The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Keeping Devin Nunes Out Of TheGame
by Byron York

.
Mueller Can Do Anything He Wants,
For As Long As It Takes – To Get Trump
{rickwells.us} ~ RINO Sen Susan RINO-Collins (R-ME), is useful to the Republican party much as John RINO-McCain is, only by virtue of the fact that his seat helps to establish a Republican majority... Beyond that one benefit they might as well be Democrats, they basically are now. RINO-Collins is also a member of the Senate Presidential Lynching Committee, also known as the Senate Intelligence Committee and chaired by another of her Republican In Name Only colleagues, Hanging Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Paired with Senator Thom Tillis, no state aside from Arizona has a more pathetic “Republican” representation. RINO-Collins, who always sounds as if she’s gasping for breath between burps of Jack Daniels, told CNN on Thursday that President Trump is not immune from the “investigation” by her establishment crony, Robert Mueller. She said, “The President can’t set red lines for Bob Mueller.”... These RINOs are NOT doing what they are elected to do.  http://rickwells.us/rinos-mueller-anything-long-takes-get-trump/
.
Sara Carter Discusses McMaster-Rice
Conspiracy Theory With Sean Hannity
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Newly formed Circa News agent Sara Carter (Sinclair Media Group) appears on Sean Hannity to discuss her ongoing campaign against Trump’s National Security Adviser HR McMaster... As we pointed out yesterday, the entire Sara Carter presentation of a letter from current NSA McMaster to former NSA Susan Rice appears to be a propaganda narrative. Toward that end, Carter appears with Sean Hannity and misleads the audience about McMasters letter to Susan Rice.Carter states Susan Rice has access to classified intelligence. Technically this is correct, but only to historic intelligence work-product that Susan Rice previously saw or created.  Rice’s access is time-restricted. Carter infers Rice has access to current intelligence, which is entirely false; she does not... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15dac16074d0e36c?compose=15daea7243465ccf%2C15daeade0e81fd07
.
Mueller's Grand Jury: What It Means

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ The most significant conclusion we can draw from news that a grand jury has been impaneled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is that the so-called Russia investigation, officially, is a criminal investigation... The purpose of a grand jury is to investigate a factual transaction or series of transactions to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. That makes it categorically different from a counterintelligence investigation. The latter, we have noted many times, is an information-gathering exercise geared toward understanding and thwarting the intentions and actions of foreign powers. There is no need for a grand jury in a counterintelligence probe... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/muellers-g...
.
Al Jazeera: The Terrorist Propaganda Network

by John Rossomando
{investigativeproject.org} ~ Al Jazeera's support for terrorism goes far beyond on-air cheerleading. Many of its employees have actively supported al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups... Concerns over the network's consistent pro-terrorist positions prompted several Gulf States to demand that Qatar shut it down in June. Sheikh Said Bin Ahmed Al-Thani, director of Qatar's government information office, called such demands "a condescending view that]\ demonstrates contempt for the intelligence and judgment of the people of the Middle East, who overwhelmingly choose to get their news from Al Jazeera rather than from their state-run broadcasters," Al-Thani wrote in Newsweek. But a week earlier, United Arab Emirates Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash detailed Al Jazeera's connections to terrorists and terror incitement in a letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Al Jazeera violates a 2005 U.N. Security Council resolution that called on member states to counter "incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism," Gargash charged... https://www.investigativeproject.org/6478/al-jazeera-the-terrorist-...
.

 
Factory Worker Challenges Speaker Ryan
.
Rush Limbaugh Schools 'PUTZ' Jim Acosta (CNN) On 'Statue Of Liberty'
.
Fake News, Pandering, and Propaganda: A Night of the Absurd with CNN's Acosta, Cuomo, and Ryan
.
Bill Bennett: Grand jury is not good news for the White House
.
President Trump and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shulkin unveiled the VA's new telehealth program
.
.
Keeping Devin Nunes Out Of The Game
by Byron York
{
townhall.com} ~ In early April, news reports were filled with word that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had recused himself from the committee's Russia investigation. Outside activist groups accused Nunes of revealing classified information, and the House Ethics Committee decided to look into the matter. Nunes was forced to step aside from the Russia probe while the ethics watchdogs worked.

Now, nearly four months later, the committee is still working, with no end in sight.

It's been an unusual investigation from the beginning. The House Intelligence Committee has nonpartisan staff to watch members for any possible disclosures of classified information. If a member is thought to have revealed something classified -- it's usually inadvertent and a minor matter -- the staff can bring it to his or her attention, and the matter is usually handled inside the committee.

In fact, it is rare for an accusation of unauthorized disclosure to make it to the Ethics Committee. "It is not unprecedented, but the number of cases that are reported or publicly known are fairly limited," said Scott Horton, a Columbia University law lecturer who has studied the topic. "The treatment of the cases is uneven. In several high-profile cases, the case was opened and studied, but no action was taken."

When Horton testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee last December, running down a list of examples, the most recent case of the House Ethics Committee looking at alleged unauthorized disclosure of classified information was a 1995 case in which the committee investigated then-Rep. Robert Torricelli for allegedly releasing classified information about the CIA in Guatemala. The committee took no action.

But now Nunes is under Ethics Committee investigation. The probe commenced after three left-leaning activist groups, MoveOn.org, Democracy 21, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked the committee "to investigate whether Nunes disclosed classified information," according to the CREW website.

Nunes denied the charges and attributed them to the activists' campaign to derail any investigation into alleged liar-nObama White House misuse of intelligence. Nevertheless, "despite the baselessness of the charges," in the words of his statement, Nunes stepped aside from the Russia probe on April 6.

Now, as the investigation finishes its fourth month, a number of Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are becoming frustrated. As they see it, there's nothing to the charge, but Democrats have the ability to stretch out the Ethics Committee probe -- unlike other committees, Ethics is divided equally between Republicans and Democrats -- in order to keep Nunes out of the Russia investigation.

"I don't think there is anyone on the intelligence committee who thinks Devin did anything inappropriate," said Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the Intelligence Committee, in an interview last week. "We're so frustrated with the ethics process that I've been encouraging him to get back in the seat."

"How it has been handled has been very controversial," said another Intel Committee member in a text exchange. "Democrats slow-walking the ethics inquiry to keep Nunes sidelined."

Tom Rust, the Ethics Committee staff director and chief counsel, declined to comment on the case.

Now, as the Russia case continues to dominate public attention, the House investigation is going largely without its chairman, who has been pushed to the side by an unusual investigation that Republicans believe is being extended for the purpose of keeping the chairman away from the Russia affair. And there is no idea of when that situation might change.

But if the history cited by Scott Horton is any prediction, the Ethics Committee will end up doing nothing in the Nunes affair. On the other hand, that is not really the point. The point, at the moment, is for the committee to keep the matter going so that Nunes will have to stay on the sidelines.

And that leads to the question of what Nunes will do now. The first sentence of this article noted that news reports in April said Nunes had "recused" himself from the Russia matter. But Nunes says he did not recuse himself -- that word has a specific legal meaning -- but rather stepped aside from leading the Russia investigation for a while. That meant Nunes not only remained chairman but has also been able to keep up with the Russia probe.

"I never recused myself," Nunes told a Fresno, California radio station in mid-June. "What happened was, the media began this narrative that I had recused myself when in fact all I said was hey, I'm just going to temporarily step aside from leading this." At another point in the same appearance, Nunes said he was "still involved in the investigation, just not leading it."

A month earlier, in May, in an interview with Fox News, Nunes said he is still informed on things that are happening in the Russia affair. "I'm still read into everything," Nunes said.

What if the Ethics Committee probe goes on indefinitely? At some point, it seems possible that Nunes and the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee will say enough is enough. What will happen then is anybody's guess.

Views: 15

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

Facebook & Twitter

ALERT ALERT

BREAKING: Hillary Admits She Was Wrong About ‘Deplorables,’
White Nationalists Only ‘0.15%’ Of U.S. Population

(TeaParty.org) – Hillary Clinton, the failed liberal presidential candidate who sealed her fate by slamming half of U.S. voters as a load of racist, sexist, xenophobic “deplorables,” just came out and admitted she was wrong, Breitbart reports.

Speaking with Hugh Hewitt on his radio show about her book “What Happened,” he asked her if she actually believes that half of the American population are white nationalists and racists.

“Of the 62.9 million people who voted for President Trump, do you have a number in your mind that you think are actually white nationalist racists of that 62.9 million, a real number?” he asked.

“No, I don’t,” she said.

Still have any doubts? Later in the conversation, Hewitt asked the same question again. “Do you think there are more than a half million, you know, honest-to-God white nationalists running around the United States?”

Clinton: “Probably not, no.”

A white nationalist would like to establish a sovereign country for people of white European heritage, an idea everyone across the political spectrum finds unspeakably intolerable and offensive. Now, the woman who declared that this was the desire of more than half of Americans is saying that virtually nobody wants it. On both counts, she’s completely wrong.

There’s no doubt that Clinton is probably going to try running again for president in 2020 – if she’s even alive that long – and might be trying to absolve her guilt and pander to all those “undecideds” who instantly went MAGA the second she blasted them as no-good racist deplorables for not voting Democrat.

However, Clinton did later admit that there were more white nationalists in America than she had thought. Expressing her worries that the internet and the presidency of Trump is giving them a voice and a platform, she hinted that under her iron scepter, she will attempt to silence them.

“Unfortunately, their views, which used to be quite beyond the mainstream, you know, have a much broader audience now, because you know, of being online and having outlets and media presence that can promote those attitudes,” she said.

How many white nationalists are there in the United States? That’s a question with troublingly few answers, since for some mysterious reason the liberal mainstream media – even though it claims all the time that white supremacy is on the rise – hasn’t actually bothered to take polls and just ask people whether they are white nationalists.

Actually, there’s a simple answer to that. If such a poll were to be taken, our bet is that liberals would be very disappointed to discover that almost nobody is actually a white nationalist, and so there would be no way they could continue scaring people with those fears. A tactic Clinton has apparently given up on.

Left-wingers are entirely convinced that some vague but large majority of people who say they aren’t racists or white nationalists, actually share a lot of views with them – which is why Nazi and white supremacist have become interchangeable with Republican and libertarian.

An article by Newsweek, which polled around 5,000 in order address this very question, came up with this response:

About 70 percent of respondents strongly agreed that people of different races should be “free to live wherever they choose” and that “all races are equal,” and 89 percent agreed that all races should be treated equally. At the same time, 31 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat agreed that the country needs to “protect and preserve its White European heritage,” while 34 percent strongly or somewhat disagreed and 29 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

Reality is, it’s a little true that some Americans do have overlapping views with white nationalists, but the overwhelming majority of respondents STRONGLY believe that the races should be free, are equal, and should be treated equally. Sounds like none of these respondents would be joining a lynch mob or waging a second Holocaust any time soon – trying to equate the preservation of white heritage with support for slavery and genocide is obviously one of the Left’s biggest lies, and the very reason why 39 percent of people in this same survey believe white people are under attack.

So Clinton changes her mind, and now says she believes less than one percent of the American population are white nationalists – did she believe there were even LESS than that during the campaign trail? Either way, she’s either just lying or plain stupid.

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service