections For 50 Years” – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2“).
Unfortunately, the embarrassing video caused Creamer to subsequently resign from consulting the Hillary campaign as he issued a statement saying that he was “stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign” over fears that his continued assistance would be a distraction for the campaign.
But voter fraud isn’t Creamer’s only criminal specialty. A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that Creamer spent 5 months in federal prison back in 2006 for a “$2.3 million bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”
So, with that kind of history, you can imagine our surprise when we discovered that a Mr. Robert Creamer showed up on the White House visitor logs 340 times beginning in 2009 when Obama took office and culminating with his latest visit in June 2016. Moreover, in 45 of those instances, Creamer was scheduled to meet with POTUS himself. Perhaps this is just two old Chicago “community organizers” hanging out?…
(See the visitor log at ZERO HEDGE)

The Morning Answer Takes A Wiki-Leak “Break”
The Morning Answer discusses some of the Wiki-Leaked emails and discusses the anti-Catholic/Evangelical discussions, as well as the importance of showing collusion between the Dept of Justice working with the Hillary campaign on issues. IN OTHER WORDS, the DOJ is picking sides with a campaign… colluding against the other campaign. CRAZY!!
- The Morning Answer Show;
- Donate to these two wonderful causes: https://www.prageru.com/donate | and | https://home.isi.org/donors
- 2 of 4
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
