Saturday, June 10, 2017

Loretta Lynch, Swamp Thing

American Thinker ^ | 6/10/17 | Daniel John Sobieski 

Arguably, the most interesting part of the testimony of James Comey, the cowardly lion of the criminal justice system, before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday is not that President Trump was cleared of even a smidgeon of corruption and obstruction of justice but that President Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is up to her eyeballs in both. As the Daily Caller reports:

Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general under Barack Obama, pressured former FBI Director James Comey to downplay the Clinton email server investigation and only refer to it as a “matter,” Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Comey said that when he asked Lynch if she was going to authorize him to confirm the existence of the Clinton email investigation, her answer was, “Yes, but don’t call it that. Call it a matter.” When Comey asked why, he said, Lynch wouldn’t give him an explanation. “Just call it a matter,” she said….

Earlier in his testimony, Comey said Lynch instructed Comey not to call the criminal investigation into the Clinton server a criminal investigation. Instead, Lynch told Comey to call it a “matter,” Comey said, “which confused me.”

Comey cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay the investigation as one of the reasons he held a press conference to recommend the Department of Justice not seek to indict Clinton.

Comey also cited Lynch’s secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton as a reason he chose to hold the press conference, he said, as he was concerned about preserving the independence of the FBI.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The 7 Big Takeaways From The Comey Hearing ^ | June 10, 2017 | John Hawkins 

The Comey hearings were always destined to be a Rorschach Test where each side saw what it wanted to see. That being said, reality doesn’t change because of partisan leanings and ultimately, Comey’s public comments turned out to be good for Trump.
1) Despite Multiple Anonymous Reports To The Contrary, Comey Did Tell Trump 3 Times That He Wasn’t Under Investigation In The Russia Probe: Numerous outlets, but most prominently CNN reported that Comey’s testimony would contradict Trump’s claim that Comey told him on three separate occasions that he wasn’t under investigation. As it turns out, Trump was right and the anonymous reports were wrong. Again.
2) The Conspiracy Theory That Says Trump Colluded With Russia To Somehow Steal The Election From Hillary Clinton Is Now Dead: Not only did Comey thoroughly shoot down the idea that Trump was being investigated in the Russia probe, he explicitly denied stories based on anonymous sources that said Trump colluded with the Russians. He added, “Yes, there have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff but about Russia that are dead wrong.” Read it and weep, conspiracy theorists.
3) Loretta Lynch Interfered In The Clinton Investigation: Comey said he was “concerned” that Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, asked him to publicly call the criminal investigation of Clinton a “matter” instead. This matched rhetoric used by the Clinton campaign and Comey said he had a problem with it because, “I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate.” Despite the fact that Comey was “concerned” and felt it was “inaccurate,” he did as Lynch asked, which doesn’t exactly speak well of his honesty or impartiality.
4) Comey Clearly Despises Trump: Trump has not been kind to Comey since he fired him and Comey quite clearly detested Trump from the beginning.He called Trump a liar multiple times and said he had memos of all their 1-on-1 conversations (but not his 1-on-1 conversations with Bush or Obama) because he thought Trump was dishonest. So, this is a man who didn’t like Trump from the get-go and detests him even more since he’s been fired. His instant dislike has to be factored in when you consider how much stock to put into his testimony.
5) Comey Did Claim Trump Asked for “Loyalty:” According to Comey, Trump said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Trump denies that this happened.So, is it true? I tend to believe that it is, only because of a personal experience I had with Trump early on in his campaign. At the time I had written a lot of positive things about him and was doing an interview. Trump told me, “I appreciate your loyalty,” which was a weird comment to make to someone in the press who had not endorsed him. If Trump would shoehorn loyalty into that conversation, could I see him mentioning it to Comey? It certainly seems possible.
6) James Comey Leaked Information To The New York Times: Not only did Comey give memos to a friend of his with the intention that they be leaked to the New York Times, he did so with the hope that it would cause a Special Counsel to be appointed. Those were not the actions of a trustworthy or impartial man.
7) It’s Very Unlikely Trump Will Be Prosecuted For Obstruction Of Justice: Comey does claim that Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting (Mike) Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go” in reference to the events that led to Flynn being fired. However, as this exchange with Senator Jim Risch confirms, there’s not much “there, there.”
RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that’s not what he said.
COMEY: Correct.
RISCH: He said, “I hope.”
COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.
RISCH: You don’t know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?
COMEY: I don’t as I sit here.
Additionally, Comey declared that Trump said, “If some of my satellites did something wrong, it’d be good to find that out.” In other words, he would want to know if it turned out that any of his campaign staff did anything wrong in regard to Russia. Given all that, it would be extremely difficult to make a case that Trump obstructed justice and realistically, if the Special Counsel was even going to try to make that case, it’s very unlikely he would have allowed Comey to testify in front of Congress in the first place.

Trump committed no crime. Democrats need to get over it.

Washington Post ^ | June 9, 2017 

Before the angry mob of breathless Democrats gets too spun up and ahead of itself, the anti-Trumpers should calm down and try to absorb just how preposterous it is to suggest that President Trump may have committed a criminal offense by supposedly obstructing justice during the Russia/Michael Flynn investigation.

Consider for a moment what would have happened if Trump had placed an op-ed in a prominent newspaper, arguing that the investigation into his campaign and former national security adviser Flynn was misguided, a wasteful use of government resources, and that he thought it should stop. To do so would be foolish, but not criminal.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Last Mango In Paris ^ | June 10, 2017 | Ken Blackwell 

Washington is in constant crisis. Naturally the media blames President Donald Trump. But his critics are the ones to blame: they still don’t accept the results of last November’s election.

Consider the horror expressed at President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Accord on climate change. Major newspapers such as the Washington Post and New York Times devoted multiple pages to criticize his decision.

Implementing the agreement would be extraordinarily expensive. And it even claims it would have virtually no impact on global temperatures. It was a bad deal all around.

So why the shock at his decision to quit the (unratified) pact?
Donald Trump is the leader the American people spent the last eight years waiting for. As he explained: “The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”
That era is now behind us.
Contrary to claims that the issue of global warming has been settled, scientists disagree on most aspects of the controversy. Especially whether we face catastrophic temperature rises.
Imagine if someone in 1900 tried to describe what the world would look like a century later. Yet people are now seeking to wreck our economy based on what they fantasize the world will look like a century hence. These future forecasts depend on models—which don’t even match recent history.
I’d like to believe that the Paris Accord was based on an honest mistake. But the late Stephen Schneider, a leading climate alarmist, was clear: “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” As a result, “each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
President Trump demands honesty.
National Economic Research Associates figures that if America complied with the Paris agreement as many as 2.7 million jobs would disappear by 2025. NERA ran the numbers out to 2040 and found $3 trillion in lost GDP, $7,000 in lost annual household income, 38 percent drop in steel and iron production, 6.5 million lost industrial jobs, and 86 percent fall in coal production.
In contrast, China, which has surpassed the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions, doesn’t have to do anything for 13 years. Beijing in fact promised that its emissions would peak “around 2030.” Not that we know how high that peak would be. As the president warned, this puts America “at a very, very big economic disadvantage.”
In fact, the Paris Accord isn’t binding, that is, if Washington complies there is no guarantee that anyone else will do so. The U.S. could hobble its economy based on promises made and then broken by “the international community.” Does anyone honestly believe that China—the one known as the “People’s Republic”—will sacrifice its interests on behalf of the environment?
Despite costing one or two trillion dollars a year, the Paris pact wouldn’t banish the supposed threat of higher temperatures. If fully implemented, the EPA tells us temperatures would go down just .17 degrees Celsius by 2100. The average American couldn’t measure the difference.
The issue isn’t whether climate change is real. The issue is whether it is something that we can or should try to do something about. We should also question if those who say it is real are serious.
Instead, follow the money. America has a big advantage over Europe with cheaper energy. No surprise, Europeans want the U.S. to sign on to their high-cost energy policy.
Worse, the Paris Accord creates a $100 billion “Green Climate Fund” to which Washington would naturally contribute. The cash goes to Third World countries, which previously wasted trillions in foreign aid.
Finally, while the agreement says it is not binding, wait till American lawyers bring it into court. A report from the UN Environment Program (of course the UN has an environmental program!) exulted that the pact “makes it possible for litigants to place the actions of their government or private entities into an international climate change policy context.” A Dutch court used similar “non-binding” international commitments to order the Dutch government to cut emissions.
No wonder President Barack Obama liked the Paris Accord. If offered everything a liberal could desire: expanded government, higher taxes, tougher regulation, more lawsuits, and global controls. Thankfully we have a different president now.
President Trump had no choice but to pull America out of the Paris pact. As he explained, it “would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to other countries.”
It’s as refreshing as a tropical mango smoothie to finally have someone in Washington who is standing up for America instead of the mythical “international community.”

OF COURSE: Joe Biden’s Niece Gets NO JAIL TIME!

Gateway Pundit ^ | 6/10/17 | Michael LaChance 

Caroline Biden, the niece of former Vice President Joe Biden, defrauded a New York City pharmacy out of over $100,000. But she won’t be going to jail. It must be nice to have connections.

The New York Post reported:
Joe Biden’s niece dodges jail after $100K credit card scam.
The wild-child niece of former Veep Joe Biden stole more than $100,000 in a credit card scam — and quietly cut a plea deal in Manhattan court that spares her any jail time, The Post has learned.
Using a borrowed credit card, the blonde Caroline Biden set up an unauthorized customer account at Bigelow Pharmacy on Sixth Avenue in Greenwich Village, and racked up the six-figure bill over the course of a year, according to a criminal complaint that does not name the victim card owner.
As part of a plea deal before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Kevin McGrath, Biden, 29, pleaded guilty to one charge of grand larceny and another of petit larceny and agreed to make restitution of $110,810.04.
If she pays everything back and keeps her nose clean, she can return to court and enter a substitute plea to a lower, misdemeanor charge of petit larceny and be sentenced to two years probation.
But she’ll stay out of jail even if she fails to live up to the plea deal, instead getting sentenced on the felony larceny to five years probation.
Do you think you would get this deal if you had committed the same crime?
Caroline Biden was also arrested in 2013 after attacking a police officer.
They had to strap her to a wheelchair to remove her from the building.

Image source

How to delete everything Google knows about you!

VPN ^ | 2/14/2017 | Expressvpn 

Note: Clearing your browser history is NOT the same as clearing your Google Web & App Activity history. When you clear your browser history, you’re only deleting the history that’s locally stored on your computer. Clearing your browser history doesn’t do anything to the data stored on Google’s servers.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Mainstream Media: You better win this one and get Trump impeached or you are finished!

10 June 2017 | Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin 

The media needs to understand something. They are colluding with the Democrats and the Federal Agencies in an attempt to get Donald Trump impeached or somehow force him to resign. I have friends who work in a VERY large Federal Agency and they say this is all just the beginning, a "process" they call it that will continue until Trump is out of office. And, they say it with total confidence which chills me to the bone.

Be careful what you wish for. The media especially apparently has miscalculated not only the end result of the recent Presidential elections, but also the absolute (fill in the blank with the most intense dislike word you can come up with) that the general public has for them. Dear Media, if you succeed, you could lose everything. If you lose, you MUST be sued for libel for the printed word and slander for what you only said in public that was not true.

There is no way at all that this whole thing can just be dropped or end well. It's impossible now. Either one side wins, or the other side wins and whoever loses has hell to pay. The liberal leftists have pushed the stakes so high that they have left no room for compromise. We now know you want to kill us and you most certainly want to kill our leaders. There exists no doubt when we have examples like Alec Baldwin saying as far back as 1998 that the people should stone Henry Hyde AND his wife and children to death and then went on to say the Republican congressmen should also be assassinated. Others have put rifle scope cross hairs on Bush. Others have PUBLICLY stated their intent to assassinate Trump. Then, Kathy Griffin pulled the severed head stunt.
There is no going back now. Either you accomplish that or someone with enough influence and "House b__lls big enough" (pardon my French) is going to go after you because we KNOW you want us dead now. How foolish to have pushed it this far. Stop and think about how foolish all of the lying has been. Mark my words (whether they leave them here or not), someone is going to pay dearly for this entire mess if not all of us. Sooner or later, momma always said, "Everyone has to sit down at a banquet of consequences."

Comey was Before Congress to Indict Trump. Instead, He Might Have Indicted Himself.

LawNewz ^ | June 9, 2017 | Robert Barnes 

The key interlude occurred with the ubiquitous Kamala Harris, the same Senator Harris who failed the bar the first time she took the bar exam. Only a Kamala-Comey marriage could birth this debacle:
Harris: “So was there any kind of memorandum issued from the attorney general or the Department of Justice to the FBI, outlining the parameters of his recusal”?
Comey: “Not that I’m aware of.”
Thursday night, Attorney General Sessions’ Justice Department released a statement about Comey’s testimony. The statement reads as follows:
“In his testimony, Mr. Comey states that he was not aware of any kind of memorandum issued from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal. However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff not to brief the Attorney General about or otherwise involve the Attorney General in any such matters described.” (internal ellipses omitted).
In fact, Comey almost certainly knew the “parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal.”
It gets worse for Comey. Right before and right after the answer that triggered the DOJ’s extraordinary written statement (name me the last time the DOJ publicly identified their recent ex-FBI Director as having just lied to Congress?), Comey denied knowledge about the “extent” of Sessions’ recusal and denied knowing Sessions’ scope of recusal as to “if he reviewed any FBI or DOJ documents.”
Congress criminalizes lying to Congress under oath. The relevant statutes are 18 USC 1621 and 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires a person first, be making a statement under a sworn oath; second, that statement be “material” to the proceeding; third, the statement be false; and fourth, the statement be knowingly and willfully false. Section 1001 mirrors those elements, without the same tribunal prerequisites: it also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statements. In either case, the primary focus is: first, a false statement; second, a false statement as material to the matter; third, the false statement be made knowingly and willfully. A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in a completely innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant or pertain to the subject of the matter. Willfully remains a very high standard of proof in the criminal law, though less in perjury cases than in tax cases: it requires the person know they are lying.
Sadly, for Comey, Sessions has the smoking gun: Sessions’ own email sent and read by Comey, according to the Department of Justice statement, showing Comey in fact did know “the parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal” despite his repeated comments to the contrary to Senator Kamala Harris’ questions.
Dead. To. Rights. Maybe Comey will claim the Ruskies hacked his emails, and blame them instead?