So, It Looks like Michael Cohen Really Didn’t Stab Trump in the Back

By Townhall. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen could be spending the next few years in jail. The sentencing memo from the Russian investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has recommended that Cohen spend the next four years in jail for the crimes he’s plead guilty to eight charges. It also suggests that Cohen was not as cooperative as originally blasted out there by the news media (via WaPo) [emphasis mine]: . . .

“He seeks extraordinary leniency — a sentence of no jail time — based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the crimes; his claims to a sympathetic personal history; and his provision of certain information to law enforcement,” prosecutors wrote in their filing. “But the crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life.”

The filing also suggests Cohen’s cooperation with law enforcement was not so significant to the investigations swirling around the president.

(Read more from “So, It Looks like Michael Cohen Really Didn’t Stab Trump in the Back” HERE)


Michael Cohen Assisted Mueller’s Office with Info About Contacts Between Trump Aides and Russia

By NBC News. President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen has provided significant assistance to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, including details about contacts between Trump aides and Russia, according to court documents released Friday.

But federal prosecutors in New York still recommended that Cohen receive a stiff prison sentence for his “extensive” criminal conduct, and were bitterly critical of what they called his “greed and the desire to live an opulent and lavish lifestyle.”

Mueller’s office said Cohen gave federal investigators “relevant and useful” information about his contacts with people connected to the White House as late as this year, according to a sentencing memo the office filed.

The memo says Cohen also offered a detailed account of the effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow as well as information about Russia-related matters “core to (the special counsel) investigation” that he obtained from Trump Organization executives. (Read more from “Michael Cohen Assisted Mueller’s Office with Info About Contacts Between Trump Aides and Russia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Avoidable Tragedy: Air Force Totally Failed to Inform FBI About Texas Church Shooter

In November of 2017, Devin Patrick Kelley entered a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and killed 26 people. It was horrific. He was an Air Force veteran who was given a bad conduct discharge in 2014, but not before serving a year in jail for domestic violence. Dishonorable discharges bars one from owning firearms, not bad conduct—but the domestic violence conviction at his 2012 court martialis the real center of controversy. Kelley was still able to pass a background check for the AR-15 rifle he used for the crime. How is that so? Americans convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns. Well, it would seem the Air Force failed to informthe FBI of Kelley’s convictions. We’ve known this for a while, but it’s now part of an official Defense Department report:

The gunman who opened fire in a rural Texas church last year, killing 26 people and murdering as many as three generations of one family, could have been stopped from legally obtaining a firearm if the Air Force hadn’t shirked its duty, according to a newly released Defense Department report.
But the Air Force should have also submitted his fingerprints to the FBI, and failed to do so on four occasions, the Defense Department’s 131-page inspector general report found.

Kelley’s conviction should have also triggered the Air Force to send a final disposition report to the agency, which would have put him in the FBI’s criminal history database and potentially prevented him from legally buying a gun.
According to the report, Kelley used three of the guns he bought for the massacre at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Armed citizens shot at Kelley as he fled in his car; he later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

(Read more from “An Avoidable Tragedy: Air Force Totally Failed to Inform FBI About Texas Church Shooter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mattis Explains Which Troops Will Be Staying at the Border and What They’ll Be Doing

After officially signing the order to extend the deployment of active-duty troops on the U.S.-Mexico border, Secretary of Defense James Mattis explained what they will be doing to the end of January.

“So we get missions in and I accept certain missions because they’re appropriate for us,” Mattis told reporters while on a trip to Canada. “The — in Texas, basically the engineering tasks are complete. In Arizona, they’re pretty much complete. I’ll probably leave a few engineers in each place who would actually move — if we ever had to close the ports of entry; the commissioner of border patrol says close this as you saw it done once for six hours in California.” . . .

“So that will leave a modicum of engineers out there. You don’t need many to move the last Jersey barriers or barbed wire barricades into position,” he said. “There are some MPs who are still there. Those MPs, generally in Texas, Arizona, those places, are there as oversight of the U.S. army engineers or of the — where the helicopters are stationed just — they’re basically guards, that sort of thing. Side arms they don’t —they only carry rifles.”

Mattis pointed out those that will be sent home are not the National Guardsmen who were sent to the border beforehand since they are under different orders. (Read more from “Mattis Explains Which Troops Will Be Staying at the Border and What They’ll Be Doing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Censors Photo That Depicts Santa Claus Kneeling to Honor Baby Jesus

Facebook has covered over a posting of a picture of Santa Claus kneeling before the Baby Jesus, warning viewers that the photo “may show violent or graphic content.”

A second warning beneath the obscured image of Santa on bended knee, reverentially adoring the Christ Child states, “This photo was automatically covered so you can decide if you want to see it.” . . .

Facebook explains on its site what it means by “Violence and graphic content:” . . .

The image in question — of the Savior of the World as an infant and a popularized version of a saint — was originally posted on December 1, 2015, with this accompanying poem explaining the touching illustration:

My dear precious Jesus, I did not mean to take your place,
I only bring toys and things and you bring love and grace.
People give me lists of wishes and hope that they came true;
But you hear prayers of the heart and promise your will to do.
Children try to be good and not to cry when I am coming to town;
But you love them unconditionally and that love will abound.
I leave only a bag of toys and temporary joy for a season;
But you leave a heart of love, full of purpose and reasons.
I have a lot of believers and what one might call fame;
But I never healed the blind or tried to help the lame.
I have rosy cheeks and a voice full of laughter;
But no nail—scarred hands or a promise of the hereafter.
You may find several of me in town or at a mall;
But there is only one omnipotent you, to answer a sinner’s call.
And so, my dear precious Jesus, I kneel here to pray;
To worship and adore you on this, your holy birthday.

(Read more from “Facebook Censors Photo That Depicts Santa Claus Kneeling to Honor Baby Jesus in Manger” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Are Now Openly Treating Illegal Immigration as the New Civil Rights Movement

What does it really mean to have a government shutdown? It means that the federal government does not perform its first duty of securing our nation. Our government shutdown continues as the unelected federal judiciary continues its bloodless coup against our national sovereignty, history, and tradition, and the legislative and executive branches do nothing to stop it.

Any federal court can now declare that freedom of speech and religion don’t exist for Americans, yet there is a First Amendment right to immigrate and to help other people illegally violate our sovereignty. Any federal court can say that states and even the federal government can’t ban sanctuary cities, but they are free to clamp down on gun rights of Americans. Our Constitution is twisted beyond recognition, yet we are told this is the law of the land. How much longer can we survive under the Orwellian legal profession? Moreover, if we keep agreeing to such a system, then even a border wall won’t help, because judges are erasing the recognition of the border altogether.

Because illegals are now considered a special protected class, courts are violating settled law by granting them citizen constitutional rights and even super-rights that citizens don’t have. Here’s the latest example.

Just days after the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion to overturn Judge Tigar’s unprecedented injunction on our border admission policies, the lawless circuit ruled that a statute prosecuting anyone who knowingly “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States,” is unconstitutional because it “criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expression.”

This ruling violates our long-standing laws of criminalizing such behavior and opens the door for lawyers and agitation groups to continue thumbing their noses at our most foundational sovereignty laws.

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a naturalized immigrant from the Philippines, operated a boutique immigration consulting business in San Jose with several other branches across the country to help illegal aliens obtain visas in the U.S. She was convicted in 2013 in the Northern District of California of two felony counts of violating immigration law in addition to two non-immigration counts of mail fraud for knowingly advising her illegal immigrant clients to take advantage of worker programs for which they weren’t eligible. In 2015, she was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

The 1952 INA (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) calls for felony prosecution for anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” At the trial, the Department of Justice under Obama presented significant evidence from five separate cases where Sineneng-Smith knowingly worked with unscrupulous employers to try to get work visas for those who overstayed their tourist visas and were living here illegally. Not only did she subvert our sovereignty by encouraging illegals to remain here illegally, she defrauded the illegal immigrants themselves by taking thousands of dollars to give them the impression she was working on obtaining their visas and even green cards. She then engaged in mail fraud to send them letters hoodwinking them into thinking they had earned legal status to remain here and were on a path to a green card. District Judge Ronald Whyte ultimately upheld the charges in two cases, a decision that was reversed yesterday in the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for the panel of three Democrat-appointed judges at the Ninth Circuit, ruled that this entire statute is unconstitutional because it would criminalize “pure advocacy on a hotly debated issue in our society.”

This is utterly scandalous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract. It’s like saying that someone who hates high taxes and advocates against them is the same as a person who charges money to assist tax cheats and give them the impression that their activity is legal.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, told me that this ruling is “absurd” because “the key issue is not her speech, but the fact that she did it for financial gain, and this is spelled out in the statute.”

“This woman’s main business was assisting and covering for an illegal activity that is harmful to our society and harms Americans and legal immigrants,” wrote Vaughan in an email. “She was basically a white-collar alien smuggler, helping illegal aliens launder their immigration status through fraud. How can this be above the law?”

Judges can’t veto laws; they can merely grant or deny relief to individual plaintiffs. Even if the judge were correct that this law, in general, could possibly rope in mere advocacy and speech for criminal prosecution, that concern doesn’t apply to this case. Judges rule on cases, not on laws. To believe otherwise is to concoct an entirely new level of judicial veto that our Founders explicitly rejected. This is the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.

This is also part of a growing trend of judges tossing out not only long-standing immigration enforcement policies, but even long-standing immigration statutes for the first time in our history. This law had been on the books in some form since 1891. Section 3 of the 1891 Immigration Act made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements. Any alien who came in due to such advertisements was deemed inadmissible, and that law was designed to prevent people from encouraging them.

Disturbingly, modern judges have no concept of the power of the federal government to protect our sovereignty. The courts would never interfere with federal law if lawyers set up businesses to actively thwart our tax or health care laws, but illegal immigration has become a civil rights issue in their minds, thereby allowing them to create new First Amendment rights to break the laws. As Vaughan observed, despite the clear distinction in this case between speech and criminal activity, “to the Ninth Circuit, apparently all that matters is that illegal aliens were involved, so the criminal behavior must be excused and the law Congress wrote must be nullified.”

It also demonstrates that the legal profession is engaging in civil disobedience against our sovereignty. Last week, another New York federal judge declared sanctuary policies in seven states because, evidently, there’s now a constitutional right for states to obtain federal law enforcement grants even when they subvert federal law enforcement. Using absurd pretense of state powers, Judge Edgardo Ramos declared section 1373 of the INA, which requires local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration enforcement, unconstitutional and applied his ruling in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia, He ruled this from Newton, Massachusetts.

Not all judges disguise their agenda in the written fog of legalese, either. ICE is looking into an allegation that a state judge allowed a criminal alien to slip out the back of her courthouse to evade apprehension.

What do we do with a court system that no longer respects the most basic maxims of international law governing sovereign nation-states or our own history and traditions? Well, RINO Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker has shown us the way. He has defied multiple orders from state judges to restore the legitimate gun rights of citizens. Shouldn’t we be at least as aggressive when we have the law and the Constitution on our side in the face of judges concocting new rights for illegal aliens? (For more from the author of “Judges Are Now Openly Treating Illegal Immigration as the New Civil Rights Movement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Gun Carry Change Is Coming to This State

By Townhall. While the war on the Second Amendment has taken a more covert path in the sense that anti-gun activists are focusing on state-level initiatives that don’t get nearly as much attention, South Dakota could be a bright spot for those who support our Bill of Rights. New York is mulling applicants for gun permits present a social media and Google search history, New Jersey’s trash law on so-called high capacity magazines is about to go into full effect, and Detroit is about to mandate background checks for ammunition purchases. California already has that law on the books.

Vermont and Florida, both states with GOP governors, increased the age to purchase all firearms, including long guns, to 21. The anti-gun movement has clinched some wins, but South Dakota could be the next state to adopt a constitutional carry. Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem won the state’s gubernatorial race this year and said that concealed carry without permits could be on the table. (Read more from “A Gun Carry Change Is Coming to This State” HERE)


South Dakotans May Soon Be Able to Carry Concealed Handguns Without a Permit

By Fox News. After years of unsuccessful attempts, supporters of legislation that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit in South Dakota anticipate revived prospects once GOP Gov.-elect Kristi Noem takes office in January.

The legislation languished under retiring Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, but Noem in her campaign offered support for a so-called constitutional carry law. GOP state Sen.-elect Lynne DiSanto, who as a member of the state House of Representatives sponsored a permitless concealed carry bill that Daugaard vetoed, said such legislation is likely in the upcoming session and she’s optimistic about its prospects.

“There are a lot of Republicans that are very excited to have a conservative governor,” said DiSanto. “I think under a new governor it’s very likely to pass.” (Read more from “South Dakotans May Soon Be Able to Carry Concealed Handguns Without a Permit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is How Much Climate Change Activist Sanders Spent on Air Travel in a Single Month

By Townhall. As one of the central issues of his 2016 presidential campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders has referred to climate change as the “single greatest threat facing our planet.” It’s surprising, then, that the man so ostensibly concerned about burning fossil fuels spent nearly $300,000 on private air travel in just one month.

According to multiple reports, Sanders traveled to nine battleground states in October ahead of the midterm elections. (Read more from “This Is How Much Climate Change Activist Sanders Spent on Air Travel in a Single Month” HERE)


Bernie Sanders spent nearly $300G on private air travel in October: reports

By Fox News. Bernie Sanders is so concerned about climate change that he spent nearly $300,000 on private air travel in October so he could speak to audiences in nine battleground states prior to November’s midterm elections.

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also used the opportunity to test the waters for a potential 2020 presidential run, according to reports.

Sanders’ 2018 campaign committee issued an Oct. 10 payment of $297,685 to New York-based Apollo Jets, a charter jet company used by retired sports stars Derek Jeter and Shaquille O’Neal, according to federal campaign reports obtained by, a watchdog news site in Vermont.

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” said Arianna Jones, senior communications adviser for Friends of Bernie Sanders.

“This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” Jones continued. “The senator participated in 25 events.” (Read more from “This Is How Much Climate Change Activist Sanders Spent on Air Travel in a Single Month” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Elizabeth Warren’s Stunt Was so Terrible That She Might…Apologize for It?

Just two weeks before the 2018 midterm elections, 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren released the results of a DNA test in order to “prove” she’s Native American. After all, she used the title to get ahead in her academic and political careers.

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday sought to explain her controversial decision to list herself as a Native American in a directory of law professors for nearly a decade before getting a job at Harvard Law School and said she is absolutely qualified for her job.

But as decision time for 2020 inches closer, the failed stunt has turned into an even bigger albatross for the Massachusetts Senator. According to the New York Times, Democrat advisors believe Warren may have blown her 2020 chances and that the damage of her cultural appropriation may be beyond repair. In fact, some believe her only way to survival is through an apology.

Advisers close to Ms. Warren say she has privately expressed concern that she may have damaged her relationships to Native American groups and her own standing with progressive activists, particularly those who are racial minorities. Several outside advisers are even more worried: They say they believe a plan should be made to repair that damage, possibly including a strong statement of apology.

The advisers say Ms. Warren will have to confront the issue again if she announces a presidential campaign, which is expected in the coming weeks, and several would like her to act soon.

(Read more from “Elizabeth Warren’s Stunt Was so Terrible That She Might…Apologize for It?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrat Accused of Repeated Use of Women’s Restroom Will Resign

A Colorado Democrat whom female colleagues had accused earlier this year of frequenting a women’s restroom inside the Statehouse is resigning, a spokesman said Wednesday. . .

“It’s been a great honor to serve the people of Colorado for just short of a decade,” Kagan said in a statement. “An important obligation of leaders, I believe, is to be open to acknowledging that it’s time to pass the torch to new leadership and, for me, that time is now.”

Kagan was instrumental in repealing a 19th-century law that criminalized adultery, a law he regarded as giving authorities the power to question people about their personal lives, “which is a gross invasion of privacy that’s fully within the rights of the police right now.”

But Republican state Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik said several women claimed to have seen Kagan using a women’s restroom multiple times since January 2017. She filed a workplace sexual harassment complaint against Kagan in March.

Kagan said he’d entered the women’s restroom just once by mistake because it was unlabeled. The debacle prompted the state Senate to post signs outside its restroom designating “men” and “women,” Denver’s KUSA-TV reported. (Read more from “Democrat Accused of Repeated Use of Women’s Restroom Will Resign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Whistleblower Advocates, Attorneys Condemn FBI Raid on Clinton Foundation Whistleblower

By The Daily Caller. Whistleblower advocates across the political spectrum condemned an FBI raid on the home of a recognized whistleblower who reported potential wrongdoing surrounding about the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Daily Caller News Foundation, in a bombshell report, detailed how 16 FBI agents raided the home of Dennis Cain, a former employee of an FBI contractor, on Nov. 19. They rummaged through his home for six hours even though he told them that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz awarded him whistleblower status, according to Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras.

Horowitz instructed a top aide to personally hand-carry the documents to the House and Senate intelligence committees over the summer after he received them from Cain, Socarras said. . .

“I really do question the need for this raid at all,” said Nick Schwellenbach, the investigations director for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group that frequently works with whistleblowers. “On its face it doesn’t seem like it was necessary.”

“This isn’t how we should be treating whistleblowers who are coming forward with information about high level wrongdoing,” he told TheDCNF. “It sends a very strong message that you will be treated as a criminal even though what you’re trying to do is expose crime or a potential crime.” (Read more from “Whistleblower Advocates, Attorneys Condemn FBI Raid on Clinton Foundation Whistleblower” HERE)


FBI Raids Home of Whistleblower on Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says

By The Daily Caller. FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a government watchdog, according to the whistleblower’s attorney.

The Justice Department’s inspector general was informed that the documents show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation alleges.

The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

“The bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One,” the whistleblower’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told TheDCNF, noting that he considered the FBI’s raid to be an “outrageous disregard” of whistleblower protections. (Read more from “FBI Raids Home of Whistleblower on Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.