TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Trump's Sanctuary Strategy
Gary Bauer
.
Redacted dirty cop-Mueller report released
by Caitlin YilekPDF Files of dirty cop-Mueller Report: https://www.scribd.com/document/406726159/Mueller-Report
.
dirty cop-Robert Mueller Report – Open
Discussion Thread – Download Links and Pdf
by sundancePDF File:: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
.
dirty cop-Mueller Report:
Dems Bash Barr to Keep Hype Alive
by David Catron.
The dirty cop-Mueller report:
A constitutional fight worth having
by Gary J. Schmitt
{ aei.org } ~ In yesterday’s Washington Post, Amber Phillips wrote a piece on “How the Legal Battle for the Full dirty cop-Mueller Report Could Play Out...” At issue is Congress’ demand — or, more exactly, Democrat-led committees in the House are demanding — to see the dirty cop-Mueller Report in full. No cuts, no redactions to the 400 pages of text. Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr is only promising to deliver to Congress a version of the report that will redact (black out) sections of the text that consist of grand jury duty testimony, sensitive intelligence matters, ongoing investigations, or material that unduly touches on the privacy of individuals but, in his estimation, is not necessary to understand the underlying findings of the report. Phillips notes that the most likely first step for House Democrats if Barr hands over a highly redacted version of the report is to issue a subpoena for the full report. Indeed, Rep. scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), House Judiciary Committee Chair, has already had his committee members vote to give him that authority. And Rep. scumbag liar-Nadler has already made it clear that, if his subpoena is ignored by the Justice Department, he is willing to go to the federal courts, even up to the Supreme Court, in an effort to enforce the subpoena’s execution. Phillips then quotes lawyers who have opposite opinions about whether scumbag liar-Nadler’s turn to the courts would work. What is missing from Phillips’ piece and similar pieces is the consideration that this might be one of those instances in which we find both the AG and a committee upholding constitutionally sound but contradictory principles. The executive branch in the person of the Attorney General has an obligation under the law to protect grand jury information and, as a subordinate officer of the president, an obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods. Congress, on the other hand, has oversight responsibilities requiring access to information — information that it has every right to insist, as a co-equal branch of government, that it be the judge of whether the information supplied is adequate to the task of oversight. In short, neither branch is, in constitutional theory, wrong in its assertions here. What is problematic is asking the Court to issue a precedent-setting opinion in a matter that is likely to tilt future disagreements of this kind in favor of one branch over another and do so regardless of the particulars of some future dispute. The last thing the Supreme Court should be deciding is which position is “more correct” when in fact both branches have legitimate, if conflicting, claims. The Court would be taking on a Solomon-esque role it was never intended to have. Phillips does briefly mention one non-judicial way for Congress to force Barr’s hand... http://www.aei.org/publication/the-mueller-report-a-constitutional-fight-worth-having/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJOa09UYzNZMk0wTkdNNCIsInQiOiIxQ21CczBlK3hwQm1rUlJuZHZRY3V2VEE0Uzc2TVwvRUUzbTBNSE1HQ2pwR0VYNHhkYW5pUlQyOXlHQjFtaytmZGNwTnVsWHMyNTk3a1VvMXd0bGNvOTF0VzFVVlM0dURLXC92UW1Cb3lud0xyUWVPZURBN2ZZcHFZQmJzb1FsZnZwIn0%3D .
U.S. Intelligence Institutionally
Politicized Toward Democrats
by Bill Gertz
{ freebeacon.com } ~ The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have become bastions of political liberals and the pro-Democratic Party views of intelligence personnel have increased under President Donald Trump... according to a journal article by a former CIA analyst. John Gentry, who spent 12 years as a CIA analyst, criticized former senior intelligence leaders, including CIA Director scumbag/commie-John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence scumbag-James Clapper, and former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, along with former analyst Paul Pillar, for breaking decades-long prohibitions of publicly airing their liberal political views in attacking Trump. The institutional bias outlined in a lengthy article in the quarterly International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence risks undermining the role of intelligence in support of government leaders charged with making policy decisions. Gentry stopped short of saying the widespread liberal bias of intelligence officials has influenced intelligence reports and products. However, he concludes that "bias may have crept into CIA analyses." "A considerable body of evidence, much of it fragmentary, indicates that many CIA people have left-leaning political preferences, but less evidence shows that political bias influences CIA analyses," Gentry concludes. In the past, intelligence politicization was defined as either skewing intelligence to fit biases or manipulating intelligence by those outside the intelligence community. "But in 2016 observers of U.S. intelligence began to wonder if the CIA's once-firm prohibition on partisan politics had changed, and to ponder whether a new kind of politicization had arisen: namely, institutionally embedded, partisan bias," Gentry wrote....
.
Trump's Sanctuary StrategyThe president tweeted, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”
You’d think so, right? Yet for days now, many progressive leaders have been denouncing Trump for daring to suggest he just might give them what they want.
The mayor of Seattle called Trump “a despot.” A spokeswoman for Nancy Pulosi, who represents the sanctuary city of San Francisco, blasted the president’s idea as “cruel,” “warped” and “despicable."
Not long ago, Cher urged progressives to adopt DACA recipients and to give these illegal immigrants "sanctuary” in their homes. But in response to Trump’s latest suggestion, Cher tweeted this:
I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISN’T TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN. WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+ Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS. PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE, & HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own (Many Are VETS) How Can it Take Care Of More.
That’s a great question. It deserves a real debate. I commend the president for getting at least one Hollywood liberal to focus on the impact of open borders on ordinary Americans. Is she going to re-register as a Republican?
Let me briefly remind you of what President Trump has tried to do.
He wanted full funding for a border wall to stop illegal immigration. Progressives in Congress gave him as little as possible.
He wanted to station more troops at the border. But liberal governors pulled their National Guard troops and some deep state officials in the Pentagon resisted.
He wanted migrants claiming asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were adjudicated. But a liberal judge blocked him.
He tried to end scumbag/liar-nObama’s unconstitutional DACA program. But liberal judges blocked him.
He tried to block funding to sanctuary cities. But a liberal judge blocked him.
He offered a very generous immigration deal exchanging protections for DACA recipients for border wall funding. Congressional liberals blocked it.
I think you get the point.
And what has the left proposed? Well, nothing really. In spite of record apprehensions, left-wing politicians insist there’s no crisis at the border.
The left’s radical agenda is deeply unpopular. For example:
76% of voters oppose open borders.
71% of voters oppose letting illegal immigrants vote in local elections.
64% of voters oppose sanctuary cities.
Only 25% of voters support abolishing ICE.
Republicans used to label liberal politicians “San Francisco Democrats.” Trump is successfully labeling his open borders opponents “Sanctuary City Democrats.” ~The Patriot Post
Comments