Be Aware the Left Lies to Justify Means to a Deluded End


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

June 8, 2019

 

I am quite annoyed with the Dems and Left Stream Media doing their utmost to convict and/or impeach President Trump for crimes he did not commit. In that spirit here are some articles that provide a vastly different picture than the lies disseminated by the Left.

 

JRH 6/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness Noted Over 100 Times in Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta Lynch Linked Deep State Spy

 

By Joe Hoft

June 7, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

 

Bill Clinton & Felix Sater

 

Felix Sater is a deep state Democrat with ties to the Clintons and the Mueller gang.  He’s mentioned over 100 times in the Mueller report but not one mention refers to these connections with Deep State Democrats.

 

In March, the far left and dishonest Democrat leader Adam Schiff announced that he had invited Felix Sater to provide a testimony before Congress.  Sater eventually did not testify as Schiff and his party realized that Sater’s testimony would be detrimental to their Russia-Collusion sham.

 

 

A few weeks before Schiff’s announcement on Sater, far Left Buzzfeed released another bogus report stating President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen was following President Trump’s orders to lie about an unsupported story on Russia.

 

Mueller’s team in an attempt to prevent a leak investigation into its operations came out 24 hours later and said the story was false.

 

Now we know that the entire junk report was provided to Buzzfeed by Clinton and Mueller lackey, Felix Sater.

 

 

Paul Sperry reported that the individual behind the Buzzfeed fake news story lying about President Trump was none other than Sater, a deep state dirt-bag close to the Clintons and Mueller and his gang of crooks:

 

 

Sperry was right. Sater was seen in pictures with Bill Clinton – (see above). Sater has also been pictured with far left media reporters pushing the Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale:

 

Felix Sater with News

 

Most shocking is Sater’s connections to the Clintons and the Mueller gang of corrupt and criminal attorneys and investigators.

 

It was reported that Sater’s connections began in 1998 [emphasis added]:

 

Sater pleaded guilty to racketeering in December 1998. But instead of being sentenced, Sater, like 16 other defendants in the case, signed a cooperation agreement with the US government, and his entire case file was sealed.

 

Signing Sater’s cooperation agreement for the Department of Justice was Andrew Weissmann, then an assistant US attorney and now a key member of the special counsel’s team. Mueller himself would be the FBI director for most of the time Sater served as a source.

 

The US attorney who oversaw Sater’s pump-and-dump case was Loretta Lynch, later the attorney general under President Barack Obama. While the Senate was considering her confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked Lynch about how her office handled Sater’s fraud case. In a written response, she said:

 

“The defendant in question, Felix Sater, provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.”

 

To the government, he was no longer Felix Sater; in public he was referred to as John Doe, while in hundreds of pages of FBI interview reports, his code name was “The Quarterback.”

 

None of this stopped the Mueller gang from using Sater as a material witness in their Russia collusion sham.

 

In the Mueller report Sater is mentioned in the text and footnotes more than 100 times!  The Mueller team introduces Sater in the report as a New York based real estate adviser:

 

In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump.

 

Not once in the Mueller report does the Mueller gang refer to Sater’s connections with the Clintons, Loretta Lynch or with Andrew Weissmann, the suspected drafter of the Mueller report. 

 

Today John Sullivan from the Hill released information that another key witness referred to as a Russian is not even Russian:

 

In Mueller’s report, Ukrainian businessman, Konstantin Kilimnik — the so-called Russian who Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with (gasp) isn’t a Russian, he’s actually as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters, reported Solomon.

 

It looks like Kilimnik is not the only source the Mueller team used to frame President Trump!

 

The entire Clinton-Mueller cabal is coming undone. The Mueller Report is a joke as more and more lies are unveiled in the Democrats’ attempted coup to remove President Trump from office.

 

Hat Tip D. Manny

++++++++++++++++

Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report

 

By Matt Vespa

Jun 07, 2019 6:10 PM

Townhall.com

 

Bob Mueller Source: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

 

The House Democrats’ ongoing debate about whether to push for a full-blown impeachment proceeding may be dominating the news, along with President Trump’s visit to the UK, but the Mueller report isn’t going away, especially after more tidbits about the investigation itself are coming to light. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is gone. His investigation is over. And yet, we have stories about key witness’s child porn charges being ignored. The Federalist’s Sean Davis did not mince words. He feels that the Mueller report that debunked Russian collusion showed that the special counsel and his team of die-hard Democrats tried to prove that there was such a conspiracy. For two years, they dug and found nothing. Now, after being unable to give Democrats the impeachment ammunition the needed, Mueller, in his exiting presser, all but gave the green light to start such proceedings. It’s that presser that many saw this whole investigation as nothing more than a political hit job and a perversion of a basic tenet of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Granted, a lot of us already knew there was no collusion.

 

I mean after the 456th bombshell on this story that had zero evidence to back it up—because there was none—the writing was on the wall months ago. The liberal media continued to peddle it, however, because Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and the Left is desperate to get rid of the president. As for the FBI, well, did they even verify the Trump dossier that was compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele and used reportedly as credible evidence to secure a FISA spy warrant against Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign? Based on these glaring errors in the report, don’t bet the mortgage on it. Also, the State Department knew this document, funded by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign, was biased political opposition research. John Solomon of The Hill has been doing excellent work tracking the sordid details of this investigation. So, while the focus is on the DOJ/FBI for their alleged misdeed with this investigation, the State Department could be yanked into this storm:

 

Donald Trump’s campaign, it sat buried for more than 2 1/2 years in the files of a high-ranking State Department official.

 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

 

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.

 

And now we have this omission about a Russian who was actually a State Department intelligence source, though he’s portrayed as some nefarious Kremlin operative working with Paul Manafort. Solomon detailed this “deception by omission” in a lengthy piece (via The Hill) [emphasis mine]:

 

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

 

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

 

Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

 

[…]

 

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

 

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

 

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

 

Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.

 

[…]

 

Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.

 

Kasanof’s and Purcell’s interviews are corroborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside the Yanukovych administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russian politics. For example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.

 

Those emails raise further doubt about the Mueller report’s portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent. They show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with State officials, a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligence threat.

 

The emails also show how misleading, by omission, the Mueller report’s public portrayal of Kilimnik turns out to be.

 

For instance, the report makes a big deal about Kilimnik’s meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York.

 

By that time, Manafort had served as Trump’s campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych’s party.

 

Specifically, the Mueller report flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

 

“Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine,” the Mueller report stated.

 

But State emails showed Kilimnik first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama administration during a visit to Washington. Kasanof, his former handler at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, had been promoted to a top policy position at State, and the two met for dinner on May 5, 2016.

 

[…]

 

So Kilimnik’s delivery of the peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration wasn’t mentioned. That’s what many in the intelligence world might call “deception by omission.”

 

Yeah, sounds like “deception by omission” indeed. I’ll let you debate among yourselves, but this sounds like another example that the Mueller team tried to twist the fact in order to prove that Trump-Russia myth was real. At the same time, while the staff was loaded with liberal Democrats, I see that as a positive. There was nothing to this investigation and that fact that only partisan lefties were digging and still found nothing only adds more credibility to the conclusion: no collusion. There’s no way to pivot away from this. No wonder why Attorney General Barr is investigating the investigators who conducted this circus.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably

 

JW Press Room

JUNE 07, 2019

Judicial Watch

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the FBI released 277 pages of redacted records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the FBI failed to produce information from an August 2015 meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and the CD containing notes from meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.

 

The records, which were posted on the FBI’s website, are the 32nd release of documents in response to  a Judicial Watch 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046). Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:

 

  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.

 

  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

 

  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

 

Included in the documents are February 2019 FBI electronic communications documenting the damaged CD and the missing notes from the August 3, 2015, meeting between FBI special agents and the ICIG about Clinton’s server:

 

For reference, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] have been gathering and copying materials from the captioned case located in the Washington Field Office (WFO) CI-13 Workbox in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tasking from Information Management Division (IMD; formerly known as Records Management Division).

 

On or about February 6, 2019, SAs [redacted] opened [redacted]-CYBER-1A27, which contained a CD with a crack on it (a damaged CD). SA [redacted] attempted to copy the damaged CD at the WFO Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) self-service area, but was not able to do so. SA [redacted] spoke with FBI information technology specialists on the ground floor of WFO regarding the damaged CD, who indicated it was unlikely the CD could be copied.

 

The electronic communication regarding the missing “Notes from Meeting” says:

 

On or about February 4, 2016, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] attempted to locate [redacted] 1A4, described as “Notes from Meeting” acquired by [redacted] (see referenced serial). The SAs looked through all case materials in the CI-13 file and workbox area, however they were not able to locate this item.

 

SA [redacted] inquired with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) [redacted] regarding the item, as he was previously the IA assigned to the case. SIA [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding the item, who indicated he remembered handing over his case notes to SA [redacted] (see attached email).

 

On February 6, 2019, SA [redacted] contacted SA [redacted] regarding the notes.  SA [redacted] explained he documented all relevant case materials before leaving the case and did not retain any notes or other case materials.

 

As such, WFO CI-13 considers the item missing and will enclose this document into 1A4 as a placeholder until the missing item is located.

 

The email referred to in the electronic communication on the missing “Notes from Meeting” reads as follows:

 

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM

 

I actually remember turning over my original notes for the file for this (it was right at the beginning of the case). I gave them to [redacted] who was running the file then. The only question will be whether or not I kept a copy for myself. I’ll look and see what I have.

 

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a hearing with Strzok that in 2015 ICIG investigator Fred Rucker advised Strzok of an “anomaly” on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through the private server. The forensic analysis found that all of those emails except four – over 30,000 – “were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.” It was later reported that it was a “Chinese state-owned company” that hacked Clinton’s server. The ICIG referred the Clinton email investigation to the FBI on July 6, 2015, just under a month before the meeting for which the notes were “lost.”

 

The document production contains emails between Justin Cooper (the former close aide to Bill Clinton, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s email system) and Huma Abedin regarding an attempted breach of the Clinton email server. On January 9, 2011, Cooper emailed Abedin: “I had to shut down the server Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to. I will restart it in the morning.” Despite Abedin’s having explicitly warned Sullivan and Mills that Clinton’s unsecure non-government server had been attacked, the documents contain handwritten FBI notes of Abedin’s 2016 FBI interview in which she told agents she didn’t recall any hacking attempts.

 

“The Obama FBI was frantic to target then-candidate Trump while magically losing or destroying important evidence in the sham investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This new information underscores the need for a fresh, unbiased investigation into the Clinton email scandal.”

 

In a related case, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents from the DOJ showing that on August 5, 2016 – a month after Comey’s exoneration of Clinton – FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa were notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law branch that several FBI 302 interview reports were in need of processing:

 

Today [Redacted] brought over additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.

 

Page responded by writing to Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 reports of interviews related to the Clinton “Midyear Exam” investigation had never even been written:

 

[Redacted] to the best of my knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.

 

Additionally, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for details of a meeting with the FBI regarding national security threats associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “private” email system.

 

+++++++++++++++++

“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”

 

By Mark Langfan, INN

June 7, 2019

Israpundit

 

President Donald Trump can and will successfully apply to the Supreme Court the moment the US House of Representatives passes any Impeachment resolution, if that occurs. Legal luminaries such as Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote an article positively treating President Trump’s Supreme Court Impeachment claims. Other constitutional scholars and articles have hysterically panned President Trump’s likely Supreme Court Gambit.

 

Both sides have referenced the 1993 impeachment case of “Nixon v. US” as their legal authority. No, not that “Nixon” as in President Richard M. Nixon of Watergate fame, but one Walter L. Nixon, Jr. a disgraced Federal judge who was actually convicted by a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” of two separate counts of making false statements before a federal Grand Jury, and actually sentenced to prison.

 

Walter Nixon refused to “resign” his federal judgeship, and was collecting a federal judicial salary in prison. So, the government had to “impeach” him to stop his federal paycheck. The Judge Nixon Supreme Court majority’s legal reasoning is actually the very legal basis for President Trump’s applying to the Supreme Court, and defeating his Impeachment: not on the House “procedures” of Impeachment, but on the substance of the constitutional term of art “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The Nixon v. US case involved claims by the then-Judge Nixon that the Senate’s impeachment “procedures” were somehow infirm, and therefore, the Senate’s finding him guilty of impeachment was infirm. The specific details of Judge Nixon’s claims about the Senate’s procedures aren’t really important for purposes of this article. What is important is that Judge Nixon only claimed the Senate’s impeachment procedures were infirm, not that the substance of the charges against him were somehow not “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Since, Judge Nixon was actually found guilty by a federal jury that he was “beyond a reasonable doubt” guilty of making false statements to a Federal Grand Jury, Judge Nixon’s actually adjudicated felony crimes clearly hurdled the definitional constitutional requirement of “high crimes.”

 

In President Trump’s case, President Trump will not seek the Supreme Court’s adjudication of a veto over the House’s impeachment procedures. Rather, President Trump will attack the likely legally lightweight factually alleged claims as not raising to the substantive level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

And it is on the turn of the very question of Impeachment “procedure” as opposed to Impeachment “substance” that the Supreme Court, based on Nixon v US, will find the definitional substance of “high crimes and misdemeanors” “justiciable” and rule for President Trump, and void a House impeachment.

 

To understand the coming Trump v. House-based legal arguments better, one has to look a little deeper at the actual US Constitution itself. The key aspect of the US Constitution itself that will be determinative for a Trump v. House Supreme Court determination is not the Impeachment procedures that are empowered to the Congress in Article 1, or the “Legislative Article” of the Constitution.

 

But rather President Trump will challenge the House under the constitutional Impeachment definitional substance of “high crimes and misdemeanors” found in Article 2, or the “Executive Article” of the US Constitution. As we will see, this Legislative Article 1 versus Executive Article 2 distinction will be determinative in the Supreme Court’s ultimate finding for President Trump.

 

In Nixon v. US, Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority stated the legal standard for the Nixon v US decision as:

 

“A controversy is nonjusticiable—i. e., involves a political question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . .” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962).” Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224, at 228 (1993)

 

This sounds complicated, but it isn’t. It means to be a too hot potato “political question” for the Supreme Court to rule on, the issue has to be either

 

1) One where the US Constitution specifically relegates the issue at issue as one solely of one of the three branches of government, or,

 

2) One where the claimed constitutional issue is susceptible to meaningful legal interpretation. President Trump will satisfy both of these Nixon “political question” prongs, and will defeat the House on its impeachment definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

On the first Nixon “solely one branch” constitutional prong, unlike Nixon v US, where Judge Nixon solely raised a question on just the text of an Article 1 “Legislative” Article procedural constitutional infirmity, President Trump will be raising an Article 2, “Executive” Article substance constitutional infirmity of the House definition of the Article 2 “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

By the very definition of President Trump’s claim, the Supreme Court will have to look outside of the text and constitutional authority of the Legislative Article 1, and into the heart of the powers and obligations of the Executive Article 2.

 

Therefore, by definition, President Trump’s case “textually demonstrates” it is not solely a Legislatively based Article 1 issue, but really an Article 2 Executive question. Therefore, President Trump will not satisfy the first Nixon prong for being characterized as a “political question.”

 

On the second Nixon “judicially discoverable” constitutional prong, President Trump will receive help from a very unlikely source: the Democrat majority House Judiciary Committee of 1974. The Democratic House Judiciary Impeachment Report of 1974, issued in the wake of the Nixon Watergate scandal, was issued under the Democrat Chairman Peter Rodino, Jr. and entered into the record by the Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California. The report stated that:

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art,’ like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’

 

“The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them,” Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

 

“It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.57”

 

Therefore, the Democrat House Judiciary is on record as stating that “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a “term of art”, and hence, is completely susceptible to “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” its meaning. And secondly, the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar questions because, “The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them.” Hence, the House Committee has stated that the Supreme Court “must” construe legal “terms of art” found in the US Constitution. Thirdly, they specifically cite Chief Justice Marshall for finding that a constitutional “term of art” “judicially discoverable” and capable of “manageable standards.”

 

In conclusion, President Trump has only begun to fight, and fight he will. Be prepared for many other legal claims that will throw the House Democrats into hysteria and will surely win President Trump a second term.

 

Author: Mark Langfan is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). He specializes in security issues, and has created an original, educational 3D Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by U.S. lawmakers and can be seen at www.MarkLangfan.com.

___________________

EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness Noted Over 100 Times in Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta Lynch Linked Deep State Spy

 

© 2019 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

___________________

Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.

___________________

Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably

 

© 2019 Judicial Watch, Inc.

_________________

“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Author: oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.