DOJ Sets Pelosi Straight After Attack Against AG Barr

/0 Comments/in , , /by

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday that Attorney General William Barr lied to Congress, something she noted would be a “crime.” The Department of Justice has called these accusations “baseless,” “reckless,” “irresponsible,” and “false.”

On Wednesday, Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had been asked to answer questions related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on the investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

During the hearing, Senate Democrats accused Barr of covering for President Donald Trump instead of respecting the integrity of the investigation. Barr told the committee that Trump “fully cooperated with Mueller’s investigation,” a point Democrats contested since Trump himself refused to be interviewed by Mueller. Also under scrutiny was Barr’s summary of the Mueller report, which Mueller had said in a letter did not adequately reflect his results. The full Mueller report, with redactions, was released more than three weeks after Barr’s summary.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, told Barr in the hearing that “America deserves better” than him and that he “should resign.”

Barr, who had appeared before the Senate committee voluntarily, opted not to return for a second day of questioning on Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee. So that hearing proceeded without Barr, with a ceramic chicken sitting on the table near where he would have sat — a mocking gesture from Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.

While several Democratic leaders have accused Barr of going out of his way to defend Trump, Pelosi took things one step further.

“What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America is not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That’s a crime,” she said.

“He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law.”

But the DOJ scoffed at Pelosi’s accusations. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told CNBC that Pelosi’s “baseless attack on the Attorney General” was “reckless, irresponsible and false.” Conservative Review has reached out to the Department of Justice for further comment. (For more from the author of “DOJ Sets Pelosi Straight After Attack Against AG Barr” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lefties Are Clinging to This ‘Bombshell’ Mueller Letter but They Get Stopped In Their Tracks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Daily Wire. After Attorney General William Barr sent his four-page letter to Congress with the key findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Mueller sent a letter to Barr explaining he was unhappy with how the media was characterizing what took place.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25,” Mueller wrote. “This is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.” . . .

Wednesday night, the Washington Post and New York Times clung to this narrative to Mueller criticized Barr’s letter on the investigation’s key findings. Their reports launched a news cycle focused solely on what was in the letter, despite both outlets omitting the full letter from their reports (coincidental? I think not).

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows made an important point: why is the mainstream media clinging to this notion that Mueller was unhappy with the tone of his findings? The full report was made public two weeks ago. The point is rather moot.

(Read more from “Lefties Are Clinging to This ‘Bombshell’ Mueller Letter but Mark Meadows Stops Them in Their Tracks” HERE)

___________________________________________________

AG William Barr testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee over Mueller report handling

By Fox News. Attorney General William Barr testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and faced questions over the handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report and accusations from Democrats that he sought to present the investigation’s findings in President Trump’s favor.

Barr was grilled over a Washington Post article that said Mueller contacted Barr to express concerns about the public summary his office put out in March. (Read more from “AG William Barr testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee over Mueller report handling” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Another Mueller Release: Still No Collusion! Here’s the Crucial Admission.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Breitbart. Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote Attorney General William Barr a letter in late March complaining that Barr’s four-page letter to Congress describing the conclusions of the investigation “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special counsel’s investigation, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Mueller’s March 27 letter “revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of the special counsel’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials,” the Post reported, citing “people familiar with the discussions.” . . .

News of Mueller’s complaints come on the eve of Barr’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning – set to be contentious between Senate Democrats and the Attorney General.

Democrats have accused Barr of trying to secure the most favorable outcome possible for President Trump after the report’s conclusion. (Read more from “Another Mueller Release: Still No Collusion! Here’s the Crucial Admission.” HERE)

______________________________________________

Mueller Complained to Barr About His Report Summary, but Then Made Crucial Admission

By Daily Wire. In a previously unreported letter obtained by The Washington Post, Robert Mueller complained to Attorney General William Barr about his summary of the special counsel’s over 400-page final report because “it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.” But in a follow-up call between Barr and Mueller, the special counsel admitted that Barr’s summary was not “inaccurate,” the Post reports; rather, Mueller just felt “that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation.”

In a report published Tuesday, the Post revealed the contents of a previously unreported letter from Mueller to Barr sent on March 27, three days after Barr’s summary announcing that Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and came to no conclusions about obstruction of justice either way (Barr’s full summary below).

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote in a March 27 letter that the Post reports “shocked” Justice Department officials. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.” . . .

But law enforcement officials also told the Post that Barr and Mueller spoke on the phone for around 15 minutes a day after Barr received the letter. While Mueller expressed concern in the call that the media was misreporting about his obstruction of justice findings, when pressed, he admitted that the letter accurately portrayed his findings.

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman told the Post Tuesday. “In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released. However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion. The Attorney General and the Special Counsel agreed to get the full report out with necessary redactions as expeditiously as possible.” (Read more from “Mueller Complained to Barr About His Report Summary, but Then Made Crucial Admission” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Sleepless in Indianapolis: The NRA’s Corruption Problem

/0 Comments/in , , /by

My grandson and I are back from our road trip to Indianapolis, where we drove up for the National Rifle Association Annual Meetings & Exhibits. Admission was free for us members, about 75,000 of us, and 15 acres of gun-related exhibits beckoned to enthusiasts.

Longtime readers of this column may recall that I am not a gun enthusiast. I don’t know much about guns, and I’m not very curious. Yes, I had to shoot them and clean them when I was in the Army, but I’ve seldom shot one for fun since I was in junior high school.

I am, however, a freedom enthusiast. I am therefore a Second Amendment true believer.

We live in a diverse and contentious nation. I don’t believe for a moment that we have avoided dictatorship and genocide because we are too altruistic and high-minded for such things. Our republic and we, within it, have been protected by the deterrent effect of the widespread private and anonymous ownership of firearms and ammunition.

That Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will always be under siege. “Freedom,” as Ronald Reagan observed, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.” The NRA has been a potent, principled defender and counter-puncher against those who conspire against our civil right to own and supply the technology to protect ourselves and our republic.

The National Rifle Association

The NRA is a nonprofit corporation with an unusually large board of directors. Maybe there’s another one with 76 directors, but I don’t know of it. I’ve often thought how thrilling the board meetings must have been, kind of like a sports fantasy camp, except that you got to rub elbows with Ted Nugent, Allen West, Ollie North and Wayne LaPierre.

Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has often been one of my heroes, standing up against fierce and hysterical public attacks when milder, meeker men (like me) might have wilted. And so I’m sentimental about the NRA, deeply committed to its success, and protective against its detractors.

Imagine my dismay, then, to read about the lawsuit it filed in suburban Washington DC this month against Ackerman McQueen, its Oklahoma City-based vendor for public-relations work, event planning, social media and digital content production. For 38 years, Ackerman has shaped the message and image of the NRA.

From My Cold Dead Hands

I have no criticism of Ackerman’s work product. In fact, I think much of it has been inspired, whether the late Charlton Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech nearly 20 years ago, or Charlie Daniels’ 2016 warning to the ayatollahs that heartlanders will defend our country with “bloody, calloused bare hands” if we have to.

But Ackerman billed NRA for $42.6 million in 2017. You’ve got to accept the highest level of transparency and accountability when you’re invoicing that kind of money. And it appears that Ackerman’s not living up to that.

The P.R. firm has sent the NRA vague and incomplete invoices, which is not a scandal. But when NRA employees did their job and insisted on clarification, their superiors retaliated against them. Therein lies the scandal. Many of the most conscientious employees no longer work at NRA. It appears that good stewards are seen as a nuisance by the senior executive staff.

Divided Loyalties

Part of the problem is that key NRA personnel are also on the Ackerman payroll, including President Oliver North. North was not, so far as I know, part of the clique that drove stubbornly ethical employees out. In fact, he is leading the drive to hold LaPierre accountable for financial misconduct.

But even here, his credibility is undermined by his divided loyalties between the NRA and its main vendor. One of the NRA’s legal complaints against Ackerman is the vendor’s refusal to provide a copy of its contract with North. He was coy when asked to provide his own copy of the contract, saying he’d need Ackerman’s consent to disclose his contract with them.

Of course, Ackerman is a privately-owned business. It has no direct legal obligation to us as NRA members. That obligation of vigilance and good stewardship is owed us by the NRA Board of Directors, and its Executive Vice President.

The NRA is roughly $30 million in the red. In previous years, it has run deficits as high as $40 million. Its retirement fund is about $60 million in the hole. Instead of chastening the board and the executive leadership, this seems to have emboldened them. They must be confident that NRA members will rally to the ramparts and dig deep into our own pockets to rescue our beloved organization.

And so Wayne earns about $1.4 million per year, at last count. He took a $4 million retirement distribution a few years ago, so that was over a $5 million year for him.

It’s always a shock when you hear the truth from your enemies instead of your allies, but it took antagonistic journalists to tell us about executives sliding off the NRA payroll and into $600,000 and $700,000 consulting contracts with the NRA. And about nimble wives, children and other family of NRA executives skipping between the payrolls of the NRA and its vendors, at eye-watering salaries.

Even if the NRA’s legal complaint against Ackerman for shady billing practices is airtight, the fact remains that our board has allowed fast-and-loose financial dealings that bring discredit on our organization, and put it at risk of very serious legal attack by hostile regulators in the state of New York.

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

NRA lawyers and accountants brought insider corruption to the attention of the board’s Audit Committee last year. Emily Cummins, in her 12th year as NRA managing director of tax and risk management, brought her concerns to an emergency meeting of that watchdog committee last July.

But the committee took no effective action, and didn’t notify fellow directors of the problems. The board retroactively approved past actions that should have required their prior approval. And Cummins no longer works at the NRA.

The board didn’t confront its executives and contractors about improper side contracts. There were no contract reviews, investigations or disciplinary actions. Whistleblowers quietly vacated their positions and left the organization.

Hostile Alliance Against the NRA

Or did they? Somebody has been leaking internal documents to Michael Spies, a writer for New Yorker magazine. That magazine has formed an anti-NRA alliance with The Trace, a specialized anti-gun online newsletter owned by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Together, they have pieced together a devastating expose of NRA financial corruption. You can read it online; there’s no pay wall for the first few articles.

The New Yorker is inevitably feeding information to hostile regulators in New York State, where the NRA is incorporated, and where New York (state) Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Andrew Cuomo are in the driver’s seat.

This board has put our organization, and therefore the Second Amendment, at risk. In some cases, their dereliction is potentially criminal. At the very least, all directors on the audit committee, finance committee and executive committee should resign.

The board apparently saw trouble on the horizon, because it recently revised our by-laws to make their own recall nearly impossible. LaPierre has also taken some precautions, getting the board to add a clause to his employment contract that will guarantee him payment as a speaker and consultant after he retires, beginning at the full Executive Vice President base salary he currently receives.

No Showdown at Indianapolis

I looked forward to the members’ meeting last weekend as an opportunity to vote the rascals out and support reform candidates. But the elections were already over before we met in Indianapolis. Only one director remained to be selected.

Oliver North was a no-show at the annual members’ meeting, so the seat next to the Executive Vice President was vacant. The media-conscious North may have wanted to avoid any new photographs of him in the same frame with Wayne LaPierre. I don’t blame him; it doesn’t feel like a sports fantasy weekend anymore.

He did send a representative in the Pennsylvania delegation, who read his letter from the floor, briefly touching on financial misconduct allegations against LaPierre. Presidents typically serve two one-year terms, but North’s letter announced he will not serve a second term because the board didn’t re-nominate him.

Predictably, the old guard lectured insurgents about washing dirty NRA laundry in public, and the allegations against LaPierre were quickly referred to a closed-door meeting of the board to follow the Annual Meeting. The general membership will not meet again until a year from now, in Nashville.

I hope the NRA still exists this time next year, and that it is still a force for freedom, not just self-preservation. According to one retired official quoted by Spies, New York State could sanction or remove board members, disband the entire board, or revoke the NRA’s corporate charter altogether. It could also lose its federal tax-exempt status.

Rehabilitating the NRA

If you care about the NRA, if you care about the Second Amendment, this is the time for adult supervision. There is no pain-free option. Can we save the NRA? I hope so. We’ll need to be more actively, anxiously engaged than ever before. Call and write your directors (listed in the NRA magazines) and demand they excise the cancer.

If we can’t save the NRA, it will be a terrible blow to the civic impact of gun owners in a critical election year. It may take us another generation to dig out from the rubble.

The Gun Lobby is You

But we had God-given Constitutional rights before the NRA existed and we’ll have them after the NRA ceases to exist. We must not despair of vindicating our right to keep and bear arms just because fallen men couldn’t keep their paws out of the cookie jar.

Win or lose, one lesson we should take away is that we should never again keep all our eggs in one basket. Join a state-level grassroots gun rights network that is not subject to suffocation by New York state regulators. You can find one at Jeff Knox’s Firearms Coalition website (www.FirearmsCoalition.org).

Consider joining Gun Owners of America (https://gunowners.org/), described by Ron Paul as “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” Another uncompromising gun rights organization, although not so potent in Congress, is Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org).

The death or incapacitation of the NRA will mean that you can’t outsource your civic duty to Chris Cox anymore. If you care about your rights, you’re going to have to accept feeling like a pest. If your elected representatives or their staff roll their eyes when you follow up and hold their feet to the fire, oh well.

I hope we’re not coming to the end of an era of highly effective, efficient legislative advocacy but if we are, you’re still a citizen. You still have a Constitutionally protected right to petition for the redress of grievances, and your right to keep and bear arms – by the supreme law of the land – shall not be infringed.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pelosi Makes Explosive Claim Against President Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Fox News. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday night that President Trump “has demonstrated on a daily basis his obstruction of justice” amid a conflict between the White House and Congress over the terms of scheduled testimony by Attorney General William Barr before the House Judiciary Committee.

Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary panels this week on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. However, the Justice Department informed the House committee on Sunday that Barr would not attend the scheduled Thursday hearing if committee lawyers seek to question him.

When asked if she had a message for Barr Monday evening, Pelosi said: “Respect the constitution. Honor your oath of office. Honor the request of Congress. For the American people.”

It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. Democrats scheduled a committee vote for Wednesday on a proposal to allow both parties to turn over 30 minutes of questioning per side to staff lawyers. The Justice Department and committee Republicans have balked at this arrangement.

“The Attorney General agreed to appear before Congress,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said late Sunday. “Therefore, Members of Congress should be the ones doing the questioning. He [Barr] remains happy to engage with Members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.” (Read more from “Pelosi Makes Explosive Claim Against President Trump” HERE)

________________________________________________

Liberal and Moderate Democrats Unveil an Infrastructure Road Map With No Price Tag as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer Prepare to Meet Trump

By CNBC. A broad coalition of House Democrats is laying out an infrastructure plan road map that calls on the federal government to provide the majority of funding and warns against repealing environmental regulations.

The resolution, to be introduced Monday, is a joint effort of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the moderate Blue Dogs and newly elected Democrats. The groups hope it will provide a framework for party leadership ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled trip to the White House by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for a meeting with President Donald Trump to determine whether there is common ground on what traditionally has been a bipartisan issue.

The resolution calls for significant federal investment in infrastructure, stating that most of the funding should come from the government rather than private entities — a sharp contrast to Trump’s initial plan to leverage $200 billion in federal dollars as an incentive to attract a total of $1 trillion in infrastructure spending. The president’s proposal never gained traction on Capitol Hill, and Trump himself did not seem to fully embrace it. (Read more from “Liberal and Moderate Democrats Unveil an Infrastructure Road Map With No Price Tag as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer Prepare to Meet Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lesbian Commandant of Cadets Removed From Air Force Academy

/2 Comments/in , , /by

The first openly gay general at the Air Force Academy has been removed as commandant of cadets, but leaders were mum Monday on the exact cause of the apparent firing.

Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin, who led military training at the academy since 2017, was removed from her role as commandant amid an investigation, the school confirmed.

“Effective immediately, Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin is no longer performing her duties as the commandant of cadets pending the results of an ongoing investigation,” the academy said in an email to The Gazette. “We cannot provide additional information on the investigation at this time.”

It’s an extremely rare move, making her the first academy commandant relieved of command since 2003, when a commandant was fired for comments that suggested a cadet invited sexual assault. Goodwin had only about a month left at the academy before a planned move to a Pentagon job. . .

Goodwin, a former B-2 bomber pilot who moved to the school with her wife and children, was praised by some for a tough new set of discipline polices that made cadets toe the line. She also faced criticism for her stormy relationship with subordinates and colleagues, a few of whom referred to her with the imperial nickname “duchess,” the general’s callsign from flying days. Several academy officers, requesting anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the case, said Goodwin was a caustic leader who treated those under her roughly and was easily riled. (Read more from “Lesbian Commandant of Cadets Removed From Air Force Academy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Army’s Response to Incident With Mexican Soldiers?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Two weeks ago, active-duty soldiers at the border were detained and disarmed by a group of Mexican soldiers on the U.S. side of the border. In addition, last week, five men armed with AK-47s were caught on camera in Lukeville, Arizona, escorting an illegal alien woman through a low border barrier with full confidence that neither Border Patrol nor the military would do anything about it – other than completing their criminal smuggling conspiracy by processing and releasing the illegal immigrant. The president promised to get tougher and send “ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border.” Well, the military has now announced a surge … of lawyers and cooks.

Yes, America is not allowed to engage in military operations to repel armed invaders at our own border; the best the military can do is help Border Patrol with cooking meals and transporting illegal immigrants to further facilitate catch-and-release. Over the weekend, the L.A. Times reported that the Pentagon “is moving to loosen rules that bar U.S. soldiers from interacting with migrants on the southern border.” The government is sending 300 additional soldiers, to include “military lawyers who can help Customs and Border Protection agents process migrants, drivers to help transport detained migrants and cooks to provide meals for them.”

Undoubtedly, the move is designed to free up more border agents. But free them up to do what? Border Patrol most certainly will not go after the cartels and repel violent invaders even right at our border, per long-standing rules. Nor are agents turning back the migrants. Thus, if they are going to engage in catch-and-release anyway, what is the point of marshalling the military into that business as well? Shouldn’t the military at least be freed up to patrol the frontier against an invasion, something Border Patrol was clearly never empowered to do?

Responding to this announcement, Col. Dan Steiner, a retired Air Force veteran who coordinated military operations at our border for the Texas government, told CR that “the military attempted to answer a logistical issue for Border Patrol, but not the tactical issue of force protection” arising from the incident with the Mexican soldiers last week. “I’m not sure how sending extra lawyers, extra drivers, and extra cooks addresses the issue of preventing the next ‘confusion’ incident with Mexican soldiers or the cartels,” said Steiner. “Does it help put more Border Agents back on the line? Yes. Does it make the troops safer? No.”

Steiner, who warned on my podcast last week of a coming Arab Spring-style collapse in Mexico, noted that this is part of an overall approach to the border that is built upon processing and adjudicating mass migration rather than deterring it. “Helping to reduce the burden logistically on Border Patrol is not addressing the issue of mass migration or the cartel and smuggler incursions at our border.”

Funny enough, per the L.A. Times article, the administration is getting accused of pushing the boundaries of the Posse Comitatus Act by having the military interact with migrant processing. In reality, the military would be on more solid legal ground executing its core mission of defense against external threats rather than dealing with internal immigration laws, if it were freed up to strike out against the cartels and smugglers approaching our border. That is the quintessential use of the military.

The Posse Comitatus law was signed by President Grant in 1878 to prohibit the military from being used to enforce domestic Reconstruction-era laws against American citizens in the southern states, absent direct authorization from Congress. To repel an invasion at our border — any invasion — is actually the quintessential use of our military that our Founders had in mind. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution tasks the federal government with guaranteeing states’ protection against invasion, and we owe it to Arizona and Texas to secure their territory. And unlike “offensive expeditions” that George Washington felt required congressional authorization for deploying troops, the use of the military to fight the drug cartels and smuggling is part of “the power to repel sudden attacks” that James Madison and Elbridge Gerry promised at the constitutional convention would be left to the executive.

Between the diseases, drugs, crime, labor, sex trafficking, and belligerent acts of rogue Mexican soldiers and dangerous cartels, why won’t this administration finally treat our border as the consummate national security issue rather than some domestic policy issue? The blueprint for stopping this is obvious, but nothing will change until the administration closes the border to immigration and begins arming our soldiers with weapons of war to combat the brutal cartels rather than with lawyers and cooks. (For more from the author of “Army’s Response to Incident With Mexican Soldiers?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump ‘Outs’ Judge Napolitano

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Daily Caller. President Donald Trump tweeted after Saturday’s rally in Wisconsin an attack on Judge Andrew Napolitano, claiming the judge had come to him privately to ask for a Supreme Court nomination.

“Thank you to brilliant and highly respected attorney Alan Dershowitz for destroying the very dumb legal argument of ‘Judge’ Andrew Napolitano….” Trump began, following his praise of Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz with an immediate pivot to an attack on Napolitano. . .

Trump appeared to be referring to the fallout from the recently-released Mueller report, which Napolitano has argued on his Fox News Digital show “Judge Napolitano’s Chambers” stands as proof that the president obstructed justice.

(Read more from “Trump ‘Outs’ Judge Napolitano” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Trump: Fox’s Napolitano Asked Me to Pardon His Friend, Put Him on Supreme Court

By The Hill. Napolitano, a former superior court judge in New Jersey, works as a legal analyst for Fox News. In a pair of tweets Saturday evening following his campaign rally in Green Bay, Wis., the president accused the commentator of becoming “very hostile” after Trump supposedly turned him down for the nation’s highest court. . .

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment regarding when the conversation with Napolitano occurred or whom the Fox News commentator supposedly asked Trump to pardon.

Trump frequently showers praise on Fox News figures who are seen as allies of his administration, including Dershowitz, who has defended the president amid the now-concluded investigation into Russia’s election interference and Trump’s campaign. (Read more from “Trump: Fox’s Napolitano Asked Me to Pardon His Friend, Put Him on Supreme Court” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Notre Dame Architect Makes Huge Revelation About Fire

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When the Fox News Channel’s Shepard Smith hung up on French politician and media analyst Philippe Karsenty during live coverage of the Notre Dame Cathedral blaze, authorities already were speculating the catastrophe that gripped the world was caused by an accident.

Although speculation is the coin of the cable-news realm, an indignant Smith wanted nothing to do with Karsenty providing context to the April 15 fire – nearly 2,000 attacks on French churches in two years – that would suggest an alternative cause should be considered.

And, in fact, as Karsenty pointed out in a phone interview from France with WND, a former chief architect of the Notre Dame – whose analysis has been virtually ignored – believes the accident theory makes no sense.

Karsenty told WND he was “shocked” when Smith abruptly ended the interview.

“I just wanted to put it in context,” he said, referring to the surge of attacks on churches. “And then I said, nevertheless, the media are lecturing us an hour after it started, saying it can only be unintentional. (Read more from “Notre Dame Architect Makes Huge Revelation About Fire” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s Why Rashida Tlaib Was ‘Really Afraid’ of Fellow Americans

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib revealed in an interview she was “terrified” for herself and her family after the Sept. 11 terror attacks that left nearly 3,000 Americans dead.

“I was probably in my second year of law school when 9/11 happened and I was really terrified of what was going to happen to my husband, who was only a green card holder at the time,” Tlaib said during an interview with “Makers,” a media company founded to “accelerate the women’s movement.”

“I immediately called my brothers and told them to be very careful who you hang out with,” she continued. “Telling my sisters ‘just be real careful out there’ and being really afraid of my fellow Americans.”

Tlaib, along with fellow Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, became America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in January. Their time in office has been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiments.

The controversy kicked off after Omar delivered the keynote speech at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on March 23. A video from the event was uncovered weeks later where Omar was shown urging Muslim Americans to “raise hell” and “make people uncomfortable.” Omar faced backlash after a part of the speech surfaced where she described the Sept. 11 attacks as merely an event where “some people did something.” (Read more from “Here’s Why Rashida Tlaib Was ‘Really Afraid’ of Fellow Americans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE