Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHE DAY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
The fake news, Mainstream media continue to attack President Trump and his supporters but Trump knows how to throw it back at them.
An American lady strikes back at illegal immigration...She’s a red, white and blue lady. Luv that gal.
THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM
![Lying About Response To Lying Liars: Professional Liar, Democrat Rapist Bill Clinton: ‘Back Then, You Couldn’t Just Tell an Outright Lie and Get Away With It’ [‘I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman, Monica Lewinsky’]](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/PBlnB_vE0Evugk3Onkxi9Ndr6QR2-iSQGSG2xEM3zFSLKv3kfRdw7EybYXdH5dqOSeZmbCr5qpKpdYJp4Zwv950yQ5IDZ0AqHo-ed_tmI1pIWoHQyU8zE3gIzPX1vU6deGQOuQev)
Lying About Response To Lying Liars: Professional Liar, Democrat Rapist Bill Clinton: ‘Back Then, You Couldn’t Just Tell an Outright Lie and Get Away With It’ [‘I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman, Monica Lewinsky’]
Ex-Secret Service Agent Files $1.5 Billion Rico Case Against Bill and Hillary Clinton, Their Foundation, John Podesta, Media Matters, David Brock and George Soros
Obama Granted US Citizenship to 2,500 Iranian Officials While Negotiating Nuclear Deal, Says Top Cleric
U.S. Capitol Police Arrest Democrat Threatening to Cut Up Sen. Rand Paul and His Family With an Axe
THE LIBERTY DAILY
Did Security Set Up Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting? IG Horowitz NEVER Interviewed Lynch FBI Security Detail or Clinton Secret Service
by Cristina Laila 
It has been TWO years since then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport and we still don’t know how or why the meeting occurred.
Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton caused a firestorm after a whistleblower tipped off local media about the tarmac meeting.
The presidential election was in full swing and Hillary was under FBI investigation (supposedly), Clinton was desperate to end the probe.
According to the Inspector General report, Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton have two different recollections of how the meeting went down.
Bill Clinton was in Phoenix playing golf and attending a fundraiser. According to reports, he delayed his departing flight from Phoenix to secretly meet with Lynch.
The two maintain the meeting was not planned and Loretta Lynch publicly stated they innocently spoke about Brexit, West Virginia coal, grandkids and golf, but the IG report reveals one of them is lying about how the meeting occurred and topics discussed.
Clinton and Lynch have maintained the meeting was not planned. However, the IG’s report may suggest otherwise. Or at least that not all parties were aware.
On page 203 of the report, “The OPA (Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail to let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch.” Lynch’s staff members maintain in the report they had no knowledge of the request and were surprised by the former President’s visit.
As I’ve stated in previous reports, sources tell me the confidential meeting between Lynch, her husband and Clinton lasted 30-minutes.
Lynch has maintained the meeting was purely social. The former Attorney General has said publicly that she and Clinton talked about the day’s news, Brexit, grandkids, West Virginia coal and golf.
In the IG’s report, Lynch mentioned the same topics, including golf.
“He mentioned that he had been there for several meetings, he had played golf. I made a reference to the heat, because it was still incredibly hot while we landed, which was why we were still on the plane,” Lynch stated in the report.
Two years later and I have not found a person who can confirm that former President Clinton played golf during that trip to Phoenix.
The discrepancies regarding what was discussed continues in the report involving the tarmac meeting.
“Former President Clinton also said that he did not recall mentioning West Virginia coal policy to Lynch, but that he would not be shocked if he had done so because he thought a lot about it, and he frequently talked about the issue.”
We know that at least one FBI agent remained on the airplane during the meeting, according to the IG report, “it’s unlikely the head of security detail would have been a position to hear the conversation.”
Also, according to the Inspector General report, Bill Clinton was not alone. He approached the stairs to the airplane with another man. The mystery man was not allowed to attend the private meeting and was turned away.
According to the IG report, former President Clinton was not alone as he approached Lynch’s plane shortly after it touched down in Phoenix.
On page 203 of the report, as Clinton approached the stairs of the plane, someone was with him, but not allowed to join the conversation.
“The Senior Counselor told the OIG that she was waiting in the van with the three other Department employees on the trip, and she saw two people walking toward Lynch’s plane. She said that as the two people went up the stairs to the plane, she realized that one of them was former President Clinton.
The Senior Counselor said that she saw the head of Lynch’s security detail turn away the second person at the door and allow former President Clinton to board the plane.”
It’s unknown who was with Clinton as the former President approached the plane. It could have been a staffer with the former President, but that question is not answered in the report.
One of Lynch’s staffers tried to get back onto the airplane to break up the meeting and she was stopped by security at the door, resulting in a fiery exchange.
“The Senior Counselor said that when she tried to go back on the plane, she was stopped by the head of Lynch’s security detail, who was at the door of the plane. The Senior Counselor said that she told him that Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton was not a good idea, and that she needed to get back on the plane, but he still would not let her on. The Senior Counselor said that she then asked him to convey to Lynch that she was advising that the meeting was a bad idea. According to the Senior Counselor, he told her, “All right, why don’t you tell her yourself,” and finally allowed her to board. “
The move essentially ended the private meeting, but the way the meeting started may lead to renewed questions as well.
Inspector General Horowitz interviewed Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, yet he NEVER interviewed their security detail!
Horowitz just took Lynch’s word that the tarmac meeting was unplanned.
Secret Service would never let an ex-president have a chance tarmac meeting without doing ADVANCE security checks, says Paul Sperry.
BREAKING: IG Horowitz NEVER interviewed head of Lynch's FBI security detail OR Bill Clinton's SS detail & just took Lynch's & Clinton's WORD that their 2016 tarmac meeting was "UNPLANNED"! WTF? SS wd never let ex-POTUS have chance tarmac meeting w/o doing ADVANCE security checks.
New York’s Favorite New ‘Socialist,’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a Total Fraud
New York fell in love last month with a self-professed “socialist” after she beat a long-time Democrat powerbroker in the state’s 14th Congressional District Democrat primary. But already her back story is turning out to be filled with lies and her understanding of the issues found severely lacking. It appears more each day that this woman it a total fraud.
The world completely ignored Democrat Joe Crowley’s 14th District primary race in New York City because no one at all imagined he would lose. After all, he is a big-time power broker in the party and was even expected to be among those seeking to replace California ditz Nancy Pelosi as the Democrat Minority Leader.
But, that all changed when he lost his primary race to a completely unknown, 28-year-old woman who proudly claims to be a socialist.
Suddenly, idiots in the media went from knowing nothing about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to proclaiming that she is the new face of the Democrat Party — a socialist from “the neighborhood.”
Ocasio-Cortez is being sold as a young woman from a hardscrabble upbringing who has seen the light of socialism and will lead a new parade of leftists into the ranks of the Democrat Party to bring the country to “equality” and “fairness.”
And she is clearly dumb as a stump.
One of her first proclamations in a recent interview was to speak in favor of illegal aliens breaking our immigration laws by exclaiming that U.S. law didn’t make illegal entry a crime until the year 1999.
Her goal with this factoid was to make it seem as if criminalizing illegal entry is so “new” that we could easily go back to our apparently former open border policy.
However, Ocasio-Cortez was way, way off the mark in her estimation of when illegal entry earned a criminal penalty in federal law. Indeed, criminal penalties for illegal entry were levied in 1929, seven decades before our wet-behind-the-ears candidate insisted.
Ocasio-Cortez elaborated on her reasons to abolish ICE on NPR’s “Morning Edition” Wednesday. “What we’re really talking about is re-imagining immigration to be humane,” she said. “It wasn’t until about 1999 that we chose to criminalize immigration at all, and then once ICE was established we really kind of militarized that enforcement to a degree that was previously unseen in the United States.”
But the facts are stubbornly against this young woman’s proclamation:
Congress made unauthorized entry into the U.S. a criminal offense in 1929. Aliens who entered the country outside a port of entry or without examination by immigration officials could be charged with a misdemeanor. Previously deported aliens who tried to re-enter the country without authorization could be charged with a felony.
Prior to 1929, it was illegal to enter the U.S. without authorization, but there were generally no criminal penalties attached to the action. It was essentially a misdemeanor. However, there were several standalone acts passed from time to time that made it a criminal offense for members of particular groups to enter without authorization.
In one case in 1882, President Chester Alan Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act banning “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” It also kept Chinese people from entering the U.S. for 10 years and put restrictions on those Chinese who were already here, forcing them to get work permits and other requirements. It was extended another ten years in 1892. This anti-Chinese bias really didn’t fade until the U.S. entered WWII and the Chinese became our allies in the fight against the Japanese.
Teddy Roosevelt also put a ban on a group of immigrants. In 1903 TR banned people — especially from Europe — that he feared were anarchists. This was during a time when anarchists were bombing targets all across the U.S. and killing dozens of Americans.
Later, Teddy’s cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, notoriously put a ban on Jews entering the U.S. from Europe. FDR claimed he feared Nazi spies from entering with immigrant Jews, but all he was really doing was just trying not to anger Hitler before the U.S. entered World War Two. In 1939, the U.S. even turned away the St Louis ocean liner that had onboard nearly a thousand Jews hoping to find refuge from the Nazis. Many later ended up dead in Hitler’s gas chambers after FDR refused them entry into the U.S.A.
In yet another case, Congress passed a ban on communists in 1950, then Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from emigrating to the U.S. during the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1980, and, finally, today President Trump has put a temporary ban on immigration from several terror-stricken nations.
Other than having no grasp of history or policy, it also appears that Ocasio-Cortez has… um… “embellished” her purported hardscrabble past.
The candidate insists that she grew up a poor girl in the Bronx. Indeed, on her campaign bio she specifically notes that she spent her youth living in the downscale Bronx. So she is down wif da shtruggle, don’t cha know!
But, what she doesn’t bother to mention is that she moved away from the poor neighborhood in the Bronx when she was a five-year-old when her architect daddy moved the family to the upper middle class area of Westchester.
Indeed, according to Daily Wire, the average income in Westchester is $116,741, about twice that of families in the Bronx.
So, it appears that Ocasio-Cortez grew up a poor little girl, alright. But a poor little rich girl!
Speaking of Ocasio-Cortez and money, it seems that she has no problem taking yours away but is a bit tightfisted with her own. Page Six recently found a former co-worker who still holds a grudge after the suddenly famous candidate jipped her out of a night’s tips at a restaurant they worked at together.
But one waitress has a bad memory of working with Ocasio-Cortez, 28, as Ocasio-Cortez tended bar during the very busy Cinco de Mayo celebration in 2017.
At the end of the night, when it came time to split the $560 in tips she had gotten at the bar, Ocasio-Cortez gave the waitress only $50. After the waitress complained to her manager, her take was doubled to $100, a source said.
“It says so much about her character,” said my source. “From that point on, I wouldn’t talk to her. I couldn’t look at her.”
Yep, it seems that Ocasio-Cortez is yet another so-called socialist who take yours while enriching herself.
What a fraud.
SHOWDOWN! FBI Stonewalls Congress On Tarmac Meeting Materials
By Andrew West
We The People have gotten a terrifying insight into the dysfunction of the D.C. swamp thanks to the Citizen President residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Donald Trump is not one to dabble in pomp, circumstance, and other tools of the progressive procrastinators on Capitol Hill…that was something that became readily apparent very early in the business mogul’s political career.
Nor is Donald Trump a man who traffics in bovine fecal matter. If he’s calling you out, you had better believe that you did something worth being called out for. If you could strip the word “ruthless” of its negative aura, it would be the perfect way to describe the President’s governing style.
Those administering below him have taken this cue to find their own inner animal as well, with the republican-controlled congress absolutely tearing Rod Rosenstein to shreds this week, before turning their attention to the FBI as a whole.
The FBI has, in turn, decided that they won’t be playing nice with Congress any time soon, and specifically in the case of Hillary Clinton’s ability to mysteriously stay out of handcuffs back in 2016.
Paul Sperry reports at RealClearInvestigations — the investigative reporting affiliate of trusted polling aggregator RealClearPolitics — that the FBI is refusing to allow members of Congress to review intelligence that alleges Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation:
“The FBI had little problem leaking “unverified” dirt from Russian sources on Donald Trump and his campaign aides – and even basing FISA wiretaps on it. But according to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the bureau is refusing to allow even members of Congress with top security clearance to see intercepted material alleging political interference by President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch.”
Of course, much speculation was made about so-called “tarmac meeting” between Lynch and Bill Clinton – husband of the accused in the FBI’s case and former President of the United States.
Given the reticence of the disgraced agency, one can only assume that these documents must contain information that would be found to be damaging to the democratic narrative and a possible final nail in the coffin of the FBI’s credibility.
Given the bullish maneuvering our populist President, and the fact that the nation is currently trending hard to the right, we don’t doubt that these documents will be provided to Congress sooner rather than later.
When Susan Collins Voted Against Ban On Depraved Partial-Birth Abortions
When Susan Collins Voted Against Ban On Depraved Partial-Birth Abortions
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images By HANK BERRIENOn Sunday, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) said she would not vote for President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court if the nominee was "hostile" to Roe v. Wade.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise; Collins showed how callous she was to the rights of the unborn child in 2003. On October 21, 2003, voting with Senate Democrats, Collins was one of the three Republican Senators to oppose the Partial Birth-Abortion Act. The act was ultimately passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it was signed into law by President George W. Bush. In 2007, its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
The Act defined partial-birth abortion thus:
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
During the debate on the issue, GOP Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah described in detail the gruesome procedure the act was designed to prevent:
This bill does only one thing: it prohibits one particularly gruesome abortion procedure—so gruesome that only a handful of doctors are willing to perform it. This procedure is never medically necessary. It is simply morally reprehensible, indefensible, and should be banned. I honestly do not know how anyone, after learning of this procedure, could continue to defend it.
Those Members of this body who disagree with me, I think they should have to actually watch this procedure being done. Once they have seen the baby’s legs kicking while it is being killed—I challenge them to defend it then, because as one can see, the legs and hands are outside, and anybody watching will know this is a fully living human being.
The procedure, known as dilation and extraction—or ‘‘D&X’’—involves the partial delivery of an intact baby into the birth canal. In the case of a breech presentation, the baby is delivered from the feet through the shoulders so only the head remains in the birth canal. And in the case of a head-first presentation, the body’s full head is delivered outside the birth mother. Then, either scissors or another instrument are used to stab a hole in the base of the skull. There is no doubt that this is a living baby at this point—a baby that feels pain, make no mistake about it. After the scissors are stabbed into the head a suction catheter is inserted to suck out the baby’s brains and collapse he skull. That is about as barbaric as anything I have seen or heard.
Collins stated that she supported an amendment offered by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that “would prohibit the abortion of any viable fetus by any method unless the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to prevent grievous injury to her physical health.”
Then GOP Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a fierce opponent of abortion, harshly responded by attacking Durbin's amendment:
This is a ban without a ban because it leaves it completely to the subjectivity of the physician to determine viability. But that is only half the problem. The other half of the problem is these words. It says: “It shall be unlawful for a physician to intentionally abort a viable fetus unless the physician prior to performing the abortion, including partial-birth abortion, certifies in writing in the physician’s medical judgment, based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life—” Hear the operative words—“or risk grievous injury to her physical health.”
Substantial risk? A little risk? One percent risk? Half of 1 percent risk? Is it .00001 percent risk? Risk is not defined and risk can mean any risk. It can mean the slightest risk. As Dr. Warren Hern, who is the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures back in May of 1997, said in response to a question on this amendment: ‘‘I say every pregnancy carries a risk—’’ not just of grievous physical injury—‘‘of death.’’
The fact is, risk not being defined is the open door. The analogy was made by someone that if you have a law that says no dog may be shot except where there is a risk that the dog in question may bite, then any dog can be shot because there is always a risk a dog is going to bite. Any abortion can be performed because there is always a risk.
Dem generation gap widens
BY SCOTT WONG
BY SCOTT WONG
© Greg Nash
Some septuagenarian House Democrats have a message for their younger colleagues clamoring for a spot at the leadership table: Age ain’t nothin’ but a number.
Democrats in their 70s have started pushing back against some of the more youthful members of the House Democratic Caucus who are making noise about launching leadership bids in the wake of caucus Chairman Joe Crowley’s stunning primary loss last week to 28-year-old democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York.
Older lawmakers argue that just because House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), 78, and her top lieutenants are getting up there in years doesn’t mean they’re not progressive or effective. Instead, they say it’s their decades of experience fighting in the trenches on a range of issues — from the gender pay gap and gun control to LGBT rights — that make them the right ones to lead the fight against President Trump and the Republicans.
“If we get back the House, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be the speaker,” said Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), a Pelosi ally. “She is leading this effort to get these candidates elected. She is barnstorming the country. She is helping to fashion the message.”
Frankel, who turned 70 in May, noted that septuagenarians of all stripes are some of the most popular politicians in the country today: former Vice President Joe Biden, 75; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 76; and President Trump, who is 72.
“This should not be a generational fight at all,” Frankel added. “And people who want to make it into a generational fight are, quite frankly, people who don’t like seniority because they want power.”
Because House Democrats' top three leaders — Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), 79, and Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (S.C.), 77 — have held a firm grip on power in the caucus for more than a decade, it’s created a bottleneck for other ambitious senior members looking to rise through the ranks.
Seasoned veterans have been waiting patiently in line, so the leadership scramble triggered by the defeat of Crowley, 56, last week has many of them now raising their hand and saying they are ready to lead, while some of their younger colleagues also vie for power.
One of those veteran lawmakers is Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), 71, a former chair of both the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus who represents a district across the San Francisco Bay from Pelosi’s. Lee made waves in 2001 when she became the only member of Congress to vote against granting President George W. Bush authorization to use military force after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Lee is exploring a bid for Crowley’s No. 4 leadership post and has spent the past few days reaching out to colleagues to gauge support, even as she makes clear that the “first priority” is winning back the House in the November midterm elections.
“I think I can bring a lot to the caucus, but I’m talking to members to make an assessment as to what direction they would want a caucus chair to go in and what the agenda should be, and if they think I can represent their interest,” Lee told reporters. “I’m a coalition builder, a unifier. And even as a progressive … I never challenge people on their views and hit below the belt. If people don’t agree with me — that’s fine. This is a democracy.”
After Democrats’ disastrous 2016 performance, Pelosi faced an insurgent challenge from Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio), who’s now 44, for the top Democratic leadership post. Pelosi prevailed, but Ryan notched 63 votes in the secret-ballot election, underscoring the frustration many in the caucus felt about the existing, entrenched leadership structure.
To quell the internal revolt, Pelosi expanded her leadership team to include several more slots that could be filled by more junior Democrats. Three relative newcomers — Reps. Cheri Bustos (Ill.), 56; David Cicilline(R.I.), 56; and Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), 47 — were elected to head the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
Additionally, Pelosi appointed 37-year-old Rep. Eric Swalwell, a close ally and fellow Bay Area lawmaker, as one of two leaders of House Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee.
With Crowley’s loss to a millennial upstart, many of those new additions to leadership are looking to climb the final rungs of the ladder.
Bustos, Cicilline, Jeffries and Swalwell have all been approached by colleagues about running for other leadership spots after the midterms, as have others like Rep. Grace Meng (N.Y.), 42, a top Democratic National Committee official; Reps. Joe Kennedy III, 37, and Seth Moulton, 39, both from Massachusetts; and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), a former civil rights activist who was among 600 people arrested Thursday at the Capitol during protests against Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.
Bustos, Cicilline, Jeffries and Swalwell have all been approached by colleagues about running for other leadership spots after the midterms, as have others like Rep. Grace Meng (N.Y.), 42, a top Democratic National Committee official; Reps. Joe Kennedy III, 37, and Seth Moulton, 39, both from Massachusetts; and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), a former civil rights activist who was among 600 people arrested Thursday at the Capitol during protests against Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.
“It’s the Wild West,” one senior Democratic aide said of the coming fall leadership races.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Ro Khanna (D), another Bay Area liberal who endorsed both Crowley and Ocasio-Cortez in the New York primary, has been perhaps the most explicit about the need for generational change in the Democratic Party.
The 41-year-old lawmaker told The Hill that Democrats have to find a way to include “talented,” young progressives like House candidates Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Brent Welder in Kansas.
“They know how to inspire,” Khanna said, noting that they’re organizers both online and in their communities. “The new generation is going to lead us to a fairer and freer America, fulfilling FDR and Martin Luther King’s vision.”
Progressive Caucus co-Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), 70, said the generational fight has already arrived in his party. He said he’s more concerned that the people who end up replacing Pelosi and her team in the future hail from the liberal wing of the party rather than the center.
“Robert F. Kennedy once said youth is not about time; it’s about the mind,” said Grijalva, who has served with Pelosi in the House for the past 15 years. “And I think you should judge people by their record. You need to judge people by where they stand on the issues that are important right now.”
“I want someone who’s going to stand for where this party is heading in the future, not necessarily concerned about a career move,” he said.
Jeanine Pirro: Calls to abolish ICE evidence of growing socialist movement in US
by Joe Williams
As more elected officials call for the U.S. to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the growing socialist movement in America "has never been more clear," Fox News host Jeanine Pirro said on Saturday.
Democratic lawmakers like Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren on Massachusetts say ICE should be abolished after the Trump administration instituted a zero tolerance immigration policy that led to a wave of family separations at the border. Agency officials point out that the Border Patrol, not ICE, carried out that mandate. Trump signed an executive order earlier this month to end the practice of separating children from parents accused of illegally crossing the border.
Pirro called the demonstrations against ICE part of an "ongoing step-by-step agenda to change our country at its very core."
“Right now in America there are forces dug in, organized and well funded, doing whatever is necessary to make socialism happen," she said during the opening of her show. "The overarching message is that illegals — people who do not respect our laws — are entitled to everything that we Americans are. They are being wronged by Americans if we don’t share our wealth, our capitalistic success and our way of life with them. This, my friends, is socialism."
Conservatives have pounced on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's victory over top House Democratic leader Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York as evidence of the growing shift in the party towards more liberal ideals, like Medicare for all and free college tuition. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued that Ocasio-Cortez's win is not indicative of a broader shift within the Democratic Party.
Pirro's comments came after Donald Trump Jr. said her nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court resulting from the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy would be "pretty awesome."
When asked about a potential nomination, Pirro declined to comment.
“As the president will have his imprimatur on the Supreme Court, he’ll have his ability to mold it to what he believes is important to make America great again. Neil Gorsuch has been a great appointee to the Supreme Court. And his next…appointee will be fantastic as well," she told New York 970 AM host John Catsimatidis.
FBI Caught Red Handed: Setup Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Meeting, According to IG Report
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
The inspector general’s report on the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election is roughly two-thirds as long as “Gravity’s Rainbow” and just as inscrutable to members of the media, who apparently have forgotten what “bias” entails.
So, it’s no surprise that we’re still discovering fun nuggets of massive corruption in its inky depths.
Take, for instance, page 203 of the report. In it, it’s revealed that the “impromptu” meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Phoenix, which was supposedly just a meet cute of two very famous Democrats with private jets, was actually set up by Clinton’s Secret Service detail and the FBI.
The 30-minute meeting on June 27, 2016, came just days before the Department of Justice was set to conclude its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for communication that included classified documents.
According to the participants, however, all they talked about was grandchildren and golf.
Clinton maintained it was just a standard meeting, nothing he postponed his flight for.
“It’s absolutely not true,” he told investigators about accusations he delayed his takeoff to meet with Lynch.
“I literally didn’t know she was there until somebody told me she was there. And we looked out the window and it was really close and all of her staff was unloading, so I thought, ‘she’s about to get off and I’ll just go shake hands with her when she gets off.’
“I don’t want her to think I’m afraid to shake hands with her because she’s the Attorney General,” Clinton added.
He literally didn’t know she was there, except the IG report specifically says he asked to meet with her.
“The Deputy Chief of Staff (for Lynch) said that she had ‘zero knowledge’ that former President Clinton was there before she saw him approach the plane. She stated, ‘And if I had knowledge, I would not have been in that van. I would’ve…stayed on the plane and got everybody off…. No heads up or anything.’
“The Senior Counselor said she asked everyone in the van if they knew that former President Clinton was going to be there, and they all said no. The OPA (Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch. (Emphasis ours.)
“Although Lynch’s staff was supposed to receive notice of such requests, witnesses told us that they were not informed of the request from former President Clinton.”
So, just so we’re clear: Clinton requested the meeting. Lynch’s FBI security detail knew about it, but none of her staff did. And what was this request for? To chat about grandkids and sports?
“Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren … and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix,” Lynch said at the time. (As BizPac Review noted, Clinton does not appear to have played golf in Phoenix on that trip.)
Really? Clinton had the Secret Service contact Lynch’s security detail so they could meet on a plane and discuss sand traps? And the meeting just happened to come a week before then-FBI Director James Comey went on national television to say “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state?
Both actors maintained in interviews that the meeting was by chance. And they expect the country to either believe it, or pretend to believe it.
File this one under Clinton lies, alongside “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Only this time, the implications for Hillary Clinton and the FBI go much, much deeper.
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/2018/07/www_3.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment