90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Report Clapper Lied and Leaked to Get the Anti-Trump Dossier Released

Investigative reporter Sara Carter reported three big takeaways from the House Intelligence Committee report, two of which we already reported. The one we didn’t mention was about James Clapper, the former DNI. As it happens, he too leaked and lied, but they were merely means to an end.

Clapper lied and leaked to contrive the release of the so-called dossier. He collaborated with James Comey to do it according to former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino who has reliable sources.

Former FBI Director James Comey told the President about the “salacious” and “unverified” dossier as he described it. By his own admission, he never told by the President that the dossier was paid for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

When asked by Jake Tapper why he didn’t tell Trump about who paid for the dossier, Comey played it coy. He said he didn’t think it was part of his mission. On Thursday evening, Comey told Bret Baier on Special Report that he didn’t know who paid for it.

Dan Bongino told Sean Hannity on his radio show April 20th that James Comey was directed to brief President Trump about the golden showers allegations. Comey was also told to not tell him that Hilary Clinton and the DNC paid for it. The person advising him, according to Bongino, was James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence.

A few days after Comey gave the information to the President, CNN released it publicly. It was ostensibly ‘okay’ to leak because the President knew. Following that, Clapper became a CNN employee and the Buzzfeed story came out.
THE LIES

According to the House Intel report, James Clapper “provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.”

He lied at first and then told the truth.

He initially told the committee he did not leak to the media, but, the report states that Clapper eventually acknowledged discussing the “dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper.” He also admitted that he may have told other journalists about the dossier.

It led to the dossier story blowing up.


“Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time Intel Community leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the IC,” the Russia report states.

On January 10th, 2017, CNN reported that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed on January 6th about the salacious yet unverified dossier, compiled by Steele.

The timing was critical and it was followed by the Buzzfeed publication of the salacious and unverified dossier.

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT


Clapper “flatly denied” during a July 2017 interview with the committee “discuss[ing] the dossier [compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.”

Clapper later in the same interview “acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper.’ And he admitted that he might have spoken with...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #240


You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 
from the beautiful to the repugnant, 
from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 
you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 
You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Friday, April 27, 2018

Black Lives Matter Demands to "Deport White People"


Girls With Guns

Protect The Constitution - Your Life Depends On It....


Bill Clinton Gives Bill Cosby Advice... BUT TOO LATE!!


Plane Falls From Sky...




More Amazing Gifs:

Bet You've Never Had A Day This Bad...


----------------------------------------

The Truth About Hillary...


Trump And Hillary Walk Into A Bar...

Supreme Court Travel Ban Arguments Suggest Win for Trump Likely

Finally, the Supreme Court has heard the arguments on the travel ban case.

On Wednesday, there were plenty of protesters outside the courthouse, a few politicians inside the courthouse (including White House counsel Don McGahn, Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mazie Hirono, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte), and even a celebrity (Lin-Manuel Miranda) as two seasoned litigants took their turn at the podium to argue the long-awaited travel ban case.

And while it is difficult to say with any precision how the case will come out, it seemed that among the justices, a majority (perhaps a bare majority) appeared to be leaning the government’s way.

The case involves the legality of the third iteration of President Donald Trump’s so-called travel ban in which the president has, at least temporarily, suspended the admission of individuals from seven countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela—subject to case-by-case waivers. Two countries—Iraq and Sudan—that had previously been on the list were subsequently dropped, and a third country—Chad—was dropped earlier this month.

The Trump Administration’s Argument

The proclamation itself explains the process the administration went through in determining which countries to include on the list. It describes how the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security created a baseline of criteria for countries to meet and measured nearly 200 countries against that baseline.

At the end of this process, 16 countries were found to be deficient, and 31 countries were “at risk.” This began a period of engagement with each of those governments to address these deficiencies, after which the final list was compiled.

The proclamation also explains the reasons why the remaining countries are still on the list. They share some combination of the following characteristics: some are state sponsors of terrorism, some are safe havens for terrorists, some refuse to cooperate with us, and some lack the institutional capacity to cooperate effectively with us. As Solicitor General Noel Francisco, arguing on behalf of the administration, put it Wednesday:
After a worldwide multi-agency review, the president’s acting Homeland Security secretary recommended that he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to provide the minimum baseline of information needed to vet their nationals. The proclamation adopts those recommendations. It omits the vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world, because they met the baseline. It now applies to only seven countries that fall below that baseline or had other problems, and it exerts diplomatic pressure on those countries to provide the needed information and to protect the country until they do.

Francisco also argues that Congress has given the president all the authority he needs to issue this order through Section 1182(f) of the Immigration Act, which provides:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Travel Ban Opponents’ Argument

The challengers, represented by former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, claim that, in issuing his proclamation, the president exceeded his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that his proclamation violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because it was motivated, not for national security reasons, but rather by a desire to exclude Muslims from this country.

In terms of his statutory argument, Katyal argued that...

Broward County Deputies Vote No Confidence In Sheriff Israel By A Margin Of 534-94