Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)
Oh the humanity! The horror!
President Trump this week tweeted this:
The Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes wrote this on NewsBusters on May 8:
The liberal media’s war against President Trump was as fierce as ever during the first four months of 2018, but the onslaught appears to be for naught: In the face of massive and hostile coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC, Trump’s overall job approval rating actually rose, from 37 percent in mid-December to roughly 43 percent at the end of April.
The Media Research Center studied all broadcast evening news coverage of the President from January 1 through April 30, and found 90 percent of the evaluative comments about Trump were negative — precisely the same hostile tone we documented in 2017.
From the spineless White House Correspondents’ Association came this gift-wrapped hypocrisy:
“Some may excuse the president’s inflammatory rhetoric about the media, but just
because the president does not like news coverage does not make it fake. A free press must be
able to report on the good, the bad, the momentous and the mundane, without fear or favor. And
a president preventing a free and independent press from covering the workings of our republic
would be an unconscionable assault on the First Amendment.”
This, mind you, from the self-same group to which I sent the following inquiry before their recent dinner that made much of celebrating the First Amendment. To Margaret Talev, this year’s WHCA president, I wrote:
“This year there have been boycotts to force Laura Ingraham off of her Fox show and another attempting the same with Sean Hannity. Kevin Williamson, as you know, left National Review to accept an invitation from The Atlantic, where he was fired after two days for controversial tweets from an earlier time. When he pointed out to editor Jeffrey Goldberg that the late Atlantic contributor Christopher Hitchens was noted for controversial writings the response was: ‘Yes. But Hitchens was in the family. You are not.’
With all of that in mind, I note you have said of President Trump that “he will actively encourage members of the executive branch to attend and join us as we celebrate the First Amendment.”
My question: In celebrating the First Amendment, will anyone speaking at this year’s dinner be defending the free press/free speech rights of Laura, Sean, and Kevin? If not, why not?”
And the response from Ms. Talev? Complete and total silence. When the dinner rolled around there was not a peep about the assault on the First Amendment rights of Hannity, Ingraham and Williamson. (And full disclosure, I write columns at Hannity.com) Say again…not…a…peep. A check last year on this subject with Rush Limbaugh and I was told they had never bothered to stand up for him either when he was under assault from liberals wanting to get him off the air.
Now? Mere words from a president using his own First Amendment rights and suddenly WHCA leaps into what passes for action from them. They castigate the President – really! – for “inflammatory rhetoric” – but are silent as liberal media was busy castigating Trump as another Hitler, an authoritarian and more. Hey…no inflammatory rhetoric there!
Let’s recall a few things here about a president who actually did serious damage to press freedom. As the WHCA dinner loomed in 2017 (and yes, I was there for that one) The Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams took note of all the faux outrage by various media outlets that President Trump was stiffing the dinner for a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The event is decorated with lavish media parties strewn throughout the weekend of the Saturday night event, not to mention on Saturday itself. But in 2017 with Trump in the White House and taking repeated shots at the “Fake News media”? With unerring accuracy, Adams wrote:
“Though Time, People, The New Yorker and Bloomberg are coy about what drove them to cancel their parties, Vanity Fair’s editor in chief, Graydon Carter, came right out and said it was Trump.
It’s a strong reaction to a president who, in spite of all his anti-media tough talk, hasn’t actually done anything like what his predecessor did to curb press freedoms.
The Trump administration hasn’t, for example, subpoenaed reporters in an effort to get them to reveal their sources. Nor has it secretly collected reporters’ phone records. Nor set new records for denying Freedom of Information Act requests.
These distinctions go to Obama, whose two terms in office included several real infringements on the press.
In February 2011, for example, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on the New York Times’ James Risen. They were attempting to determine whether he was the recipient of leaked CIA information. Investigators went through Risen’s credit reports and his personal bank records, and they obtained information about his phone calls and travel, according to a motion filed in a federal court.
In April of that year, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Bloomberg hosted WHCA parties as if nothing had happened.”
Note well that James Risen called Obama the “greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”
He wrote an op-ed in The New York Times headlined: “If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama.”
So what do we have here? The Correspondents’ Association has its knickers in a knot because of things Trump has said – which is to say they are not pleased that he has used his own First Amendment rights to express his displeasure with the media. But boycott a WHCA dinner featuring President Obama when the Obama administration is busy using the Department of Justice to jail reporters, eavesdrop on reporters, threaten reporters and “secretly collect” information about reporters? Hey…party on! And didn’t Mrs. Obama look stunning tonight!
To borrow from an old movie, that old Paul Newman classic Cool Hand Luke, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” So let’s make this as plain as possible.
Giving a left-wing President of the United States a pass when he is busy trying to jail, snoop on and otherwise actually assault the First Amendment is disgraceful. Being stone cold silent on the First Amendment assaults on a Hannity, Ingraham, Williamson and a list of conservative media figures from various members of the American Left while pretending support for a free press is inexcusable.
All of which, in turn, makes utterly laughable the business of flying into a tizzy when that President’s successor merely verbally chastises the media for, as the Media Research Center vividly demonstrated, a mind-blowing and quite deliberate bias. What is really going on here is that the liberal media effectively gives a nod to those who would “pull the credentials” of the conservative media.
Worse, when the mob forms for a Rush Limbaugh or a Lou Dobbs or other conservative media figure the silence of liberal media is effectively a nod to the idea that somehow those in conservative media are illegitimate. And, as it were, therefore not only should conservative media have their “credentials pulled” they have no right to have those credentials in the first place. And when that fails? Sic liberal media investigative reporters on their private lives – something that would raise holy you-know-what if done in reverse.
Over at The Washington Post, media journalist Erik Wemple praised the Correspondents’ Association reaction to Trump’s latest statement by praising the group for, incredibly, getting “a spine.” Apparently a limp noodle passes for a spine in Dr. Wemple’s view. Wemple closed out his column by saying:
“As ever, the President’s ongoing effort to poison American journalism among his followers is far more lethal than anything he could do with White House press passes.”
It would be respectfully suggested here that American journalism has determinedly been swallowing its own journalistic arsenic – liberal elitism – for decades. Now so self-poisoned – the word that comes to mind is addicted – the liberal media that shoots up by trashing Trump and refusing to stand up for conservative media is stunned to find themselves viewed in more untrustworthy terms than Lucy promising Charlie Brown that this time, really, honest, she will hold the football.
The real bottom line is that the liberal media pulled the credentials of their own credibility a long, very long, time ago.
An Obama-era disciplinary policy that effectively shields “minority” schoolchildren from arrest and prosecution for certain crimes they commit appears to have been directly linked to the mass shooting incident that reportedly took place back on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Known as the PROMISE program, the policy, implemented by Obama, was offered up as a way to help combat “systemic racism” in the public school system – a government response to the supposedly disproportionate number of “minority” students compared to “non-minority” students who were being arrested on school campuses.
As a Jewish student with a Hispanic last name, Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz was reportedly admitted to Obama’s PROMISE program after an incident in which he committed vandalism at his former school, Westglades Middle School.
Broward County authorities blatantly LIED about Cruz’s inclusion in Obama’s PROMISE program
Cruz was supposed to have attended a three-day assignment, or placement, in the PROMISE program as part of his “punishment” for this crime. But this may not have occurred, as was recently admitted by Broward County School District officials who, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, repeatedly denied that Cruz was ever even admitted to Obama’s PROMISE program in the first place.
Reports now indicate that, contrary to the earlier lies told by Broward County officials involved with the shooting’s investigation, Cruz had, in fact, been admitted to Obama’s PROMISE program. We also know that Obama’s PROMISE program effectively shielded Cruz from proper punishment for these earlier crimes based on his “minority” status, effectively allowing him to later commit mass murder with a firearm at Stoneman.
Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate “survival” water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.
Multiple officials in Broward County from both the school district and the sheriff’s office had repeatedly denied that Cruz was ever in Obama’s PROMISE program – only to later fess up that this was actually a lie.
These same officials are now trying to cover their tracks, not only defending their former statements but also the PROMISE program entirely, to which they claim they remain steadfastly committed. By keeping “minority” students out of the criminal justice system, they still claim, they are doing these individuals a favor by giving them a better shot at life – no pun intended.
According to school Superintendent Robert Runcie, who was among those who denied Cruz’s involvement in the PROMISE program, the initiative is working well, as nearly nine out of 10 students admitted to it don’t commit another offense at school. What this suggests is that Cruz is among the one in 10 who do, sadly.
Obama has blood on his hands for inadvertently facilitating Parkland shooting
No matter how people like Runcie try to spin it, Obama’s PROMISE program indeed paved the way for Cruz to go on and commit mass murder when he should have received a harsher punishment for vandalism back in middle school. And in typical Obama fashion, it all stems from the fictitious idea that “whitey” somehow has it better than “brownie” and “blackie” – and in this case “Jewy?” – which necessitates holding double standards for criminal justice.
Had Cruz received the same punishment as anyone else would have for vandalizing bathrooms at his middle school, perhaps he never would have been given the overabundant benefit of the doubt in high school, despite showing what many have described as clear signs of derangement.
This makes race-baiting leftists like Obama complicit in such crimes, and it sure leaves a whole lot of blood on his hands in the process.
For more news on insane leftist policies that pit one race against another, putting children and society at large in harm’s way, check out LiberalMob.com.
Sources for this article include:
WASHINGTON ― The Senate voted Thursday to confirm Michael Brennan to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ― a vacancy that Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from filling for six years.
The vote, 49 to 46, was entirely partisan.
Until now, the seat was the nation’s longest circuit court vacancy. It was empty since January 2010, and it had been up to Wisconsin’s two senators to work with the White House to fill it. The reason it went unfilled for so long largely came down to one person: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Obama nominated Victoria Nourse to the seat in July 2010. Johnson denied her a confirmation hearing for all of 2011 by refusing to turn in his so-called blue slip, a Senate tradition whereby home-state senators have the ability to stop or advance a judicial nominee in the Judiciary Committee. Nourse withdrew her nomination in early 2012, calling the system “broken.”
Nourse had been recommended for the court seat by Wisconsin’s judicial nominating commission. But after she withdrew, Johnson said he wanted a new system of picking judicial nominees. He disbanded the state’s nominating panel and worked with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) to create a new one. That took another year.
Johnson then said the panel couldn’t put forward a 7th Circuit nominee until Obama nominated people to two other district court vacancies in the state. That added another year to the process. By the time the panel was seeking applications for the 7th Circuit, it was July 2014 and the seat had been empty for four years.
The commission had eight candidates to recommend by January 2015, but couldn’t reach a consensus. The process stalled out in May, so Baldwin submitted all of their names to the White House to let the administration pick someone. Johnson fumed that Baldwin’s move was “partisan” and said the nomination process should start all over.
By January 2016, six years after the seat became empty, Obama nominated Donald Schott — one of the eight people chosen by the state panel. Baldwin gave the green light for him to get a hearing by turning in her blue slip, and reluctantly, Johnson did too. Schott got his hearing in June 2016. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked action on Obama’s court picks for the rest of the year, and Schott’s nomination expired.
That left the seat open for a Republican president, Donald Trump, to fill, which was Johnson’s and McConnell’s goal all along.
After years of denying votes to Obama’s judicial picks, McConnell is now aggressively moving forward with filling those empty court seats with young, conservative, lifetime judges. Trump has been nominating people at record-breaking levels, and many of his picks have records of being anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-abortion rights or anti-voting rights.
“This is my top priority in the Senate,” McConnell told conservative radio show host Hugh Hewitt last week. “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s … I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”
Brennan’s confirmation is rich with irony. He wrote an editorial endorsing the blue slip process in 2011 after Johnson refused to return his blue slip for Nourse. He didn’t earn the support of Wisconsin’s judicial nominating commission.
And the same Republicans who used blue slips to deny Obama the seat have now ignored the tradition of blue slips to help Trump fill it. Baldwin never turned in her blue slip in for Brennan, but Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman, gave him a hearing anyway and Republicans sent his nomination to the Senate floor.
Democrats have fumed about the hypocrisy surrounding this court seat. Some already opposed Brennan, a 57-year-old Milwaukee lawyer, on his merits. Among other things, Brennan has discounted the concept of the “the glass ceiling” being real, and raised some eyebrows in his confirmation hearing when he couldn’t say if racial bias exists in the criminal justice system.
“How is Sen. Baldwin’s right to consult on judges for her state any less important than Sen. Johnson’s?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “It’s mind-bending hypocrisy. It’s an appalling double standard.”
Until this year, it had been three decades since the Senate confirmed a judge without positive blue slips from both home-state senators.
Before Brennan, the Senate held a confirmation vote in January for now-U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras of Minnesota. Then-Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) did not turn in a blue slip for Stras, but Grassley gave him a hearing anyway and sent his nomination to the floor.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-fill-court-seat-denied-192556936.html
“There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East,” Obama said in a 950-word statement that never mentioned Trump by name.
In 2015, Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry brokered the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limiting Tehran’s nuclear program.
“The reality is clear,” Obama said Tuesday. “The JCPOA is working — that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest — it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish — its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea.
“Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes — with Iran — the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans,” the former president continued. “That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.”
Stressing that policy “debates in our country should be informed by facts,” Obama detailed six “facts,” noting that the agreement was reached after building an international coalition that included the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran; it has succeeded in “rolling back Iran’s nuclear program”; the deal is “strictly monitored” by international watchdogs; Iran is in compliance with the agreement; the agreement never expires; and the deal “was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran.”
“We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior — including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors,” Obama said. “But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
He added, “I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake.”
In announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, Trump said that “we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.” Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent assertion that Iran had lied about its nuclear program before the 2015 agreement was struck but did not offer new evidence.
The leaders of France, Britain and Germany quickly denounced Trump’s decision.
Kerry, who has been publicly lobbying for U.S. allies in recent weeks to salvage the agreement, issued his own statement condemning the withdrawal.
“Today’s announcement weakens our security, breaks America’s word, isolates us from our European allies, puts Israel at greater risk, empowers Iran’s hardliners, and reduces our global leverage to address Tehran’s misbehavior while damaging the ability of future administrations to make international agreements,” Kerry said. “No rhetoric is required. The facts speak for themselves. Instead of building on unprecedented nonproliferation verification measures, this decision risks throwing them away and dragging the world back to the brink we faced a few years ago.”
Kerry added, “The extent of the damage will depend on what Europe can do to hold the nuclear agreement together, and it will depend on Iran’s reaction. America should never have to outsource those stakes to any other country. This is not in America’s interests. We should all hope the world can preserve the nuclear agreement.”
- Read more from Yahoo News:
- Is Cory Booker for real?
- Melania Trump’s ‘Be Best’ materials have a familiar ring to them
- Trump offers full embrace of NRA, leaving Parkland pause behind
- Trump spars with Kerry over ‘possibly illegal’ talks on Iran deal
- Is there a tyrant among us? What would Shakespeare say?
- Trump admits he reimbursed Cohen for Stormy Daniels ‘hush money’ payment
- Anti-Semites on the ballot: GOP ‘condemns’ three contenders with racist views
- Photos: Gaza’s bloody uprising
The number of nonwhite invaders seeking to force their way into America to parasite off the white-created society is back to Obama-era levels with a 23o percent in April 2018 compared to April 2017—and more than 159 fakers from the “migrant caravan” have now applied for “asylum” from their self-created disaster zones in Central America.
According to statistics released by the US Customs and Border Protection, 38,234 nonwhites were apprehended trying to break their way into America in April over the Southwest Border.
At the same time, CBP Officers arrested a further 12,690 more would-be invaders who tried to come through the official ports of entry without permission.
In April 2017, CBP officers arrested 11,112 nonwhites trying to break through the border, and arrested 4,646 others at crossing points.
So far this year, CBP officers have arrested 128,257 nonwhites trying to break through the Southwest border crossing, the CBP figures also showed.
As a report in the Washington Post pointed out, these figures mean that the total number of invaders are “back to where they were during the Obama era.”
The newspaper quoted Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents border agents, as saying that the reason for the upsurge is a realization among the invaders that the still “de facto “catch-and-release” policy” which means that most of the invaders are “quickly put back out on the streets, with the hope that they’ll return to be deported later.”
“Perhaps 75 percent of all migrants caught by Border Patrol agents are given catch and release,” Judd said, adding that “knowing they’ll be released rather than quickly deported has served as an enticement for more illegal immigrants to make the journey.”
“The reason is obvious: If you can cross the border illegally without any consequence, why not? As long as the catch-and-release policy-program exists, large numbers of people are going to cross the border illegally,” Judd continued.
“In 2017 and due to the rhetoric we had fewer apprehensions than any year in the past 45 years. It was simply because people believed that if they crossed the border illegally they would be held until their deportation hearing,” he added.
- Trump Cuts Off Funding For Syria’s “White Helmets”
- Germany: 200 African Migrants Riot to Prevent Man Being Deported, Police Flee
- Caravan of illegals climb border fence, cheer “Gracias Mexico”
- Trump Promises to Take On EU in New Trade War
- Trump Seals JFK Documents Until 2021
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/-a9w8-1qYtA/
It’s Obama’s first endorsement in a Senate race this year.
“I’m proud to give Dianne Feinstein my strong endorsement for her reelection to the United States Senate,” Obama said in a statement. “She’s always been an indispensable leader for California, and we became dear friends and partners in the fight to guarantee affordable healthcare and economic opportunity for everybody; to protect our planet from climate change, and our kids from gun violence.”
“President Obama had the grace, wisdom and even-handedness that we quickly came to expect from a president ― and that we’re now so sorely disappointed by its absence,” said Feinstein of the former president’s endorsement. “I’ll do my level best every day to build on President Obama’s accomplishments and carry his torch forward, no matter the obstacles that stand in our way.”
Obama is the latest high-profile Democrat to back Feinstein in her first serious challenge from a member of her own party. While the longtime senator has won support from former Vice President Joe Biden, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and fellow Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Feinstein’s most competitive Democratic opponent, state Sen. Kevin de León, has garnered support from some of the state’s leading progressive groups and activists. He boasts endorsements from powerful labor groups, including the Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association, as well as progressive PAC Democracy for America and many of his colleagues in the California State Legislature.
“We have a great deal of respect for President Obama. His endorsement of Sen. Feinstein is likely a reflection of the time they spent working together while he was in the White House,” said de León spokesman Jonathan Underland. “Luckily, the deciding votes in this race are in the hands of the people of California, not Washington D.C.”
Due to California’s primary system, in which the top two vote recipients advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation, there’s a strong possibility that Feinstein and de León will face off in November.
Feinstein, who was elected to the Senate in 1992 and is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, currently leads de León in the polls by 26 points. Her campaign coffer has also eclipsed de León’s — at the end of March, Feinstein had $10.4 million in the bank, compared with de León’s total of $672,000.
Despite trailing in the polls and funds, de León, who until recently served as president pro tempore of the California Senate, hopes to seize on growing progressive frustration with Feinstein, arguing that the senator’s views no longer represent those of her constituents. Feinstein has faced some criticism from the left for not standing up to President Donald Trump enough and for being too moderate. Protesters frequently pop up at her public events as well as outside her San Francisco home, and in February she failed to secure her own party’s endorsement at the California Democratic Party convention. No candidate received a high enough percentage of the convention’s vote to warrant an endorsement.
De León has raised his own political profile by spending much of the last 18 months publicly opposing Trump’s political agenda. Last year he helped pass legislation to make California a “sanctuary” state and has introduced a bill to protect the state from the rollbacks of environmental regulations pursued by the Trump administration.
Feinstein, perhaps pressured by de León’s challenge, has inched to the left on several issues in recent months. In March, she said she was “very wary” of Gina Haspel, Trump’s nominee for CIA director, after initially praising Haspel’s career. (Haspel has faced scrutiny for her ties to brutal interrogation tactics used by the CIA on terrorism suspects.)
And earlier this week, Feinstein said she opposed federal crackdowns on California’s legal marijuana market. It marked a major reversal for the senator who has long opposed legalizing pot for recreational use.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-backs-sen-dianne-feinstein-223739714.html
Lawmakers Urge Criminal Probe of Senior Obama Officials
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Investigative journalist Sara Carter broke the story, saying 11 congressional lawmakers made what’s called a criminal referral to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
They called for investigating Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch and others, their dubious conduct and abuses of power gone unpunished.
In a letter to Sessions, they said “(w)e write to refer the (designated) individuals for investigation of potential violation(s) of federal statutes.”
“(W)e are especially mindful of the dissimilar degrees of zealousness that has marked the investigations into Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, respectively.”
“Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately.”
The fabricated Christopher Steele doggy dossier, financed by Hillary and the DNC, was cited as “present(ing) false and/or unverified information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).”
The dossier made spurious accusations without evidence, alleging misconduct and collusion between Trump, his campaign team and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign – including phony accusations of Russian US election interference.
Lawmakers cited DOJ and FBI personnel involved in obtaining FISC warrant authorization “based on unverified and/or false information for possible violation(s) of 18 USC 242 and 18 USC 1505 and 1515b.”
They referred to the explosive January Devin Nunes memo, revealing extensive FISA abuses by high-level US officials – naming former FBI director James Comey, former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and current deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.
A March letter Nunes sent to Jeff Sessions was also mentioned. According to lawmakers, Comey “engaged in questionable conduct vis-a-vis President Donald Trump.”
He “wrote memoranda detailing alleged conversations between himself and President Trump, creating ‘a paper trail’ for ‘documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation.’ “
A previous article said he disgraced the office he held, mocking legal, moral and ethical standards – including involvement in the witch-hunt Russiagate probe, along with letting Hillary off the hook for serious wrongdoing.
He remains unaccountable for major offenses, cashing in handsomely from his mistitled “A Higher Loyalty” book published this week.
He claimed material in the book came personal recollections of discussions with Trump, admitting inclusion of some classified material.
The 1974 Privacy Act governs the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information maintained by federal agencies.
It prohibits disclosing it without written consent, stating:
“No (federal) agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.”
All federal agencies must prevent unauthorized release of personal records.
FBI policy prohibits staff from releasing “any information acquired by virtue of (their) official employment (to) unauthorized individual(s) without prior official written authorization” from the agency.
Releasing information related to ongoing investigations and sensitive operations is prohibited without written permission.
All material related to official agency business remains government property.
According to the lawmakers, “Comey leaked classified information (without authorization) when sharing (it) with (Columbia University) Professor (Daniel) Richman.”
He leaked it to the media, remaining unaccountable for the action along with Comey.
Hillary was criminally referred to the DOJ “for potential violation(s) of 52 USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101.”
Former attorney general Loretta Lynch was criminally referred to the DOJ for “her decision to threaten with reprisal the former FBI informant, William Douglas Campbell, who first came forward in 2016 with insight into the sale of the Canadian firm Uranium One, which controlled nearly 20 percent of uranium mining interests in the United States,” Carter reported.
According to congressional lawmakers, Lynch’s criminal referral was for potentially violating “18 USC 1505 and 1515b.”
Will Jeff Sessions act responsibly on any or all of the above? Rarely ever are federal officials held accountable for their lawless actions – never for naked aggression, the highest of high crimes.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at firstname.lastname@example.org.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
At present fired FBI Director James Comey is basking in the klieg lights on various American Pravda media sets around the country hawking his “bitchy” new book in which there are no new explosive details about his brief time in President Donald J. Trump’s administration.
Breathless Leftists and Democrats are hoping that Comey, during one of his appearances, will finally utter that bombshell that will spell the end of the Trump “nightmare” that sees The Donald — and the America First, swamp-draining revolution he spawned — run out of D.C. with the lesson being that no one else should ever dare try to take on The Deep State Establishment.
Well, I hate to disappoint Americans who are waiting for that utterance, but it’s not coming. In fact, it’s far more likely that Comey — along with several Obama-era officials — will face legal action for their nefarious attempt to keep Trump out of D.C. (and the White House) in the first place.
As reported by The Daily Caller, a group of Republican lawmakers who still care about the rule of law and want to see justice delivered to the American people have written a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking both to open criminal investigations into Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and recently-fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for their roles in 1) lying about intelligence in order to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign; and 2) intentionally botching the probe into Clinton’s criminal mishandling of classified data via an unsecured private server. (Related: GOP launches “Lyin Comey” website ahead of his book tour: Won’t let disgraced former FBI director “rehabilitate his image.”)
The letter, which was posted online by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., requests that Wray and Sessions use their respective authority to investigate “potential violation(s) of federal statutes.
In addition to DeSantis, Reps. Dave Brat of Virginia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Claudia Tenney of New York, and several others signed the letter.
“Those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American” and because of that the members want to be sure that any “potential violations of law” be “vetted appropriately,” the group of lawmakers wrote.
“In doing so, we are especially mindful of the dissimilar degree of zealousness that has marked the investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, respectively,” they added.
As The Daily Caller noted further:
The group argues that Comey mishandled the Clinton email investigation, an investigation they believe to be “motivated by a political agenda.”
FBI released documents in October 2017 show that Comey started drafting a letter regarding the email probe months before the former FBI director began conducting key interviews. The letter recommended that charges not be brought against Clinton.
Comey, we have since learned, believed that Clinton was going to wipe the floor with Trump and that she was going to be a shoo-in to be his new boss. His wife and daughters thought so, too, he has said.
Didn’t happen. But what did happen was that he and the others mentioned in the letter were part of a Deep State plot to deny Trump the White House at any cost, and should he win against all odds, to deny him any peace and to ensure that his presidency was undermined daily — with investigations, wild allegations, and doubts.
From Comey’s leaking of a memo to trigger special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, to Lynch’s threat of reprisal against an FBI informant who came forward with damning information about the Uranium One scandal to Clinton’s paying for the “Russia dossier,” Republicans are seeking answers, and they are the only ones who are.
Will Sessions and Wray step up to restore some of their agency’s respect and trust?
See more content like this at JamesComey.news.
J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.