On 'Russian Collusion,' Trump Will Win...Big Time

The winds of the special counsel are blowing hard. A big tempest is brewing, and it's not clear what is happening. Nobody really knows, other than perhaps Mueller and a few other insiders, one probably being Donald Trump and his counsel. One thing seems certain: there will be a lot of surprises in the end.

The two general theories:

1. Mueller is a tool of the Deep State, allied with Comey and the left, a black hat appointed by powerful people who won't stop this investigation until the removal or neutering of Trump. A lot of smart people are invested in this narrative. You can cite a lot of facts and informative stories that demonstrate the reality of this theory. Most, but not all, on the right believe some version of this Deep State plot.

2. This investigation is a well planned, quietly effective smokescreen to ferret out major groups of people in the swamp and the Deep State. It targets people doing illegal and unethical things. This would include the Clintons and many of the leading players in the Obama-Clinton regime. There are a lot of known facts and indicators that point to this being the true narrative as well.

The tipping point is close now. We will know soon. My bet is on the latter – mainly because there is zero evidence, not a scintilla of proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or did anything wrong.

On the other hand, the evidence we do have shows that the side making the accusations did a lot of very wrong things. You can say it's a criminal conspiracy. McCabe has a criminal referral. The early I.G. report simply destroyed any hope of him escaping his wrongdoing, tipping its hat to what is coming. Comey has made an ass out of himself, with contradictions from interview to interview. Let's just say he will likely be spending his book profits on lawyers. Strzok, Ohr, and a lot of others are in peril as well, and if nothing else, these people no longer have power to do the Deep State take-down they had planned.

The I.G. report due to come out should be devastating. There are reports of multiple grand juries looking for multiple indictments. When the report comes out in full, we will finally know which theory has more of the truth.

There is another major storyline to all this. As a country, we are at a moment of critical mass. A tipping point is approaching.

Leftists thinks they are going to get rid of the evil Drumpf – impeached, frog-marched, jailed forever. Meanwhile, many on the right are wringing their hands over the injustices we are seeing, depressed because they see the criminal left getting away with it all. Complaints and whining about the lack of headway are registered daily. Belief that the left is in control even as they are...

ARREST KERRY FOR COLLUSION WITH ISLAMIC TERROR STATES

On January 19, 2017, John Forbes Kerry left his job at the State Department. Addressing Foggy Bottomers in the C Street lobby, he ended his speech by declaring, "This is not an end. This is a beginning. It’s a new beginning." That’s just what departing politicos usually say, but he meant it.

Next January, a report appeared that Kerry had met with a top negotiator for the PLO in London.

The secret back-channel negotiator, Hussein Agha, was a close confidant of terrorist dictator Mahmoud Abbas, the racist PLO boss who around this same time had delivered a speech in which he cursedPresident Trump, shouting, “May your house be destroyed.” Agha was a frequent collaborator with Robert Malley, who allegedly ran Soros and Obama’s back channel to Hamas. Obama fired Malley during the campaign, but once in office brought him back in a variety of roles including as a lead negotiator on the Iran Deal scam and the National Security Council’s point man for the Middle East. Malley now heads Soros’ International Crisis Group and continues undermining America and defending the Iran Deal.

Kerry urged Agha to tell the PLO boss to “be strong”, “play for time” and “not yield to President Trump’s demands.”

The former Secretary of State suggested that the PLO present its own peace plan that he would push through his contacts in the European Union and Muslim countries.

Kerry also advised the Islamic terror boss to attack Trump personally, instead of the country or administration. And Abbas appeared to have taken his advice. He also assured the Islamic terrorist leader that President Trump wouldn’t be in office a year from now. And that Kerry might run for the job.

All of this was a blatant violation of the Logan Act which bans Americans from conducting negotiations with foreign governments “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government” or “agent there of” addressing its “disputes or controversies with the United States” or “to defeat the measures of the United States”. The law is clear. The punishment is three years in prison.

"The original story wasn't accurate," Kerry's spokesman claimed. "These are neither Secretary Kerry's views nor anything he would say."

But a few weeks ago, Kerry met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif at the United Nations. According to the Boston Globe story, he not only met with Zarif, but also the presidents of France and Germany, and Federica Mogherini, the former Communist activist who is the top EU lobbyist for the Iran Deal.

Mogherini had called for a role for "political Islam" in Europe and has consistently undermined American foreign policy in Cuba, North Korea, Russia and Iran by stifling our efforts to isolate dictators and tyrants.

The Iran Deal echo chamber, which Kerry and Mogherini, not to mention Malley, are a part of, has tried to paint Foreign Minister Zarif as a moderate. But last fall, as Trump deployed new sanctions against the IRGC, Zarif had tweeted that, "Iranians--boys, girls, men, women--are ALL IRGC".

IRGC stands for Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It's the central terror hub of Iran which has its greasy fingers deep in its nuclear program and is in charge of its terrorism...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #249

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

Of Loot Boxes and Belgian Dips - A Rant

Girls With Guns

Media Misses $84 Million Money Laundering Scam By Clinton Campaign

The media failed to report on a lawsuit filed in a D.C. district court that has now exposed an $84 million money laundering conspiracy by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential election.

It has become apparent over the past few years how far those in the mainstream media will go to protect fellow liberal Democrats. In fact, a major implication for one of their own happened last week, but it was never covered. A lawsuit was filed in a D.C. district court has now exposed an $84 million money laundering conspiracy by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential election.

Of course, the people who did not report any of this are the same that relished in each other’s joy after the Democratic National Committee’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act lawsuit was filed against the 2016 Donald Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia last week.

According to The Federalist, the lawsuit alleges that the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated federal campaign-finance law.

During an election cycle, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and $33,400 to a national party’s main account. Primaries, runoffs, and general elections are considered separate elections.

Groups can get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits, it being legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. As well, state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

The “legal loophole” allows for wealthy donors to give hundreds of thousands of dollars by filtering the funds to and through national committees.

Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit said he suspected that the DNC had exceeded the aforementioned limits and began reviewing Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton.

He found that there was, “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign – in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

On December 15, 2017, Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, charging them to, “commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees,” according to the report.

The complaint stated, “‘During the 2016 presidential election,’ the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) was established ‘as a joint fund-raising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000.'”

To fully comply with campaign-finance law, the HVF must transfer donations to specified recipients, whether it be the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or subsequent state committees. However, several high-dollar contributions were reported as received by the HVF, “and the same amount on the same day recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.”

The lawsuit cites 30 separate occasions on...

Berkeley task force blames conservatives for leftist violence

The UC-Berkeley Commission on Free Speech claims that conservative students are to blame for last year's destructive leftist riots because they invited speakers to campus who were "likely to incite a violent reaction."

While the report shied away from suggesting a ban on provocative speakers, it did suggest further restricting the areas of campus open to free expression and training campus police to be a "less intimidating presence."

A university spokesperson, however, insisted that the commission's findings do not necessarily represent the views of the administration, which is currently reviewing the recommendations.

A University of California, Berkeley task force is blaming conservative students for destructive protests on campus, saying that hosting conservative speakers was “likely to incite a violent reaction.”

The report was filed on April 10 by a Commission on Free Speech that Chancellor Carol Christ created last October to “analyze events featuring external speakers” on campus in the wake of a series of disruptive protests against planned appearances by speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Ann Coulter.

"Although those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech."

“Although those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech,” the commission declares, speculating that they were only invited “in order to advance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.”

“The Commission was charged with ‘developing a set of recommendations that preserve the campus’s firm commitment to free expression while reducing the likelihood of such expression disrupting the mission of education, research, and public service,’” the report explains, referencing the objectives set by Christ .

According to the document, the commission was formed in October 2017 following a wave of protest against conservative speakers who were invited to lecture at the university. The commission specifically highlights the difference between the polite reception Shapiro received when he visited campus on April 11, 2016 compared to his latest speech on campus in September of last year, which cost the university approximately $600,000 in security.

“Although of course many things changed during the 17 months between Shapiro’s campus engagements, our conclusion is that the rise of ultra-conservative rhetoric, including white supremacist views and protest marches, legitimized by the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath, encouraged far-right and alt-right activists to ‘spike the football’ at Berkeley,” the commission writes.

“This provoked an at-times violent (and condemnable) response from the extreme left, tearing at the campus’s social fabric,” the document adds.

The report goes on to contend that all of the events that sparked protests last year “were sponsored by very small groups of students working closely with outside organizations,” asserting that “at least some of the 2017 events at Berkeley can now be seen to be part of a coordinated campaign to organize appearances on American campuses likely to incite a violent reaction, in order to advance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.”

The task force further elaborates that while there is “plausibility” to the claim that Shapiro’s visit was intended to “broaden the political discourse” on campus, many of its members believe that Yiannopoulos and Coulter only came to the university “in pursuit of wealth and fame.”

“We should, of course, be wary of painting with an overly broad brush,” the report explained. “In Shapiro’s case, the claim that his invitation to campus was intended to broaden the political discourse has some plausibility, as his commitment to the issue long predates the polarizing 2016 election.”

“Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, however, expressed little interest in reasoned discussion of contentious issues or in defending or revising their views through argument,” the commission continued. “Many Commission members are skeptical of these speakers’ commitment to anything other than the pursuit of ...