The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Comey didn't lay a glove on Trump
by David Limbaugh
.
The Left's DOJ 'Slush Fund' Gets Buried
An egregious Department of Justice operation got a welcome overhaul this week courtesy of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The DOJ, particularly under Barack liar-nObama and his criminal co-conspirator, then-Attorney General Eric Holder, made a practice out of robbing corporate settlement funds to fill a plethora of leftist coffers. In short, The Wall Street Journal explains, "After the GOP took the House and tried to cut spending for liberal interest groups, the liar-nObama Justice Department began to force corporate defendants to allocate a chunk of their financial penalties to those same groups."
In other words, liar-nObama exploited another channel through which the government was picking winners and losers and propping up pet projects — a blatantly unconstitutional scheme, as Congress (which has monetary authority) was essentially shunned. And we all know which political party benefits when it comes to government subsidies. Hint: Some of the beneficiaries include groups like La Raza and the National Urban League. But no more.
In a memorandum dated June 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated, "The goals of any settlement are, first and foremost, to compensate victims, redress harm, or punish and deter unlawful conduct. It has come to my attention that previous certain settlement agreements involving the Department included payments to various non-governmental, third-party organizations as a condition of settlement with the United States. These third-party organizations were neither victims nor parties to the lawsuits."
As such, Sessions issued a new directive: "Effective immediately, Department attorneys may not enter into any agreement on behalf of the United States in settlement of federal claims or charges ... that directs or provides for a payment or loan to any non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to the dispute." Sessions should be commended for this initiative. The only problem is that this memorandum is guaranteed only until the next presidential election. Republicans in Congress should follow through on their endeavor to permanently outlaw this leftist "slush fund." ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Bobble-Head Schiff Ignores Comey’s
Inconvenient Exculpatory Statements, Confessions
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Bret Baier interviewed the Democrat anti-Trump point-worm, and probable strange visitor from another planet, Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA), on the Thursday testimony of James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee... He asks the sleazy political hack for his assessment, to which Schiff responded, “Well, you know, I found it quite stunning. It’s not every day you have a former director of the FBI saying that he couldn’t trust the President, that the President had demanded loyalty in a conversation that at least in part centered around whether the Director would keep his job.” That lack of trust is probably a result of that former FBI Director being afraid he had been exposed as the dirty cop that he is, and wanted to get evidence, or fabricate it if necessary, to use in his defense should things go south for him. It increasingly appears that that could quite easily have been the case, especially since he’s hidden the government documents, the memos, government property that supposedly are the evidence supporting his claims. That’s part one of the anti-Trump hack’s take on it, completely dismissing the points damaging to the witch hunt, which Baier will raise later in the interview... http://rickwells.us/bobble-head-schiff-ignores-comeys-inconvenient-exculpatory-statements-confessions/
.
Comey Facing Potential Serious
Prison Time, Fines After Confessions
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The whole thing doesn’t add up. The first question that has to be asked is one related to the mental stability and intelligence of James Comey... First of all, the crimes he appears to be involved in are quite public, and therefore more likely to be discovered. He went on to virtually guarantee legal jeopardy and discovery by confessing, even volunteering information in the case of his complicity with Loretta Lynch in acting on behalf of the liar-Clinton campaign. His memo leaking is bizarre as well. Comey certainly doesn’t appear to be stupid enough to do what he’s been doing for the last couple of years and expect to get away with it, particularly his recent actions; so what’s he up to? What else is there to this story that we’re not seeing? Sean Hannity plays a clip of Senator Marco Rubio pointing out that the only thing that hasn’t been leaked out of Congress regarding this issue by either Republican or Democrat leaders was the fact that President Trump wasn’t under investigation. He also asks why Comey sat back and watched as the propagandists and his Democrat allies attacked the President, accusing him of what he knew to be falsehoods. The panel doesn’t have that answer but they do explain the potential sanctions Comey faces and they are significant...http://rickwells.us/comey-facing-potential-serious-prison-time-fines-confessions/
.
Saif al-Gaddaffi Released
From Prison in Western Libya…
Saif Gaddaffi is the son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddaffi
by theconservativetreehouse.com
Saif Gaddaffi is the son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddaffi who was killed by liar-Hillary Clinton in October 2011. During the Islamist uprising Saif was arrested by liar-Hillary’s Benghazi “rebels” as they worked their way across Libya from East to West eventually catching and killing his father... However, it is being reported today by Jenan Moussa very reliable journalist that Saif al Islam al-Gaddaffi has been released by “rebels” from his prison in Western Libya near Tunisia borde.
Saif Gaddaffi is the son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddaffi who was killed by liar-Hillary Clinton in October 2011. During the Islamist uprising Saif was arrested by liar-Hillary’s Benghazi “rebels” as they worked their way across Libya from East to West eventually catching and killing his father... However, it is being reported today by Jenan Moussa very reliable journalist that Saif al Islam al-Gaddaffi has been released by “rebels” from his prison in Western Libya near Tunisia borde.
Ayesha al-Gaddaffi
If these reports are true, it makes you wonder about Saif’s sister, Ayesha al-Gaddaffi, who lives in exile somewhere. She was almost completely western-minded when the uprising began against her father... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/10/breaking-saif-al-gaddaffi-released-from-prison-in-western-libya/.
Be Armed, Be Mentally Prepared,
Make Terrorists Defend Their Lives for a Change
by AWR Hawkins
{breitbart.com} ~ Florida’s Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey is urging law-abiding Americans to arm up, get familiar with their firearm, and be ready to make terrorists worry about defending their own lives, for a change... He urged Americans to take their safety seriously and to determine to be “the first line of defense” against a terror attack. He stressed, “Let me be perfectly clear, doing nothing or just hoping it won’t happen to you is not going to save your life.” Ivey mentioned that officials in other parts of the world are teaching citizens that the best thing they can do is “run, hide, tell,” and he rejects that paradigm, citing the fact that “this is war” and you win a war by fighting — not by running... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/09/sheriff-be-armed-be-mentally-prepared-make-terrorists-defend-their-lives-for-a-change/
.
Toppling Trump Was
Comey’s Goal, And He Failed
by Jack Davis
{westernjournalism.com} ~ Former FBI Director James Comey had one goal in mind in his testimony, and he failed to achieve it, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Friday night... On a day in which President Donald Trump proclaimed himself vindicated of charges against him that there was collusion between his campaign and Russia, Carlson said that the investigations were never about Russia, only about toppling Trump. “As of 8 p.m. Eastern Time tonight, Donald Trump is still the president of the United States, and that means that on the most basic level, Comey’s testimony failed to achieve its goal. Make no mistake. Removing Trump from office was the goal,” Carlson said. Carlson said the hysteria over alleged Russian connections was never real... http://www.westernjournalism.com/tucker-carlson-toppling-trump-comeys-goal-failed/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=braveralastresistance&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-06-11
.
.
by David Limbaugh
Comey didn't lay a glove on Trump
by David Limbaugh
{wnd.com} ~ Trying to be objective – and that’s sometimes difficult for me when it comes to politics – I don’t agree that former FBI Director James Comey’s congressional testimony was equally good news and bad news for President Trump. Trump came away a decisive winner.
Most agree that Trump benefited from Comey’s admission that the president was not in fact under FBI investigation for colluding with the Russians or for anything else. But many Trump critics, left and right, see Comey’s negative portrait of Trump as so damaging as to cancel out the positive news, which, on reflection, is incorrect.
It’s true that Comey painted Trump as dishonest, petty and vindictive and as one who operates in office as a business executive rather than someone who respects the parameters of his authority. Even if true, is this caricature news to anyone? Trump’s critics already believe it, and most of his supporters believe it is overstated.
This is not to say that Trump’s defenders would approve of any abuses of authority, but they aren’t predisposed to assume that every unorthodox action on Trump’s part is malicious or indicative of a tyrannical or criminal mindset.
So the only “news” that emerged from Comey’s testimony – the only facts that might change the status quo ante – was that Trump has not been under investigation this whole time. Not only that but he did not pressure or even attempt to persuade Comey to go softly on any of his associates on the Russia investigation if it were discovered they had some illicit interaction with the Russians.
For some, Comey landed a blow against Trump in alleging he told Comey he “hoped” the investigation against Flynn would end and in requesting from Comey “honest loyalty.” Here again, Trump’s attackers are predisposed to assume he was using code to direct Comey to stop investigating Flynn and to pledge his loyalty to Trump above his professional duties. Trump’s defenders reject that, so on this issue, the needle didn’t move a centimeter in either direction.
Some might say: “Hold on. This isn’t just a matter of Trump supporters believing one way and his defenders another. Comey was the only one in the room, and he took Trump’s words as directives.”
Well, even if you assume that’s what Trump meant, which I don’t, legal experts agree that no one has been charged with obstruction of justice on such vague language as “hope.” The thought of it is preposterous. Moreover, some experts argue that as chief executive, he has the power to end investigations conducted by the executive branch. Let’s remember that the Flynn investigation and Russia investigation are two different matters and that Trump is not the target of either one of them. If it occurred, it would have been inappropriate behavior but hardly criminal or impeachable conduct.
But I don’t believe that Comey’s inferences are accurate. Trump is an advocate by nature and is loyal to his friends. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that he was just expressing his vote of confidence in Flynn’s character and was by no means suggesting that Comey ignore hard evidence against him, much less directing him to.
I have a hard time believing that Comey really thought at the time that Trump was giving him orders. If he really believed so, then it is indisputable that he acted improperly at the time and thereafter. If he really believed Trump was trying to obstruct justice, he had a duty to do something about it, but instead, he decided to hold it close to the vest and only use it if he needed it later. Is that the way a man in his position should have behaved?
As to Trump’s firing of Comey, if you were Trump, wouldn’t you be outraged if Comey refused to disclose that you were not under investigation when everything else was leaked – as Sen. Marco Rubio noted? Didn’t Trump have a right to be indignant over the lies being disseminated every day on this and a right to want to quell these lies that were impeding his agenda? Was it unreasonable for Trump to think Comey was biased against him, seeing as Comey refused to set the record straight on this matter when he’d certainly tried to set the record straight publicly on other issues before?
What about Comey’s revelations concerning his own bizarre behavior? I was originally willing to believe that Comey was scrupulously aboveboard and would strive for objectivity – that he would try not to allow his personal biases to color his objectivity or influence the course of the investigation or his assessment of the evidence. Based on his own testimony, I am now quite skeptical.
Comey bent over backward to conclude that liar-Hillary Clinton had no criminal intent in the handling of her private emails – yet his conclusion was in direct conflict with the evidence he meticulously detailed against her. It is hard to believe he would have given any other target such an enormous benefit of the doubt.
Yet despite his professed reluctance to infer criminal intent there, he leaped to such conclusions against Trump with the eagerness of a never-Trumper. “Hope” equals “You are hereby ordered”? Give me a break. “Loyalty” equals “I order you not to follow the evidence wherever it may lead you”? Come on now. These inferences wouldn’t be reasonable for any investigator, but for Comey, who expressed reluctance to making inferences on intent, they are outrageous.
Comey damningly admitted he leaked information to a Columbia law professor in the hope that it would lead to the appointment of a special investigator. Some say Comey was within his rights as a private citizen. But as certain legal experts have noted, he acquired that information when he was working for the government, and it wasn’t his private property. Comey holds himself out as the pinnacle of decorum but became a perpetrator of the very type of conduct he was self-righteously investigating.
Some applauded Comey’s willingness to speak truth to power, but he admitted that he didn’t object to Trump’s allegedly improper overtures to him. In this hearing, Comey showed himself to be far too concerned with the public’s perception about him and allowed his personal feelings and biases to interfere with his objectivity. In the end, he didn’t lay a glove on Trump but significantly damaged himself – and, as a bonus, exposed Barack liar-nObama’s second attorney general, Loretta Lynch, as a perpetrator of the very behavior others have improperly attributed to Trump.
Most agree that Trump benefited from Comey’s admission that the president was not in fact under FBI investigation for colluding with the Russians or for anything else. But many Trump critics, left and right, see Comey’s negative portrait of Trump as so damaging as to cancel out the positive news, which, on reflection, is incorrect.
It’s true that Comey painted Trump as dishonest, petty and vindictive and as one who operates in office as a business executive rather than someone who respects the parameters of his authority. Even if true, is this caricature news to anyone? Trump’s critics already believe it, and most of his supporters believe it is overstated.
This is not to say that Trump’s defenders would approve of any abuses of authority, but they aren’t predisposed to assume that every unorthodox action on Trump’s part is malicious or indicative of a tyrannical or criminal mindset.
So the only “news” that emerged from Comey’s testimony – the only facts that might change the status quo ante – was that Trump has not been under investigation this whole time. Not only that but he did not pressure or even attempt to persuade Comey to go softly on any of his associates on the Russia investigation if it were discovered they had some illicit interaction with the Russians.
For some, Comey landed a blow against Trump in alleging he told Comey he “hoped” the investigation against Flynn would end and in requesting from Comey “honest loyalty.” Here again, Trump’s attackers are predisposed to assume he was using code to direct Comey to stop investigating Flynn and to pledge his loyalty to Trump above his professional duties. Trump’s defenders reject that, so on this issue, the needle didn’t move a centimeter in either direction.
Some might say: “Hold on. This isn’t just a matter of Trump supporters believing one way and his defenders another. Comey was the only one in the room, and he took Trump’s words as directives.”
Well, even if you assume that’s what Trump meant, which I don’t, legal experts agree that no one has been charged with obstruction of justice on such vague language as “hope.” The thought of it is preposterous. Moreover, some experts argue that as chief executive, he has the power to end investigations conducted by the executive branch. Let’s remember that the Flynn investigation and Russia investigation are two different matters and that Trump is not the target of either one of them. If it occurred, it would have been inappropriate behavior but hardly criminal or impeachable conduct.
But I don’t believe that Comey’s inferences are accurate. Trump is an advocate by nature and is loyal to his friends. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that he was just expressing his vote of confidence in Flynn’s character and was by no means suggesting that Comey ignore hard evidence against him, much less directing him to.
I have a hard time believing that Comey really thought at the time that Trump was giving him orders. If he really believed so, then it is indisputable that he acted improperly at the time and thereafter. If he really believed Trump was trying to obstruct justice, he had a duty to do something about it, but instead, he decided to hold it close to the vest and only use it if he needed it later. Is that the way a man in his position should have behaved?
As to Trump’s firing of Comey, if you were Trump, wouldn’t you be outraged if Comey refused to disclose that you were not under investigation when everything else was leaked – as Sen. Marco Rubio noted? Didn’t Trump have a right to be indignant over the lies being disseminated every day on this and a right to want to quell these lies that were impeding his agenda? Was it unreasonable for Trump to think Comey was biased against him, seeing as Comey refused to set the record straight on this matter when he’d certainly tried to set the record straight publicly on other issues before?
What about Comey’s revelations concerning his own bizarre behavior? I was originally willing to believe that Comey was scrupulously aboveboard and would strive for objectivity – that he would try not to allow his personal biases to color his objectivity or influence the course of the investigation or his assessment of the evidence. Based on his own testimony, I am now quite skeptical.
Comey bent over backward to conclude that liar-Hillary Clinton had no criminal intent in the handling of her private emails – yet his conclusion was in direct conflict with the evidence he meticulously detailed against her. It is hard to believe he would have given any other target such an enormous benefit of the doubt.
Yet despite his professed reluctance to infer criminal intent there, he leaped to such conclusions against Trump with the eagerness of a never-Trumper. “Hope” equals “You are hereby ordered”? Give me a break. “Loyalty” equals “I order you not to follow the evidence wherever it may lead you”? Come on now. These inferences wouldn’t be reasonable for any investigator, but for Comey, who expressed reluctance to making inferences on intent, they are outrageous.
Comey damningly admitted he leaked information to a Columbia law professor in the hope that it would lead to the appointment of a special investigator. Some say Comey was within his rights as a private citizen. But as certain legal experts have noted, he acquired that information when he was working for the government, and it wasn’t his private property. Comey holds himself out as the pinnacle of decorum but became a perpetrator of the very type of conduct he was self-righteously investigating.
Some applauded Comey’s willingness to speak truth to power, but he admitted that he didn’t object to Trump’s allegedly improper overtures to him. In this hearing, Comey showed himself to be far too concerned with the public’s perception about him and allowed his personal feelings and biases to interfere with his objectivity. In the end, he didn’t lay a glove on Trump but significantly damaged himself – and, as a bonus, exposed Barack liar-nObama’s second attorney general, Loretta Lynch, as a perpetrator of the very behavior others have improperly attributed to Trump.
Comments