Sniper Attack Las Vegas Music Festival

Police are hunting for the female companion of a lone gunman who killed at least 20 people, including two off-duty police officers, and injured more than 100 injured in Las Vegas on Sunday night.
Officers believe Marilou Danley, who they described as a middle-aged Asian woman, has more information on the man who attacked the Route 91 Harvest Festival on Sunday night before being killed.
That man was named by 9 News as Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, who was known to local law enforcement.
Police were reported to be searching his house in the early hours of Monday morning, though there was no indication of a motive.
The Strip was completely shut down after the man, described by police as 'a local' opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay resort and casino.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4939872/Active-shooter-reported-Las-Vegas-Mandalay-Bay-Resort.html#ixzz4uLSDVR5Z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

UPDATE: Via Twitter, suspect identified as Hanachi Ahmed, 29, of Tunisian origin. Was arrested on Friday for shoplifting, but released Saturday afternoon.

UPDATE: Now police have identified the suspect in Las Vegas shooting as 64-year-old Stephen Paddock. Was known to LV police.

UPDATE: For families looking to get updates on loved ones, @LVMPD have provided this phone number: 1-866-535-5654

Is the Investigation into Possible Trump Obstruction a Waste of Time?

In all the stories we have heard of Mueller possibly investigating Trump for Obstruction of justice, there is one little tidbit people forget.  According to most legal experts, he can't be charged with a crime while a sitting President.

From all places, The Washington Post, a sitting President cannot be charged while in office, as it was found in 1973 with Nixon, and 2000 with Bill Clinton.

"Because he’s the president of the United States. And it’s not at all clear that you can prosecute the sitting president of the United States. 

Sooner rather than later, this conundrum may land on the desk of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who has been appointed to handle the ongoing investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Comey himself said as much Thursday, that it wasn’t up to him to decide obstruction of justice: “That’s Bob Mueller’s job to sort that out.” 

Of course the legal jury is still out on the subject of Presidental immunity, however, the only known remedy for a Special Counsel finding criminal acts by a President is to submit those findings to Congress, who would decide by a majority if those charges or findings warranted impeachment proceedings.  Until then Mueller's findings won't be known, as they first come back to the Attorney General who makes that decision whether or not Congress can view them.

Congress could subpoena the AG, but that would likely lead to the AG citing executive privilege.   As I said here, I don't feel Mueller wants to travel into this gray area, especially in his possible last high profile case.

If Mueller is looking at Obstruction - He Backed Himself into a Corner

If this Washington Post story is true - and there is doubt it is, After all, look at how many of their bombshells have bombed, he's likely just glancing over it.  But if he charges Trump with obstruction, Republicans will cry "foul", as it' already been reported that he has surrounded himself with Clinton fans.  Can you say, "Fix was in?"

Another is the lack of evidence.  First, the only real "evidence" is a memo that Comey wrote that details Trump asking him if he could just let Flynn go.  Using the word "hope" isn't obstruction, no matter how Comey felt about it, and no legal sources I've talked to would say so.  If fact during questioning from Sen. James Risch.

“Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, or for that matter any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?” Risch asked. 

“I don’t know well enough to answer,” Comey replied. “And the reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction. I mean this is the president of the United States with me alone saying ‘I hope this,’ I took it as this is what he wants me to do.” 

“You may have taken it as a direction but that’s not what he said,” Risch shot back.
“Correct,” Comey replied. 

“He said, I hope,” Risch responded. “You don’t know of anyone that’s ever been charged for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” 

“I don’t as I sit here,” Comey answered. 

 Additionally, unless there are tapes, it's Comey's word against Trump as they were the only two in the room.  Therefore in-admissable in a court of law.

Then there is also the DNI, NSA Directors testimony, to the Senate Intelligence Committee that they never felt any pressure to end the investigation.

In other words, there is nada evidence for obstruction, and even if Mueller tries to apply it he falls under suspicion of motive.  That's not something that Mueller in the twilight of his career wants as his curtain call.

Lastly, even if he finds obstruction it's up to the DOJ to move for an indictment, and they could pull a Comey and say that there wasn't any real intent.

Addition thought from Hot Air's John Sexton.

But don’t forget, according to Comey’s own testimony, Trump also said he would be happy to see the investigation go forward even if some “satellite” associates of his were shown to have done something wrong. That was on a phone call after the Oval Office discussion about Flynn. So it didn’t sound as if Trump was trying to stop the Russia investigation at that point.

Indeed.

Insider Details Comey Meeting with Lynch over her meeting with Clinton on Tarmarc

Via Conservative Tribune:

Shortly before the FBI shut down its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, former FBI Director James Comey had a frosty confrontation with Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch — so frosty that what he showed her got him kicked out of her office. 

In a report published by the news website Circa, Comey reportedly privately told a few insiders about the exchange that he had with Lynch.  He presented her with evidence that he had regarding her meeting with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in June 2016, prompting his suspicions of her interference with an ongoing investigation.
The evidence Comey had shown  Lynch may have involved a “communication between two political figures” that indicated the Justice Department was going to cover for Hillary Clinton, or evidence, as Circa put it: “that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.” 

According to Circa, Comey said Lynch’s response to the evidence was right out of a Hollywood movie about backroom dealings in Washington. 

“Comey said ‘the attorney general looked at the document, then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,’ said one source who was briefed,” Circa reported. 

She acted in a way that suggests her guilt and instead of owning up to her fault; she kicked Comey out of her office because she knew she had been caught.

Suspicions of this meeting were sparked by Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.  In fact, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat, called for a further investigation into whether Lynch's involvement was, in fact, an effort to save Hillary's sagging campaign efforts.

This would, of course, provide a REAL scandal that would dwarf the made up Russian/Trump collusion scandal by a million miles.  In fact, it brings to the front whether or not President Obama had any knowledge of this meeting, and whether or not if he had ordered it.

That would have been - if discovered earlier - a high crime and misdemeanor which is an impeachable offense.

Since Obama is out of office now he could still be subject to prosecution should this prove true.

Stacking the Deck: Mueller and Investigation Team Donate Primarily to Democrats

And CNN is reporting this, so you know it's bad.

"Washington (CNN)Three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records. 

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year. 

Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. 

The group includes seasoned attorneys who worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud scandal and have represented major American companies in court. While only five attorneys have been publicly identified as working on the Russia probe, there could be more on Mueller's team. 

Three of the five lawyers have donations in FEC records. They gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988. More than half of the donations came from just one of the lawyers, James Quarles, whom Mueller brought over from his old firm, WilmerHale. 

Quarles has given nearly $33,000 to political campaigns over the years. He gave money to Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In addition, Quarles gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats get elected to the House and another $10,000 on the Senate side, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

But Quarles is also the only lawyer among Mueller's team for which records were available who ever donated to Republicans. He gave $2,500 to Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz in 2015 and gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia in 2005. 

Only about 30% of the donations were for elections in 2016. But Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, who also left WilmerHale to work on the Russia probe, gave the maximum contribution of $2,700 to Clinton's campaign last year."

So how exactly will Mueller and his investigator be impartial when their money goes where their heart is?

Together with Mueller's strong (joined at the hip) bro-mance with James Comey, you might say the fix may be in.

Appointment of a Special Counsel was a mistake in the first place.  A knee-jerk reaction to Republicans bowing to Democrat demands.  Had they waited until after Comey's perjury filled testimony there likely would have been no Special Counsel.

All the more reason for Trump to end it now, there is no good that can come out of this charade, none at all.

Does Robert Mueller's long friendship with Jim Comey Conflict with his Duties as Special Counsel and Should He Recuse Himself?

Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner that Special Counsel appointee Robert Mueller has a possible conflict of interest in investigating Russia/Trump/Election issues.

Fired FBI Director James Comey has emerged as the main figure in what some Democrats believe will be an obstruction of justice case against President Trump in the Trump-Russia matter. Comey's stories of conversations with the president, plus the fact that he was fired, ostensibly as a result of the Russia probe, make him potentially the star witness in the case. 

Which brings up an intriguing legal question. Comey is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as "brothers in arms." Their work together during the controversies over Bush-era terrorist surveillance has been characterized as "deepening a friendship forged in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks," after which the men became "close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead." 

Now Mueller is investigating the Trump-Russia affair, in which, if the increasing buzz in the case is correct, allegations of obstruction against the president will be central. And central to those allegations — the key witness — will be the prosecutor's good friend, the now-aggrieved former FBI director 

Is that a conflict? Should a prosecutor pursue a case in which the star witness is a close friend? And when the friend is not only a witness but also arguably a victim — of firing — by the target of the investigation? And when the prosecutor might also be called on to investigate some of his friend's actions? The case would be difficult enough even without the complicating friendship.

York then asks several former DOJ attorney's for their take and gets mixed results.  Read them at the link for yourself.

However, for a fuller take that says definitively that Mueller should recuse himself check out this article at Lawnewz.

I am one who thinks he should resign, or recuse from the investigation of Comey,  because of the close relationship with him, and especially since Comey met with Mueller before his Senate Intel Committee testimony.  It's really a no-brainer.

James Comey Becoming the Subject of the Investigation he Created

Over the course of Jim Comey's testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's now more apparent that he lied and fabricated the happenings leading up to his firing.

As I said Comey was fired simply because it was discovered by Trump, through other disgruntled FBI agents and sources that Comey was, in fact, the leaker he had been looking for.  Specifically, with regards to the memo, Comey supposedly created (no one can find it now), where he kept notes of his meetings with Trump.

Comey admitted during the hearing that he himself leaked them the memo, a government document that no longer belonged to him, to a friend who has since gone into hiding, to give to the NY Times.

But there are several other leaks that have appeared since Trump left office that Comey either directly or indirectly leaked info to the media, in an effort to damage Trump.

In an article on The Medium, "Comey Almost Definitely Leaked Twice, and Therefore Lied to Congress"

"MAY 11 — NYT reports that two Comey “associates” leaked information about a one-on-one dinner between Trump and Comey in which Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty. The article makes no mention of a memo, but contains information about the private conversation so detailed that it would be weird if it weren’t derived from a memo written by Comey after the dinner. It makes little sense that “associates” of Comey would remember the verbiage of the conversation with such detail, and then independently leak that verbiage without any direction from Comey himself, particularly when Comey admitted that he was willing to make such leaks only a week later. 

May 12 — Trump tweets that Comey had better hope there weren’t recordings of the dinner that would go against the quotes in the May 11 NYT article. That tweet makes a whole lot more sense now that Comey was leaking. Trump was saying to Comey: “I know you’re the leak, and I might have recordings of our actual conversation that will prove that you’re lying.”

Somewhere in between May 12-May 16 — Comey, according to Comey, wakes up in the middle of the night and feels the sudden need to leak a memo from February to the NYT. 

May 16 — NYT prints another article alleging that Trump asked Comey to leave Flynn alone. The source of this article is specifically listed as a Comey memo recorded by Comey after an Oval Office meeting in February. 

The memo was not given to the NYT, but rather read to the NYT by a Comey “associate”(notice the use of the word “associate” again). We now know that Comey gave the memo to his associate with the specific instructions to leak it to the NYT."

( Ed. Note: I've heard that there are indeed tapes, as Trump has always recorded an important business transaction, and carried that practice into the White House.  In fact, I believe that in this case he did so to Trap and bury Comey.  Trump is a smart man, he protects himself.)

So we can assume that Comey orchestrated at least two leaks to the NY Times, and so orchestrated the current investigation as he admitted during his testimony that was the goal of his second memo.

Of course, that goal of getting a Special Counsel appointed happen to be his friend Robert Mueller, his friend and confidant over the last 16 years.

As a former investigator I would say at this point it's a slam-dunk that Comey has now become a key subject of the investigation, and even more a new investigation to see if he is guilty of orchestrating a coup to overthrow the President.

In any case, calls are now coming in to have Mueller recuse himself from the case due to his relationship with a subject of the investigation.

For Comey his problem that in his zeal to get the President he might have just gotten himself - hung.

Comey's Inconsistent Testimony on the Reason he wrote a Memo: Perjury or Bad Memory

Via Fox News:

"Lawyers for President Trump shot down ex-FBI Director James Comey's claim that a tweet from the commander-in-chief prompted him to leak a memo detailing a private conversation with Trump – and a close examination of a pre-tweet New York Times story may bolster their claim.  

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Comey said he was spurred to orchestrate the release of the detailed memo he wrote about a one-on-one talk with Trump after the president tweeted May 12: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

You can read the rest, but the money shot here:

 “The public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse,” the statement from Kasowitz said.  

Though Comey claimed he didn't orchestrate the leak until May 16, four days after Trump's May 12 tweet, a New York Times article from May 11 appears to track closely with the memo's contents. 

There are in fact striking similarities between that pre-tweet article and Comey's written testimony, suggesting the memo's contents may have been leaked -- by somebody -- before Trump vented on Twitter. 

Kasowitz appeared in his statement to be referencing a May 11 article, “In a Private Dinner, Trump demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.” The language contained in the article – which seemed to spur Trump’s “tapes” tweet – references Comey’s interactions with Trump that are essentially repeated in Comey's submitted testimony."

So basically the dates and reasons don't jive, and as I titled the post, either Comey has committed perjury or his memory failed him.  We're going to find out soon.

Alan Dershowitz: History, precedent and James Comey's opening statement show that Trump did not obstruct justice

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, but also a legal scholar and what he has to say about the Comey testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee is right on.

"In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself. 

This is what Walsh said: "The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up."

He goes on to relate the truth of the President's power under the Constitution when it comes to investigations by the FBI.  Under the Constitution, the President can simply tell the FBI to stop investigating any case they may be following.

For instance for all the hand wringing about Trump trying to obstruct the Russia investigation by requesting Comey to lay off Flynn and basically let him go, the fact is that Trump could have simply called Comey in, ordered him to stop the investigation, pardoned Flynn and the next day fired Comey for any reason he deemed fit.  He didn't have to give a reason, Comey worked at the pleasure of the President - period.

Therefore Trump's actions were docile compared what he legally could have done, thus not even close to obstruction or any crime. Liberals don't like that, but then they never liked the Constitution as it was written in the first place.  But that's just too tough, it's the law.

Comey Testimony: Self-Serving Comey clears Trumps - Indicts himself

Jim Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday and he basically cleared Trump of any wrong-doing in the Russia Investigation.  Per Trump's attorney.

The largest revelation is that Comey revealed that he did, in fact, tell Trump on 3 occasions that he wasn't the subject of the investigation.

Additionally, as Trump's attorney, Marc Kasowitz outlined:


"[Comey] also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference."

"Comey's testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election."

"The President never, in any form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone."

"The President also never told Mr. Comey, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty' in any form or substance."

"Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President."

"We will leave it to the appropriate authorities to determine whether [these] leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated."


The major revelation we learned from Comey is about that memo he wrote after he was fired.  Comey admitted to having that memo, which is a government document, detailing a classified talk he had with Trump wherein Trump reportedly asked him to consider dropping the investigation into former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.  Comey testified that he released the document to a friend, a college professor at Columbia Law school to actually leak the memo to the NY Times.

Two things to consider in this revelation.

1.  Comey was no longer a government employee and thus had no authority to give to or have leaked a document detail a private conversation with the POTUS.

2.  Moreover, Comey not only leaked the document, he actually gave it to a friend who is not known to have such clearances to possess in the first place.  Comey's astonishing admission also begs the question asking what else may he had leaks.

After the statement of Trump's attorney, Mr. Kasowitz asked the Department of Justice and the FBI to look into whether Comey had broken any laws in having the memo leaked.

More on this to come.

Heartbreak: Democrat's Dream of Trump's Obstruction of Russian Investigation Dies

Yesterday testimony by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers both separately said that while they won't comment on the specifics of their conversations with Trump, neither had felt pressure from the administration. "I have never felt pressured to intervene in the Russia investigation in any way," Coats told members of the Senate intelligence committee when asked about such reports.

Opps. Not what we've been hearing over the last week by anonymous sources to the Washington Post.

This directly contradicts what The Post wrote just last week. Citing those "unnamed sources", that Trump had pushed both of them to look into pushing the investigation to a close.

Both denied it happened.  So what we have since Trump was elected is a coordinated effort by the media to have Tump looked at as an obstructor of justice, a crook, and a remade Nixon.  Of course, it's not working out.

Just after they testified Comey released his written opening statement which also said little more than Trump was reassured by him that he wasn't a subject of the investigation, just as Trump said, and by the way the media denied.

Comey also said that Trump asked for loyalty from him, something that the media is running crazy with now, but nothing unusual.  Past presidents have asked the same from those who work for him.  JFK, LBJ and even Obama asked the same of their people.

So after today, when Comey says basically nothing, the media will still run their disinformation operation.  It will remain to be seen whether or not the American people will buy it.

For Third Yeah in a Row Zahra Billoo Bashes American Dead on Memorial Day

Via Fire Andrea Mitchell.

It wouldn’t be a Memorial Day without the Muslim terrorist-linked group CAIR bashing US Troops. This is actually the third year in a row Zahra Billoo has bashed US Troops for Memorial Day. Billoo is the executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter. Islam in San Francisco. Imagine that. CAIR has links to many terrorist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Follow the link for more.  Billoo is nothing more than a terrorist twit, a spokeswoman for the same tripe we hear from ISIS, and other terrorist organizations that CAIR covertly supports. 

Time for them to be called on the carpet for this and their designation of a non-profit organization should be changed to a place on the terrorism watch list.

Washington Post's Fake News about Jared Kushner Busted: Kushner didn't suggest Back Door Channel

Well, once again yet another fake story from the Washington Post is proved wrong. Via Fox News.

A December meeting between Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of the senior advisers in the Trump administration, and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak at Trump Tower focused on Syria, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News Monday. 

During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News. That follows a recent report from The Washington Post alleging that Kushner wanted to develop a secure, private line with Russia. 

The idea of a permanent back channel was never discussed, according to the source. Instead, only a one-off for a call about Syria was raised in the conversation.
In addition, the source told Fox News the December meeting focused on Russia's contention that the Obama administration's policy on Syria was deeply flawed.

In the Washington Post's rush to smear Trump yet again their fake new was again found to be, fake.   Thus the Washington Post is gaining a reputation similar to that of the National Enquire.

In real journalism sourcing is important, but it's also important to use sources who were actually there, not someone who wasn't, and perhaps has no idea of what was said.

In muckraking, you go after someone with baseless smears in order to inflict damage.  That term, by the way, was invented the progressive approach to smearing an opponent in politics.

Bernie Sanders Donors file 300 Million Dollar Lawsuit against the DNC

By now it's clear that the DNC kneecapped the Sanders campaign in the primaries to give Hillary the nomination.  Now they're going to court over it, to the tune of 300 million bucks.

Of all the weird sideshows in American politics, the one unfolding in a Florida courtroom may be one of the strangest. Largely uncovered by anything resembling the elite political media, a passel of disgruntled Bernie Sanders donors has filed a $300 million class-action suit against the Democratic National Committee for $300 million alleging that the DNC defrauded them by rigging the primary process against the Sanders campaign.

 From Newsweek:

Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate and one of the several attorneys who filed the suit against the DNC and its former chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wants retribution for donations made by supporters to the Vermont senator's campaign, citing six legal claims of the DNC's deceptive conduct, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of its own charter by working with a single campaign to effectively choose who would win the Democratic ballot, the attorneys stated in the suit. 

All the usual complaints are rolled into this suit—the leaked-debate-questions gripe, the donor-info insecurity, and the villain of the piece is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There's a judge's order pending that might let the air out of the whole thing. Of course, everything the DNC does to defend itself in court will be further evidence of the ongoing cabal. Per CDN:
Jared H. Beck, attorney for the plaintiffs, argued, "Freedom of speech and freedom of association are very, very important, but we also have a right not to be defrauded. We also have a right not to be taken advantage of … We have a right not to be deceived. There's no exception to those rights just because the fraudulent speech or fraudulent conduct involved takes place in a political context.

We'll have to see how this works out.  We know the DNC stopped at nothing to get Hillary into the White House.  During the debates with Donald Trump, it was found that interim DNC chief cheated by supplying questions to Hillary she obtained through the media.

Looking forward to this day in court, but the DNC runs like a small town sheriff so don't be surprised if the Judge is threatened in some way by them, or other political pressure to drop the case.

Media Matters has Violated it's Tax Exemption Status and it's Time it's been Revoked

Back in 2011 I and many others including Fox News, as well many bloggers wrote that Media Matters non-profit status should be revoked, and as such should be charged IRS taxes  There are very stringent rules for gaining non-profit profit status to be considered non-taxable by the IRS., and many don't's.  One of those is in regards to political activities.  Here's the rule in question.

It may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. 

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. 

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Media Matters from its inception by activist David Brock, have long violated this rule with political activities such as backing specific candidates for office such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Media Matters does nothing but to serve the anti-conservative derangement of David Brook to get all conservative media off the air.

Most recently it's been an organized effort to have Fox News fire Sean Hannity, which is a blatant violation of the code.

Even Mark Levin has suggested that Hannity sue Media Matters for attempting to influence his employment contract with Fox by pressuring sponsors of his show to drop support.  I agree that this is exactly what Hannity should do and likely will do, nevertheless there has never been a non-profit status that has survived this type of activity.

Between 2011 and 2014 the Fox News Network attempted to have the exemption for Media Matters revoked, however, the IRS (embroiled in its own scandals), never fully looked into it.  More than likely President Obama pushed to have it dropped.

But now with Trump in office, it's time for a new effort.  The same IRS director is in office minus pressure from a lawless president.  

You can personally file a complaint with the IRS at this link.  Additionally, contact your Congressional representative or Senator and ask them to look into it.

BOMBSHELL: Obama, his CIA director James Brennan “WEAPONIZED” intel against Trump to give Hillary the White House

Huge story, broken by Circa News, capsulized by  The New York Post has the information.

New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.

The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election. 

The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans. 

Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.

So as we see there was election interference, but not from the Trump campaign, but from Hillary's buddy Obama.  It's been recently learned that the Obama administration collected information (spied on), without proper FISA authorization, and only told the court in Oct of  2016.  The were abruptly chastised by the court for obvious violations of  Americans 4th Amendment rights.

More,

Under congressional questioning Tuesday, Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan said the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the agency’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election. Why not? Because as Obama intel czar James Clapper earlier testified, “We could not corroborate the sourcing.” 

But that didn’t stop Brennan in January from attaching its contents to the official report for the president. He also included the unverified allegations in the briefing he gave Hill Democrats. 

In so doing, Brennan virtually guaranteed that it would be leaked, which it promptly was.
In short, Brennan politicized raw intelligence. In fact, he politicized the entire CIA.
Langley vets say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history. Former CIA field-operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was “known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says.”
Coyle noted that Brennan broke with his predecessors who stayed out of elections. 

Several weeks before the vote, he made it very clear he was pulling for Hillary. His deputy Mike Morell even came out and publicly endorsed her in The New York Times, claiming Trump was an “unwitting agent” of Moscow. 

Brennan isn’t just a Democrat. He’s a radical leftist who in 1980 — during the height of the Cold War — voted for a Communist Party candidate for president.

So basically what you have is a concentrated effort by the former administration and the CIA trying to kneecap Trump to give Hillary the White House.  Thankfully they underestimated the power of the American people, who voted for and gave Trump the White House instead.

James Comey behind Leak of Jared Kushner story to Washington Post

As the Washington Post breathlessly reported about Kushner's contacts with Russia the question that comes to mind "Who leaked this?"

I have my own sources within the FBI as a former spook so I made a call to inquire.  All I got was, "Past Cork base boss". That's an old code word for the FBI director that was used many years ago, but because I have been out of service, he knew I would get it.  That would have been James Comey, former FBI director.   As a side note there are many agents who are not at all unhappy that their former boss was gone.  But one is particularly unhappy and plans to come forward in the future.

The Washington Post puts the info sourcing "US officials briefed on intelligence reports", which is utter nonsense.

James Comey has been blatantly carrying on his own private coup against Trump since the election cycle, first by refusing to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes that that would have put anyone else in the clink.  Agents working at the bureau were frustrated that after all the man hours put on that case they were told that nothing was there when in fact they found plenty.

Second, this information has been known since at least December by the FBI, only now has the media picked it up, and again by "anonymous source".   Earlier this week Comey cancelled his appointment to testify to congress in order to visit with his old friend and predecessor as well as now Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I guess for tea and guidance.

As you know formerly Comey leaked the idea of his memo to the press yet as to this date no memo has been produced.  Even if it was it would be considered hearsay in a court of law because it would be Trump's word against his.  Additionally even if true Trump would have done nothing wrong as it's no crime to ask.  No where does anyone say Trump ordered Comey to drop the investigation.

But a leak, especially during a Special Counsel investigation could be troublesome for Comey as it, unless he is called as a witness, could be viewed as obstruction of justice.  Mueller cannot play favoritism at this point which is why I've been on Twitter calling for him to recuse himself.


More on this to come.

WAPO: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

They must have these non-stories in a cue.

Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.
The White House disclosed the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest. 

I'll bet they do, especially after Comey was fired.  This is non-news because every administration going back to JFK has set up backdoor channels, but recently Barack Obama during the very same thing during his 2008 campaign.

 All administrations have thought to establish channels the spooks wouldn't even know about because of the volatile nature of their activities.

So while it appears a "Bombshell" as Drudge posts, it's anything but.  Just another leak to the WAPO who seems to only release them on Monday's or Friday, so as to have a greater effect.

US Launches Missiles on Syrian Airfields

About time!

"The United States launched nearly five dozen cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield early Friday in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians, the first direct assault on the Damascus government since the beginning of that country's bloody civil war in 2011. 

"It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," President Donald Trump said in a statement. "Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types."
Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles targeted an airbase at Shayrat, located outside Homs. The missiles targeted the base's airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas, officials said. 

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said initial indications were that the strike had "severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment ... reducing the Syrian Government's ability to deliver chemical weapons." There was no immediate word about any casualties. 

Trump said the base was used as the staging point for Tuesday's chemical weapons attack on rebel-held territory, which killed as many as 72 civilians, including women and children. 

"Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," Trump said from Mar-a-Lago, Fla. "Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the strike should cause a "big shift in Assad's calculus."

Why about time?  First, since the WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria in 2002, there has been a wonder what Syria did with them since Iraq's fall.  That question has been answered over and over again by Assad.  The attack targeted the airfield that reportedly were used to launch the aircraft.

According to Fox News, Trump didn't call Putin to announce this move, (so much for the Trump/Putin bro-mance the media's been slobbering about), so it will be interesting to see what Putin's response will be, more important Assad's.  Does he throw up a "screw you" followup attack, or lay low.

Will this bolster anti Assad forces?  We'll have to see, but remember how Reagan did precisely the same thing with Libya in the 80s, continued bombing forced Qaddafi to conform, at least for a while.

By the way, what to make of Hillary Clinton's response to the gas attacks today prior to the missile launch.

“I really believe that we should’ve and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.” - Hillary Clinton
 

Media Hypocrisy on Preet Bharara Firing

Talk about Fake News...

"The call to Preet Bharara’s office from President Trump’s assistant came on Thursday. Would Mr. Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, please call back? The following day, Mr. Bharara was one of 46 United States attorneys appointed by President Barack Obama asked to resign — and to immediately clean out their offices. The request took many in his office by surprise because, in a meeting in November, Mr. Bharara was asked by the then-president-elect to stay on.

Mr. Bharara refused to resign. On Saturday, he announced on Twitter that he had been fired.
It was unclear whether the president’s call on Thursday was an effort to explain his change of heart about keeping Mr. Bharara or to discuss another matter. The White House would not comment on Saturday.
However, there are protocols governing a president’s direct contact with federal prosecutors. According to two people with knowledge of the events who were not authorized to discuss delicate conversations publicly, Mr. Bharara notified an adviser to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that the president had tried to contact him and that he would not respond because of those protocols. Mr. Bharara then called Mr. Trump’s assistant back to say he could not speak with the president, citing the protocols.
Mr. Bharara was a highly public prosecutor who relished the spotlight throughout more than seven years in office. He pursued several high-profile cases involving Wall Street, and he was in the midst of investigating fund-raising by Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, and preparing to try former top aides to the governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, who are both Democrats. It was not immediately clear how his departure would affect those cases and others that were pending.
Mr. Bharara stayed quiet until Saturday afternoon. Then, on his personal Twitter account, which he set up eight days ago, he wrote: “I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired.” Referring to the Southern District of New York, he continued, “Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”

Awww, get out the hankies....*sniff*

Bozo knows you work at the Pleasure of the President, and when you draw a line in the sand with your boss - you lose.

But let's fast-backward to 1993, and the NY Times coverage of Janet Reno's firing of all 93 US Attorneys, including Jay B. Stephens who was about to charge Clinton crony Representative Dan Rostenkowski. Convenient no?

"Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.
Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.
While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover. Says He Won't Resist.
At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.
But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
"This case has been conducted with integrity," Mr. Stephens said, "and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations."

What's the difference?  Stephens says, "Ok, I work for you, I'll go."  Bharara "Wa-Wa", "No, I won't go, fire me bitch".  


Yet the media in it's true fake news fashion,  is twisting this latest news into some kind of sinister motivation by Trump or Sessions, but it's simply not going to fly.  Cripes do these guys have Google?

Progressive Left about to Self Destruct

After getting shellacked in the 2016 race, progressives still don't get it. Currently they are mounting a "comeback" for 2018, which means to do that they have to go after their own, conservative Democrats. This won't work out well, as the 2016 wasn't just a win for the GOP, it was a complete repudiation of the progressive agenda which ran amok over the last eight years. Again the platform was completely rejected in 2016, and the 2018 races don't look much better. But it will be fun to see them "eat their own". "Where Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) failed in the 2016 presidential election and DNC election chair respectively, the far left is eyeing red state Democrats, specifically Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), if they don’t start fighting back against Trump. Similar to the Tea Party, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party feels that only their agenda is the one that can usher the Democrats back into power, noting that Sanders scored just as good with Rust Belt voters as Trump did during the primary season. Yet, facing a rather dismal 2018 Senate map Democrats have to decide whether mounting primary challenges against their red state brethren (who have proven they can win statewide) with hyper-left primary candidates is a step towards rebranding and rebuilding the party, or just making it easier for Republicans to pick up seats. Given the GOP’s strength with white working class voters, the Republicans who can pick off Manchin in West Virginia, Donnelly in Indiana, Heitkamp in North Dakota, and McCaskill in Missouri are probably going to stay there for a while." 2016 was a blowout for Republicans, and 2018 looks even better. Progressives are fighting tooth and nail to stop the collapse, of not only their control of congress, the Presidency, but the message, the media, the crappy way this country has been heading for the last 40 years.

Obama's former wiretapping of Journalist was just the Beginning of things to Come?

Gateway Pundit has more on this, but in the field of intelligence, if a well stinks, it always stinks. In 2013 Obama used his power to go after journalist who he thought threatened his agenda. If he did it then, then odds on he could do it now.

In 1974 Nixon resigned for for just a small part of what Obama is being accused of, which is why Congress is involved, and why after the investigation a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.

From GP:

"In addition to the coming investigation by congress, we also know now that Obama in the past also wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known, and proven that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.

* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”

* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post."

If it walks like a duck....

Comey channels CNN, asks the DOJ to squash Obama Tapping Charge?

Like what the? ....Does Comey work for CNN?  Of course is one of the Times "confidential American senior officials, and the FBI hasn't confirmed it yet, so..thus...made up?

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.

Ok, let's play the game.  So since then when does an FBI director ask the DOJ to squash an now what will be an investigation? Note that Comey asked this of the DOJ, AFTER Congress said it would look into it.  If Comey proved anything over last years election season is that he's a political animal, and so knows how to muck things up.  How does he know it's false without investigating.

But I think there is more to this then meets the eye. If this move is "unprecedented" as the Times says, meaning it's never been done before, you have to ask, what is Comey's involvement - if any - in the wiretapping, from the "what does he know that may implicate him?" department.

Whether or not the DOJ rejects the claim, an congressional investigation will move forward, so sooner or later we find out.

New Jeff Session's Russian Scandal, Much Ado about Nothing

Democrats sense blood in the water, but there is nothing to see here.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. during last year's presidential campaign, while Sessions was still a senator. 

News of the conversations was first reported by The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal separately reported that U.S. investigators had examined contacts between Sessions and Russian officials and that the Justice Department was "wringing its hands" about how to proceed in the matter.

The Journal also reported that Sessions did not know that his communications were under investigation. 

Reports about the meetings appeared to contradict a statement Sessions made during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general. Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., how he would respond "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign."

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” answered Sessions, one of Trump’s earliest and most prominent supporters during the campaign. “I have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

When contacted by Fox News late Wednesday, Sessions said, "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."

Sessions as member of the Armed Services Committee was free to meet with any heads of state he felt a need to.  Whether he talked about the campaign is absent is absent any evidence.  Session denies that happened, so unless someone has a tape (John McCain), this is a non-story.

Franken's question to Session is key, Session was NOT a member of the Campaign, and to my knowledge there is no law preventing a Republican - who would naturally be for the Republican candidate for president executing his duties as a member of the ASC from doing his job.  Thus, false story, based on parsing of words.  

Bernie's Supporters: "Get with us or we will Replace You!"

Er...money quote: "The irony? Bernie Sanders himself doesn’t meet this standard, having voted to confirm three of Trump’s Cabinet picks so far. If Sanders doesn’t pass a progressive purity standard, it’s probably not worth imposing."

The Bernie supporters got "burned" badly when Hillary kneecapped them in the primaries, and now they're out for blood.  Problem is that like the quote, their standard bearer isn't even with the program.



More

Bill Maher Slanders Carryn Owens Window of Navy Seal

Not going to go over well with Americans at all. Democrats are voicing the same opinion as well, which proves they are just descending into insanity over their hate of Trump. Carryn's emotion was real. She's the wife of a slain Navy Seal, and Maher sexist comment that she allowed herself to be used is simply idiotic. But then Maher is the king of misogynist, and has a long history of sexist statements towards women, so what would you expect. Lefies welcome this kind of crap while going after anybody on the right who would dare say the same thing. I would like to see him say the same thing to Carryn's face, but he's too much a coward for that.

Oprah for President? She believes she can, but she's missing the Point

Oprah for president? I guess, but I doubt she actually could win. Her reason is Trump did it, so...

However the problem is that she thinks Trump won based on celebrity, but that's not the case..He won on message, which resonated with voters. Issues that Americans found important which they have been against for some time now.

The voters who voted for Trump did so because they're tired of the way the country was heading after four years of a far left wing President, who at the the time of his departure had a 29% disapproval rating on most polls when it came to "direction of country". No matter what Obama's popularity was, it was based more on celebrity than anything else (and some polling juice), and when Trump came along he pushed back at Obama's agenda, thus Trump won the election. Oprah's agenda would nothing more than a flashback to those unpopular left wing agendas that Obama shoved down the throats of American and would likely be rejected outright.

Right now the Democratic Party is in a shambles. After the election they added to that destruction by descending into chaos, and children's games which have only infuriated most Americans, instead of just moving on with the loss. Polls have shown that Americans have grown weary from the "lost the game so I'm taking the ball and going home" approach they've had to the election and a recent poll showed they just want them to stop it and begin cooperating Republicans to get things done. They won't, this is guaranteed by their leadership constantly playing games and acting foolish, and the Democrat Party will continue to head down the crapper.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269856/Oprah-says-age-Trump-run-president.html

Amazon Cloud Services Outage Causes Havoc

Perhaps Bezos should spend more time maintaining his cloud infrastructure than getting into politics....Bashing the President, just saying....

CNN Poll on Trump's Speech, 70% approval

Note: I know, but suspiciously enough the nets aren't doing many online polls, which makes me think - and know - he hit it out of the park. God, they wouldn't want that to show on a poll?

Wait, CNN? ...Well, Still some twisting (direction of country was high before before the speech (higher than Obama's 26% at end of office), nevertheless...High marks, 70% approval of speech.

Obama likely shrieking at his 90" Flat-screen at his mansion in Hawaii, in his best Cpt. Kirk impression, "KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!" "Michele, saddle up my jet!!".

Still, pre-speech, Trump promises kept so far 8-1, this is the President America has been waiting for. Hell, new tie and all!

Trump Approval Rating at 52% Despite "Poll Juice" by MSM

Trump approval, 52%. As opposed to NBC news using unscientific Survey Monkey polling. For reference, FiveThiryEight gives SurveyMonkey a rating of C-. While SurveyMonkey doesn’t release margins of error with their polling because of the methodology, FiveThirtyEight gives them an average error of 11.2 points. This was determined by analyzing eleven of their polls to final results. - In other words they're crap.

Rasmussen Poll.

News Flash: Comparisons of Trump, Bush, Reagan and Nixon to Hitler are Historically Incorrect

For years the tiring line of the left when it comes to leaders from the right is to compare them to Hitler, whether it's Nixon, Reagan,Bush,and now Trump, the historically incorrect comparison is laughable.

But the facts of History don't hold that up. Actually Hitler was a socialist, and by his own definition. Modern day liberals, or more accurately "progressives" are simply hybrids of Hitler's platform, especially hate for the Jews, socialization of society, calling capitalism the "enemy", are in direct "lock step" with Hitler's dream.

In fact it's one of the progressive wing's platform in 1963, to cloak their agenda in order to pull it off. Much of what you see in America now, is simply because of how far they've gotten in their agenda over the last 40 years. So the next time you hear some liberal call you a Hitler, tell them to go read some actual history, and look in the mirror.

More of the myth busting here.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/