Comey, McCabe, Lambasted by Former FBI Agent

from the Washington Examiner:

Mueller report is another embarrassment for James Comey and Andrew McCabe

I’m angry. I’m furious over how much damage has been wreaked upon my beloved FBI by supposedly impartial, unbiased, and honorable public servants.

Thursday’s release of the 448-page, partially redacted Mueller report was supposed to conclude our long national nightmare. But here we are, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., subpoenaing the unredacted report and calling for Robert Mueller to testify on May 23.

Many media headlines ignored the report’s central findings and instead focused on the sordid details of a corrupt White House seemingly in chaos, a press secretary forced to admit to investigators her fabrication of particular events, and a president who escaped prosecution only due to long-standing Justice Department protocols and his own ineptitude to obstruct justice. read more

No, the Mueller Report was not Written for the American People

from Conservative Review:

People are freaking out because Barr said the Mueller report was done for him. He’s right

William Barr testifies

Andrew Harrer | Getty Images

During his Thursday morning press conference once again summarizing the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, when asked by a reporter why Mueller himself was not present, Attorney General William Barr explained that he wasn’t there because the report was written for the AG.

“It’s not [his report], it’s a report he did for me as the attorney general; he is required by the regulation to provide me with a confidential report,” Barr said. “I’m here to discuss my response to the report and my decision, entirely discretionary, to make it public.” read more

An Out-of-Control Lower Court Judge

from Conservative Review:

Sitting federal judge to Trump: I can compare you to the KKK but you can’t criticize me

Carlton Reeves

You cannot criticize me ever, but I can criticize you. Even though you’re up for reelection, you have no power, but I am the final say on all matters, even though I am unelected. I can disobey higher courts but you can’t push back even against a lower court. If you don’t like it, then you are a member of the KKK.

Who am I?

Well, a federal judge, of course.

Last week, a radical federal judge went on a tirade against President Trump, ironically, criticizing him for criticizing outlandish rulings by federal judges. Carlton Reeves, an Obama-appointed judge in Mississippi, delivered an unprecedented personal attack on the president. Typically they wait until retirement for such tirades, but Reeves, who has been prone to such tirades in his written opinions, let loose on what he called “the great assault on our judiciary.” read more

Might Justice One Day be Served

It is said that the wheels of justice sometimes turn very slowly, but they do turn. Well, it certainly hasn’t seemed so. Not so far anyway. But with a new Attorney General, William Barr, and more evidence being uncovered, like the Lisa Page testimony, may we finally see those wheels begin to turn again? Only time will tell if those in the Trump administration can muster the courage to reopen these seemingly cold cases of democrat wrong-doers. And might we finally discover just how far up the latter this goes?

from the Blaze:

Lisa Page testified that the FBI was close to charging Hillary Clinton in 2016 — here’s who shut it down

Newly released transcripts from a controversial former FBI lawyer’s testimony before Congress show that the FBI was considering charging Hillary Clinton in 2016 when the Department of Justice shut down the possibility.

Lisa Page was identified as the other side of a text message conversation with FBI agent Peter Strzok that derided then-candidate Donald Trump ahead of the election. read more

Expanding Government by Reauthorization

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Have you ever wondered why bills written by Congress and the Senate are often so long? Many are hundreds or thousands of pages. Most are not even read before being voted on. And even you could struggle through the length, you will need a legal interpreter to be able to understand what you just read. These bills are so cumbersome, so complicated, that they’re impossible to understand, much less vote on.

But vote on these bills they do. And it’s doubtful that the vast majority of politicians have any idea of what they are voting on and passing.

Worse, I no longer think that it even matters. The majority of democrats and Republicans don’t care what is in any given piece of legislation, as long as even a portion of it, somehow advances their agenda. And it’s usually a tiny few paragraphs or so that are hidden among the mountain of pages.

The only exceptions to this statement are the few constitutional conservatives who continually hold on to the Originalist view of the rule of law. But that number is too few to have an affect on most outcomes. read more

WND Exclusive – MR. PRESIDENT, DISREGARD JUDGE’S OIL-DRILLING RULING

from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

The radical environmental lobby recently got a shot in the arm by means of a judge’s ruling.

Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, an Obama appointee, slapped down President Trump’s move to open up the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic, north of the Bering Strait, as well as other places, in the Atlantic, for oil and gas drilling.

CNBC wrote, “The judge ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he reversed Obama-era restrictions on offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.”

Well, not to mince words or anything, but it sounds like CNBC wrote this to imply to its readers that these Obama-era restrictions were actual laws passed by Congress. read more

Trump Needs to Explain what Shutting Down the Border Really Means

from Conservative Review:

We can keep the ports open to commerce, secure our borders, and eat our avocados tooImage result for suspend all immigration

There is a difference between shutting down the border for commerce and suspending all immigration at our border.

The good news is that the media are finally admitting that the president has the authority to close the border. The bad news is that they are obfuscating the distinction between shutting off the entire border for commerce and suspending immigration requests at the border. The Trump administration would be wise to push back against it immediately and clarify this distinction.

The media is in full meltdown mode over Trump’s threat to “shut down” the border, as they predict doom and gloom for our economy, loss of jobs, and loss of revenue. We might even face an avocado shortage, according to the New York Times! Imagine that.

Never mind that the cost of one year’s border flow could add up to at least $150 billion for taxpayers. read more

MoveOn Protests to Demand Release of Unredacted Grand Jury Data

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

If you wish to know what the radical left is really up to, there’s no need to wonder. All one has to do is sign up for the MoveOn.org news-feed to be sent to the email address of your choosing.

For example, yesterday came an email alert of utmost importance. Of course every “alert” MoveOn sends is of the utmost importance.

In part it read:

“Dear MoveOn member,

Last night, Donald Trump’s hand-picked attorney general, William Barr, missed the deadline set by Congress to release the full Mueller report.

That’s why tomorrow, Thursday, April 4—at nearly 300 events around the country—the Nobody Is Above the Law coalition is joining together to demand that Barr immediately release the full report and supporting evidence.”

read more

The Democrats are Doggedly Determined to Rid Us of the Electoral College

This past Sunday, my podcast explained the ins and outs of the Electoral College. Why it was developed and why it is as vitally important to our republic (no, we’re not a democracy) today as it was at our founding. Even more so. You may listen to it here.

And right on cue, the dems are starting the ball rolling. 

from the Blaze:

Senate Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College

A group of Senate Democrats say the Electoral College is an unfair system that needs to go and have introduced a constitutional amendment in order to have it abolished.

What are the details?

On Tuesday, the measure — sponsored by Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), and Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — was officially introduced in the upper chamber, as companion legislation to a proposal already offered in the House.

According to CBS News, the campaign to get rid of the Electoral College gained steam among Democrats after the party’s 2000 and 2016 presidential nominees, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, both lost White House bids despite garnering more of the popular vote than their Republican opponents.

Durbin issued a statement, saying, “Before the 2000 election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and create a system of direct election for presidents. And I still believe today as I did then that the Electoral College is a relic from a shameful period in our nation’s history, and allows some votes to carry greater weight than others,” Fox News reported.

Read more

Damn the Torpedoes – Cut Foreign Aid

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down Audio Version

During a time of increased illegal immigration at the Southern border in the summer of 2014, democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein encouraged President Barack Obama to use his “very broad power” to limit immigration as he saw fit.

In a letter sent to Obama, Feinstein noted that she spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about how to address the immigration “crisis.”

“There is also an argument that there is sufficient flexibility in current law for the government to respond to the current crisis and that further legislation is not needed,” Feinstein said.

She was referring to Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to limit immigration that is “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Feinstein continued to argue that “no legislation is necessary to give your administration the tools it needs to respond to this crisis, and that any needed temporary measures can be implemented through presidential action.”

My how the democrats are singing a different tune less than five years later. Crisis then – no crisis now. I’m sure it can’t have anything to do with the fact that Donald Trump is now president. Or maybe it’s that Obama was just so darn successful at curtailing illegal crossings that the crisis simply is no more. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. read more