Monday PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

The Front Page Cover

~ Featuring ~

Intelligence Leaks and a Duplicitous Press

by Susan Stamper Brown

Impeachment: Delusional Dems Don't Have a Case

JFqhPnZ_zl_RNrPn3qQNm2vQLfxhknStFjnYjCtUCjwrtFTbuCrWHZOSxri7EX8_3XfQO9SNUBvgRqI1ApttLM7-wbxTzQzEGxfj814TkUGutNYDHlR5K2H3SptEZA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

By Brian Mark Weber: If you're like most Americans who work hard all day, raise your children, pay your taxes, and follow the law, you're probably troubled by the evening news reports of a constitutional crisis over something President Donald Trump told former FBI Director James Comey. Sounds pretty ominous, doesn't it? Let's back up a little bit here and put this in perspective.

The Constitution stipulates that a president can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Our Founding Fathers knew that politics is a complex and nasty affair, but they entrusted future elected leaders to bring about such charges only in the most serious of situations.

Impeachment was never designed to be used as a political weapon, or to bring down an opposing president simply because there's a mechanism to do so. Thankfully, the impeachment process isn't easy. Nonetheless, just about every modern president has been threatened with impeachment.

Philip Wegmann writes in the Washington Examiner, "The last five presidents have been threatened with impeachment, and four of them actually had impeachment resolutions drawn up against them. In every instance but one, the talk was idle and the resolutions equally meaningless."

In most cases, there's no evidence to back up the accusations. Even when the process actually results in impeachment, as in the case of Bill liar-Clinton, conviction (and thus removal from office) is far from imminent. In fact, no president has been removed. Andrew Johnson was the only other to be impeached, but he was acquitted, and Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

Overall, it seems that the threshold for drawing up charges is lowered significantly when Republicans are in office. As Rush Limbaugh often says, when it comes to Republicans in the White House, it's the "seriousness of the charge," not the actual evidence, that gets Democrats banging the drums of impeachment.

Such is the case with Donald Trump. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley opines in The Hill, "Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report [on James Comey and Michael Flynn], the response was a chorus of breathless 'gotcha' announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct."

For Democrats, the shock to their system has been threefold: Donald Trump won the election, liar-Hillary Clinton somehow lost it, and the legacy of Barack liar-nObama is in tatters. Since the moment Trump was sworn in as president — no, since the moment liar-Hillary reluctantly conceded the election; scratch that, since he won the GOP nomination — the number one objective of Democrats and their Leftmedia allies has been to destroy him.

To Trump's opponents, the beauty is that no evidence is needed. When there is collusion between the press and the political class, any number of high crimes and misdemeanors can be dredged up. Since Watergate, every journalism student in America has dreamt of being the next Carl Bernstein or Bob Woodward, and the media in general yearn for another opportunity to bring down a Republican president.

Think about it. How many times did we read or hear journalists and reporters bringing up Watergate during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? Too many to recall. But when Barack liar-nObama surreptitiously shipped a plane load of ransom cash to the Iranians, used the Department of Justice to spy on reporters and their families, or paved the way for the IRS to trample the First Amendment rights of conservatives, it was considered business as usual. No questions asked.

So given the politics of all this talk of removing the president from office, and given that modern-day Republican presidents are routinely threatened with impeachment, the chances of the Republican House voting to do so are ridiculously small based on the evidence we have at the moment. Which is to say, none.

Still, Democrats know full well it's not evidence they need to bring down Trump's presidency. All they need is to get the American public to believe something sordid has happened, and then weak-kneed Republicans on Capitol Hill will fall all over themselves to appear forthright and cooperative.

Don't believe it? Democrats are poised to poll Americans to see if they're falling for the impeachment scam. And we're already hearing the name Joe Lieberman being mentioned as a serious candidate to replace Comey at the FBI.

All Trump's opponents have is an anonymous source claiming that the president asked Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn — the day after Flynn was fired, by the way. That might be a serious charge, except Comey himself testified under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3 that no one in the administration ever pressured him to end an investigation.

It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to see there's no obstruction of justice here. There's no treason, no bribery, no high crimes and no misdemeanors. Those all did indeed occur during the liar-nObama years, except Republicans were too worried about being called racists to protect the Constitution they swore an oath to defend.

Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? What we have here is a full-on case of psychosis. And that's just among the mainstream media.

So when you're watching the news and you hear about Donald Trump's latest threat to our constitutional republic, take a deep breath and wait for the evidence. And wait. And wait. Democrats want you to think there's an impeachable crime so they won't have to honor the results of a legitimate election. But in order to overturn that election, they need to convince enough of us that the president is a criminal. Now that's a high crime.

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/digests/49191

NO Trump OBSTRUCTION Of Justice –

DON’T SEE ANY CRIME At All

D9qpede6iPVuaJ_BNbhlfgxm4GwO9aEZEe1DnMr46mWygBNpVOh-nayCy57Qb3LxerCSOPMs_lTkSe9DqPGMOKVxcs7yFtMS1zuD5T126fJAZrLqB1CcJOuPYBmdaGzcXXfWFw=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

by Rick Wells

{rickwells.us} ~ Tucker Carlson notes that Professor Alan Dershowitz asks a question that nobody else has asked, “What’s the crime to which this special counsel is responding?”... Dershowitz states he voted for liar-Clinton and somehow did so very proudly, evidence that he’s not politically motivated to make his positions known but is doing so based upon respect for and the preservation of American civil liberties. He supports construing statutes narrowly, as they were written, saying, “I just don’t see a crime here. I see perhaps some political wrongdoing. I see leaking information on both sides. But even if, for example, the campaign coordinated, which there’s no evidence of, but coordinated its activities with Russia, and even if Russia and the campaign said, ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be better if Trump were elected,’ that’s political wrongdoing but it’s just not a crime.” Dershowitz continues, “Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated and a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime...http://rickwells.us/dershowitz-no-trump-obstruction-justice-see-crime/

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu7TlE-XZiQ

Palestinian Statehood Is Acceptable … Eventually
re5k2xqM2oriIyGi-0w8YIUvSNFB-CoOTfBux9iTHw4PA6iwiOkMm2j2Y3TWjfgrOxNkKWnldU9wcVIQKSzJ1oSOxOS0XMzz=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

re5k2xqM2oriIyGi-0w8YIUvSNFB-CoOTfBux9iTHw4PA6iwiOkMm2j2Y3TWjfgrOxNkKWnldU9wcVIQKSzJ1oSOxOS0XMzz=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

The Congressional Israel Victory Caucus. From the left: Gregg Roman,

E.J. Kimball, Bill Johnson, Daniel Pipes, Ron DeSantis, Gary Bauer
by Daniel Pipes

{danielpipes.org} ~ This is the idea that the "peace process" has turned into a "war process" and that the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation lies not in more painful concessions by Israel but, to the contrary, by Israel imposing its will on its enemy and crushing the Palestinian dream to eliminate the Jewish state... Washington should encourage its Israeli ally in this. Ironically, losing is the best thing that could happen to the Palestinians, for it liberates from a destructive obsession and allows them to begin on constructing their own polity, economy, society, and culture. To advance this idea, the Middle East Forum, the organization I head, has worked with members of the U.S. House of Representatives to launch a Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CIVC) to lobby the president. Sherman hails CIVC as "an initiative of critical importance with genuine paradigmatic game-changing potential."...http://www.danielpipes.org/17594/palestinian-statehood-is-acceptable-eventually?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=e5f27ca35e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-e5f27ca35e-33703665

Dem Admits Empty Accusations,

No Trump Evidence...

3IvloHY2bwCL7U5aYqmwjjyGXxEvT54f1oV2Zf_Ij74LxfTuDCcm8pS4delIBQtBkEttkzS-gIlCG-vXUTlb-DFPCYLglCxP4OaEL-TjiDhtYcMzcl_BiOCJtGg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

by Rick Wells

{rickwells.us} ~ Fox News anchor John Scott shows Democrat hack Rep Joe Crowley (D-NY) much more respect than he deserves in taking a diplomatic route to describe the left’s totally unsubstantiated and fabricated witch hunt... of the President intended to destroy his presidency. Scott asks, “Are you absolutely convinced that there was some kind of collusion, because at this point there has been no evidence that I’m aware of and you know, people like Chuck Grassley, Senator Chuck Grassley have said he has seen no evidence of between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” Of course, being a Democrat, Crowley, the Chairman of the House Democrat Caucus, is under no obligation to speak the truth, only what best serves their Party. That means we’re going to be lied to...http://rickwells.us/dem-admits-empty-accusations-no-trump-evidence-special-prosecutor/

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MuDCpkBKMs

Nancy Pulosi wants an ethics rule waiver

for Robert Mueller

gLhcLOt-UVBGrpgaHPYyz-s6sP7dooA5fZl3WV3qmOI1kfN-UftKagOz3sBTHbIaiZ6fxzqZhO7p8-HTsF47DH_cqy6jfCbXto-VI7eAo1inaUSGIpDSOBR0d7thBUs461Mb9wx_ekjBMIk=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

by Joel Gehrke

{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi wants the Justice Department to grant an ethics rule waiver to allow former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign... Mueller was named special counsel for the investigation into Russian cyber-attacks against the Democratic party, which includes a probe of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to the Russian government. But Mueller's former law firm has represented President Trump's son-in-law and his former campaign manager, reportedly leading the Trump team to consider invoking an ethics rule that could restrict Mueller's ability to investigate those men... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nancy-pelosi-wants-an-ethics-rule-waiver-for-robert-mueller/article/2623728
.

Intelligence Leaks and a Duplicitous Press

Ypn6Josp6LGgKWMvp2TYlvvrpGxUD-mvdAyEpYQ6wlSyV_XV_pYQI5fGcv_Zp7ZfhhmUA9T778yXYSw_0roMhk5S2dWD2_oyCoMFisS0ThQVimid322nMg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

by Susan Stamper Brown
{townhall.com} ~ A Harvard study published May 18 reveals what thoughtful Americans already knew: Extreme anti-Trump bias runs rampant in corporate media. The study found that CNN, CBS, and NBC produced more than 90 percent negative coverage during Trump’s first 100 days, followed by the New York Times at 87 percent, and the Washington Post, 83 percent. Only Fox News offered close to balanced coverage with 52 percent negative coverage.

That explains why the week was filled with over-the-top reporting about President Trump sharing sensitive intelligence with Russian officials visiting the White House. Reportedly, the disclosure included information that ISIS has developed a way to mask bombs inside laptop computers that can slip undetected through airport screening.

Russia is a lot of things, but in the case of ISIS, Russia in our ally.

The overdramatic hype about Trump doing what every president before him has done to share information with an ally to prevent a terror attack is a head-scratcher to those who recall the events of September 11, 2001 as a bad thing.

We are aware of these details thanks to an agenda-driven media lacking discretion and leakers lacking a conscience. Who in their right mind would leak to the public information that burns intelligence sources? It’s obvious there is no longer an ethical code by which most of the press abides.

Those whispering secrets to the wind do so for a reason.

Given the unprecedented volume of leaks and the liar-nObama administration’s lack of integrity, someone should re-sweep the White House for bugs.

If it is “treasonous” for the president to share information to protect lives with an ally behind White House closed doors, then what shall we call it when a blabbermouth leaks this sensitive information to media organizations, which in turn proverbially broadcasts it with a bullhorn?

This is not about the First Amendment; we’re talking about discretion.

It’s also about intent. If anonymous sources are not authorized to speak publicly about intelligence matters but share them with the media, we should focus on prosecuting both the leaker and culpable media.

At the very least, fed-up Americans should cancel subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times and stop watching news channels that care more about destroying the president than they do about protecting American lives.

Sure, Trump’s methods might be questionable, but what’s not in dispute is his pure-hearted desire to keep Americans safe.

The same media in full throttle to destroy Donald Trump performed journalistic backflips to protect the proverbial WikiLeaks of all presidential administrations, the liar-nObama administration, which sprung so many leaks even Flex Seal wouldn’t help.

Leaks such as the time the liar-nObama administration put a proverbial target on Navy SEAL Team 6 operators’ backs when it leaked key operational details about the Osama bin Laden raid, blabbing about SEAL Team 6’s participation. To this day, family members blame the liar-nObama administration for what they believe was retaliation when the Taliban later downed a helicopter in Afghanistan which killed 30 soldiers, including 15 SEAL Team 6 members.

In 2012, liar-nObama leaked sensitive details about an “underwear-bombing” plot and the mission was forced to a stand still because of that leak, which former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers suggested was utilized to generate positive press and boost liar-nObama’s reelection chances.

The media also snoozed as the pantsuit queen they pre-crowned as president was caught transporting classified emails on an illegal server hidden in a bathroom. It was “nothing to see here” even when evidence unfolded about a complex scheme to conceal or destroy emails and burn or hide potentially damning daily calendar entries.

Every administration has intelligence leaks. The current leaks are due to a convoluted effort intended to hurt President Trump, while liar-nObama’s leaks were about making him look good. What they have in common is the press involvement which ends up potentially endangering human life.

https://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2017/05/22/intelligence-leaks-and-a-duplicitous-press-n2330052?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

ACTION

Monday PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

Comments