Sunday, June 11, 2017

Crooked Hillary STILL HAS SECURITY CLEARANCE One Year After FBI Concluded she was unqualified!

Gateway Pundit ^ | June 10, 2017 | Cristina Laila 

Crooked Hillary Clinton and her top aides STILL have security clearance as the State Department continues to investigate her email scandal.

It has been nearly a year since fired FBI Director James Comey said she had been reckless with secrets by using unsecured servers to transmit classified information.

Circa News reports:
“ The State Department is still investigating former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, meaning she and her top aides continue to keep their security clearances a year after the FBI concluded they recklessly transmitted top secret and other classified intelligence through an insecure email server.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Now California plans to stop Trump from shrinking any national “monuments”!

Hot Air ^ | June 10, 2017 | Jazz Shaw 

It seems you can’t get anything done in California these days unless you can portray it as some element of the movement to RESIST Trump.

 (Well, you can try to put everyone on a single payer health plan which cost more than twice the value of the entire state’s economy, but that’s an exception.) The latest brainstorm comes to us from the state’s attorney general, who for some reason believes that the President of the United States doesn’t have any authority to modify national parks or monuments, though where he cooked up this idea remains unclear. (LA Times)
California’s attorney general argued Thursday that President Trump has no legal authority to revoke or modify national monuments created by previous administrations.
In an 11-page letter to the Interior Department, state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra vowed “to take any and all legal action necessary” to preserve six California monuments, including one in Los Angeles’ backyard, that the Trump Administration may attempt to revoke or shrink.
In April, Trump signed an executive order directing Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke to review all national monuments that were created since 1996 and are larger than 100,000 acres, or were expanded “without adequate public outreach.”
California has good reason to worry about Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke turning their gaze on the Golden State when they’re finished with Bear Ears. There are several more of these “national monuments” there which are nearly as bad. The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument is yet another gigantic swath of land taking up more than 345K acres which Obama designated as a “monument” rather than asking Congress to make it a national park.
The real question here is where the state attorney general is getting his information. We’ve been over this here before and the law is pretty clear. If you want to set aside vast tracts of land as a national park, Congress has to do that. The only thing the President can do is create national monuments, but the Antiquities Act of 1906 is pretty clear on what those are supposed to include. (Emphasis added)
That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to the protected:
As to whether or not the President can order changes in status, we have adequate precedent there as well. In 1933 there were 56 National Monuments transferred to the Park Service. The same could be done with the ones in California and then the legislative branch could decide whether to keep them the same, shrink them or do away with them entirely. That’s how the system is set up to work. The state attorney general for California should know better, but this is probably just an effort to hurt the President as opposed to any serious legal inquiry.

Leading liberals develop blueprint to expand 'deep state' and undercut Trump!

Washington Examiner ^ | June 10, 2017 | Ryan Lovelace 

Forlorn liberals took refuge at the American Constitution Society's national convention in Washington this week, discussing whether to encourage the growth of the "deep state" resistance inside the government or fight President Trump from outside.

"The election of Donald Trump was an assault on the federal bureaucracy," William Yeomans said to a room full of students and civil servants, including those recently displaced by Trump's administration. "His values are simply not consistent with the values of people who are committed to public service and who believe deeply in the importance of public service."

UCLA law professor Jon Michaels said he favors filling the Trump administration with liberals opposed to Trump's agenda.
"We hear a lot of language about draining the swamp and this idea about a deep state that somehow was going to thwart the intentions or the political mandate of the president," Michaels said. "I kind of embrace this notion of the ‘deep state.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump, in Miami speech, set to roll back Obama's Cuba policy

FoxNews ^ | June 10, 2017 | Serafin Gomez 

President Trump will head to Miami on Friday, home to a large and influential Cuban-American community, to unveil his administration’s new Cuba policy -- which will roll back central parts of his predecessor’s efforts to normalize ties with the Communist island nation, according to a senior administration official and other sources.

While details on the changes to the policy have yet to be fully revealed, a U.S. official suggested that Trump would call for Cuban President Raul Castro to push for more political freedom and to release democratic activists in Cuban prisons, among other initiatives.

Trump is at the same time expected to announce a reversal in some areas of former President Barack Obama's previous steps toward normalizing relations including the opening of embassies between the two countries and the easing of flight restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Real Obstruction of Justice We Heard From Comey

IWB ^ | Robert Carbery 

We heard quite a lot during Mr. Comey’s testimony to Congress on Thursday. But in what was yet another bombshell being downplayed by the mainstream media, we learned that President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to downplay the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

During the Obama administration, the AG’s office became extremely politicized under Eric Holder and then Lynch. Trump’s justice department needs to be much less partisan. As the Daily Caller pointed out, Comey said Lynch told Comey not to call the criminal investigation into the Democratic nominee’s use of a server while secretary of state. Instead, Lynch told Comey to call it a “matter,” to which Comey said Thursday, “confused” him. This pressure from Lynch led to Comey holding that confounding July press conference announcing his recommendation not to seek an indictment.

So Comey bowed to political pressure. He acknowledged that the conversation with Lynch gave him a “queasy feeling,” but he still went ahead and followed her marching orders as “that was not a hill I wanted to die on.” Probably didn’t want to be added to the Clinton body count either.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CNN’s War On Trump Is Going Swimmingly?

The Federalist ^ | June 9, 2017 | Ben Domenech 

Back in February, I was riding on the New York to DC shuttle and CNN’s own Jeff Zucker was seated in the row behind me with a woman I took to be a colleague or personal assistant. She was yelling loudly into her phone, loudly enough that the other passengers took note of it, at one point escalating her voice to say: “If they want war with CNN, they got it.”

When we landed, I noted the likely inspiration for the call: the administration had offered Mike Pence to every network except for CNN.
Since the new administration arrived in Washington, CNN has continued this war at a fever pitch. Daily they roll out eight-person panels where not one person defending the administration is represented. They have offered the most biased coverage of the Trump administration by far, to the point that Republicans on Capitol Hill openly mock their lack of balance. A network that once strove to be centrist in their approach is now openly antagonistic, and will run with the thinnest of scoops for hours at a time in order to make their case against President Trump.

This has led them to be sloppier journalists than we’ve ever seen before. Consider their worst performance this week: CNN didn’t get anywhere near enough flack for their ridiculous story that ran on Tuesday night, which they talked about for hours, saying that James Comey would refute Trump’s claim that he was cleared three times. The four-person byline included a major host and commentator: Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus. They have since changed the headline on the piece from “Comey expected to refute Trump” to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction.”
For the entire evening, CNN ran with this story as their main discussion point. They told viewers over and over again that Comey was set to utterly undermine what Trump had claimed, and that he would do it in front of Congress and the people, based on two anonymous sources who turned out to be totally wrong.
On air, Borger doubled down on the story she helped report: “On CNN’s air, analyst Gloria Borger put matters more starkly, saying, ‘Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.’”
Of course, none of that happened. In fact, Comey testified that he volunteered that information, and that contrary to Borger’s claims, he saw nothing inappropriate in doing so. The correction and update CNN ran doesn’t come anywhere near what they should’ve done, which was a total retraction: “CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.”
“Does not directly dispute” should be read as “utterly and totally confirms.” At some point, CNN is going to have to decide what they are willing to do in this war on the president and his administration, and whether they are willing to sacrifice even a semblance of balance and centrism in their quest against him, transforming themselves from a news network to an agenda-driven propaganda unit, complete with their useful idiots, their organs of the past administration, and their collection of invented sources who pass along useful lies.

NFL should feel no pressure to hire Kaepernick

Deseret News ^ | 6 Jun, 2017 | Doug Robinson 

If you believe the media, the National Football League has a duty — an obligation, really — to provide employment for (former) quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

It’s been three months since he opted out of his contract (49ers’ version: they were going to cut him anyway).

Then he sat down — or took a knee, whatever — and waited for the phone to ring. And waited. And waited. And waited.
He’s still waiting. The Seattle Seahawks gave him a sniff recently, but decided to pass. Coach Pete Carroll says it’s because Kaepernick is a starter and the Seahawks already have a starter.
You mean former starters can’t be backups? What do they think he’s been doing most of the last two years? Maybe Carroll is just heading off a potential quarterback controversy.
The New York Jets, desperate for a quarterback, preferred to sign 37-year-old Josh McCown rather than Kaepernick.
The Cleveland Browns have had 26 starting quarterbacks since the rebirth of the franchise in Cleveland in 1999. They passed on Kaepernick. They prefer Brock Osweiler.
The Cardinals passed on Kaepernick, too, instead signing Blaine Gabbert. Kaepernick replaced Gabbert as the 49ers starter last season and threw 16 touchdown passes and just four interceptions.
Joe Namath, it seems, will be offered a backup job before Kaepernick.
Anyway, the media has adopted Kaepernick as its latest pet cause. They’re always looking for causes as long as it is the right (actually left) kind.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ex-FBI Official Questions Why There Were No Comey Memos On Obama, Clinton

WACH ^ | 06/08/17 | Leandra Bernstein 

In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, former FBI director James Comey described his practice of keeping detailed notes on his interactions with President Donald Trump. But the former director admitted that he never kept such memos when serving under President Barack Obama, despite observing behavior from that administration that concerned him.

James Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director who spent nearly three decades at the bureau, questioned why Comey felt the need to produce the memos on Trump, but failed to document incidents of political interference in the organization by the Obama administration.

"It just continues to amaze me ... the fact that [Comey] felt compelled to write these memos concerning his meetings with President Trump, but he apparently never felt compelled to write a memo when the Justice Department wouldn't allow him to use the word 'investigation' concerning the Hillary Clinton investigation," Kallstrom told Sinclair Broadcast Group.
Responding to a question from Sen. James Lankford (R-Ark.), Comey described how former Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed him not to call the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server an investigation. He reported Lynch told him, "Don't call it that. Call it a matter. Just call it a matter."
The interaction with Lynch gave Comey a "queasy feeling." He said he was "concerned" because the language "tracked the way the campaign was talking about" the Clinton investigation.
"It gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it [the Clinton campaign] was describing that," he repeated.
Yet there were apparently no memos drafted or leaked related to that incident, which many conservatives saw as direct political interference in the work of the FBI...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...