[The Hill] Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's 2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier commitment to accept Comey's recommendation ‐ a commitment she made under the pretense that the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/22/2018 10:00 Comments ||
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/22/2018 10:24 Comments ||
Posted by: F. Clunk7196 ||
01/22/2018 17:53 Comments ||
Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?
What #7 Abu Uluque said.
I'd like to see what the House Intelligence memo has to say. I'd also like to see the "unredacted" FBI notes on the Lynch-WJC tarmac meeting as well. They really did expect Hildabeast to win--most likely, because they thought they had it rigged.
The democrats with their willing useful idiots in the media, the FBI, DoJ, NSA, and the Obuma White House, did everything possible, including trying to hack state electronic voting (remember the hacking attempt in Georgia where the traced IP address was inside DHS?) and Trump STILL won.
Even with the millions of illegal aliens voting, with the dead, felons, and double voters, he won.
My good gracious, what were they trying to do?
Was the militarized IRS, et al., going to turn the US into a new Soviet after Hillary's election?
ASTERIOD INCOMING THREAT TO HAWAII. SEEK SHELTER THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
[Breitbart] Two CNN correspondents claimed during an episode of The Lead with Jake Tapper that an asteroid could potentially threaten the Earth if the government shutdown continues.
CNN correspondent Tom Foreman recalled the time NASA could not monitor "potentially dangerous asteroids" for over two weeks, implying that NASA would not be able to prevent an asteroid attack if it hit Earth while the government shut down.
"In space, that same year, for more than two weeks, NASA reportedly stopped monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids. A big one, by the way, is expected to brush by Earth on February 4th," Foreman noted.
Not we could do a damn thing about an impact now anaway. Earth has been hit in the past. It will get hit in the future. There are rocks out there with our name on them. Maybe at some point we can move them out of the way. But it requires a pretty long lead time. But don't ask NASA to get involved. Prioroties will shift. Administraions change and new emergencies crop up. Besides, NASA is the poster child for politicians that love to bitch about government waste while voting pork for their districts
[Breitbart] Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Democrats made a "major mistake" by shutting down the government.
According to Gingrich, the shutdown is "not what the Democrats hoped for."
"[T]he Democrats made a huge mistake because what they should have done was pass the defense appropriations bill for the whole year ‐ get it off the table, don’t threaten the men and women in uniform and their families,’ Gingrich told John Catsimatidis, host New York AM 970 radio’s "The Cats Roundtable." "Instead, they stumbled into a situation where the Schumer shutdown cuts off funding for the American military on behalf of trying to get a deal for 700,000 people who entered the U.S. illegally."
He added, "I am totally opposed to holding up as hostage the families and the men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect this country."
[WND] For most of us, the death of a child is our worst nightmare.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was so singularly gut-wrenching because the victims were mostly young children. Likewise, news reports about the Boston Marathon bombing emphasized the fact that, of the three people killed, one was an 8-year-old boy ‐ as if to highlight the uniquely great loss of a child.
In the world of crime, one of the most incomprehensible acts is baby murder. We’re outraged at the widespread sex-selective infanticide of newborn girls in China. And news headlines like "Georgia boys face murder charges after cold-blooded killing of infant being strolled by mother" and "Black teens murder white baby for the fun of it" cause us to shake our heads and wonder, How could anyone possibly sink so low?
Many murders of babies ‐ almost half, according to the Justice Department’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service ‐ occur within the first 24 hours after birth, so-called "neonaticide."
Of course, appalling crimes like these have always have been a part of life in this fallen world ‐ a world of good and evil, of decent and indecent people, where moral outrage is kindled within all good souls by the murder of the innocent.
There are two statistics that explain the Democrat obsession with illegal immigration and open borders.
97% of immigrants in the appropriate grouping identify themselves as Hispanic, but by the fourth generation that number falls to half. Only 7% of immigrants describe themselves as Americans, but 56% in the third generation call themselves Americans. Even the use of Spanish is slowly declining.
If a minority stops existing after a few generations, did it ever actually exist?
The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration.
In the economics of identity politics, Hispanics, unlike African-Americans, are not an enduring group. And that is a serious challenge for Democrats and their leftist allies who treat politics as a game of demographic Risk played with minorities across the states and cities of the United States.
...Democrats have pinned their hopes for a national majority on a European origin group whose minority status is cultural and linguistic. And even without the old melting pot, foreign languages and cultural affinities decline across generations as immigrants become Americans. What Democrats really want aren’t a lot of Hispanics, but an endless firehose of first generation immigrants.
...The Democrats don’t value the DACA illegal aliens who benefited from Obama’s equally illegal amnesty because, as they claim, they’re really Americans. They only care about them to the extent that they aren’t. And even they’re useful only as a wedge issue for open borders and unlimited migration.
...The Democrats need to maintain higher percentages of immigrants relative to the immigrants of previous generations. It’s a demographic Ponzi scheme that like all such schemes can only end in disaster. But the Democrats have embraced it out of greed and have no choice now but to keep the scam going even if it bankrupts cities and states, and eventually tears the entire country apart.
...When the Democrats bet everything on illegal migration, they alienated millions of voters who went on to help elect President Trump. The alienated working class vote forced them to double down even harder on illegal aliens. Losing traditional constituencies to identity politics has always radicalized Dems. And 2016 was no different. Instead of political accommodation, the Dems embraced #resistance.
But their new majority depends on open borders. A wall doesn’t just cut off the pathway of illegal aliens into this country; it cuts off the pathway of the Democrats to their new majority. And then their political Ponzi scheme falls apart, as such schemes usually do, when the momentum feeding it fails.
That’s why a border wall is a threat to the political survival of the Democrats. And it’s why they will do everything they can to stop it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.