The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
The FBI and liar-Hillary, Again
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Trump And Americans Want The Wall –
Vote In A New Congress...
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ When Americans voted for Donald Trump as their President, it was because we believed he would return our country to us and that he was a man who was beyond the reach of the swamp creatures he promised to eliminate... A pillar of his contract with the American people is the border wall. We voted him in, he says he wants to build it, Congress needs to fund it. They supposedly work for us and we’ve given them clear instructions. Replace Speaker Ryan, make an example out of the traitor Mitch McConnell in some way, do whatever it takes. Do not buckle to globalist pressure, Mr. President. We did our part, you must find a way to do yours. Evidence that that sentiment is widespread came in hearings before the National Security Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday. Four witnesses spoke in favor of the wall, one liberal anti-American spoke against...
.
Iran in Syria: A Gathering Storm?
by P. David Hornik
{frontpagemag.com} ~ The Iranian regime, as it has made clear in countless threats, rallies, and missile displays, wants to destroy Israel, the “Little Satan.”... Given Israel’s military might and, according to foreign reports, nuclear arsenal, Iran’s goal is probably unattainable. But the nearer Iran gets—or perceives itself to get—to that goal, the more warfare and instability is likely to ensue. At present, thanks to Syria’s collapse into civil war and the liar-nObama administration’s—at best—inept policy there, Iran is within reach of establishing a permanent military presence to Israel’s north—a surefire recipe for ongoing struggle and menace... http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266537/iran-syria-gathering-storm-p-david-hornik
.
UN Interference with Efforts to
Repeal and Replace liar-nObamacare
by Joseph Klein
{frontpagemag.com} ~ The United Nations is once again sticking its nose into the domestic affairs of the United States in violation of its own charter (Article 2, para. 7)... The Washington Post has uncovered a transmittal letter dated February 2, 2017 from the UN Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights, forwarding to the then acting U.S. Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, Jr., a complaint from one of the UN’s Special Rapporteurs about plans to repeal and replace liar-nObamacare. This Special Rapporteur “on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” Dainius Puras, believes it is within his mandate to intervene in the internal debate going on within the U.S. Congress and the executive branch as to what to do about liar-nObamacare...The WH and Congress should kick the UN out of the United States and stop funding them.
.
EPA Administrator Pruitt Hopeful President Trump Will Exit UN Paris “Climate” Agreement
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks to the possibility that the United States will pull out of the Paris Climate hoax, a treaty that was never ratified in the first place beyond some Chinese shenanigans by the former pretend ‘president.’... The Senate never approved it, they never even took it up because liar-nObama knew it wouldn’t pass. Still, much of DC, unfamiliar with or just dismissive of the Constitution, pretend it’s binding and continue to throw our money at it. liar-nObama flushed $1 billion down the drain into the green climate slush fund it created in his last year squatting in the White House. It’s our money that goes to his corrupt UN globalist cronies...
.Center for Security Policy's Jim Hanson speaks with Tucker Carlson about reports of rising crime by refugees in Germany
.
U.S. Military Identifies 'Mustard Agent' As Chemical Used by ISIS Against Iraqi Troops
.
Krauthammer on Coulter at Berkeley: "Reaching a Situation Where" "Fascist Gangs Can Shut Down Free Speech"
.
"This Madness Has to Stop": Hannity Says the Left Is Stifling Free Speech
.
White House: liar-nObama Administration Issued Flynn's Security Clearance
Elizabeth dinky-Warren "Troubled" by liar-nObama’s $400,000 Wall Street Speaking Fee
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Last weekend, The New York Times published a long piece about the effect the FBI had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign. As we all know, Donald Trump won a comfortable victory in the Electoral College while falling about 3 million votes behind liar-Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.
I believe that liar-Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to energize the Democratic Party base and who failed to deliver to the electorate a principled reason to vote for her. Yet when the Times reporters asked her why she believes she lost the race, she gave several answers, the first of which was the involvement of the FBI. She may be right.
Here is the back story.
In 2015, a committee of the House of Representatives that was investigating the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, learned that the State Department had no copies of any emails sent or received by liar-Clinton during her four years as secretary of state. When committee investigators pursued this -- at the same time that attorneys involved with civil lawsuits brought against the State Department seeking the liar-Clinton emails were pursuing it -- it was revealed that liar-Clinton had used her own home servers for her emails and bypassed the State Department servers.
Because many of her emails obviously contained government secrets and because the removal of government secrets to any non-secure venue constitutes espionage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, which passed it on to the FBI. A congressionally issued criminal referral means that some members of Congress who have seen some evidence think that some crime may have been committed. The DOJ is free to reject the referral, yet it accepted this one.
It directed the FBI to investigate the facts in the referral and to refer to the investigation as a "matter," not as a criminal investigation. The FBI cringed a bit, but Director James Comey followed orders and used the word "matter." This led to some agents mockingly referring to him as the director of the Federal Bureau of Matters. It would not be the last time agents mocked or derided him in the liar-Clinton investigation.
He should not have referred to it by any name, because under DOJ and FBI regulations, the existence of an FBI investigation should not be revealed publicly unless and until it results in some public courtroom activity, such as the release of an indictment. These rules and procedures have been in place for generations to protect those never charged. Because of the role that the FBI has played in our law enforcement history -- articulated in books and movies and manifested in our culture -- many folks assume that if a person is being investigated by the FBI, she must have done something wrong.
In early July 2016, liar-Clinton was personally interviewed in secret for about four hours by a team of FBI agents who had been working on her case for a year. During that interview, she professed great memory loss and blamed it on a head injury she said she had suffered in her Washington, D.C., home. Some of the agents who interrogated her disbelieved her testimony about the injury and, over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, asked Comey for permission to subpoena her medical records.
When Comey denied his agents the permission they sought, some of them attempted to obtain the records from the intelligence community. Because liar-Clinton's medical records had been digitally recorded by her physicians and because the FBI agents knew that the National Security Agency has digital copies of all keystrokes on all computers used in the U.S. since 2005, they sought liar-Clinton's records from their NSA colleagues. Lying to the FBI is a felony, and these agents believed they had just witnessed a series of lies.
When Comey learned what his creative agents were up to, he jumped the gun by holding a news conference on July 5, 2016, during which he announced that the FBI was recommending to the DOJ that it not seek liar-Clinton's indictment because "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. He then did the unthinkable. He outlined all of the damning evidence of guilt that the FBI had amassed against her.
This double-edged sword -- we won't charge her, but we have much evidence of her guilt -- was unprecedented and unheard of in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both Republicans and Democrats found some joy in Comey's words. Yet his many agents who believed that liar-Clinton was guilty of both espionage and lying were furious -- furious that Comey had revealed so much, furious that he had demeaned their work, furious that he had stopped an investigation before it was completed.
While all this was going on, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of liar-Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, was being investigated for using a computer to send sexually explicit materials to a minor. When the FBI asked for his computer -- he had shared it with his wife -- he surrendered it. When FBI agents examined the Weiner/Abedin laptop, they found about 650,000 stored emails, many from liar-Clinton to Abedin, that they thought they had not seen before.
Rather than silently examine the laptop, Comey again violated DOJ and FBI regulations by announcing publicly the discovery of the laptop and revealing that his team suspected that it contained hundreds of thousands of liar-Clinton emails; and he announced the reopening of the liar-Clinton investigation. This announcement was made two weeks before Election Day and was greeted by the Trump campaign with great glee. A week later, Comey announced that the laptop was fruitless, and the investigation was closed, again.
At about the same time that the House Benghazi Committee sent its criminal referral to the DOJ, American and British intelligence became interested in a potential connection between the Trump presidential campaign and intelligence agents of the Russian government. This interest resulted in the now infamous year-plus-long electronic surveillance of Trump and many of his associates and colleagues. This also produced a criminal referral from the intelligence community to the DOJ, which sent it to the FBI.
Yet this referral and the existence of this investigation was kept -- quite properly -- from the press and the public. When Comey was asked about it, he -- quite properly -- declined to answer. When he was asked under oath whether he knew of any surveillance of Trump before Trump became president, Comey denied that he knew of it.
What was going on with the FBI?
How could Comey justify the public revelation of a criminal investigation and a summary of evidence of guilt about one candidate for president and remain silent about the existence of a criminal investigation of the campaign of another? How could he deny knowledge of surveillance that was well-known in the intelligence community, even among his own agents? Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality, into a bitterly contested campaign having been warned it might affect the outcome? Why did he reject the law's just commands of silence in favor of putting his thumb on political scales?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and liar-Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.
The FBI and liar-Hillary, Again
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Last weekend, The New York Times published a long piece about the effect the FBI had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign. As we all know, Donald Trump won a comfortable victory in the Electoral College while falling about 3 million votes behind liar-Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.
I believe that liar-Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to energize the Democratic Party base and who failed to deliver to the electorate a principled reason to vote for her. Yet when the Times reporters asked her why she believes she lost the race, she gave several answers, the first of which was the involvement of the FBI. She may be right.
Here is the back story.
In 2015, a committee of the House of Representatives that was investigating the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, learned that the State Department had no copies of any emails sent or received by liar-Clinton during her four years as secretary of state. When committee investigators pursued this -- at the same time that attorneys involved with civil lawsuits brought against the State Department seeking the liar-Clinton emails were pursuing it -- it was revealed that liar-Clinton had used her own home servers for her emails and bypassed the State Department servers.
Because many of her emails obviously contained government secrets and because the removal of government secrets to any non-secure venue constitutes espionage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, which passed it on to the FBI. A congressionally issued criminal referral means that some members of Congress who have seen some evidence think that some crime may have been committed. The DOJ is free to reject the referral, yet it accepted this one.
It directed the FBI to investigate the facts in the referral and to refer to the investigation as a "matter," not as a criminal investigation. The FBI cringed a bit, but Director James Comey followed orders and used the word "matter." This led to some agents mockingly referring to him as the director of the Federal Bureau of Matters. It would not be the last time agents mocked or derided him in the liar-Clinton investigation.
He should not have referred to it by any name, because under DOJ and FBI regulations, the existence of an FBI investigation should not be revealed publicly unless and until it results in some public courtroom activity, such as the release of an indictment. These rules and procedures have been in place for generations to protect those never charged. Because of the role that the FBI has played in our law enforcement history -- articulated in books and movies and manifested in our culture -- many folks assume that if a person is being investigated by the FBI, she must have done something wrong.
In early July 2016, liar-Clinton was personally interviewed in secret for about four hours by a team of FBI agents who had been working on her case for a year. During that interview, she professed great memory loss and blamed it on a head injury she said she had suffered in her Washington, D.C., home. Some of the agents who interrogated her disbelieved her testimony about the injury and, over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, asked Comey for permission to subpoena her medical records.
When Comey denied his agents the permission they sought, some of them attempted to obtain the records from the intelligence community. Because liar-Clinton's medical records had been digitally recorded by her physicians and because the FBI agents knew that the National Security Agency has digital copies of all keystrokes on all computers used in the U.S. since 2005, they sought liar-Clinton's records from their NSA colleagues. Lying to the FBI is a felony, and these agents believed they had just witnessed a series of lies.
When Comey learned what his creative agents were up to, he jumped the gun by holding a news conference on July 5, 2016, during which he announced that the FBI was recommending to the DOJ that it not seek liar-Clinton's indictment because "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. He then did the unthinkable. He outlined all of the damning evidence of guilt that the FBI had amassed against her.
This double-edged sword -- we won't charge her, but we have much evidence of her guilt -- was unprecedented and unheard of in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both Republicans and Democrats found some joy in Comey's words. Yet his many agents who believed that liar-Clinton was guilty of both espionage and lying were furious -- furious that Comey had revealed so much, furious that he had demeaned their work, furious that he had stopped an investigation before it was completed.
While all this was going on, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of liar-Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, was being investigated for using a computer to send sexually explicit materials to a minor. When the FBI asked for his computer -- he had shared it with his wife -- he surrendered it. When FBI agents examined the Weiner/Abedin laptop, they found about 650,000 stored emails, many from liar-Clinton to Abedin, that they thought they had not seen before.
Rather than silently examine the laptop, Comey again violated DOJ and FBI regulations by announcing publicly the discovery of the laptop and revealing that his team suspected that it contained hundreds of thousands of liar-Clinton emails; and he announced the reopening of the liar-Clinton investigation. This announcement was made two weeks before Election Day and was greeted by the Trump campaign with great glee. A week later, Comey announced that the laptop was fruitless, and the investigation was closed, again.
At about the same time that the House Benghazi Committee sent its criminal referral to the DOJ, American and British intelligence became interested in a potential connection between the Trump presidential campaign and intelligence agents of the Russian government. This interest resulted in the now infamous year-plus-long electronic surveillance of Trump and many of his associates and colleagues. This also produced a criminal referral from the intelligence community to the DOJ, which sent it to the FBI.
Yet this referral and the existence of this investigation was kept -- quite properly -- from the press and the public. When Comey was asked about it, he -- quite properly -- declined to answer. When he was asked under oath whether he knew of any surveillance of Trump before Trump became president, Comey denied that he knew of it.
What was going on with the FBI?
How could Comey justify the public revelation of a criminal investigation and a summary of evidence of guilt about one candidate for president and remain silent about the existence of a criminal investigation of the campaign of another? How could he deny knowledge of surveillance that was well-known in the intelligence community, even among his own agents? Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality, into a bitterly contested campaign having been warned it might affect the outcome? Why did he reject the law's just commands of silence in favor of putting his thumb on political scales?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and liar-Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.
>
