The LDAMM — Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots — think your eyes are off the ball. They think you don’t matter. No. Wait, In their minds they know you don’t matter. If you don’t occupy a massive American Rat Cage — a large urban city — as far as the LDAMM are concerned: you don’t count. You are nothing. You hinder them. Your vote means nothing. Your thoughts or wishes are less than significant.
Watch. And please be reminded of the arrogance, indifference and dismissiveness of the LDAMM.
You don’t count, suburbans. You don’t count, American Taxpayers. You don’t count, those who hold religion dear. You don’t count, people who believe in the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
Your stupid aborted infants need to die. Who fights for tissue? Your stupid Bible needs to die as well. Outdated values, outdated thoughts. Guns, God and all your stupid backward ways.
Play it again. And then this, from Barack Hussein Obama.
The LDAMM believed it then. And they believe it now. You’re intellectually inferior to Leftists. You don’t possess the brain power. You lack the ability to recognize their erudite, cultured and superior views and arguments.
They believe that you are weak, disinterested, distracted and indifferent.
I’ll wager there are any number of persons in DC, Brandywine, Alexandria, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Falls Church, Reston, Rockville, College Park, Great Falls, McLean, Chevy Chase, North Arlington and Georgetown — amongst many, many other locales –whose personal radar has emerged and is sounding bells and klaxons in a fashion heretofore never experienced.
I can hear them. And I think they can too: footsteps.
Furthermore, the smell of fear — sweaty, clammy, dripping rivulets of fear coursing down the small of a back, staining the armpits, moistening the crotch, invading the breath, gathering on a forehead — is becoming endemic in the northeast. It’s a sour smell, cloying, inescapable, permeating the offices of many bureaucrats in DC, male and female. It’s the abject smell of fear. And it’s also the smell of emptying bowels and a mad rush to cover up and bury evidence.
Who knows? Who knows what? And who could potentially or will likely “roll” on others in order to save themselves? Who will cut a deal? More importantly: who will cut a deal first?
Yes, it’s the “beginning of the end.” But for whom?
— ????????????????????™️ (@RealMAGASteve) April 19, 2019
Attorney General William Barr is now the most dangerous man in the United States of America.
Listen to how they must denigrate him. Listen to how they must minimize him. Listen to how they must utilize every device, word, phrase, pejorative, in order to derail his future work and to absolutely destroy his credibility and destroy him as a human being.
Because here is what an actual Attorney General of the United States sounds like:
“I’m not going to discuss my decision, I will lay it out after the report is out.”
“I’m not going to characterize or discuss the contents of the report.”
This is Demorat Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland trying to get information out of AG Barr prior to the release of the report a few weeks ago. This is called sticking to your guns.
The Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots clearly recognize that AG William Barr is a DC veteran and doesn’t buy very many political narratives. He’s seen most everything and seems to be afraid of little. He appears to be primarily interested in the law, and said this three weeks ago:
And there is more that he said in the Senate Judiciary Committee:
This was sufficient to raise Demorat hackles and cause immediate concern, as in “Is this guy not going to play along?”
Three weeks ago, AG Barr caused sphincters all across DC to either slam shut or empty their watery contents when he related the following:
“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.”
“I think spying did occur.”
The words that loosened thousands of sets of bowels in the northeast.
And with that, the gloves were off. William Barr had to be destroyed by any means necessary or available. It was clear that he was no limp-wristed, wimpy-voiced, diaper-wearing Jeff Sessions — but an actual adult who could think for himself and recognized his duties and responsibilities as Attorney General of the United States.
He also knows what he will and will not do. And what is lawfully obligated to do or not do. AG William Barr is essentially setting behavior parameters for the children.
A single word: “No.” Then: “Why should you have them?”
Hence these unfettered, unreasonable and baseless attacks. Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots know precisely what William Barr will do or is already doing. He is going to walk backwards in time to determine how the FISA warrant was acquired,
Lindsay Graham nails the primary issue here on the Sean Hannity Show. As an aside, it’s interesting how it’s the third time I’ve had to find this video you YouTube, their having shut down and eliminated two other prior videos.
What was so terrible about this video according to YouTube?
A truth too close to the bone?
Perhaps the LDAMM — Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots think that, instead of “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” they believe Attorney General William Barr said “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!”
Because: make no mistake, this is war. Leftists and Demorats are fighting to ensure that the entire 44th presidency doesn’t explode into the face of Barack Hussein Obama and, moreover, that those persons operating the pedals and levers — such as Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohn, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and many, many others — aren’t themselves placed under indictment, arrest and perhaps even sentencing in a federal facility.
Because I firmly believe now as two years ago when I made this statement, that what we are seeing is a soft coup — simply not an active utilization of the US military might — against a citizen of the United States. It was a soft coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and then a sitting President of the United States.
The heat is on. The persons I enumerated are hearing footsteps and the stench of fear is thick. Here are a number of revelations recently discovered involving the FBI, CIA and many other individuals in the systemic focus on removing Donald Trump by any means necessary, legal or illegal.
NSA recommends dropping controversial mass surveillance program, report says
by Christopher Carbone
The National Security Agency has reportedly recommended that the White House abandon a controversial surveillance program that collects vast amounts of information about Americans’ phone calls and text messages, claiming the legal and logistical burdens of maintaining it outweigh its benefits to the intelligence community.
The recommendation, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal and involved input from NSA, the FBI and the Department of Justice, appears to represent an about-face regarding a program – long criticized by privacy advocates – that federal officials previously said was vital to finding and disrupting terrorist plots against the United States.
The once-secret program known as Stellarwind, which was revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and has been seen as not viable for some time now, is now seen as something that provides limited intelligence to the U.S., according to the Journal.
U.S. Intelligence Institutionally Politicized Toward Democrats
Former CIA analyst says agencies dominated by liberals
by Bill Gertz
The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have become bastions of political liberals and the pro-Democratic Party views of intelligence personnel have increased under President Donald Trump, according to a journal article by a former CIA analyst.
John Gentry, who spent 12 years as a CIA analyst, criticized former senior intelligence leaders, including CIA Director John Brenan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, along with former analyst Paul Pillar, for breaking decades-long prohibitions of publicly airing their liberal political views in attacking Trump.
The institutional bias outlined in a lengthy article in the quarterly International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence risks undermining the role of intelligence in support of government leaders charged with making policy decisions.
Gentry stopped short of saying the widespread liberal bias of intelligence officials has influenced intelligence reports and products. However, he concludes that “bias may have crept into CIA analyses.”
Facts in evidence. Didn’t we all already inherently intuit this?
But wait; wasn’t it the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots — to include Jimmy “The Leak” Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper — who absolutely insisted that the alphabet agencies were entirely apolitical and unbiased?
Since April of 2016, Obama’s campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.
Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.
The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings last April that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.
FBI found Hillary Clinton’s emails in Obama White House, former top official says
by Daniel Chaitin, 4-23-19
A former top FBI official said a repository of Hillary Clinton’s emails was obtained by the Obama White House.
As part of a court-ordered discovery related to Clinton’s unauthorized email server, Bill Priestap was asked by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Clinton, her State Department staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained” by the FBI.
He divulged a nonexhaustive list, which included the Executive Office of the President.
Stop. Do you doubt for even a microsecond that Barack Obama had no idea what was being done to Trump and his campaign by a host of persons and the alphabet agencies? Can you really believe Obama was and is that ignorant of politics?
Other people mentioned were former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jacob Sullivan, and Justin Cooper, former Clinton information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano, the State Department, Secret Service, and Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly.
Priestep answered questions in writing and under oath as part of U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth’s ruling earlier this year that discovery could commence examining the former secretary of state’s use of the server, encompassing Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap.
Even more important:
Judicial Watch shared Priestep’s recent testimony on Tuesday, at a time when Republican allies of President Trump, as well as the Justice Department and its inspector general, are looking into possible misconduct by top DOJ and FBI officials stemming back to the Obama administration to undermine Trump as a candidate and president.
“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated — Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”
DOJ inspector general ‘homing in on’ FBI’s use of unverified Steele dossier
by Jerry Dunleavy, 5-8-19
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating the FBI’s reliance on the unverified dossier produced by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in the surveillance of a Trump campaign associate “despite questions about [Steele’s] credibility.”
Citing unnamed sources, the Wall Street Journal reports Horowitz “is homing in on” and “has been asking witnesses about” the FBI’s “treatment of information” provided by Steele, described as a “key source”, who was used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
This is part of Horowitz’s broad investigation into alleged FISA abuse and more.
Drops of sweat. Footsteps. More underarm deodorant required.
Steele’s dossier was funded in part by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign through the Perkins Coie law firm and opposition research group Fusion GPS, which had reached out to and contracted Steele.
The new Wall Street Journal report says the inspector general’s office “has been asking why the FBI continued to cite Steele as a credible source in the renewal applications.” And a specific focus of Horowitz’s team is apparently “a news report cited extensively in the [FISA] applications that appeared to bolster Steele’s credibility… [which] said U.S. intelligence officials were investigating allegations similar to those Steele had raised.”
James Comey’s planet is getting noticeably warmer. Attorney General William Barr’s emissions are the suspected cause.
Barr has made plain that he intends to examine carefully how and why Comey, as FBI director, decided that the bureau should investigate two presidential campaigns and if, in so doing, any rules or laws were broken.
In light of this, the fired former FBI director apparently has decided that photos of him on Twitter standing amid tall trees and in the middle of empty country roads, acting all metaphysical, is no longer a sufficient strategy.
No, Comey has realized, probably too late, that he has to try to counter, more directly, the narrative being set by the unsparing attorney general whose words in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week landed in the Trump-opposition world like holy water on Linda Blair. Shrieking heads haven’t stopped spinning since.
And so we’ve seen Comey get real busy lately. First he penned a curious op-ed in The New York Times. Then a Times reporter, with whom Comey has cooperated in the past, wrote a news article exposing an early, controversial investigative technique against the Trump campaign in an attempt to get out front and excuse it. Next, Comey is scheduled to be encouraged on a friendly cable news “town hall.”
In the op-ed, Comey trotted out his now-familiar St. James schtick, freely pronouncing on the morality of others. He sees himself as a kind of Pontiff-of-the-Potomac working his beads, but comes across more like an unraveling Captain Queeg working his ball bearings.
Jimmy “The Leak” hears footsteps. James Clapper hears footsteps, from TheFederalist.com:
President Obama’s top intelligence official stated categorically that no evidence existed of Trump-Russia collusion. So why did Rosenstein appoint Mueller two months later?
Long before the special counsel probe ended in confirming there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia, the U.S. government knew there was no evidence of a vast conspiracy between Trump and a foreign power.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate “ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials” on May 17, 2017. President Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper had access and was privy to all the “evidence” the U.S. government collected since the Russia investigation began in July 2016.
From July 2016 until Clapper’s appearance on “Meet the Press” in March 2017, not one shred of evidence linked anyone in Trump’s campaign to allegations listed in the Christopher Steele dossier or Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos’s meeting with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Clapper stated to Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 5, 2017 that the National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency had collected “no evidence” regarding “improper contacts” between Trump and Russia.
Speaking of more alphabet agencies, veteran journalist Bob Woodward is getting into the act, from DailyCaller.com:
BOB WOODWARD: FBI AND CIA HANDLING OF STEELE DOSSIER ‘NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED’
by Chuck Ross, 4-22-19
Legendary reporter Bob Woodward said Sunday that the FBI and CIA’s reliance on the Steele dossier “needs to be investigated” now that the Mueller report has undercut many of the salacious document’s claims.
Woodward reiterated in an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace his past statements that the dossier “has got a lot of garbage in it.”
Woodward said that he recently learned that the CIA included outtakes from the dossier in a draft of the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that laid out Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box.”
But wait; listen to this:
“I think it was the CIA pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out,” said Woodward.
PETER STRZOK SUSPECTED CIA WAS BEHIND INACCURATE MEDIA LEAKS
by Chuck Ross, 5-6-19
Peter Strzok suspected CIA employees were behind inaccurate leaks to the press regarding possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia, according to an email the former FBI counterintelligence official sent to colleagues in April 2017.
“I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some of the leaks,” Strzok wrote in an email to FBI colleagues on April 13, 2017.
Cue Dan Bongino: (Start at 3:10 — end at 11:00).
But where do we go? Where do we start? Rep Jim Jordan nails it.
We need to go back and look at how this fake “Russia Collusion” narrative started. The start impacts EVERYTHING else. pic.twitter.com/NQXUi7gt7i
Of course, Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler held a vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 8th which, in a completely partisan fashion of 24 to 16, found AG Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over the unredacted version of the Mueller report.
Trump asserts executive privilege to keep full Mueller report SECRET from Congress as his AG Bill Barr is held in CONTEMPT for refusing to hand it over
by Emily Goodin, 5-8-19
House Democrats voted to find Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to hand over the material
The vote in the House Judiciary Committee was along partisan lines: 24 to 16
The final vote came after a 6 and a half hour hearing on the contempt citation
It now goes to the House floor for a vote by the full chamber
President Donald Trump claimed executive privilege over the full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller
‘The President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege,’ White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler slammed the move, calling it ‘a clear escalation in the Trump administration’s blanket defiance’ of Congress
President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed executive privilege over the full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and House Democrats found Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand it over.
The vote to on contempt charges, held in the House Judiciary Committee, was along partisan lines – 24 Democrats versus 16 Republican – and now goes before the full House chamber for a vote, where Democrats hold a 38-seat majority.
After the full House votes the issue is expected to end up in the courts.
But wait. This is all predicated on a falsehood. An offer was already made to the Demorats to view a much less redacted version. They adamantly refused to even to that. From Politico.com:
Dems reject Barr’s offer to view a less-redacted Mueller report
by Kyle Cheney & Andrew Desiderio, 4-19-19
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are rejecting an offer from Attorney General William Barr to view a significantly less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, contending that Barr is too severely limiting the number of lawmakers who can view it.
“Given the comprehensive factual findings presented by the special counsel’s report, some of which will only be fully understood with access to the redacted material, we cannot agree to the conditions you are placing on our access to the full report,” Pelosi, Schumer and other House and Senate Democratic committee chairs wrote in a letter to Barr on Friday.
But you had the opportunity. You still have the opportunity. From NationalReview.com:
Top Dems Now Have Access to All But Two Full, Seven Partial Lines of Mueller’s Obstruction Report
by Jack Crowe, May 8, 2019
As Congressional Democrats prepare to hold attorney general William Barr in contempt over his supposed lack of transparency, its worth remembering that he has made available to top Democrats the entirety of volume II of the Mueller report, save for two full and seven partial lines, which were redacted to protect grand jury secrecy in keeping with federal law.
In order to provide lawmakers with greater transparency into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Department of Justice placed a less-redacted version of his report in a secure room on Capitol Hill, and granted access to that room to congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of intelligence and judiciary committees in the House and Senate.
As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.
Here is what those redactions physically look like. These black marks are to what Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler is objecting. Look very closely.
And there are two very important reasons why conditions were placed.
The Democrats say Barr’s offer, which would allow just 12 senior lawmakers and certain staffers to see the fuller version of the report, also fails to guarantee lawmakers access to grand jury material. They say they’re open to “discussing a reasonable accommodation” but that members of investigative committees — such as the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee in each chamber — require access as well.
Once taken out of a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) the contents will be leaked by Demorats, period.
Grand Jury information cannot be made public. From the Criminal Resources Manual, the US Department of Justice, Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prohibits “an attorney for the government” from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, except as otherwise provided in the rules.
Sebastian Gorka addresses that very issue here.
Further, Rep Jim Jordan reveals it’s all a political ploy by Jerry The Hutt and the Demorats anyway.
Can you imagine being a member of the Leftists, Demorats or American Media Maggots today?
First, you lost the presidency to Orange Man Bad. Despite the numerous illegal, corrupt tricks you pulled involving the FBI, CIA, NSA and the FISA court. Then the OMB started to do precisely what he said he was going to do. He made two SCOTUS appointments, reduced regulations, eliminated positions and brought a lot of manufacturing back to the United States. He has kept us as safe on the border as federal courts would allow. Black and Hispanic unemployment is at its lowest rate in roughly FIFTY years. The economy is doing very well.
Then you banked on Robert Mueller coming back with Kill Recommendations against Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head. $25 million dollars and two years later, utilizing an attorney staff comprised of nothing but Demorats, Mueller couldn’t make that conclusion. No connection between Trump, Russia, elections and whatnot. No outright charge of obstruction.
Now it’s time to attack new Attorney General William Barr because he’s making noise like he’s going to do what any real AG would do: look into the dossier, the FISA warrant and spying in general against an American citizen. Yes. SPYING.
Attorney General William Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Department of Justice’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election, and his refusal to testify before House Judiciary Thursday, both revealed much about the new attorney general and the Democrats who sought to question him.
At their heart, clownish performances aside, the hearings confirmed what we already knew: President Trump was legitimately elected, despite President Obama’s knowledge of Russian interference attempts, and Democrats still can’t come to grips with this reality, two and a half years later.
She nailed it here:
Democrats are so afraid of an attorney general – finally – manifestly willing to do his duty to expose the rot, corruption, mendacity, and betrayals in our law enforcement apparatus working hand in hand with political partisans in the media and in elected government, that they are taking ever-riskier gambles.
It’s time to ask these questions:
What if powerful people — Leftists, Demorats — fall?
What if find collusion, corruption and conspiracy between Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, and many others? What if it leads as I fully believe it does, right up to and into the Oval Office of Barack Hussein Obama himself?
Isn’t it odd how we’re discovering, with each passing day, that the very things Demorats are accusing Trump of, they themselves are guilty of — and he isn’t?
How will this affect Demorats in their 2020 presidential travails?
Just ask the LDAMM — the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots. They’re all colluding and have been doing so, ever more cemented than before, since November 9th of 2016, when the worst calamity in the history of history occurred: Hillary Clinton was not elected as 45th president of the United States.
Despite every possible lever having been thrown, every shitty deal cut, every corner clipped, every US counterintelligence agency up and alerted then thrown against the OMB himself: the Orange Man Bad. Yes. Despite all that, Hillary Clinton was not anointed president, as was her official right. After all, it was “her turn.” Don’t you guys get that?
He should never have won. Ever. You know, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head: Donald John Trump.
The mantra now, besides the explosion of every -ist, -ism and -obe on the planet laid at the feet of Donald Trump, is that the United States is clearly plummeting towards doom.
Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April
by Craig Bannister
The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force fell to a record low of 4.2% in April, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday show.
In April, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos, aged 16 and up, was 4.2%, down from 4.7% in March – breaking the record low of 4.3% set two months earlier in February. BLS began tracking Hispanic-Latino employment data in 1973.
The number of unemployed Hispanics fell to 1,198,000 – the fewest unemployed since August of 2007 (1,190,000) and a decline of 165,000 from 1,363,000 in March of 2019.
The number of Hispanics employed fell to 27,348,000 from 27,566,000 in March and off from its record high of 27,701,000 in December 2018. The number of Hispanics participating in the workplace increased as Hispanics’ labor force participation rate fell to 65.9% from 67.0% in March.
Job Creators Network President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz says Hispanics’ job opportunites have benefited greatly from President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies:
“One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Trump economy has been Hispanics, whose entrepreneurial talents have been harnessed in this climate of deregulation and tax cuts. While Democrats play class warfare and identity politics, President Trump’s policies are creating a booming economy that is lifting all boats.”
Some more numbers?
Hispanic-Latino employment statistics for February 2019:
Unemployment rate: 4.2%, down from4.7% in March.
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population (16+ years old): 43,289,000 up from 43,205,000 in March.
Number Participating in Labor Force: 28,546,000 down from 28,929,000 in March.
Labor Force Participation: 65.9, down from 67.0% in March.
Number Employed: 27,348,000 down from 27,566,000 in March.
Number Unemployed: 1,198,000, down from 1,363,000 in March.
Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953
by John Carney
The unemployment rate for women in the U.S. workforce fell to 3.4 percent in April, the lowest rate since September 1953.
The unemployment for women fell below 4 percent in March 2018 for the first time since the dot com boom in 2000. It has remained below 4 percent in 12 out of the last 13 months.
The longest streak of below 4 percent unemployment was 18 months starting in 1952. The record low was 2.7 percent in May 1952.
Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, cited a slightly different statistic that is also at the lowest level in over 60 years. Unemployment for women over 20 years old fell to 3.1 percent.
Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor’s degrees in April
by Joseph Lawler
Unemployment for workers without bachelor’s degrees fell to the lowest rate in 19 years in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, a sign the recovery is benefiting the people most in need of help as it stretches toward a 10th year.
Unemployment for workers without four-year or graduate degrees fell to just 3.5% in April, the lowest such mark since the 3.4% rate in April 2000, which was the lowest recorded, with data going back to 1992.
That statistic, which is adjusted for seasonal variations, represents workers above the age of 25 without associate’s degrees or who didn’t finish college, people with only high school degrees, and high school dropouts. Those groups generally have much higher unemployment rates.
Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring
by Christopher Rugaber
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring accelerated and pay rose at a solid pace in April, setting the stage for healthy U.S. economic growth to endure despite fears of a slowdown earlier this year.
Employers added 263,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dropping to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop partly reflected an increase in the number of Americans who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, matching March’s year-over-year increase.
Friday’s jobs report from the government showed that economic growth remains brisk enough to encourage strong hiring nearly a decade into the economy’s recovery from the Great Recession. The economic expansion, which has fueled 103 straight months of hiring, is set to become the longest in history in July.
“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.
Read that again. You know, the crap that exited the pie-holes of the LDAMM. “Recession recession recession.” Except:
“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.
Jobs surge in April, unemployment rate falls to the lowest since 1969
by Jeff Cox
The U.S. added 263,000 new hires in April, easily beating Wall Street expectations of 190,000.
The unemployment rate fell to 3.6% vs. 3.8% expected and the lowest since December 1969.
The U.S. jobs machine kept humming along in April, adding a robust 263,000 new hires while the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest in a generation, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Nonfarm payroll growth easily beat Wall Street expectations of 190,000 and a 3.8% jobless rate.
Average hourly earnings growth held at 3.2% over the past year, a notch below Dow Jones estimates of 3.3%. The monthly gain was 0.2%, below the expected 0.3% increase, bringing the average to $27.77. The average work week also dropped 0.1 hours to 34.4 hours.
Unemployment was last this low in December 1969 when it hit 3.5%. At a time when many economists see a tight labor market, big job growth continues as the economic expansion is just a few months away from being the longest in history.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.
Bad News for Liberals? ABC Can Barely Speak of 50-Year Low in Unemployment
by Tim Graham
The news was shocking on Friday morning when the Labor Department reported the economy added 263,000 new jobs — higher than expected — lowering the unemployment rate to 3.6 percent, the lowest in fifty years. Would the networks acknowledge this news, or try to dodge it like last Friday’s surprisingly strong 3.2 percent growth in GDP? ABC and CBS skipped that, and NBC gave it ten seconds. This Friday, Curtis Houck noted on Twitter that CBS and NBC had full reports on Friday night, but ABC’s World News Tonight was done with it in 18 seconds.
Nah. No bias there. Uh-oh. Neil Irwin of the New York Times said:
After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).
In particular, it now appears that recession fears that emerged at the end of 2018 were misguided — especially once the Fed backed off its campaign of rate increases at the start of 2019.
But beyond the assigning of credit or blame, there’s a bigger lesson in the job market’s remarkably strong performance: about the limits of knowledge when it comes to something as complex as the $20 trillion U.S. economy.
He’s clearly going to Leftist Hell. At minimum, he’ll be receiving no more Christmas cards. Oh wait. The New York Times doesn’t believe in Christmas. Or is it that Christ doesn’t believe in the New York Times?
And that from just one day’s news this past week.
Question: did you hear this good news hammered home by the American Media Maggots? CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Of course you didn’t. Why? Because it would tend to make President Trump look good — and none of those outlets can afford to allow President Trump to look good. They run in lockstep with the Demorats and the DNC. The Demorats and DNC cannot allow President Trump to look good.
Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows
Media Bias: Ask journalists, and they’ll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be “fair.” They’re “centrists.” Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with “fake news.” Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.
If you ask “journalists” how they voted, well, they won’t tell you. They’ll fall back on
What does that matter, and
We can do our jobs in a vacuum.
Except they can’t. And yes, it matters greatly. Because the bulk of them are Leftists.
Despite journalists’ denials, it’s now pretty much a fact that journalism is one of the most left-wing of all professions. But until recently, that wasn’t thought to be true of financial journalists — who have a reputation for being the most right-leaning and free-market-oriented among mainstream journalists.
If that was ever true, it sure isn’t today, a new study suggests.
Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.
462 Financial Journalists Were Asked Their Political Leanings. Guess How Many Said They Were Conservative.
by Ashe Schow
“First, financial journalists have stronger incentives to produce original information and analysis than to disseminate information already in the public domain, and they rely heavily on private communication with company management for information. Second, sell-side analysts play an important role in informing financial journalists, many of whom lack financial sophistication. Third, the incentives for sensationalism in the business press assumed in prior research are dominated by incentives for accurate, timely, in-depth, and informative reporting, while the quid pro quo incentives assumed in prior literature (e.g., putting a positive spin on company news to maintain access to inside sources) are substantial.”
Let’s translate the pablum speech.
Get that? Journalists covering the financial industry don’t know the industry and give favorable coverage to keep access. Sounds like pretty much every other type of journalist.
Here’s the crux of the biscuit:
The journalists surveyed by the scholars come from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post and other highly respected outlets, as well as other smaller outlets.
One other thing the researchers found was that the surveyed journalists overwhelmingly described themselves as liberal. Of those surveyed, 17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.
On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.
“Moderate.” I suppose like a “moderate Muslim.” Or “kinda pregnant.” Or “I had part of a colonoscopy.”
Journalism Institute Poynter Tries to ‘Blacklist’ 29 Conservative Outlets as ‘UnNews’
by Corinne Weaver
The attack on the conservative internet has reached a new low.
Poynter, the journalism institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online. The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for a journalism organization funded by prominent liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.
Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”
Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.” That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.
Let’s stop here for a moment. The microsecond I see the DRUDGE REPORT on ANY Leftist list I know they’re ignorant and lying. Why? Because the DR doesn’t write any content whatsoever. Matt Drudge hasn’t written a word on his site for years. The DR is nothing more than an aggregator of news. It carries stories written by other outlets and frequently includes New York Times, LA Times, CNN and other Leftist stories. Every. Day.
Judicial Watch is a site that essentially sues for information via FOIA requests and, AGAIN, doesn’t create original content. It only publishes what the government releases.
Project Veritas has video to back up every claim it makes.
The Washington Examiner has been part of the DC scene for literally decades.
I’ve said this since late 2016, all through 2017 and 2018, with the March 2019 Mueller report now confirming:
What we experienced in America, instigated by the Barack Hussein Obama 44 administration, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the DOJ and the FBI plus other abetting actors like John McCain (and many others), was a soft coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect and a sitting president of the United States.
Donald John Trump.
This soft coup was, yes, against him but by extension was aimed directly at you and me. Us. American voters. Anyone who dared not to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell: the counterintelligence divisions of the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the DIA and the NSA were all arrayed — in concert with the DNC, the Demorats, Hillary Clinton, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, John McCain, Glenn Simpson — while working hand-in-hand with the American Media Maggots in a week-by-week, day-by-day, hour-by-hour hammering of the situation — and in concert with the Barack Hussein Obama administration and the then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch — were working overtime with all possible available resources in order to not only derail the candidacy of an individual for president but, further, to smear the person in such a way as to make them a pariah, a leper, forevermore in the minds and eyes of the United States and the world.
This was spying on a political campaign. Spying on a private citizen. With the full weight of the US government behind.
This is something a tinpot dictatorship does. This is something a totalitarian society does. Not a Republic. Not a nation that abides by laws and operates by the rule of law.
Then there was the dirty bought-and-paid-for “dossier” financed by the DNC, the FBI, Hillary Clinton and aforementioned Russian oligarch. You want actual “Russian collusion”? Want to mix in Jimmy The Leak?
The fuckery was afoot, the plot drawn, and even “insurance” formulated by FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in case Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency. The Russia investigation was just that “insurance.” There was no way, of course, this could happen. But “just in case.”
Page first entered the spotlight in December 2017, when it was revealed by the JusticeDepartment inspector general that she and then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. The two were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election, and later served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
Among their texts was one concerning the so-called “insurance policy.” During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned at length about that text — and essentially confirmed this referred to the Russia investigation while explaining that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at “total breakneck speed” and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn’t be elected anyway.
Further, she confirmed investigators only had a “paucity” of evidence at the start.
Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., kicked off that section of questioning by asking about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016 which read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
The former FBI lawyer explained how the FBI was trying to strike a balance with the investigation into the Trump campaign—which agents called “Crossfire Hurricane.”
“So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” Page said. “And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”
You caught that, correct? “The Director” is none other than Jimmy “The Leak” Comey who had been keep in this loop. And there was a “paucity” of evidence. Lisa Page said that, even prior to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — the same Rosenstein who wrote a letter to President Trump outlining the various and numerous reasons to fire James Comey — there was no evidence to indicate Trump-Russia “collusion.” From September of 2018:
More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page’s recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News.
“I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page said.
“I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,” Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked for comment. “But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.”
May 2017 is a key month because FBI DIrector James Comey was fired by President Trump and Mueller was designated special counsel. In August, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, wrote the still-secret “scope memo” spelling out the boundaries for the special counsel investigation.
Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017 that he leaked memos he wrote after conversations with Trump in order to force the appointment of a special counsel.
“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of a memo with the reporter, I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey testified June 8, 2017. (RELATED: James Comey Denies Being A Leaker)
Comey instructed his friend, Daniel Richman, to give the Times a memo he wrote about a conversation he had with Trump on Feb. 14, 2017. Comey claimed Trump asked him to shut down an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Comey’s ploy worked, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel May 17, 2017.
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the· Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans -including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
[Footnote from letter: In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”]
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Stop. Alan Dershowitz has something to say about this point.
Excellent questions. May I be so base as to suggest that Mueller lacks the political cojones to draw the distinction, and may I also suggest that Mueller essentially “Comey’ed” the situation (using the name as a verb) insofar as he drew clear and numerous points but failed to do his job. Either there are events and situations worthy of prosecution or there are not. This was Mueller’s job. He equivocated. You see, Robert Mueller and Jimmy The Leak are not just friends, but they are former FBI Directors.
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves itto the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of¬justice offense.
37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[ s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function. Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of’ notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
The reactions, as you might guess, came pouring forth. Here are Steve Hilton, Gregg Jarrett, Sara Carter and Kayleigh McEnany.
Is there anyone here who believes that Barack Obama is stupid, ill-educated, unaware of politics and was so incredibly laissez-faire that he was completely oblivious as to what occurred in his administration? Particularly with regard to what became the number one target of the Demorats, Donald John Trump?
Here is ABC’s George Stephanopoulis speaking with Representative Jim Jordan:
Democrats want to keep the distractions going.
But to date there is not one bit of evidence of coordination, conspiracy, or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election.
The American Media Maggots did indeed shit car parts following AG Barr’s summary of the Mueller report.
So somehow this Steven Colbert video isn’t aging so well any more.
Here are the American Media Maggots in full-on continuous Trump Derangement Mode. Let’s listen.
Yet: I have a question. An obvious one. Perhaps so incredibly obvious that no one seems to have thought of it.
Dear Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, James Comey, et al. You all swear you have proof of President Trump “colluding” with Russia or Russia having influenced our election for Trump, against Clinton. I believe you have index fingers. Or at least you have staff with index fingers. Why is it that you didn’t utilize said device and dial up the Mueller team?
“Say Bob, ol’ buddy, have I got some evidence for you.” And then give it to him.
You could have done this every day for the past two years. Yet either one of two things happened: 1) You simply forgot to, in the daily rush of your hectic lives, or 2) You never had any fucking evidence in the first place. Me? I’m going with number two.
We know the FBI was biased. There are numerous facts in evidence regarding that.
The Mueller report summary is out. The Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots, having been thwarted once more by facts, are busy resetting goalposts, changing equations, reframing accusations and generally shitting car parts. The question is: what next? Does the report itself get released?
Lindsay Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has some thoughts.
Further: why not release just about all the documents relevant to the case? President Trump could declassify a host of documents.
For example: why can’t we see just what it was that the FBI provided to the FISA courts in order to acquire their searches of Trump, the tower and his associates?
One thought is this. And it is a damning one. A massive reason why Leftists and Demorats want no further documents uncovered.
Does anyone understand the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine? If, for example, an investigation is conducted and it is found that a FISA judge signed off on an affidavit packed with specious, unverified information such as the salacious “dirty dossier” — up to and including outright falsehoods — everything in terms of evidence subsequently procured is illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.
That would mean: convictions and indictments on Michael Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, et al, would have to be vacated.
One final point, something I’ve always wondered.
Where was the benefit of the doubt for Donald Trump?
As in: “Mr Trump, I’m Agent Smith from the FBI and we have information to indicate your campaign may have been subject to some kind of infiltration attempt by foreign powers, to possibly include the Russians. Would you work with us to try to get to the bottom of this?”
You know. Like what happened to Kalifornia Senator Diane Feinstein when it was discovered that she had a Chinese operative as her driver and personal attache for ten years, in her office, with access to highly sensitive documents and information.
The FBI managed to afford Senator Diane Feinstein the benefit of the doubt.
Feinstein was ‘mortified’ by FBI allegation that staffer was spy for China: report
by Lukas Mikelionis
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein fired a staffer a few years back who was allegedly part of an effort to spy and pass on political intelligence to the Chinese government.
The FBI informed Feinstein, the then-chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about five years ago about the staffer and allegations that the staffer was a spy. The source who confirmed the incident to the San Francisco Chronicle said “Dianne was mortified” upon learning about it.
Certainly Donald Trump would have been “mortified” to discover such a thing in his campaign.
But let’s ask ourselves a fundamental question. Could it be remotely possible that the Chinese determined to insert an agent directly into Feinstein’s vehicle because she was the Chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence — a committee upon which she still sits?
The suspected spy served as the lawmaker’s driver in California, but took on other roles as well, including helping out in her San Francisco office and being Feinstein’s liaison to the Asian-American community in the state. He attended Chinese Consulate events on behalf of the senator.
This is worth a chortle:
A former official said that the spy’s handler “probably got an award back in China” for his efforts to penetrate Feinstein’s office and pass on intelligence.
Taxpayer money paid this Chinese mole or spy. Yours and mine. First question: did he get a pension? How would we know? Wouldn’t it behoove the Demorats to keep such a cock-up quiet? Of course it would. What a great job. Steal secrets, spy on the gweilo, then take a cushy retirement.
Then let’s break this down as well:
The suspected spy served as the lawmaker’s driver in California, but took on other roles as well, including helping out in her San Francisco office and being Feinstein’s liaison to the Asian-American community in the state. He attended Chinese Consulate events on behalf of the senator.
He was a driver and, apparently, much more. Let’s be serious. After her husband’s close associations with China and her comfort factor in dealing with same, would it not be logical that the amount of time spent with her day after day, week after week, year after year, a bit of a confidant, would result in her guard letting down? Of course. It turns out that Russell Lowe wasn’t just her driver — he was her office manager as well.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s warm relationship with and advocacy for Communist China go back decades and involve millions, if not billions, of dollars.
As media, intelligence agency, and political scrutiny of foreign meddling is seemingly at its apex, a story with big national security implications involving a high-ranking senator with access to America’s most sensitive intelligence information has been hiding in plain sight.
The story involves China and the senior U.S. senator from California, and former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrat Dianne Feinstein. It was buried eight paragraphs into a recent Politico exposé on foreign efforts to infiltrate Silicon Valley, as a passing example of political espionage.
Did the senator expose herself to potential blackmail, or the public to danger through leakage of sensitive, highly classified information? Is firing really the proper punishment for providing political intelligence to a foreign power?
By now you get my point. The FBI decided to do Senator Feinstein a solid by notifying her and her staff of the potential threat from within due to this individual. They told her something similar to “we think you have a Chinese spy problem.”
That is precisely what the FBI did not do for the Donald Trump campaign. They could have taken the staff and then-candidate/nominee Donald Trump aside and said something similar to “eh, just thought you should know, we think you have something of a Russia problem,” as with Feinstein.
But no.
Gosh. I wonder what the difference was? And wasn’t Robert Mueller the FBI director during that time, in 2013? Why yes, he was. Comey wasn’t appointed until September of 2013.
The difference was Donald John Trump.
This was a soft coup against President Trump.
But in truth it was and is a soft coup against the American people. The American voters.
I can hear them. Can’t you?
And there are two very important reasons why conditions were placed.
Just ask the LDAMM — the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots. They’re all colluding and have been doing so, ever more cemented than before, since November 9th of 2016, when the worst calamity in the history of history occurred: Hillary Clinton was not elected as 45th president of the United States.
The mantra now, besides the explosion of every -ist, -ism and -obe on the planet laid at the feet of Donald Trump, is that the United States is clearly plummeting towards doom.
I’ve said this since late 2016, all through 2017 and 2018, with the March 2019 Mueller report now confirming:
This soft coup was, yes, against him but by extension was aimed directly at you and me. Us. American voters. Anyone who dared not to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.