Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Because Mueller Found No Collusion, Trump Should Pardon Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn was framed so certain unethical officials could eventually set up Trump. Now that we know there was no collusion, Trump should pardon Flynn.
According to a House Intelligence Committee report in 2018, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe stated the agents who interviewed Michael Flynn “didn’t think he was lying.” Like McCabe, former FBI director James Comey testified to Congress that Flynn did not lie to FBI agents.
After the Mueller report confirmed no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, in addition to no obstruction by President Trump, it’s important to remember that former FBI agent Peter Strzok interviewed Flynn. Yes, the same Peter Strzok who texted he had spoken about an “insurance policy” (referring to the Russia probe) with McCabe and told FBI lawyer Lisa Page “we’ll stop” Trump from winning the election.
Strzok also deleted references to “gross negligence” in Comey’s exoneration speech for Hillary Clinton, ensuring that she wouldn’t be indicted under 18 U.S. Code 793 (which states even gross negligence in the mishandling of classified data is a crime). Strzok was eventually fired from the Mueller probe and the FBI. McCabe and James Baker, two of the top FBI officials during both the Clinton email scandal and Russia probes, are now under criminal investigation.
Comey leaked classified memos to start the Mueller probe and the initial Russia investigation started reportedly because of gossip by Alexander Downer “during a night of heavy drinking” and a Christopher Steele dossier Clinton purchased. In addition, few people in the country realize that “Company 1” in Mueller’s indictments of Russian intel officers refers to Crowdstrike, a third-party tech firm outsourced by Clinton and the Democratic National Committee since their reportedly hacked servers were never given to the U.S. government.
Was Michael Flynn Wrongly Victimized?
If this all seems like a setup, that’s because it was. Flynn was the first victim in an unprecedented attempt at framing Donald Trump of collusion with Russia. Imagine the outrage from Democrats if Trump had purchased an unverified “dossier” that resulted in a Clinton probe, or allegations she colluded with a foreign power. Democrats and people like former CIA director John Brennan used suspicion emanating from the Steele dossier to justify investigating a possible criminal act, not an actual criminal endeavor committed by Trump.
There was never any evidence of a grandiose conspiracy to collude with Russian President Vladimir Putin, much less the existence of a specific crime linked to Trump. In terms of Flynn and his discussions with...
CONFIRMED: Mueller Dragged Out Investigation For More Than A Year After Finishing It
Former special counsel Robert Mueller “exhausted” his investigation into President Donald Trump’s non-existent Russia collusion in December 2017, but kept the investigation going for more than a year even though he was warned that he was impeding President Trump’s ability to govern the United States of America.
“By early December, he had exhausted all of the evidence and the witnesses,” President Trump’s former lawyer John Dowd said of Mueller in Dowd’s recent interview with journalist Byron York, as reported by the Citizen Free Press.
“I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We’re not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you’ve got yourself a war and you’re going to lose it. There’s no way Mueller could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn’t do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there.”
“I asked, what’s the president’s status? Mueller said he’s a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that’s right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that Mueller had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area,” Dowd said.
So now we know that the Operation Crossfire Hurricane conspirators allowed the media narrative to continue through the 2018 midterms with no evidence. Would that qualify as election interference?
Dowd reportedly warned Mueller that he was interfering with the president’s governance. President Trump never tried to invoke executive privilege to protect himself, and Rod Rosenstein was compromised by...
Illegal Alien who murdered two people arrested in California
Brindar Jangir, 36, has been wanted since the shooting deaths of Annette and Randal Grimes in their home in Douglas on March 23. Jangir was wanted on Otoe and Lancaster county arrest warrants for first-degree murder in the death of Randal Grimes and possession of a stolen firearm.
Jangir was arrested without incident Saturday afternoon by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at the Otay Sentri border crossing about 40 miles southeast of San Diego. Jangir was in Mexico and attempting to regain entry into the United States on foot. He has been lodged in the San Diego County Jail.
Randal Grimes, 56, and Annette Grimes, 51, were the parents of a woman Jangir was living with in Sioux City, Iowa, until she moved out March 12, according to court documents. Court records also indicate that Jangir lived in Lincoln for several years before moving to Sioux City in 2017.The woman told officers Jangir threatened to kill her and her parents if she ever left him, according to investigators.
On March 19, she had taken out a protection order against him, barring him from the Sioux City residence where they had been living.
Investigators believe Jangir arrived unannounced at a friend's house near 70th and Adams streets in Lincoln at about 11 p.m. March 22.
Jangir had called his friend earlier, telling him about the protection order and that he needed help moving from Sioux City the next day, the affidavit said.
Jangir allegedly stole a shotgun from...
Trump Really Does Have a Plan That’s Better Than Obamacare
“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out,” President Donald Trump said last week, “we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.”
Democrats couldn’t believe their luck. They still were reeling from special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that the Trump campaign neither conspired nor coordinated with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections.
Now the president was changing the subject from collusion (a suddenly awkward topic for Democrats) to health care (which helped them capture dozens of House seats last November).
Besides, the president really doesn’t have a plan that is far better than Obamacare, or any plan at all. Right?
Wrong.
A look at his fiscal year 2020 budget shows that the president has a plan to reduce costs and increase health care choices. His plan would achieve this by redirecting federal premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion money into grants to states. States would be required to use the money to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition.
The president’s proposal is buttressed by a growing body of evidence that relaxing federal regulations and freeing the states to innovate makes health care more affordable for families and small businesses.
Ed Haislmaier and I last year published an analysis of waivers that have so far enabled seven states to significantly reduce individual health insurance premiums. These states fund “invisible high risk pools” and reinsurance arrangements largely by repurposing federal money that would otherwise have been spent on Obamacare premium subsidies, directing them instead to those in greatest medical need.
By financing care for those with the biggest medical bills, these states have substantially reduced premiums for individual policies. Before Maryland obtained its waiver, insurers in the state filed requests for 2019 premium hikes averaging 30 percent. After the federal government approved the waiver, final 2019 premiums averaged 13 percent lower than in 2018—a 43 percent swing.
Best of all, Maryland and the other waiver states have achieved these results without increasing federal spending or creating a new federally funded reinsurance program, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has proposed to do.
State innovation also extends to Medicaid. Some states have sought waivers permitting them to establish work requirements designed to help Medicaid recipients escape poverty.
Arkansas, for example, last June began requiring nondisabled, childless, working-age adults to engage in 80 hours of work activity per month. The program defined “work activity” broadly to include seeking a job, training for work, studying for...
Trump Ends Obama's Taxpayer-Funded Mortgages for Illegal aliens
Obama illegally implemented DACA, they were also allowed to apply for FHA loans. How many illegal aliens obtained FHA loans?
FHA loans are government-backed mortgages meant for poorer Americans unable to qualify for normal mortgages. Democrat abuse of the FHA helped lead to the Great Recession and in the years afterward, FHA insured loans hit losses of $70 billion. By 2012, the FHA was $16 billion in the hole and had to be bailed out. The delinquency rate for FHA loans is still more than three times higher than normal loans, and depending on the period, have hovered between 8% and 14%. Time to bring in the illegal aliens.
When Obama illegally implemented DACA, a program exempting certain illegal aliens from government action, they were also allowed to apply for FHA loans. How many illegal aliens obtained FHA loans?
In December, a letter from three Senate Democrats claimed that HUD barred “approximately 800,000 individuals approved for DACA from FHA-insured mortgage loans”. This refers to the total number of DACA illegal aliens and it’s unknown how many of them have obtained FHA loans in past years.
Ellie Mae’s millennial tracker estimated that the average size of an FHA loan to millennials is $186,454. Potential exposure to illegal alien mortgages could then climb as improbably high as $150 billion.
It’s unknown how many illegal aliens have taken out FHA loans, but some media stories have cited loan officers for whom illegal alien FHA loans represent a significant percentage of their business.
The Trump administration has applied the brakes to this avalanche of taxpayer-insured mortgages to illegal aliens. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had begun notifying lenders that the FHA was no longer in the illegal alien mortgage business. The reasons were common sense. DACA illegal aliens, or in media spin, DREAMERs, were not legal residents and weren’t being legalized.
The illegal alien mortgage business, built on the backs of American taxpayers, is obviously profitable
Under Obama, FHA rules had been bent so far backward that people who were not only non-citizens, not only non-permanent residents, but weren’t even legally here, were having taxpayers guarantee their mortgages. Not only hadn’t the Democrats learned anything from the Great Recession, they were determined to make the irresponsible behavior of the FHA a decade ago seem sober and sensible.
And they aren’t giving up.
The December letter by Senator Menendez, who had recently been on trial for corruption charges, Senator Booker, on whose watch the $100 million poured into Newark public schools dissipated, and Senator Cortez-Mastro, who had been accused of taking dirty money, claimed to be, “appalled that the Trump Administration would exploit a federal government program to deny Dreamers an opportunity of owning their own home.” But it was the Democrats who had exploited a federal government program meant for poor Americans to benefit not only foreigners, but illegal aliens with no right to be here.
The letter by the three Senator Democrats falsely claimed that President Trump was targeting a “portion of the American public”, when in fact illegal aliens are not part of the American public. They demanded, “sound and unambiguous legal reasoning” for the move. The sound and unambiguous reasoning would be that illegal aliens are not legally resident in the United States and therefore...
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #579
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)