Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 29      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #51 

Jim Brown gives wrong all the wrong answers to Anderson Cooper's questions

The second half of this video is the best.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #52 

Obama raising war chest to fight Trump

pic718.jpg

Paul Bedard (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that despite public images of getting along and pledges of support, Barack Obama is raising money for a war chest to fight President-elect Donald Trump after he leaves office.

"Help Democrats fight back," said Obama in an fundraising email sent a week before Christmas. "Stand with me, work with me, let's finish what we started," he adds.

The email tells Democrats that they should be "proud" of the election, even though Hillary Clinton lost. It also signals the start of the next election even before Trump is inaugurated.

"Now, across the country, there are Democrats gearing up for the fights ahead -- and some for their next race. And they need your help, too," he said.

Obama has promised to stay engaged in politics, initially living just a few miles from the White House in a million-dollar neighborhood.

The memo is below:

I know how much I've asked of you this year. I really do.

But let me tell you: every dollar you chipped in, every phone call you made, and every neighbor you helped register made a difference. No matter the outcome, I hope you're as proud as I am of how you made an impact in this election.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #53 

Democrats are still in denial -- they're fearful of facing reasons for their loss

pic716.jpg

Joe Hoft (GatewayPundit) says the Democratic Party's response to their recent shellacking in the November 2016 elections is to blame the results on everything but their terrible candidate and destructive policies.

Democrats first blamed the 10% of the media that they don't control as the reason for their demise. This is in part true.  Americans by the millions went to sites like this one to obtain fair and unbiased news reporting during this election cycle.  At the same time WikiLeaks released Hillary campaign manager John Podesta emails that showed that the Democrats have nearly total control of the media.  The Democrats believe if they stop free speech all together they can then win elections.  They don't consider changing their positions.

Democrats next asserted that the elections were rigged, agreeing with Donald Trump. They enlisted the services of Green Party candidate Jill Stein to request recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  This did not work and it supported Trump's assertion that the elections are rigged and Democrats are doing the rigging.  (See Detroit and Nevada for examples.)

The Democrats next blamed Russia for interfering with the election and giving Trump the win. This insanity puts not only the US election process in peril, it also puts the US relations with Russia back to the Cold War era.  If the Russians wanted a particular candidate to win in this year's election, it was Hillary Clinton.  She gave them the Russian reset, uranium in the US and an easy rode in their takeover of Crimea, etc.

Finally, the Democrats are trying to overturn the election by requesting that the Republican Electoral College candidates vote not for Trump but for anyone else -- they are not saying vote for Hillary, wink, wink! What arrogant and misguided lefties. They really do come across as sore dumb losers.

And Democrats continue with their madness of blaming everyone and everything for their loss instead of themselves.

The Democrats lost this election by calling Americans racists, bigots, NAZIs and deplorables.

What genius thought that would be a winning strategy? Oh! I remember.

pic717.jpg


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #54 

Two qualities needed for today's Democrats -- no memory and no shame

pic706.jpg

James Soviero (IndependentSentinel) says given the Left's meltdown since the rousing Republican November 8th victories, one wonders just what does it take to support or be a member of today's Democrat Party? We're going to keep it simple by suggesting just two basic qualities. One, the need to have no memory. Two, they must have no shame.

Here's just a short list of substantive events that apparently have gone missing from the consciousness of millions of Democrats:

Remember their breathless outrage, endlessly "voiced" by Hillary Clinton, as she spewed her utter disgust over Donald Trump saying he'd take a wait and see approach to the election before accepting the results? They apparently don't.

How about the claim that they'd be satisfied if recounts were held in the three states Hill was supposed to, according to polling, have won handily? OK. Wisconsin wound up with more votes for The Donald. In Pennsylvania, a state Trump won by over 40,000 votes, a U.S. District Judge declared the effort "borders on the irrational" and stopped the count. Michigan was halted, soon after it was discovered that voting improprieties favored Clinton.

Then there's the Obama administration's late November assurance to the New York Times that, despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it had concluded the results "accurately reflect the will of the American people." They continued, "…..we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective." Well that statement, so meaningful less than one month ago, is now officially purged from the Left's porous little minds.

This conveniently pathetic inability to recall, in almost no time, things once considered quite profound, has led Democrats to behave shamelessly in a number of ways.

Party "leaders" were basically mum when post election "demonstrations" became riotous. Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and others took a pass, prattling on about "free speech" while, in a number of cities, police were attacked, traffic blocked, windows shattered, cars vandalized, and properties set ablaze

Now, many of the same people want to lecture us on the "Framers" intentions regarding the role of electors. This gaggle can't properly interpret one of the most basic tenants of the Constitution but somehow can read the minds of some of our most intuitive and brilliant "Founding Fathers".

And this self serving, arrogant, ignorance has led to perhaps the most unprincipled act of all -- the public and private intimidation of fellow citizens, who've simply accepted the additional civic responsibility of serving as electors. Republicans who hold those positions "are being harassed with a barrage of emails, phone calls and letters-and even death threats.   Those being menaced range in age from seniors to college students. One collegiate reported being warned about getting a bullet in the back of his mouth, The New York Post reported.
And from Democrats we hear…..crickets. Nice.

So let the call go out as they attempt to rebuild their shattered, increasingly far Left, radical, party.

Democrats Wanted -- requirements: No Memory, No Shame



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #55 

4 Reasons we're experiencing the "Hillary junta"

pic701.jpg

Joseph Farah (WND) says let's be honest and realistic about what is taking place in America today -- about one month before the new duly elected president is to be sworn into office.

We're in the throes of a coup, a junta, an effort to derail the constitutional election process by hook or crook, a dishonest, by-any-means-necessary, banana-republic-style power play, unlike anything we've seen in the traditions of American politics in 240 years.

Do I have it about right?

Would you agree?

Let's recall how Donald Trump was the presidential candidate who was singularly pressed to pledge acceptance of the outcome of the election no matter what. Hillary Clinton was the presidential candidate who was appalled at Trump's hedging and later made the unequivocal pledge herself.

So much for giving her word.

Since then here's what has transpired:

  • There's an unprecedented, active political campaign to turn Electoral College representatives sworn to Trump away from him. Why? Not because the vote was rigged, not because the election system was hacked, not because he won the votes fraudulently, but simply because they don't really like him. Is this kind of behavior in the spirit of America's proud tradition of peaceful transitions of power? Of course not.
  • The Big Media that were in the tank for Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign is not giving up, either. Instead, they are whipping up hysteria about unproven, unsubstantiated, sourceless, "fake news" stories about a fantasy conspiracy by Russia, and now specifically Vladimir Putin, to hack the Democratic National Committee and release embarrassing emails through WikiLeaks.
  • Hillary Clinton has gone dark -- giving her plausible deniability and cover as a non-participant in this shameful breech of the American political tradition of peaceful transitions of power. However, it's not plausible and it's not deniable that she relishes what is happening -- clinging to whatever hope she has left of grabbing the power she believes has always been rightfully hers.
  • The disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton and the strong opponents of Donald Trump continue to be whipped up into a frenzy that is profoundly dangerous to the peaceful transition of power. The goal seems to be continuing unrest, chaos, civil strife, permanent disenchantment -- all supported by a tacit Hillary Clinton and an active Democratic Party political establishment characterizing the Russian hacking fantasy as "bigger than Watergate, bigger than 9/11." Excuse me? If this is not conspiracy mongering and "fake news," what truly is? Where is the evidence? What laws were broken? Who has been indicted? And why the Democrats' sudden outrage about alleged foreign involvement in an election when, in the past, they have courted such involvement and pushed U.S. policies to involve the government in the elections of other nations?

What we are witnessing right now in the behavior of the Big Media, leftist organizations and the Democratic Party borders on a criminal racketeering conspiracy to overturn a U.S. presidential election -- one in which they did their level best to win through voter fraud, lies and disinformation from the beginning.

Do I exaggerate?

Should we take this lightly?

They will never just accept the will of The People in a constitutionally conducted election.

They will continue to cheat, connive, deceive and disrupt as long as there is even the faintest chance of getting their way and stealing the election.

That's why I call this the "Hillary junta."

They will never give up. They will never relent. They will never accept Donald Trump as president. They will never admit they were beaten fair and square.

Because their standard is the very un-American notion that the end justify the means.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #56 

Courts hand losses to electors in anti-Trump movement

pic698.jpg
My opinion is more important than the 36,000 voters I represent

Zoe Tillman (BuzzFeedNews) is reporting that electors hoping to convince their peers not to vote for Donald Trump lose requests for court orders that would block state laws requiring electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote.

Two federal courts and a state supreme court on Friday handed losses to members of the electoral college who are seeking the right to vote for a presidential candidate of their choice, as opposed to the candidate who won the popular vote in their state.

The cases involve states that Hillary Clinton won in November -- California, Colorado, and Washington -- but they're part of a broader effort to embolden electors elsewhere who may want to vote against Donald Trump in states that he won. A favorable ruling for challengers in one court could provide a template for electors who want to challenge similar laws in their state.

With electors nationwide set to meet on Monday in their states to vote for the president and vice president, a federal district judge in San Jose, California, and a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday denied requests to block enforcement of laws in California and Washington that require electors to vote for the winner of the popular election in those states.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a case brought by electors in that state, leaving in place a lower court judge's ruling against the electors. A case in federal court is pending.

Donald Trump won 306 electoral votes, compared with Hillary Clinton's 232 votes. Anti-Trump electors and activists want to convince other electors not to vote for Trump in order to bring his total down below the threshold of 270 electoral votes that he needs to win. A tie would send the election to the US House of Representatives.

Not all states have laws that bind electors to the results of the popular vote, but California, Colorado, and Washington are among those that do. The electors suing in those states argue that the US Constitution gives them the right to vote for whichever candidate they believe is "fit and qualified" to be president.

In the California case, US District Judge Edward Davila wrote on Friday that the electors raised a "serious question" about the constitutionality of placing limits on how electors vote. But he found that the challengers failed to show that they would face "irreparable harm" -- in this case, criminal prosecution -- if the court didn't act now and they voted for a candidate other than Clinton.

The challengers appealed late Friday to the Ninth Circuit.

In the Washington case, the electors who sued have said that they want to cast votes in a way that would hurt Donald Trump's bid for the presidency because they believe he is unfit for the office. The Ninth Circuit said in a two-page order on Friday that the challengers failed to show they were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims or that they would suffer irreparable harm absent immediate action by the court.

The Washington electors took the case to the Ninth Circuit after a federal district judge ruled against them on Thursday. US District Judge James Robart found that most of the consequences the Washington electors said they feared they would face if they didn't vote for Clinton -- being removed as an elector and being fined $1,000 -- were unsupported or contradicted by the law or the facts.

Sumeer Singla, a lawyer for the Washington electors, told BuzzFeed News that they haven't decided yet whether to attempt to take the case to the US Supreme Court. A lawyer for the California electors was not immediately reached for comment.

In Colorado, a state court judge on Dec. 12 denied an injunction to electors challenging that state's law. The Colorado Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court judge's order in place.

The Colorado challengers have a separate case pending in federal court. A federal district judge on Dec. 12 denied their request for an order blocking the state from enforcing its elector voting law, and the Tenth Circuit has yet to rule on the challengers' appeal.

Jason Wesoky, a lawyer for the Colorado electors, said that they were disappointed with the results in court so far, "but that doesn't diminish our efforts." It took courage for the electors to come forward, Wesoky said, and "we hope that a court has similar courage to take up this issue on its substance and its merits without dismissing it as a political stunt."

Update:

The Tenth Circuit on Friday evening denied the Colorado electors' request for an injunction. A three-judge panel found that the electors failed to point to specific provisions of the US Constitution that supported their argument, and didn't show how they would suffer irreparable harm if the court denied their request for an emergency injunction.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #57 

Electoral College survey shows electors will stand by Trump -- "I think it's a duty"

Start at item #656 today -- lots of stuff . . .

pic686.jpg

Jack Davis (WesternJournalism) is reporting that there are some Republican members of the Electoral College who wish they were not voting for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday.

However, an Associated Press survey of more than 300 electors has found that Trump opponents' dreams to use the Electoral College as the final place to block Trump's ascent to the White House have little hope of becoming reality.

Although the electors admit to an unprecedented wave of pleas to change their votes, AP noted that electors cited everything from the law, to duty, to loyalty to cast their votes for Trump.

Trump won 306 electoral votes on election night, far above the 270 needed to win election Monday, when the electors will gather in their respective state capitals to vote.

For Trump to lose, at least 37 electors would need to forsake him. AP reported that only one Republican elector told AP he won't vote for Trump.

Many are solidly behind the president-elect.

"Hell will freeze and we will be skating on the lava before I change," said Republican Tom Lawless of Tennessee. "He won the state and I've pledged and gave my word that that's what I would do. And I won't break it."

Republican elector Jim Skaggs of Kentucky said he will swallow his concerns and vote for Trump.

"His personality worries me," Skaggs said. "He is not open-minded. I hope he is far better than I think he is."

Misgivings aside, he said, "I fully intend to vote for Donald Trump. I think it's a duty."

Although being an elector is usually a very low-key role in America's political process, electors told AP that has not been the case with Trump's election.

"Let me give you the total as of right now: 48,324 emails about my role as an elector," said Brian Westrate of Wisconsin. "I have a Twitter debate with a former porn star from California asking me to change my vote. It's been fascinating."

Although efforts to stop Trump have been organized, they have not been effective, said some electors.

"We got a stack of letters from idiots," said Republican elector Edward Robson of Arizona.

Fellow Arizona GOP elector Carole Joyce said the deluge has been profound.

"They've caused me great distress on my computer, that's for sure," she said.

"I average anywhere from a thousand to 3,000 emails a day. And I'm getting inundated in my regular mailbox out front -- anywhere from 17 to 35 letters a day coming from Washington state, Oregon, all around the country. Hand-written, some of them five or six pages long, quoting me the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, asking me again out of desperation not to vote for Donald Trump," she said.

Joyce was philosophical about the fuss.

"… that's their right," she said. "I've had nothing threatening, I'm happy to say. The election is over. They need to move on."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #58 

Irony Man

pic687.jpg

Stilton Jarlsberg (HopeNChange) says the Left is still pushing the story that the integrity of our recent election was fatally compromised by leaked information which, according to unnamed and unsubstantiated intelligence agency sources who are leaking information (if not made up entirely) came from Russia.

We've already editorialized on this nonsense, but found that a new low was reached when White House spokesweasel Josh Earnest declared (not joshing, but earnestly) that "It's just a fact that (Trump) was encouraging Russia to hack his opponent (to) help his campaign."

Well, no! It's a fact that Trump made a very obvious joke about Russia finding the 30,000 emails that Hillary was hiding from investigators. But when this obvious truth was pointed out to Earnest, he glowered, "I don't think anybody at the White House thinks it's funny that an adversary of the United States engaged in malicious cyberactivity to destabilize our democracy. That's not a joke. Nobody at the White House thought it was a joke. Nobody in the intelligence community thought it was a joke."

In other words, nobody in the White House or intelligence community would know a joke if it bit them in the ass. Which this one actually has.

Still, the preposterous hubbub is giving some leftists hope that Monday's vote by the electoral college might still overturn the will of the people...

pic688.jpg 

We think it's almost impossible that there will be a last-minute upset in the electoral college, but we admit we'll breathe easier when the voting is finally done, and Donald Trump's win is validated. Or is that Vlad-idated...?



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #59 

Cracks appear in CIA Russian-hack scenario

pic685.jpg

Bob Unruh (WND) is reporting that the election didn't work out for Hillary Clinton, nor did a campaign for recounts, with some results showed Donald Trump gaining votes. Now, claims that the Kremlin hacked the U.S. election to hand the Oval Office to Trump are falling apart, too.

As one commenter to WND said, "What is next … blame Bigfoot, blame aliens, divine intervention, George Bush, global warming?"

"The bottom line is: Trump won!! Get over it!!"

Writer Matthew Vadum at Canada Free Press speculated, after the CIA declined to provide evidence of a Russian hack to Congress: "Could it be the CIA -- which employs more than a few Trump haters -- doesn't actually have any evidence? If they have proof they should cough it up. But they refuse.

"Instead, CIA officials keep leaking to the media. These people can't be trusted. The CIA has a long track record both for lying and breathtaking incompetence. This talk of a Russian conspiracy to hack U.S. computer networks to put Trump in the White House has always been difficult to believe."

The fight to reverse the outcome chosen by voters on Nov. 8 has been intensifying as the Electoral College prepares to vote Monday, with celebrities producing ads to persuade electors to reject the will of voters, investigations of Russian influence and more.

It's getting more complicated than a Robert Ludlum thriller novel.

For example, NBC reported Thursday that U.S. intelligence officials, who were not named, "now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."

"Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said," NBC reported.

The network claimed its "high-level intelligence source" said Putin's objectives were "multifaceted" and that "what began as a 'vendetta' against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to 'split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] could not depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore.'"

At the same time, however, the Express newspaper in the United Kingdom reported a Democratic National Committee insider was responsible.

"An ally of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the hack of the Democratic Party in the run up to the U.S. elections was not Russian but instead an 'inside job,'" the paper said.

"Former British ambassador Craig Murray said he has met the person who handed over the emails and they WERE from the Democratic National committee," the report said. "The emails were released by Mr. Assange's site and caused damage to Hillary Clinton's reputation with a number of shock revelations among tens of thousands of emails."

But Murray told reporters: "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things."

He continued: "As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks -- there is a major difference between the two."

The Inquisitr commented: "This claim flies in the face of the narrative dominating American media every since The Washington Post broke the story last Friday that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had strong evidence to believe that Russian hackers were behind the DNC leaks that rocked Hillary Clinton's Democratic campaign."

But WND has reported the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has sided with the FBI, which said it couldn't back the CIA's conclusion that the Russians hacked the accounts of the DNC and its leaders.

In recent days, both the Washington Post and New York Times reported the CIA believes Russia was not just trying to meddle in America's democratic process but was actively working in support of Trump. The Times report admitted there is no concrete evidence for the charge but states that intelligence officials believe there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence.

A former Reagan administration Pentagon official said Monday the claim is devoid of any publicly available evidence.

The CIA was not alleging that Trump or his campaign colluded with the alleged Russian plot or that Russia in any way impacted vote counting on Election Day.

But the rumors being discussed by the CIA have given fuel to Trump critics, including those in Congress who now want an investigation. Electors also are complaining they don't have enough information.

Reuters reported officials inside the ODNI, who were not identified, said their office has not endorsed the CIA assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump.

The ODNI oversees the 17-agency-strong U.S. intelligence community.

Its conclusion "could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as 'ridiculous' in weekend remarks," Reuters reported.

"ODNI is not arguing that the [CIA] is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," an official told Reuters. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The FBI earlier said its standards for evidence weren't satisfied by the CIA's assumptions and conclusions.

Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to report to him what they know about such attacks.

The exact benefit to Russia to having Trump in the White House has not yet been explained, either.

In fact, one of the most influential and highly quoted Russian intellectuals, professor Valery Solovei, says Russian officials will have to face an abrupt new reality on Jan. 20 when Trump is inaugurated.

In a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, he said: "Trump is not Obama. In the foreign policy domain, the Obama administration was the weakest postwar American administration. Trump cannot allow himself such weakness. Therefore, though the situation opens some new possibilities before us, it carries much larger risks.

"The new American administration will react from a position of strength, and we can never win in this competition. The Soviet Union had lost it, and Russia is much weaker than the Soviet Union. Our (Russia vs. U.S.) potentials are grossly disproportionate, have no illusions about it."

Former Reagan official Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, called the CIA's evidence hearsay.

"What the public knows is very limited. It really comes down to some press accounts based on unnamed sources in the CIA, people talking about briefings they had from CIA or FBI or others," Gaffney said.

In a further development reported Thursday by Fox News, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., "slammed the intelligence community … for forcing the cancellation of a planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election."

"All we've heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is that they could not say that there was any attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton [or] to help Donald Trump" King said. "The consensus was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put a cloud over the election, to create disunity. Well, that's what's happening right now, but it's the intelligence community that's doing it."

He made the comments, Fox News said, shortly after the committee abruptly canceled the scheduled briefing, based on the refusal by the CIA to "provide a briefer."

"Somebody has the time to leak it to the Washington Post and the New York Times, but they don't have time to come to Congress," King said. "It's their job to come. They don't have any choice. They have to come in, especially when they have created this."

He warned of rot inside the system.

"This violates all protocols and it's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States. It's absolutely disgraceful and if they're not doing it, then it must be someone in the House or the Senate who's leaking false information and there should be a full investigation of this."

He continued: "Ninety-nine percent of the people in the CIA are great. There's somebody here, though, that's behind something that's totally irresponsible."

AP reported the Kremlin was denying claims Putin directed the hacked data.

"Asked about the report, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Thursday dismissed it as 'laughable nonsense,'" AP said.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #60 

CIA Director John Brennan is behind the anti-Russian rumors -- is taking marching orders from Obama

pic684.jpg

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that the author, Ed Klein, said the rumors of Russian interference in the US election came from John Brennan who is receiving his marching orders from Obama.

Edward Klein reports:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

What's more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.

"And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama," the sources quoted Comey as saying.

In Comey's view, the leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post alleging that the Russians tried -- and perhaps even succeeded -- in tilting the election to Trump were a Democratic Party effort to delegitimize Trump's victory.

During their phone conversations, Comey informed Trump that the FBI had been alert for the past year to the danger that the Russians would try to cause mischief during the U.S. presidential election.

However, whether the Russians did so remains an open question



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #61 

Intelligence agencies refuse to brief House Intelligence Committee on Russian hacking

pic683.jpg

Susan Jones (CNSNews) is reporting that An attempt by Congress to find out more about Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election hit a brick wall last night, when U.S. intelligence agencies refused a request to brief the House intelligence committee today (Thursday) on the cyber-attacks.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the committee chair, was furious: "It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement.

"The legislative branch is constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies, which are obligated to comply with our requests," Nunes said. "The Committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign, and in particular we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us.

"The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes," said Nunes. "The Committee will continue its efforts and will insist that we receive all the necessary cooperation from the relevant leaders of the Intelligence Community.”

In a statement of its own, the U.S. intelligence community -- comprised of 17 different agencies -- noted that "senior administration officials" have regularly briefed members of Congress and their staff, in both classified and unclassified settings.

It said it would not make any comment until a review ordered by President Obama is complete.

Last week, President Obama ordered a full review of foreign efforts to influence presidential elections, dating back to 2008. Obama expects the review to be complete before he leaves office.

"Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress--and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We will not offer any comment until the review is complete," the statement said.

Although the Obama administration alerted Americans to Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. election in October, a full month before the election, the hacking of Democrats' emails didn't become a big deal until Donald Trump's surprise victory on Nov. 8.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #62 

ASSANGE to Hannity -- "our source is not the Russian government"

Sean Hannity spoke with founder and editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, on his radio show today to clear up the source of the DNC hack.

When Hannity asked him if the Russian government was the source of the hack, Assange said the following:

ASSANGE: "Our source is not the Russian government."

HANNITY: "So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

ASSANGE: "That's correct."

HANNITY: "Can you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked info from the RNC?"

ASSANGE: "We received about 3 pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else."

HANNITY: "The CIA supposedly says that the Russians definitely tried to influence the U.S. election. What is your thoughts on that?"

ASSANGE: "I think it is very interesting ..the key quote for us is from James Clapper on the 17th of November. James Clapper is head of DNI (Director of National Intelligence)…who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and so his statement is as far as Wikileaks connection is made to the House Intelligence Committee."

CLAPPER: "As far as the Wikileaks connection, the evidence there is not strong and we don't have a good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when that data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that."

Wikileaks has a 10 year flawless history of releasing authentic information.

For the record, Assange made a similar statement back on November 3rd before the election, but the mainstream media refuses to listen to him!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #63 

Loretta Lynch says we didn't see any "technical interference" from Russia during the campaign

pic682.jpg

Tim Hains (RealClearPolitics) is reporting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at an event with Politico's Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman Thursday morning. there, she was asked about reports that Russian hackers could have impacted the results of the 2016 election. Lynch said that there was no evidence that Russian hackers breached the integrity of the U.S. election system.

"Fortunately we didn't see the sort of technical interference that I know people had concerns about, also, in terms of voting machines and the like," Lynch said.

LORETTA LYNCH: There's a number of things we do, some of which we talk about publicly, some that we don't talk about publicly, in terms of investigation and the responses that we have.

This was a grave concern to us, so we began in the summer to look at what we could say publicly about this issue, and that is why you saw the intelligence community release its report in October, before the election. Letting the American people know that the intelligence community had determined tha Russia was behind the hacks [of the DNC] itself. The investigation is ongoing, certainly the review is continuing. We rarely do that kind of public attribution, but it was important in that instance because the election effects everyone.

It is not a matter of the results, it is peoples' faith in the integrity of the system. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security was involved in reaching out to every state to make sure that they had access to every resource they needed to protect the state electoral system as well.

Fortunately we didn't see the sort of technical interference that I know people had concerns about, also, in terms of voting machines and the like. But a lot of education and training went on about that, and a significant number of states did reach out to DHS and talk to them about these issues.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #64 

Former intelligence professionals say all signs point to "leaking" rather than "traceable hacking"

pic681.jpg

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a statement today on the claims of Russian hackers influencing the US elections.

The former intelligence officials say all signs point to "leaking" and not traceable "hacking."

Executive Intelligence Review posted the statement:

"We draw on decades of senior-level experience -- with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security -- to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog.

"We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here is the difference between leaking and hacking:

"Leak When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

"Hack When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls, or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts date.

"All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it -- and know both the sender and the recipient.

"In short, leaking requires physically removing data -- on a thumb drive, for example -- the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server via a physical storage device."

When hacking is involved, "the NSA is able to identify both the sender and the recipient involved." Because of the Snowden releases, the VIPS.

"can provide a full picture of NSA's extensive domestic data-collection network… which include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S."

"In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee or of Hillary Rodham Clinton -- or any other server in the U.S. -- is collected by the NSA. These data transfers are broken down into smaller segments called 'packets', which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network…"

"…All the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the network to route data. When these email packets leave the U.S. the other 'Five Eyes' countries (the U.K,., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and the seven or eight other countries participating with the U.S. in the bulk-collection of everything on the planet would also have a record of where the email packets went after leaving the U.S.

"These collection resources are extensive; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network.

"The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any 'hacked' emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network…"

The most qualified cyber surveillance professionals on the planet conclude DNC not hacked. https://t.co/qnDD71DUlI Google William Binney.

-- Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) December 15, 2016



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #65 

Center for American Progress focuses on anti-Trump efforts

pic680.jpg

Gabriel Debenedetti (Politico) is reporting that looking to build itself into a nerve center for the anti-Donald Trump resistance, the liberal Center for American Progress think tank is relaunching its advocacy-focused arm Thursday and bringing on a longtime senior aide to Sen. Harry Reid to help lead the charge.

Adam Jentleson, Reid's deputy chief of staff, will work to steer the new war room at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which its leaders hope will provide Democrats with a centralized resource to oppose the president-elect's moves -- starting with his Cabinet nominations.

The reorientation comes at a difficult inflection point not only for Democrats, but for the constellation of left-leaning organizations that pepper the Washington landscape and that fully expected to be advising Hillary Clinton's White House transition team at this point. CAP's move, landing Thursday to mark the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights, is one of the most significant in a series of pushes into a world where Democrats are once again the opposition.

"Our goal is to be the central hub of the Trump resistance, to hold Trump accountable for the promises he made," said CAP president and CEO Neera Tanden, a confidant of Clinton's and her campaign policy director in 2008.

"Our overarching theory of the case is that he promised to ‘drain the swamp' and improve the lives of middle-class Americans, and where he betrays those promises, we want to make it clear to the public that he's done so."

The organization is hardly the only one seeking to position itself at the forefront of the party in the Trump era -- the American Bridge opposition research group led by Clinton ally David Brock launched its own "war room" last week. Yet CAP's long track record as a center of Democratic thought and its exceptionally close ties to Clinton and her campaign both grant it extra weight within the party infrastructure.

And the question of how the think tank would recreate itself in 2017 has been the subject of significant chatter within party circles as of late, particularly given the fact that its 2003 birth was orchestrated by John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman and a former senior aide to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yet, the new position is not entirely novel to the organization.

"This isn't unfamiliar territory to CAP. It was founded at a time, 2003-04, when [George W.] Bush was in the White House, and Democrats didn't have control of either chamber," explained Angela Kelley, the executive director of the Action Fund. "So to some extent we're dusting up and updating the playbook from 10 years ago."

Now, the group will be hiring researchers as it promotes its Trump transition tracker, which is intended to "empower readers and users to oppose Trump nominees" by informing them about activities that are being organized to stand in the way of appointments, explained Action Fund Deputy Director Igor Volsky.

Its website -- separate from CAP's ThinkProgress news blog that has grown 33 percent in circulation since Trump's win -- will also track Trump's conflicts of interest and will include resources like petitions and tools allowing readers to send messages to relevant elected officials.

"What I hope to bring is a relentlessly aggressive attitude and orientation toward holding Trump accountable every single day," said Jentleson, who will formally join the organization after the new year, once Reid leaves the Senate. "They have incredible resources here, a large staff, and I think what I hope to do is look to weaponize all of the resources that CAP can bring to bear."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #66 

Electors are being harassed, threatened in bid to stop Trump

pic679.jpg 

Mark Moore (NYPost) is reporting that Electors around the country are being harassed with a barrage of emails, phone calls and letters -- and even death threats -- in an effort to block Donald Trump from being voted in as president by the Electoral College on Monday.

The bullying is overwhelming Sharon Geise’s tech devices, but not her resolve to support Trump.

The Mesa, Arizona, grandmother woke up Wednesday morning to more than 1,500 emails demanding she not carry out her legal duty to vote for the president-elect.

"They just keep coming and coming," Geise told The Post, estimating she’s received more than 50,000 emails since the election. "They’re overpowering my iPad."

Her answer: mass delete.

Despite the avalanche, she said, her decision to back Trump is stronger than ever.

"Obviously their minds are made up and they’re not going to change. I’m not either," the soft-spoken Geise said.

Reports of GOP electors being badgered have been reported in numerous states, including Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, Arizona, Utah and Michigan.

Like Geise, Republican Patricia Allen of Tennessee told The Post she’s been bombarded with 2,000 emails, 120 letters and five phone calls all urging her to switch and vote against Trump. But Allen, 74, said that despite the "siege," she’s not budging.

"This has never happened before … Do you know how long it takes to delete all those emails every day?" she asked.

She’s also been solicited by a Harvard University group backed by constitutional law Prof. Lawrence Lessig, who has offered free legal aid to electors who change their vote.

"That borders on bribery," said Allen. "Carried to this extreme, the day might come when an elector could be sold to the highest bidder."

Lessig claims that 20 GOP electors are considering voting against Trump.

Even if true, that wouldn’t be enough to alter the outcome when the 538 members of the Electoral College gather to cast their official votes. Trump has 306 electoral votes, 36 more than the minimum required.

For Michael Banerian, a senior at Oakland University in Michigan and a Republican elector, the harassment comes with a dark side.

He said he’s been getting death threats via email, snail mail, Twitter and Facebook.

"Somebody threatened to put a bullet in the back of my mouth," Banerian, 22, told The Post on Wednesday.

In Utah, a group called Democracy and Progress PAC placed full-page ads in Salt Lake City’s daily newspapers telling electors they are "not bound" to vote for trump, who won the state.

But the Desert News reported that under Utah law, Trump must receive all the state’s Electoral College votes, since he won the election in the state.

The paper said Utah’s six Republican electors are being inundated with emails pressing them not to support Trump.

One of them, Salt Lake County Councilman Richard Snelgrove, said there’s no way he’ll cave in to the pressure.

"No, Trump won the Electoral College fair and square," he said.

The effort to deny the electoral vote to Trump was launched shortly after the Nov. 8 election.

The Clinton campaign came out in support of the effort Monday, backing an open letter from 10 Democratic electors to National Intelligence Director James Clapper calling for an intelligence briefing on what role Russian hackers may have played in the election.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #67 

Comey to Trump -- The Russians didn't influence the election

Edward Klein (EdwardKlein.com) says that in telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

What's more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.

"And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama," the sources quoted Comey as saying.

In Comey's view, the leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post alleging that the Russians tried -- and perhaps even succeeded -- in tilting the election to Trump were a Democratic Party effort to delegitimize Trump's victory.

During their phone conversations, Comey informed Trump that the FBI had been alert for the past year to the danger that the Russians would try to cause mischief during the U.S. presidential election.

However, whether the Russians did so remains an open question, Comey said, adding that it was just as likely that the hacking was done by people who had no direct connection to the Russian government.

"It's also unclear," the sources pointed out, "why Putin would have preferred dealing with Donald Trump, who has promised a major military buildup, over Hillary Clinton, who would have continued Barack Obama's cautious policies toward the Kremlin."

Related:  Democrats are now accusing Trump of colluding with a foreign enemy

And Obama's mouthpiece continues to sell this fake news story:

Obama, his personal spook Brennan, the Democratic Party and the media are all promoting this "fake news" story.

The Directors of the FBI and National Intelligence and the people involved say it ain't so. The NSA, which knows, ain't sayin'.

Who do you believe?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #68 

Ivy League professor says Democrats and the media are attempting a coup of the Electoral College

pic675.jpg

William Jacobson (AmericanLookout), a law professor at Cornell University, says we are witnessing nothing short of an attempt to steal the election by some Democrats and a very supportive mainstream and leftwing media, by causing Electors in the Electoral College to go rogue and vote for Hillary, or at least not vote for Trump.

The first excuse for this tactic after the election was made by people like Prof. Lawrence Lessig. At least he was honest in his call to have the Electors stop Trump because he didn't like the result and thought Trump would be a horrible president on a host of issues.

Honest, but severely misguided.

Call that Operation Flip the Electors, Part One.

As it became obvious that the recounts demanded by Jill Stein and supported by Hillary would fail to change the outcome, a new and thoroughly dishonest media narrative developed -- that Trump could not be allowed to take office because Russia "hacked the election."

By hacked the election, they don't mean that the vote count was corrupted, but that alleged Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta influenced the outcome. A variation on that theme is that Trump has some potential Russian connection that makes him potentially disloyal to the United States.

The claim is that this new information is so serious post-election, that the Electors must fulfill some alleged duty to protect the country from Trump. Call that Operation Flip the Electors, Part Two.

None of these allegations, however, are new. They were all aired to and considered by the voters. Here are just a tiny fraction of the major media headlines BEFORE the election:

The only allegedly "new" information is not new information, but anonymous leaks to the NY Times and Washington Post that the CIA has changed its assessment that the Russians intended not just to disrupt the U.S. elections but to "help" Trump.

Put aside the inadequacy of anonymous leaks to support the allegation, is that accusation really new? The media already made that accusation before the election, but now is acting *shocked* that a hostile foreign government would attempt to influence our elections. Because, you know, it's not like we ever try to influence the elections in other countries. (Putin accused Hillary of doing that to him, and Bibi, remember Bibi?)

Put aside also the lack of logic claiming that the email hacks decided the election -- maybe if Hillary were not such a horrible candidate she would have weathered the leak storm, much as Trump weathered the Access Hollywood video and numerous women who accused him of sexual assault. To say the Russians did it is to excuse Hillary of all responsibility for the loss -- and to completely devalue American voters.

The voters took into account the swarm of accusations against Trump and Hillary, and elected him. Losing sucks, I get it, but it's not an excuse to create a constitutional crisis and uniquely destructive result of the Electors flipping the election to Hillary, or even to the House.

But if there is one thing you must keep in mind when you consider the deluge of media claims supporting the Electors going rogue, it's that Part Two of Operation Flip the Electors is thoroughly dishonest.

These are not, with few exceptions, people who actually believe that something has changed so dramatically since the election that the Electors need to intervene. Rather, this is a pure power play to undermine the electoral system by people who never thought Trump was fit for office for reasons unrelated to Russia, who now are using the Russian "hack" as an excuse.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi's daughter, an Elector demanding a CIA briefing to vet the accusations against Trump, actually and honestly believes anything other than that she never wanted Trump to be president?

It's one thing to say that allegations of foreign tampering should be thoroughly investigated. They should. But it's quite a different thing to use that alleged tampering to overturn elections.

So yes, I am calling the overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the media, pushing Operation Flip The Electors, Part Two, of being liars about why they want the Electors to stop Trump.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #69 

Former UK ambassador says source of Clinton emails was "disgusted" Democratic whistleblower

pic672.jpg

Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge) is reporting that just as the CIA/Democrat/Mainstream Media narrative of Russia's involvement in the election jumps the shark with fact-less accusations of Putin's personal involvement, The Daily Mail blows the entire "hack" meme out of the water. As an evoy for Wikileaks, former UK ambassador Craig Murray claims he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one source, who "had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks... Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians."

Murray, who blasted The CIA's "blatant lies" in a recent op-ed, has now come forward with more details on how he knows they are lying... (as The Daily Mail reports)

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. "The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."

While Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony. His links to Wikileaks are well known.

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,"  Murray said. "The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."

He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks -- which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.

Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities.

He suggested that Podesta's emails might be "of legitimate interest to the security services" in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

"I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true," he said. "Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."

Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.

"The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything," Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.

"Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false -- we can say that the Russian government is not the source."

As Murray concluded in his recent op-ed, the continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries -- including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
shamrock

Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #70 
And I should Hope So !

The Swamp must be cleansed.  

America deserved to be rid, once and for all, of this Insidious and Evil Destruction of our God given rights as outlined in our Constitution.

Our survival as a Nation demands that Justice must prevail.

IN GOD WE TRUST. 
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #71 
I hear that his focus on people with military experience is because after he gets into office, Atty Gen. Sessions will go after Clintons and other folks.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #72 

Two more good Trump appointments

Start at item #646 today . . .

John Hinderaker (Powerline) says Donald Trump has appointed former Texas Governor Rick Perry Secretary of Energy. Perry is a great choice for Energy, but frankly, he would be a terrific choice for just about any executive branch position. Rick Perry is perhaps the most successful governor of modern times; his track record as an administrator is unexcelled. Give Perry a department, and he will run it well.

pic668.jpg

Liberals fear that as Secretary of Energy, Perry will favor fossil fuels over "green" energy. I certainly hope so, but that may not turn out to be part of his job. In any event, it will be far better to have Rick Perry running the Department of Energy than the ridiculous Steven Chu, who wanted Americans to pay $8 per gallon of gasoline, and who completely failed to understand America's vast fossil fuel resources.

Trump also will nominate Congressman Ryan Zinke of Montana as Secretary of the Interior, although it is not yet clear that Zinke will accept the nomination. Zinke, a former Navy SEAL, is detested by liberals for all the right reasons:

He advocates greater use of public lands for energy production such as oil and natural gas.

Zinke has prioritized development of oil, gas and other resources on public lands and has advocated for state control of energy development on federal lands, a stance that some environmental groups say threatens national parks.

All good. This adds entertainment value:

Zinke attracted attention in the 2014 campaign for calling Hillary Clinton "the antichrist."

"Do I really believe that she is the antichrist? That answer would be 'no,'" Zinke said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But I do get a little emotional about Benghazi, and I, like the rest of America want answers."

Then there's this:

During his re-election campaign, Democrats attempted to label Zinke as a radical conservative who would sell off federal lands to private interests or transfer them to state control.

That would be a good thing, but Zinke says the charge is false. Zinke has no real track record as an administrator, but, like all of Trump's appointments, he is sure to be a vast improvement on anyone selected by the Antichrist Hillary Clinton.

Zinke was not just a Navy SEAL officer for 22 years, but did two tours as a commander with SEAL Team 6. Here is his impressive record.

pic667.jpg
SEAL Team 6 -- Zinke is 3rd from right, back row

Donald Trump continues to impress.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #73 

Jim Brown on Donald Trump -- "I fell in love with him"

On the heels of a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump, legendary NFL superstar Jim Brown tells Brooke Baldwin he has "my admiration."

One of my heroes -- it's sad to see that even the great Jim Brown is not exempt from the effects of aging.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #74 

It is likely US intelligence -- not Russia -- leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks

pic661.jpg

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Judge Napolitano doubled down today on Varney and Company that the US intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

Napolitano told Stewart Varney the US intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks -- NOT the Russians.

Napolitano says he has a source inside the intelligence community:

"The CIA and FBI examined the exact same data that was produced for them by the NSA. The CIA analysts said the Russians are behind this. The FBI analysts said there is no evidence that the Russians are behind this. We do know this was leaking. This was not hacking. Leaking is the unauthorized exposure of something to a person to whom it wasn't intended. Hacking is th altering of an operational system… You can't affect the outcome of the election if you hack Clinton and the DNC. You can affect the outcome of an election if you affect those who register the voters or count the voters.

There is NO EVIDENCE that this was done by the Russians. But there is evidence for this. Who was harmed by Mrs. Clinton's extremely careless use of state secrets? Whose agents' lives were jeopardized by her failure to keep these state secrets? The American intelligence community. It is more likely than not that members of the American intelligence community leaked this to Julian Assange than that the Russians did… The suggestion comes from members of the intelligence community."

Judge Napolitano made similar comments back in August saying he received the information from a source in the NSA.

"A former high ranking NSA official who developed a software that the NSA now uses said the NSA hacked the DNC…the members of the intelligence community simply do not want Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States."

Video



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #75 

"It's The Most Wonderful Time in 8 Years"

By Dana Kamide . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved