LIST: The 35 Criminal and Destructive Acts by the Democrat Party, Deep State, Media and Never Trumpers to Gut America

By Jim Hoft

Americans experienced another leak and another smear of President Trump from CNN.  This leak is a tape from the President’s lawyer which may have been taped illegally, which may have been initially stolen from the President’s lawyer by the Mueller team (to hell with attorney-client privilege) which  is just another attempt to damage duly elected President Trump.

 

As a result of this and all previous illegal activities by the previous administration, the MSM, Never-Trumpers, and absent Attorney General Jeff Sessions, we can now confirm that the US is officially a banana republic.

The US has gradually fallen over time and the past ten or so years have been the worst.   The Obama Administration took the US to new levels of corruption at the very top while ignoring the US Constitution and hurting most the forgotten and hard working men and women of the US.

If you stand up for Americans then you are the enemy of the Obama team of corrupt government workers (the Deep State), the Democrat Party and all Never-Trumpers, the elites who want to control the world because they and their strong arm perpetrators (e.g. Peter Strzok) believe they know what is best, and the MSM.

To hell with laws for the elites, only the commoners are required to adhere to them.  The elites and their gangs of perpetrators are now in charge and they don’t have to abide by the laws demanded upon the rest of us.

If you are a Democrat or a Never-Trumper:

1.) You can have your own server outside of the government system even though government employees are mandated to use the government’s servers and systems.  You can do this to hide your racketeering operation and other unlawful actions.  If caught, you can destroy the server, clean it with a software that will ensure nothing is there, destroy all emails and evidence, and delay any requests while denying any wrongdoing.  No worries, you will be exonerated by the Deep State legal system, its corrupt DOJ and FBI, and its phony judges in their phony courts.

2.) You can use government agencies at your discretion, whether legal or not.  You can target your conservative opponents through the IRS by delaying and eventually denying their requests or targeting them for audits.  You can share their records with all members of the Deep State and nothing will happen to you.

3.) You can run guns across the US border or across the Middle East.  When Americans are killed as a result, you can lie to Congress, no worries.

4.) You can see your Ambassador murdered in Benghazi and blame it on an innocent American in Los Angeles and a video he created that you state caused the outrage that killed Americans.  You can deny them help when under fire and go to sleep so you can make your next day’s campaign fund-raiser.

5.) You can sell 20% of US uranium to the Russian nuclear company in return for $146 million in contributions to your “Foundation”.  When questioned, you can deny wrongdoing and know that your Deep State will never prosecute you for any wrongdoing.

6.) You can hand over the ‘Taliban 5’ to whoever you want along with billions in cash and in return obtain a US soldier captured because he was a deserter and lie about him being a deserter.

7.) You can give billions to Iran, the country responsible for a quarter of US soldiers’ deaths in Iraq.  You can claim it is a good deal and hide from Americans the money provided to get the deal done, even the billion in cash that was transferred overnight on pallets on a plane.

8.) You can donate billions of American tax payer’s dollars to a group of nobody’s in the name of climate change so that they can redistribute it to poor countries like China.

9.) You can spy on your opponents, lie about it, create false stories of their interactions with Russians and push it through your corrupt MSM.

10.) You can back stab the President of the US, even if he is in your party.  You can call out all charges against him, align yourself with the MSM and the Deep State and do all you can to prevent his efforts to ‘Make America Great Again’.

If you are Deep State:

1.) You can make millions supporting your Deep State candidates and hope for cushy government jobs where you can continue to promote your illegal activities because you know best.

2.) You can allow obvious criminals to be set free because of your bias and hopes to someday work for them, even if they destroy evidence, neglect to properly maintain super-secret classified emails, share the information with whomever they want, and lie about the entire cover-up.

3.) You can create a ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ collusion fake news story and throw it on your opponent even though you may have personally delivered uranium to Russians on a European airport tarmac.

4.) You can spy on your opponents and tape their conversations.

5.) You can obtain your politician’s made up phony dossier and present it to the secret FISA court in an effort to obtain a license to spy on your opponent.  You can continue to use this document for a year to spy on him and his team, even after he takes office.

6.) Even though you signed off on a FISA warrant, you can create a phony and corrupt Special Counsel with a team of far-left gangster lawyers and inspectors whose only purpose is to remove your opponent from office and punish his loyal supporters.

7.) You can make up lies about your interviewees lying when pounced on them only a few days after working in the White House.  You can use these lies to create false documents and then force them through gangster tactics to succumb to a guilty plea for lying.  You can use one of your friends, a judge (Contreras) who also works on the secret FISA court to obtain the guilty plea.

8.) You can push your cases through judges appointed by Obama (Amy Berman Jackson) who you know will overturn every plea by those you arrest.

9.) You can throw your indicted enemies in jail using your Obama judge and keep them in solitary confinement even though they have not been tried or convicted.

10.) You can indict them for more phony charges when they fight back since their real crime was representing your opponent as his campaign manager.

11.) You can charge people for not filing forms when their former bosses (the Podestas) did the same but were tipped off to file them in arrears shortly before arresting their former employee (Manafort).

12.) You can grant the individuals aligned with your gang (Rice, Abedin, and now Podesta and others) immunity but never do the same for your opponent’s team members.

13.) You can steal your opponent’s transition team documents and emails even though much of it was protected under attorney client privilege.

14.) You can create ‘fake lawsuits’ against made up Russians and indict them and claim they stole the election even though the Facebook stories aligned to them were in Russian and were never translated to English, by them or your Deep State FBI, DOJ or Mueller Witch Hunt team.

15.) You can leak stories true and not true to the press to damage your opponents, no worries.

16.) You can steal your opponent’s personal attorney’s documents, files and tapes – to hell with attorney–client privilege again.

17.) And now, you can even leak these privileged documents and tapes to your MSM in another attempt to destroy your opponent.

If you’re the liberal mainstream media:

1.) You can do what you’re told and push every phone Russia story you can to destroy your conservative opponent.

2.) You can prevent conservatives from sharing information on your social outlets like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.  To hell with free speech.

3.) You can and will never share any positive stories that can be associated with the current President.  If the stock market reaches record highs, the GDP explodes, Americans get special bonuses due to new tax legislation, or any number of positive economic news, don’t share it.

4.) You will make fun of the President’s meeting with a North Korean dictator and yell out unbelievably inappropriate cat calls during historic events (Jim Acosta).  You will call the historic meeting a big nothing burger and move on back to Russia, Russia, Russia.

5.) You will push every phony and seedy story you can against the current President.

6.) You will only have Democrats, Never Trumpers or Deep State operatives on your shows who disparage the President.

7.) You will promote the fake Russia, Russia, Russia story day in and day out, claiming the President is guilty of collusion with Russia for years with no proof, only false accusations by your politicians and Deep State cronies will be allowed.

The FBI’s FISA Faults

By The Editorial Board | The Wall Street Journal

The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier.

The FBI over the weekend finally released its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications for warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page, and now we know why the bureau resisted disclosure. Even in heavily redacted form, the applications confirm that the FBI relied on dubious partisan evidence to justify its warrant and withheld relevant information from the court.

The applications also vindicate the criticism of the FBI’s surveillance requests that were laid out in February by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. The committee’s findings were based on a review of the FISA applications, which were still classified at the time. The main Nunes claim was that the FBI made the Steele dossier—which was commissioned by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee—“an essential” part of its initial application. The FISA documents confirm this.
Potomac Watch Podcast

More than half of the first FISA application’s 66 pages are devoted to technical matters and a history of Russian electoral interference. Of the roughly 25 pages that focus on Mr. Page, much of it reports his dealings with Russians, his response to the news that he was under investigation, and a largely redacted conclusion.

The guts of the application is titled “Page’s Coordination With Russian Government Officials on 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Influence Activities.” This is the FBI’s evidence section, and, though heavily redacted, it looks to be almost entirely dossier-related.

Its opening paragraph says that the “FBI has learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials” on a trip to Russia in 2016 and that it got this information from an “FBI confidential human source (Source #1),” who is dossier author Christopher Steele. Most of what is unredacted that follows details the dossier’s claims about these Russian meetings, with further reference to “Source #1.”

This is important given that FBI assistant director Bill Priestap told Congressional investigators in October 2017 that the FBI’s efforts to corroborate the dossier were still in their “infancy” at the time of the first application. Months later former FBI Director Jim Comey referred to the dossier as “salacious and unverified.” To date no investigator has offered public proof of the dossier’s most damaging claims. Yet on the basis of an uncorroborated document commissioned by a rival presidential campaign, the FBI accused a U.S. citizen of being an “agent of a foreign power” who should be wiretapped.

Mr. Nunes also reported that the FBI did not inform the FISA court that the dossier and trusted “source” (Christopher Steele) were paid by the Clinton campaign. And sure enough, nowhere do the FISA applications mention the words Clinton, Democratic National Committee, Fusion GPS (the Clinton-financed oppo research firm that hired Mr. Steele), or Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson.

Several convoluted footnotes refer to “Source #1” (Mr. Steele) and a “U.S.-based law firm” (Clinton firm Perkins Coie), as well as an “identified U.S. person” (Mr. Simpson) who was “likely” interested in discrediting Mr. Trump. These obscure references are quickly followed by another footnote in which the FBI says that, despite that motivation, it is confident that “Source #1” is “credible.” So the FBI was vouching for this partisan source.

It’s true that the first application doesn’t mention any names. But it does refer to “Candidate #1” (who is clearly Donald Trump ), “Candidate #2” ( Hillary Clinton ) and “Political Party #1” (Republicans). The FBI had an obligation to tell the court that the dossier and its “credible” source had been retained and paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2” (Democrats), but it didn’t. By the way, Mr. Comey signed three of these applications, yet he claimed on his recent book tour that he “still” didn’t know who paid for the dossier.

The FISA documents also confirm that the FBI cited a Sept. 23, 2016 story inYahoo News to buttress its Steele dossier information with the court—even though Mr. Steele was also the source for the Yahoo News story.

Democrats insist that the FBI used the Yahoo story only to describe Mr. Page’s response to the investigation, not for corroboration. The applications show otherwise. The FBI cites the Yahoo News story after its dossier-evidence section, noting that the story said that “intelligence reports” and a “well-placed Western intelligence source” had also made claims like those in the dossier. But the “reports” were the dossier, and the “Western intelligence source” was Mr. Steele.

***

Our media friends are dismissing all this as no big deal because they say Mr. Page’s history of personal Russian dealings justified his surveillance in any case. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that Mr. Page was anything but an innocent abroad who liked to boast about his contacts. He certainly was a minor figure in the Trump campaign.

And that still doesn’t justify the FBI’s use of uncorroborated partisan smears as part of its application. At best the FBI appears to have played fast and loose with the facts to stretch the ethical boundaries of the FISA statute. At worst the FBI dissembled to target a man because they wanted to unleash a counterintelligence campaign against a presidential campaign. Either one tarnishes the FBI’s reputation.

Democrats and their media allies won’t admit any of this because they are invested in the narrative that Russian meddling elected Donald Trump. But two years of investigation later we’re still waiting to see evidence of that. What the FISA applications show is that the FBI did abuse its surveillance powers. There’s still more to learn, and Mr. Trump should declassify and release everything that can be safely disclosed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abolish-the-fisa-court-1532388170

Brennan and the 2016 Spy Scandal

By Kimberley A. Strassel | The Wall Street Journal

John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director, acknowledges egging on the FBI’s probe of Trump and Russia.

The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as “horrible” and “disgusting.” This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan. He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,” and berated GOP investigations of the FBI. This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.” This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.

In their recent book “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing, and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging information.)

Clinton supporters have a plausible case that Mr. Comey’s late-October announcement that the FBI had reopened its investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump supporters have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI investigation took a toll on their candidate. Politics was at the center of that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that when reading his next “treason” tweet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brennan-and-the-2016-spy-scandal-1532039346

College Destruction of Black Students

By Walter E. Williams

Amy Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, has come under attack and scathing criticism because she dared criticize the school's racial preferences program. 

In an interview with Brown University economist Glenn Loury, discussing affirmative action, Wax mentioned how racial preferences hinder the ability of blacks to succeed academically by admitting them into schools at which they are in over their heads academically. 

At UPenn's seventh-ranked law school, Wax said, she doesn't think that she has ever seen a black law student graduate in the top quarter of his class, and "rarely" is a black student in the top half.

That got her into deep trouble. 

UPenn students and faculty members charged her with racism. UPenn Law School Dean Ted Ruger stripped Wax of her duty of teaching her mandatory first-year class on civil procedures. 

I'm guessing that UPenn's law faculty members know Wax's statement is true but think it was something best left unsaid in today's racially charged climate.

Ruger might have refuted Wax's claim. He surely has access to student records. He might have listed the number of black law students who were valedictorians and graduated in the top 10 percent of their class. He rightfully chose not to -- so as to not provide evidence for Wax's claim.

One study suggests that Wax is absolutely right about academic mismatch.

In the early 1990s, the Law School Admission Council collected 27,000 law student records, representing nearly 90 percent of accredited law schools. 

The study found that after the first year, 51 percent of black law students ranked in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students. Two-thirds of black students were in the bottom fifth of their class. Only 10 percent of blacks were in the top half of their class. Twenty-two percent of black students in the LSAC database hadn't passed the bar exam after five attempts, compared with 3 percent of white test takers.

The University of Pennsylvania controversy highlights something very important to black people and the nation. The K-12 education that most blacks receive is grossly fraudulent.

Most predominately black schools are costly yet grossly inferior to predominately white schools and are in cities where blacks hold considerable political power, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. 

In these and other cities, it's not uncommon for there to be high schools where less than 17 percent of the students test proficient in reading, and often not a single student in such schools tests proficient in math. Nonetheless, many receive high school diplomas.

It's inconceivable that college administrators are unaware that they are admitting students who are ill-prepared and have difficulty performing at the college level. 

There's no way that four or five years of college can repair the academic damage done to black students throughout their 13 years of primary and secondary education. Partial proof is black student performance at the postgraduate level, such as in law school. 

Their disadvantage is exaggerated when they are admitted to prestigious Ivy League law schools. 

It's as if you asked a trainer to teach you how to box and the first fight he got you was with Anthony Joshua or Floyd Mayweather. You might have the potential to ultimately be a good boxer, but you're going to get your brains beaten out before you learn how to bob and weave.

The fact that black students have low class rankings at such high-powered law schools as UPenn doesn't mean that they are stupid or uneducable. 

It means that they've been admitted to schools where they are in over their heads.

To admit these students makes white liberals feel better about themselves. It also helps support the jobs of black and white university personnel in charge of diversity and inclusion. 

The question for black people is whether we can afford to have the best of our youngsters demeaned, degraded and possibly destroyed to make white liberals feel better about themselves. 

You might ask, "Williams, without affirmative action, what would the University of Pennsylvania Law School do about diversity and inclusion?" 

I'd say that's UPenn's problem.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/07/04/college-destruction-of-black-students-n2496493?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Democrats Hate Black People #walkaway

By Brandon Tatum

Tucson Police officer Brandon Tatum [Photo from Facebook video]

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HIS POWERFUL VIDEO.

It is time to walk away from the Democratic Party's ideology.

The democratic philosophy is filled with hate and fear mongering.

They have no message.

Actually, they never had a message.

They only use the government to control people and to keep their People in power.

All of the fake politicians use their position to make themselves rich and keep you weak and needing their philosophy.

I tell you this, I will never accept their lies again.

Period.

___________________________

The Left Can't Come To Grips With The Loss Of Power

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Key Trump administration officials have been confronted at restaurants. Rep. Maxine Waters urged protesters to hound Trump officials at restaurants, gas stations or department stores.

Progressive pundits and the liberal media almost daily think up new ways of characterizing President Trump as a Nazi, fascist, tyrant or buffoon.

Celebrities openly fantasize about doing harm to Trump.

What is behind the unprecedented furor?

Just as Barack Obama was not a centrist, neither is Trump. Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States. Trump pledged to do the same and more — but in the exact opposite direction.

The Trump agenda enrages the left in much the same manner that ObamaCare, the Obama tax hikes, Obama's liberal Supreme Court picks and the Iran nuclear deal goaded the right.

Yet the current progressive meltdown is about more than just political differences. The outrage is mostly about power — or rather, the utter and unexpected loss of it.

In 2009, Obama seemed to usher in a progressive revolution for a generation.

Democrats controlled the House. They had a supermajority in the Senate. Obama had a chance to ensure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for years.

Democrats had gained on Republicans at the state and local levels. The media, universities, professional sports, Hollywood and popular culture were all solidly left-wing.

A Republican had not won 51% of the popular vote in a presidential election since George H.W. Bush's 1988 defeat of Democrat Michael Dukakis. Before 2016, Republicans had lost the popular vote in five of the previous six presidential elections.

And then visions of a generation of progressive grandeur abruptly vanished.

Obama left behind a polarized nation. Democrats lost both the House and the Senate. During Obama's tenure, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the state level.

Presumptive winner Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 presidential election.

Foolishly, Clinton tried to ensure a landslide victory by wasting precious campaign time in unwinnable red states such as Arizona and Georgia.

Meanwhile, she too often neglected winnable purple states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which Obama had won in 2008 and 2012. Clinton apparently forgot that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, elects a president.

After his election, President Trump did not implode as predicted. By following the Obama precedent of relying on executive orders, Trump began recalibrating everything from immigration enforcement to energy development.

Abroad, Trump did what no other Republican president would have dared, bombing ISIS into submission, canceling the Iran deal, seeking to denuclearize North Korea, pulling out of the Paris climate accord, and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The U.S. economy took off with new tax cuts and deregulation. Radical improvement in unemployment, economic growth, and oil and natural gas production created new consumer and business confidence.

Despite his frequent crudeness, Trump is inching toward a 50% approval rating in a few polls. That has only made an impotent opposition grow even more furious — both at the other half of the country for supporting Trump, and at a buoyant Trump himself for baiting and ridiculing progressives in the fashion of no prior president.

Worse still, much of the loss of progressive power was at least partly self-inflicted.

Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid foolishly dropped the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster for executive appointments and most judicial nominations in 2013. That blunder ensured Republicans the chance to remake the Supreme Court when they took over the Senate in 2014.

Obama chose not to try to win over his opposition, but to alienate it by veering hard left in his second term. Hillary Clinton foolishly got herself into a number of personal scandals that embarrassed her party and helped lead to her defeat.

In reaction to the sudden loss of political power, Democrats would have been wise to run to the center, as did Bill Clinton, who all but ended the era of the Reagan Republicans.

They could have dropped their obsession with identity politics and instead attempted to win over blue-collar voters with more inclusive class appeals rather than racial appeals.

Instead, Democrats have endlessly replayed the 2016 election. In Groundhog Day fashion, Hillary Clinton repeatedly offered tired excuses for her loss.

To progressives, Trump became not an opponent to beaten with a better agenda, but an evil to be destroyed. Moderate Democrats were written off as dense; left-wing fringe elements were praised as clever.

Voters in 2016 bristled at redistribution, open borders, bigger government and higher taxes, but progressives are now promising those voters even more of what they didn't want.

Furious over the sudden and unexpected loss of power, enraged progressives have so far done almost everything to lose even more of it.

And that paradox only leads to more furor.

Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the soon-to-be released "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won," to appear in October from Basic Books.

https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/trump-hatred-progressives-liberals-power/