



Submitted by MAGA Student
Posted 14 hours ago
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvz3NsbptNc

Burt Prelutsky: “Liberals were in awe of Nancy Pulosi’s eight-hour filibuster. They gave her extra points because the old woman did it while wearing stiletto heels, the way that others used to argue for Ginger Rogers’ superiority over Fred Astaire because she did everything he did but did it backwards and in heels. Well, I knew Ginger Rogers and, believe me, Mrs. Pulosi is no Ginger Rogers. The amazing thing to me isn’t that she stood that long but that she could listen to herself for more than two minutes, which happens to be my limit. The fact that she was devoting that much time to DACA only goes to show the length Democrats will go in their pursuit of the Hispanic vote. The fact that such showboating will work only proves how gullible Hispanic voters are. After all, when liar-nObama had super majorities in 2009 and 2010, he and the Democrats never gave a second thought to Hispanics. Instead, they devoted their time and attention to forcing the Affordable Care Act down our throats.”
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54229-monday-opinion











by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{ townhall.com } ~ Imagine you open the faucet of your kitchen sink expecting water and instead out comes cash. Now imagine that it comes out at the rate of $1 million a minute. You call your plumber, who thinks you're crazy. To get you off the phone, he opines that it is your sink and therefore must be your money. So you spend it wildly. Then you realize that the money wasn't yours and you owe it back.
Now imagine that this happens every minute of every day for the next three years. At the end of the three years, you owe back more than $6 trillion. So you borrow $6 trillion to pay back the $6 trillion you owe.
Is this unending spigot of cash reality or fantasy?
I am not speaking of Amazon or Google or Exxon Mobil or Apple. They deliver products that appeal to consumers and investors. They deal in copious amounts of money because they sell what hundreds of millions of people want to purchase and they do it so efficiently that hundreds of thousands want to invest in them. If they fail to persuade consumers to purchase their products and investors to purchase their financial instruments, they will go out of business.
My analogy about all that cash in your kitchen sink that just keeps coming is not about voluntary commercial transactions, which you are free to accept or reject. It is about the government's spending what it doesn't have, the consequences of which you are not free to reject.
Government produces no products that consumers are willing to pay for voluntarily, and it doesn't sell shares of stock in its assets. It doesn't generate wealth; it seizes it. And when it can no longer politically get away with seizing, it borrows. It borrows a great deal of money -- money that it rolls over, by borrowing trillions to pay back trillions to prior lenders, and thus its debt never goes away.
Last week, after eight years of publicly complaining that then-President Barack liar-nObama was borrowing more than $1 trillion a year to fund the government -- borrowing that the Republicans silently consented to -- congressional Republicans, now in control of Congress and with a friend in the Oval Office, voted to spend and hence borrow between $5 trillion and $6 trillion more than tax revenue will produce in the next three years; that's a few trillion more than they complained about in the liar-nObama years.
That's borrowing $1 million a minute.
Obviously, no business or household or bank can survive very long by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Yet the federal government, no matter which party controls Congress or the presidency, engages in staggering borrowing -- borrowing that will cripple future generations by forcing them to pay for goods and services that were consumed before they were born.
The government has often borrowed to meet critical emergency needs, typically during wartime. Indeed, the country was born in debt when Alexander Hamilton, the father of big government, offered the idea that the new federal government created by the Constitution could purchase the fidelity of the states by assuming their Revolutionary War debts.
But those debts were paid back using inflation, gold and tax dollars, and the country enjoyed sporadic periods of nearly debt-free government. Then three unhappy events coincided about 100 years ago: Woodrow Wilson -- the father of modern-day big government -- was elected president, and he brought us into the useless battle over national borders among old European royalty called the Great War, and he financed American participation in that first world war using the new printing presses owned by the new Federal Reserve System.
The $30 billion President Wilson borrowed from the Federal Reserve and others has been rolled over and over and has never been repaid. The federal government still owes the $30 billion principal, and for that it has paid more than $15 billion in interest. Who in his right mind would pay 50 percent interest on a 100-year-old debt? Only the government.
Wilson's $30 billion debt 100 years ago has ballooned to $20.6 trillion today. At the end of President Donald Trump's present term -- because of the Republican budget signed into law last week -- the government's debt will be about $27 trillion.
That amount is a debt bomb waiting to explode. Here's why. Every year, the federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in revenue and spends it all. It borrows another $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion and spends it all. To avoid paying back any of the $27 trillion it will owe, the federal government will need to spend about $1 trillion a year in interest payments.
That $1 trillion is 40 percent of the revenue collected by the federal government; that's 40 cents on every dollar in tax revenue going to interest on old debts -- interest payments that are legally unavoidable by taxpayers and voters.
Will the taxpaying public tolerate this much longer? What would happen if taxpayers stopped paying taxes because 40 percent of what they've been paying has produced nothing for them? Would investors stop lending money to the government because of fear that the government could not pay them back? The Constitution requires the government to pay its debts. Would the government's creditors acquire control of the government's fiscal policy in order to pay themselves back? The government's biggest creditor is one of its biggest menaces -- the government of China.
Borrowing money at $1 million a minute is digging a hole out of which we will never peacefully climb. President liar-nObama's and President Trump's own military and intelligence chiefs have argued that the national debt -- not the Russians or the Islamic State group or the North Koreans -- is the greatest threat to freedom and security that we face today.
Why are Congress and President Trump not listening?
{ wnd.com } ~ When you do what I do whatever your appraisal thereof happens to be, there are things that come across the transom this being a reference to the old-style windows that were once commonly utilized as an architectural devise of many big-city buildings and even apartment buildings that just cannot be ignored.
In films from the early to mid 20th century, the transom which could be opened to facilitate ventilation might be used to pass anything from mail, to a bomb intended to neutralize a meddling detective, to an aspiring writer’s manuscript flung through the transom into a prospective agent’s office.
The internet, online access and digital delivery modalities have become sort of an analogue for the transom, through which millions of us experience a veritable deluge of information on a daily basis. Practically every email solicitation the average person receives can be considered an example of transom-transmitted information, much of which would be considered junk mail by most of us.
How does one determine what is significant and what is not when so much of these data are the digital equivalent of junk mail? How can one determine what is relevant, particularly if they are in business, specifically if they are in the business of information – like commentary writers, journalists and the like.
Across my digital transom today appeared the account of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and his analysis of certain communiqués sent to and from members of the liar-nObama administration and powerful Democrat operatives – particularly former National Security Adviser Susan Rice who initially drove the preposterous, lying narrative pertaining to the tragic loss of American personnel in Benghazi and liar-Bill and liar-Hillary Clinton.
Now, for the record, I do respect Tucker Carlson as a journalist. According to Carlson’s account, in the days following Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Susan Rice apparently sent emails to herself using White House servers presumably for the intent of security and verification wherein she revealed former President Barackliar-nObama’s perception of Donald Trump as a “traitor” and a “Russian spy.”
I have heard very few statements as preposterous in the extreme as this one. This is not to say that I discount Carlson’s account. Quite the contrary: Considering the vile nature and deportment of our former president – You know, the transformational, post-racial, unifying, messianic Barack Hussein liar-nObama – I appraise accusations of this nature relating to Mr. Trump as not only extreme projection, but a deflection of the highest order.
Over the last nine years during which the American people suffered under the despot liar-nObama, I and others made account of the depth of subterfuge, foreign influence and fundamentally subversive elements that composed the administration of our precious First Black American President, and what an obscenity that administration represented. All I can say by way of verification is that the reader examine the last nine years of my WND archives. Each and every disgusting and horrific account of the exploits of Mr. liar-nObama and his co-conspirators was verified and vetted.
During the time this saboteur was in the Oval Office, it was not only determined that his hotly contested origin story and documentation representing same were bogus, but I can say with the highest confidence that this man was a complete and entire fraud. Even his name is not his own, meaning that the name to which the world refers to him was not his birth name. Based on my knowledge and information, I doubt that even the year and location of his birth were accurately disclosed.
liar-nObama’s youth, surrounded and mentored by subversives of varying stripes communists, Islamists and dedicated socialists is largely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Nor is the subsidization of his career and ascent by subversive and foreign interests. Yet, this is what molded him into the ultimate Manchurian candidate. What is truly chilling is that so much of the truth about the man has always been out there and accessible. Sadly, few chose to look.
Thus, any charges made by liar-nObama or his surrogates claiming subversion, disloyalty, or foreign collusion on Trump’s part – or any other American for that matter – must be evaluated with the utmost in cynicism and discretion.
{ wnd.com } ~ Every place you look in Robert Mueller’s investigation, the same names keep popping up: FBI agent Peter Strzok and sleazy, foreign private eye – or “British intelligence agent” – Christopher Steele.
So it’s rather important that they both are Trump-hating fanatics, and one was being paid by Trump’s political opponent in a presidential campaign.
Steele is the author of the preposterous dossier that sparked the special counsel investigation, and Strzok is the FBI agent involved at every crucial turn of both the Trump and liar-Hillary investigations.
As we found out from the House Intelligence memo, Steele told Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS, and, like Steele, was being paid by the liar-Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
In the hands of Trump-obsessive Peter Strzok – he of the estrogen-dripping texts to his Trump-hating FBI lawyer mistress – the dossier was used to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Trump’s alleged “foreign policy adviser,” Carter Page.
The FISA warrant against Page constitutes the last crumbling piece of the “Russia collusion” story.
Strzok was the person who instigated the Russia investigation against Trump back in July 2016. He was the lead agent on the investigation into whether liar-Hillary, as secretary of state, sent classified information on her private email account. Conclusion: She had – but it wasn’t any of the FBI’s business! He volunteered for the Mueller investigation and remained there, right up until his Trump-hating texts were discovered by the inspector general of the FBI. He was also, one surmises, the authority for many of the media’s lurid, anonymously sourced claims about how the investigation was proceeding.
Most strangely, Strzok was the FBI agent who asked Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, about his phone call with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, but Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to an FBI agent about it, based on a secretly recorded intercept of the phone call. The question remains: Why was any FBI agent even asking about a perfectly legitimate conversation? No one seems to know. But we do know the name of the FBI agent who asked: Peter Strzok.
Aside from Strzok’s girl-power text to his mistress upon liar- Hillary becoming the first female presidential nominee – “About damn time!” – his most embarrassing message to her was about the Russia investigation:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – that there’s no way Trump gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …”
The media have tied themselves in knots trying to explain this text as meaning anything other than its obvious, natural meaning. To wit: “Although the worst is unlikely Trump wins/you die before age 40, you still prepare by taking out ‘insurance’ we take Trump down with the Russia investigation/your family gets a payout.”
I keep looking for a plausible alternative interpretation, but they’re all absurd; e.g., the Washington Post points out that even with an insurance policy, YOU STILL DIE! Yes, and even with the Russian investigation, TRUMP IS STILL PRESIDENT. Everyone except American journalists understands that Strzok’s “insurance” was their plan to tie Trump up with an endless investigation.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what they’ve done.
Contrary to every single person talking on MSNBC, the issue is not whether FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. In a probe of the president, FBI agents shouldn’t be dying to take him down for political reasons.
You want drug enforcement agents to be hungry to shut down drug cartels. You want organized crime prosecutors to be hungry to dismantle the mob. You want your maid to be hungry to clean your house. But the staff on a special counsel’s open-ended investigation of the president aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.
This is an investigation with no evidence of a crime, apart from politically motivated, anti-Trump investigators relying on a liar-Hillary-funded dossier.
Also contrary to every single person talking on MSNBC, Steele’s dossier is not like a neighbor who hates you telling the police you’re cooking meth in your basement. The police still have to investigate, don’t they?
First of all, if after 18 months of police work, the only evidence that you’re cooking meth in your basement is STILL your neighbor’s bald accusation, reasonable people will conclude that your neighbor is a liar. That’s what the Steele dossier is. It was the only evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia 18 months ago, and it’s the only evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia today.
Moreover, it’s not just the informant who hates the target. The investigators do, too. This is more like a police officer calling the police on his wife, sending himself on the call, shooting her, then writing up the police report concluding it was a justified shooting.
When your entire investigation turns on a handful of people with corrupt motives, maybe it’s time to call off the investigation.
The one, the only George Schwartz ( aka George Soros ) or better known as the democratic "puppet master" has his own agenda and has been working on it his whole life....
This is man behind every democrat dissension that is made has he has bought them all....
Get to know the "puppet masters' and his game plan before it's to late to stop this ass-clown from taking over the world..

{ truthrevolt.org } ~ The Israeli police investigation against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shows remarkable similarities with the Special Counsel probe against President Donald Trump in the United States.
During the prime time news broadcasts Tuesday evening in Israel, the dramatic news was announced that Israel Police investigators are recommending that Israel’s Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit, indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on bribery and breach of trust charges in two investigations.
The news raises a number of obvious questions about Netanyahu’s political future. But it also raises an equal, if not greater, number of questions about the purity of the police service’s intentions and its trustworthiness.
Let us begin by considering the specific cases that form the bases of police recommendations against Netanyahu.
The first investigation has been dubbed Investigation 1000 by the Police’s main criminal investigations unit, Lahav 433. The investigation surrounds the relationship between Netanyahu and his old friend, Israeli businessman and Hollywood movie producer Arnon Milchen. The police have recommended that Milchen be indicted for paying bribes to Netanyahu. The police recommend indicting Netanyahu for taking bribes from Milchen and acting illegally on his behalf.
According to Israel’s Hadashot television news, this investigation was the top story in terms of volume of coverage during 2017.
The police allege that between 2007 and 2016, Milchen showered Netanyahu and his wife Sara with cigars, champagne, and jewelry, often purchased at their request. In 2014, Milchen’s business partner, Australian businessman James Packer, who was also a friend of Netanyahu and his family, allegedly began giving similar gifts to the Netanyahu family.
In exchange for those gifts, the police allege that Netanyahu supported extending a law passed in 2008, when Netanyahu was the head of the parliamentary opposition, that gave returning Israeli expatriates tax forgiveness for ten years of unpaid back taxes. That is, Israeli expatriates were not liable for Israeli income tax for their global income earned over the decade before they returned to Israel.
According to the police, after Netanyahu returned to office in 2009, Milchen lobbied Netanyahu’s finance minister at the time, Yair Lapid, to extend the tax forgiveness period. Lapid, who is now in the opposition, heads the center-left Yesh Atid party. If Netanyahu’s Likud party fails to win the next election, according to the polls, Lapid and his Yesh Atid party will form the next government.
In other words, today, Lapid is Netanyahu’s chief political rival.
On Tuesday, the police told reporters that Lapid is the key witness against Netanyahu in Investigation 1000.
In other words, Netanyahu’s chief political rival is the key witness against him.
Lapid reportedly told investigators that Netanyahu asked him twice to advance Milchen’s request to extend the period of tax forgiveness to returning expatriates beyond the ten years granted by the law. Lapid and the finance ministry opposed Milchen’s proposal, and his initiative went nowhere.
Netanyahu also allegedly intervened on behalf of Milchen in two proposed deals related to Israeli television stations that Milchen either owned or wished to own.
But then, neither of his proposed interventions, if they occurred, were successful.
The police report that Netanyahu intervened on Milchen’s behalf when the latter was experiencing difficulty renewing his residency visa in the U.S. Netanyahu called then-Secretary of State John Kerry and asked him to intervene on Milchen’s behalf to renew his residency visa.
Since Milchen stood to lose a significant amount of money if he was unable to remain in the U.S., the police claim that Netanyahu’s intervention on his behalf with Kerry represented the return on Milchen’s gifts.
Milchen himself has a long record of service to Israel’s Mossad — its foreign spy service — and reportedly has contributed significantly to Israel’s defense. Netanyahu claims that he acted out of respect for Milchen’s long service to Israel’s security. In addition,, Israel’s late president and prime minister, left-wing icon Shimon Peres, also intervened on Milchen’s behalf with U.S. authorities.
In the second probe, dubbed Investigation 2000, the police recommend indicting Netanyahu following a discussion he held – and recorded surreptitiously – in 2014 with Arnon Mozes, the publisher and controlling owner of Israel’s mass circulation daily, Yediot Ahronot. The police found the recorded conversation on the mobile phone of Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, Ari Harow, who is the subject of a separate and unrelated influence-peddling probe. Netanyahu claims he recorded their conversation on the advice of his attorney because he was afraid that Mozes would try to extort him.
The police claim that the conversation is proof that Mozes offered Netanyahu a bribe and that Netanyahu accepted the offer. They recommend charging Mozes with bribing Netanyahu, and charging Netanyahu with accepting a bribe from Mozes.
The odd thing about this claim is that no deal was struck. To the contrary.
Mozes is Netanyahu’s nemesis. Yediot Ahronot is the most influential newspaper in Israel. Its front page dictates the daily news programming for radio and television broadcasts. And Yediot Ahronot‘s coverage of Netanyahu is implacably hostile to the premier and to his family. To a lesser but significant degree, Yediot Ahronot is also deeply hostile to the Israeli political right.
According to the recording of the men’s conversation, which was leaked to the media by the police more than a year ago, Netanyahu and Mozes discussed an elaborate scheme to change the newspaper market in Israel in Yediot Ahronot‘s favor.
Israel’s largest circulation paper is Israel Hayom, a free tabloid that is owned by conservative American billionaire — and Netanyahu supporter — Sheldon Adelson. In their recorded conversation, Mozes raised the possibility of Netanyahu curtailing government advertising in Israel Hayom and working to cut back its circulation in order to increase Yediot Ahronot‘s market share.
In exchange, Mozes offered to scale back the negative tone of his paper’s coverage of Netanyahu.
In the event, nothing came of the conversation. Indeed, in late 2014, against Netanyahu’s expressed wishes, then-justice minister Tzipi Livni put forward a controversial media bill, which was based on a legal opinion written by Yediot Ahronot‘s legal advisor. The bill, which was dubbed the “Israel Hayom law,” would have forced the shutdown of the paper by barring its owners from not charging money for it.
The law passed a preliminary reading in the Knesset with 43 votes. Netanyahu and his Likud Party voted against the bill. Moreover, to prevent the bill from going forward, Netanyahu disbanded his government and the Knesset and called new elections a bit more than a year into his term.
In other words, to prevent any harm to Israel Hayom – and transitively, to prevent any advantage from being accrued to Yediot Ahronot — Netanyahu took the radical step of standing for election again.
For more than a year, the police refused to investigate any of the 43 lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill, or to analyze the coverage they received in Yediot Ahronot in following their support. Three weeks ago, the bill’s sponsor, Labor Party member of Knesset Eitan Cabel — who enjoyed extraordinary coverage in the paper — was brought in for a brief interview.
In other words, the police are recommending that Netanyahu be indicted for a conversation that went nowhere, which he recorded. And the police are not investigating 42 out of the 43 lawmakers that supported a move that would have given Mozes everything he asked Netanyahu for, but didn’t receive, while the 43rd lawmaker was subject merely to a brief interrogation.
This brings us to the police.
https://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-israels-deep-state-targets-netanyahu-bogus-charges
"3 Stooges"
These are just three of the stooges of the democratic party.....

http://truthfeednews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/THE-VIEW-BOYCOTT-009-01-1600x832.jpg 1600w" sizes="(min-width:1171px) 800px, (min-width:721px) 66vw, 96vw" width="800" height="416" />
After Joy Behar’s egregious attacks on Christianity and her refusal to apologize, many are now calling for a boycott against the shows top sponsors.
If you want to hit “The View” where it hurts, call, email or contact these companies via social media and tell them how you feel about their anti-Christian views.
We also encourage you to contact ABC directly here.
This list is from the “Join boycott the view group” on Facebook.
H/T Dagger News
Guest post by Mike LaChance at American Lookout:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gaggle-disbelief-300x174.jpg 300w, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gaggle-disbelief-370x214.jpg 370w" sizes="(max-width: 508px) 100vw, 508px" width="508" height="294" />
The liberal media doesn’t just ask questions and report the news. They shape the narrative and they have been trying to “get” Trump since he won the election. It’s time to call them what they are – activists.
Eddie Scarry writes at the Washington Examiner:
Universal truths about the media in 2017
New year, new media? Good luck with that.
As the first full year of President Trump’s time in office wraps up, there’s absolutely no indication the national media want to do anything different, even if there’s every reason they should.
Out of the major newspapers, the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page stands alone in providing anything that even looks sort of like a reasonable perspective on the still-young White House.
The Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today still refuse to employ a single columnist that won’t begin each piece with anything less than “Mr. Trump, you are a liar!”
CNN this year had to retract one story and significantly modify a second one (both were related to Trump and Russia) after it turned out the former wasn’t supported by any facts (otherwise often referred to as “fiction”) and the latter was inaccurate to the point of libel.
Brian Ross, with his apparent lifetime tenure at ABC News, was suspended in early December after he once again reported catastrophically wrong information about Trump and, of course, Russia…
Acosta may be harmless on his own, but when the sea of media decide to rewrite the standards for covering a presidency, to assume an “attitude,” it’s time to accept that they’re no longer journalists. They’re activists.
He’s absolutely right and most people have finally caught on to their little game.

According to police, the arrests included some entertainers, community leaders, white-collar professionals, a monk, and other high-ranking clergy members.
The raids were conducted by the Los Angeles Regional Internet Crimes Against Children task force, working directly with the Justice Department.
Codenamed “Operation Broken Heart III”, the sweeping raids targeted offenders wanted for the sexual exploitation of children, child prostitution, sex tourism and possessing and distributing child pornography, said Deputy Chief Matt Blake of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Police stated that they are unable to release any names at this point, but confirmed that the arrested included some “household names” in the entertainment industry.
Operation Broken Heart III is said to be part of a much larger operation that connects to national Elite pedophile rings and may extend worldwide.
Among those arrested was an Australian politician who was attempting to “purchase” a 6-year-old boy.
Los Angeles Times reported:
A monk from Riverside and an Australian man looking to buy a 6-year-old boy were among 238 people arrested during a two-month operation targeting child predators in Southern California, officials said Monday.
Conducted by the Los Angeles Regional Internet Crimes Against Children task force, “Operation Broken Heart III” targeted offenders wanted for the sexual exploitation of children, child prostitution, sex tourism and possessing and distributing child pornography, said Deputy Chief Matt Blake of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Among those arrested during sweeps in April and May were entertainers, community leaders, white-collar professionals and clergy members, said John Reynolds, acting special agent in charge of U.S. Department of Homeland Security Investigations.
“The incidence of child sexual exploitation has reached staggering proportions,” he said at a news conference.
Law enforcement officials said the arrests underscore the importance of families maintaining an open dialogue about Internet safety.
“Parents and kids need to have frank conversations about how to stay safe in cyberspace,” Reynolds said.
Children and teens, he said, are spending more time on the Internet and social media sites, where child predators often look for victims.
The Los Angeles task force is one of 61 programs nationwide funded through the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Created in 2014, Operation Broken Heart gives law enforcement agencies and task forces an opportunity to combine resources and investigative tools to identify child sexual predators.
The Los Angeles Police Department’s Internet Crimes Against Children unit serves about 300 warrants each year in pursuit of child pornography suspects. In a high-rise building in Long Beach, 11 officers review an average of 350 child pornography cases a month.
Investigators use forensic equipment inside a mobile crime lab named “The Beast” to scan through hard drives for any illicit images.
[…]
Continue reading the story here.
Scroll down to leave a comment below.
President Donald Trump may sit in the White House, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions occupy the leading spot at the Department of Justice — but it’s Barack Obama-era holdovers who are really calling some of America’s law enforcement shots.
That’s according to J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ lawyer who has the inside scoop on who’s running what at this all-too-important Cabinet-level spot.
https://gellerreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HOlderObama.png 705w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" width="300" height="130" />Remember these guys? Well, Eric Holder and Barack Obama still wield considerable influence at the Department of Justice, despite the fact that President Donald Trump sits in the White House and Attorney General Jeff Sessions fills the top spot at the Department of Justice.Remember the recusal of Sessions from the Russia collusion-slash-obstruction-of-justice investigation>
That’s Clue Number One to the secret influences at the department.
From the Hill:
The recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from all things Russia has unexpectedly revealed the political proclivities of so many deeply embedded Justice Department and FBI employees. Texts, memos, FISA warrants and dossiers have the Russia scandal boiling over, but not in the way some anticipated.
None of this is surprising to anyone aware of the lopsided support for Democrats in campaign donations by Justice Department employees. The unraveling over the last few weeks of the texts, actions and emails of FBI agents, FBI leaders and Justice Department enablers — some even appointed by President Trump, such as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — has revealed a federal law enforcement apparatus that wished the 2016 election never occurred.
But the problem at the Justice Department is even worse. Unfortunately, in important components of the Justice Department, the deep-state strategy of seeking to nullify the results of the 2016 election is being employed without garnering as much attention.
Consider the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, where a Senate-confirmed nominee for assistant attorney general has yet to be installed, 13 months into the administration. The Civil Rights Division wields enormous power over housing, banking, voting, police, education, immigration, employment, lending, prisons and more. During the Obama years, the division lurched hard left, and many of the most extreme positions were explicitly criticized by President Trump in his victorious campaign.Elections must carry consequences, or the victorious electorate will question the utility of the process. Yet four Obama holdovers entirely sympathetic to the ideological agenda of the previous administration are still in absolute control of an entire layer of political oversight. There are four deputy assistant attorney general positions at the Civil Rights Division, and all are occupied by committed Obama holdovers.
Alberto Ruisanchez and Rebecca Bond were elevated into these slots out of the career ranks, on an acting basis, just days before President Trump’s inauguration. The pair were elevated by the previous administration for their familiarity with the bureaucracy and their skills at slowing down anything President Trump wanted to do. Incredibly, they still haven’t been dislodged and replaced with political appointees who, of course, require no Senate confirmation.
Meanwhile, Robert Moosey and Greg Friel — two other committed liberal bureaucrats — were sneakily slotted by the Obama administration into permanent deputy assistant attorney general roles that are normally reserved for political appointees. In other words, they were elevated into career political slots, an oxymoron if there ever was one.
People familiar with their behavior since the inauguration tell me these four have stymied Team Trump and have preserved their day-to-day control over the nearly 1,000 employees of the Civil Rights Division. They serve the bureaucrats and the outside activist groups more than they serve this administration.
Some might excuse this circumstance and say they serve “the department.” But these days, with manipulators like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe becoming household names, that excuse has become a laugh line. Having four long-haul bureaucrats in political slots mount a rear-guard delaying strategy to preserve the Obama legacy is the sort of thing that ignites fury among the President Trump’s most dedicated supporters.
Regular folks outside the Beltway that I have spoken with, in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, want holdovers like Moosey, Ruisanchez, Bond and Friel to endure something more than gentle reassignment. The fact that 13 months into the administration these deep-state embeds still hold power enrages Trump’s base. They want bureaucrats like these four frog-marched out of the federal government and into oblivion. Beware the Trump supporter scorned.
This sort of obstructionism isn’t just a nuisance, it’s undemocratic. I was at the Justice Department in January 2009 when President Obama was inaugurated. Justice Department policy turned on a dime. Bush-era holdovers in positions of authority, even career civil servants, were circumvented, blackballed, removed and run off. Policies were instantly altered. Cases brought by the Bush administration were jettisoned.
The 2008 election had consequences at the Justice Department right away. There was no layer of Bush-era political appointees allowed to linger for more than a year, serving as the hands-on managers of an entire division of the Justice Department. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should take careful note and move Justice Department appointees as fast as possible to fix this disgraceful, undemocratic circumstance.