Election 2020: America needs a leader, not a liar like Clinton

by Rich Panessa


Will it be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Several "protest candidates" have sprouted up which usually indicates they don’t have enough money, or they’re in it to try to upset the election results. As a former member of The Spectrum & Daily News
’ Writer’s Group for six years, I prognosticated about the country’s future under an unqualified Barack Obama. His dynamic speeches inspired the nation, but failed to ignite a fire under him. Predictably, his two terms as president doubled our debt and welfare enrollment, sent race relations back to pre-MLK, while his naive "lead-from-behind" foreign policy became a joke to our enemies, and a death knell to our allies. Nice job.

As if his tenure wasn’t destructive enough, Obama highly recommended Hillary Clinton as his successor. Hillary is an unscrupulous politician who has made a fortune on the backs of the taxpayers. As Bill Clinton’s "point woman" during the scandals that plagued them in Arkansas, she skillfully managed to keep him a few steps ahead of the hangman. Her public life (and Bill’s) has been one shameful scandal after another with recent breaches in national security, "pay for play" implications between foreign governments and the State Department, while lying to Congress. Her investment outcomes have been "miraculous," while record books and sometimes "Arkansas bodies" disappeared just like in an old B-movie mystery.

The difference is the Clinton who-doneit never ends ... and they’re never solved. Whitewater, File Gate, Travel Gate, Bi! ll’s impeachment and trial, a fistful of sexual assaults, Monica, Vince Foster, or why they were gifted a million-dollar New York home by none other than the current governor of Virginia. Then there’s the current FBI and IRS investigations into the Clinton Foundation. Move over Bonnie and Clyde. Donald Trump is not a politician but a businessman who turned his father’s $10 million dollar real estate company into a $10 billion empire. In his ascent, he honed his business skills alongside other powerful moguls like Helmsley, Blau, and Bloomberg, et al., not to mention savvy foreign investors from China, Russia and Japan. He has keen management skills and is a top-notch negotiator.

Like him or not, Trump will re-establish America’s financial and production superiority to regain worldwide trade advantages. He’s a staunch supporter of law ! enforcement and is committed to modernize the military. He’ll allow companies with trillions offshore to repatriate that money with minimal penalties as long as the money remains in the U.S., to help pay for infrastructure investments and tax cuts across the board. His leadership and motivational skills will inspire Congress to reach impossible goals with precision, on time, and unlike before, under budget. For these reasons, regardless of his political missteps so far, I believe he’ll lead our nation from political correctness into an era of "Americanism." Most media outlets in their liberal bias criticize Trump for his gaffes and inexperience at campaigning, but admit he’s not a liar or a thief. He’s someone who will get much done, won’t speak in platitudes, and vehemently protect and defend the Constitution of United States, while never placing himself above the welfare and safety of this nation.

Could you make the same claim about Hillary Cl! inton? Rich Panessa is a resident of St. George.


Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report

by Bryan Chai


Few things are sweeter than watching a Democratic plot blow up spectacularly in their faces.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has been thrust into the public spotlight as a result.

Look, the entire thing is murky.

There is a startling lack of evidence, especially considering the assault allegedly took place over 30 years ago, so it’s unfair to paint Kavanaugh in a negative light. Not that that’s stopped far-left Democrats from trying to do so.

But by that same token, Ford, and all sexual assault victims, should still be given an opportunity to be heard. Sexual assault is never okay, and any allegation is worth looking at.

So let’s pump the brakes on presuming innocence or guilt, and refrain from attacking either Ford or Kavanaugh until due process plays out.

You know who does deserve to be attacked? The Democrats who have weaponized an alleged sexual assault victim’s apparent trauma to attack a Supreme Court nominee whose only sin seems to be that he was nominated by President Donald Trump.

It’s disgusting, reprehensible and deserves to be looked into.

That’s exactly what’s going to happen, according to Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Appearing on CBS’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, Cotton reamed Democrats for failing to uphold the confidentiality that Ford had requested when she first made her allegations against Kavanaugh.

“They have betrayed her,” Cotton said. “She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh.”

Regardless of the veracity of Ford’s accusations, it’s inarguable that Democrats have opted to use her plight in an attempt to take down Kavanaugh. One of the tactics that Democrats have been accused of is supplying Ford with lawyers who were looking to serve the Democratic Party before their own client.

Mitchell: Were you even told that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to fly out to your home to meet you?

Remember how the Kavanaugh hearing was initially delayed because Ford didn’t want to fly from California to Washington? Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley apparently made it crystal clear that the GOP was willing to bring the hearing to her in California.

Did Ford’s lawyers, supplied by Democrats, intentionally not tell her that important bit of information to drag the process into the mid-terms? I’m not saying they did, but if it smells like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s not an iguana.

Cotton wasn’t about to let that type of behavior fly, however.

“(Democratic leadership) pointed her to lawyers who lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to California to interview her,” Cotton said on “Face The Nation.”

Cotton then dropped some bad news on those lawyers.

“Those lawyers are going to face a D.C. bar investigation into their misconduct,” Cotton said. Ouch.

They should absolutely be investigated if they misled their client in any way, shape or form to help out the Democrats’ attempts to derail the Kavanaugh investigation. That is antithetical to everything the American justice system stands for.

Everything the Democrats have done to stop Kavanaugh from being nominated has had zero repercussions. That may be about to change in massive fashion.

And it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of people.


Not a Single Named ‘Witness’ Agrees with Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story

Christine Blasey Ford head shot

MSNBC screen shot of Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. (MSNBC screen shot)

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s bombshell sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have taken yet another turn after the last named witness came forward with what they knew.

Based on what the witness had to say, the current narrative doesn’t bode particularly well for Ford.

Leland Ingham Keyser, the last named witness, is also “a longtime friend of Ford” according to CNN.

Advertisement - story continues below

CNN had learned that Republican staffers were attempting to interview anyone who could contribute information regarding the alleged incident. Keyser, by being a named witness, was an obvious choice to ask.

Keyser’s lawyer, Howard Walsh, issued a statement Saturday night addressing the allegations.

TRENDING: Alert: Ted Cruz, Wife Attacked — Escape After Staff Struggle With Door

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” Walsh said.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, promptly issued a response to Walsh’s statement.

Advertisement - story continues below

“It’s not surprising that Ms. Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it,” Katz said in a statement. “It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford, of course, will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.”

Despite the explanation from Katz, this is still a notable blow against Ford’s accusations, especially considering what the other named witnesses had to say about the alleged incident.

Will Democrats be successful in derailing Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

First and foremost, Kavanaugh has vociferously denied the allegations.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” Kavanaugh said when the accusations first surfaced. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

Besides Kavanaugh and Keyser, Mark Judge and Patrick J. Smith were also named as witnesses. Their statements reflect Keyser’s.

Advertisement - story continues below

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Smith issued an even stronger statement than his other named witnesses.

RELATED: Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth then went on to defend Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

For the record, every named witness in Ford’s accusations has now categorically denied ever attending such a party or witnessing sexual assault.

Whether your believe Ford or not, you can’t deny that these latest developments do not bode well for her claims.




Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

by Jack Davis


A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

There's a well-established legal term of art for what Cristina King Miranda is peddling today: HEARSAY. http://archive.is/xz6AN 


“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading


Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Chris Costlow @TheChrisCostlow

Well, SOMEONE'S lying. Ford said she told NO ONE about it until 2012. Seems you shot yourself in the foot with a tweet and I'm guessing your name isn't going to go away from the news cycle any time soon. You go girl! You've done more to ruin Ford's cred than the Republicans.


Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

Politics US News

Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

By Jack Davis
September 19, 2018 at 11:17am

A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

Do you believe Christina King Miranda?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

TRENDING: Franklin Graham Calls Out ‘Socialist-Leaning Dems’ in Wake of Kavanaugh Accusations

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in a statement, CNN reported. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Mark Judge, who was mentioned in Miranda’s deleted tweet, said in a letter to senators that he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”










Fox Bombshell: Peter Strzok’s FBI Mistress Lisa Page Worked for Clinton, According to Text Messages

by Cillian Zeal


According to Fox News, a newly uncovered text message chain seems to confirm that FBI lawyer Lisa Page — one of the two lovebirds whose texts have cast doubt on the objectivity of the Department of Justice’s investigations surrounding the 2016 election — claims that she interned for one of the Clintons.

“Get inspired and depressing reading that article about how Obama approached the mail room,” Page said in a text to Strzok on Jan. 19, 2017 — the last full day of the Obama administration.

Needless to say, it was very different when I interned there under Clinton.”

The article she was discussing was a New York Times piece that described the kind of mail the outgoing president would receive.

“At the beginning of his first term, President (Barack) Obama said he wanted to read his mail. He said he would like to see 10 letters a day. After that, the 10LADs, as they came to be called, were put in a purple folder and added to the back of the briefing book he took with him to the residence on the second floor of the White House each night,” the article, titled “To Obama With Love, and Hate, and Desperation,” read.

“Choosing which letters made it to the president started here in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, in the ‘hard-mail room,’ which had the tired, unkempt look of a college study hall during finals — paper everywhere, files stacked along walls, bundles under tables, boxes propping up computer monitors dotted with Post-its, cables hanging.”

Page is 39 and graduated American University in 2000. It’s unclear which Clinton she would have interned under; President Bill Clinton was leaving office as she was graduating and Hillary Clinton was taking her role as the junior senator from New York in 2001.

Page declined to comment on the latest text.

While the text messages that received the most attention this week involved ones which plotted leaks to the press, the Clinton message — assuming it’s accurate and Page is telling the truth — would also present a conflict of interest.

Both Page and Strzok were involved in the FBI’s Midyear Exam investigation — the codename for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified email on a private server during her time at the State Department.

That wasn’t all, though.

“Strzok and Page both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election. Page served on the special counsel’s team on a short detail, returning back to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017,” Fox News reported.

“Page, during her time at the FBI, was a deputy of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was long criticized by Trump and congressional Republicans for his ties to the Democratic Party. McCabe’s wife received donations during a failed 2015 Virginia Senate run from a group tied to a Clinton ally, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while the Clinton email probe was underway.”

So, is this a conflict of interest? More evidence of just how much of a morass the swamp really is? Overthinking a text message? Or none of the above?

Well, the simple answer is that we don’t know, inasmuch as Strzok, Page and everyone else around them have tried to denude these text messages of all context. Strzok’s appearance before Congress certainly didn’t elucidate much, although it may have inspired plenty of GIFs.

However, if this is true, Page was compromised from the beginning — and that’s a serious problem for anyone trying to push this as mere Jim Garrison-esque conspiracy theorizing. Time for answers, folks.


NY Post Bombshell Report Means Rosenstein Massively Rigged Cohen Trial

by Lisa Payne-Naeger


Sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump knew what he was really getting himself into when he decided to run for president and drain the swamp.

Everywhere he’s turned he has met roadblocks, opposition and betrayal as he tries to infuse policy he thinks will make America great again.

And ever since he was accused of colluding with Russia to sway the 2016 election, the constant turn of events have played out like a bad daytime drama. The latest twist in the plot centers around Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and if reports are true, he could be in a heap of trouble.

On Saturday, Michael Goodwin wrote in the New York Post that Rosenstein ordered United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman to recuse himself from the investigation into the Michael Cohen case, which in turn would leave his office staffed with Obama administration holdovers from Preet Bharara’s tenure as Berman’s predecessor.

Berman was appointed to the Southern District of New York position by President Trump after he fired Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee.

Since his firing, Preet has made his feelings known that he is not a Trump supporter. The bias is clear. Looks like the president made a good call on that one. Chris Strohm of Bloomberg reports the significance of this move as they allege the strings of this case are being pulled not by the Justice Department, but by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

“Cohen’s guilty plea was secured as part of an investigation led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, not by Special Counsel Mueller or Justice Department headquarters, another frequent target of the president’s derision. Instead, the deal was made by Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the New York office,” he wrote.

“But neither Rosenstein nor Mueller is calling the shots for the investigation in New York, according to two people familiar with the matter. The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, commonly known as SDNY, has the independence to take investigative steps and charge people without approval from Rosenstein, one of the people said.

So while Rosenstein was consulted about Cohen’s plea, which implicated Trump in campaign finance crimes, he didn’t sign off on it or approve it, the person said. It’s not clear whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from Mueller’s probe extends to the investigation in Manhattan.”

To sum up the significance of this move, let’s just say that the SDNY is now driving the bus on any developing investigation into the Cohen case. While the Justice Department still holds oversight as all U.S attorneys still answer to Rosenstein, previously the SDNY has enjoyed independence of operation outside the U.S. Attorney’s office.

And the lines of communication are open and free between SDNY prosecutors and investigators in Robert Mueller’s office.

Bloomberg also states: “Rosenstein made the decision to give the Cohen case to SDNY following a referral from Mueller. That also ensured the investigation could continue even if Trump somehow managed to fire the special counsel, a politically dangerous move that many Republicans have warned the president to avoid.”

So, if it is true that Rosenstein intentionally moved the trial to SDNY, it might be more than a suspicious coincidence that a Trump-appointed attorney was ordered to recuse himself from the case leaving it to less-unbiased attorneys general.

What a mess and an endless saga of betrayal. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in February of 2017, only to have Sessions recuse himself from the Russia investigations in the beginning of March of that year.

This left Rod Rosenstein in charge of overseeing the Russia investigations and he appointed Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor in May of 2017. Since that time there has been no evidence of Russian collusion, but the Mueller team has bull dogged members of Trumps inner circle and charged them with various unrelated crimes.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These latest allegations are almost a kin to jumping the shark for television sweeps week.

I guess we will see who wins in the ratings race in November.



Report: Liberal News Outlets Dominate Google Search Results with 96 Percent of ‘Trump’ Stories

by Jack Davis


New evidence that technology’s giants are muzzling conservatives has emerged after the web site PJ Media wanted to find out if Google did in fact lurch to the left when users wanted the latest information on President Donald Trump.

Writer Paula Bolyard on Saturday reported on the results of her experiment, which the site was fully upfront about admitting was not scientific.

The headline of her article said it all: “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”

The concept was simple. Bolyard typed “Trump” using Google’s “News” tab and let Google do the rest. “I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets,” she wrote, noting that no single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results, and that CNN, dubbed by Trump as “Fake News” for its coverage of him, is far and away the leading site listed

She then looked at the first 100 items, and the trend continued. There were 21 articles from CNN, 11 each from The Washington Post and NBC, and 8 from CNBC. Other sites at the top of the list included The New York Times, Atlantic, Politico, Vox, CBS and the Wall Street Journal.

Fox News was listed twice.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said that tech giants are trying to influence the midterm elections.

“This is their great offensive to try to silence differing opinion,” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends,” Fox News reported. “And make no mistake, it’s not because the conservative voices are offensive. It’s because they are effective.”

Kirk said conservatives must fight the tech giants.

“We need to push back because it could be a huge, huge problem moving forward,” he said.

“The very bottom line is the left hates the idea that there are other ideas. And they control these public forums or these vehicles of conversation. They’re going to use every piece of power and influence they can to try to suppress our voice. And we cannot stand for it,” he added.

Bolward was hardly the first to suggest that Google buries the right while promoting the left.

A 2017 study by the website “Can I Rank” said that the bias in Google was clear.

“Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results,” the study said.

“Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint,” it added.

Google denies doing anything to skew the results.

“Google does not manipulate results,” said Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels. “There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results.”

Bolyard’s conclusion was that Americans need to be aware that their searches are being manipulated.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability —  and perhaps even desire — to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image,” she wrote.




Report: Comey Misled Congress. His FBI Examined Less Than 1% of Hillary Emails

by Cillian Zeal


When he appeared before Congress to explain his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, former FBI Director James Comey assured America that his wizards had worked day and night to make sure that most of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop had been scrutinized before Election Day to make sure voters knew the facts.

“And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails, they found classified information on Anthony Weiner,” Comey said.

“Somehow, her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we’ve only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.”

And so they found that most of it was “duplicates” and nothing new was being found. He assured us all that he had “reviewed all of the communications” and everything was kosher. Or as kosher as it was in the summer, when it wasn’t terribly kosher but you know, whatever. Case closed, right?

Well, not so much. On Thursday, RealClearInvestigations published a piece which revealed “virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.”

I mean, that could be said about so much that’s Comey-related, but this is particularly interesting.

So, firstly, as for that wizardry stuff: “a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.” That’s less than 1 percent.

Or that whole thing about them working shifts like Bullitt protecting Johnny Ross: “Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

The day before? That’s not coincidental at all. It’s almost as if they were rushing to reach a predetermined conclusion which would never happen because James Comey is a man of honor.

“Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” that had been examined in the case which had originally “exonerated” Clinton, an official with knowledge of the investigation said.

“Yet even the ‘extremely narrow’ search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said,” RealClearInvestigations revealed.

“Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.”

It’s almost like Comey was convinced Hillary would win and didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize it. But it’s not like an FBI official would do something because he was convinced someone would win. No one of his stature would do that, though, right?

“Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated ‘damage assessment’ directive,” RCI noted.

“The newly discovered classified material ‘was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review,’ the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

“Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day,” they noted. “One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to ‘bury’ the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.”

There’s a long list of Comey mistakes in RCI’s investigation, and it’s worth pointing out that RCI is one of the more objective sources that there is. What they point out is that Comey either misled Congress about the extent of the problem, was misled by his own staff or outright lied.

This appears to come dangerously close to perjury, considering what we now know about the matter. What they did was simply disregard the investigation because they wanted it closed before the election, lest they be accused of negatively affecting Clinton’s chances for election.

Whoops.



BIill Clinton's Loving Wife

by Dick Morris

 

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone.  I offer a few corrections.
 
Bill says:  "In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor."

Facts are:  Hillary's main extra-curricular activity in ' Law School ' was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a 'Federal Agent.'  She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a Children's rights project for poor kids.
 
Facts are:  Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party.  She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him

Bill says:  "Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers."
 
Facts are:  She flunked the D.C. bar exam, 'Yes', flunked it, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar.  She had no job offers in Arkansas , 'None', and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there.  She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
 
Bill says:  "President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman."
 
Facts are:  The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy.  Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.
 
Bill says:  "She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital."
 
Facts are: Yes she did.  But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, for a substantial fee.  She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance."
 
Facts are:  Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP.  It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott.  I know; I helped to negotiate the deal.  The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement.  Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says:  "Hillary was the face of America all over the World." (LOL)
 
Facts are:  Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House.  Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for Children's and Women's issues."
 
Facts are:  Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation.  One set up a national park in Puerto Rico .  A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer's or other conditions.  And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire N.Y. delegation.  Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize Woodstock .

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our Country (that's you and me) when it comes to the 'War on Terror'.
 
1.  She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
 
2.  She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA .
 
3.  She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
 
4.  She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA .

5.  She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the Military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.
 
One cannot think of a single 'Bill', Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our Country in the 'War on Terror'.  But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our Country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.  Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
 
Share this with everyone you know, ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong.  Think about it - he's (Dick Morris) said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he'd be liable for 'Defamation of Character' !
 
And you better believe Hillary would sue him. Her winning in 2020 means the final death knell for America!  Her whole public life has been a LIE.
 

 


Dick Morris was a former political advisor to President Bill Clinton







Senate Intel Chair Reprimands Brennan, Provides Cover for Trump Stripping Sec. Clearance

by Randy DeSoto


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sharply rebuked former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday for his allegation in an Op-Ed this week that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential race.

Burr further contended that if Brennan’s claim is purely political with no facts to support it, President Donald Trump was completely justified in pulling his security clearance.

On Wednesday, the White House announced it was revoking the former Obama administration official’s clearance explaining, “Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Brennan responded in an Op-Ed in The New York Times the following day titled, “President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash.”

The piece is subtitled, “That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him.”

Brennan pointed to Trump’s public call in the summer of 2016 for Russia to find his rival Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails as an indication collusion occurred between the GOP candidate’s campaign and Moscow. The former CIA head further contended that if Trump was willing to make such a public call, the question is what was happening privately.
“While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services,” Brennan wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash,” he then proclaimed.

Brennan concluded his piece with an accusation that Trump’s decision to pull his security clearance was “politically motivated” to protect himself.

“Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else,” he argued, “so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve.” [Or to continue his assault on windmills in the finest tradition of Don Quixote - Ed]

Burr issued a statement in response to Brennan’s Op-Ed noting that the former CIA director included no firm evidence of collusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in early 2017.
“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power,” Burr said. “If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?”

Burr observed that if Brennan’s assertion is based on information he has received since leaving office, publicizing it constitutes a breach of intelligence.  Further, “If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.”

The North Carolina senator then turned to the other alternative: Brennan’s allegation is purely a political attack.

“If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch.”




Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."