Archive for the ‘Political Corruption’ Category

FISA COURT CONFIRMS TWO CARTER PAGE SURVEILLANCE APPLICATIONS ‘ NOT VALID’

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

 

FISA Court Confirms Two Carter Page Surveillance Applications ‘Not Valid’

A FISA Court order declassified Thursday confirmed that the government had found two of the four FISA applications authorized for the FBI to surveil 2016 Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page to be “not valid,” and will further investigate the validity of the other two.

The order revealed that the government found two of the surveillance application renewals to be “not valid” based on “the material misstatements and omission” used by the FBI, which was found by the Justice Department to have “insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

Based on the ordering of the applications, it appears the review found the second and third renewal applications used against Page to be invalid, while the original application and the first renewal remain under investigation. The third renewal was personally signed by James Comey, while the fourth was signed by Andrew McCabe.

The court also said it was still waiting on the Bureau after it “agreed ‘to sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations’” against Page, but so far has not provided an update.

(more…)

Share

WOULD DEMOCRATS IMPEACH OBAMA?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

This article by Karl Rove lists the numerous times Obama’s  dubious tactics as president  were never criticized by Democrats.  One way to stop the Democrats at the senate trial, is to compare all the questionable tactics that Obama did as president to what they are alleging Trump has done.     Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Would Democrats Impeach Obama?

His dealings with foreign officials and Congress look as suspect as Trump’s

By Karl Rove    January 23, 2020

Hypocrisy is common in Washington, but impeachment is bringing out more than its fair share. That’s true of some Republicans, and the mainstream media devotes countless hours to it. What gets much less attention is the hypocrisy of the party that to which most journalists are sympathetic: the Democrats.

Take Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. On Tuesday he demanded the Senate call witnesses, claiming they’re required for a “fair trial” and slamming Republican opposition as a “coverup.” But the GOP position is exactly what Mr. Schumer’s was during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. Back then he said it “doesn’t make sense” for the Senate to call witnesses.

More important than hypocrisy about the process of impeachment is hypocrisy about the substance. Removing a president is the most draconian act Congress can take. It ill serves America if the party opposed to the president uses impeachment as a political weapon to tarnish his standing and weaken him for the next election.

When considering the Democrats’ high-minded arguments, ask yourself: What if Hillary Clinton won in 2016? After she took office, it would have been revealed that her campaign hired the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which assigned Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official, to reach out to Russian counterparts to solicit dirt on Donald Trump. Recall that the since-discredited dossier Mr. Steele peddled to the media in the fall of 2016 was made up of unsubstantiated rumors from former Russian agents.

It’s naive to believe the Kremlin was unaware that Mr. Steele asked Moscow pals for dirt on Mr. Trump. Those spies are retired, but they rely on Vladimir Putin for their pension checks. Who among congressional Democrats would now be calling for Mrs. Clinton’s removal if she were in the Oval Office? I doubt any. I’ve searched in vain for Democratic criticism for her soliciting foreign involvement in the 2016 election—the principal charge of their impeachment case against President Trump.

Furthermore, while Democrats say Mr. Trump should be removed for seeking a quid pro quo—a Ukrainian investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden in return for U.S. military aid—what about President Barack Obama’s March 2012 open-mic moment? At a summit in Seoul, he asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell his boss, then-Prime Minister Putin, that “on all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” In other words, if Mr. Putin didn’t create problems during Mr. Obama’s re-election fight with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama would show “flexibility” on missile defense and other important issues of national security and foreign policy after the election. Again, crickets when it comes to Democratic criticism.

(more…)

Share

WARREN’S BANANA REPUBLIC

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

 

This woman is definitely a danger to our liberties.  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Warren’s Banana Republic

She promises to investigate Trump officials after she wins.

Editorial Board   January 23, 2020

Think the fog of partisan Trump investigations will lift once the President leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025? Not if Elizabeth Warren has anything to say about it. With the Iowa caucuses approaching and her campaign fortunes flagging, Senator Warren now says that as President she’d launch an open-ended criminal investigation into her predecessor and anyone who worked for him.

Ms. Warren’s latest “anti-corruption” plan says she would create “a Justice Department Task Force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” She would order Justice to look for violations of “federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws” as well as immigration-enforcement offenses.

“This will be no ordinary transition between administrations,” the document says ominously. Team Warren won’t be satisfied with taking control of the executive branch in an election. They also want scalps of choice ex-officials. The plan links to news articles about Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser KellyanneCon way and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.

If there is evidence of a crime by a former Administration official, it should be investigated through the normal channels. Ms. Warren is proposing something different: A law-enforcement task force dedicated to searching for wrongdoing only by political opponents. This would be familiar in Latin American dictatorships where the party that loses an election may be jailed as retribution.

Pundits said Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign threat to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email mismanagement was a chilling breach of democratic norms. We opposed such an investigation but at least the alleged misconduct was limited to specific conduct by one official, whereas Ms. Warren wants investigations of all Republican officials for any political offenses.

Despite all the apocalyptic think-pieces and high-minded books, America has not become an “autocracy” three years into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The opposition party won the House in the midterms, proceeded to impeach the President, and its leading candidates are ahead in the head-to-head 2020 presidential election polls.

Yet in polarized times the temptation to criminalize political differences is stronger than ever. It will be especially strong for Democrats once they are back in control of the Justice Department. Down Senator Warren’s road lies a real threat to liberty.

 

Share

ILHAN OMAR CHALLENGED FOR HOUSE SEAT

Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020

 

Dalia Al-Aqidi Challenges Ilhan Omar for House Seat

Dalia Al-Aqidi Challenges Ilhan Omar for House Seat

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and journalist Dalia Al-Aqidi (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images; courtesy) Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and journalist Dalia Al-Aqidi (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images; courtesy)American Muslim Dalia Al-Aqidi has formally launched her campaign to oust Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota’s 5th district. Her campaign, Dalia for Congress, is rooted in her life experience as an Iraqi refugee, a veteran journalist with a distinguished track record and in her desire to protect America from becoming another country to escape from.

“I’ve seen up close the consequences of what radical Ilhan Omar is doing. Conflict. Division. Oppression. I escaped that world once, and I won’t let it happen here. I’m running for Congress because we’re not as divided as Ilhan Omar and the far-left would have us believe. I’m running to bring us closer together.” – Dalia Al-Aqidi

 

Born in Iraq, Dalia  and her family fled the country in 1988 due to harsh persecution by Saddam Hussein, leaving almost every possession behind. Her family created a new life for themselves and became U.S. citizens.

Prior to Dalia and her family’s immigration to the U.S., with the help of late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, she was politically active against Hussein’s brutality and oppression of the Iraq people.

Dalia has seen the consequences of Omar’s version of an ideal government—she’s seen the kind of hatred it inspires and what it has done to the Middle East. That’s why Dalia felt that it was her responsibility to stop her—to stop the widening rift among Americans and instead unite our country under the values that she immigrated here for.

Immediately, her campaign received tremendous support, including from distinguished anti-Islamists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also of Somali heritage.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

@Ayaan

To all my American followers please look up this brave and patriotic woman: Dalia Al-Aqidi.
Here is a quote from her:

“I am loyal to the country that gave me a chance, gave me a brighter future,”.
Dalia is challenging Ilhan Omar. I am with Dalia.

(more…)

Share

‘PROFILES IN CORRUPTION’ – NEW PETER SCHWEIZER BOOK ON THE BIDEN FAMILY

Tuesday, January 21st, 2020

 

Below are two articles about the book, ‘Profiles in Corruption’ by Peter Schweizer regarding the Biden family that will be released tomorrow.  Nancy  

‘Profiles in Corruption’ Contains 1,126 Endnotes, No Unnamed Sources

By Rebecca Mansour    January 19, 2020

The forthcoming bombshell investigative book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite contains 1,126 endnotes totaling 83 pages of source material, Breitbart News has learned.

In addition, the book contains no unnamed sources. Instead, it is based on hard evidence and documents, including: foreign and domestic corporate and legal records, tax liens, lobbyist disclosures, property records, White House visitor logs, federal bankruptcies, and federal criminal trial records.

Publishing giant HarperCollins has kept Profiles in Corruption under a strict embargo. The book will reportedly expose how five members of Joe Biden’s family—the “Biden Five”—scored “tens of millions of dollars” in taxpayer money and guaranteed loans. In addition, the book is said to contain never-before-reported bombshell revelations about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, and Eric Garcetti.

Last week Amazon named the book its “most anticipated” nonfiction book based on pre-sale volume. Ten days before the book’s January 21 release, it had already hit #1 on Amazon across all book genres.

The book’s writer, Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer, is a five-time New York Times bestseller author who penned Clinton Cash and Secret Empires. According to Axios, Schweizer and his GAI team of investigators spent a year and a half researching Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.

Sean Hannity will kick off the book’s official launch on Monday.

 

nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/

How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections

By Peter Schweizer     January 18, 2020

Political figures have long used their families to route power and benefits for their own self-enrichment. In my new book, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,” one particular politician — Joe Biden — emerges as the king of the sweetheart deal, with no less than five family members benefiting from his largesse, favorable access and powerful position for commercial gain. In Biden’s case, these deals include foreign partners and, in some cases, even US taxpayer dollars.

The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.

When this subject came up in 2019, Biden declared, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

As we will see, this is far from the case …

(more…)

Share

OBAMA, IRAN AND TRUMP, JCPOA

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

 

OBAMA PASSED THE BUCK.  TRUMP REFUSED TO PLAY

The Iran deal was never meant to stop Iran from building a bomb—it was supposed to delay it until disaster happened on someone else’s watch

By Lee Smith   Lee Smith is the author of The Consequences of Syria

 

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

JCPOA advocates claim Trump left the U.S. and the entire world vulnerable by leaving the Iran deal. The JCPOA, they say, was working. This is not true and hasn’t been true since the very beginning of the deal, at least not on the terms sold to Congress and the U.S. public. From the start, Iran was given secret loopholes that made it appear they were meeting the publicly stated terms of deal. Among other recent violations: The Iranians have exceeded the amount of uranium they’re allowed to enrich; they’ve exceeded the levels of purity of enriched uranium; they’ve violated the types of centrifuges they were allowed to spin; and injected uranium into centrifuges they were not allowed to use for enrichment.

Perhaps most tellingly, Iran’s nuclear archives, which Israel seized from a Tehran warehouse in January 2018 and made public months later, show that the regime never gave up its intentions to build a military nuclear program, despite promises in the JCPOA to never pursue nuclear weapons……

The most infamous payoff was the $1.7 billion in cash the administration shipped off to the IRGC on wooden pallets in exchange for U.S. citizens held hostage by the regime. The White House said that there was no “quid pro quo,” that it was Iran’s money to begin with—$400 million the pre-revolutionary government had deposited in 1979 to buy U.S. arms, plus interest. But the U.S. had already used the $400 million to compensate terror victims of the Islamic Republic. That was Iran’s money. The $400 million the Obama administration used to “pay back” the Iranians belonged to the U.S. taxpayer.

The administration argued that the U.S. had to pay the ransom in cash because Tehran had been cut off from the financial system and there was no other way to transfer the funds. That was not true. The Obama administration had wired payments to Iran before and after the wooden pallets episode. The Iranians wanted cash so it would be harder to track their terror financing…….

The Obama administration even paid the Iranians when they violated the deal. The Iranians overproduced reactor coolant, (heavy water, a key ingredient in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons) in violation of the JCPOA, and the administration offered to buy it for $10 millionto keep them in compliance. But that wasn’t enough for Tehran—or the White House. In exchange for giving up the nuclear-related material they had promised not to have in the first place—the heavy water—the regime then demanded more nuclear material in exchange. And the American administration agreed: In January 2017, Obama greenlighted the shipment of 130 tons of uranium to Iran.

 BEGINNING OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

(more…)

Share

SOLEIMANI’S LATIN AMERICA TERROR

Wednesday, January 15th, 2020

 

www.wsj.com/articles/soleimanis-latin-america-terror-11578863631

Soleimani’s Latin America Terror

President Trump’s decision to kill him is good news for the Western Hemisphere.

By Mary Anastasia O’Grady   January 12, 2020

The death of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani is a blow to the theocracy’s efforts to assert its power across the Middle East. By taking out Soleimani, President Trump also did Latin America a big favor.

As if to make the point, Cuba’s military dictatorship quickly condemned the U.S. action. The dead general was also mourned by the drug-trafficking terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, members of the Venezuelan dictatorship, and Iranian proxy networks in Brazil, Peru, Argentina, El Salvador and Mexico.

A hero of hemispheric criminality has been lost, and the gangsters are sad. They may also be worried. It has been a mistake to let Iran’s incursions into the region during the last two decades go unanswered. If the end of Soleimani is the beginning of a more muscular U.S. policy toward Tehran, it’s good news for Latin America.

Iran plays the long game in its effort to undermine U.S. leadership and expand its influence around the world. In the Western Hemisphere, the regime’s Ministry of Intelligence has taken the lead by establishing “cultural centers” in many urban areas, from which it can spread propaganda, proselytize, radicalize converts and recruit locals as spies.

But intelligence gathering has a deeper purpose, which is to support operations that follow. This is where Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, came in.

The force handles foreign assignments for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, engaging in asymmetric warfare through weapons trafficking as well as assassinations and attacks on enemy targets. In other words, it exports terrorism.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – PROTESTS IN IRAN AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT

Wednesday, January 15th, 2020

 

Pro-democracy dissidents in Iran sent stunning videos of the protests in their country that are shaking the Islamic regime to its foundations.

The videos were reportedly sent at great personal risk using encrypted technology.

www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/274561

Share

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S GUERRILLA WAR

Monday, January 13th, 2020

 

How Obama and his administration is working behind the scenes to discredit President Trump.     Nancy

The Obama Administration’s Guerrilla War

By Eric Erickson   January 10, 2020

In the modern era, it is difficult to come up with an administration that has spent as much energy trying to sabotage its successor in office. Obama administration officials have worked tirelessly to embed themselves into media outlets as supposedly objective voices.

After President Donald Trump oversaw the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and as missiles fell from the night sky into Iraq from Iran, those voices took to the airwaves to push the Obama line against Trump. In the American media, with help from former Obama staffers, Trump was the bad guy and Iran was the good guy. Iran deescalated tensions. Trump made things worse.

On CNN, Jim Sciutto of the Obama administration sat as an objective news anchor. CNN also now has Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, Laura, in an anchor chair, too. They tossed a co-anchor for their early morning news show to make room for the daughter of one of Barack Obama’s most ardent defenders. But we are supposed to pretend there is no bias.

They have been joined by a bevy of other Obama surrogates who now pretend to be objective analysts. Watching James Clapper, also of the Obama administration, pretend to be an unbiased national security analyst for CNN makes me long for the days of “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam Hussein’s spokesman who claimed the Americans had been defeated as American tanks rolled into Baghdad.

Newsweek reported last week that, “James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, has urged Americans to be skeptical of President Donald Trump’s justification for the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.” Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that CIA Director Gina Haspel, whose nomination Clapper supported, “had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon.”

Who do we believe? The CIA director or the people ideologically dedicated to protecting Obama’s precious Iran deal? When watching the Obama team — whether they are anchoring CNN coverage or mouthing off on MSNBC — it is striking just how invested they are in denying reality.

After Iran launched its functionally impotent attack against American positions in Iraq, Trump rightly pointed out the Obama administration helped Iran launch those missiles. The pushback from media fact checkers and Obama surrogates was fast and furious — and also more dedicated to protecting Obama than the truth.

(more…)

Share

OBAMA’S 2,800 STRIKES CONGRESS DIDN’T APPROVE

Wednesday, January 8th, 2020

 

www.westernjournal.com/hypocritical-dems-trash-trump-fine-obamas-2800-strikes-congress-didnt-approve/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-tribune

Hypocritical Dems Trash Trump but Are Fine with Obama’s 2,800 Strikes Congress Didn’t Approve

J

By Randy DeSoto
Published January 6, 2020 at 4:20pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democratic leaders are decrying President Donald Trump’s use of force against Iranian Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization but allowed former President Barack Obama free rein to carry out military operations.

Obama oversaw military actions in both Syria and Libya for months without seeking the approval of Congress.

The Washington Times reported in April 2015 that U.S. strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq surpassed 2,800 by that point in the conflict.

“The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State,” according to The Times.

By mid-April 2015, the U.S. had carried out 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria.

Obama pointed to his powers as commander in chief, as well as the September 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” resolution passed by Congress, which recognizes, “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

The Obama administration also relied on the 2002 AUMF resolution calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq.

The Times reported that Obama continued his military campaign in Iraq and Syria, even after a new authorization for the use of force against the Islamic State was introduced, but had not been passed by Congress.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories