I can certainly appreciate that Americans are angry that their money was spent on this political fiasco, but good luck in getting that money unless you’re going to push for impeaching Democrats that were behind pushing the witch hunt. Still, in less than 48 hours, nearly 100,000 people have signed a White House petition demanding the Democratic National Committee pay the $25 million it cost for criminal Robert Mueller to conduct a more than two-year investigation into Russian collusion that was premised on a phony, bought-and-paid-for Hillary Clinton dossier.
The Democratic party has wasted time and the money of the American tax payer to conduct a witch hunt based on a phony dossier bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. As of December 2018 the cost was 25 million dollars. The Democratic party is complicit in this attack on the tax payer. Hillary Clinton should be indicted and if convicted all assets should be seized. All remaining cost for the Russia investigation, all money used to investigate, charge, and imprison Clinton and all of her co-conspirators should be paid by the Democratic National Convention.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows tweeted, “With the report of Adam Schiff meeting with Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson last summer, we now have more evidence of Schiff directly contacting people trying to interfere in our election than we ever did on candidate Trump. Double standard. The collusion investigation is a sham.”
With the report of Adam Schiff meeting with Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson last summer, we now have more evidence of Schiff directly contacting people trying to interfere in our election than we ever did on candidate Trump.
Double standard. The collusion investigation is a sham.
Of course, it was a sham, but at any time, President Trump could have shut it down, but he didn’t and I get it that it was political in nature, both the investigation and the failure to shut it down.
Still, this petition calls for “all money used to investigate, charge, and imprison Clinton and all of her co-conspirators should be paid by the Democratic National Convention.”
Yeah, right. If you people actually think that President Trump is going to do that to his “friend,” after backtracking from his promise to you when he won and demanding you give gratitude for Clinton for her “service” to America, you are in a dream world. It ain’t gonna happen.
Now, stop and think about what he just said in that 60 minutes clip. Only one of the things he mentioned over dealing with the violation of the law is actually constitutional and that is securing the border. Healthcare and jobs are not the responsibility of the president, nor Congress. While laws and policies have an effect on jobs, jobs are not a role of the federal government.
The one thing that the president, be it Trump or any other man, is charged to do is uphold the laws of the union. Where is he on dealing with the corrupt politicians like Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, Joe Biden, Leon Panetta, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and a host of others? He’s MIA, and the American people simply will not call him out on it because of some accomplishments that he made.
This petition implies some of that cry for justice. Will President Trump listen or continue to allow these criminals against our republic to remain free and at large?
My guess is that one the White House lower level people will write a reply to the petition and, as usual, nothing will actually be done about it… because it’s all political theater and controlled opposition.
It’s really time the American people wake up from their slumber.
TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim onTwitter. Also check him out onGabandSteemit
When it comes to the Obama’s, Americans are faced with a harsh reality. After 8 disgusting years of this obama-nation we realize the first question that should have been asked. Do we know anything about these people?
America are you okay?
What happened to this nation in the last decade is nothing less than an atrocity. In 2008 many Americans gathered at the polls hoping to make history by voting in the first black president. Opening the White House doors to many firsts for sure. Such as the first foreign president and the first transgender First-Lady declaring war on school lunch.
So, America are you okay?
Earlier this week a gay twitter account discovered something that may add to rumors that “Michelle” Obama is actually a man. Tweeter @usminority discovered the official Obama account @BarackObama was following @Fleshjack, the official account of Fleshjack gay sex toys.
This tweet put Twitter execs in full panic mode, working overtime to hide the truth and make it seem as if the proof never existed. However, the tweet gained enough attention before twitter would apply it’s damage control.
As this was unfolding Twitter jumped in and took action. First by blocking users from viewing who follows @Fleshjack and later hiding the Fleshjack account until the next day, after the truth was removed.
Once again we are reminded that everything about the Obamas is a lie. They came in to destroy the foundations of this nation. In eight years they turned the Democrat party into a bunch of raging anti-American lunatics.
America are you okay? So America are you okay? Are you okay, America? You’ve been hit by, you’ve been scammed by, a smooth criminal.
The left has been salivating over the prospect of voting Donald Trump out of office in 2020, but now something has happened that could change everything. On Sunday, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that he is “seriously considering running for president as a centrist independent”. If Schultz officially decides to run, and it looks like that is almost certainly going to happen, then a Trump victory in 2020 will become almost inevitable. Unless something dramatic takes place, Trump is going to have the support of at least 40 to 45 percent of American voters in 2020. But the key was going to be finding that last 5 to 10 percent that he needed to push him over the top. Unfortunately for Trump, he does not do well with moderate independent voters, and Democratic strategists were counting on those voters to help them beat Trump. But if a “centrist independent” like Schultz enters the race, he will inevitably steal a lot of those voters from the Democrats, and that is why the left is freaking out so much right now.
There is certainly room in the race for someone like Schultz. If faced with a choice between Donald Trump and a radical leftist such as Kamala Harris, many Americans would be open to a third option. And since Schultz is a billionaire, he could certainly provide the resources necessary to mount a serious independent bid.
But he would not have a prayer of actually winning. 40 percent of the country is going to vote Republican no matter what, and 40 percent of the country is going to vote Democrat no matter what. If things go well for Schultz he could end up with 10 percent of the vote, and if things go perfectly for Schultz he could end up with 20 percent of the vote.
And he is likely to take far more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans because everyone knows that he was a lifelong Democrat. He was a big donor to top Democrats, and he voted Democrat his entire life.
So a three way race would be a dream come true for Trump. In such a scenario Trump may only receive 45 percent of the national vote, but Schultz could pull enough support away from the Democratic candidate to push Trump over the top.
If you are a Trump supporter, send Schultz a message on Twitter encouraging him to run, because it looks like it isn’t going to take too much encouragement to push him over the edge. In fact, it is being reported that he has already spent many months preparing an independent presidential campaign…
Before announcing his presidential ambitions this week, former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz secretly undertook a months-long effort to prepare an independent presidential campaign against the nation’s two-party political system, deploying more than six national polls and laying the groundwork for paid advertising that could debut in the next two months.
All of that effort tells me that Howard Schultz is not just “thinking about it”. He really wants to do this, and that is extremely good news for Trump.
An early advertising effort, made possible by Schultz’s net worth of about $3.4 billion, would be designed to help Schultz show early promise in national polls during his book tour, which he has described as a time to test the appeal of his ideas.
But if he is a lifelong Democrat, then why didn’t he just run as a Democrat?
Well, these days the Democratic Party has taken a radical turn to the left, and Schultz simply doesn’t agree with many of the socialist policy positions that they are currently espousing…
But in 2019, he says he cannot in good conscience run as a Democrat. He is considering an independent run. “What the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall,” he says, indicating “free” health care, “free” college, and the entire litany of “free” things “which the country cannot afford.” He worries — oh, bless his pointy little head! — about the national debt, unfunded liabilities, and other examples of fiscal recklessness. He thinks that the Democrats’ current “liquidate the kulaks as a class” approach to taxes may prove counterproductive to the long-term interests of the United States as a whole. He worries that “extremists” have taken over both parties.
And in this political environment, a moderate white billionaire would simply not have a prayer of winning the Democratic nomination.
So if he wants to run for president, his only option is to do it as an independent, and the fact that he might actually do this is really stressing out those on the left. The New York Times just published an editorial entitled “Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President”, and Henry Blodget is urging Schultz “to go home”…
Unfortunately, right now, our political system is built around only two major parties.
The best way to defeat a candidate from one party is to vote for the candidate from the other.
So if you want to see President Trump fired in 2020, you should probably urge Howard Schultz to go home.
And the media attacks on Schultz have already begun. For example, a Slate article is painting him as someone that was horrible to his employees…
For one, during Schultz’s long tenure as CEO, Starbucks repeatedly fought against workers’ attempts to organize a union. In 2008, for example, a National Labor Relations Board judge found that the company had illegally fired three workers for their union activities, as well as violated other aspects of the law. Starbucks workers in our country still don’t have a union. Although the right wing has tried for years to paint unions as extreme, a recent Gallup poll showed that 62 percent of Americans approve of labor unions; similarly, an MIT survey found that most workers wanted a greater voice on the job, and that almost half would join a union if given the opportunity. Squelching union organizing efforts may be routine for companies, but it’s not where our country’s political center lies.
Starbucks also pays its workers poverty wages. According to PayScale, an online salary information company, the average hourly rate for Starbucks employees is around $11 per hour. Baristas average $9.77 per hour, and wages don’t reach $15 per hour until a worker becomes a retail store manager ($17.44) or assistant manager ($15.17).
If there is enough abuse from the left, it is still possible that Schultz could pull the plug on his campaign before it has even begun.
But if you are a Trump supporter, you definitely do not want that to happen, because having at least one viable third party candidate is probably the key to Trump winning in 2020. So everyone needs to encourage Schultz to run, because we absolutely do not want a radical socialist like Kamala Harris in the White House.
Recently, former Secretary of State John Kerry called on President Trump to resign during a Tuesday appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. While Kerry’s statement has been carried by many media sources, as well as him being asked if he plans to run for president in 2020, no one is asking the most important question of all: Why is Kerry still attending important world functions and meeting with world leaders?
The fact that we have key players from the former Obama government still acting as our legitimate government and many Leftists in power now, who obviously recognize Barack H. Obama as their leader and not the Trump administration, should deeply disturb us. Not only is this an act of defiance against the current administration that was put in power by the citizens of the USA, but it is a blatant act of treason against the people by the former administration and government officials currently in office.
The US is and has been in a quiet, for the most part, Civil War since citizens outrightly rejected the NWO neo-Nazism mantra in electing Donald Trump to not only Make America Great Again, but to actually Make America the United States of America again.
The organized mobs such as ANTIFA and BLM, financed by George Soros and organized by Obama, whose job it is to put down any semblance of support of nationalism in the US, most of the time violently, shows us we citizens are headed into armed conflict with anti-American factions within our own government.
This armed conflict will not bode well for the anti-American factions trying to destroy the US, as most law enforcement and all military will side with US National Patriots and they’re officially sworn in President, Donald Trump.
Tony is an established writer with articles in over 20 publications of differing topics Political Commentary Columnist for the Cimarron News Press in Cimarron, New Mexico from 2001 to 2003 generating the controversy he was hired for. Tony also was a regular writer for several small coastal newspapers in Southern Oregon during the early 1990’s.
In what Judicial Watch describes as a “major victory for accountability,” a federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.
As Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain reports, the judge’s order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton’s use of a private email account was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and said the response of the State and Justice Departments “smacks of outrageous misconduct.”
Judicial Watch announced last night that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials – including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:
▪ Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
▪ whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
▪ whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.
Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:
Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.
Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.
According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:
Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.
Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.
Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.
Additionally, Judicial Watch states that it seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.
4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.
5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.
Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.
Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.
“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”
The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
▪ Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
▪ Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.
Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”
Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”
As a reminder, this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
Originally Published by Tyler Durden atZero Hedge.
Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to America Uncensored by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. You are encouraged to click their link above for more interesting content.