Holy Molly...our little town is packed today...last years event was busy but this years event is spectacular {hard to find parking spots they be a parking everywhere}....tis good to see patriots and all celebrating a time honer'd event...the beer is cold the food is good...and music plays as the parade rocked...y'all come on up....! The hard life and good times of the Comstock are remembered throughout
town in its saloons. No other type of business dominates the landscape
of this historic mining town, where there once were as many as 115 bars
and saloons. Many saloons have maintained their 19th century appearance
and stepping in their doors is like stepping back in time. A visitor
today can get much more than their favorite cocktail at any one of the
town's ten bars; they'll get a history lesson and an experience to last a
lifetime.
Have a ball, or two, in historic Virginia City this St. Patrick’s Day.
Each year, more than 3,000 daring connoisseurs sample tasty testes from
cooks competing for the title of Best Rocky Mountain Oyster Cook in the
West! Cooks from around the west fry, smoke or grill these delectable
concoctions in a way that will make you forget what you’re really
eating. Go balls out and try them all. Dress in your most outlandish St.
Patty’s Day garb, walk in the parade, join the costume contest and get
in on the Ballbreaker Saloon Crawl. This full-on Irish testicle festival
is the place to be for St. Patrick’s Day, complete with a beer garden,
music and the lively atmosphere found only in Virginia City.
Last years event....busy but this year is even busier:
Since
Barrack Hussein Obama left office on January 20th, he's been very busy
working behind the scenes. In fact, the Obama team has never stopped
working. They left the White House and moved to the D.C. suburbs to
continue advancing their Marxist agenda. But Obama and his loyalists are
not just passing out socialist pamphlets. They are using their
allies in the Intelligence Community to create a police state to stop
Trump and thwart the will of the American people.
The research team at Liberty Alliance, headed by Onan Coca, has collected intel that indicates Obama is the new head of a shadow government and is planning a silent coup against President Trump.
In an email to his supporters on his last day in office, Obama
encouraged them to stay engaged, promising "I'll be right there with you
every step of the way."
Think about it. He started his political career as a community
organizer and made it all the way to the Oval Office. Would he really
relinquish his absolute power so quickly only to hand it all over to a
capitalist? Will he stand by and watch Trump dismantle his extremist
leftwing legacy while he retires quietly to play more golf? Only the
naïve would think in such a foolish way. Obama's Deep State is in full operation.
Organizing
for Action, the political group that grew out of Obama's first
campaign, recently hired 14 field organizers in key states, adding to a
growing infrastructure that boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and
more than 32,000 volunteers. They've amassed over $40 million in
contributions to date.
Obama has converted his new D.C. mansion into his Anti-Trump command center.
Liberty Alliance is now in our tenth year of service. During
that time, we've never asked you for financial support. We've depended
on advertising revenue and product sales alone to accomplish our
mission. That is until now. With advertisers bowing to pressure from
Obama's Shadow Government, we are humbly asking you to make a
contribution to help us continue holding our leaders accountable. The
mainstream media may have sold out decades ago, but our standard is the
US Constitution. Republican or Democrat, all leaders are required to
uphold the Rule of Law. The truth is our objective. Will you join us in
the fight to preserve America through your generous donation? Also, we've launched a new website,ObamasDeepState.com, to keep you informed.
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and his estranged wife are
seeking an amicable split and are asking a judge to halt a contested
divorce case in which she accused Hunter Biden of squandering the
couple’s money on drugs, alcohol and prostitutes.
In a joint filing in D.C. Superior Court this week, lawyers for Biden
and Kathleen Buhle Biden said they are seeking to end their marriage
without continued litigation and recognize the benefit in finalizing
their divorce “amicably and privately.”
The filing comes two weeks after Kathleen Biden asked for a court
order directing Hunter Biden to stop squandering the couple’s remaining
assets.
“Throughout the parties’ separation, Mr. Biden has created financial
concerns for the family by spending extravagantly on his own interests
(including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women
with whom he has sexual relations) while leaving the family with no
funds to pay legitimate bills,” wrote Rebekah Sullivan, a lawyer for
Kathleen.
Sullivan also described the couple’s outstanding debts as “shocking
and overwhelming,” with maxed-out credit cards, double mortgages on two
homes, and tax debt of more than $313,000.
In Wednesday’s filing, attorneys asked that Kathleen’s motion seeking
to halt the dissipation of assets be held in abeyance while the
litigation is stayed.
They also asked that a scheduled March 30 hearing in the case be canceled.
Court records indicate that Kathleen Biden asked her husband to leave
the couple’s Washington, D.C., home on July 5, 2015, prompted by his
actions on the night of July Fourth. The filing doesn’t offer details.
The couple agreed to separate three months later because of what
Kathleen Biden describes as irreconcilable differences, including drug
use and infidelity.
Kathleen Biden filed for divorce in December, seeking sole custody of
the couple’s 16-year-old daughter, the youngest of their three
children.
According to media reports, Hunter Biden, 47, is dating Hallie Biden,
43, the widow of his older brother, former Delaware Attorney General
Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in May 2015. The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Donald Trump's attorney general has announced he's considering something
HUGE for Barack Obama pals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. See what
Sessions said that has Obama SHAKING in fear. Hint: Yes, it could mean
JAIL!
Jeff Sessions has big plans for these Obama pals
After eight years of scandal and lawlessness, it looks like the
beginning of the end may finally be coming for former President Barack
Obama’s cronies.
Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday, Attorney General Jeff
Sessions told the conservative talk show host that a special prosecutor
may be appropriate — and soon be needed — to investigate
Obama-loyalists Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
Sessions was asked about the IRS targeting scandal, the “Fast and
Furious” case, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email
servers, and other Obama-era scandals that were swept under the rug by
the former administration, and Hewitt suggested some kind of outside
counsel could be appropriate because they’d have the “authority to bring
charges if underlying crimes were uncovered.”
Sessions seemed open to the idea, promising he was “going to do
everything I possibly can to restore the independence and
professionalism of the Department of Justice.”
“So we would have to consider whether or not some outside special
counsel is needed,” Sessions said. “Generally, a good review of that
internally is the first step before any such decision is made.”
There remains lingering anger among American voters, who have
expressed outrage over the Obama administration’s decision to not file
charges in either the Clinton email investigation nor the probe into how
the IRS processed requests for tax-exempt applications.
Sessions went on to say the outcome of the IRS case remained “of real
concern” after the entity was accused of unfairly targeting
conservative groups.
During the campaign, President Donald Trump said he would appoint a
special prosecutor to look into Clinton, though he has since failed to
follow up on the promise. — The Horn editorial team
The Deep State and their puppets in the media are going all out to
discredit President Trump’s wiretapping allegations. It’s easy to see
why; Obamagate could potentially be the largest political scandal in all
our history, and this is only scratching the surface. No matter how
hard they try to spin it, however, they can’t erase their own public
statements from the record – statements that indicate they knew about
the wiretapping months ago!
In the following video, Right Wing News examines the latest evidence
linking Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Obama’s Department of Injustice,
and Loretta Lynch to the now infamous “Obamagate” wiretapping of Trump
Tower.
Right Wing News looks at evidence that Hillary Clinton was tipped off
about the wiretap from her husband, Bill Clinton, who himself was
likely the catalyst of the first wiretapping request after an informal
meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It is quite poetic that most of the evidence comes from their very
own mouths; perhaps they thought that if it torpedoed Trump’s chances at
the presidency, it wouldn’t come back to haunt them? Well, it looks
like it has, and as the saying goes “What a tangled web we weave, when
we first practice to deceive.”
AllenbWest.com reports:
Some day a thriller of a book will be written about Donald Trump’s
election, and the widespread efforts to undermine and delegitimize his
presidency. To paraphrase the ancient (Chinese?)curse, we are certainly living in “interesting times.”
It’s safe to say not a single one of you reading this has ever seen
anything like this in your lifetime — and we’re all on this ride
together. The problem is, it doesn’t look like we can get off either.
Many were disappointed a few months ago when FBI Director James Comey
held a press conference to reveal what he’d learned about Hillary
Clinton’s private email server and her handling of classified
information. As he laid out the various transgressions
Clinton had committed, it seemed a slam dunk that he would conclude she
should be prosecuted. But then…after all that, he folded.
Now as smoking gun after smoking gun appears regarding the
possibility of illegal wire taps and surveillance on members of the
Trump team and even the president himself, a new theory is emerging as to why Comey caved.
Per the Gateway Pundit: Blackmail is one of the most effective tools to control people in
power, especially politicians. Is this why Comey didn’t recommend
charges for Hillary Clinton on the email investigation? If Hillary was
aware of the FBI wiretapping, she could use that as blackmail against
Comey. Yesterday, TGP reported that FBI Director Comey asked the
Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s wiretapping claim. Did he
order the wiretap?
Don’t forget, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill
Clinton on the tarmac of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in
June of 2016 right around the same time as the first FISA request. Did
Bill Clinton mention the wiretapping plan to his lovely wife? Were they
all in cahoots?
The Gateway Pundit speculates, If Hillary Clinton had knowledge of
Comey’s involvement in the wiretapping, perhaps he let her off the hook
to save himself from Clinton blackmail tactics.
We are not only living in interesting times, but very dangerous ones as well. Looks like a tinfoil hat is not going to be protection enough from what we have yet to learn.
Gateway Pundit Reports: FBI Director Comey came under heavy fire after he announced that
he was re-opening Hillary Clinton’s email investigation just days before
the Presidential election. Senate Minority leader, Harry Reid sent
him a blistering open letter, accusing the FBI of withholding ‘explosive
information’ linking Trump and his advisors to the Russian government.
In Harry Reid’s open letter to Comey he accused Comey of possessing explosive information. He even stated that he’s been asking Comey to release the information to the public…
“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community,it has
become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties
and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian
government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which
Trump praises at every opportunity,” he said. “I wrote to you months
ago calling for this information to be released to the public…and yet,
you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical
information.”
Harry Reid sent this letter to Comey a day before Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet about the wiretap. The Gateway Pundit also reports: Hillary Was Tipped Off On Trump Wiretap – Tweeted About it One Week Prior to Election TGP reported earlier that the first FISA request came right after AG Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in June of 2016. The second FISA request was submitted in October of 2016 just before the election.
Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet on October 31st stating that ‘computer
scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump
organization to a Russian-based server’.
It appears she was tipped off to the wiretapping prior to the election. Here is Hillary Clinton’s tweet from October 31st… Computer
scientists?… Connect the dots, folks. This was a well coordinated attack
on a Presidential candidate. AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton just before
the first FISA request.
After they were successful with the second FISA request in
October, it appears Bill Clinton passed on the information to his wife
to help her win the election. This scandal is about to blow wide open;
it’s not going away any time soon. Stay tuned… It’s becoming increasingly clear that the entire Deep State was aware that Trump was under surveillance. The Deep State was desperately trying to stop Trump and failed at every turn.
(Extraction of Comey letter taken from CBS News) In the following video, former Clinton campaign manager Robby
Mook was a guest on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday discussing what the
campaign knew and didn't know concerning President Donald Trump's
allegations of wiretapping by the Obama administration. Trump and his Cabinet have denied any contacts with Russia
during the campaign, but Mook said the facts in this case paint a
different picture. "Trump aides were caught talking to Russian agents, and
those conversations were captured because the intelligence community
regularly taps the phone lines of those Russian agents," Mook said.
In the following video (from the post titled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions Breaks Silence on Russian Issue),
prior to blatantly lying about Attorney General Sessions, Senator Coons
talks in circles referring to “transcripts that exist” that prove the
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. QUESTION: How can there be transcripts “Senator,” if there was no bugging or wiretapping? Which is it? Do tell…
by:Matthew Trewhella
A false belief that almost all Americans hold to in our day is the idea
that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is
constitutional or unconstitutional. The adherents of this belief – and
there is a sea of lawyers in this country who have a vested interest in
furthering this odious fiction – actually have the hubris to point to
the Constitution itself and say that the Constitution declares the
judiciary to be the final arbiter.
They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy.
But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme
Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind
mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause
actually gives supremacy to the Constitution!
Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view
held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.
In a letter penned in 1823, Thomas Jefferson stated: “At the
establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed
to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.
Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the
most dangerous.”
Alexander Hamilton who was the most favorable to the judiciary –
wanting to allay the fears that other of the founders had of the
judiciary – stated: “The judiciary, from the nature of its
functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of
the Constitution; because it will be least in the capacity to annoy or
injure them.”
James Madison – known as the architect of the Constitution – stated: “The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” He said, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” The legislature does not bow down to the judiciary – rather it predominates.
The judiciary is not the strongest – it does not write laws – it is not
the final arbiter. Rather, as the founders stated – they are supposed to
be the most helpless, the most harmless, the weakest, and the least
dangerous to the Constitution. All that has been turned on its head. Now
all other branches bow down to the judiciary – as though they can do no
other than obey. America has replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy.
We now have social transformation without representation.
Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. He wrote in a letter in 1820 to an early judicial supremacist:“You
seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to write: “The
Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to
whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its
members would become despots.”
And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.
And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
Jefferson stated in another letter in 1821 – a year later: “The
germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of
the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is
scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining
a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step
like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be
usurped.”
And the judiciary has been doing exactly that for 200 years now.
Rewriting the Constitution – giving themselves powers never granted them
in the Constitution. Usurping all other government jurisdictions.
Men will forbear and so we should – but there comes a point where
forbearance becomes sin. There comes a point where forbearance becomes
cowardice. There comes a point when men realize they no longer have the
convenience of acting indifferent towards the unjust and immoral actions
of their government. And I submit to you that the lawlessness of the
judiciary should not be forborne.
I submit to you that the murder of the preborn should not be
forborne. The perverting of marriage, the rewriting of the First
Amendment, and a host of other evils by the federal judiciary should not
be forborne.
Senator Oliver Ellsworth, the primary drafter of Article 3 of the Constitution which delineates the function of the judiciary, promised the people of his state before the Constitution was ratified that the judiciary was “not to intermeddle with your internal policy.”
Now every governor in America bows down and bends over to the
judiciary. They accommodate murder – they accommodate perversion of
marriage – they’ll accommodate boys in the girl’s shower rooms too.
Alexander Hamilton – the founding father with the biggest love affair
with the judiciary while trying to calm concerns of other founders
stated that the judiciary “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
In other words, Hamilton expected the executive branch to check the
judiciary if they made immoral/unjust or constitutionally-repugnant
rulings. But now, the judiciary not only has the compliance of the
President (not to mention Congress), but they also have the compliance
of every governor in America. None interpose.
Their duty is not to accommodate or bow down – but to interpose.
The judiciary is the tyrant. They are lawless. We are under the
despotism of an oligarchy. And this lawless authoritarianism of the
federal courts must be broken – it will only be broken by the
interposition of the lesser magistrates.
No where does the Constitution bind us to a suicide pact with SCOTUS.
As legal historian Alpheus Thomas Mason wrote not too long ago: “Implicit
in the system of government the Framers designed is the basic premise
that unchecked power in any hands whatsoever is intolerable.” The
Supreme Court must be checked – and it must be checked by the state
magistrates. Congress is not going to do it – Congress is a weakling.
The state magistrates need to do their God-given duty and check the
lawlessness of the judiciary.
Article posted with permission from Matt Trewhella
by:Tim Brown
A Livingston, Montana man has been faced with fines of $85,000 by the
Food and Drug Administration for developing and selling topical
bloodroot and graviola products, even though no one was injured in the
process of either the manufacture or sale of the products.
Toby McAdam, owner of Risingsun Health, whose website is BloodrootProducts.com,
manufactured black salves, oils and capsules as a treatment for
diseases, including skin cancer. In 2010, the US Justice Department
brought a case against him and his company on behalf of the FDA.
McAdam did claim that some of his products did treat breast cancer,
asthma and epilepsy, according to the FDA. Understand there is a
significant difference in claiming to "treat" a disease, and claiming a
product "cures."
Understand, as I've pointed out before, that our Constitution does
not allow the central government to be involved in approving drugs or
food. Second, there was no crime committed here because there is no
victim. The central government is acting as both victim and prosecutor,
which is a serious conflict of interest, something that Ammon Bundy attempted to demonstrate during the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon in 2016.
The Montana Pioneer reports on what took place:
The case was resolved when McAdam signed a consent decree
on Nov. 4, 2010, that barred him from manufacturing and selling
unapproved new drugs and products with unsubstantiated medical claims.
The consent decree also required McAdam to hire an independent expert to
review the claims made for future products and to certify that all
claims violating FDA regulations have been omitted. McAdam further
agreed to provide for monetary damages if he continued to violate the
court order.
Although manufacturers of dietary supplements and topical therapies
are not required to obtain FDA approval, products with unsubstantiated
medical claims are considered new drugs and therefore require
considerable proof of safety and effectiveness prior to sale and
distribution. The FDA contends that the “new drugs” sold by Risingsun
Health are unsafe and ineffective in treating the diseases they claim to
treat.
“The FDA is committed to ensuring that consumers do not become victims
of false cures,” said Deborah M. Autor, director of the Office of
Compliance in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in an Oct.
13, 2010, press release.
“I’ve done everything the FDA wanted me to do in the consent decree,”
said McAdam in an interview with the Montana Pioneer, “including
obtaining an outside expert to review the labels.” He said he sent the
new labels to the FDA for review, but that he never heard from them.
McAdam said he was forced to sign the consent decree and disagrees
with portions of it, particularly a section that indicates the FDA would
issue approval for his products if he provided accurate labels that did
not make unsubstantiated medical claims. “They are supposed to put it
in writing,” said McAdam.
But, according to the FDA, McAdam has never been in compliance with the
court order, nor does the FDA issue approval for dietary supplements.
The FDA states that McAdam failed to cease operations per the orders of
the consent decree despite several warnings and that they never received
any certification by an outside labeling expert. Furthermore, the FDA
found McAdam in violation of several new claims and statements made on
his website bloodrootproducts.com.
McAdam claims that the black salve significantly reduced tumors on
his mother who had lung cancer, reduced a tumor on his dog to a quarter
of the original size and that his products were used by a doctor in
treating actress Suzanne Somers when she had cancer.
Mr. McAdam claims that the FDA began targeting him in 2006because of
the 2004 conviction of Greg Caton, who owned Alpha Omega Labs, which
manufactured products, including black salves, that actually injured
people, leaving them severely burned.
“And now,” says McAdam, “the FDA wants to ban all black salve sales,
“but,” he says, “my products are a different formula and only cause
tingling of the skin” rather than the severe burns Caton’s products
caused.
McAdam requested to be compensated $8,000 per month since Nov. 5,
2010, for lost revenues and to be reimbursed for his expenses in hiring
an outside labeling expert for $3,600, according to the FDA.
He said he would not pay the fine, and had hoped to expand his
company to employ 2-300 people and boost the local economy. Sadly, that
did not take place.
In March 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 2013 ruling that McAdam
was guilty of civil contempt by selling his products online via Amazon
and Facebook, issuing nearly $85,000 in damages and attorney's fees.
In July 2015,
the DOJ stated it was pursuing criminal contempt sanctions against him
for "selling dietary supplements and drugs in violation of two court
orders." Think of the irony of that! An Attorney General, who was
himself in contempt of Congress, was pursuing a man for making a natural
product that had harmed no one and was claiming criminal contempt.
Eric Holder would resign his position just two months later. In December 2015,
McAdam plead guilty to one count of criminal contempt of court,
sentenced to four months in prison, ordered to pay $80,000 in liquidated
damages and $4,936.48 in attorney's fees.
What damages? Who was harmed by his product?
All of this sounds strangely family to that of Samuel Girod, the Amish farmer who is now facing 68 years in prison for producing a natural product that harmed no one.
As for the FDA's hypocritial claim that they made claims about
helping others without proof that the FDA claims is valid, remember,
this is the same FDA that approved this $7,800-a-month alleged lung cancer drug, which caused rashes and rarely worked.
The FDA has a history of approving drugs that have no only not
worked, but made people sick, even kill tens of thousands of people
every single year. That's according to the FDA's own website.
Where is the criminal prosecution against every member of the FDA?
Where is the complete elimination of the unconstitutional agency? I
hear crickets! Yet, men who have actually harmed no one are imprisoned
and fined beyond comprehension. This is a travesty and outrage. McAdam's site seems to be in standby mode for the time being. Mr.
McAdams was contacted by email to be interviewed for this article, but
as of the time of this writing, I have received no response. For more on the corruption and hypocrisy of the FDA regarding this matter, I recommend taking a look at the following:
What happens when Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, two of the most
corrupt politicians in modern history, join forces with the goal of
their unholy alliance being their party’s retention of the most powerful
office on earth? You get the potential for what was once “unthinkable,”
to become “ordinary.” Nowhere is that more evident, than the
“TrumpGate” scandal currently unfolding.
Now, according to Douglas J. Hagmann,
President Trump now has evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA
court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained
authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a
national security investigation. Douglas J. Hagmann has been a licensed
investigator in the private sector for the last 30 years. He’s also an
author, has four websites, and a talk radio show host.
As a private detective, Hagmann has worked well over 5,000 cases and
is recognized as a surveillance specialist. He has also worked as an
informational and operational asset for various federal and state law
enforcement agencies. So, if law enforcement can trust his
investigative ability, you might want to do the same before putting your
faith in the mainstream media's investigative ability.
In the following video, Right Wing News reviews what is known about
the Hagmann bombshell, and how it relates to a bizarre scenario that was
predicted back in the mid-1990s by President Clinton’s Department of
Injustice, and then recently explained in an article written by National
Review's Andrew McCarthy.
Right Wing News also points out how everything Hagmann and McCarthy
suggest, fits the known timeline of “TrumpGate” like a glove. Do good things really come to those who wait?
There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a
storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is
growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that
strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.
The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It
would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only
Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including
Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.
At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal
wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal
court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia. The first warrant application was made in June 2016,
according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but
was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.
When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama
and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the
existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant
application through the more specialized Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According
to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a
rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no
evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump.
It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity
that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced
after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is
explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in the
article below… Andrew McCarthy writes:
The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.
Remember the great debate over “the Wall” following the 9/11 attacks? “The Wall” was a set of internal guidelines that had been issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house. Those
of us who were critics of the Wall — and I was a strenuous one,
beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor who personally
experienced its suicidal applications — made several arguments against
it.
My favorite argument, which I have repeated countless times, centered
on how preposterous were the underlying assumptions of the Wall. This
was far easier for prosecutors than journalists, academics, and the
public to grasp, because we dealt with the Justice Department’s
different chains of command for criminal and national-security
investigations.
Alas, after 20 years, I may have to revise my thinking. The theory of the Clinton DOJ brass in imposing the Wall
was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient
evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a
national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue
agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d
manufacture a national-security angle. The process of
getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents
and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting
affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is
submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit;
after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off;
then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge.
FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more
difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI
crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the
process, which is taken over by Main Justice’s National Security
Division and the FBI’s national-security agents. In other words, if we
assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far
easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in
order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap
than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA
wiretap. No rational rogue would do it.
But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post—
that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA
warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump
himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign.
It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s
media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political
adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to
investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary
Clinton — consternation echoed by Senate Democrats during Tuesday’s
confirmation hearing for attorney-general nominee Jeff Sessions. From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street,
and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private
server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks.Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes.Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.
According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that theTrump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the
FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an
earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking
offenses related to the server.”
Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because
the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and
controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA
applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of
being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power. The Heat Street report continues: The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named
Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly
and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server,
possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two
banks; [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times
story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was
granted to look at the full content of emails and other related
documents that may concern US persons.
(A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such
people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic
eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA,
which — to repeat — allows such investigative tactics if there is
probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power.)
Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What
we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had
concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau
looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather
than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the
Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security
investigation.
In June, an initial FISA affidavit (obviously prepared by the FBI and
the Justice Department’s National Security Division) was submitted to
the FISA court. It is said to have “named Trump” — but we
don’t know whether that means (a) his name merely came up somewhere in
the text of the affidavit or (b) he was an actual target whom the
government wanted to investigate under FISA (meaning eavesdrop, read
e-mail, and the like).
Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), the FISA court rejected the application that “named Trump.”
Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second,
more “narrowly” drawn affidavit to the FISA court. The way the Heat Street report
is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October
application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak: Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server “possibly related” to the Trump campaign and its “alleged links” to two Russian banks. To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump.
Presumably, based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were
Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue
investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which
Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad,
notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government
surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not
naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the
media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the
application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s
“alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the
FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed)
connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose
connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations
properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and
until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by
charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done
in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem
is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power;
there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done
nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may
also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the
government pretextually using its national-security authority to
continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence
of crimes.
Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand
oped: *eyeroll* I'm seriously thinking Judge Nap has been taking mini-vacations in Colorado...a lil on the Puff the Magic Dragon logic here...being that the US Constitution/Bill of Rights is the law of the land for the United States of America...sorry Judge Nap ya be a nice guy and all, however this was one oxymoron of a statement!
by:Tim Brown
I'm not really surprised by what was said by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox and Friends on Tuesday. He claims that a president can order a wiretap, like the one Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah is being accused of doing to Donald Trump and his advisers prior to the election in 2016. He claims it is unconstitutional, but lawful because Congress said it was.
In commenting on the allegations against Obama by Trump, Judge
Napolitano said, "The president of the United States on his own may
conduct surveillance or order surveillance of any person in the United
States upon the filing of a certification with the attorney general."
"So, the idea that it was illegal for Barack Obama to listen to the
phone calls and in person conversations of Donald Trump is wrong, in my
view," he added. "It was immoral and profoundly unconstitutional and utterly wrong, but it's lawful because Congress has said it is lawful."
Judge Napolitano knows it's unconstitutional and says so. Therefore, since the Constitution states clearly in Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all
executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution;
And what are Congress and the president violating? The Fourth Amendment, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
No, Judge Napolitano. It is neither constitutional nor lawful for
the president to engage in this behavior nor for Congress to write
legislation that violates the Constitution. It is criminal, period!
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) is unconstitutional. Congress is not allowed to write law that undermines the Constitution. They must have a constitutional amendment for that.
Sadly, too many people have elevated the central government to the
status of God and believe just because words are put on a piece of paper
they are law. They are failing to realize they are creating a beast
and bowing down and serving that beast. Any pretended law that does not
comport with the law of God is to be utterly rejected and so are those
"laws" Congress comes up with by usurping their constitutional authority
that undermine the restraints the people place on them in the
Constitution.
Congress had only up until the end of 2012 to either
reauthorize FISA and the FAA, or let the bill expire. Despite a large
grassroots campaign from privacy advocates and civil liberties
organization to ensure the acts would fade from history, though, the Senate approved
a five-year extension of the legislation on Friday. Just two days
later, Pres. Obama signed his name to the act, opening up the inboxes
and phone records of US citizens to the federal government until at
least 2018.
FISA, like Obamacare, should be repealed or at minimum, ignored as being lawful since it is at odds with the law.
While former President Barack Obama vehemently denies any allegations of wiretapping President Donald Trump’s phone, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager Robby Mook may have just admitted he did.
In an interview Tuesday on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Mook admitted
that the Clinton campaign had been informed by intelligence officials
of wiretaps involving then nominee Donald Trump.
“There was a wiretap of Russian agents,” Mook said. “Those agents
were communicating with Trump staff. That is why they were picked up.”
But why was the Clinton campaign informed about it?
When asked how he had that information, Mook replied, “That’s what the intelligence community has told us.”
This is a major slip-up, because if it’s true it means big trouble for both Clinton and Obama.
If the Obama administration was leaking wiretapped information to a political campaign, that is a serious felony offense.
And, if proven, it could mean jail time — all because of Mook’s accidental confession.
You can see former Clinton campaign manager’s mistake below:
During the Obama administration, justice was the last thing the Justice Department was interested in.
Instead, the DOJ cut a special deal to take money away from people
screwed over by big banks and screw them over again — giving taxpayer
money to left-wing radicals who supported the Obama administration’s
policies on welfare and illegal immigration.
And if critics have their way, it could land Obama in jail.
The Obama Justice Department sued several huge banksters and
corporations for conspiring to hurt the little guy. For instance, in
2016 JPMorgan, CitiGroup, Bank of America, and other major international
banks agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars after the government said they worked together to set interest rates for maximum profit — and maximum pain to borrowers.
But investigations have revealed that the federal government gave
them a sweetheart deal: They could either pay the full amount to their
actual victims, or they could pay half as much money to left-wing organizations who are cozy with the Obama administration.
Want to make half your judgment go away? Just take some money away
from your victims and give some money to the president’s friends
instead.
Republicans say that’s not only unjust; it’s illegal.
Under federal law, settlements from federal lawsuits are supposed to
help victims, who are defined as those “directly and proximately harmed”
by the alleged crime. Anything beyond that is supposed to go to the
U.S. Treasury, and Congress decides how to spend that money.
Instead, the Obama administration sued their enemies and used the
settlements as a slush fund to pay off their far-left allies — and pay
them off big league.
More than a million dollars went to National Council of La Raza, the
racist Hispanic group that believes in amnesty and Open Borders. The
group — whose name means “the race” — lobbies politicians to give
welfare, drivers licenses, and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.
Another million went to the National Urban League, a liberal group that supports Obama’s big spending welfare agenda.
“Somebody ought to go to jail for this,” Gov. Mike Huckabee told Fox
News. “They’ve stolen from the government and given it to their pals.”
Just the Bank of America settlement alone gave $412 million to legal
groups that sue to get, or keep, poor people on welfare. That’s more
than Congress voted to give those groups through the Legal Services
Corporation.
An ongoing House Judiciary and Financial Services
Committees investigation has found that, over the last two years, the
DOJ gave $3 billion to “non-victim entities” – including at least a
billion dollars to its left-wing friends.
Obama not only used the DOJ to hurt his enemies and fund his friends,
but the money broke down the Constitution’s system of
checks-and-balances.
“In some cases, these mandatory donation provisions reinstated
funding Congress specifically cut,” said Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte.
In other words, former President Obama used this money like a king.
So when Republicans in Congress refused to fund his green agenda for a
zero-emission electric car — which consumers haven’t wanted — Obama
forced Volkswagen to spend $2 billion of its settlement on the program
instead.
Obama always got his way, right to the very end. That’s dangerous for democracy. And not just Republicans think so.
A former deputy Assistant Attorney in the Clinton administration said
eight years ago that federal settlements can “circumvent the
appropriations authority of Congress.” That is, it’s a way for the
president — any president — to steal the authority of Congress and act
like an unelected dictator.
Now, Congress is hoping President Donald Trump will do something to
stop this Obama-era miscarriage of justice. The “Stop Settlement Slush
Fund Act of 2017,” introduced by Goodlatte and Sen. James Lankford of
Oklahoma, would put an end to third-party, non-victim payments.
The bill passed the House last year and has been reintroduced this year.
Ending this illegal slush fund is one more chance for President Trump to drain the swamp created by his predecessor.
We hope he’ll take it. — The Horn editorial team
Y'all are probably scratching your head wondering what the hell is this all about..."Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop" Well hell all this election corruption/investigations/lying and a crying starts to wear on one...ya start thinking should I take a break from Internet/Twitter and hit the cable channels ?... search out the "Walking Dead" and "ZNation" so I can get some relief watching the Progressive "Walking Dead" get their just reward...or hit the SYFY channel hoping for some funny SharkNado stuff to take my mind off of all the chaos going on! Well I was sitting on the edge of my bed on my zebra pattern bed cover looking up at my fake palm tree of which my grandaughter gave me for a Christmas present so I could relax before sleep takes over... imagining I am on a desolate beach! Then it hit me Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop" a old song from my High School days...it always cheered me up when things were getting chaotic! So I hit youtube found the old song, played it, and it cheered me up...so I am sharing with y'all to cheer ya up also..... 😊 Enjoy:
Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent ‘hostile,’ says new study
By Jennifer Harper
There was no press honeymoon for President Trump during his first month in office. A meticulous new study by the Media Research Center finds that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of Mr. Trump and his team was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office.
The
coverage was intense and plentiful. The study, which analyzed both tone
and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS, found that the
“Big Three” networks produced 16 hours of coverage on the new president
and his staff. That is over half — 54 percent — of their total coverage
for the month.
“Our measure of media tone excludes soundbites from identified
partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made
by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average
citizens) included in their stories,” write Rich Noyes, research
director for the conservative press watchdog, and fellow analyst Mike
Ciandella.
“In their coverage of Trump’s
first month, the networks crowded their stories with quotes from
citizens angry about many of his policies, while providing relatively
little airtime to Trump supporters.” the pair noted. “And the networks’ anchors and reporters often injected their own anti-Trump
editorial tone into the coverage. ‘It has been a busy day for
presidential statements divorced from reality,’ CBS Evening News anchor
Scott Pelley snidely began his February 6 broadcast.
“A new American president is always a big story, but TV news is
obsessed with the Trump administration — and not in a good way,” they
observed.
The study found that Mr. Trump’s
call for a temporary ban on travel from seven specific Middle Eastern
nations drew the most negative coverage — over three hours. Other
favorite showcases for negative coverage of Mr. Trump
included the border war between the U.S. and Mexico, battle over his
cabinet confirmation picks and the president’s “complicated
relationship” with Russia.
“Further highlighting the hostile tone of these newscasts, nearly an hour of coverage (56 minutes) was given over to anti-Trump
protests on various topics, with nearly one-fifth (82 out of 442) of
the Trump stories or briefs aired during these 30 days including at
least some discussion of an anti-Trump protest,” the study reported. Mr. Trump may be accustomed to the treatment by now, however. A previous Media Research Center report found that 91 percent of the broadcast coverage about his campaign was also negative — deemed “twelve weeks of Trump bashing” by Mr. Noyes and his team.
After Donald Trump’s bombshell tweet this weekend, accusing the Obama
Administration of bugging Trump Tower, former Obama officials have been
quick to downplay the story. But now, their story seems to be unraveling.
So far, three Obama Administration have refused to outright deny that
Trump was wiretapped—instead answering allegations with ultra-specific,
legally-sanitized language.
Kevin Lewis, Obama’s spokesman, released a statement over the weekend
saying that "neither President Obama nor any White House official ever
ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.” But he refused to confirm or
deny whether the Department of Justice—which reports to the President,
and would be responsible for conducting wiretaps—did.
Similarly, Obama’s former press secretary, Josh Earnest, refused to deny that Trump was wiretapped.
In an interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, Earnest repeated Lewis’s
statement: that the White House had not ordered a wiretap on Trump,
“categorically” denying that "the White House was at all involved in
directing or interfering or influencing an FBI investigation of any
sort.”
But Raddatz continued to push, telling Earnest: “That’s not what I’m
asking. What I’m asking is, can you deny that the Obama Justice
Department did not seek and obtain a FISA court-ordered wiretap of the
Trump campaign?”
Apparently unwilling to lie on national TV, Earnest was backed into a
corner—admitting to Raddatz: "Here’s the simple answer to that question,
is, Martha, I don’t know."
The Obama Administration’s deflection and half-truths didn’t go
unnoticed. Even Obama’s former speechwriter, Jon Favreau, pointed out to
the media on Twitter: "I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said
there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the
[White House] ordered it.”
Jim Hanson, a national security expert on Fox News, said the evidence
that wiretapping did occur was overwhelming—due to the Obama
Administration’s legal maneuvering before the election.
“[The Obama Administration] asked for that warrant [to bug Trump Tower]
and were denied, went back again [and] got the warrant, found out
nothing was happening and went ahead and continued monitoring it,” he
said.
"They did get a FISA warrant, so [Trump] doesn’t have to prove that they wiretapped him. They did wiretap him.”
Former President Barack Obama reportedly threw a temper tantrum in reaction to President Donald Trump’s tweets accusing him of wire tapping the phones in Trump Tower during the presidential election.
A former Obama aide told the Wall Street Journal that he was
“furious” and “livid” about the accusations made by Trump, as they
questioned his true character and the integrity of his presidency.
On Saturday, Trump went on a tweet storm, tweeting:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires
tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is
McCarthyism!
Even CNN — which Trump has labeled as the “Clinton News Network” —
reported on his meltdown, calling him, “irked and exasperated.”
Devin Nunes, an executive committee member of Trump’s transition
team, said whether the Obama administration had secret warrants to
listen to Trump or his associates during the campaign would have been
part of his committee’s investigation regardless. He said the first
public hearing of its investigation would be held March 20. And the
initial invite list includes the directors of the FBI and National
Security Agency as well as former top Obama administration intelligence
officials and two cyber security experts.
The committee has the power to subpoena officials to testify, but
Nunes did not indicate that the committee had plans to do so and said he
hoped they would come freely.
The House intelligence committee is one of three congressional
committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The
Senate intelligence committee is conducting a separate investigation,
and most of its hearings are expected to be closed to the public to
discuss classified information. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee held its first hearing related to its investigation on
Tuesday.
Hopefully Obama can make it through all of the accusations to come throughout the investigation without totally losing his cool.
— The Horn News and The Associated Press contributed to this article.
First Lady Melania Trump just destroyed liberal women protesters with a simple act — she hosted a luncheon.
It was the guest list of 50 women that sent a devastating message that slammed the media narrative.
Because at this luncheon, a celebration of International Women’s Day
and Melania’s first solo White House event as first lady, was a
collection of the most powerful, successful (and conservative) women in
America.
50 self-made, successful women from across the country gathered in
the White House to commemorate women’s rights — and there wasn’t a
liberal among them.
At the White House, the first lady welcomed the women seated at
tables adorned with floral centerpieces of pharaoh tulips and sweet pea
flowers in shades of purple.
Attendees included Ivanka Trump; Vice President Mike Pence’s wife,
Karen; White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway; Education Secretary
Betsy DeVos; Dina Powell, a top White House advisor whose portfolio
includes women’s issues; and Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon.
Ivanka tweeted the following ahead of the luncheon —
Today, we celebrate women and are reminded of our
collective voice and the powerful impact we have on our societies and
economies. #IWD2017
oped: There she goes again... trying to transfer the actions of the looney left onto Donald Trump...I am totally convinced now that Nancy Pelosi as well as the entire district of the electorate that keeps sending her to DC are in fact escapees from the Insane Asylum...this is a prime example of the inmates running the Asylum! Yes indeed pathological liars one and all...they actually believe their own lies!
by:Onan Coca Nancy Pelosi appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper on Sunday to spin her yarns and tell her tales about President Donald Trump.
She called the President the “deflector in chief” before choosing to
deflect herself when Tapper began asking her about her sit-downs with
the Russian ambassador. She also deigned to imply that President Trump
was acting as an authoritarian when he chose to defend himself from the
liberals’ scurrilous attacks that he was somehow an agent of the Russian
government. Apparently, in Nancy Pelosi’s world, whenever liberals
attack your character, say you’re unfit for office, or imply that you
may be a criminal usurper… you should just sit quietly and take it.
You can read/hear her commentary below:
"Well, the president, you know, is the deflector in chief, anything to change the subject from where the heat is. And, as one who has been engaged in intelligence, a member of the
Gang of Eight, for a long time, I can tell that it’s just ridiculous for
the president, President Trump, to say that President Obama would ever
order any wiretap of an American citizen, any president. That’s just not — we don’t do that. And, so, this is — it’s called a
wrap-up smear. You make up something. Then you have the press write
about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge. It’s a tool of an authoritarian, to just have you always be talking
about what you want them to be talking about. Rather than Russia, we’re
talking about, did President Obama do thus and so? He certainly did not. And then to take it to the Congress and
say, now you investigate this, when he’s been in — not in favor of
Congress investigating anything, including what does the — what do the
Russians have on Donald Trump politically, financially or personally,
that — that’s the truth we want to know. "
President Donald Trump (left) has every reason to believe that Bill
& Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (right) conspired to illegally
spy on him.
President Donald Trump’s allegations that the Obama administration
initiated an illegal wiretapping of Trump Tower is true, and now,
there’s clear evidence that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who ordered
Barack Obama to do it. The damning events started when Bill met with
Loretta Lynch on that tarmac in Phoenix during the 2016 campaign, and
you’ll be shocked at the hardcore evidence we’ve uncovered.
The pieces are starting to fit together in the Trump Tower
wiretapping case, and it all started when Bill Clinton made that visit
with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
It was highly suspicious that Bill just happened to be on the tarmac at
the same time as the then-Attorney General when Hillary’s whole
campaign was on the line over her email scandal.
But, there’s another tidbit of information that fits with that timeline: The Obama administration’s application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) to wiretap Trump Tower.
On June 27th of 2016, Bill Clinton met secretly with Obama’s Attorney
General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport. A week later, FBI Director James Comey laid out in a press
conference the many scandalous activities taken by Hillary Clinton while
she was Obama’s Secretary of State, but then, he said the infamous
words:“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Now, we know that this also happened at the same time Loretta Lynch
applied to the FISA Court to secretly wiretap Trump, right after she met
with Bill Clinton. As Tea Party.org reports, “We now know that the
meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch occurred at
about the same time that the Obama administration [Attorney Gen. Loretta
Lynch] filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several
advisers.”
But, that’s not all. That initial June 2016 application by AG Lynch
was turned down by the court for probable cause. Not to be deterred from
doing their illegal spying on Trump, who was a private citizen, Obama
and his henchmen re-grouped and rewrote the application to make sure
they came up with a bogus but passable reason to wiretap Trump Tower.
That reason was a bank in Trump Tower that was doing business with a
Russian bank, and that application was granted the go-ahead for wiretapping in October 2016.
It should be noted here that absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoings
was going on with those banks; it was just a ruse to get the wiretap. So, here’s the kicker: in October of 2016, Hillary
Clinton, with full knowledge that Trump was being illegally wiretapped,
tweeted a cryptic message in her desperate attempt to win the
presidency. On October 31st, 2016,
Hillary tweeted, “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a
covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU
How did Hillary know about a FISA Court action that is highly
classified? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Who are these “computer
scientists”? We all know there were no random computer
scientists running around hacking into covert servers. So, now, only one
question remains: How much damning evidence do we need to lock these
criminals up?
The web of deceit just keeps growing. We know the only reason they
had for spying on Trump was to win the election. In June, when the first
attempt was made to get the FISA Court to order the wiretap, Trump had
just secured the GOP nomination, thus Hillary knew who her final
opponent would be. In June, when Bill met with Loretta Lynch, there’s
little doubt that he told her to tell Obama to get that FISA Court order
since the power of running the free world was at stake.
Sure, this is called circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence
is enough to convict someone of murder and also get the death penalty.
Unless we get some whistleblower, willing to risk their life to go on
the record, we Americans are left with knowing full well this happened,
but will we get justice? Exposing this in an investigation, as Trump has
called for, is what we need to demand, so spread this information to as
many patriots as you know.
on Fox and Friends on Tuesday. He claims that a president can order a wiretap, like the one 
up to and including Donald Trump," he concluded.
.
How can this action be "lawful" and at the same time "immoral and
profoundly unconstitutional and utterly wrong"? Because Congress said
so? Pffft! You must be joking!
! It's the same thing!
