Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Fri. Oct.27, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
Steve Bannon is the only person who hunts RINOs in Washington, not in Africa. But his efforts are paying off. He just bagged another RINO (Republican In Name Only) when Arizona's Senator Jeff Flake announced that he would not seek another term next year. Flake, who has opposed much of Trump's immigration agenda, including the proposed border wall, is a quintessential RINO who was facing defeat in a GOP primary -- with Bannon's help -- by a true conservative Kelli Ward, who will hopefully now win the seat.
Bannon's previous scalps include RINO Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and appointed Senator Luther Strange of Alabama. Strange was beaten by Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama special election and Corker pulled out in the face of a strong primary challenge he expected from Congressman Marsha Blackburn, another reliable conservative.
These defeats and withdrawals, coupled with the increasingly anti-GOP rhetoric of Ohio Governor John Kasich may presage a massive desertion from the Republican Party of Democratic-leaning "moderates" who use the party label to win only to sell out its agenda once in office.
Beyond the scalps Bannon can hang on his wall in his Washington brownstone, the legacy of his victories is the increasing discipline Republicans are showing in support of President Trump's tax cut program. As former Republican floor leader Senator Everett Dirksen (IL) said "when they feel the heat, they see the light."
More today from Dick Morris…
Hillary Commissioned The Phony Trump Dossier And Covered It Up
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN DickMorris.com
Now we know that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that commissioned the dossier that made the phony allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Think about it: A presidential candidate from one party secretly contracted with a DC smear organization to hire a foreign national -- a British ex-intelligent agent -- to find dirt on the other presidential candidate. They funneled the payments through a DC law firm, where they thought the details would be buried in confidentiality agreements.
And they were for over a year. Because Hillary and her agents lied about their involvement.
It was only when a subpoena was issued that threatened the release of all of Fusion GPS's banking records and client names that the truth came out. They had no choice.
That's vintage Hillary -- using campaign funds to hire private eyes to find dirt on her opponent. She did it before to silence the victims of her husband's sexual assaults. But this time she went over the top. It wasn't a local private eye; it was a former MI-6 agent who had spied on the Russians and was friendly with both the FBI and MI-6.
Hillary has pretended all along she knew nothing about how the dossier came to exist. In her book, What Happened?, she disingenuously says that:
"In the summer of 2016...The FBI began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump.
As if she knew nothing about it and hadn't been the one who arranged for it and paid for it. She acted like she only read about it in the newspaper.
But she knew all about it. And so, did her lawyers and flacks who lied to the press for over a year.
But it was Hillary's dossier -- and it caused all the trouble that she had hoped it would:
The false allegations in the dossier formed the basis of Hillary's campaign charges that Trump was a "puppet" of Putin,
They provided the justification for the FISA Court to approve surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump associate,
They were at the core of the media coverage of the charge of Trump collusion with Putin
These allegations led directly to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate the issue of Trump collusion with Russia.
Hillary was in the thick of it. But don't expect an explanation from her. She doesn't do them.
But we need some explanations.
We need to know whether the Clinton campaign fed any information to the British spook to include in the dossier. He says he got most of his information from "unsolicited" sources.
Was Clinton one of those sources?
And how did they pick this particular former British spy to do the research? Was it because he could count on the cooperation of MI-6 or of the FBI because he had worked in the FIFA (soccer) investigation?
And didn't Mueller and Comey have to know that the dossier, on which so much was based, was a campaign document amassed at Hillary's behest? Wouldn't that suggest a bias? If the FBI couldn't figure that out, they need to be off the case.
From what "unsolicited sources" did Steele get his information? Did the FBI and MI-6 play a role?
Finally, who gave the dossier to BuzzFeed, prompting its distribution throughout American media and its injection into our political dialogue? Fusion, Steele, and Senator John McCain each deny that they gave the dossier to the publication. Did the FBI or the Hillary campaign do so? We know that Fusion and Steele tried desperately to get the national media to cover the story before the election. When that failed, they worked to get it released even after the election.
Now it's caught up with them.
Russian meddling in our election has proven to be largely illusory. Placing some ads on YouTube or Facebook is hardly enough to sway a U.S. presidential election. But the fact that one candidate for president laundered money through a law firm to dig up dirt on her opponent from a foreign national with ties to foreign intelligence agencies and then leaking it to the government and the press, making its fictitious allegations the basis for appointment of a special prosecutor is the real scandal here.
To the NFL Players
You graduated high school in 2011. Your teenage years were a struggle. You grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Your mother was the leader of the family and worked tirelessly to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate. Academics were a struggle for you and your grades were mediocre at best. The only thing that made you stand out is you weighed 225 lbs and could run 40 yards in 4.2 seconds while carrying a football.
Your best friend was just like you, except he didn’t play football. Instead of going to football practice after school, he went to work at McDonalds for minimum wage. You were recruited by all the big colleges and spent every weekend of your senior year making visits to universities where coaches and boosters tried to convince you their school was best. They laid out the red carpet for you. Your best friend worked double shifts at Mickey D’s. College was not an option for him. On the day you signed with Big State University, your best friend signed paperwork with his Army recruiter. You went to summer workouts. He went to basic training.
You spent the next four years living in the athletic dorm, eating at the training table. You spent your Saturdays on the football field, cheered on by adoring fans. Tutors attended to your every academic need. You attended class when you felt like it. Sure, you worked hard. You lifted weights, ran sprints, studied plays, and soon became one of the top football players in the country.
Your best friend was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division. While you were in college, he deployed to Iraq once and Afghanistan twice. He became a Sergeant and led a squad of 19 year old soldiers who grew up just like he did. He shed his blood in Afghanistan and watched young American's give their lives, limbs, and innocence for the USA.
You went to the NFL combine and scored off the charts. You hired an agent and waited for draft day. You were drafted in the first round and your agent immediately went to work, ensuring that you received the most money possible. You signed for $16 million although you had never played a single down of professional football.
Your best friend re-enlisted in the Army for four more years. As a combat tested sergeant, he will be paid $32,000 per year.
You will drive a Ferrari on the streets of South Beach.
He will ride in the back of a Blackhawk helicopter with 10 other combat loaded soldiers.
He will ride in the back of a Blackhawk helicopter with 10 other combat loaded soldiers.
You will sleep at the Ritz. He will dig a hole in the ground and try to sleep.
You will “make it rain” in the club. He will pray for rain as the temperature reaches 120 degrees.
On Sunday, you will run into a stadium as tens of thousands of fans cheer and yell your name. For your best friend, there is little difference between Sunday and any other day of the week. There are no adoring fans. There are only people trying to kill him and his soldiers. Every now and then, he and his soldiers leave the front lines and “go to the rear” to rest. He might be lucky enough to catch an NFL game on TV. When the National Anthem plays and you take a knee, he will jump to his feet and salute the television. While you protest the unfairness of life in the United States, he will give thanks to God that he has the honor of defending his great country.
To the players of the NFL: We are the people who buy your tickets, watch you on TV, and wear your jerseys. We anxiously wait for Sundays so we can cheer for you and marvel at your athleticism. Although we love to watch you play, we care little about your opinions until you offend us. You have the absolute right to express yourselves, but we have the absolute right to boycott you. We have tolerated your drug use and DUIs, your domestic violence, and your vulgar displays of wealth. We should be ashamed for putting our admiration of your physical skills before what is morally right. But now you have gone too far. You have insulted our flag, our country, our soldiers, our police officers, and our veterans. You are living the American dream, yet you disparage our great country. I am done with NFL football and encourage all like minded Americans to boycott the NFL as well.
National boycott of the NFL for Sunday November 12th, Veterans Day Weekend. Boycott all football telecast, all fans, all ticket holders, stay away from attending any games, let them play to empty stadiums.
Pass this post along to all your friends and family. Honor our military, some of whom come home with the American Flag draped over their coffin. Please "share", "copy and paste”.
Supreme Court throws out travel ban appeal
President Trump achieved another victory on Tuesday when the Supreme Court dismissed the final case challenging his travel ban.
The state of Hawaii brought on a lawsuit challenging the 90-day travel ban on nationals from six majority Muslim countries, and the 120-day halt on the U.S. refugee resettlement program. SCOTUS issued an order dismissing the lawsuit and claimed that the case is now disputable.
The court explained that due to the 90-day ban expiring on Sept. 24 and the 120-day halt expiring on Tuesday there is no longer a “live case or controversy”.
Back in June, the Supreme Court had also sided with President Trump’s ban. A lower court had blocked the ban, but SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump and reinstated the ban.
After Trump issued new traveling restrictions on eight countries, the court canceled any oral arguments scheduled. SCOTUS had previously combined Hawaii’s case with a case the International Refugee Assistance Project and both were scheduled for Oct. 10.
The case brought upon by the International Refugee Project against Trump’s 90-day ban was dismissed by the court due to the ban in question no longer being disputable.
SCOTUS reported that although they had dismissed the case involving the refugee group, they were not expressing any view on the merits.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor explained that in tossing out the lower court’s block in June, the Supreme Court did so because the lower court should have never accepted the case.
District court judges from Hawaii and Maryland have put Trump’s new targeted restrictions on hold. The eight countries involved are Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad North Korea, and certain government officials from Venezuela.
Derrick Watson, Hawaii’s District Court Judge blocked all the restrictions except to Venezuelan officials or immigrants from North Korea. Theodore Chuange, Maryland’s District Court Judge are blocking restrictions to all countries except North Korea, and business officials from Venezuela and individuals lacking a credible relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
The state of Hawaii brought on a lawsuit challenging the 90-day travel ban on nationals from six majority Muslim countries, and the 120-day halt on the U.S. refugee resettlement program. SCOTUS issued an order dismissing the lawsuit and claimed that the case is now disputable.
The court explained that due to the 90-day ban expiring on Sept. 24 and the 120-day halt expiring on Tuesday there is no longer a “live case or controversy”.
Back in June, the Supreme Court had also sided with President Trump’s ban. A lower court had blocked the ban, but SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump and reinstated the ban.
After Trump issued new traveling restrictions on eight countries, the court canceled any oral arguments scheduled. SCOTUS had previously combined Hawaii’s case with a case the International Refugee Assistance Project and both were scheduled for Oct. 10.
The case brought upon by the International Refugee Project against Trump’s 90-day ban was dismissed by the court due to the ban in question no longer being disputable.
SCOTUS reported that although they had dismissed the case involving the refugee group, they were not expressing any view on the merits.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor explained that in tossing out the lower court’s block in June, the Supreme Court did so because the lower court should have never accepted the case.
District court judges from Hawaii and Maryland have put Trump’s new targeted restrictions on hold. The eight countries involved are Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad North Korea, and certain government officials from Venezuela.
Derrick Watson, Hawaii’s District Court Judge blocked all the restrictions except to Venezuelan officials or immigrants from North Korea. Theodore Chuange, Maryland’s District Court Judge are blocking restrictions to all countries except North Korea, and business officials from Venezuela and individuals lacking a credible relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
CNN caught in huge Clinton lie
by Stephen Dietrich, Managing Editor
Last Thursday, CNN blasted President Donald Trump and told readers he was “peddling a conspiracy theory” when he suggested that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were behind the debunked Trump-Russia dossier.
Just six days later, the controversial news network is suddenly singing a totally different tune.
On Oct. 19, Trump tweeted —
Workers of firm involved with the discredited and Fake Dossier take the 5th. Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI or the Dems (or all)?
CNN responded to the president’s statement with a scathing editorial titled, “Donald Trump just suggested the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators.” In it, CNN’s editor-at-large Chris Cillizza dismissed the President of the United States as little more than a conspiracy theorist. He wrote —
“But even by Trump standards, this morning’s tweet is somewhat remarkable. He is suggesting that a dossier prepared by a former member of British intelligence has not only been totally discredited … but that it might have been funded by some combination of Russia, the Democratic Party and, wait for it, the FBI!”
Wednesday, of course, the network quietly back peddled.
In a story titled, “Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund dossier research,” the network came forward with information that supported Trump’s original tweet. They wrote —
“Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that led to the now-infamous dossier of allegations about President Donald Trump and Russia, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.”
The British intelligence agent hired by the DNC to produce the thoroughly-debunked document, Christopher Steele, has connections to the FBI and U.S. intelligence community.
And in April, CNN reported, “The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump’s campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.”
In other words, mixed-up in all their Orwellian double-think, the facts clearly support Trump.
Incredibly, this complete reversal on CNN’s reporting of “facts” came just days after the cable news giant released their controversial “Apple vs. Banana” commercial.
Limbaugh: Mueller’s Russia ‘Investigation’ Really About Protecting Democrats
By Randy DeSoto
Rush Limbaugh on his radio program Monday contended the real purpose of the Russia investigation being led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller is “to protect anybody and everybody that had anything to do with this Clinton-Obama-Russian uranium deal.”
The conservative commentator said it’s not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.
“In addition to their wanton desire to get rid of Trump, I think that they’re taking advantage of the opportunity to shield and prevent any investigation or knowledge of what really went on, because that uranium thing,” Limbaugh said. “None of it could have happened without the involvement of Obama.”
The FBI is said to have had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives were using bribes and kickbacks to compromise individuals involved in the U.S. nuclear industry, yet the Obama administration approved the Uranium One sale anyway.
In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a panel made up of administration officials that approved the sale of the Canadian-owned mining company to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, thus turning over 20 percent of America’s known uranium reserves to Moscow.
In his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer chronicled payments former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation received from Russian interests, including $500,000 from a Russian bank promoting the Uranium One deal for a speech Bill Clinton gave in Moscow the very month the deal was approved.
Further, Ian Tefler, the CEO of Uranium One, donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. According to Schweizer, nine shareholders of Uranium One donated a total of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Limbaugh argued the reason that Mueller’s investigation has not been able to uncover any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the presidential campaign is simple: “There isn’t any.”
“And believe me, if there were, it have been leaked the day they found it. There isn’t any, and yet they’re still out there looking,” he said.
Limbaugh offered that the “real collusion” may involve Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mueller, and former FBI Director James Comey, who all served in the Obama administration. The former two were in Justice Department when the Uranium One deal was approved and did nothing.
“I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if one of the things being done is to cover all of that up with this investigation,” he stated.
You can listen to Limbaugh’s comments here, which begin just after the 1:14 mark:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched an investigation to determine whether several federal agencies knew the FBI had uncovered a racketeering scheme involving Russian officials prior to the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One sale.
Additionally, both the House intelligence and House oversight committees announced on Tuesday that they would be investigating the Obama administration’s decision to sanction the sale.
Further, Rep. Ron DeSantis, a member of the Oversight Committee, confirmed his committee is working with the Justice Department to release a former FBI informant from a non-disclosure agreement with the bureau so he can testify before the committee.
Follow
Greg DeFusco @Greg_DeFuscoVIDEO: DeSantis: We need to hear from informant on uranium deal http://ift.tt/2z9N8Bn … via the @FoxNews Android app
Attorney Victoria Toensing stated last week that a client of hers, who was an FBI informant, knew specific evidence that could have scuttled the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One sale in 2010 had it been made public.
Toensing said her client has been contacted by multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry, but has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA he signed with the FBI.
Elizabeth Warren Caught Lying About Sexual Harassment (Ugh)
BY TIFFANI GREY
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has another tall tale to add to her story of being part Cherokee Indian. A recent story she told on national television while trying to be part of the #MeToo movement of women who experienced sexual harassment turns out to be just as fishy as her alleged Indian ancestry.
Turns out, she told that same story before — and it wasn’t as dastardly as she now makes it seem.
In the wake of the allegations from numerous women about how now-disgraced mega movie producer Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed them, the #MeToo movement quickly gained traction, opening a social media space for women to talk about their private experiences of sexual harassment or abuse.
At The Conservative Tribune, Site Director Josh Manning caught some flak for pointing out that the #MeToo movement was liable to bring out some red herrings, women whose stories were not truly indicative of what many have suffered in the workplace, or in daily-life sexual harassment and abuse.
As Manning wrote on his Facebook page, “Someone needs to ask, “How many of the #metoo statuses come from women not legitimately harassed?”
[And… cue the hate.]”
Turns out, we apparently have at least one… Elizabeth Warren.
Warren appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday and told a story about an incident at the University of Houston early in her academic career, saying:
“Yes, I have a ‘me, too’ story too. I was a baby law professor and so excited to have my first real teaching job. And there was this senior faculty member who, you know, would tell dirty jokes and make comments about my appearance. And one day he asked me if I would stop by his office, which I didn’t think much about. And I did. And he slammed the door and lunged for me. It was like a bad cartoon. He’s chasing me around the desk, trying to get his hands on me,” she said.
Warren continued with the sordid tale adding, “And I kept saying, ‘You don’t want to do this. You don’t want to do this. I have little children at home. Please don’t do this.’ And trying to talk calmly. And at the same time, what was flickering through my brain is, ‘If he gets hold of me, I’m going to punch him right in the face.’ After several rounds, I jumped for the door and got out. And I went back to my office and I just sat and shook. And thought, ‘What had I done to bring this on?’ And I told my best friend about it. Never said a word to anyone else. But for a long time, I wore a lot of brown.”
Then she homed in on her central argument… inclusion saying, “What it means now that so many people have spoken out, is it’s a way to say, ‘We’re here for each other.’ And it’s also a way to say, ‘No. It’s not about what you did. He’s the one who stepped out of line. And this is on him.'”
Well, The Boston Globe noticed that Warren had told this story at least once before… during the funeral of that “terrible” senior faculty member. However, when she told it then… it was much more lighthearted.
As the Globe noted:
“When Senator Elizabeth Warren on Sunday told a national television audience a personal story of sexual harassment from her days as a young law professor, she described a harrowing incident that left her shaken. She said that she wondered if she’d done something to deserve it and that she told no one but a close friend.
“But the tone of her telling, recounted on NBC’S ‘Meet the Press,’ appears to be inconsistent with the reportedly more lighthearted manner in which she described the same incident two decades after it occurred, during the memorial service for the senior University of Houston faculty member she accused of pursuing her around his office.
“During the service after his death in 1997, Warren spoke fondly of law professor Eugene Smith and told the gathered mourners she was laughing as Smith chased her around his desk, according to a colleague’s memoir. The writer of the memoir, however, now says he might have treated the incident too lightly.”
Maybe so, but either way, one version of the story is clearly not true. And to make the latest iteration even less plausible, the Globe noted that Warren failed to mention on “Meet The Press” that Smith had polio.
So this sex-crazed faculty member — who’d had “many falls in his life due to polio,” according to his obituary on FindaGrave.com — chased a “panicked” Warren around his desk?
Yes, cue the hate indeed. Cue the hate for the idea that someone could try to take something that was sparked out of solidarity for women who had actually been abused and turn it into just another stepping stone for her inclusion into something that was clearly not about her.
Considering Warren is a widely talked about candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020, the whole affair seems a little too suspect.
She should be ashamed for trying to take away from the true experiences of women who really were harassed and abused. Just another liberal trying to jump on the bandwagon.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and be sure to add your thoughts on Elizabeth Warren being caught in the #metoo lie to the comment section below.
Ex-Cop Dissects Wilson and Gold Star Widow’s Stories, Notices Issue Only Cops See
BY JOE SAUNDERS
The Hearse Carrying The Body Of The US Army Sergeant La David Johnson ...The sparring over President Donald Trump’s phone call to an American soldier’s widow has been an obsession of the mainstream media, thanks to the grandstanding of a Florida Democrat grabbing for a national spotlight.
But for a former police officer now working as a commentator for Conservative Tribune, one angle the Trump bashers are missing is just how credible the witnesses to the conversation really are, what the context of the controversy is, and how past actions might come into play.
And by any of those standards, in the eyes of retired police Officer Brandon Tatum, Trump should definitely get the benefit of the doubt.
Tatum, a six-year veteran of the Tucson, Arizona, police, said getting to the bottom of the controversy ignited by Florida Democrat Frederica Wilson’s claim that Trump was disrespectful to Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Army Sgt. La David Johnson, during a condolence call meant putting basic police methods to work.
And for Tatum, the fact that Wilson and Johnson’s used almost exactly the same words in recounting the phone conversation is grounds for suspicion alone
Liberals and liberal sympathizers might want to say it’s proof that they heard the same thing, but to a skeptic — say, to an investigating police officer — it sounds a lot more like they’ve agreed on a common story. Police officers prefer to interview witnesses separately. These two have been together so much the word “collusion” doesn’t even cover it.
Meanwhile, Trump and his Chief of Staff John Kelly, who was not party to the Trump-Johnson phone call, have a different take on events. Trump maintains he was respectful throughout the conversation and that Wilson is politicizing what should have been a private conversation.
Kelly, meanwhile, in a searing statement to White House reporters last week, said he was stunned by how the call had been blown up by Wilson’s talking to the media.
So, whom to believe? Consider the source, Tatum said.
“You have to deal with witnesses. When you have two people with conflicting statements, you would have to look at independent witnesses. You have Donald Trump and John Kelly. They work together and have each other’s interests. And then you have Frederica Wilson and Sgt. Johnson’s widow. They also have each other’s interests — she and Wilson are family friends. So, we have conflicting stories here with no independent witnesses to come forward.
“BUT we do have audio of what Trump said to another widow who is also African-American — and the way he talked to her is consistent with Trump and Kelly’s account of what happened this time. No one can know for sure because we don’t have the audio, but evidence from the past points to Trump and Kelly telling the truth.”
That audio was a widely disseminated recording of Trump speaking to Natash De Alencar, the Gold Star widow of Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, shortly after the soldier’s death in Afghanistan on April 8. No one listening to that call could describe Trump’s bearing as anything other than completely respectful.
“What a horrible thing,” Trump said. “Except that he’s an unbelievable hero, and you know, all the people that served with him are saying how incredible he was and just an amazing, amazing guy. And I wanted to call you and just tell you that he’s a great hero.”
So, can anyone picture the man who spoke those words behaving like the picture of a callous brute Wilson is trying to paint of the president?
That takes care of the witness credibility and past actions, but how about the current context of the dispute?
Well, a GoFundMe campaign has been set up under the name of a project started by none other than Congressman Wilson to raise money to pay for the college education of slain sergeant’s three children. So far, more than $700,000 has been raised since its creation on Oct. 16.
That was one day before Trump placed his call to Myeisha Johnson. Does anyone think the media firestorm Wilson ignited when she went to the media to complain about the call on Oct. 18 has hurt the fundraising effort?
By comparison, a GoFundMe page for Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright, who died Oct. 3 in the ambush that killed Johnson, has raised $51,000.
Both men are heroes who died serving their country – but one is more than 10 times more deserving of the public’s gratitude than the other?
“Follow the money” might be unseemly under the circumstances, but there’s a whole lot about the controversy the radically liberal Wilson sparked over Johnson death and Trump’s phone call that doesn’t look right.
And a policeman’s eye can see it.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about retired cop and conservative commentator Brandon Tatum’s doubts about Frederica Wilson.
REPORT Trump States Hillary Paid $6 Million For Phony Dossier
Max Greenwood
President Trump claimed on Wednesday that former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign paid nearly $6 million to the firm behind a controversial opposition research dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
In an interview set to air Wednesday evening on Fox Business Network's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," Trump ripped the dossier as "a total phony" and "disgraceful," alleging that the Clinton campaign spent almost $6 million to fund the research.
"Don’t forget Hillary Clinton totally denied this. She didn’t know anything. She knew nothing," he said. "All of a sudden they found out. What I was amazed at, it’s almost $6 million that they paid and it’s totally discredited, it’s a total phony. I call it fake news. It’s disgraceful. It’s disgraceful."
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the research contained in the dossier, which alleges coordination between members of Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.
“What a horrible thing,” Trump said. “Except that he’s an unbelievable hero, and you know, all the people that served with him are saying how incredible he was and just an amazing, amazing guy. And I wanted to call you and just tell you that he’s a great hero.”
In an interview set to air Wednesday evening on Fox Business Network's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," Trump ripped the dossier as "a total phony" and "disgraceful," alleging that the Clinton campaign spent almost $6 million to fund the research.
"Don’t forget Hillary Clinton totally denied this. She didn’t know anything. She knew nothing," he said. "All of a sudden they found out. What I was amazed at, it’s almost $6 million that they paid and it’s totally discredited, it’s a total phony. I call it fake news. It’s disgraceful. It’s disgraceful."
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the research contained in the dossier, which alleges coordination between members of Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.
“What a horrible thing,” Trump said. “Except that he’s an unbelievable hero, and you know, all the people that served with him are saying how incredible he was and just an amazing, amazing guy. And I wanted to call you and just tell you that he’s a great hero.”
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/10/httpift_26.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment