“In Full Disclosure…” Part 2

President Trump’s most recent public campaign against the US Justice Department and US intelligence community has stunned current and former intelligence officials. “He’s doing the enemy’s job for them,” one FBI agent said. Another agent compared Trump’s unwillingness to accept intelligence assessments that contradict his beliefs to the behavior of a toddler. “It’s like when my son threw temper tantrums when I told him he couldn’t do something or if I said something he didn’t like. Of course, my son was three years old at the time and wasn’t sitting in the Oval Office with the nuclear button,” the second agent stated. As a result of Trump’s actions, intelligence officers are “more vulnerable to approaches by foreign intelligence services — and more vulnerable to accepting those approaches — than any other time in US history,” Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, described. “For decades, the Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia, have denigrated the CIA and our intelligence professionals, attempting to de-legitimize US intelligence in the process,” another intelligence veteran, Ned Price, said. “Now our adversaries have a helper who sits in the Oval Office.”

This is the narrative being spun in the protection of the US intelligence community and the US Department of Justice. Meanwhile, at the top of several of the “alphabet” agencies and the DOJ, stories of wrongdoing, collusion, lying, even possible treason and acts of subversion are surfacing daily.

American Justice as our forefathers established it is long-gone — at the hands of political elitists who today control most of the senior positions, not just in Justice and Intelligence, but in most of ALL  of the leadership in American government.

The Department of Justice — where equal justice under the law, the “rule of law,” “innocent until proven guilty,” honesty and integrity have resided for 250 years — is now nothing more than a shadow of its former self.

Corruption lives and is thriving at the DOJ.

Whose Hands are Dirty?

You probably cannot read the information next to the pictures of those shown here who have been fired at the DOJ, but by now they are well-known. In previous stories, we have listed the names of these and others who have (for various reasons) been fired, forced to retire, or those who have resigned during the Trump presidency. It has become so common that announcements of a “new” firing or resignation from the DOJ are greeted with a simple “Ho-Hum” from most Americans. They’re no big deal — just “another day at Justice.”

That should alarm every American!

Never before in American history has anything even similar to this bloodbath of management happened in one department in the U.S. government! Why now?

The answer to that question is simple: Accountability.

For the last 20 years, senior positions in the Justice Department have become exclusively political appointments for which many in government lust for and fight to get for themselves. Why? They’re cush jobs. They come with amazing perks and special “opportunities” for those who hold them to garner power second only to those in the upper tier in the Executive Branch, but come also with amazing financial opportunities — while in office and promises of financial windfall when leaving. Those who have held these positions during the last 2 decades have crafted mechanisms to amass personal gain while perpetuating an environment of cronyism that protects them all from ALL accountability. By loading the top-tier of management  at the DOJ with those who have “obligations” to those who appointed or hired them, they assure their safety from accountability. The cost for this bureaucratic layer of those who have unilateral control over how federal law is enforced makes them bullet-proof. And the use of that power has obliterated the DOJ of Washington and Jefferson.


There are now at least 2 tiers of American justice: 1 for the politically connected and 1 for everyone else. Impartiality in justice is gone — Lady Liberty is no longer blind.

A former federal prosecutor by the name of Sidney Powell has blown the whistle. January 27, 2019, Ms. Powell dispelled the illusion that our justice system is fair and impartial.

Powell, author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, in a television interview described a system consisting of out-of-control prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction. She accused the Justice Department of a broad range of offenses. Some of those include:

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DOJ.

• Destruction of the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives. Before they could appeal their fake convictions, they were sent to prison with the toughest criminals in the country. “They did the worst things they could possibly do to these men,” says Powell. The defendants were eventually exonerated on appeal, but it was only after one of them served eight months in solitary confinement.

• Frequent failure by the DOJ to disclose evidence favorable to defendants as required by law.

• Using the phony Steele dossier, the DOJ and FBI unlawfully obtained FISA warrants for the surveillance of the Trump election campaign. The dossier was then used to justify creation of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion. After two years, that investigation is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Trump supporters.

• Leaking at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ in the midst of criminal investigations.

• Unwillingness of federal judges to discipline the DOJ for its transgressions.

Taking it one step further, these top-level DOJ bureaucrats simply weaponized various departments and agencies to for their own benefit get rid of enemies either by their destruction or through intimidation.

How? Investigate; Harrass; Prosecute

  • An early Trump supporter targeted by the DOJ right before the 2018 midterm elections was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY). Normally, letters and other contact from the SEC are initiated regarding perceived violations and a deal is worked out, fine paid, etc., just as happened with Tesla’s Elon Musk. Instead, the DOJ initiated an investigation into Collins that has/will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  • In another example of selective justice: If you steal a credit card and charge over $100,000, and the DOJ handles the case, you can be charged with credit card fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and theft through deception. You would be facing 50-80 years in federal prison. Or, you can alternatively be given a penalty of community service and two years’ probation. That’s what you get when you are Joe Biden’s niece. And that’s what Joe’s niece got.
  • On the other hand, look at former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). The donations at issue in his prosecution case were less than just Hillary’s travel costs – a mere $915,000 in four checks written to two nonprofit organizations. Neither of the donors in Stockman’s case complained. Instead, the DOJ sought out the donors. If there was real guilt there, such a small case should have taken only about six months to investigate. Instead, it took DOJ and Lois Lerner’s former nonprofit division four years, four grand juries, and an estimated $20 million to create a believable story in order to bring charges against Stockman. They really wanted him. Why? In the 1990s, he served on the Whitewater House committee that investigated Clinton wrongdoing. In his most recent term in Congress, Stockman threatened to consider articles of impeachment against President Obama, called out Hillary Clinton for breaking the Iran sanctions, and busted Obama for giving money to the Haqqani terrorist network. And apparently “the straw that broke the camel’s back” was when Stockman filed a House resolution calling for the arrest of Lois Lerner for being in contempt of Congress. He had the audacity to stand up to the same hit team now going after Trump. The government wants life in prison for Stockman.
  • Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric Holder, identified and placed sympathetic ideologues in key departments of the DOJ and FBI. They were also placed in the FEC and the IRS. This all combined to form a “Red Team” that would target, isolate and destroy opponents of Obama or his legacy. Reportedly, both Democrats and Republicans were on the list, but the majority were conservative leaders. They mapped out weak targets, then the IRS, SEC or FEC would research them deeply, looking for any mistakes or missteps. Once information was gathered that would spark interest, it was leaked to friendlies in the press, politicians or sympathetic nonprofits such as the Sunlight Foundation. By doing, so they covered their tracks to avoid the charge of targeting. Multiple sources in Congress stated that the DOJ would then hijack these administrative agencies’ actions, bringing these investigations “in-house” and handling them as felony investigations. The targeted list (enemies list) was developed and fleshed out by the Red Team (or “hit squad”). Once the DOJ took a case, it moved without interference, using broad powers to issue subpoenas and charges in federal criminal indictments.
  • Republicans are treated differently than Democrats. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), an early Trump supporter, received a publicized complaint about a potential FEC problem. When the same thing happened to Obama, Obama simply received FEC warning letters and a notice to correct the problem. He was instructed to pay a $375,000 fine and the matter was over. Notably, the money in question was a larger amount than Hunter was even accused of. But Hunter didn’t receive warning letters or the opportunity to pay a fine. Instead, the complaint went to the DOJ and Obama sympathizers’ Red Team – the “hit squad.” The bomb was dropped in a press release right before the 2018 midterm elections, designed to sink Hunter’s campaign and defeat him. And it worked.

The “Fix” is in

The Feds have made the justice system “good” for them — bad for those charged. Equal justice under the law is now only a “story” that kids talk about in Political Science class about the way the justice system worked “a long time ago.” Innocence until guilt is proven is long gone when federal law enforcement gets involved in a case. If the feds want to come get someone, they always get somebody. The process they now use is NOT to examine a crime that was committed and then put evidence together that shows who committed the crime, their purpose, and how it was committed. They now use broad criminal statutes that make it easier than ever for federal authorities to get their way against everyday people. And the feds have many tools.

Federal prosecutors frequently bring conspiracy charges. Conspiracy is a broad crime that can sweep up many kinds of conduct.

  • Conspiracy charges are challenging to defend. A federal criminal defense attorney who has a client who is charged with conspiracy has to be very diligent in investigating the government’s evidence and what role the government thinks each person had in the conspiracy.
  • A conspiracy to commit a federal crime happens whenever there is an agreement to commit a specific federal crime between two or more people, and at least one of those people makes some overt act to further the conspiracy.
  • The government doesn’t have to prove that there was a written agreement between the co-conspirators; instead, the prosecutor can prove a conspiracy just by proving that the people it says were involved in the conspiracy were working together to do some crime.
  • The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute criminalizes both conspiracies to defraud the United States as well as conspiracies to violate any other provision of federal law. By the text of that provision you can see how the two elements work. The statute says that it is a crime, [i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.
  • The United States Code contains other specific conspiracy provisions. For example, 21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it illegal to commit a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. Eighteen U.S.C. § 1951 – which prohibits committing a robbery of any article in interstate commerce – contains its own conspiracy provision. So section 1951 makes it a crime both to commit a robbery and to conspire to commit a robbery.
  • Courts have held that a person can be in a conspiracy with another person, even if the two people never meet or interact – as long as they knew the other person was doing something to further the conspiracy. This is most common in a larger sprawling conspiracy where a central person, or a group of people, is coordinating the work of many others.
  • Conspiracy charges have the potential to be abused by the government, and taken to absurd consequences – in theory, a conspiracy offense could be committed, and prosecuted in federal court, merely by having two people agree that they would rob a bank together and then buy a ski mask to wear in the bank robbery.

It boils down to this: pretty much when federal law enforcement authorities want to get someone for something, they can easily find a way to do it.


It would be useless to name more names, list wrongs done or illustrate further travesties experienced by Americans who come face-to-face with the Department of Justice. It simply boils down to this: the DOJ became a weaponized arm of Deep State operatives at the top of the U.S. Government during the Obama Administration. Those operatives created an atmosphere that used an armed FBI, CIA, and Justice Department to conduct each and every “hit job” deemed necessary by the Bosses.

In perfecting this process, they needed a military arm to paint the one-sided narrative to legitimize this method of operations to the American people. That messaging arm? The Mainstream Media. Every day, all day, “agents” at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, New York Times, all spin the stories that impact all our lives with the political elitists’ version of every story. They’re pretty good sales people too. But in fairness to Americans, when “news people” almost in unison give every story with the same details and perspective as those at other networks and newspapers who give the same story, Americans just accept the story as true. “If everyone of the news outlets give every story the exact same way, the story must be true.”

Thankfully, the truth is somehow getting around the barriers erected by the Media. And Americans have begun to ask the right questions, question what they are reading, seeing, and hearing from the media, and seeking the truth.

There’s hope, folks. And this President began the “Swamp drain” in January of 2017. It IS draining, however slowly. Thankfully the truth rings true to most Americans.

There’s still hope!


“In Full Disclosure…” Part I

Do you have all this stuff figured out in D.C.? On one hand, we have what seems like 80% of Congress pushing-back on everything this President wants to do that requires legislation. They end up passing into law a boondoggle of a bill that is full of pork and gratuitous spending provisions that are hidden from citizens. All the while, they simply refuse to enforce the southern border: period.

But the logjam and misanthropy on the part of leftists for Donald Trump does not just extend into the legislative branch of government. The Judicial Branch is full of it as well. We knew of the corruption in the Department of Justice. We watched as the Obama DOJ initiated some of the most incorrigible and illegal programs and acts the resulted in the deaths of a number of Americans. But what is worse is than we thought. Any accountability by the perpetrators of those acts and programs (which reach as far as the Obama White House) were just summarily dismissed by almost everyone in government!

Until today, we have seen just a scant fraction of those unspeakable acts exposed. And every day, more new atrocities at the hands of Congress and the DOJ show their ugly heads.

They’ve been hidden for too long. The reckoning is here: at least the first part of it –“In Full Disclosure…”

“Full Disclosure” is here!

Today, in Part I of “In Full Disclosure…” we will reveal the Congressional villainy that has plagued America’s lawmaking process for so long and costs American taxpayers trillions of dollars. We will disclose the attitude of entitlement that is nowhere else more obvious than among members of Congress who with impunity year after year literally “steal” billions from us in the name of doing what’s best for Americans.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives now controlled by Democrats feel that the power their majority gives them is a permission slip to intervene at any time in any way they so choose in the government funding process to reward their minions while penalizing their opponents with the power of money. Nowhere else is this illustrated better and in a more timely fashion than the funding bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2019 (H.R. 648)” President Trump just signed into law to keep the government open. But that bill does MUCH more than just that. It includes multiple examples of the graft and corruption that literally fuels Washington D.C.

In Part II of this story, we will together peel back the layers of the onion called “Corruption” in the Department of Justice. Part II comes tomorrow.

Folks, this expose’ has been fun to research and put together for you. Even though we knew we have horrible issues in Washington, it has been unnerving to uncover them and to learn just how far-reaching into the dark corners of government they have been.

This ride will certainly be unsettling for you.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 648): America’s “Current” Boondoggle

Nobody could wait for this bill to be passed by each house of Congress, be signed into law by the President, and start the erection of that southern border wall while protecting government employees from another work stoppage when government funding expired. It passed just in the nick of time! Of course, everybody got everything they wanted, right? WRONG! But they got a lot — an 1169 page bill full of $$$$$ — OUR dollars and cents.

You haven’t read it yet? I cannot believe that! Everybody should have read the bill — especially those who passed the bill: members of Congress. But, as usual, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING! They each received copies of the bill — all 1169 pages — at midnight the night before the vote. It was impossible for any one of them to read and understand everything it includes. But as usual, Congress followed the Nancy Pelosi instructions that accompanied Obamacare: “We must pass the bill so that we can know what’s in the bill.” They passed it; it’s law.

Certainly, by now, you’ve read the bill, right? You haven’t yet? Here’s your chance: here it is:


It’s lengthy, it’s verbose, it continuously refers one back to the Omnibus bill from 2018, so let’s just summarize its contents for you.

Border Security

Obviously, the linchpin in this bill was funding of “Trump’s” border wall. It is amazing to me that in discussions of a bill that funds the entire federal government with about $1 trillion through September of this year, the only item that receives discussion is a tiny segment of a barrier that constitutes less than $2 billion — the “wall.” But Congress had to address it to prevent another government partial shutdown. It did. And it was a pittance.

What you have NOT heard and will NOT hear anyplace but here is this:

The bill provides a de facto amnesty pipeline for all illegal alien household members of MS-13 gang members who arrive in the United States as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UACs). As part of a bipartisan “compromise” spending package, lawmakers included provisions that prevent federal immigration officials from deporting anyone who has close contact with UACs who are readily resettled throughout the U.S. with so-called “sponsors” after being trafficked across the southern border. These sponsors are often times illegal alien relatives, in many cases parents, of UACs. Federal officials have repeatedly noted how the UAC program has been widely used by the MS-13 gang to import more gang members into the country.

Last year, New York City Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Angel Melendez said there are roughly 22,000 UAC “potential recruits” who are resettled across the country every year out of about 40,000 total UACs. These are mostly young men trafficked across the southern border from Central America, especially El Salvador.

But we can put up with that little “oops” in the bill, right? We’re getting a big chunk of border wall/barrier out of this. But wait, there’s more:

The new law mandates that the White House have approval from left-wing Starr County, Texas officials before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can begin building a wall at the region’s U.S.-Mexico border.
Slipped into this funding bill that provides about $1.3 billion for 55 miles of border wall construction is a provision that prevents the Trump administration from constructing the barrier until DHS officials seek input from Starr County, Texas locals and city officials. The spending bill mandates that Trump must “seek to reach a mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers” with Starr County “local elected officials,” including those from:

  • Roma, Texas
  • Rio Grande City, Texas
  • Escobares, Texas
  • La Grulla, Texas
  • Salineno, Texas

The deal demands Trump’s DHS to continue “such consultations” with local elected officials about the border wall until September, or until an agreement is reached. In the meantime, the spending bill stipulates that the administration cannot build any barriers “while consultations are continuing” with local elected officials.

But there’s still more. I know you may find this hard to believe, but there are a bunch of “gimmicks” included in the almost 1200 page monstrosity that, only now, are showing their ugly little heads.

(You need to follow this line of explanation very closely. Congressional members love making it difficult for everyday Americans — most of us — to understand what they are really doing when they craft and pass spending bills.)


Changes in Mandatory Programs are one of the most commonly used gimmicks in the appropriations process. On paper, mandatory spending is delayed, creating new savings that can be put toward unrelated discretionary spending. In reality, the vast majority of the delayed funding would never have been spent in the first place and generated no real savings. Each year, billions of dollars in new spending is enabled through Changes in Mandatory Programs.

The largest change each year is delayed spending from the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Fund. The bill caps spending from the Crime Victims Fund at $3.35 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2019. However, that fund consistently carries a balance of around $13 billion, meaning that any unobligated balance above $3.35 billion can now be captured as savings and used to circumvent the Budget Control Act caps. And the Crime Victims Fund is not the only Change in Mandatory Programs. In the fiscal year 2018, changes with no real savings increased spending by nearly $18 billion.

The area of the bill with the most potential for harm is in the critical areas of immigration enforcement, particularly detention beds. As the number of caravans, children, families, and asylum seekers has drastically risen, the administration has been handcuffed by loopholes and prevented from quickly removing many illegal immigrants. The result is that many illegal border crossers or asylum seekers are “caught and released,” and many will disappear into the public and never be seen again. The Trump administration has attempted to limit catch and release, both at the border but also in the interior, by expanding the number of detention beds.

In this bill, Democratic efforts to set a hard cap on immigration detention were stopped, but the bill does try to push the administration to reduce the number of detention beds by limiting funding. That said, the administration is allowed to transfer or reprogram funds to expand detention, but does so at the expense of other homeland security programs. In essence, the bill forces the Department of Homeland Security to steal from other important security and preparedness missions in order to fulfill the immigration enforcement mission.

Critically, the bill fails to address the key loopholes in U.S. immigration law that have encouraged the drastic increases in asylum claims and families and children coming to the border. Without fixes to these loopholes and other immigration enforcement tools, border security is only a superficial fix and detention beds will always be too few.

More “Hidden”

  • The omnibus includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees, costing roughly $3.3 billion in 2019, and more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. This overturns a December 2018 executive order from President Donald Trump freezing federal pay. And, for more than half of federal workers, it serves as their second pay raise in 2019 because federal workers receive both cost-of-living increases as well as step increases based on tenure. On average, federal employees receive $121,000 in total compensation, compared to average private-sector total compensation of $69,000. Part of this differential stems from the fact that federal workers have more education and experience, on average, but studies consistently find that federal employees receive a significant compensation premium.
  • The text of the 1,169-page compromise bill was released just before midnight on Wednesday, February 13, 2019. Both houses of Congress had to debate and vote on it. It was already law two days later.
    Once again, Congress is ignoring its own budget rules. The House requires that text of legislation be available for at least 72 hours before a vote is held. This is not the way the process is supposed to work. It leaves no time for lawmakers to even read the bill, let alone have a chance to debate and offer amendments to improve the legislation. That’s just a symptom of the larger problem. The fiscal year is already more than four months old and Congress still hasn’t finalized funding. If lawmakers were doing their job and passing budget and appropriations bills on time, continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and government shutdowns could become obsolete, or at least the exception rather than the rule.

State of Emergency

Democrat after Democrat from both sides of the aisle have taken to the airways and declared how unjust, un-American, and illegal is the declaration of a national emergency and the subsequent plan of the President to divert funds to pay for the construction of the border barrier. Even several Republicans are against the wall! It’s purely partisan and in no way reflects any actions contemplated or taken against the previous 61 such declarations made by this and other presidents. Politics at its worse.

We won’t waste a bunch of time, but Nancy always chimes in with a quote of remarkability when it comes to Congressional matters of historical nature. At a news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi railed against Trump declaring a national emergency, saying Republicans “should have some dismay to the door that they opened, the threshold they crossed.” She continued, “The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans and, of course, we will respond accordingly,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said an emergency declaration opens the door for other presidents to do an end run around Congress. “Just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” Pelosi added. She didn’t say specifically how Democrats will respond but said that they would “review our options.”

Summary: “Full Disclosure”

This action in Congress had NOTHING to do with southern border security. They don’t want better border security:

  • Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and six other House Democrats who chair subcommittees of the judiciary panel signed a letter to the president, writing that “we believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system.”
  • Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, called the reallocation of funds “utterly disrespectful of U.S. national security and the needs of our men and women in uniform, and it further undermines his credibility in requesting the upcoming defense budget.”
  • And it’s not just Democrats. Centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election in 2020, called Trump’s planned move a “mistake” in a statement Thursday. Collins also argued that the National Emergencies Act was only “intended to apply to major natural disasters or catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our country.”
  • Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose districts covers about 800 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, said on The View that the declaration was “unnecessary” and expressed concerns about the land seizures that would have to take place in order to build the wall.

The corruption in Congress is unfathomable — until now. Let’s be perfectly clear and honest: on the most part, those who serve in either house of Congress face every bill presented for their consideration, not from the perspective of “how do we need to process this measure to maximize all our resources to best facilitate meeting the needs of American citizens?”  Their almost unilateral perspective — Democrat AND Republican — is “how can I get what I need out of this bill: money, power, and favorability among voters in my district.” Their perspectives blow as the political winds in D.C. blow on the particular day of their considerations.

The bottom line is this: truthful consideration of the resources we give to them, the needs that WE have, and the rule of law are GONE in Congress.

In conclusion, here’s what they have almost entirely missed: the American electorate in sufficient numbers walked away from “business-as-usual” in Washington and voted for the one person who entered the race for the presidency that voters felt could and would fulfill campaign promises to fix legal immigration while stopping illegal immigration at our southern border. And in doing so, those same members of the electorate sent a message to Congress that “We are done with status quo, identity politics perpetrated by the elitists in D.C. that want nothing but control over all of us Americans.”

Have members of Congress gotten that message? With the spending bill passed simply to temporarily pacify the President with the pittance allocated for the border barrier, apparently Congress still has not gotten it.

And here’s the look “down the road” current members of Congress and those who want in better see and understand: Congressional hypocrisy is being exposed in greater measure than ever day after day. And Americans in seeing the corruption is being summarily rejected. Sending those members home is just part of the equation. Prosecution for wrongdoing is pending. There WILL be a price to pay.

They have underestimated this President. He’s not stupid — far from it. His validity resonates far greater with Americans than the abomination being unearthed in the midst of today’s lawmakers.

And it’s not just in Congress: it’s in the Department of Justice. Tomorrow come back for “In Full Disclosure…Part II.” The DOJ is front and center. You think you know all the corruption there is there? Get ready: there’s far more than you know today!


State of Emergency Chaos

The noise is deafening. One Democrat operative declared in a televised interview, “This President didn’t get his way on his border wall, threw a temper-tantrum, and is declaring a national emergency and then heading to the golf course. There IS no national emergency,” she said. 

Nancy Pelosi said this about a proposed Trump National Emergency declaration: “That’s an option and we will review our options. But it’s important to note that when the President declares this emergency, first of all it’s not an emergency what’s happening at the border — It’s a humanitarian challenge to us … putting that aside, just in terms of the President making an end-run around Congress. Here he said, let us respect what the committee will do and then walks away from it. The President is doing an end-run around Congress.”

It is important to note that national security declarations and subsequent actions are NOT unique. In fact, since Congress gave the U.S. President pretty much unilateral power to implement such measures, there have been 58 such declarations made. President Trump has already issued 3. President Obama made his fair share. Let’s take a look at the history of National Security actions.

There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act. Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far. 11 of Obama-made declarations are still in force.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.” All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, and Burundi.

Burundi? Come on: are the citizens of Burundi storming our borders, shipping millions of pounds of illegal drugs across our border, operating human and sex trafficking here that created the necessity for Obama to declare a national emergency regarding Burundi?

Here’s what the “Burundi Threat” was and is to the U.S.:

“On November 22, 2015, by Executive Order 13712, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi and the region.”

The “Burundi” action taken (and most all of the other such actions taken by previous presidents) were initiated not because of any direct, physical threat of any kind to the United States. They in total were preventive actions taken in places and in circumstances to make certain no actual threats against the United States could be initiated.

Even with that knowledge together with the plethora of statistical data and actual specifics of the costs of illegalities at and from our southern border, those on the Left in the U.S. STILL maintain “there is no emergency at the border,” “there is no humanitarian crisis at the border,” and that President Trump is pushing such action to simply fulfill a campaign promise.

What’s Really Their Reasoning?

No doubt about this one thing: the insanity of Leftist cries against the closure of our southern border are for purely political purposes.

It’s hard to say what I’m about to say, but it is necessary for all Americans to understand: American Leftists who rail against stopping illegal immigration into the U.S. do so with NO regard for the price Americans have and will pay if we do NOT close the border.

In the wake of the conservative media listing of names, showing pictures of murdered and tortured Americans at the hands of illegals, states giving details of the human and economic losses they sustain as a direct result of current open border political policies, Leftists maintain that there is no crisis!

CNN’s Jim Acosta — CNN’s lead White House correspondent and the most obnoxious reporter in D.C. — today badgered the President in the Rose Garden, calling out Mr. Trump for his “in-error” reporting of illegal crime statistics. Mr. Acosta referenced an Associated Press report that stated: “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” That indeed WAS in the AP report. But there was significant error in that report that has been pointed out and clarified with factual information after the fact. Of course, the “truth” clarification of the Associated Press story is rarely discussed, and by Acosta’s reference of the report’s inaccurate and misleading information, few if any of the members of the Mainstream Media even care about accuracy in their reports.

As it turns out, the Associated Press claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” —  including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article —  combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal.

The General Accounting Office released a report that gives far more accurate statistics than quoted by Mr. Acosta and the AP. The GAO report (GAO-05-646R) looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegal in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during the fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien. Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft, and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

Is it my imagination or are Democrats and members of the Mainstream Media and other leftists ignoring the tragedies perpetrated on legal Americans by illegal aliens? Do they not even care that little boys and girls are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, sold into slavery by some of these illegals? Is it not important to them to stop the senseless drug overdose deaths that are direct results of the massive amounts of opioids and other murderous drugs trafficked into the U.S. through the southern border?


I must be honest: I am scared. I in my wildest imagination cannot picture a group of Americans who accept crimes committed against anyone as “acceptable.” And apparently, that is what we are dealing with today.

The only explanation I can muster that even though plausible is horrifying is that those thousands and thousands of leftists who continue the open border mantra consider the felonies committed in the hundreds of thousands by illegals against Americans a justifiable price to pay so that Democrats can stack the population of the U.S. with future voters who will be obligated to vote for Democrats. Why would they want that? To maintain power and control.

Can you think of….is there any other explanation?


Every politician who does not vocally and outwardly fight against illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, the forcing of local, state, and federal entities to support illegals in every way need to be confronted by American citizens with this one question:

“How many American deaths at the hands of illegals are acceptable to you before you will begin to honor your oath of office in which you swore to uphold the laws of the United States?”

Honestly, we all should get in the faces of each of our lawmakers and demand a formal response to that question.

Folks, illegal immigrants, and illegal immigration really ARE desperate problems in the United States. And politicians of any ilk CANNOT explain that fact away. Here are just several more examples:

In closing, simply consider this one final thought:

“Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place.”

How many legal Americans will be killed, raped, robbed or stabbed before YOU will say “Enough is Enough?”



Today’s the day: D-Day. Once again the U.S. government faces the dilemma of running out of money to operate itself. That by itself is almost comical. How does somebody or some entity that has the total control of how much money it has, how much it can spend, AND what it spends it on run out of money? But it will — at midnight tonight.

Does anybody but me think that 535 paid politicians in Washington let the government get to this spot, again and again, is insane? It blows my mind to think that these several hundred government “experts” cannot (or “do not”) craft a budget, get it passed in the House and Senate, and signed into law in time to fund government operations the way they are supposed to. But it happens over and over. And it’s happened again.

What seems to be the problem?

The answer to that has been hidden for some time. Maybe that’s wrong — maybe what should be said is that the “accurate” answer to that has been hidden. There have been lots of opinions — explanations — for what’s been happening and why. But the truth is out. Let’s get to “the truth.”

The Reason

Honestly, it should have been easy for Americans to see why these Continuing Resolutions have been put in place by Congress and the President regarding government spending on a short-term basis only. Many have suspected why, but now it’s pretty clear. It’s not about the Democrat or Republican parties. It’s not about dollars and cents. And it’s certainly not because those 535 people cannot figure out the best way to spend American tax dollars — OUR tax dollars. It’s because most of those 535 have had a secret purpose for a long time in controlling government spending and where those dollars go. Their purpose? To remove the borders of the United States.

I hope you didn’t spit coffee when you read/heard that last line. But it’s true. Why else would every month or two we find ourselves at a drop-dead day and hour to put not a federal budget in place, but just a Continuing Resolution for short-term spending? Because that group (let’s call them “Open Borders Incorporated”) sense their power slipping away. It’s been happening for years and it’s a secret no more.

So just for a moment, let’s answer your obvious question: “Why and who would want that?” We’ll answer it by asking and answering some “Why Else?” questions.

Why Else Would….

  • U.S. Mainstream Media (purportedly “in the tank” for the Democrat Party) denigrate everything to do with border security, ICE, and alleged mistreatment of illegals in captivity?
  • That same Media downgrade the real numbers of illegals now in the U.S.?
  • No one in the Media beat the public over the head with videos and pictures of illegals crossing the border?
  • None of those constantly quoted “experts” ever appear on news shows — radio or television — to legitimize their “expert” status regarding the “non-crisis” on the southern border?
  • None of the mainstream media will give the public the names of those quoted experts that say “there’s no need for a wall,” and that “walls don’t work.”
  • Nobody get government officials on the air or in print from any of the other 161 countries who have border walls that work?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will either on television, radio, or in print give the actual names of people who have been robbed, stabbed or shot, raped, or are victims of break-ins or other violent crimes at the hands of illegals so that Americans can see first-hand the realities of crimes committed by many of those illegals?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will not persistently present border patrol agents, ICE agents, or other immigration officials who are consistent in their declarations that a border wall/barrier would dramatically lessen crime committed by illegal immigrants who cross into the U.S.?
  • Politicians and their media lapdogs continue to create and perpetuate the perception that there is no reason for a border wall and only agree that “border security” needs to be improved?
  • Politicians refuse to speak out against the influx of illegals?
  • Politicians continue to allow ANY immigrants into the U.S. that are ILLEGAL? Think about that: THEY’RE ILLEGALS WHEN THEY STEP FOOT IN THE U.S.
  • Politicians — ANY politicians — not loudly and consistently demand diligent arrest and prosecution of ALL illegals for their crimes?
  • Members of Congress not vote for any and all necessary funding to add immigration judges and support staff necessary to initiate and complete the legal process for ALL pending immigration cases that now number approximately 900,000?
  • Has NO One in this Administration or previous ones issued a hard and non-negotiable demand that ALL Central American countries AND Mexico stop ALL illegal immigrant attempts to breach the U.S. border coming from those countries?

No Budget, No Immigration Reform, No Wall. The Reason?

Simple answer: Open Borders. And in spite of what most feel, the cry for open borders may come loudest from Democrats, but it is NOT exclusive to those from the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

While Democrats heatedly deny being in favor of open borders, their actions and even their own words say otherwise. Much the same could be said about many Republicans.  Both parties want an unrestricted flood of immigrants to America, but for different reasons.

Democrats want a permanent underclass that reliably votes Democrat. Establishment Republicans want cheap labor to keep their Chamber of Commerce donors happy. Neither party acknowledges any negative consequences of the current open borders policy, allowing far more than voters and workers to enter our country.

Ignored are the contagious diseases, still uncommon in America, being brought across the borders. Or the criminals we read about daily in the news, raping and killing Americans. Not to mention potential terrorists.

How does this play out?

What if there weren’t a President Trump working to build a wall and to insert other measures to seal the southern border? Instead, suppose we had a president named Jeb or Marco, happy to grant amnesty to the 10 to 20 million illegals already in the country, a number which would double as soon as amnesty was proposed.

Gallup tells us that 147 million adults would move to the US if given the chance. That’s almost half the current US population. How many of these adults have children? If you assume one child per adult, you have just doubled this number. Don’t forget grandma and grandpa. Pretty soon we’ve more than doubled the US population. That means more people with no increase in the necessary infrastructure to support such a population increase. As a country, we can’t even maintain our infrastructure with our current population. Look at the subway stations or airports in New York City. Or the bridges over Western Pennsylvania rivers. Or the potholed streets of Chicago.

Who in Washington DC, among our elected leadership, sees a problem with unrestricted immigration? Among the ranks of those who have the power and authority to make a difference on the subject, there are few besides President Trump. I’m not saying he’s flying solo. But his Boeing 757 still has a number of empty seats.

There is certainly no similar sentiment from the leadership across the aisle. According to Nancy Pelosi, “Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is no reason for deportation.” She’s not alone. Hillary Clinton, fortunately not in power, instead only coughing in half-filled lecture halls, shares Pelosi’s views, “Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.”

Chuck Schumer joined the chorus declaring that President Trump will not get the U.S.-Mexico border wall “in any form.”

Republicans are hardly any better. Despite control of both houses of Congress for the past two years, with a president firmly in favor of shutting the open border, Republicans could not find a way to fund a wall. Funding Planned Parenthood, despite campaign promises to the contrary, was easy for Paul Ryan to push through. And Republicans wonder why they did so poorly during the midterm elections?

When America can’t support her existing population, why add more to the mix? Too many Americans are homeless, going without adequate food and healthcare. Many attend crumbling schools, drive on third-world roadways, fly through decrepit airports, and look at a federal budget constantly running in the red. The “law of holes” states that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. America is in a big hole in so many ways, yet the smart set in Washington, D.C. wants to keep digging deeper. An open border is just one more way of digging America into a deeper hole.


Make no mistake about this: “If” the autocrats in Washington — Democrats AND Republicans — wanted to seal the southern border, the southern border would already be sealed: NO one would get in. That statement is identical to the one that answers the question asked by millions of Americans, “If it is against Federal law to possess and use marijuana (other than prescribed medically) in the United States, why do multiple states allow it to happen and the feds refuse to enforce the U.S. laws that make it illegal?

Here’s the “skinny” in this conversation: many in Congress WANT border barriers gone. Numbered among those are Democrats, plenty of Republicans, and a bunch of Independents. They all have reasons; they all have excuses. And they justify those reasons and excuses with a plethora of explanations. But what is common among ALL of them is this: They have each justified to themselves and others their active allowance and even support of immigration fraud and illegalities with total disregard for the laws of the United States and the enforcement of those laws. They ignore the personal, corporate, and national costs of ignoring those and even other federal laws. And somehow, that’s OK with them.

But the most important thing they ignore in their complicity in immigration lawbreaking is this: there is only ONE fundamental difference between the United States of America and the nation of Russia. Oh, there are many differences, but really just one big one: the Rule of Law. Now there are plenty of laws in use in Russia just as there are in the U.S. But in Russia, there is an autocratic group of political elites who have given themselves and a selected few to simply ignore the laws of Russia. Why would they do that? Because what drives their boat are the things that THEY want and that THEY don’t want in total disregard of other Russians, and what Russian laws state.

That being said, know this is an absolute factual certainty as you lay your head on your pillow tonight after tucking your precious children into bed: there is a group of political elites in Washington D.C. that have claimed and have assumed the authority to do the same thing in the United States as those Russian autocrats have been doing for decades in Russia: ignoring laws for the benefits of an entitled few.

Is that the America you want for those babies you just tucked into bed for the night?


Russia Collusion: The Next Chapter

It is becoming clearer and clearer why Deep State operatives have worked so diligently to cover Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from any public scrutiny about entanglements with Russia. Donald Trump has been the obvious distraction to accomplish that objective. And until now, it has been very effective. But now, details of just how entangled the Clintons were and are with Russia are slipping into the light. And what is showing up is very nasty. The former President and former Secretary of State apparently worked with numerous individuals and entities to surreptitiously line the pockets of the Clintons personally and the Clinton Foundation from Russian sources.

We’re not referring to that one $500,000 speech given by Bill in Russia while the Uranium Deal was in process. There were far more dollars in this charade carried out with apparent assistance from a myriad of well connected American political operatives and probably American politicians. On the other side was Putin himself.

At the end of all this will be greatest ironies that will unfold publicly beginning very slowly but will initiate a cascade of revelations that will leave Americans aghast as one political heavyweight after another will walk the American justice plank. Who will take the perp walk first remains to be seen. But the scales of American justice are precipitously swinging against the Clintons.

Who are the culprits in this? What have they done? What are the details that are about to be exposed to the World? When will it all happen? I don’t know those answers with certainty. But I do know evidence of it all is in the hands of the people who have the power to push this into the justice spotlight. I’m certain it will not be too far off.

I can think of no better way to put the beginning of this out there and simply passing along the details already known as given by one of the greatest investigative reporters in U.S. history: John Solomon. We don’t do this often, but what follows is the article Solomon just published in The Hill. John and his collaborator Sara Carter have meticulously crafted names, dates, and specifics for us all. And it’s like reading a spy novel.


The Case for Russia Collusion…Against the Democrats

Now that both the House and Senate investigative committees have cleared Donald Trump of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.

As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.

Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.

A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.

The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show.

That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves.

Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns.

In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarmed that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.

“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.

“Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?”

A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage. And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.

Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with a military and commercial application,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.

The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion, and bribery.

Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.

Campbell also warned that a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department. Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.

Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.

Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele — whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump — to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election.

Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.

Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.

Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians.

Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.

Steele’s dossier also relied on information from a Belarus-born Russian businessman, according to numerous reports and a book on the Russia scandal.

Steele and Simpson had Russian-tied business connections, too, while they formulated the dossier.

Steele worked for the lawyers for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and tried to leverage those connections to help the FBI get evidence from the Russian aluminum magnate against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The effort resulted in FBI agents visiting Deripaska in fall 2016. Deripaska told the agents that no collusion existed.

Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon — which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties — and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Simpson insists the two dinners sandwiching one of the seminal events in the Trump collusion narrative had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, a claim many Republicans distrust.

Whatever the case, there’s little doubt the main instigators of the Clinton-inspired allegations against Trump got information from Russians and were consorting with them during the political opposition project.

This past week, we learned from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that his committee came to the same conclusion as the House: There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But now there is growing evidence — of Democratic connections to Russia. It’s enough that former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) believes a probe should be opened.

There is “obvious collusion the Democrats had through Glenn Simpson and through Fusion GPS, that they were talking directly to Russia,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s “Rising” in an interview to be aired Monday.

Collusion can be criminal if it involves conspiracy to break federal laws, or it can involve perfectly legal, unwitting actions that still jeopardize America’s security against a “frenemy” like Russia.

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns.

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.


The New House: Wonder No More

If any had doubts that the “new” House of Representatives now controlled by the Democrat Party was going to come out guns blazing in a direct frontal attack of Donald Trump, no need to doubt anymore. With Friday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Acting Attorney General Michael Whitaker, the 2019 Democrat agenda was on complete display. 

Under the direction of Congressman Jerold Nader (D-NY), the Committee promised to oversee the DOJ efforts in the areas of criminal justice, prison reform, the drug opiate problems and plans to eradicate it, immigration issues, and to assure the DOJ that the White House would NOT interfere with DOJ operations. None of that showed up in the hearing with Michael Whitaker.

From opening statements, the plans of the Democrats became clear and were hammered throughout the hearing. There were no conversations about criminal justice, eradication of opioid drugs, gun control, violent crime — all issues one would expect this committee’s members to wholeheartedly support and wish to discuss with the AG. A couple of those were mentioned, but none were discussed.

What Was The Hearing About?

Plain and simple: “How nasty can we Democrats be when on television with 5:00 minutes at a time to prove to our base how much we hate this President?”

Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) showed American exactly what the Democrats  have as their agenda for governance in the People’s House for the next two years. This is 6.33 minutes  long,  but it is important for you to see:

The Rhode Island Congressman was definitely not the only member of the House Judicial Committee who attacked Acting Attorney General Whitaker. And the attacks came chiefly from an obviously choreographed Democrat plan to perpetuate what many felt would be their agenda for the next two years. And that agenda now is certain to NOT be representing Americans that voted for them to govern. I doubt many Americans want their members of Congress to for two years investigate this President for collusion with Russia. But you would not know that from their actions in that hearing.


Dems Only Agenda: Get Trump

Don’t let the famous Alexandria Ocasio Cortez “New Green Plan” or “Medicare For All” blind you, the majority of Democrats couldn’t care less about those plans. Nor do they care about immigration reform, further criminal justice reform, infrastructure, further tax relief for the middle class, unemployment, or entitlement reform. They care about one thing and one thing only: Donald Trump. And the House Judiciary Committee hearing makes that totally clear.

Remember all the cries that have been sounded daily during the Mueller probe that all say “We MUST allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation of President Trump with NO interference of any kind.” Time after time, month after month, for two years they have beat the “leave everything to do with the Mueller probe untouched.” They have threatened every member of the Trump Administration and every GOP member of Congress with serious personal and professional consequences if they dare touch the Mueller probe. And that includes funding of the probe, staffing per Mueller’s desires, or tampering with anyone one or any process used by Mueller.

They have complained continuously about President Trump himself regarding Mueller. Democrat members in the Senate even crafted a bill to block the President from taking any unilateral action to remove Mueller. It’s been comical to watch and hear the President’s responses to these cries from Congress, the badgering by the media, and even from demonstrators threatening the President if he touches Mueller in any way.

How has Trump responded? More than two dozen times on national television shows, in writing, and in response to numerous members of the media, Mr. Trump has responded: “No, I will not fire Robert Mueller.”

Come on! We’re two years into the Mueller probe. If the President was planning to fire Mueller, he certainly would have already pulled the trigger, don’t you think?

So why won’t Congress give it a rest? Surely they’re not going to continue their demands to see to it that President Trump does NOT fire Mueller. They wouldn’t let Mr. Trump interfere in the probe. They would not let anything interfere with Mr. Mueller, would they?

It seems like Congressional Democrats have plans of their own to take over investigating Mr. Trump!

Enter Adam Schiff

The California Congressman has been the designated attack dog sicked on the Trump Organization by fellow Democrats. He is a fan of a television camera and a microphone, loves media attention, and has settled in on the leadership in the Trump attack. Even before the return to power in the House by the Democrats, Schiff was laying out his plans.

The Washington Times described it:

Democrats taking over the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and its Russia-Trump probe have stayed doggedly loyal to the Hillary Clinton-financed dossier that Republicans say is a hoax. At times, incoming Chairman Adam Schiff, California Democrat, and colleagues have hailed dossier writer Christopher Steele for predicting events. A close examination showed his assertions already had appeared in the press. Other Steele allegations embraced by Democrats remain unproven publicly more than two years after he started submitting memos to his Democratic handlers.

Mr. Schiff describes the dimensions for his upcoming probes this way: There are so many Trump scandals, he says, “our caucus will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

The committee’s final report by its Republican majority in April acquitted the Trump campaign of collusion with Moscow in its election interference via computer hacking and fake social media accounts. To date, no Trump person has been charged by special counsel Robert Mueller on such allegations. Mr. Schiff rejected the GOP report, saying he believes a conspiracy existed between Moscow and Mr. Trump.

“Throughout the investigation, committee Republicans chose not to seriously investigate — or even see, when in plain sight — evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, instead adopting the role of defense counsel for key investigation witnesses,” he said. Mr. Schiff has stated that he wants to launch completely new lines of inquiry, such as supposed Russian money-laundering through the Trump Organization — an allegation that hasn’t been broadly discussed publicly. Republicans say they heard no such evidence during their inquiry.

Democrats also have mentioned a number of Trump associates they want to bring back for more questioning. Candidates may include Donald Trump Jr., who orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and campaign adviser Michael Caputo.

A big question is whether Mr. Schiff will again try to prove Mr. Steele’s allegations. An FBI witness told the committee in a closed-door hearing that none of the British ex-spy’s core collusion charges had been proven.

Adam Schiff is up to his neck in the Russia probe. He has been from the beginning. From meeting secretly with Fusion GPS’s leader and writer of the infamous dossier Christopher Steele, to a staged and recorded live radio conversation with two Russians who posed as Russian intelligence officials who had “Trump evidence.” They claimed to Schiff that Trump indeed was in cahoots with Putin, had taken advantage of the availability of Russian prostitutes when in Moscow, and other proof that they would share with Schiff and the FBI. (we’ll play the interview for you. It is hilarious!)


Here’s the takeaway from the foreshadowing of Democrat plans for America for the next two years: they have no agenda — no plan for America!

One would think they as good representatives of the People would use the significant progress made during the first two years of the Trump Administration and build on that progress with their own ideas of making those even better. One would expect they would take the opportunities in the area of real immigration reform to permanently with legislative action fix the significant border issues, rescue the DACA recipients who for lack of Congressional action and through no fault of their own have been relegated to the class of “second-class NON citizens,” waiting for the government to give them some hope for a real future.

Crumbling roads and bridges, ancient municipal water systems, the power grid, declining public mass transportation, and outdated criminal justice issues should be aggressively tackled by this Congress.

Oh, and don’t forget Democrats cries for the last two years: “Don’t let anybody mess with Robert Mueller! He must be allowed to have everything he needs, as long as he needs, as much money as he needs, with no interference from anyone — especially Donald Trump. Mueller must remain unfettered in every way so that he can give to the American people the factual evidence that the Trump Campaign did collude with Russia to change the outcome of the 2016 election.”

Then why have the Democrats themselves already launched nasty, aggressive, and exhaustive investigations of all things Trump WHILE THE MUELLER PROBE IS ONGOING?!?!

Members of the Democrat Party who join us here, I have a question for you: Don’t you agree that Democrats should just be elected representatives who serve their constituents in crafting laws, working with all branches of the federal government in their operations, giving oversight to the departments of those branches of government, to make this government work better? Certainly, you believe that.

Then why not demand just that? Why not force those men and women who work for you who promised those very things to simply do what they promised they would do?

Unless and until the People speak with Constitutional authority and MAKE Congressional leaders understand there is no acceptable alternative to representing us, they will simply perpetuate the partisan political nonsense we saw play out in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday. And it will happen again and again and again.

One more thing: in the upcoming days, we at TruthNewsNetwork are going to give you a complete biographical sketch of who the now most powerful Democrat in D.C. really is: Adam Schiff. I promise you: it will disgust you!

“Experts Say….” Part I

What “Experts?”

We hear it every day: “Experts say……” I have stated again and again that I am going to start counting how many times each day I see or hear media reports that draw conclusions based on what “experts say.” This doesn’t come from just political issues, but every issue that is important to Americans: anything that the media covers.

Remember when news reports in print, television, and radio, “experts” really meant something? When reports quoted a president, a governor, a member of Congress or of the President’s cabinet, and listed that source as an “expert,” it meant something. Americans could put stock in the fact that whoever that expert was really knew something that the reader, listener or viewer was not privy to. Not so today.

What Are Experts? “One with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject”

Here’s what I wonder: why hasn’t someone in the media taken on that challenge that is front-and-center in most Americans’ minds today: WHO IS THE EXPERT? I promise you, there’s a juicy story there. For that reason, it is hard for this journalist to believe no other journalist has found it sufficient to justify a story.

That alone IS sufficient for a story — an investigative story. So you get one today with a follow-up Part II tomorrow!


They’re everywhere! Seldom do we read or hear a story in which that story itself gives credit to its credibility because of an “expert” who sourced the information in that story. But seldom does the story give the identity of that expert. I wonder why that is?

In no other setting has there been so many experts than in the area of border walls: what they specifically are, their cost, their feasibility on the World stage, their effectiveness in other places, their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness at the U.S. southern border, and the predictions of everything to do with them — all from “experts,” of course!

It’s strange to me that so many Wall experts could have such diverse opinions about the subject, especially since they’re all experts!

The other area in today’s America in which we find so many experts is in government Intelligence. Nearly any story written, seen or heard is sourced from an “expert.” Who are they? What are their credentials? Who tagged them as an “expert.”

We are going to do a two-part study of these “experts.” Today we will look at the experts regarding border walls. Then tomorrow we will introduce you to all those Intelligence experts that have shaped the foreign and domestic intelligence processes for the United States.

Let’s dig in.

Border Wall “Experts”

PENNSYLVANIA U.S. SENATOR BOB CASEY: “The president said he would be ‘proud’ to shut down the government and now he’s doing just that,” Casey’s statement read. “Instead of creating chaos, President Trump should support the bipartisan funding bill that the U.S. Senate passed unanimously. It provides over $1 billion for border security funding, but not a wall that security experts say won’t work.”

Becoming American Initiative “There’s not a crisis at the border,” said Jordan Bruneau, an expert senior policy analyst for the conservative-leaning Becoming American Initiative. “A border wall is a Band-Aid solution to the situation of illegal immigrants wanting to come to the country.”

HUFFINGTON POST “While Trump is characterizing the barrier as a non-negotiable tenet of border security, immigrant experts told HuffPost it’s an ineffective solution that will endanger migrant families. Advocates say the wall could force people to take dangerous journeys to cross the border or threaten parents and children’s health by making them languish in unsanitary shelters near ports of entry. Experts are especially concerned about the well-being of migrant kids after a boy and a girl recently died in Border Patrol custody. “Fortifying the border is just going to lead to more deaths,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches a clinic for immigrant families. “[It’s] giving business to sophisticated smugglers who are going to be taking migrants through more perilous and life-threatening circumstances.”

BUSINESS INSIDER.comExperts say there is no crisis and that the problems that do exist at the border can’t be solved with a wall.”

VOX. “Trump’s statistics here are generally correct. But according to experts, he’s wrong that the wall would do much to stop the flow of illegal drugs.”

TIME Magazine: “But if he follows through on a threat to declare a national emergency in order to build a border wall, experts say he’s going to have to rely on facts and legal arguments.”

Polytechnic.org: “Most experts say that physical fencing would not drastically decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.”

Cato Institute: Alex Nowrasteh, a senior expert analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute who has researched the issue, said that Trump was trying to whip up fear among Americans about a problem that has statistical significance. “They absolutely should not be as frightened as he thinks they should be,” he told INSIDER. Trump “beat to death the notion that immigrants are coming here to kill us, to murder us, to rape us, to rob from us,” Nowrasteh said. “And the evidence simply does not support that. It is untrue. It has been repeated ad nauseam. And I don’t think the American public believes it. Out of any large population like that, there’s going to be some bad apples, of course. And some immigrants have done horrible things and committed terrible crimes,” he said. “But that’s no reason to punish the immigrants who haven’t done anything. And when we take a look at the evidence, they are less likely to commit homicides, they are less likely to commit crimes, they are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”

“Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work”

These Historians — “experts” — point to border wall failures, like Berlin, WW II in Germany, and the U.S. Southern border wall! Those historians did not mention any of the other 160 border walls standing now in countries around the world that are effectively deterring those whose border violations caused their building. Afghanistan is right now building a border wall with Pakistan that runs the entire length of their border — through mountains!

“Real Experts”

In the summary below, we’ll talk about the specifics of how the media use the term “Experts,” and why they do. But first, let’s look at some information delivered by “REAL” experts. Why are these “real experts?” Because they are named and they know what they’re talking about!

Israel and Hungary. As President Trump seeks to fulfill his promise to build a wall on the southern border, he is getting support from leaders in countries that have erected their own border barriers — and who hail those projects as critical to battling illegal immigration. Trump, too, has cited countries like Israel — which has a network of walls and fences on its borders — as proof that barriers work as he seeks to convince Congress to fund a wall or steel barrier to the tune of $5.7 billion.

Democrats in Congress have refused to entertain his proposal, calling a wall both “immoral” and ineffective, and only agreeing to $1.3 billion in more general border security funding. That led to a month-long shutdown, which temporarily ended last week. Funding is set to expire again on Feb. 15, and Trump has warned that he is prepared to declare a national emergency if no wall funding is agreed to. The president said Friday there’s a good chance he’ll take that step while saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “hurting this country so badly” with her stance on the wall.

But despite claims that such barriers are ineffective, in countries such as Israel and Hungary, top officials say they are a key mechanism in keeping a border secure and illegal migration flows down.

“Since we built a fence, and since the police and army have been there, we basically have no illegal migrants on the territory of the country,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told Fox News in an interview last week. “There are constant attempts to break through, but the infrastructure itself, namely the fence, and police and the army, make it impossible to get in. So that’s a success,” he said.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government built a wall in the West Bank as a counter-terrorism measure, as well as a “smart fence” on the southern border with Egypt — Israel’s longest border — to prevent migration from Africa. Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said that the border once had a “flimsy wire fence” that allowed smugglers and traffickers in the Sinai Peninsula to enter Israel, but that was changed in 2010. “From 2010-2013, we built a system of two layers of fencing, with advanced surveillance equipment,” he said. “And the results speak for themselves: border crossings dropped by over 99 percent, from 9,570 in the first half of 2012 to 34 in the first half of 2013.” Netanyahu has repeatedly hailed the success of the border. In 2017, he said, “President Trump is right.” Netanyahu continued, “I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea,” he tweeted.

Recently, responding to the viral 10-year challenge meme, he posted side-by-side pictures of the fence on the Egyptian border in 2009 and 2019.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said, “Look, we have a much shorter border than what you have with Mexico, of course. But without the fence it would be impossible to protect almost 500 kilometers of land border,” he said. “It would be impossible because otherwise how would you make it? So if you don’t have a physical infrastructure you cannot seal off the green border.”

He also dismissed the difference between a fence and a wall as a “technical question.” “It’s an infrastructure which physically makes it impossible for people to cross,” he said.

THE TEXAS TRIBUNE. But if the wall comes, will it help stop the drug smugglers the president says are pouring into the country virtually unfettered? Manuel Padilla says it will. Padilla, chief of the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, which stretches for 320 river miles from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon Lake, says the Valley has become smugglers’ favorite crossing point in part because it still lacks the barriers erected at one-time hot spots like San Diego and El Paso. “If you look at the technology and infrastructure … this is the only place where you do not have it at those levels,” he added. “Really, this is the last stand.”

NBC NEWS. “When President Trump argues that the United States needs a wall along the southern border, he likes to point to San Diego’s success. There, double and triple barriers fortify the westernmost stretch of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border as U.S. Border Patrol agents drive SUVs along frontage roads and hover overhead in helicopters. The militarized border touching the communities of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa contributed to a 75 percent decline in crossings in the years immediately after fencing was installed in the 1990s, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

BORDER PATROL OFFICIALS. “National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd, who served as a Border Patrol agent for 21 years. He stressed how important physical barriers are on the border. “I can personally tell you, from the work that I have done on the southwest border, that physical barriers, that walls actually work,” Judd said. “You hear a lot of talk that there are experts that say that walls don’t work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work. I worked in Naco, Arizona, for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling were absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border,” he said.

“We need those physical barriers, and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts in getting us those physical barriers. There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true,” Judd said.

Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, also a longtime Border Patrol agent out of the Tucson Sector, said he and his colleagues are all affected by the shutdown and they fully support the president and all his efforts to secure the nation’s borders.

“We have skin in the game. However, it comes down to border security, and we are extremely grateful to President Trump, and we fully support what he is doing to take care of our nation’s borders, to take care of the future of this United States. It has nothing to do with political parties,” he said. Cueto said, “You all got to ask yourself this question: If I come to your home, do you want me to knock on the front door, or do you want me to climb through that window?”

NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL. Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, who is also a Border Patrol agent on the Texas border, thanked Trump for advocating for Border Patrol agents and called on Congress to fund border security and the wall. “I just want to talk about some of those criminals that Border Patrol agents apprehend on a daily basis. We’re talking about murderers, rapists, people that commit very serious crimes in this country. ICE has been doing an amazing job in deporting a lot of these people back to their countries,” Garza said. “Unfortunately, once we deport these people, these people will not stay in their country. These criminal aliens that have been released from jail, that have been deported, will come right back into the United States. However, if we had a physical barrier, if we had a wall, we would be able to stop that,” he said.


Let’s face it: most of the Border Wall “experts” are not experts about anything! They are simply political pundits who have a pre-determined political agenda they wish to give credence to by referencing themselves or others as experts.”

And let’s be totally honest: most of the “experts” quoted in the media are fake! When confronted for the identities of those “experts,” IF the media will identify them, (which is seldom) it is discovered they are not in any way an “expert.” Then to make matters worse, when someone is quoted in one media as being an “expert,” other media sources pick up on that and report in THEIR story, saying “Experts say……..” And the expert they reference is simply the other media outlet quoting their sham expert!

Fellow Americans, it is time for all of us to force a stop to the gross misrepresentation by Democrat controlled media. We need to demand ALL media outlets stop “telling” us their source is an “expert.” GIVE US THE NAME OF THE SOURCE OR SOURCES AND LET US VERIFY TO OUR OWN SATISFACTION THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS FACT OR FICTION! It’s a simple task: just give us the expert’s name. In each story where you reveal the expert, do so with a link to the expert’s biography so those who care about expert verification can do a little research.

“Research and Investigation.” Gee: isn’t that a novel idea!

Tomorrow it gets really dicey here as we tackle another modern-day disinformation debacle: the Intelligence Agencies. You don’t want to miss as TruthNewsNetwork calls them out with FACTS!


What If…

  • April 10, 2017, we posted a story titled “What If?” that asked questions about the oddities that surfaced in and about Hillary Clinton’s actions during her 2016 presidential bid and probable outcomes if she had taken different actions. Today, our approach is to really ask “What If?” questions, and ask you to consider for yourself some real differences in thinking, talking points, and actions. Let’s go!

What If?

  • What If… Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other Democrats would initiate or participate in a conversation (or debate) about the truth of border walls elsewhere in the world, their successes or failures, and discussed objectively the facts given by experts regarding circumstances at the southern border and what such a wall could do or could not do to address illegal immigration? They have both (as have most Democrats) acknowledged there is a problem there. But there have been no substantive discussions or debates with an honest intent to resolve the problem, nor have there been meaningful discussions about facts, for that matter.
  • What If… Leadership in the Democrat Party, instead of non-stop bashing of everything regarding governmental issues of all types offered by the President or other conservatives, present to all Americans THEIR suggested alternative policies, programs, and show the benefits of THEIR ideas that eclipse those of the opposite side? Honestly, such a suggestion goes to the fact that in Americans in great number have no idea what the Democrat Party offers Americans or what the Party supports, other than pro-abortion, anti-gun, and Medicare-for-all ideas.
  • What If… Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s physical condition and age result in either her recusal or retirement from the bench? It is pretty certain a conservative candidate would be nominated to take her place. If that happens, it is certain we would be destined for an even more Creetin war between political parties than we saw during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. What if opponents of this President’s Constitutional duty to appoint a SCOTUS replacement go so far as to make legal challenges against the President’s authority to do so?
  • What If… California voters knew that a group of California lawmakers took a trip to Hawaii with utility companies last year as wildfires wreaked havoc in their state? And that during the junket, representatives from utility companies discussed with lawmakers just how much responsibility they should bear for wildfires – even as Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could be on the hook for several billions of dollars in damages for fires it caused over the past few years. The utility companies are pushing for a new state law that would raise electricity prices to offset costs incurred from wildfires.
  • What If… Rank-and-file Democrats knew what a “superdelegate” is and that those gave Hillary Clinton the Democrat Party 2016 presidential nomination to Hillary over Bernie Sanders? A Superdelegate is a Democrat Party delegate who is seated automatically and chooses for themselves for whom they vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination, regardless of the wishes of Democrats who voted for them strictly because of those delegates’ commitment to a specific candidate.
  • What If… Those same rank-and-file Democrats go all-in in 2020 for Socialist candidates and their agendas — like House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)? Doing so would obviously send the U.S. Government far to the left — farther than even some of those Socialist governments in Europe, like the U.K., Germany, France, and others are.
  • What If… Democrats joined Republicans to demand law enforcement from the Department of Justice top-down and begin the universal enforcement of ALL federal laws regardless of the laws or the offenders? If so, such enforcement would necessarily include lawbreakers like violators of immigration and federal drug laws.
  • What If… Congress would suspend the current policies regarding government spending that guarantee the continued ramping up of U.S. debt? What If they refused to pass any spending bill without Congressional Budget Office’s rating at budget neutral before voting up or down on the measure?
  • What If… Congress suspended the practice of taking favors of any kind from formal or informal lobbyists — PERIOD? That would require changing federal laws to ban such actions. It would need to be crafted to be “chat-proof,” for current laws contain multiple loopholes that allow lobbyists — even though forbidden for lawmakers — can provide lawmaker family members to receive lobbying goodies like college scholarships, cush jobs, and other secret benefits.
  • What If… Congress actually banned lobbying? Think about it: companies that fund lobbyists and their firms’ connections on the Hill to directly or indirectly impact bills under consideration to impact such consideration in the favor of those companies. Such companies would be forced to sell their products, services, and concepts only through conventional methods that would legally preclude any type of existing lobbying benefits given to members of Congress or others with which they are connected.

The above are thoughts about critical elements involving our government. But what is front and center today and cry for answers are “What Ifs” about this President and everything he stands for. Never before in recent history is there an example of such vitriolic hatred for any United State President. What is most troubling is the appearance that many on the left — led by a militarized Media — have NO intention to in any way have open, honest, and civil discourse with Donald Trump or those in his administration or even Congressional members of the other party. 

Let’s look at some President Trump “What If’s.”

  • What If… President Trump stopped tweeting?
  • What If… President Trump in a quest to stop ALL the noise regarding his involvement with Russia — now even of being a Russian spy — called the Democrat’s bluffs? What if he simply challenged them? Such a challenge could be really simple: “Release to the American public the evidence that exists that supports the claims of collusion by my 2016 campaign, release the evidence that the New York Times and Washington Post  used in their stories that alleged (without named sources) I was a Russian agent in one and that I ordered my interpreter from my meeting with Vladimir Putin to give me personally the notes of the meeting and to not discuss any meeting details with members of my senior staff. Either give Americans the hard facts that you have — the evidence — that support Democrat allegations OR RECANT! And if the allegations made in those stories are verified and factual, IMPEACH ME!”
  • What If… Congress subpoenaed Robert Mueller to (in closed session) testify under oath regarding details discovered in his investigation that prove the wrongdoing of President Trump regarding Russian collusion during the 2016 election cycle?
  • What If… President Trump did away with daily White House press briefings and instead started a White House YouTube channel? What if he weekly published a press briefing in which he spoke to Americans directly and contained in each would be answers to a bunch of questions submitted through the White House press office in advance of those broadcasts?
  • What If… The President ordered his Department of Justice to reopen the Hillary email investigation, had Hillary Clinton “officially and under oath” answer questions she should have been asked by Comey, and taking the same testimony from James Comey himself, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former President Bill Clinton?
  • What If… The President requested the federal attorney for Washington D.C. to process the criminal referral made by Congress of former Attorney General Eric Holder for failure to appear when subpoenaed — the first AG in U.S. history to do so?
  • What If… President Trump insisted that the DOJ take criminal actions against all those who have violated federal laws regarding the unauthorized release of classified documents and information? What if those actions were taken against former President Obama who clearly broke those laws in his use of a secret Gmail email address he used in communication with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on that unsecured server that was not examined and authorized by Department of Justice IT specialists, which is required under law?


We could go on and on all day and begin numerous conversations with a bunch more “What If’s.” But doing so would probably be futile. Why? Nothing we can say, ask, or do at this point makes any difference in the madness that is escalating every day in Washington. The Left is simply out to get this President!

Don’t get me wrong: if President Trump or any member of his campaign or administration violated any laws in anyways, they should each be prosecuted for their crimes. That applies to ANY who have served in government — even former President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the disgraced former members of the DOJ and FBI, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and former U.N. Secretary Samantha Powers. No one is above the law: NO ONE!

I’m not a politician or a political expert. But what I am is an American citizen who as best as possible does and has always obeyed the law, paid taxes, owned a company with many employees who provided goods and services to other Americans, a husband, father, grandfather, and a Christian. To some, all those things I am are black marks against me. And the fact that such is true is simply a travesty.

Where has the simple goodness of being American, loving and respecting our country, obeying the law and expecting everyone else to do the same gone to? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Are we no more a nation with a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People?” Is the United States no longer the richest, strongest, and greatest country in World history? Is this country no longer where one is innocent until proven guilty? Do our laws no longer apply to everyone?

In the opinion of this writer, what we are watching is the frantic throes of frantic people who are angry for two reasons: one, they cannot believe a rich kid from Queens who is rough and brash and non-traditional and non-political could possibly run this country and be successful in doing so! They refuse to accept that the economic leaps the U.S. economy has made, the multiple victories in foreign trade and relationships with the leaders of foreign nations, the massive personal and corporate tax reductions, the tens of millions of new jobs, the lowest unemployment numbers in recorded history in every sector, and the most dollars ever collected by this government even with those tax cuts could be possibly due to that red-faced guy from New York who doesn’t act like a politician. Secondly, he beat the person that THEY had anointed to continue the policies of the first President in U.S. history to espouse “Socialism Lite” in his policies that summarily began the dismantling of the nation’s economy and infrastructure. HE BEAT HILLARY! And for that, HE MUST BURN!

Don’t be shocked if Donald Trump is impeached. Don’t be shocked to hear and see more unsubstantiated stories are released about alleged wrongdoing by Candidate and President Trump. The Washington Post and New York Times stories referenced above have already been debunked with facts. And neither of their stories gave the sources of the information reported!

And what probably is the greatest and unanswered “What If” still remains to be asked and answered: What if Americans have had enough and en masse and in many different ways send the message to Washington D.C. and to the Democrat Party controlled Media that “We aren’t going to take it anymore!”

“The Day Journalism Died:” Proof

We now know for certain, Journalism Is Dead! June 8, 2017, TruthNewsNetwork published a story here titled “The Day Journalism Died.” In that story, (feel free to go back and read it) we referenced the “markers” in the media-political stories published in print and broadcast that proved the title of that story is true.
While I along with many journalists would love for President Trump to not be quite so abrasive in his plethora of tweets, and not continuously declare that “Media is Fake News,” I concur with the thought that this president has no other way reach Americans with his message than to take the bull by the horns, bypass the media filters, and speak directly to his 100 million+ Twitter followers himself. In doing so, HIS media filter has been turned off! He speaks from his heart.
We now have professional, inside proof of the premise of our June 8, 2017, story straight from the horse’s mouth. President Trump is absolutely right, although I would still love for him to “turn down the volume” a bit. While the Media is NOT in total “Fake News” and not in total “the enemies of the American people,” almost without exception, Mainstream Media are more often than not speaking the language of enemies in their reporting of this President.
Proof of that is coming out in a book titled “Merchants of Truth” written by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson. The facts she reveals in the book are the indisputable truths of the President’s allegations against the MSM. I could summarize for you the information Abramson has included in the way of truth in her soon-to-be-released book. But I could not say it better than has Howard Kurtz — host of Media Buzz  — in an article published at FOXNews.com:

Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.

In a soon-to-be-published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

What’s more, she says, citing legendary 20th-century publisher Adolph Ochs, “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes.

Trump claims he is keeping the “failing” Times in business—an obvious exaggeration—but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated.”

The Times has long faced accusations of liberal bias, even before Trump got into politics and became its harshest critic. But Abramson’s words carry special weight because she is also a former Times Washington bureau chief and Wall Street Journal correspondent specializing in investigative reporting.

Baquet has said that Trump’s attacks on the press are “out of control” and that it is important to use the word “lie” when the president tells a clear untruth.

In “Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson praised as “brave and right” Baquet’s decision to run this headline when Trump abandoned his birtherism attacks on Barack Obama: “Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent.”

Abramson, who had her share of clashes with Baquet when he was her managing editor, sheds light on a 2016 episode when Baquet held off on publishing a story that would have linked the Trump campaign with Russian attempts to influence the election.

Liz Spayd, then the Times public editor, wrote that the paper, which concluded that more evidence was needed, appeared “too timid” in not running the piece, produced by a team that included reporter Eric Lichtblau.

Baquet “seethed” at this scolding, Abramson says, and emailed Lichtblau: “I hope your colleagues rip you a new a*****e.”

Baquet wrote that “the most disturbing thing” about Spayd’s column “was that there was information in it that came from very confidential, really difficult conversations we had about whether or not to publish the back channel information. I guess I’m disappointed that this ended up in print.

“It is hard for a journalist to complain when confidential information goes public. That’s what we do for a living, after all. But I’ll admit that you may find me less than open, less willing to invite debate, the next time we have a hard decision to make.”

Lichtblau soon left the Times for CNN, where he was one of three journalists fired when the network retracted and apologized for a story making uncorroborated accusations against Trump confidante Anthony Scaramucci. And the Times soon abolished the public editor’s column.

Abramson is critical of Trump as well. She calls his “fake news” attacks a “cheap way of trying to undermine the credibility of the Times’s reporting as something to be accepted as truth only by liberals in urban, cosmopolitan areas.”

The Times, which broke the story of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, also “made some bad judgment calls and blew its Clinton coverage out of proportion,” Abramson writes. She says Clinton “was wary of me,” mishandled the scandal and “was secretive to the point of being paranoid.”

Abramson is candid in acknowledging her faults. When then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was considering promoting her to the top job, he told her over lunch at Le Bernadin: “Everyone knows there’s a good Jill and a bad Jill. The big question for me is which one we’ll see if you become executive editor.”

She admitted to him that “I could be self-righteous when I felt unheard, I interrupted, I didn’t listen enough.”

It was a heated battle with Baquet that led to her ouster in 2014. He was furious upon learning that she was trying to recruit another top journalist—Abramson says an executive ordered her to keep it secret—who would share the managing editor’s title.

Sulzberger called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied: “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release. I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Her final judgment: “I was a less than stellar manager, but I also had been judged by an unfair double standard applied to many women leaders.”


According to Abramson’s narrative, the Times is no doubt biased against this President. Why is that? It could be for factual reasons. It could be for financial reasons. It could be for a group of heavily biased journalists to in unison attack a political opponent using the resources they have readily available: newspaper print and electronic media. Personally, I think — at least for the Times — the purposes are the last two. As Abramson indicated in her book, online subscriptions to the Times skyrocketed with the addition of Donald Trump to the political landscape in D.C. I am one American who subscribed to the Times online services just to keep up with “the other side” of Journalism. Honestly, I would NOT have done so if not for President Trump.

Don’t get me wrong: I have questioned the validity of much of what Abramson offered up in the past as editor and a contributing columnist at the Times and elsewhere. I give her kudos for this new revelation. To my knowledge, she is the first reputable journalist from a reputable news source to admit to rampant political bias in American reporting.

But there’s a bigger and more important story here. It begs for all of us to ask this question: “Where do we go to get REAL news — news that is objective, truthful, and without political perspective?” If Abramson’s revelation reveals nothing more to us than the confirmation of President Trump’s verbal attacks against the Times and other news outlets, it’s a start. But the very reason Journalism even exists is to provide people with information that is factual, accurate, and unbiased.

Other than here at www.TruthNewsNet.org, I cannot give you the name of ANY news outlet any of us can depend on for straightforward news all the time. That includes conservative like the Rush Limbaugh show, that of Sean Hannity, Breitbart News, FOX News, and others. And our resources and ability to wade through the bureaucratic layers of political narrative that heavily cloud the political landscape in America are limited to at best finding and passing along ALL the facts Americans need to know.

What do we do?

I cannot answer this question as today’s television, radio, and print editors, columnists, and reporters would, telling Americans “ignore all the others and just listen to us.” Our only alternative? “Think and research for yourself.”

Is that good enough?

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Obviously, based on that verse from the book of John, it is critical for us each to find the truth. And the only way I know we can do that is to honestly search through all the news we see and hear, and trust our own instincts to ferret out the truth.

And we need to get started. You can bet that 2019 will shortly see the beginning of an all-out assault by media outlets like the Times and other news sources, the Democrat Party and liberal politicians against anything to do with Donald Trump. It will be quick, across the spectrum of all things dealing with national politics, and vicious. The assault will be immense and broad. It will shock most Americans to learn that so many will align themselves with the Leftists in these attacks.

Be vigilant. Be thorough. Be honest and committed to finding the truth. It’s there.

We will continue to share what we know mixed with our opinions on many of these matters. Remember this: when we share facts it will be prefaced as “factual.” When we share an opinion, it will be labeled as “opinion,” so that you will know the difference. And we know this: “Just because one thinks something is right doesn’t mean it is right.” And, “Just because one thinks something is wrong doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

Here’s to a rewarding and informative year ahead for you and TruthNewsNet.org!


Robert Mueller: One of the Best or One of the Worst Part 2

(Before reading today’s story, please read Part 1 published yesterday, December 17th)


Who Remembers Sandy Berger?

Berger was an American political consultant who served as the United States National Security Advisor for President Bill Clinton from March 14, 1997, until January 20, 2001. Before that, he served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration from January 20, 1993, until March 14, 1997.

Here’s what Berger did:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents. In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years. The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals, but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. “In total, during this visit, he removed four documents … Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).” Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, “I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. … While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize.” By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.

Of course, the FBI was involved in the Justice Department investigated the Berger incident. That meant Robert Mueller was tasked to “oversee” that investigation. As aggressive as Mueller can be about pursuing the wrong man, he showed surprising leniency and laxity when it came to the case of Samuel “Sandy” Berger. He was found to have stuffed the documents in his socks and otherwise hidden them. His punishment was that he was allowed to plead guilty in 2005 to a single misdemeanor. He served no jail time but had to give up his security clearance for three years.

The staff of Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., authored a 60-page report about the theft of the documents, in which he said: “The Justice Department was unacceptably incurious about Berger’s Archives visits.”

Then There was Scooter Libby

As lax and lenient as the Department of Justice was with Berger, the opposite was true in other cases. After Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was leaked, a special counsel operation was set up to investigate the leak. Mueller’s deputy Comey pressured John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the case on the grounds he had potential conflicts of interest.

Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend, and godfather to one of his children, to the role of special counsel. Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald all knew the whole time that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. Yet they set things up so Fitzgerald would aggressively investigate the Bush administration for three years, jailed a journalist for not giving up a source, and pursued both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Comey even expanded the investigation’s mandate within weeks of setting up the special counsel. (Sound familiar?) Libby, who was later pardoned by President Trump, was rung up on a process charge in part thanks to prosecutorial abuse by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald encouraged a witness to give false testimony by not providing exonerating evidence to her and Libby’s attorneys. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary have write-ups on the saga.

Election Meddling

In 2016, the FBI kept getting involved in the presidential election. Political considerations rather obviously played a role in Comey showing deference to Clinton in July 2016 in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information. Political considerations also played a role — he says subconsciously — in Comey’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information had been reopened shortly before the election.

It wasn’t the first time the FBI meddled in a U.S. election. In 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted by a federal grand jury following a lengthy investigation by the FBI and found guilty eight days before Election Day. Stevens narrowly lost his re-election bid as a result and died in a plane crash a couple of years later.

The prosecutors in that case repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence that would have yielded a different verdict. The convictions were voided by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, who called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen. Stevens’ attorney complained about FBI abuses and said: ‘To us, while this is a joyful day and we’re happy that Sen. Stevens can resume a normal life without the burden that he’s carried over these last years,’ he said, ‘at age 85, it’s a very sad story too. Because it’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States.”

Israeli Spy Ring

Another black mark on Mueller’s record at the FBI was the pursuit of what the bureau dramatically claimed was an Israeli spy ring operating out of the Pentagon. The news broke in August 2004 that a spy working for Israel was in the Department of Defense.

It turned out that the bureau had gone after a policy analyst who had chatted with American lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Charges were also pursued against two AIPAC employees. Those charges were later dropped and the sentence of the first person was dropped from 13 years to 10 months of house arrest and some community service.

The Washington Post wrote: “The conspiracy case against two former AIPAC lobbyists came to an inglorious end in May when the government dropped all charges after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial maneuvers.”

It was a curious case: First, the lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under an obscure section of the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that had been used only once before — unsuccessfully and never against private citizens for disclosing classified information. Second, they were targets of a bizarre sting in which they were fed false information suggesting that the lives of U.S. and Israeli operatives in Iraq were at risk and that American officials were refusing to take steps to protect them. The accusation was not that they brokered this information to some foreign enemy but that they offered it to everybody they could, hoping, among other things, to get a reporter from The Post to publish it so that it might draw the attention of the right U.S. officials and save U.S. lives. In short, even if the two were guilty as charged, they look more like whistle-blowers than spies.

It turned out the probe was led by David Szady, the same man who notoriously missed Russian spy Robert Hanssen in his midst while he spent years targeting an innocent man named Brian Kelley, an undercover officer at the CIA. For this good work, Mueller named him Assistant Director for Counterintelligence.

The “Weisman” Factor

Many of these examples of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse were done not by Mueller but by underlings. He should have been aware of what they were doing, which means he should take responsibility for the errors. If he wasn’t aware, that’s a very bad sign regarding his competence to supervise his special counsel deputy Andrew Weissman. (We have written previously extensively of Weisman’s long and egregious prosecutorial record)

If Mueller had no effective supervision against the abuses of the above underlings, why would anyone trust him to supervise his good buddy Weissman, whom he picked to run lead on his probe of Trump? Weissman destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Anderson LLP, which once had 85,000 employees. Thanks to prosecutorial abuse, jurors were not told that Arthur Anderson didn’t have criminal intent when it shredded documents. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

Weissman also “creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron,” which sent four executives to jail. Weissman concocted unprecedented charges and did not allow the executives to get bail, causing massive disruption to the families before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed most of Weissman’s case.


So this is the “guy” put in charge of chasing and finding proof that the current President, his campaign staff and others colluded with Russians to positively influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. There apparently was no collusion, so Mueller morphed the investigation into “Obstruction of Justice.” Apparently, there was no Obstruction found. Now we understand Mueller is looking into Trump business transactions as far back as the 1980s!

Does that sound like a Witch-hunt to you?

Let’s not forget: one could also argue that the above failures, except the Stevens case, were actually James Comey’s responsibility. That’s arguably true as well, but it also shows just how bizarre it is that Mueller was named to investigate a situation in which his friend and partner in prosecutorial abuse is so intimately involved.

I am certain that Americans expect all those in national public office to be honorable, honest, and to serve Americans within the positions for which they were elected or appointed. That includes the President of the United States. If and when there is real injustice, illegalities, and constant efforts to hide things from Americans, we all get an uneasy feeling.

When the Mueller probe was announced, I was skeptical. But my knowledge there are so many things in D.C. I don’t know or understand, I was perfectly willing for Mueller and Company to take a look. But two years later: there’s no there-there. They try to justify the $25 million taxpayers have paid directly to fund the investigation with the indictments that have come from the investigation. But as the light is shined on those indictments, we’ve learned they were either against Russians who were simply charged and will certainly never show up in American court to stand trial, or were not for actions people committed to collude with Russia in any way, but stem from actions taken by Mueller’s team in setting up those being investigated to misstate something — which is technically a lie — and have been charged (or threatened to be charged) for a federal felony!

Does that sound like justice to you?

It may be justice, but every American citizen is promised: “equal justice under the law.” I’m pretty certain General Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen and others would tell us their justice was not/is not equal under the law.

If it quacks and waddles, it’s almost always a duck.

And Mueller is quacking!

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com