Day: May 25, 2018

Pelosi Panics As Americans Give Her Hell At Town Hall, Causes Major ‘Brain Fade’

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/xBgVk9
CNN and the Democratic Party are freaking out as new polls show there is no “blue wave” happening for the mid-term elections. Hoping to gain ground, they colluded to give Nancy Pelosi an entire hour-long town hall event with their Democratic tool Chris Cuomo hosting. Things went wrong as Americans gave Pelosi hell, causing her to have a major brain fade on live TV.

The Democratic Party is panicking. For 18 months, they have put all their eggs in one basket, which is the Special Counsel’s “Russia-Trump” collusion case, and it’s dead on arrival. The leftist media has been their biggest ally against President Donald Trump, and yet, they are all failing miserably.

Now that many in the mainstream media had to report that President Donald Trump was right, he did have spies trying to infiltrate his campaign, they are trying to put out a new false narrative immediately. Their spokeswoman tasked with selling the new lies to the American people is Nancy Pelosi.

So, the Democratic brain trust, along with CNN, got together and hatched the plan: Chris Cuomo and Nancy Pelosi would do an hour-long town hall event on primetime television. However, this “brilliant plan” was doomed from the beginning since Pelosi and Cuomo are probably two of the most inept individuals working in politics today.
Clearly, whoever at CNN did the research on the people asking Pelosi questions got duped. Usually, at CNN town halls, we see the David Hogg type leftists asking the pre-planned questions. Instead, Cuomo and Pelosi bumbled along as Santa Fe senior Alexis Wilson got a hold of the mic.

Alexis Wilson was at the recent Texas high school shooting, and I’m betting she didn’t tell the CNN staffers her real question. Alexis asked Pelosi, “Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?”

Oh, no! Alexis Wilson is talking about arming people, not taking guns away. Pelosi drew a blank only remembering one part of the Democratic talking points. The minority leader answered, “Following a tragedy like this, all we want to do is pray for the families, but I do not support arming teachers and the rest.”

Cuomo sensed the audience wasn’t happy with Nancy’s ridiculous answer. When she says, “all we want to do is pray for the families,” she’s recalling a David Hogg tweet which went viral and became one of the new anti-gun talking points. Except, poor Nancy is having a “brain fade.” The line is “we’re tired of hearing all you’re going to do is pray for the families.”
Then, Pelosi makes a fatal error, saying, “The children should not have to be worried about going to school as a place that violence can occur. You have to get to systemically stop people from having guns who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.”

Wow, that sounds like some type of gun confiscation. Pelosi is 78-years-old, and whatever mind she once had is gone. When another upset American asked if Trump really colluded with the Russians, then why hasn’t it been proven after one year, Pelosi again bumbled her way through an answer, spewing lies.

“I think there are 20 indictments, one directly associated with the campaign, [Paul] Manafort, 13 Russians, three not only indictments but….but…evictions,” says Pelosi, meaning convictions. But, that’s not her only problem. Besides the brain fade with the word conviction, she’s lying, big time.
The judge in the Manafort case was pissed off at Robert Mueller’s henchmen during a recent court hearing. Why? Because the allegations against him are from 5-7 years ago and have nothing to do with Donald Trump at all.

Judge T.S. Ellis was furious. He told Mueller’s team, “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in,” meaning the only reason they are putting the screws to Manafort is to make him turn on Trump. They don’t care about justice or the truth.

The “13 Russians” is a farce. In fact, these are the so-called Russian troll farms, and they are located conveniently for Mueller in St. Petersburg, Russia. Naming them in indictments was just a show to back up the bogus claims that all these Russian trolls impacted the 2016 election by using social media, thus brainwashing Americans. Since they are in Russia, Mueller can’t arrest them. It’s all just a big ruse.

FBI Agent Who Quit Over Comey’s ‘Rigged Hillary Investigation’ Will TESTIFY Before Congress

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/mThrQP
Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey’s biggest nightmare is unfolding as we speak.

The agent who allegedly quit the bureau over Comey’s “rigged investigation” into Hillary’s mishandling of classified emails is now heading to the House to testify before Congress.
Comey’s house of cards is falling.

An FBI agent who allegedly quit the bureau over his belief that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was rigged will testify before the House of Representatives, The Hill reported.

The joint investigation between the House Judiciary and the Oversight Committees — led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, respectively — has been a source of consternation for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Conservatives have complained about the slow pace of the examination into how the Clinton email investigation was conducted, noting that only two witnesses have appeared before it.

Democrats, of course, have complained that it exists at all, since anything that distracts from the endless investigation into how President Donald Trump is really a Russian plant is simply frivolous — particularly if it implicates former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or former President Barack Obama in any wrongdoing.

Well, now we’re finally about to see some fireworks. Three top witnesses are going to testify before lawmakers: John Giacalone, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation for the first seven months; Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; and Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s national security division and the man who succeeded Giacalone.

All three are of particular interest, especially since Priestap was the supervisor of FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages have thrown the objectivity of the entire investigation into doubt.

However, the real headliner here may be Giacalone. Shortly after then-FBI Director Comey announced he wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email server, Fox News pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a column in which he claimed Giacalone had quit the bureau because he believed the investigation was rigged.

In the Oct. 28, 2016 column, Napolitano claimed at that at the start of the Clinton email investigation, “agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.”
“Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going ‘sideways’; that’s law enforcement jargon for ‘nowhere by design,’” Napolitano wrote.

“John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his ‘sideways’ comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.”

“The reason for the ‘sideways’ comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can,” Napolitano continued.

“Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants.”

Napolitano speculated there were several possible reasons that the case went “sideways.” One was that Obama feared having to testify if Clinton went to trial (he had sent emails to the private server, after all, meaning he was aware of it). There was also the fact that a Clinton indictment could have led to Trump becoming president, and Obama simply couldn’t countenance that. (Less than two weeks after Napolitano’s column was written, it must be noted, that reason became moot.)

Grassley Vows to Protect Any FBI Whistle-Blowers Who Come Forward

source: https://goo.gl/BdYHqw
FBI agents want to talk.

But they’re scared of retribution, so they’re asking for subpoenas issued by Congress to help protect them and their jobs.
However, Senator Chuck Grassley says they don’t need a subpoena to be protected.

And he’s vowing to make sure any agent who comes forward will be protected by LAW.

Grassley reminded agents they’d be protected under federal “whistleblower” laws.
Good news!

Now, let’s open the floodgates and let the whistles blowers in!
According to media reports this week, a number of FBI agents are hoping to get subpoenaed in the Russia probe so they can expose corruption at the top of the Bureau. In other words, guys on the ground are ready to talk about decisions made by the suits in Washington D.C.

Many agents in the FBI want Congress to subpoena them so they can reveal problems caused by former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, three people in direct contact with active field agents tell TheDC.

“There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey’s behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs,” former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday. “They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify.”

In light of these reports, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley is reminding agents wanting to come forward that they don’t need a subpoena to do so.

In a letter to President Trump, Grassley explained how the whistleblower process works and guarantees protections for those exposing corruption.

“I want to clear up a few things. I have been seeing reports that individuals within our federal law enforcement agencies want to talk to Congress about problems they have seen on the job. But, the reports say these individuals want to be subpoenaed by congressional committees, rather than coming forward voluntarily. There is a perception that without a subpoena, they have no legal protection against retaliation for cooperating with Congress. That is nonsense and a misperception that has been fomented by FBI and DOJ leadership for many years,” Grassley wrote. “I’ve worked hard to strengthen legal protections, especially for FBI employees. You have a right to cooperate with Congressional inquiries, just as you have a right to cooperate with the Inspector General. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.”
“FBI agents and all federal law enforcement are protected for providing information to Congress. That’s true whether it is by a subpoena or not. If that is news to you, I encourage you to research the law yourself. It is found at title 5, United States Code, section 2303,” he continued. “As you will see, nowhere in that law do its protections require a subpoena. Nor do they require the approval of an agent’s chain of command or congressional affairs staff.”

Grassley has worked for years on Capitol Hill to bolster protections for whistleblowers.

Meanwhile, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his investigation about how the FBI, including former Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, handled the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton.

“I don’t want anyone out there to be confused. If you are a federal employee and you want to disclose wrongdoing to Congress or cooperate with a Congressional inquiry, you are legally allowed to do so. You should not have to fear retaliation,” Grassley said. “No FBI agent or other government employee should be afraid to cooperate with Congress or the Inspector General. Any FBI agent who has information to provide or questions about their rights to provide it should not hesitate to reach out and ask.”

Obama Just Announced Millions Will Partake Hitler Like Training For Youth – Brainwashing ‘Next Generation’

source: https://goo.gl/7UEFut
Former President Barack Obama inked the deal. You probably heard about it by now. Many people have already canceled. Some people could not care less. And Obama’s supporters were probably rallying around it. If you aren’t sure about what the ‘deal’ is, and missed out on some of the big headlines this week, then don’t worry about it. We’ve got you covered. It was just recently that Barack and Michelle Obama signed a multi-year deal with Netflix to produce a show of some sort and the results have been absolutely mixed. As previously mentioned, some people have stated they canceled their Netflix subscription, some people simply won’t watch it, and Obama’s supporters are likely cheering before the show even starts – a premature celebration to say the least.

It’s not the fact that the Obama’s have signed a deal with Netflix that’s the bad part. Any former president can get a show on any channel or streaming service and people really shouldn’t care as long as the show is simply about their life, a biography, or something light and entertaining. However, it appears that the Obama’s might have a different agenda for their show. It seems like, from what sources are saying, that Barack might want to utilize (abuse) the Netflix platform to push his agenda as a means of training viewers to vote for Democrats in the upcoming election. Ironically, the 2020 election is not so far away and the Netflix/Obama deal is reportedly multi-year, which could be just long enough to get beyond the election.

What we might be seeing is a politician abusing an entertainment platform in hopes to train young viewers, more or less a video version of indoctrinating the hip tech-savvy audience into voting for whomever the Democrats roll out in 2020. Could this be considered abusing a platform just like the way athletes abuse their privilege as a performer when they protest during sports? Many believe it is.

An article from Business Insider stated this from Obama:
“Obama was speaking at a tech conference in Las Vegas hosted by identity security company Okta when he was asked about the deal.

Obama explained that the Netflix deal was going to be focused on telling people’s stories. He said he hopes these stories will help people see and better understand one another and ultimately help us move past the divisive political discourse that has mired Washington for so long.

“I would not have been president had I not learned very early on in my professional career the importance of stories,” Obama told a standing-room-only crowd of thousands of people.”

What’s very strange about that quote from Obama is that he was very responsible for causing a bit of divide himself. Many people consider Obama to be the president who set Democrats against the police, painting police as the bad guys.

The article continued: “The Obamas used that lesson on the importance of listening when the future president campaigned for the Senate and presidency.

“We want to tell stories,” he said, “This [Netflix deal] becomes a platform. We are interested in lifting people up and identifying people doing amazing work.”

“We did this in the White House,” he said.”

That’s the problem right there. The Netflix deal should not be a platform for a political agenda. It should be a platform of people being entertained. We have reached a very troubling time where some people continue mixing entertainment and politics and it just doesn’t work.

Netflix now has a major problem on their hands because the backlash on social media is roaring with so many agitated people saying they will cancel their subscription.

Here’s where it gets tricky for Netflix. The people who consider canceling are likely right-wing aligned conservatives and Republicans who are known for being more fiscally responsible. Would it be wise for Netflix to allow Obama to forge a path with an agenda that targets people? Or should the keep the show as far from indoctrination as possible?

For example, if the show was about Barack Obama going on fishing trips, then would anyone care? Doubtful. The problem is that Obama has stated he wants to use the Netflix deal as a platform and that’s what has people upset.

Not everyone wants their entertainment poorly mixed with a shot of politics.

On a side note, it would be nice if the Obama show explained how they managed to spend $114 million on family vacations and campaigning and if the plan to pay the taxpayers back for those expensive trips.
Are you a Netflix customer? Will you stay with Netflix and not watch the show? Will you cancel Netflix?

How does this make you feel?

Share your thoughts below and then post this story to a friend who would enjoy it.