Tag Archives: Constitution.com

More FBI bias and corruption revealed…(what else is new?)

If you are just starting to get the impression that the entire Obama administration was in on some dark and nefarious scheme to ruin Donald Trump’s chances in the 2016 election, you’re late to the party.

During the election, there were certainly concerns about how things were faring out on the peripherals.  We could hear Hillary Clinton beginning to indoctrinate the youth of America into the coming #RussiaGate hoax, but we had no idea at the time that the information she was getting likely came from FBI spies within the Trump campaign.

Furthermore, we could see that the entire democratic primary process seemed a little strange, but it took Wikileaks, with the possible help of Seth Rich, to bring the Queen of Corruption’s financial takeover of the DNC to the light.

Of course, the disclosure that the FBI chose not to prosecute Hillary Clinton when there was obvious, ample evidence of wrongdoing with her private email server, was simply icing on the cake.  Later, it was even determined that then-director of the Bureau James Comey had made up his mind about letting Clinton walk even before interviewing her.

Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.

We already know from FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s now-infamous text messages with his fellow agent and reported lover, Lisa Page, that Strzok — the man driving that Russia collusion investigation — disdained Donald Trump and expressed willingness to use his law enforcement powers to “stop” Mr. Trump from becoming president.

The question that lingers, unanswered: Did those sentiments affect official actions?

Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.

They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow. The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.

To date, the former Trump adviser has been accused of no wrongdoing despite being subjected to nearly a year of surveillance.

Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.  In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.  “At a minimum, that keeps the hurry-up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”  “Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.  “Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Until all the interviews are completed by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general later this year, we won’t know why counterintelligence agents who normally take a methodical approach to investigation felt so much pressure days before the election on this case.

Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?

The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.

It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.

Yet now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.

Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks and very obvious political bias.

And that means the dots between expressions of political bias and official actions just got a little more connected.  I don’t know about you, but I can smell a whole plate of Obama’s home cooking here.

 

[From articles published by CONSTITUTION.COM and TheHILL.com]

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A few editorial cartoons from one of America’s best…

A. F. Branco cartoon #1

 

 

A. F. Branco cartoon #2

 

A. F. Branco cartoon #3

 

A. F. Branco cartoon #4

 

A. F. Branco cartoon #5

 

A. F. Branco cartoon #6

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Still more Obama corruption comes to light, proving his administration was most corrupt in modern history

Obama’s regime was one of the most corrupt in American history, but the latest news is that of Obama’s scheme to enrich far-left organizations at the expense of U.S. corporations, even as conservative groups were purposefully excluded.

At issue is a scheme that forced companies about to be sued by the Department of Justice to donate billions of dollars to left-wing causes and organizations as a payoff to avoid prosecution. It was little else but an elaborate extortion scheme for the liberal groups that benefitted from the policy. And, naturally, only left-wing groups benefitted from Obama’s kickback scheme No conservatives groups were the recipient of any of these corporate “donations.”

According to a report by government watchdog group Judicial Watch, “The new records demonstrate a collaborative effort among high-level officials in the Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) and the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to ensure conservative groups did not receive any settlement cash.”

Judicial Watch has more:

The operation is known as a DOJ “slush fund” that filled the coffers of Obama-allied nonprofits such as the National Council of La Raza, Urban League and National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Earlier this year Judicial sued the DOJ for records relating to the problematic Obama administration policy of settling government lawsuits against corporate defendants by requiring that the corporations make “donations” to leftwing interest groups. Back in 2010 Judicial Watch sued the DOJ over a similar program in which the agency’s Civil Rights Division directed large sums of cash settlements in discrimination lawsuits to organization that were not officially connected to the lawsuits. Recipients were also leftist groups that aligned with Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda.

The story is not a new one, of course. Obama’s scheme has not gone unnoticed. But this week the House Judiciary Committee revealed what is being termed a “smoking gun” proving the whole thing.

“It is not every day in congressional investigations that we find a smoking gun,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Tuesday, according to Fox News. “Here, we have it.”

Republican lawmakers have logically dubbed the scheme a “slush fund” for liberal organizations that raked in one billion dollars from Obama’s extortion plan.

Fortunately, the Trump administration put an end to the extortion policy, but not before liberals everywhere benefitted from Obama’s corruption.

While Obama’s operatives insisted that there was nothing at all wrong with the program, the newly released records proves that Obama’s DOJ operatives not only made sure that the corporations paid money to the favored lefty organizations, but they also made double sure that no conservative group benefitted from the scheme.

One Obama administration email, for instance, told Citigroup to be sure that no funds go to “conservative property-rights legal services.”

As Fox reported:

“Concerns include: a) not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation (does conservative property-rights legal services),” the official, whose name is redacted in the email, wrote under the title of “Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice.”

The official added that “we are more likely to get the right result from a state bar association affiliated entity.”

“Aiding their political allies was only the half of it,” Rep. Goodlatte said. “The evidence of the Obama DOJ’s abuse of power shows that Tony West’s team went out of its way to exclude conservative groups.”

Goodlatte celebrated the Trump administration’s move to end the forced donations, but said that Congress needs to act to prevent this sort of extortion from ever occurring again.  Thankfully, we can now look at Obama’s corrupt sell-out of America in the rear-view mirror.

 

[From an article published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Congressional Budget Office shows it’s just as good at creating fake news as any media outlet

The latest analysis of the CBO’s scoring of the GOP’s repeal efforts is shocking, but it really shouldn’t be. The media is constantly telling us that the Congressional Budget Office is an unbiased, and nonpartisan entity that does their very best to accurately score the legislation coming out of Congress. Here’s the problem with that statement… it’s wrong. The CBO has proven time and again to be biased towards big government initiatives, and hardly ever “accurate” on its estimates. Now, one of the foremost healthcare and economic experts, Avik Roy, is unmasking the CBO for what they truly are – a hack organization that doesn’t care at all about accuracy or truth.

Roy is a right-leaning economist and thinker but he recently decided to dig into the CBO projections because he noticed something startling about the projections of every GOP healthcare plan – they all showed expectations of more than 20 million people “losing” their healthcare. It didn’t matter how conservative or how moderate the plan, no matter what the GOP suggested, the CBO kept saying that more than 20 million people would lose their healthcare. Roy wondered how this was possible give the wildly different plans being suggested by various legislators. So, Roy dug into the numbers and realized almost immediately that the CBO was playing a corrupt and very misleading game with their projections:

In the national debate over the GOP health reform proposals, one data point has stood out above all others: the estimate, from the Congressional Budget Office, that more than 20 million people would “lose” coverage as a result. And there’s been an odd consistency to the CBO’s projections. Do you want to repeal every word of Obamacare and replace it with nothing? The CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance. Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with a system of flat tax credits, in which you get the same amount of assistance regardless of your financial need? The CBO says 23 million fewer people would have health insurance. Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with means-tested tax credits, like the Senate bill does, in which the majority of the assistance is directed to those near or below the poverty line? The CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance. 22 million, 23 million, 22 million — these numbers are remarkably similar even though the three policies described above are significantly different. Why is that?

A congressional staffer kindly leaked the CBO’s scoring process to Roy, and what he learned was that nearly 75% of the difference in coverage between Obamacare and any of the GOP bills has to do with the repeal of the “individual mandate.” Yes, almost all of the difference is just because the GOP would stop forcing people to buy healthcare, and the people would CHOOSE to stop getting healthcare insurance.

Repeal Obamacare

It gets worse.  Almost all of the rest of the difference between the GOP’s suggested bills and Obamacare only exists because the CBO is using faulty numbers.

Based on those estimates, of the 22 million fewer people who will have health insurance in 2026 under the Senate bill, 16 million will voluntarily drop out of the market because they will no longer face a financial penalty for doing so: 73 percent of the total.  Two factors — repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate and the CBO’s outdated March 2016 baseline — explain nearly all of the CBO-scored coverage difference between GOP bills and Obamacare.

The GOP keeps suggesting new plans with hopes that the CBO will give them a better score, but as Roy’s explanation proves, there is no plan that the GOP could propose that would give them a fair scoring. The CBO score has been the primary reason that GOP moderates have given to explain why they continue to fight against repeal, but again, Roy’s breakdown proves that their excuse is spurious. The moderates have to choose: Will they continue to be cowed by the fake numbers from the CBO, will they continue to break the very promises they made to get elected, or will they finally stand up and do what they promised to do, which is repeal Obamacare?

In a follow up piece over at Forbes, Roy suggests a simple solution for the GOP to prove that the CBO’s projections are all washed up:

There’s a simple way for Republicans to highlight the CBO’s mandate mania: have CBO score one version of the bill with an individual mandate, and one version without. It’ll make as plain as day what those of us who follow this stuff see up close: that the mandate is the secret sauce driving the CBO’s faulty coverage predictions.

By the way, the media continues to report that repeal is unpopular, but you shouldn’t believe that lie either. The most recent CNN poll revealed that most Americans want Obamacare repealed.

 

[From an article published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

……………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Comey’s memos were classified according to FBI regs, but he leaked them anyway simply to retaliate against Trump

Former FBI director Jim Comey began raising eyebrows very early in his directorship, but it now appears that he willfully disobeyed FBI regulations simply to make life difficult for Donald Trump

Comey acted against President Trump based solely on his “gut” feeling that the President was what the media had made him out to be, not based on evidence that he had personally seen. He acted differently than he did with President Obama, arguing that he thought Trump might do some of the things that conservatives argue Obama actually did. (Crack down on the 1st Amendment, illegally target private citizens, illegally use the intelligence community to undermine political adversaries, and more.) The final straw, the real proof that Comey had become a cog in the Washington machine and was acting as partisan as every other corrupt swamp-dweller, was his decision to leak his own memos to the New York Times.

At the time, many questioned whether Comey had the right to do so. According to longstanding FBI tradition (and government regulation) the Director’s memos are not his own, and in fact belong to the FBI as product of the agency’s efforts. Comey, ignored this and argued that the memos were his own private property. During a Senate hearing back in June, Comey responded to Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) on this subject.

“So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document?” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey on June 8. “You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share to the media as you wanted through a friend?”

“Correct,” Comey answered. “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out.” 

Comey was wrong, the memos were not his own private property (you can see the arguments explaining why – here, here, here, and here). Something he has tacitly admitted to since the hearings because he quickly turned them back over to the FBI, where the memos now reside in perpetuity.

But wait, it gets worse.

In the same hearing Comey also told the Senators that he believed his memos contained no classified information.

He was wrong.

The Hill has learned that more than half of the memos leaked by Comey actually DID contain classified material.

More than half of the memos former FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.

This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election…

Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the secret or confidential level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the FBI on Sunday declined to comment.

FBI policy forbids any agent from releasing classified information or any information from ongoing investigations or sensitive operations without prior written permission, and it mandates that all records created during official duties are considered to be government property.

So the question is… is Hillary Clinton laughing at Comey? A follow up to that… when will Comey go to prison for leaking classified information? (He probably won’t.) But it does continue to prove the injustice inherent within the D.C. swamp. When a whistleblower leaks the illegal activities of the government he is forced to go on the run (Edward Snowden), but when a leaker leaks classified information for partisan political purposes… nothing happens. That is not right, fair, or just.

By the way… the President agrees with me.

 

[by Onan Coca and published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

……………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CNN admits there is absolutely no evidence of collusion of any kind between Donald Trump and Russia

New Hampshire’s John Sununu is Republican royalty in the Granite State, and he’s been around the elite of the GOP for decades. He’s served a handful of Presidents, been the Governor of New Hampshire, and been advising GOP leaders for a very long time. In fact one of his sons has served as Senator from New Hampshire, and another son is the current Governor of the state. The point is that Sununu understands the game of politics and he’s been playing (and winning) for quite a long time.

He is a favorite guest of CNN, recently appearing on their morning show to speak to the two outspoken liberals… I mean journalists… who host the show. Chris Cuomo (son of Democrat favorite Mario Cuomo and brother of current Democrat New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), and Alisyn Camerota. Both hosts have a long and storied tradition of regurgitating Democrat talking points while mocking conservatives, but Sununu was ready for their game and he beat them at it on Tuesday morning.

While Camerota spends several minutes trying to get Sununu to admit that he is “troubled” by the allegations against the Trump team (of collusion with Russia), all she succeeds at doing is proving Sununu’s point about the liberal media. In fact, at one point in their conversation Sununu actually pushes Camerota to admit that there is NO EVIDENCE that President Trump has done anything wrong, or even that anything wrong has actually taken place! It’s magnificent.

But Chris Cuomo doesn’t let the segment stand for itself. He refuses to allow a Republican to “win” the interview and he closes the segment by implying that Sununu was just doing a “good job” spinning the news. Here’s what Cuomo says, “They’re certainly doing a better job coordinating messaging on how to deal with the investigation. Governor Sununu, always a capable mind and a good political debater to be sure.” The implication of course being that all Sununu did was repeat talking points. However, if you watch the segment and read the transcript below, you’ll see that Sununu proves without a shadow of a doubt that the media is biased and the Russia collusion story is bunk.

Transcript from RealClearPolitics:

Camerota: Let’s dive into all of these different Russian threads because I want to gauge your feelings on these separately.

Let’s talk about what Jim Sciutto, our Jim Sciutto is breaking this morning in terms of reporting. There are these — there were these intercepted communications picked up by our intel agencies that heard Russian government officials talking about some kind of what they called derogatory information they had on Donald Trump, then a candidate, and whether or not they could use it to leverage the Trump campaign.

Are you troubled?

SUNUNU: In the 2016 campaign, that’s right. I came on your show with derogatory business information on Donald Trump during the primary. Why is it a surprise? Why is it a news story that the Russians in Washington would convey the same material to the Russians in Moscow?

The same story that you’re quoting at the bottom of the story noted that the same sources that gave your reporter that information conceded that it was possible that the Russians were exaggerating or even making it up.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

SUNUNU: Why is this even a story worth talking about?

CAMEROTA: It is only a news story, you’re right, if, as part of the investigative thread it turns out they were able to leverage the Trump campaign and they were able to somehow use the information they had to help get the Trump campaign to do something that they wanted them to do. So, this is just one more thread down that line where, as you know, congressional committees and the FBI are trying to figure out if they can connect those dots.

SUNUNU: Everybody was talking about Trump’s business problems. Why is that news now again?

Look, let’s put this whole thing in context. You have to tell me what you think the venality (ph) was that they could have conveyed.

CAMEROTA: Well, do you think that Jared Kushner, in attempting to set up a backchannel as has been reported, do you think that the Trump campaign wanted something out of the Russians and there was a dovetailing of agendas?

SUNUNU: In the ten weeks between an election and an inauguration, there is a lot of discussion going on between all members of — or potential members of an administration with all kinds of folks. When I was named chief of staff, a lot of ambassadors that were slight acquaintances tried to become good friends in that ten weeks. It is not unusual.

You guys have made back channel a derogatory term. Back channel is a positive asset.

CAMEROTA: Is it?

SUNUNU: Nixon could have not have done China — Nixon could not have done China without a back channel.

CAMEROTA: Yes, even —

SUNUNU: Kennedy used back channels. Go ahead.

CAMEROTA: During the Cuban missile crisis. I mean, so, you’re saying that during the transition when there is another president, that you are comfortable with the incoming administration using a back channel, if the reporting is correct, using Russian equipment so as not to be caught on the U.S. surveillance and intelligence equipment? You’re comfortable with that kind of back channel?

SUNUNU: Well, let’s speculate on why — I don’t think it happened that way. But let’s speculate on why it might have happened. There might have been concerns that the intelligence community was feeding Obama the information that he probably shouldn’t have had.

And you know what, with what you are reporting now on what has come out from deep sources in the intelligence community, if that was a concern and I doubt it was, but if that was a concern, they were pretty smart to have those feelings, weren’t they?

CAMEROTA: Is there anything about the Russian investigation connected to the Trump campaign that troubles you?

SUNUNU: Yes. But the reporting that’s taking place and the exaggeration of venality and the suggestion — look, it’s now seven months since the election. And to this day, no one has cited a single piece of evidence.

In your last session, you guys were patting yourselves on the back because you said Clapper had passed the responsibility off to the FBI. But you forget that in the last weeks of the administration, Obama allowed all his intelligence agencies to share their information and there is no question in my mind that when that happened, since Clapper’s group had originated this, that anything the FBI had would have gone back to Clapper.

So, it’s nice for Clapper to try and wash his hands of it by throwing it in the FBI’s lap, but he was — had access in those days to whatever the FBI had. There is nothing there.

CAMEROTA: So, Jared Kushner, meeting with a major Russian banker of a massive bank that has ties to Vladimir Putin, nothing to see there?

SUNUNU: Well, tell me what you think is to see there and I’ll comment on it.

CAMEROTA: What do you think would be the motivation?

SUNUNU: I don’t think there is anything there.

CAMEROTA: Why would they do it?

(CROSSTALK)

SUNUNU: So, you’re implying — you’re implying —

(CROSSTALK)

SUNUNU: Because during the ten weeks everything is trying to meet somebody who is going to be in the administration. Everybody who is involved in business, everybody who is involved in politics.

CAMEROTA: Sure.

SUNUNU: I can’t tell you how many people tried to meet with me between the times I was then chief of staff —

CAMEROTA: And did you meet with a Russian banker when everybody tried to meet with you?

JOHN SUNUNU, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: I can’t tell you how many people tried to meet with me between the time I was named chief of staff —

CAMEROTA: And did you meet with a Russian banker when everybody tried to meet with you?

SUNUNU: No, but I had breakfast with the vice president at the Russian embassy and a lot of folks there started talking to me.

CAMEROTA: Uh-huh. And would you have carved out time to meet with a Russian banker with ties to Vladimir Putin if he asked?

SUNUNU: I’m not even sure what would have happened if that had — first of all, Putin wasn’t there. But, look, you’re asking hypotheticals on hypotheticals. There’s nothing —

CAMEROTA: Well, I’m trying to actually take your temperature.

SUNUNU: You — you have nothing —

CAMEROTA: I mean I’m trying to gauge your — your comfort level with all of this.

SUNUNU: My comfort level — the only discomfort I have is with folks in the media trying to create a veniality without having the courage to specifically tell me what the veniality that I should be concerned about is.

CAMEROTA: Well, but —

SUNUNU: I don’t have — I have not identified any veniality. Have you?

CAMEROTA: Well, you should be concerned if there was collusion. And that’s what Congress —

SUNUNU: I don’t — I don’t see any evidence of collusion. Do you?

CAMEROTA: No. That’s what — that — but —

SUNUNU: OK. So that’s — that ends — that should end your reporting right there.

CAMEROTA: Well, we’re at the beginning of the —

SUNUNU: You should put an exclamation point after your “no.”

CAMEROTA: Understood. But we’re at the beginning of the investigation. So what Congress —

SUNUNU: You’re seven months into the investigation.

CAMEROTA: Not exactly.

SUNUNU: You’re seven months —

CAMEROTA: Robert Mueller has just taken over. Robert Mueller has just taken over.

SUNUNU: Oh, this is a new investigation.

CAMEROTA: Well, no. I mean, look, that’s not exactly fair, governor, because, as you know, Congress people have been calling —

SUNUNU: The Obama investigation went on for the last —

CAMEROTA: For a special counsel to do this, to handle this because — so it gets away from all of the partisan bickering. So it’s just starting in that regard.

SUNUNU: OK. Can I ask a question? If Mueller comes out and says that my version is correct and yours isn’t, how much crow are you going to eat?

CAMEROTA: Governor, I don’t have a version of events. I asked —

SUNUNU: Of course you do. The whole half hour I listened to is a version.

CAMEROTA: Governor — governor, we are asking questions of the sources of the people who know, attempting to see where the investigation is. The investigation isn’t complete. Everyone agrees on that.

SUNUNU: Without — without identifying — without identifying a veniality that should be investigated.

CAMEROTA: Governor, we appreciate your perspective, that there’s nothing to see here and that the investigation is, I don’t know, silly.

SUNUNU: Politically motivated by folks trying to rationalize a horribly run Democratic presidential campaign.

CAMEROTA: Governor John Sununu, thank you very much. Always great to get your perspective.

SUNUNU: Nice to be here, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: They’re certainly doing a better job coordinating messaging on how to deal with the investigation. Governor Sununu, always a capable mind and a good political debater to be sure.

 

[From an article by Onan Coca, published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

…………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Insiders say “Obama now spinning out of control”

 The American Oval Office occupant is watching eight years of statism, Islamism, globalism, elitism, blackism, post-Americanism, and post-Christianity slip away, and he’s covered now in the ideological sludge which he has dumped on America.

Obama is having a terrific tantrum, the effects of which President-elect Donald Trump must reverse. Why so? Trump has promised to fight for the American people. Obama never had any thought of doing that. Obama took the Oval Office job with no experience and no desire to do well. He only wanted to advance his own agenda.  Never the twain shall meet.

To Trump, making America great means making the American people great. To Obama, making America great means making government great and aggrandizing himself in the process.

But the metrosexual Obama has finally met his match. Two Alpha Males, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, are causing the world’s wunderkind to unravel. Both represent the interests of their voters; while Obama fights for the coercive ideology he shares with Angela Merkel and George Soros. Looking for a brawl with the Russian Bear certainly works against the interests of the American people, and for Washington, Brussels and the “expert” and think-tank internationalist industry.

And so, in the words of a Kremlin spokesman, “Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen.” This, as a spiteful Obama punishes Russia for infractions the American people, by-and-large, don’t believe the Russians committed. Differently put, “The proof is not in the Putin.”

Ordinarily, to mouth about someone’s “motivation” is to make a logically invalid argument. The reason being that the motivation behind an individual’s deeds can seldom be divined. But, “Barack Obama, it’s not as though we hardly knew thee.” We know the outgoing president all too well.  Obama is a case study in hubris. He began his presidency by claiming, in 2008, that his crowning was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

“[T]his was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth,” Obama vaporized. “This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

His eight lean years Obama ended with similar arrant and arrogant nonsense: “I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated [my vision of progressive change], I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

It’s perfectly plausible, then, to posit that Obama’s retaliation against Russia, three weeks before the inauguration of his successor, is a last-ditch attempt to gain one-upmanship over Trump, who is dominating the news cycle, a thing the narcissistic incumbent can’t abide.

Essentially, B. Hussein Obama is crashing about like a maniac in trying to retain his unwarranted status. Lo and behold, in the course of BHO’s flailing, we discover that government is perfectly capable of deporting foreigners when it wants to. Witness Obama’s petulant expulsion of Russian diplomats, payback for that country’s alleged harassment of American diplomats (no proof provided). This from the man who did nothing about Muslims murdering an American diplomat in Afghanistan.

Likewise, Obama’s Russophobic lickspittles—establishment conservatives and neoconservatives included—screamed blue murder when Trump merely threatened trade tariffs, as part of a clever negotiation strategy. Trump would launch a trade war, they hollered. The same sorts think nothing of risking real wars by inflicting sanctions that starve children and radicalize entire countries against the US.

In the context of our America-First interests, let’s look briefly at the significance of Obama’s dust-up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel, seeing a weakness in Obama’s crumbling facade, has pounced. Here’s the sequence:

First came the UN’s unremarkable resolution, condemning the establishment of West Bank settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to that ever-elusive peace with the MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever, the Palestinians). Security Council Resolution 2334 was one among countless over the years. Passing anti-Israel resolutions is a popular UN parlor game.

Next was the US’s “decision to abstain” from vetoing that resolution.

Last but not least was Netanyahu’s well-timed fury. The Israeli prime minister has asserted that the US orchestrated the UN vote against Israel. Helping to cement Obama’s legacy as an enemy of the Jewish State was Alan Dershowitz. The prominent pro-Obama civil libertarian has accused B. Hussein of personally lying to the law professor (Dershowitz), early in 44’s presidency, about being friend to Israel.

To top the blows to the outsized Obama ego, the UN cheerily kicked Obama and Secretary Kerry to the curb: It endorsed a truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and Turkey, sans Obama.

So Obama is spinning out of control. His parting shot at Russia has been described in the Russian press using bon mots like “impotent,” “political corpse,” “illiterate in foreign policy,” presiding over a “campaign of disinformation,” as badly behaved as a tenant trashing an apartment he no longer rents; his goal being to “create new problems for President-elect Trump.”

Hissed one Russian political commentator: “Obama has nothing else to do but break all the windows in the White House and deposit a pile of […] on the steps.”

Why is all this good for America Firsters? The dynamic “Process of Trump,” delineated in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” is ongoing. Trump, inadvertently yet tactically, has chipped away at the Obama legacy, as the Left, steered by the nitworks, desperately galvanizes court historians to reinflate this empty vessel of a president.

 

[From an article published by CONSTITUTION.COM]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Obama as an “empty vessel” is as good a description as any we have heard.  The problem is, he was an empty vessel before he was elected, and no one seemed to realize it. When a man — especially a man who aspires to leadership at the highest political level — has nothing of substance with which to lead, those who decide to follow him are precisely in the situation of the proverbial “blind leading the blind.” Obama has no honor, no integrity, no sense of what it means to lead anything, much less a country like the United States of America. (Now that we have seen his leadership in action for the past eight years, most of us wouldn’t let him lead a Boy Scout troop. He certainly does not have the foundational principles to lead one.)  When the rest of the world has absolutely nothing good to say about a two-term US president, you can know without any doubt that the man they are talking about is leaving office as a dismal failure. Obama’s worst failure is his failure to realize his own shortcomings.

 

………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized