TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
More Assaults on the Rule of Law
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano 
.
Monday Top Headlines 
by Media Editors:  Trump policy of separating migrant families threatens to engulf immigration talks (The Wall Street Journal)
.
DHS Secretary Nielsen slams “irresponsible” media, says no “policy of separating families at the border” (Fox News)
.
Five illegal immigrants killed after high-speed chase in Texas (NBC News)
.
Horowitz, FBI boss Christopher Wray face Senate grilling on bombshell report (Fox News)
.
FBI agent who sent anti-Trump texts offers to testify on Capitol Hill (The Hill)
.
Burning question in DC: Why does Peter Strzok still have a job at FBI? (Washington Examiner)
.
Supreme Court side-steps partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Maryland cases (The Hill)
.
U.S. expected to retreat from main UN rights forum (Reuters)
.
Illinois judge blocks village’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, magazines (The Washington Times)
.
Gun-control group to honor liar-Hillary Clinton for “unwavering” commitment to passing strict gun laws (The Washington Free Beacon)
.
liar-nObama presidential library will cost Illinois taxpayers more than $200 million (The Daily Wire)
.
Washington Post workers slam owner Jeff Bezos for “shocking pay practices,” demand “fair wages” (The Daily Wire)
.
After Seattle ditches its Amazon tax, Silicon Valley city mulls a Google tax (Reason)
.
Ted Cruz outlasts Jimmy Kimmel in grueling Blobfish Basketball Classic (The Texas Tribune)
.
Humor: Father’s Day updated to “Toxic Masculinity Awareness Day” (The Babylon Bee)
.
Policy: These five changes would fix the nation’s budget woes (The Daily Signal)
.
Policy: Streamlining infrastructure environmental review (Manhattan Institute)   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56614?mailing_id=3551&utm_mediu...
.
Yes, liar-Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted
by DAVID FRENCH
{ nationalreview.com } ~ I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election... the FBI, liar-Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that liar-Hillary should have faced a jury of her peers. The IG report on the liar-Hillary email investigation contains the most thoughtful and thorough explanation of the FBI’s decision to recommend against prosecuting liar-Hillary. At the risk of oversimplifying a long and complex discussion, the IG time and again noted that among other things the FBI focused on the apparent lack of intent to violate the law and the lack of a clear precedent for initiating a prosecution under similar facts. It also describes how the FBI wrestled with the definition of “gross negligence” — concluding that the term encompassed conduct “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention” or “something that falls just short of being willful.” After reading the analysis, I just flat-out don’t buy that liar-Hillary’s conduct — and her senior team’s conduct — didn’t meet that standard. The key reason for my skepticism is the nature of the classified information sent and received. Remember, as Comey outlined in his infamous July 5, 2016 statement, liar-Hillary sent and received information that was classified at extraordinarily high levels...
.
Developing: Judiciary Committee 
Says They’ll Drag Strzok Before Congress 
by CILLIAN ZEAL
{ westernjournal.com } ~ In the wake of Thursday’s report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz... the House Judiciary Committee announced in a tweet that they want FBI Agent Peter Strzok to appear before Congress to explain potential biases which ought to have led to his recusal. The report contained more text messages from Strzok and his alleged lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, including what might have been the most damning exchange yet. In it, Page texted Strzok asking, “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied ominously. Strzok, in case you needed to be reminded, was in charge of the liar-Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation, including a short stint as the top investigator on Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation before his text messages came to light...   https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/developing-judiciary-committee-sa...
.
Steve King: Republican House Members Considering 
Forcibly Removing Paul Ryan from Speakership 
by Matthew Boyle
{ breitbart.com } ~ Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told Breitbart News Tonight earlier this week that House Republicans are considering forcibly removing House Speaker Paul Ryan from the speakership... via a “motion to vacate the chair” over Ryan’s efforts to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda. “It’s kind of odd that he has as much power as he has,” King said of Ryan during the appearance on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel with Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Breitbart News Tonight earlier this week. “But I do predict, and it is happening, that that power is diminishing. I also have got information that there are–I’ll say ‘members’–I say that plurally, with knowledge, that are considering introducing a motion to vacate the chair. If they do that, that will throw this place into a tizzy and force the kind of election for a Speaker that may bring out someone who is a lot stronger on this.” A motion to vacate the chair would call a referendum on Ryan’s speakership to the floor. It could force a vote on whether Republicans want Ryan to remain as speaker as a lame duck for the rest of the year, especially after all these failures in strategy and his efforts to undermine the president with an amnesty bill that the president opposes and said he “certainly” would never sign...
.
Representative Jim Jordan Discusses IG Report
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) appears on Fox News to discuss the IG report and the upcoming appearance of Michael Horowitz... to the Judiciary and Oversight committee coming this Tuesday June 19th. On Monday June 18th both Horowitz and FBI Director Chris Wray will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley. Then on Tuesday Horowitz will appear before the House Joint Judiciary/Oversight Committee. We need Jim Jordan to ask some basic questions and gain clarity from Horowitz. Tuesday is likely the best hope for answers because we have Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Ron DeSantis, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, Steve King, possibly Mark Meadows and Chairman Goodlatte asking the questions.
.
JW Videos of the Week
The Awan Bros/DNC IT Scandal featuring Luke Rosiak
.
Tom Fitton’s Video Weekly Update: June 15, 2018
.
liar-Clinton, Russia Probes were Irredeemably Compromised
.
Chris Farrell: ‘The DOJ is Where the Truth Goes to Die’
.
IG Report will ‘Destroy’ Credibility of FBI, DOJ
.
Mueller is Focused on Justifying his own Operation
.
.
More Assaults on the Rule of Law

by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ Amid all the happy hoopla over President Donald Trump's trip to Singapore, where he began the process for what he hopes will be the normalization of relations between the United States and North Korea and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, has come an effort by the House Intelligence Committee to interfere with the criminal investigation of the president.

The committee's chairman, Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, and the Republican majority on the committee have demanded that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to the origins of the investigation of President Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller.

And Nunes has threatened Mueller's superior, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, with censure, contempt and even impeachment if he fails to comply. Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement's active files? In a word: No.

Here is the back story.

In the pre-9/11 era, when the FBI and the DOJ devoted their work primarily to investigating criminal activity, they both answered not only to the president but also to the House and Senate Judiciary committees. This long-standing relationship came about by way of a check on the exercise of prosecutorial power by the DOJ and the FBI.

These congressional committees approve the budget for law enforcement, the argument went, and as watchdogs, so to speak, they are entitled to know how the taxpayers' money — and money borrowed in the taxpayers' name — is being spent.

The relationship between the congressional committees on one hand and federal law enforcement on the other has been a give-and-take, push-me-pull-you relationship that generally led to compromise between Congress and federal law enforcement.

After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which, in addition to authorizing FBI agents to write their own search warrants for all sorts of custodians of records — legal, medical, postal and banking enterprises, supermarkets, and libraries, to name a few — gave the FBI a domestic intelligence mission not unlike that of the National Security Agency, which is America's domestic spying apparatus.

The intelligence mission enabled the FBI to utilize new tools for law enforcement, under the guise of intelligence gathering. Stated differently, by pretending to be looking for spies, the FBI found crooks. Because the legal threshold for spying for intelligence purposes is far lower than the legal threshold for obtaining a traditional search warrant, FBI agents often took the easier route.

But the FBI's spying mission also subjected it to the scrutiny of two additional congressional committees, one in the House and one in the Senate. This cross-pollination of law enforcement and intelligence gathering — this mixture of two distinct roles, one traditional for the FBI and the other novel to it, one clearly regulated by the Constitution and the other purporting to be outside of it — tempted not only FBI agents to use the tools of spy-craft for law enforcement (even though it's prohibited by the Fourth Amendment) but also Congress.

Now back to Rep. Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee.

The Republicans on that committee are determined to use their regulatory powers over federal intelligence gathering to investigate federal law enforcement. They are doing this because they claim to smell a rat in the origins of the special counsel investigation and they want to get to the bottom of it. In order to get to the bottom of it, they have demanded to see documents in the custody of special counsel Mueller to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to commence the criminal investigation of Trump back in November 2016.

But it is not the role of Congress to do this in the midst of a criminal investigation, and it is not the role of a congressional intelligence committee to scrutinize law enforcement.

There are two dangers to the rule of law here. The first is that members of this committee could use their security clearances to examine classified materials and then use what they have seen for a political narrative. They cannot lawfully, except on the floor of Congress, publicly reveal classified documents they have seen, but they can (and they have done so in the past) summarize them publicly — and with a political spin.

That endangers the sources of criminal investigators, many of whom are people who communicate with investigators at great personal risk and to whom confidentiality has been promised. That confidentiality is recognized in the law as the informant's privilege, and it keeps confidential criminal matters from public and peering congressional eyes until the investigation is concluded.

The second and equally harmful danger is that members of the committee could leak what they have seen. To prevent this, prosecutors have a privilege to keep their files secret until they charge or exonerate their targets or subjects.

Under the Constitution, we enjoy the separation of powers. Congress writes the laws; the executive branch enforces them; and the courts interpret them. Congress can no more constitutionally interfere with ongoing law enforcement for political purposes than the DOJ can interfere with the passage of congressional legislation that it doesn't like.

The down and dirty fear that the DOJ and the FBI have is that revealing the contents of the criminal file on the president to his political allies in Congress in the midst of an investigation of him would be a dangerous precedent, one that would pollute the investigation and give present and future politically powerful potential defendants advantages that no one else has.

That disparate treatment of the president as defendant strikes at the heart of the rule of law. And the rule of law is what protects us from politicians who can't restrain themselves from violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Views: 11

Comment

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service