Saturday, February 9, 2019
Friday, February 8, 2019
If These Guys Were Republicans, They Would Have Already Resigned. Not So For Dems!
Another Politician Caught in
Blackface Scandal
image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/aanews/media/picture/59af/0bf3/6970/2d43/fe1a/3100/content_Doh.jpg?1520439623
Photo by Jonund via Flickr
The revelation comes as the state’s Democratic leadership is in crisis, with Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring both facing calls to resign after they admitted to wearing blackface while they were college students in the 1980s.
State Sen. Tommy Norment oversaw the Virginia Military Institute’s “The Bomb” yearbook in 1968 — the same year the college first allowed black students to enroll, according to The Virginian-Pilot.
The yearbook includes several photos of people in blackface — including one at a costume party, and another of two men in the racist makeup while holding a football — as well as the N-word and a student from Thailand who is referred to as a “Chink,” the paper reports.
A photo of one man is captioned: “He was known as the ‘Barracks Jew’ having his fingers in the finances of the entire Corps.”
Norment refused to respond to press inquiries.
Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/another-politician-caught-in-blackface-scandal#pDFSx4w8vA8hhSg8.99
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Hillary Defenders Still Working Overtime
Stonewalling on Clinton Emails Continues Under Trump, Watchdog Says
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ultimately may be ordered to speak to Judicial Watch lawyers. Pictured: Clinton waits to speak Jan. 7 during an event to promote fewer restrictions on abortion held at Barnard College in New York City. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Federal bureaucrats, defying President Donald Trump, are resisting requests for information about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while secretary of state and how that may have compromised national security, the head of a legal watchdog group told The Daily Signal in an interview.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said Obama administration officials originally declined to assess the extent to which Clinton’s email practices damaged national security.
But later, Fitton said, “President Trump’s appointees got in the way of us doing it.”
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled Jan. 17 that Judicial Watch could begin the process of discovery in the Clinton email case. That means former Obama administration officials and Clinton aides must respond to questions from the organization under oath and in writing.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
“Obviously, Mrs. Clinton’s conduct is an issue here, but we are also talking about the conduct of the Justice Department and the State Department,” Fitton said in the Jan. 31 phone interview with The Daily Signal, adding:
The email scandal is not just a Hillary Clinton scandal. It’s a State Department scandal and it’s a Justice Department scandal. There’s a lot of powerful agencies and deep state interests who are implicated in the Hillary Clinton email scandal. That’s why they are protecting her.
Obama administration officials who will be deposed under oath as a result of Lamberth’s order include Susan Rice, the former national security adviser who also served as ambassador to the United Nations; Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Obama; Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; and FBI official E.W. Priestap, who since 2015 has been assistant director of the agency’s Counterintelligence Division.
Remarkably, Fitton said, he has found that in some instances the Trump administration has been less responsive than the Obama administration to Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to the Clinton emails and related questions about the Benghazi incident.
Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in the attackson the consulate and a nearby CIA annex.
“The main scandal of the Trump administration isn’t Russia,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “It’s the agencies’ continuing defense of Hillary Clinton’s misconduct, which is obviously contrary to the desires of the president, so it’s doubly scandalous. With some of these issues, we had an easier time with the Obama Department of Justice than we have had with the Trump Justice Department.”
“I think the president is very concerned that he is being ill served by the folks he’s appointing to these agencies, and that what they are doing is contrary to the public interest,” Fitton said.
"We are protecting @RealDonaldTrump from a coup, holding Clinton accountable for mishandling classified info, defending our country from illegal alien invasions,& making sure our elections aren’t stolen." Big @JudicialWatch speech to young patriots @TPUSA! youtu.be/rnpokFs1Yls
924 people are talking about this
Answers Sought
While secretary of state under President Barack Obama from Jan. 21, 2009, to Jan. 31, 2013, Clinton used an unsecure, private computer server to send, receive, and store email that contained “top secret” and classified information, the FBI determined.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit that says it focuses on “integrity, transparency, and accountability in government,” first brought to light Clinton’s routine use of a private email account to conduct government business.
In 2014, Fitton’s organization filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act against the Obama administration, seeking information and correspondence pertaining to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The suit led to the disclosure of Clinton’s nongovernment email account in 2015.
Judicial Watch has four months to conduct discovery in response to Lamberth’sorder. According to a press release, the group’s lawyers will seek to find out whether:
—Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act by using a nongovernment email system.
—The State Department’s efforts to settle the Clinton case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith.
—The State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
—Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act by using a nongovernment email system.
—The State Department’s efforts to settle the Clinton case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith.
—The State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Lamberth will hold a hearing after discovery to determine whether it is necessary for Judicial Watch to depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and Cheryl Mills, her former chief of staff, the watchdog group says.
“I have little doubt that discovery is going to confirm that [the Freedom of Information Act] was a major issue in terms of the reason for Clinton’s email system being secret,” Fitton said, adding of Lamberth’s order:
The ruling for discovery shows we are in the middle of the Clinton email scandal and not the end of it. The goal is to get the information the court wants to know about and to determine whether or not her [email] system was set up to evade FOIA, whether or not the court was hoodwinked, and whether or not there was an adequate search for documents.
Benghazi Talking Points
Judicial Watch’s 2014 FOIA request sought copies of “any updates and/or talking points” given to Rice, then U.N. ambassador, “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.”
The watchdog also sought all “records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” given to Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
While appearing on multiple Sunday news programs to discuss the attacks that occurred the previous Tuesday, Rice said the attacks were not premeditated and instead were the result of a spontaneous protest in response to an “anti-Islamic” video on the internet.
Clinton had declined to go on the Sunday shows. Judicial Watch has described the written talking points Rice used as the basis for her comments as “false.”
“The court, not being naïve, has asked whether or not this case is about the Benghazi talking points,” Fitton said of Lamberth. “This is the [FOIA] lawsuit that uncovered the Clinton email scandal. We had asked for Benghazi talking points documents, and they were in the Clinton emails.”
“They were giving us the runaround,” Fitton said of Obama State Department officials. “They knew they had them and didn’t want to turn them over to us. The court wants to know whether the Benghazi scandal was a reason for keeping these emails secret from and not subject to search by the State Department.”
In his Jan. 15 order, Lamberth explained why he rejected the State Department’s objections to allowing Judicial Watch to depose department officials with knowledge of the talking points on the Benghazi attacks:
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.
The Daily Signal asked the press offices at the State Department and the Justice Department for comment on Lamberth’s discovery order and Fitton’s characterization that the agencies have resisted discovery in the Clinton email case. Neither department had responded as of publication time.
Damage Assessment
Another unanswered question for Judicial Watch dates to a lawsuit it filed in March 2017 against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department. The suit sought to compel both agencies to conduct a “damage assessment” of how hostile foreign actors may have exploited Clinton’s unsecure email server.
“A big part of the scandal here is we don’t know how compromising Clinton’s use of private email was to national security, because the federal agencies responsible for securing our classified information have refused to investigate it,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “They presume that foreign actors got her emails, but they’ve never done the required damage assessment of the leakage of classified information.”
Fitton added:
On top of that, we have additional information suggesting that her emails were being copied in real time to another foreign actor like China. Still, no damage assessment has been done and we sued, and we were opposed. The Obama people didn’t want to do it and President Trump’s appointees got in the way of us doing it.
In a separate but related case, Clinton submitted written answers under oath in response to questions from Judicial Watch about her email system.
In that testimony, Clinton said she used the private email for the “purpose of convenience.”
Are We On The Road To Legalized Infantcide And Euthanasia--Very Likely. Are You Next?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/06/short-is-the-road-that-leads-from-abortion-to-infanticide-euthanasia/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1OaFl6QXhNR1l4WWpFMCIsInQiOiI1MDIyRmZJdG5CTzBCVUhvXC9xTjQyR2R0WGRKTFFDaVpIeFlZdzBTNlVcL2NVaFNlYWgwVHJDcllOVGt6alwvU3NtNlpUUmlxR3U4UFh3THBpQUswMnpZTUFOcXR6UVUwZFNYSktwS0d2UnpRSmJDemI0Vlo5QXh5RllBTzBOclQwTSJ9
The Truth Is Finally Starting To Come Out. Slow As Molasses In The Dead Of Winter
OUTRAGE! Obama caught doing… WHAT!?
Former President Barack Obama and the Democrats’ attempt to frame Donald Trump for “Russian collusion” was dirtier, and started earlier, than anyone ever knew — and the number two man in the current investigation was in it up to his eyeballs.
Jaw-dropping testimony before Congress make experts wonder if President Trump can get a fair shake in the never-ending investigation.
It’s so sleazy, it could only happen in Washington under Obama.
Details that have leaked out from behind closed doors prove that the Democrats managed to smuggle their talking points into the top levels of power through personal — even sexual — relationships.
How did a handful of opposition research, paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, lead to a two-and-a-half year investigation that smears the sitting president?
The revelations are so explosive that, even though they happened months ago, they’ve just come to light this week.
The first shocking part is just when all this happened.
Justice Department official Bruce Ohr said he took the phony dossier to Obama administration officials almost the secondthat Donald Trump locked up the Republican Party presidential nomination.
Ohr had breakfast with Christopher Steele, the British spy who cobbled together the fake allegations, on July 30, 2016.
Trump had just clinched the nomination on July 19 — after beating back a plot by GOP elites to rig the convention and nominate Ohio governor John Kasich… someone they knew Hillary could beat like a drum.
Lo and behold, just 11 days later Bruce Ohr took the dossier to top Obama officials and the FBI was suddenly on the case.
The Obama administration used the allegations to spy on the Trump presidential campaign.
The second shocking part is the way it caught Democrats red-handed trying to cover their tracks by shamelessly lying to the American people.
When the GOP first learned just a shred of this information, they put out a memo with the facts warning the American people that the Russian investigation was a charade.
Then Democrats released their own report—but unlike the GOP, they lied through their collective teeth.
The Democrats claimed the Republican memo “mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr’s role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr’s communications with the FBI.”
The Democrats swore that Ohr didn’t go to the FBI until November 2016, right around election time. He hardly had any influence over the investigation at all, they said.
But Bruce Ohr shot a hole through their lies, under oath, last August.
Now Americans that Democrats will lie about Russia, Obama and his officials, even whether crimes took place—just as long as it hurts Donald Trump.
And that leads into the most shocking part of this whole testimony—and has nothing to do with ancient history.
The present—and future—of the United States hang on one of the facts that came out…and that’s just who Ohr talked to.
Everyone knew that Bruce Ohr took his story to Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok.
Everyone knew that those three were determined to stop Trump from being elected, and that Page and Strzok sent secret text messages discussing ways to frame Trump for Russian collusion as an “insurance policy” just in case he got elected.
But what nobody knew was that one of the people Bruce Ohr talked to was Andrew Weissmann—the number one investigator working on Robert Mueller’s investigation today!
Ohr told Congress last summer that he promised to brief Weissmann on “specific information related to the Russian government’s attempt to interfere in the presidential election.”
But what he gave him was the dossier that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for, produced by a firm called Fusion GPS.
And who worked for Fusion GPS at the time? None other than Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife!
Their intimate relationship helped Democrats get a file of flimsy opposition research taken seriously.
Obama could use it to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and try to throw the 2016 election to Clinton…and he almost succeeded.
Now the investigation keeps going and going, led by someone who was part of the whole dirty process to smear President Trump with a dossier full of outrageous and erroneous lies.
When Fox News asked the FBI and DOJ if all this broke their own rules, they clammed up and refused to comment.
Weismann should be under investigation, and end up behind bars, for trying to rig a presidential election and destroy a sitting president.
Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”
The Media, #MeToo, And How Accusers Are Handled
At WaPo, It Was ‘Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.’ Now The Paper Ignores Vanessa Tyson’s Title
The paper is making a conscious effort not to bolster Vanessa Tyson’s credibility.
Here’s an interesting leftist media double-standard.
When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was making wild allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September, despite not remembering the date, time, or place in which the alleged incident occurred, Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post insisted that you, and I, and the rest of the world use her full name: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
The paper published an entire piece on the subject.
It was called “Her name is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Use it.”
Trending: Joy Behar Wore ‘African Woman’ Costume
“No matter where you stand on Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, it’s hard not to notice the inequality in how the two have been addressed,” wrote Steven Petrew. “President Trump has routinely referred to ‘Judge Kavanaugh.’ For instance, the president said earlier this week: ‘Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people that I’ve ever known,’ which is the appropriate and respectful manner in which to address him. (When you’ve earned an honorific, people should use it. The rule applies equally to Trump, who is properly addressed as “Mr. President,” even if you’re a Democrat.)”
The piece went on to whine that President Donald J. Trump called Ford “the woman” (despite the fact that he called her Dr. Ford in a Tweet) and that Kellyanne Conway called Ford “her” and “the accuser.”
This really miffed The Washington Post back in September.
Flash forward to Wednesday.
At this point, we know that the paper spiked Dr. Vanessa Tyson’s allegations against Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax last year, dismissing them as “uncorroborated.” (If that is the standard, then WaPo should immediately retract every story on Ford, but that’s a different story.) Interestingly, the paper does not seem to have the same feeling about “honorifics” in regard to Tyson.
“Professor who accused Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of 2004 sexual assault issues statement detailing alleged incident,” was the WaPo headline from Wednesday.
The piece does not mention that Tyson has a doctorate, and rightfully holds the “honorific” Dr., except in the context of quoting Fairfax’s denial of the alleged sexual assault. It also avoids using her name at all costs.
“Fairfax vehemently denied the allegation, saying that the woman was lying and that he was the victim of a ‘smear,'” the paper said. “The woman, meanwhile, was silent.”
Back in September, describing an accuser as “the woman” was out of bounds for the folks at Washington Post. Apparently, that’s only the standard when the accuser is accusing a Republican.
“She accused Fairfax of forcing her to perform oral sex during the encounter, which took place during the Democratic National Convention in Boston,” the piece continued.
Later in the piece, the paper referred to the accuser only as “Tyson.” There was no discussion about “honorifics” or respect.
Though slight, this distinction between the descriptors used for Ford and Tyson is a perfect example of subtle media bias, in this case used by the far-left media to discredit allegations of sexual abuse that might damage a Democrat.