[Breitbart] NEW YORK ‐ The report released last week by the Justice Department’s Inspector General into the government’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server contains enough "indictable incidents" for a special prosecutor to investigate, contended pollster and veteran Democratic political operative Pat Caddell.
"This was dynamite," Caddell said of the IG’s 500-plus page report. "There are indictable incidents one after the other in there I believe. I am sure that any special prosecutor or the prosecutor in Utah has a lot to work with."
Caddell was speaking on this reporter’s talk radio program "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM.
The pollster referred to numerous findings in the report, including more anti-Trump text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved and both worked on the Clinton case. Caddell called those messages a "smoking gun."
Anti-Trump text messages from other agents were also referenced and the report referred five FBI employees for further investigation.
#1
Why a special prosecutor? Just to contrast it to the existing 'special prosecutor?
As Cadell observed, there's a Utah prosecutor working on some/all of this stuff.
Cadell. Jimmy Carter's pollster, with wide influence in the White House. Maybe the message is that other Dems should distance themselves from the FBI?
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/19/2018 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Utah is a long way from DC and by the time the info gets there it has decomposed and nothing will happen in time to mean anything. This is just more of the uni-parties delay and distract tactics.
First thing any prosecutor in a high profile case asks is "what's in it for me, pros and cons?"
Always seems to come up with 1 small pro and a $#itload of cons.
[WASHINGTONTIMES] Ten people who’d been tossed in the clink Drop the rosco, Muggsy, or you're one with the ages! on murder charges were nonetheless granted permission to remain and work in the U.S. under the Obama-era DACA amnesty, according to new government data released Monday.
Thirty-one "Dreamers" had rape charges on their records, nearly 500 had been accused of sex crimes, and more than 2,000 had been arrested for drunken driving ‐ yet were approved for DACA status.
All told, 53,000 people who have been approved for DACA ‐ 7 percent of the total ‐ had a criminal record when the government granted them status. Nearly 8,000 racked up criminal charges after they’d been approved, according to the data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
DACA turned six years old on Friday and is back in the news as the House of Representatives begins to debate whether to grant a broad amnesty to Dreamers, and as courts across the country grapple with the legality of the 2012 program.
The new data will likely affect both the legislative and court action, since it gives some indications of the levels of screening, and waivers, the government is willing to offer for Dreamers who apply.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Charge them, convict them, and put them in prison. Or use the stupid patriot act and disappear them let them be tortured to death at one of the CIA black sites that are so infamous. I'm good with that. Time for the overpaid government leeches to feel some fear.
#4
Mr. Comey’s lawyer said he was out of the country — though Mr. Grassley, committee chairman, said he saw Mr. Comey was in Iowa over the weekend, visiting a key state in presidential campaigning.
“He has time for book tours and television interview, but apparently no time to assist this committee,” Mr. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said.
He said he had sought to compel the three to show up to testify, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, blocked him. Under committee rules, the ranking Democrat must agree with the chairman in order to issue a subpoena.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/19/2018 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former Senate committee security official, charged with lying to the FBI about contacts with reporters, on Tuesday asked a court to issue a gag order prohibiting U.S. President Donald Trump and others from commenting on the case. In court filings, lawyers for James Wolfe, former security chief for the Senate Intelligence Committee, said comments by Trump after Wolfe's June 7 arrest were "highly prejudicial" and asked the court to issue an order prohibiting further public comments on the case by Trump and others.
In an indictment made public earlier this month, federal prosecutors accused Wolfe, who worked for the committee for nearly 30 years, of lying to the FBI when he claimed he had not been in contact with any reporter, and claimed he did not disclose information he had learned while working for the committee to two journalists. Wolfe is not specifically charged with leaking classified information.
Wolfe pleaded not guilty to the charges at a hearing before a federal magistrate judge last week.
In their motion seeking a gag order, Wolfe's lawyers said that the morning after Wolfe's arrest, Trump announced that the Justice Department had caught "a very important leaker." The lawyers say that at the time Trump made these statements, Wolfe had not yet been arraigned on the charges, let alone had them heard by a judge or jury.
The lawyers said that Trump's "prejudicial and improper statements" were widely reported by news media. They asked the judge in the case to issue an order "prohibiting further extrajudicial statements" by participants in the case, "including all relevant members of the Executive Branch, up to and including the President of the United States."
Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Marguerita Choy
[Townhall] Remember all the times the anti-gun Left talked about common sense gun control? They only wanted to pass so-called universal background checks, remember that? Well, that’s expanded to increasing the age to purchase any firearm to 21, limiting magazine sizes, and in some cases, banning certain firearms altogether in certain parts of the country. In Deerfield, Illinois, the local authorities banned AR-15s within the village limits; Deerfield is a Chicago suburb. For Deerfield gun owners, June 13 was doomsday, but a judge blessedly blocked the law from going into effect. The ordinance banned certain rifles, but also scores of handguns.
The only recourse was to either destroy them or turn them over to the police. The law carried a $250-$1,000/day noncompliance fee. Oregon could have a similar ballot initiative that forced law-abiding gun owners to register, surrender, destroy, or transfer their firearms out of the state. And now, a Florida Democrat is proposing banning AR-15s through decree.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/19/2018 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Vote me in as Evil Overlord and I promise that not only will the democrats no longer be an issue, but college campuses will be places of learning mired in the great traditions of reality.
#11
Conservatives should spread the rumor that the AR in AR-15 means Arrrghhh because its the model of weapon favored by pirates. Bet CNN would run with it.
[WSJ] The long-awaited showdown between the Justice Department and Congress is finally here.
It started late Friday afternoon. While the rest of the country was parsing the just-released report on the FBI from the Justice Department’s inspector general, senior congressional leaders and selected committee chairmen quietly met with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at a secure location in the basement of the Capitol.
At issue was Justice and FBI’s continuing defiance of congressional subpoenas. At the top of this list is the demand from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for documents about why and whether the FBI had an informant insinuating himself with Trump campaign officials before the Russia investigation officially started.
On Sunday on Fox News, Devin Nunes, the House Intel chairman, made clear his "patience has run out." The good news is that he and the other House chairmen at the Friday meeting‐Judiciary’s Bob Goodlatte and Oversight and Government Reform’s Trey Gowdy ‐were fully backed up in their demands by Speaker Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan sent Messrs. Rosenstein and Wray an unambiguous message: Comply with Congress’s orders this week.
In a radio interview Monday morning with Milwaukee’s WISN, Mr. Ryan said "the new leadership at Justice and the FBI" has to decide whether it will be "part of the cleanup crew or the coverup team." If Justice and the FBI don’t comply within the timeline he laid out, he said, "we are going to have to take action."
Of all the actions Congress could take, a contempt finding or an impeachment is the most substantial. Unfortunately, recent Republican history with regard to the former doesn’t incline to optimism.
Lois Lerner, the former official at the heart of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s attorney general, were each held in contempt by Congress. But in both cases, Congress blinked when it came to imposing effective consequences.
In June 2012, Mr. Holder was held in contempt for withholding documents Congress wanted from the botched Fast and Furious operation that put firearms in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. It was the first time Congress had taken such a move against a sitting cabinet member. The first contempt resolution referred the attorney general for criminal charges, while a second launched a civil suit seeking a court to order Justice to turn over the documents.
The Obama Justice Department declined to act on the criminal referral‐as everyone knew it would. Though a judge would ultimately reject the administration’s claims of executive privilege, the ruling didn’t come until 2016. By that time Mr. Obama was wrapping up his second term, Mr. Holder had retired, and Fast and Furious had long since faded from the headlines.
But Congress has a third option for contempt: It can jail someone until he produces the testimony or documents sought. The advantage here is that Congress can do this all on its own. The last time Congress used contempt to jail was in 1934, when the Senate arrested, tried and then sentenced former Assistant Commerce Secretary William P. MacCracken Jr. to 10 days for allowing the removal and destruction of papers he’d been subpoenaed to produce.
You have to go back even further for the last time Congress impeached an executive-branch official. In 1876, Congress accused Secretary of War William Belknap of using his office for private gain. But if Sally Yates as deputy attorney general could cite the 1799 Logan Act, which no American has ever been convicted of violating, to intervene in the Mike Flynn case, surely Congress needn’t be shy about its Article I constitutional power to impeach.
The obstruction of Justice and the FBI appears rooted in the mistaken idea that they are somehow above the elected representatives of the American people. While Mr. Rosenstein has referred to congressional talk of impeaching him as "extortion," Mr. Wray, in his statement to a press conference outlining steps to fix the FBI, conspicuously made no mention of better cooperation with Congress.
An impeachment that removed either Mr. Rosenstein or Mr. Wray‐or a contempt finding that sent one of them to the congressional pokey for a spell‐could send a good message to federal bureaucrats inclined to be dismissive of congressional subpoenas. Then again, if either man thought he was in real and imminent danger of being impeached or held in contempt, Congress would likely find him instantly cooperative. Of course, that’s exactly why Congress has these powers‐not so much to punish but to encourage accommodation and respect.
But if Messrs. Rosenstein and Wray don’t accommodate, and if the stonewalling starts again, the House ought to impeach or jail until it gets satisfaction. Because a congressional power Congress is too timid to invoke is worse than a hollow threat: It becomes a sign that Congress need not be taken seriously.
#1
A close reading of the Constitution reveals its not about Checks and Balances. If Congress is of the mind, it can replace anyone in the government and cut the purse strings to any part of it. The problem, up till now, is that Congress prefers to 'pass the buck' and play the blame game on others.
#3
The normals in flyover country are wise to the con. Either the swamp can make a return to administrative duties, slow, sullen, and churlish though it may be. Or, well actually let's not get into that whole entire 'Or' thing, they really aren't going to want to go that way.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Townhall] Remember all the times the anti-gun Left talked about common sense gun control? They only wanted to pass so-called universal background checks, remember that? Well, that’s expanded to increasing the age to purchase any firearm to 21, limiting magazine sizes, and in some cases, banning certain firearms altogether in certain parts of the country. In Deerfield, Illinois, the local authorities banned AR-15s within the village limits; Deerfield is a Chicago suburb. For Deerfield gun owners, June 13 was doomsday, but a judge blessedly blocked the law from going into effect. The ordinance banned certain rifles, but also scores of handguns. 
