Democratic Governor’s Anti-Gun Package Is Straight-Up Confiscation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Elections have consequences and all elections matter, especially at the state and local level. For nearly ten years, the Virginia Republican Party has yet to win another statewide race; the 2009 gubernatorial election was the last time they won. In 2017, Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam beat Ed Gillespie, and they virtually wiped out the GOP in the state. The GOP maintains two-seat majorities in both the House of Delegates and the state Senate. It’s not pretty, given that Republicans use to control over 60 seats. That sizable majority was the reason why former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, another Democrat, couldn’t push a far left agenda. He even signed into law a deal on the state’s concealed carry reciprocity laws, which were about to be shredded by state Attorney General Mark Herring, who is considering running for governor in 2021; Virginia bars consecutive terms for governors.

With the tide changing in the state, Northam is going all-out on this anti-gun blitz. He smells blood. And even if he isn’t successful this session, he’s laying the groundwork to pass this gun control package that includes a so-called assault weapons ban and universal background checks. The latter is a prelude to a national registry. The former is grounded in total confiscation. Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon has more:

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

(Read more from “Democratic Governor’s Anti-Gun Package Is Straight-Up Confiscation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

NYT Reveals FBI Retaliated Against Trump for Comey Firing

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reports, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit. (Read more from “NYT Reveals FBI Retaliated Against Trump for Comey Firing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Is the Main Harm of a Long Shutdown the Pay of the Workers and Not the Actual Work?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The political and media elites are border deniers. They are also debt deniers. This partial government shutdown has finally forced a national dialogue over the most ignored national security problem of this generation at our border. But oddly, the fact that so many agencies and departments have shut down for three weeks and nobody cares has not spawned a national discussion over the purpose of having some of these jobs, other than to pay the employees.

On Friday, with almost no debate, House Democrats brought a bill to the floor, S. 24, that would permanently guarantee automatic back pay for federal employees, even the ones that were furloughed, in the event of a shutdown. Traditionally, Congress has always voted to pay back federal workers after a particular shutdown, given the radioactive nature of the politics behind it. But this bill is different. If it were to become law, it would essentially take all federal employees’ salaries, which are currently discretionary and subject to the appropriations process, and make them mandatory spending. Thus, irrespective of whether Congress passes appropriations bills, all federal employees – whether essential or not – would be guaranteed pay for not working during an appropriation lapse.

The amazing thing is that only seven Republicans had the courage to fight through the demagoguery and vote against this bill.

The bill was poorly crafted, even from a leftist perspective, because if the goal is to pre-emptively end government shutdowns, then why didn’t the bill also mandate that these same workers go to work? If you want to end the concept of government shutdowns, then just end them. This bill merely permanently guarantees pay and treats government salaries like Social Security and Medicare without even ending the furloughs when Congress can’t reach an agreement on spending bills. As Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of the seven brave conservatives who voted against the bill, told me today, by guaranteeing “retroactive pay for every possible future shutdown,” it will only make it “easier for politicians to cause future shutdowns,” which is the exact opposite of what proponents of this bill are touting.

Sadly, the political class is learning the exact opposite lesson they should from this stealth shutdown. Obviously, there are some important agencies, such as ICE, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard, that are subject to this lapse in appropriations and are seeing their pay delayed. We should always ensure that the essential workers are paid. But because they are essential, they are still working. What about the 95.4 percent of HUD employees, 86 percent of Commerce, 83.3 percent of Treasury, 66.5 percent of Agriculture, and 76 percent of Interior, employees who are not working because they are deemed unessential? Education and Labor are already funded this time, but if they were subject to the shutdown, 95 percent and 81 percent of their respective employees would be deemed nonessential.

One can make a case that some nonessential workers are necessary in the long run and are just not indispensable at the moment. That is certainly the case at Justice and Homeland Security, where roughly 85 percent of employees are deemed essential, so naturally you will need a certain number of nonessential, yet necessary, employees to support their work. But if such a high percentage of a department is deemed nonessential, shouldn’t we have a discussion on whether those positions should exist or whether states, which actually have to balance their budgets, should take up the slack?

For some non-security-related agencies, the only collateral damage of this border fight is that the workers aren’t getting paid. But if that is the only substantial problem, why are we not having a debate over the purpose of these jobs to begin with? We don’t have government for the purpose of creating employment. Regardless of one’s ideology, federal agencies and programs should only exist if they are deemed indispensable to the public good.

Sure, the media is trying to conjure up problems resulting from the shutdown, but nobody could honestly suggest that we are seeing a crisis from the closure of the departments and agencies where the majority of the employees are nonessential, such as at HUD. We have thousands of local governments and 50 states governments for a reason, and housing is clearly a local function.

Which brings us to the 800-poound gorilla in the room – the debt. Any responsible American, even one who is not facing a debt crisis, would not pay for so many products and services that are so unessential that if they were terminated for a while, they wouldn’t feel it. Now consider someone who does face a debt crisis. The finances of an individual family who is in the same debt crisis as the federal government would look like this:

The family earns $100,000 per year but incurs $130,000 in annual expenses.

The cumulative debt of the family is greater than all its assets and is set to explode in a few years.

The family already throws away a lot of money every year paying interest to credit cards, but in a decade, $18,000 every year will be going towards that interest.

Any normal American family in this predicament would be forced to make painful long-term cuts and find a new path in life. Yet our government won’t have a discussion over the debt even now that it has become evident that we can go so long without many government positions.

Unfortunately, we already have two-thirds of federal spending deemed off limits and not subject the annual budget process. This is why it was so irresponsible for Congress to try to take the entire federal payroll out of the budget process and turn it into de facto mandatory spending. We will never have a discussion on the need for any part of the federal budget if this bill becomes law.

For that matter, Congress is not even doing anything about the $141 billion in annual “improper payments.” We are having a fight over $5.7 billion in funding for the most important job of the federal government, while Congress refuses to deal with pure waste and fraud that is 25 times that cost every year.

In the coming weeks, it’s incumbent upon people of all political persuasions to ask the following question: If we are facing such a deep debt crisis, can we still afford to reflexively keep every federal office currently in existence simply because it offers a paycheck? (For more from the author of “Why Is the Main Harm of a Long Shutdown the Pay of the Workers and Not the Actual Work?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong

/0 Comments/in , /by

Prescription painkiller deaths are responsible for only a small portion of drug deaths and almost none of the epidemic-level increase since 2014. Yet Congress was willing to regulate the heck out of prescriptions in order to address the epidemic. But when it comes to illicit drugs, which are doing most of the drug killing and are almost all coming in from the Mexican drug cartels and their criminal alien syndicates, suddenly the political class has no interest in solutions unless you can prove that it will stop 100 percent of the problem.

Last year, Congress held endless hearings, wrote copious reports, and passed dozens of bills misdiagnosing the poly-drug crisis, its nature, and its source. They spent billions of dollars funding unproven addiction treatment programs while regulating prescription painkillers. Then they passed a bill with endless leniencies for drug traffickers. To the extent they ever spoke about illicit drugs, they focused on China and the dark web, but would never mention the word Mexico or the southern border, where almost all of the drugs are brought into the country. They were willing to do everything that, in their mind, would mitigate the emergency epidemic, even when they went after the wrong source. Now that we’ve successfully exposed the authentic source of the crisis – the Mexican border and lack of interior enforcement against cartel distributors in America – Congress is suddenly not interested in doing anything unless it’s a bulletproof end-all solution.

Now that the media finally has been forced to admit that the source of the drug problem is the Mexican cartels, the same evil terrorist groups orchestrating the flow of illegal immigration, leftists have a new talking point. They contend that almost all of the drugs come through the points of entry and not in between the points, thereby making a wall completely irrelevant to mitigating the drug trafficking problem. This talking point is part of a general trend where they magnify the problem beyond the solution of the wall. For example, after calling us kooks for years when we warned that the most brutal cartels were digging tunnels into our territory, the media is now admitting this is indeed taking place in order to, in their minds, diminish the efficacy of the wall as a solution.

But this in itself is a self-indictment of their refusal to deal with the problem through the years. Really? So, this is even worse than what a wall can solve? All the more so this should be treated as a national emergency, then. We should be sending our military over the Rio Grande to fight these terror groups.

This new alarmist argument that a wall is ineffective to combat the cartels is ludicrous for a number of reasons.

1. The wall as a force multiplier to effectively channel resources: Before I explain how drugs are pouring through between points of entry, it’s important to understand that having substantial barriers rather than an open frontier in many areas allows our agents to place their resources more in points of entry to interdict the drugs. The same thing applies to their argument about tunnels. It’s sure a lot easier to detect the tunnels and drones, as well as the criminal activity at the points of entry, when the agents are not completely shut down by thousands of bogus asylum seekers every day coming in between the points of entry. With that chaos successfully blocked by the wall, the agents can focus all their attention on the criminal activities of the cartels rather than serving as babysitters and field hospitals between the points of entry.

2. Drugs absolutely pour in between the points of entry: The reason the media is asserting that most drugs come in at the points of entry is not because they know it to be true, but because most of the drug seizures occur at the points of entry. But that outcome is dictated by pure common sense. While the cartels do succeed in getting drugs in at the points of entry, it’s obvious that we have the most success in detecting drugs in this carefully controlled environment. While in the hundreds of miles of open frontier, the cartels get the drugs in un-interdicted at all, we catch a lot of their contraband at the checkpoints. On the other hand, we likely only catch an infinitesimal amount of drugs in between the points of entry.

The most important fact about the border the media is obfuscating is that the cartels control the entire flow of migrants precisely so they can strategically tie down our agents with a humanitarian crisis while they confidently bring in drugs, gangs, criminals, cartel enforcers, and special interest aliens with the full confidence that no agents will be present in the gaps they tactically created. As Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Council, explained to me last year, “The cartels flood the metropolitan areas with more family units than we have resources to deal with, causing us to move resources from rural areas, thereby creating the gaps that allow them to move more valuable products like illicit narcotics and criminal aliens. It’s sort of like a game of football.”

Why do you think the volume and widespread availability of lethal illicit drugs spiked to epidemic levels suddenly in 2013-2015 with the rise of the Central American teens and again with the flow of the family units? They all came in between the points of entry, not at the points of entry. Many of the UACs served as drug runners.

Jaeson Jones, who commanded a group of Texas Rangers dealing with this precise problem at the time, told me it’s laughable to suggest the cartels aren’t bringing in drugs between the points of entry. “Most unaccompanied alien children enter our country between the points of entry,” said the retired captain, who spent 24 years with the Texas Department of Public Safety focusing on counterterrorism and counter-narcotics at our border. “Every day, these teens and young adults are forced into human trafficking, human smuggling, and drug trafficking in order to pay their way to be smuggled into the United States by the cartels.”

The cartels knew that we never prosecute teens on drug charges at the federal level and therefore deliberately used them to bring in drugs. As Jeff Sessions said last June, “These drug cartels know our laws and take advantage of our generosity. They are only too happy to use children to smuggle their drugs as well.” Those kids who help smuggle humans and drugs because of our lenient laws are referred to as polleritos.

Many of them also went on to fuel the gang crisis as well. Gangs are now the distributors of these drugs. So, the invasion of UACs – yes, between the points of entry – thanks to a lack of a standing deterrent is really two for the price of one in fueling the drug crisis.

Moreover, Jones told me his officers have been dealing with a long-standing problem of the cartels recruiting dual U.S.-Mexican citizens in middle and high schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs across the border. “For the last decade across the southwest border, America’s youth have become the ideal smuggler for the Mexican cartels. The cartels have learned that U.S. prosecutors in most cases will either not prosecute or will be very lenient involving juvenile smuggling offenses. We must protect our youth from the Mexican cartels.”

Again, this was occurring between the points of entry just as much as at the points of entry, and it is a crisis that will be mitigated by the construction of a wall, among other assists needed at the border.

In July 2018, the DEA started a new program in San Diego to combat the cartels recruiting in schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs in both in cars and on foot. It’s no wonder a local San Diego station accused CNN of losing interest in interviewing their reporters after they expressed their educated view that barriers at the border work.

3. Interior enforcement is even more important to stopping drugs, but Dems oppose that even more strongly. Democrats are not wrong when they assert that not all problems will be addressed by the wall. The problem is that is a further indictment of their visceral opposition to interior enforcement and deportations. Sure, the cartels will always be able to find ways to get some drugs into our country. But merely getting drugs past the border is not their goal. Their ultimate goal is establishing profitable networks that can operate in our major cities undetected in perpetuity. That is absolutely impossible without sanctuary cities.

As I’ve noted in my series on sanctuary cities and the drug crisis, the drug crisis reached epidemic levels during Obama’s second term, right as he began dismantling interior enforcement and sanctuary politics took over in major metro areas. All of the organizational trafficking is from foreign nationals. It’s bad enough that American drug traffickers barely serve any jail time any more and are back on the streets in no time. But criminal aliens, who, again, control all the primary-level trafficking, can and should be deported. We don’t need to land convictions; we just need to bust up their networks and get them out of here.

This also ties in to the new Democrat talking point about half of illegal immigration stemming from visa overstays. They are exactly right! So many of the Dominicans fueling the drug crisis in New England fly into Logan Airport with false Puerto Rican identities. If we actually got tough on interior enforcement, it would solve both the illegal immigration and the drug problem.

Yes, we need both border and interior enforcement. Yet, Democrats, because their border denialism has been discredited, must resort to a cat-and-mouse game of “No, this is not the problem, the other issue not directly before us now is the real problem … except we oppose action on that too.”

Finally, you know what is even more effective than both border walls and deportations? Actually making illegal immigration illegal and not incentivizing it with all sorts of magnets and benefits. This is really a very easy issue to solve. In life, there are can’ts and there are won’ts. When it comes to protecting our sovereignty and security from external threats, there are no can’ts. It’s all won’ts. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Fate of the Gofundme Campaign for Trump’s Wall

/0 Comments/in , /by

The government remains shut down. We’re past the 20-day mark, and we’re all still alive. There aren’t dead bodies in the streets. Democrats, the Trump White House, and congressional Republicans remain deadlocked on the border wall funding, and Trump said he would not sign any spending package without it. There is a border crisis. So, why not start a GoFundMe for the wall. Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage started one, with a goal of raising a $1 billion. It’s raised over $20 million in 25 days. Over 300,000 people have contributed to it. Here’s the description again:

The government has accepted large private donations before, most recently a billionaire donated $7.5 Million to fund half of the Washington Monument repairs in 2012; this is no different.

Like a majority of those American citizens who voted to elect President Donald J Trump, we voted for him to Make America Great Again. President Trump’s main campaign promise was to BUILD THE WALL. And as he’s followed through on just about every promise so far, this wall project needs to be completed still.

. . .

Well, it was a good run, but the campaign wasn’t successful. Maybe the writing was on the wall; $1 billion is quite the goal, but the amount of money raised in this period of time was pretty solid. Alas, GoFundMe will be refunding all of the money after Kolfage changed the mission campaign; he now says a nonprofit will be established with the funds. GoFundMe spokesperson Bobby Whithorne said, “If a donor does not want a refund, and they want their donation to go to the new organization, they must proactively elect to redirect their donation to that organization” (via The Hill):

GoFundMe said Friday that it would refund $20 million raised by more than 300,000 donors for President Trump’s border wall after an account aiming to raise $1 billion for the wall changed part of its campaign.

(Read more from “The Fate of the Gofundme Campaign for Trump’s Wall” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Media Attacks Rand Paul for Going to Socialized-Medicine-Canada to Get Surgery, Fails to Mention IMPORTANT Piece of Information

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was widely criticized for the announcement that he would have hernia surgery in Canada, a country with socialized medicine. Despite the hospital being private and specializing in hernias, critics cited Paul’s opposition to socialized medicine.

The surgery is related to an injury Paul suffered when his neighbor, Rene Boucher, attacked him while he was doing yard work, leaving him with six broken ribs and damage to his lungs, The Washington Times reports.

Boucher is reportedly being sued by Paul for $4,000 in medical expenses plus the costs of the hernia surgery. The Courier Journal reports the court documents cite the cost of the hernia procedure as ranging between $5,000 and $8,000. Boucher was sentenced to 30 days in prison for assaulting a member of Congress; federal prosecutors are reportedly appealing the case.

Paul’s lawsuit says that he will undergo an outpatient surgery in Canada later this month at Shouldice Hernia Hospital, which claims to be “the only licensed hospital in the world dedicated to repairing hernias.”

“This is a private, world renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” Kelsey Cooper, a spokeswoman for Paul, told The Hill.

(Read more from “Media Attacks Rand Paul for Going to Socialized-Medicine-Canada to Get Surgery, Fails to Mention IMPORTANT Piece of Information” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texas Court Halts Execution for Man Who Murdered 13 Month-Old in Horrific ‘Exorcism’ Ritual — Here’s Why

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halted the execution scheduled Tuesday of a man who was convicted in 2010 of murdering a 13 month-old child in an exorcism ritual.

Blaine Milam was sentenced to death for the gruesome murder of Amora Carson, his girlfriend’s 13 month-old child, in 2008 in East Texas. He later said that he believed the infant was possessed by demons and that he needed to commit an exorcism ritual to save her.

The court issued the stay of execution on the basis that bite-mark evidence had been discredited since the original conviction, and that new laws about the treatment of mentally impaired felons applied in the case. . .

Milam and his girlfriend Jessica Carson contacted the police in December of 2008 and told them that they had come home to find the baby dead. When police arrived to their home, they found the deceased child brutally beaten with a hammer and with numerous bite-mark injuries. . .

When police confronted Carson about discrepancies between her story and Milam’s, she confessed that they had believed the baby was possessed, and that she died while they performed an exorcism. Carson claimed that the baby had hit herself with the hammer while under possession.

(Read more from “Texas Court Halts Execution for Man Who Murdered 13 Month-Old in Horrific ‘Exorcism’ Ritual — Here’s Why” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Disgust: Actress Declares That Her ‘First Abortion’ at Age 19 Was ‘My Best One.’ and the Audience Loves It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Actress and outspoken abortion advocate Martha Plimpton (“The Goonies” and a host of TV shows) proudly told a Seattle audience that she got her “first abortion” at age 19 from a Seattle Planned Parenthood and that it was her “best” abortion.

“Seattle has some particular significance for me for lots of reasons,” the gravelly voiced Plimpton told the #ShoutYourAbortion audience gathered at the city’s Town Hall. “I’ve got a lot of family here, some of whom are here in the audience tonight. I also had my first abortion here at the Seattle Planned Parenthood!” . . .

“Notice I said ‘first.’ I said ‘first,'” she quickly added, seemingly trying to underscore an affinity for the-more-the-merrier when it comes to abortion. “And I don’t want Seattle — I don’t want you guys to feel insecure, it was my best one. . .

“Heads and tails above the rest,” she went on about her abortion. “If I could Yelp review it, I totally would. And if that doctor’s here tonight, I don’t remember you at all, I was 19. I was 19, but I thank you nonetheless.”

Onstage with Plimpton — and clapping and laughing in response to her strident statements — was Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian and well-known abortion provider and advocate who discussed his views with the actress.

(Read more from “Disgust: Actress Declares That Her ‘First Abortion’ at Age 19 Was ‘My Best One.’ and the Audience Loves It.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Missing: Key Documents About Alleged Misconduct by Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor

/0 Comments/in , /by

Andrew Weissmann, the lead prosecutor for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has a history of questionable conduct. But the full extent of Weissmann’s alleged prosecutorial misconduct is unclear because some of the most serious charges were hidden behind redactions and secreted in sealed court filings.

Two months ago I sued to have these records released, but late Friday federal Judge Sim Lake’s case manager confirmed that several of the sought-after documents are missing from the court record.

In early November, Houston attorney Kevin Fulton of the Fulton Law Group filed a motion in a Texas federal court to unseal and unredact court records related to claimed prosecutorial misconduct by Weissmann during the latter’s stint as the head of the Enron Task Force. . .

Even if cause originally existed to keep the content of this email secret, with the underlying criminal cases now complete, there is no longer a basis to hide the details from the public. Thus, my motion to unredact the public record asked Judge Lake, who had presided over the criminal cases, to release unredacted copies of several court filings, most significantly the joint motion to dismiss, which included this email and other relevant details.

Over the holidays, though, the court entered an “amended notice,” announcing that after “a full and exhaustive” search by the clerk, certain court filings “were unrecoverable in their original or un-redacted form,” including the unredacted copy of the joint motion to dismiss and the supporting memorandum. Also missing from the court record was the government’s unredacted response to this motion, which likely would have included the full text—or relevant portions—of the Weissmann email. (Read more from “Missing: Key Documents About Alleged Misconduct by Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Dossier: Two Alarming Explanations for the FBI Trump-Russia Investigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

The two alarming explanations for Comey-McCabe-Strzok FBI’s evidence-free Trump-Russia investigation

There are really only two tenable explanations for the bombshell revelation that the Andrew McCabe-led FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump’s supposed ties to Russia following his decision to fire then-FBI Director James Comey.

The first is that the FBI is extremely incompetent. Following the firing of disgraced FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe explored an evidence-free hunch, based on anonymously sourced media reports and political opposition material traced to Democrats, that the president was a Russian agent.

The second is that McCabe, knowing that he had nothing, used the Trump-Russia collusion “conspiracies” as part of an information operation intended to destroy the legitimacy of the duly elected president, hoping the FBI probe would tie him up in endless additional investigations that would chip away at his mandate. To put it more bluntly, McCabe and his collaborators engaged in subversion.

When discussing this shocking idea, it’s worth remembering that Andrew McCabe has a long track record of appalling behavior. He was fired after an internal DOJ probe found that he lied under oath at least three separate times. Additionally, McCabe attempted to frame and sabotage FBI colleagues for his own leaks to the media. McCabe later blamed his multiple lies on the president, claiming the “chaos inside the FBI under siege from Trump and his allies” forced him to lie under oath. (Read more from “The Dossier: Two Alarming Explanations for the FBI Trump-Russia Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE