SERVERGATE: Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal Getting Worse

Last week, former FBI director James Comey brought the Hillary Clinton email scandal back to the front burner when he testified that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch forced him to downplay the FBI’s criminal investigation and call it a “matter.” The charge is so serious even Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is calling for a probe.

That’s hardly the only movement in the case.

Evidence continues to pile up of Clinton’s wrong-doing using an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. But first, a refresher:

The Clinton-Comey Dance

Initially, it looked like Hillary Clinton would escape punishment. On July 7, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey recommended that no charges be brought against her.

He reasoned that she lacked intent to commit a crime. However, as many pointed out, she did not need to have intended to break to law to be guilty of that crime.

The evidence Comey produced still damaged Clinton. She’d sent or received 110 classified emails. She first said she did not email any classified information. She changed her statement after it was clear that wasn’t true. Instead, she said she didn’t knowingly send or receive any classified intel.

A week and a half before voting day, Comey told Congress he was re-opening the probe. Classified emails had been discovered on the laptop of Anthony Weiner. He was the husband of Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin. Abedin had forwarded thousands of emails to him.

Many people — including Clinton herself — think Comey’s statement caused her to lose the race. A new study by a consortium of pollsters backs this up. Her emails were “the dominant narrative of the election for her.” Voters associated Donald Trump with several narratives. Some were negative but others were neutral.

Judicial Watch Obtains Unreleased Clinton Emails, Finds More Wrongdoing

Even though Clinton lost the race, the scrutiny hasn’t ended. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit to obtain copies of her emails. So far, the group has obtained 433 new emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails she first turned over. She had claimed that she turned over all of them.

Judicial Watch says the new emails contain classified information. The group also says that neither the State Department nor the FBI have conducted a full search for the emails. The FBI admits that thousands of emails remain out there.

One batch of the new emails revealed that Clinton sent classified information to top officials at the Clinton Foundation, including its director Doug Band. They did not hold security clearances.

Clinton’s scheduler also forwarded her calendar to Clinton Foundation staffers. Cheryl Chumley, writing for The Washington Times, observed: “You know — in case the quid pro quo payments had to be made in person that day. At least: that’s a perception, and concern.”

Judicial Watch submitted new evidence to the court this week revealing that Clinton also used an unsecure Blackberry. She did so despite being warned. She wrote in an email that she carried it, “against the advice of the security hawks.” She said she didn’t use it in her office.

A 2009 memo from Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell stated that he “cannot stress too strongly…that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” The memo was addressed to Cheryl Mills, who served as Clinton’s Counselor and Chief of Staff.

The Russian Connection

In another email obtained by Judicial Watch, Abedin says she “hooked up” people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department. She was responding to a request from the foundation’s vice president Rina Kirshner. Clinton Foundation donor Eddie Trump sent the request to Abedin. The foundation received more than $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the State Department during Clinton’s tenure.

Some of the wrongdoing that came out was less serious, but still unethical. In July 2010, Abedin arranged for Chelsea Clinton to fly to Germany. She would get to be part of the official delegation to watch the U.S. women’s soccer team play. Bari Luri, Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation chief of staff, was also included. Chelsea was to “fly on official govt plane both ways and they will take care of hotels and all transportation.”

Investigations Pile On

In January, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz began looking into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe. He said it would include claims that the FBI “improperly disclosed non-public information.” He also said he would look into whether officials like Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have removed themselves from the probe.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed his concern recently about how slow the State Department has been reviewing the email scandal. In March, he sent a letter to the agency asking for an update on Clinton’s security clearance. He found out that Clinton and seven members of her former staff still have them. Yet they are no longer at the agency. In order to retain this status, they were labeled “research assistants.”

Clinton recently called the probe into her email server “the biggest nothing-burger ever.” In contrast, Judicial Watch refers to Clinton as a “serial violator of various laws.” As the evidence continues to pile up, one of them will prove to be right. Although Comey did not suggest charges, the new FBI director could. (For more from the author of “SERVERGATE: Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal Getting Worse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Parents of Idaho Girl Raped by Muslim Refugees Get New SICK Surprise

By Derrick Wilburn. Last summer, five-year-old Jayla Peterson –yes, just five years old!– was raped and then urinated upon by three Muslim migrant boys, two from Iraq one from Sudan, in the town of Twin Falls, Idaho as one of the boys videoed the attack . . .

Of all the quotes and sayings from America’s founding, there’s one known to almost all of our citizens, it ends with “and justice for all.” Images of a blindfolded lady liberty holding the scales of justice (supposedly) symbolize the fact that the American judicial system does not see age, color or creed. The judge in this tragic case seems to have tossed all that, with a shocking decision on the guilt of the attackers and then a gag order for everyone involved. There’s a politically correct cover-up going on, and it’s despicable.

Pamela Gellar from Jihad Watch wrote the following account of the courtroom drama:

“Judge Thomas Borreson of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District ordered the little victim’s parents, Lacy and Levi Peterson, to say nothing to anyone – ever – about what was said in the courtroom Tuesday, or to disclose the sentence that he gave to the savage attackers. He did allow them to say that they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they disclosed why they were unhappy with it.

But even though the victim’s parents were not allowed to talk to me, there were twelve to fifteen people in the courtroom who saw and heard the whole sorry business. I was nevertheless informed of what happened by an anonymous source inside the courtroom – and the more I heard, the more I understood why this judge wanted to keep all the proceedings secret.

(Read more from “Parents of Idaho Girl Raped by Muslim Refugees Get New SICK Surprise” HERE)
____________________________________________________

Pamela Geller Provides Account of Outrageous Sentencing for Sexual Assault of 5-Year Old Idaho Girl by Muslims

By Pamela Geller. Janice Kroeger, the Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, who was supposed to be trying these boys for their crimes, defended the boys and repeatedly attacked Lacy, the victim’s mother. A therapist for the boys was present, as well as a parole officer and a detective. Everything that was said was designed to portray the perpetrators as victims. Throughout the proceedings, they were repeatedly called victims, and the youngest one was called “the biggest victim of them all.”

The court heard all about how the attackers are doing well in school, and about how smart they are. They were praised for the supposed ordeal they had to go through. It was claimed that all three are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from having to go through courtroom proceedings.

After this lovefest, which lasted for five hours in the courtroom, all three boys were sentenced, one after the other. All three were given probation. They were not found guilty of rape, but of sexually lewd conduct.

In the midst of this judicial mugging, every time Lacy’s lawyer tried to speak up, he was silenced. The little victim, Jayla, was never even mentioned once by Kroeger or the judge – or by the police or anyone else. Only Lacy mentioned her, when she made her statement. Lacy detailed how the poor girl is still suffering the effects of this attack: she is wetting the bed and having bad dreams, and more.

Yet when Lacy completed her statement, Kroeger lashed out not at the perpetrators or their parents, but at Lacy. She viciously tongue-lashed Lacy for a full fifteen minutes, until finally Judge Borreson had to stop her. (Read more from this story about the abused Idaho girl HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOMBSHELL LAWSUIT: Comey Part of Massive Domestic Surveillance of Trump, Judges, Candidates; Gathered 600 Million Pages; “Can You Imagine That Kind of Power?!”

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering whether to subpoena former FBI Director James Comey to appear before the committee following his testimony [last week]. Should Comey appear before the Judiciary Committee, he may . . . face questions about the bombshell lawsuit, filed Monday by a former U.S. intelligence contractor, that accused the FBI and CIA of illegally spying on millions of Americans, including Donald Trump, and accuses Comey of covering it up.

Dennis Montgomery, the former contractor, reportedly passed his findings on to the FBI and is now alleging that the intelligence agencies buried the follow-up investigation[. His] suit attempts to prove there was a “pattern and practice” of conducting “illegal, unconstitutional surveillance” of millions of Americans, including Supreme Court justices, 156 federal judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald Trump, as well as the plaintiffs themselves.

Montgomery claims that he obtained 600 million pages of classified documents contained on 47 hard drives detailing how the FBI surveilled millions of Americans —on a far larger scale than whistleblower Edward Snowden uncovered.

“This domestic surveillance was all being done on computers supplied by the FBI,” Montgomery told Circa. “So these supercomputers, which are FBI computers, the CIA is using them to do domestic surveillance.”

“They’re doing this domestic surveillance on Americans, running a project on U.S. soil,” Montgomery continued. “Can you imagine what someone can do with the information they were collecting on Americans, can you imagine that kind of power?” (Read more from “BOMBSHELL LAWSUIT: Comey Part of Massive Domestic Surveillance of Trump, Judges, Candidates; Gathered 600 Million Pages; “Can You Imagine That Kind of Power?!” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Citing Seth Rich Murder, Two Other Mysterious Deaths, Harvard and Yale Attorneys Plead For Court’s Protection in DNC Fraud Lawsuit

Attorneys Jared and Elizabeth Beck of the DNC Fraud lawsuit publicly announced today via Facebook live stream that they had filed a motion to the court seeking an order of protection. Jared Beck spoke, explaining that the decision was based in part on the unusual deaths of Shawn Lucas, Beranton Whisenant, and Seth Rich, as well as threats and bizarre phone calls the plaintiffs and counsel had received.

Beck said…“After much consideration and deliberation, we have concluded that it is time to bring these concerns to the court’s attention. Today we filed a motion asking judge William Zloch to provide protection of the plaintiffs, their counsel and their families, as well as all of the witnesses in the DNC Fraud lawsuit. In support of this motion, we have cited the following events: the untimely death of our process server Shawn Lucas, the unsolved murder of DNC employee Seth Rich.”

Beck went on to say, that he believed Mr. Rich might have been a potential witness in this case. He also cited the recent untimely death of attorney Beranton Whisenant in South Florida, as well as recent bizarre and disturbing conduct including threats, that have been directed at plaintiffs, counsel and their employees.

The motion provided via the Beck’s website JamPAC included the declaration of a plaintiff in the suit, who described allegations that her laptop computer had been tampered with, possibly by an individual who had illegally entered her home.

Today’s announcement comes after the Becks had reported receiving a voice-modulated phone ominous phone call whose caller ID number matched that of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office. Disobedient Media reported on this event in addition to further anonymous calls made to the Beck’s pro-counsel Cullin O’brien. (Read more from “Citing Seth Rich Murder, Two Other Mysterious Deaths, Harvard and Yale Attorneys Seek Court’s Protection in DNC Fraud Lawsuit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lefties: Get Used to Your Daughters Losing to Mustached ‘Girls’

Romans 1.

That’s where we live now. No one forced us to set up camp there; we actually bought tickets and went voluntarily.

We even let our children be the canaries in that ghastly and demonic coal mine.

I know it’s all the rage to complain about helicopter parents hovering over their children’s every move, but we could have used a little more hovering in Connecticut recently. There, a troubled mustached 15-year-old boy who feels pretty won the state 100- and 200-meter dash titles, as a freshman.

Heck, hovering doesn’t even begin to describe what I would have done if my daughter had earned a place to run in that race. I would have gone all Gandalf: “You shall not pass!” I would have made them arrest me out in the middle of that track.

But doing nothing but mindlessly cheering while your daughter’s dreams are being shattered is pretty close to that, I guess. Any word if this dude hit the showers after the race with these girls against their will?

Oh, CNN’s Chris Cuomo called and told them to get over themselves if they don’t want to see any naked roosters in the hen house. Because men who like their Wonder Woman without hairy armpits are the real threat to women’s equality, we’re told. (Certainly not men who enjoy diminishing women’s physical triumphs, before disrobing in front of them and demanding they smile.)

What in God’s name is wrong with us?

This is actually happening. I actually am writing this column. And I am left with the cold, hard truth that if we won’t fight on something as elemental and obvious as boys-can’t-be-girls, we sadly deserve the cultural annihilation to come.

The same feminists who once sang “I am woman, hear me roar” are now strangely silent as opportunities are taken from our daughters — not to mention their hopes and dreams of being the next Mia Hamm, Serena Williams, or a host of other women who paved the way for the next generation’s moment in the sun.

Who needs the heteronormative patriarchy when you’ve got transgender, SJW madness … and the tyranny that comes along with a culture drunk on its own decadence?

My editor, Todd Erzen, has a middle school daughter who is one of the fastest distance runners in the entire country for her age category. Yet, at a recent event that she won handily, the majority of the boys who performed after her beat her time. Why? It’s called testosterone — boys and girls. And knowing that it is called testosterone — and not “patriarchy” — is called “brains.”

Indeed, Connecticut’s boy “girls’ champion” would’ve finished dead last in his rightful categories.

Yet not even almighty science can save us; it will be cast aside by progressives faster than you can say “Christianity” when it doesn’t provide a free pass to the dystopian fever swamp. Just as one example, an old episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” was recently edited in order to conveniently conform scientific fact about gender and sex to our current politically correct delusion.

Speaking of brains, here’s more inconvenient science from Dr. Larry Cahill, professor of neurobiology and behavior at UC Irvine. Neuroscience literature shows that the human brain is a sex-typed organ, says Dr. Cahill, with distinct anatomical differences in neural structures and accompanying physiological differences in function. Now that’s some “born this way” you can take to the bank, Lady Gaga.

This Connecticut fiasco is an affront to reason. For, on one hand, progressives say if we believe marriage is between a man and a woman we’re bigots. But then if men steal gold medals from women, they’re a new-age Rosa Parks or something. You have to be devoid of any and all discernment to assert such moral anarchy simultaneously.

Our girls are being told that they don’t matter as much as the boy who dresses up like a girl and beats them. It’s his word against hers. Just keep your mouth shut, and nobody gets hurt … supposedly.

Old and busted are the movies made about the real-life heroines who refused to accept such terms; the new hotness is enjoying the heavy bedazzled hand of your male transgendered oppressors, and their lackluster “feminist” enablers.

Gone are the days when Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, or Sissy Spacek would play the “she stood alone” role; enter the era of Bruce Jenner trading in his decathlon gold for “Tales of Social Justice Dumbassery.” Such as what it’s like to trade in the cover of a Wheaties box for an endorsement deal with CoverGirl.

One size – so to speak – fits all, ladies. Hope you enjoy your participation ribbons, because the medal stand is now reserved for those “women” whose necks must be shaved on the regular. (For more from the author of “Lefties: Get Used to Your Daughters Losing to Mustached ‘Girls'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LGBT Community Celebrates 8-Year-Old Drag Queen

The bawdy, homosexuality-infused world of female impersonators is celebrating an eight-year-old Montreal boy who performs as a “drag queen” under the stage name “Lactatia.” But pro-family critics say his parents and all adults who encourage the boy to participate in the lewd shows are guilty of “child abuse.”

Thanks to “gay” media, the cross-dressing boy, Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden, is becoming a social media star after appearing on stage in late May with vulgar drag queen “Bianca Del Rio” at the Montreal stop of the “Werq the World Tour.” Del Rio tells Nemis — wearing red eye-liner, lipstick, painted nails, a curly, blond wig and dressed in a black woman’s gown with sequins — that he is “[f—k—g] adorable.”

Like every other pro-family advocate shown the video of young Nemis in “drag,” Illinois Family Institute cultural writer Laurie Higgins was aghast at the specter of a young boy embracing the “drag queen” lifestyle, telling LifeSiteNews, “This is unambiguous and shameful child abuse. Through the ‘trans’ cult movement, evil is being promoted as good, and innocent women and children are the victims.”

Drag shows feature campy men dressing up as crude caricatures of women — with grotesque bouffant hairdos and gaudy dresses — engaging in catty, often sodomitic jokes slamming other “queens” and lip-syncing over-the-top impersonations of pop-culture divas like Cher and Britney Spears.

Historically an important part of “gay” culture, drag shows are now a fixture of urban entertainment, attracting both homosexuals and straights. (Read more from “LGBT Community Celebrates 8-Year-Old Drag Queen” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The True Bradley ‘Chelsea’ Manning Story Is Stranger Than Fiction

Imagine this scenario for a moment. You are a budding novelist, and you present a new proposal to your agent. The agent looks it over and sends it back, assuring you no publisher would ever go for it. “It’s just too far-fetched,” you are told. “Best to go back to the drawing board.”

What was the scenario you concocted? It went like this.

The Plot

There was a gay private in the army who gained access to a cachet of nearly one million secret military documents. When his gay lover broke up with him, he was depressed. So he decided to download and release these documents, likely costing the lives of our men and women on the field.

He was tried and convicted of crimes against the state and sentenced to 35 years in prison. However, while in prison, he insisted he was actually a woman, not a man. Eventually, the government paid for his sex-change surgery, after which the president decided to commute his sentence. After which he was hailed as a national hero and did his first TV interview, now as a woman.

Well, I could see why a publisher would reject such a story. Who would ever believe a narrative like this? It strains credulity — especially the part about this guy becoming a national hero. But, as the saying proves true once again, truth is stranger than fiction.

The Truth of Bradley Manning

As you realized from the opening lines of this article, this is the true story of Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, not the plot of some far-fetched fiction novel.

Welcome to America, 2017, the country that generates headlines like this: “Transgender man and father-of-two adopted children happily announces he is pregnant with his gay husband, a year after suffering a miscarriage.”

Try to wrap your brain around that one for a while. A transgender man is pregnant. He has a gay husband. He previously suffered a miscarriage.

In other words, this is a woman who identifies as a man, who is “married” to a man who is attracted to men (even if they have female private parts and woman), and “he” is now pregnant after having a miscarriage.

It reminds me of another story I read some years ago in the Village Voice, originally published in 2000 (yes, 17 years ago). It was titled, “Two Dads with a Difference: Neither of Us Was Born Male.” As the article, written by one of the “Dads” explained, “We are transgendered men (female-to-male, or FTM). My boyfriend is the mother of my child.”

So, in this case, two women, apparently attracted to men, chose to identify as gay men. But at least one of them still had her female organs and so could conceive and give birth to a child. (I wonder what happened to that precious child?)

Against backdrops like this, I guess the Bradley-Chelsea Manning story isn’t that unbelievable at all, if not for the political intrigue.

According to reports in 2010, “The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t ‘have anything left’ and was ‘beyond frustrated.’

“In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: ‘Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,’ and quoted a joke about ‘military intelligence’ being an oxymoron.”

Manning claims that he released the documents to Wikileaks because “I have a responsibility to the public.” Our military, he argues, was covering up atrocities we committed against our enemies. So with little or no thought to the consequences of his actions, he decided to play the hero.

Not Everyone in the LGBT Community is Applauding

Interestingly, although Manning has become an LGBT icon, not everyone in the LGBT community has celebrated his actions.

Writing for Out.com in 2012, James Kirchick declared, “Bradley Manning is No Gay Hero.” He felt Manning disgraced the names of gays who had served with distinction in the military, writing, “Rather than claim Bradley Manning as a hero of the gay community and campaign for his release, we should be the ones advocating most loudly that he face the strictest possible punishment for his treachery.”

But now that Bradley is Chelsea, how could he not be an LGBT hero? Being “courageous” enough to transition from male to female (or vice versa) as a public figure is the instant path to fame. Then, getting pardoned by the president — what more could you ask for?

I seriously doubt that Bradley Manning would have been pardoned by the president if he had been a conservative, heterosexual Christian. And I seriously doubt that he would have been hailed as a hero by other conservatives, even if felt it his duty to expose alleged military abuses.

But because he was: 1) gay; 2) upset with the military; and 3) transgender, his cause proved irresistible.

A Surprise Twist?

So, maybe you can write that novel after all.

Or better still, how about adding a surprise ending to the plot, a real twist? Chelsea Manning has a radical encounter with God, resulting in a dramatic conversion, after which he goes back to being Bradley, marries a fine Christian woman, and spends the rest of the years undoing the damage he did.

I would buy that book. (For more from the author of “The True Bradley ‘Chelsea’ Manning Story Is Stranger Than Fiction” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Admin. Election SCANDAL

WITHOUT EVIDENCE …

Toobin’s take … Shortly after the public testimony of James Comey ended, CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin casually dropped a bomb, without evidence. Toobin said that President Donald Trump was under criminal investigation. He is pretty much the only one saying that, and he didn’t say why he thinks that. Nothing in the Comey testimony confirmed it. Take a deeper look

Dershowitz slams pundits like Toobin … For a few weeks, liberal law professor and ardent constitutionalist Alan Dershowitz has been trying to explain that the president has the legal authority to stop any investigation. Comey reluctantly admitted as much during his testimony yesterday. Now Dershowitz is taking a victory lap of sorts and admonishing those who are pushing a false narrative.

Media won’t cover Lynch bombshell … CNN’s John King admitted that the bombshell testimony of James Comey — that Loretta Lynch allegedly intervened in the server investigation on behalf of Hillary Clinton — won’t get much coverage. King said that “this won’t get much attention because it’s in the rearview mirror …” Our friends at NewsBusters have the full story.

LIVE BY THE TWITTER, DIE BY THE TWITTER …

He thought it was manga … Vanity Fair’s Kurt Eichenwald got caught with his cyber pants down. When he tweeted a photo including a browser tab with “hentai” on it, instead of coming clean, he chose to blame his kids. His story was that he was merely trying to show his wife that people look at deviant things with tentacles, and he did it for his kids because their mom wouldn’t believe them. Sometimes it is best to stop digging, Kurt.

It couldn’t be the Obama administration … NYT editor Jonathan Weisman tweeted out that “Comey says Attorney General Sessions told him not to call Russia probe an investigation but a ‘matter.’ Led him to step away from DOJ.” Which is completely opposite to what Comey actually said. It was Loretta Lynch who told Comey to call the Clinton server investigation a “matter.” Another instance of the media acting “without evidence.”

Marc Ambinder not much better … Former White House correspondent and current Annenberg Media fellow Marc Ambinder tweeted about the Lynch admission. But he left out a lot of detail. Here’s the tweet where he said, “The AG asked him to call it a ‘matter,’ not an investigation.” Um … Marc, which AG, and which matter?

All the news fit to tweet … I know you were breathlessly wanting to know if Trump broke his own record for not tweeting. Well, probably not. But the Washington Post’s Philip Bump thought you wanted to know, so he tweeted it. I’ll let you go straight to the record by clicking to see Bump’s tweet. File under “yawn.”

(For more from the author of “Obama Admin. Election SCANDAL” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News

“Fake news” has become a widespread accusation, but what does it actually mean?

Is it something that’s been invented out of whole cloth, like H.G. Wells’ planetary invaders?

Different definitions abound, but I submit that fake news, at its core, is reporting in which the journalist selectively chooses and ignores facts, and interprets or paraphrases those facts to reach an unwarranted conclusion that conveniently validates his own views.

It goes to the heart of how many reporters see their job these days.

Readers may have seen the recent “news” about a physical fracas on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives, which reported that Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi confronted a Democrat and engaged in aggressive verbal back-and-forth.

The report said the altercation came to a climax when Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head” to the “the Democrat he alleged was menacing,” in the words of the Dallas Morning News account.

For context, this was the last day of the legislative session, and a large and boisterous group of self-described illegal immigrants were holding signs that read, “Illegal and Here to Stay.”

It was in response to this protest that Rinaldi, according to the original report, said to the protesters he was calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement—prompting a physical tussle between Rinaldi and Rep. Poncho Nevarez and then the “bullet in your head” threat.

Media outlets around the country carried this report.

But what actually happened here, and which part was “fake”?

We now know that the demonstration, which was indeed loud and noisy, took place inside the Capitol building and spilled onto the floor of the Legislature, which is highly unusual and not allowed.

The “demonstrators”—or more accurately, the provocateurs—quickly outnumbered and overpowered the legislative security forces. That’s what caused Rinaldi to say, “I’m calling ICE.” (For the record, they never showed up.)

Next, the alleged altercation.

Cellphone video, which appears to have been taken by multiple people and released in the aftermath of the fracas, shows the demonstrators pushing and shoving Rinaldi, who kept his arms to his chest or at his side.

The audio only reveals grunting and the typical sounds of a physical engagement, punctuated by semi-coherent cries of “stop that.”

In the immediate aftermath, Nevarez came up to Rinaldi, got in his face, and said, “When you leave, I’ll get you.” Within minutes, he again came up and said, “You have to leave sometime, and I know where your car is parked and I’ll get you.”

At that point, Rinaldi said something like, “I’m armed and I’ll defend myself.”

Rep. Jonathan Strickland, R-Bedford, was one of two representatives who personally witnessed this and confirmed it by email. Neither is a personal acquaintance, but it wouldn’t have been very difficult to confirm Rinaldi’s version of the story.

But what did the Dallas Morning News report?

Initially, it noted that Rinaldi did tell it that Nevarez did say he would “come get” him, with just “come get” in quotation marks.

It left out the much more provocative and threatening phrases, “You’ll have to leave sometime,” and “I know where your car is,” plus the fact that Nevarez approached him twice.

Moreover, this sentence was buried in the body of the text.

The allegation that Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” came from another Democratic representative, Justin Rodriguez, who admittedly “didn’t witness the initial altercation” and only later said he heard Rinaldi make the comment.

This allegation was also disputed by a number of representatives who were present.

Despite these discrepancies, the Dallas Morning News ran a bold headline quoting the inflammatory words: “’I’ll put a bullet in your head’: Fistfight nearly erupts on final day of contentious legislative session.”

It should be noted that “nearly” is not the same as “did,” and the word “fistfight” overshadows the qualifier “nearly” enough to obliterate it.

Later, Rinaldi issued a statement noting that Nevarez had approached and threatened him, and that he had responded to Nevarez saying he would “shoot him in self-defense.” That’s not exactly what Rinaldi remembers saying, but he let his public statement stand.

Several of Rinaldi’s staff members contacted the Dallas Morning News after the initial story was posted and asked it to change the headline, which they felt was incorrect and misleading.

According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the reporter replied, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it,” adding that because Rodriguez claimed Rinaldi had said it, this was sufficient to justify the headline. The headline remains online today.

Media Aftermath

In the hours and days that followed, dozens of media outlets picked up the “bullet in your head” quote. When the cellphone video came out, several publications did amend their stories to remove allegations that Rinaldi had assaulted Rodriguez or other representatives.

The conservative media, most notably Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, allotted six minutes to report the entire story, complete with video and images of the red-shirted demonstrators swarming the legislators on the floor. Cavuto carefully reviewed the timeline of who said what, and when.

Yet even this past weekend, the Dallas Morning News was still parsing the event and reporting that “Rinaldi acknowledged on his Facebook page that he told Democratic State Rep. Poncho Nevarez of Eagle Pass that he ‘would shoot him in self-defense.’”

There was no mention of Nevarez’s repeated threats (“You have to leave sometime.”).

In addition, the Dallas Morning News was still collecting expert quotes responding to its own description of what happened, rather than what really happened.

One quote was from Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson, who said, “In Asia, in places like South Korea and Taiwan, you do have lawmakers with their hands around each other’s throats and fisticuffs. But you don’t usually see that in American politics.”

But as noted above, there was no actual fighting.

Calling Out What’s Fake

This story is tainted by a number of errors.

First and foremost, the quotation, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” which came from a clearly partisan source, should have been verified and immediately corrected upon learning that it didn’t come from the mouth of Rinaldi.

Next, the original story downplayed or omitted a key part of the story—the initial threats from Nevarez. The comments from Rinaldi were provoked and came in response to aggression from Nevarez. While the Dallas Morning News did include a tweet from Rinaldi mentioning Nevarez’s behavior, there was no mention in the body of the piece about it.

Additionally, the report painted a far more benign picture of the scene on the floor of the Legislature that was accurate. The participants were clearly organized and aiming to provoke a physical response.

Finally, and most “fake” of all, the reporter defended the “bullet in your head” quote of Rinaldi by saying, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it.”

If that’s the standard for journalism today—saying something happened because there’s no proof it didn’t happen—we’ve truly entered the land of the news novella.

What’s the lesson here for ordinary citizens?

Years ago, Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progressive magazine, penned an article titled, “Knoll’s Law of Accuracy in Media.” In that piece, Knoll said: “Everything you read in the press is absolutely true. Except the rare event of which you have personal knowledge.”

That statement proved especially salient in this case, where diving deeper into the evidence makes all the difference.

The lesson for American news consumers is to be skeptical of what you read in all media and take the time to give the facts a second look.

And there’s an additional lesson: Urge journalists to employ a little more self-examination to make sure they don’t cherry-pick the “facts,” quotes, and experts that simply ratify their predetermined conclusions.

And when they do, we should call them on it. (For more from the author of “This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months

Today, we have unveiled a real scandal in the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with James Comey.

While much of the conservative media is consumed with Comey and Russia, they are missing the irony of defending an administration without even securing some key policy outcomes. The latest betrayal to the Right is the confirmation that Trump’s DHS has issued almost 125,000 “DACA” cards (per Obama’s unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order) to illegal aliens through the second quarter of this fiscal year (January through March).

According to newly published data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration has issued 17,275 initial amnesty cards and over 107,500 renewals of existing status.

This surpasses the 122,000 level of amnesty cards issued during the final quarter of Obama’s presidency (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2016), which means the Trump administration is not even slowing down the pace! And although the first 20 days of this quarter were still under Obama’s tenure, the Trump amnesty is likely close to 200,000 by now, when extrapolating in the number of presumed cards issued during April and May.

Thus, while Trump’s own lawful immigration order lies in ruins from tyrannical courts – with no effort to fight back through Congress – Obama’s patently unconstitutional DACA order remains in full force even after his presidency.

The jarring thing here is that Trump could fulfill a core campaign promise simply by refusing to renew existing DACA cards. We are not talking about a balanced budget or entitlement reform — just a simple display of inaction. Even Marco Rubio said the president should only decline to retroactively strip DACA, but should follow through with the promise not to renew the amnesty.

Granting work permits and Social Security cards to people who are here illegally is something even King George couldn’t do without British Parliament. A mere inaction could rectify this problem, yet Trump’s own DHS, led by Sec. John Kelly, is taking active steps to violate the Constitution. At this point, it has become Trump’s amnesty.

Keep in mind that the betrayal on Obama’s amnesty is in addition to the border wall being downright defunded and refugee resettlement being funded. Conservatives would be wise to raise Cain over this issue and stop making excuses.

At a committee hearing Wednesday, Sec. Kelly wouldn’t stop talking about “Dreamers” as if they are covered by a legitimate statute. He promised Democrats on Wednesday that he would not deport any “Dreamer” without a criminal record. This is lawless and, as I’ve noted before, very problematic for a number of reasons.

1. Welfare for illegals

Trump officials, and perhaps the president himself, don’t seem to understand what DACA is (much like some don’t understand what Obamacare actually is). That is why they are confused about repealing it.

Obama’s executive amnesty was not merely the suspension of deportations of certain classes of illegal aliens; it offered them benefits and affirmative legal status, with Social Security cards, work permits, and thousands of dollars in refundable tax credit welfare payments. In fact, well over 500,000 illegals had received Social Security cards by 2014 (more likely to be 800,000 by now).

According to a Congressional Research Service memo, illegal families could receive as much as $35,000 in retroactive EITC benefits the first year after being approved for Obama’s executive amnesty. This was all done without an act of Congress. Thus, to say we are not going to focus on deporting DACA recipients is a non-sequitur to the main problem of granting them affirmative benefits.

Even if we don’t deport large numbers of them, we should certainly not give them American benefits. Moreover, these funds could be used to build the wall.

2. Discretion vs. amnesty

There is one thing to use discretion to prioritize some enforcement actions over others; that is what every federal and state law enforcement agency does on a daily basis. It is quite another dynamic to actually publicly make a policy of de facto amnesty and legitimize and codify the supposed right of illegal immigrants to remain in the country contrary to our sovereignty laws.

Saying we are only focusing on criminal aliens is essentially Obama’s stated (albeit false) messaging.

3. “Dream” amnesty serves as a magnet

Agreeing to the false notion that children of illegal aliens have a right to demand legal status and that poor decisions of their parents and host countries are the fault of American taxpayers and workers runs contrary to everything Trump said during the campaign.

Furthermore, it encourages future waves of immigration at a time when Central Americans understand that once they come here with children, they are essentially here to stay. Trump promised to get rid of unqualified birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal immigrant parents. How could he then grant amnesty to those born in foreign countries?

And while Trump’s campaign rhetoric is still scaring off illegal aliens, thus resulting in an encouraging slowdown of border crossings, how long will that last once word gets out that he’s a paper tiger?

4. A king or a president?

Irrespective of one’s policy views on immigration, maintaining Obama’s illegal amnesty shreds our sovereignty and Constitution, and sets a terrible precedent. The executive amnesty was perhaps Obama’s most egregious act of imperialism, because it undermined the very foundation of our sovereignty.

In fact, giving rights to aliens is the quintessential example Alexander Hamilton used to contrast a president from a king. “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 69.

There is no greater act of imperialism than for a president to unilaterally nullify our sovereignty and violate immigration statutes.

5. Trump hurting Arizona and states that want the rule of law

As we noted in February, the same courts that are engaging in civil disobedience and nullifying Trump’s common sense lawful immigration guidance are also demanding that Arizona offer driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s amnesty. They are treating Obama’s amnesty as a legitimate statute through which to force states to grant benefits to illegals.

During Trump’s hallmark Phoenix speech on immigration, he said the Grand Canyon State had a “very special place” in his heart. With the courts destroying state and national sovereignty, doesn’t he want to do his part to help Arizona — and certainly not burden them legally and politically with amnesty?

“Obama immigration order alive, Trump order dead” is not exactly the slogan we want Democrats chanting in 2018, but that is the end game unless the president acts immediately.

To quote candidate Trump, “we either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

The coming days will be very telling for many fervent Trump supporters whether this was about a cause or about flesh and blood. (For more from the author of “The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.