5 REASONS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT TRUMP

The enemies of Trump suffer from short term memory loss.  They salivate every time he goes through a crisis.  “This is it. He’s finished.”  How many times must I tell you—he thrives on crisis—he wins when he loses—he has a resilience not of this earth. Stop pinning your hopes on his demise; it’s a spin class in futility. Here are 5 reasons why.

5 REASONS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT DONALD TRUMP

By Mario Murillo

He will not be impeached.  He will not even be censured.  The next four years and more are his.  Hate me, laugh at me, despise my writing…it does not matter, he will survive.

To all who support Trump, there are 5 reasons for you not to worry.  I am not even going to get spiritual about it.  I am not going to give you a glassy stare, feign some prophetic moment, and speak in a breathy tone.  Just the facts.

1. The poll numbers are skewed against him. Scientists have shown that when people have a favorite candidate who is attacked by the press they go silent. They still support the person, they just won’t tell you.  Many, many more than we hear about still support Trump.

Moreover, Americans have a deep sense of fair play.  They go for the underdog.  Our people see the flagrant, wanton and disgraceful attacks on Trump by the media.  They are giving him a break for that.  They also understand his rookie mistakes, he is not a politician… we didn’t want a politician, remember?

Here’s the tragic part for his haters…his base still believes he loves America and wants to make her great again.

2. It’s the economy, oh thou lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind. Unemployment is at a 16-year low, and the consumer sentiment levels are at near record highs. When all the background noise settles, and the voter, with a good paying job, stands before the lever to vote—the thought of returning to an Obama economy will horrify.

3. He has plenty of time to win back those who have turned against him. Listen to Jake Novak senior editor at CNBC:Both party establishments still need a vote-getting leader and President Trump already has the White House leadership role they covet. He has enormous executive power at his fingertips and the ability to win over some doubters with even the smallest backtracking like his recent ousting of Chief White House Strategist Steve Bannon, or just the passage of time.”

4. The other side still looks way worse. Two men trapped in the woods are suddenly charged by a bear. One man takes off barefoot the other stops to put on his shoes.  The runner asks why are you doing that?  The other replies,  I only need to be faster than you.

Chuck Schumer annoys his base, let alone the rest of us.  Elizabeth Warren is a shrill throated hater of the white middle-class worker.  Bernie Sanders’ economy from Mars plays well only because pot has been legalized on campus.  Maxine Waters is a VOTE FOR TRUMP  machine.  Nancy Pelosi is, well, Nancy Pelosi.

5. Millions are praying for our nation. I do not agree with everything Trump does. If he asked me I would have some strong words on certain things.  What I cannot deny are these things:

He put a conservative in the Supreme Court.  He stands with Israel.  He is against abortion.  He wants to remove the hideous Johnson Amendment that took away freedom of speech from preachers.  He wants to secure the border.  He is working to stop other nations from abusing us and harming us.

Thoughtful believers see past the fog.  They see what I see, they are praying for his protection, for wisdom and for God’s  favor.   Those prayers will be answered.

Who am I to say this last part?  Mr. President, shake off the distractions and remember the message that put you in the White House.  Keep on making America Great Again.  The rest will take care of itself.

MR PRESIDENT, JUST STOP TALKING TO THE PRESS

 

Take it from a preacher—you need to stop talking to the press.  They have sold themselves to toppling you.  They are as far from journalism as the east is from the west.
Consider this verse from the Bible the next time you are tempted to answer one of their stupid questions: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. – Proverbs 26:4
I write this to you because I have heard from people I trust that you love Jesus.  I also believe you love America.  It’s as a brother that I write this.
You have more important things to do!  Media banalities throw you off your game.  They try to use your competitive nature against you.   Let me invoke some New York City wisdom: fuhgeddaboudit.
Just keep on making America great again.  The people that matter—the American people—will see the results and support you.
Mr. President, the same constitution which guarantees freedom of the press, guarantees freedom from the press—especially when it is no longer the press.
You already know this: North Eastern colleges spew out 89% of our “journalists”.  It was in these hallowed halls that accurate reporting was chloroformed.  Truth, accuracy, fairness and honesty were all sacrificed on the altar of “secular progressivism.”

In this cult, the global order must come no matter what the cost.  America must be diminished by open borders, the destruction of the family, and the eradication of our Judaeo/Christian values.  You, dear president, stand in the way of all of this.
I am trying to Mirandize you against the press: anything you do say, can and will be used against you.
Please read what Jesus said to understand the media: “Luke 7: 31 And the Lord said, “To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying:  ‘We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not weep.’
33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Do you see the comparison?  The liberal media wanted James Comey fired.  Every Democratic leader called for his head.  Firing James Comey was noble and right…until you did it.
Until accurate reporting makes a comeback, nothing you say or do will be right.  Ignore them.

Here’s a list of what Trump did in just 60 minutes as president

In case you are wondering if Trump will keep his promises…

 

In the first hour as president he did the following:

He rolled back an 11th-hour Obama administration rule that lowered home borrowers’ mortgage insurance costs.

The Federal Housing Authority uses that money to underwrite banks when low-income – and therefore high-risk – borrowers default on their loans.

Republicans argue that unless the FHA has significant cash reserves, all taxpayers including those with no stake in the housing market would be forced to pay for bailouts.

This happened in 2013, when the FHA required a $1.7 billion taxpayer cash infusion to keep going.

Back at the White House before a string of three inaugural balls, the new president inked formal commissions for a pair of retired Marine Corps general whom the U.S. Senate confirmed in their new cabinet roles.

Vice President Mike Pence swore them both in immediately.

Retired Gen. James Mattis is now the U.S. secretary of Defense. Retired Gen. John Kelly is secretary of Homeland Security.

Just as consequential were a pair of orders marking the Trump administration’s first firepower volley against Obamacare and signaling a massive, government-wide regulatory freeze.

The Obamacare executive order directs government departments and administrators to limit the cost of complying with the Affordable Care Act in every way possible while preparing for a Republican-dominated Congress to repeal and replace the law.

The regulatory memo, in the form of a memorandum from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, orders federal agencies to cancel new regulations that haven’t yet been officially published and to delay for 60 days all those that are in place but haven’t yet taken effect.

It also orders bureaucrats to stop submitting most new regulations without first seeking White House approval.

Trump pledged during his campaign that he would pare back the American regulatory state in order to liberate the financial, energy and manufacturing sectors.

He also vowed to eliminate two federal regulations for every new one that takes effect.

 

John Voight’s plea to save America

Hollywood conservative and staunch Donald Trump supporter Jon Voight released a video “Plea to Save America” on Thursday, urging Americans to vote for the Republican candidate in next month’s election, which the actor called the “most important in American history.”
The actor, who recently sparred with Democratic contributor and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert De Niro over the latter’s disdain for Trump, appealed to Americans to vote for the only candidate who can “save our America.”

The full transcript of Voight’s remarks are below:

My dear fellow Americans.

We are all feeling tremendous anxiety with only a few weeks left to the election. This will be the most important election in American history.

We were once a country of freedom, and now we’re becoming a country of tyranny.

We are witness to our own people burning down and looting our cities. Ferguson, Missouri, Milwaukee, Orlando, Florida, Baltimore. We are all witness to our own people killing our policemen. Islamic terrorists have killed thousands of people all over our country, and Hillary and Obama want to be politically correct and pretend all the killings are not happening.

How many Americans are aware of George Soros? An evil man, who turned hundreds of Jewish people over the Nazis to be exterminated during World War II. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes, and was asked does he feel guilty for what he has done. And arrogantly, he said ‘Absolutely not. If I didn’t do it, someone else would have.’

Soros is a billionaire, who made most of his money manipulating currencies and almost bankrupting many countries. He supports hate groups, who are responsible for taking down our cities. And he is a close friend of Hillary Clinton, and a major supporter of her campaign.

Robert De Niro is a millionaire, as are so many of our Hollywood stars who are voting for Hillary, and who have absolutely no tolerance for anyone with a different opinion, forgetting that that is what our country is founded on: freedom of choice. But they will not be affected by Hillary’s open borders. Only our poor and middle class will suffer.

Thousands of refugees will flood our nation, and no one will know the good guys from the bad guys. It will kill our economy, which is at an all-time low now under the years of Obama’s presidency. And Hillary boasts of how proud she will be to continue Obama’s legacy.

No one can afford health insurance now. Prices for healthcare have gone through the roof thanks to Obamacare. Our once reasonable healthcare is gone.

With Hillary as President, we will lose our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Freedom of religion will be attacked, and Hillary will try to stop all conservative voices on TV and radio. Our highest court will become Socialist, and she will restrict what America was founded on, our freedom to become a small business owner and pursue our own personal dreams.

She has blood on her hands from the Benghazi terrorist raid. Four of our American patriots died, and when the parents stood over their loved ones’ coffins, she lied to them about the cause of their sons’ deaths.

The pendulum of freedom is not balanced. Hillary and her followers are on a crude campaign to stop and degrade all of Trump’s followers. Her words were echoed loud and clear for all Americans to hear. Hillary said Trump’s followers are a basket of deplorables. They are un-redeemable.

May God protect the real truth, and may Donald Trump win this presidency. He will save our America, and he will certainly make it great again.

Obama Invites 18.7 Million Immigrants to Avoid Oath of Allegiance Pledge to Defend America

Obama Invites 18.7 Million Immigrants to Avoid Oath of Allegiance, Pledge to Defend America

It’s not only illegal aliens who are escaping enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.

Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority,  legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.

Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service.  

According to the Naturalization Fact Sheet on the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website, In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the nation welcomed 729,995 Legal Permanent Residents into full citizenship.

  • Over the past decade 6.6 million have been naturalized through a process that ends with the Oath of Allegiance.
  • In the decade 1980-1990, the average number completing Naturalization was only 220,000 annually, but from 1990 to 2000 that number jumped to over 500,000  annually.
  • 1,050,399  new citizens were welcomed in the year 2008.
  • 18.7 million immigrants are eligible to eventually become citizens, and 8.8 million already meet the 5-year residency requirement.

The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year.

This radical change was announced a year ago, in July of 2015. Congress did not enact the change in new legislation. There was no congressional debate, no filibuster in the US Senate, and no sit-in in the House to demand that a bill to repeal the USCIS action be brought to a vote.

No, this radical change was implemented while Congress slept. Like other Obama actions to undermine our immigration laws, the Republican-controlled Congress has not used its constitutional powers to reverse the administrative action. Thank God many states are stepping up to fill that void.

This week, the US Supreme Court let stand a federal district court ruling invalidating Obama’s unconstitutional “DACA” amnesty.

By a 4-4 tie vote, the Supreme Court declined to review the Circuit Court’s ruling upholding the Houston district court decision. Therefore, it is now the law and Obama’s DACA amnesty is voided. If Justice Scalia were still alive and participating in the case, it would have been a 5-4 ruling because the “swing vote,” Associate Justice Kennedy, voted with Justices Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

Where was Congress? Why did it take a lawsuit by the Governors and Attorneys General of 26 states to overturn Obama’s unconstitutional actions?

It’s true that other Presidents have made changes in the Naturalization process by administrative decree and without congressional approval. In 2002, in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack, President George Bush by executive order expedited the naturalization process for 89,000 immigrants serving in the armed forces. While many will agree with Bush’s action and even applaud, that change should have been done by act of Congress, not a presidential executive order.

In fact, most Americans will think it extremely odd that the USCIS action with regard to the Oath of Allegiance is not illegal. But the fact is, unelected bureaucrats at the USCIS can change the wording of the Oath without approval of the people’s representatives in Congress. Strange as it sounds, the law as it stands today allows USCIS bureaucrats great leeway in managing the Naturalization process, so Obama’s actions will not be challenged in federal court.

Yet, in view of Obama’s actions, why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so. If they won’t even bar Islamic terrorists from the refugee program, why should we expect them to protect the Oath of Allegiance? Some members of Congress will grumble, make speeches and issue press releases, but the Republican leadership will do nothing.

Such is the state of the nation as we approach this 240th anniversary of the  Declaration of Independence. Some Americans see great irony in the British declaring their independence from the tyranny of Brussels while Americans quietly accept the new tyranny of Washington, DC.

Poll: Voters Trust Donald Trump to Keep America Safe; Favor Muslim Ban

Poll: Voters Trust Donald Trump to Keep America Safe; Favor Muslim Ban

Americans trust Donald Trump to keep America safe more than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, despite repeated assertions from Democrats that she is one of the most qualified candidates for president in history.

A new poll from Morning Consult shows that 41 percent of Americans believed that Trump would do a better job of keeping the country safe while only 37 percent favored Hillary Clinton. (Twenty-two percent said they didn’t know or had no opinion).

Trump’s boost comes from Independent voters, as 38 percent say they trust Trump while only 26 percent favored Clinton.

The poll also shows that Americans support Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims traveling to the United States. Forty-eight percent of those polled supported the idea while only 40 percent opposed it. (Eleven percent said they didn’t know or had no opinion)

The Morning Consult survey polled 2,001 voters from June 15-18 for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Report: Illegal aliens committed nearly ten times more crimes than what Obama told congress

Report: Released Criminal Aliens Committed Nearly 10 Times More Crimes Than Obama Admin. Told Congress

The Obama Administration “grossly misrepresented” the number of crimes the criminal aliens it released from custody in FY 2014 subsequently committed by nearly tenfold, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) charges.

According to FAIR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on FAIR’s behalf reveal that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE released in FY 2014 committed 13,288 additional crimes.

The number of subsequent convictions contained in FIOA documents is far higher than the 1,423 additional offenses ICE reported to the House Judiciary Committee last July.

The criminal aliens released in FY 2014 who went on to commit those additional crimes had convictions for offenses like homicide, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault, and drunk driving. The new crimes, according to ICE’s report to Congress, included vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary and assault.

“Rather than end dangerous politically-driven policies that have put a total of 85,000 deportable criminal aliens back onto the streets in the last three years, ICE tried to hide them by providing grossly inaccurate information to Congress and the American people,” Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, said in statement.

In April, ICE revealed that it released an additional 19,723 criminal aliens —who had a total of 64,197 convictions among them including 101 homicide convictions, 216 kidnapping convictions, 320 sexual assault convictions, 1,728 assault convictions, and 12,307 driving under the influence of alcohol convictions — from custody in FY 2015.

In response to the FY 2015 numbers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte warned that the Obama Administration’s immigration policies are creating “a sanctuary for tens of thousands of criminal aliens.”

“The American public has been misled by the enforcement priorities, deferred action, and executive action policies of this Administration, which categorize only certain so-called ‘serious’ criminal aliens as worthy of detention and then removal,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “Despite its rhetoric, the fact remains that the Obama Administration continues to willingly free dangerous criminal aliens, allowing them to continue to prey upon communities across the United States.”

National Review’s Unwise Trump Excommunication

 unwise

National Review’s Unwise Trump Excommunication

By Laura Ingraham

National Review, in its issue dedicated to taking down GOP front-runner Donald Trump, has made a big mistake. With so much on the line for America, how is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?

The folks at NR launched a similar effort to excommunicate conservatives in 2003, with a much-hyped cover story titled “Unpatriotic Conservatives.” Back then it was Pat Buchanan and the now-deceased Bob Novak who were the targets. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, a dear friend, made the case that these men and others who stood against our invasion of Iraq, had “made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements.” In other words, these “disgruntled paleos,” weren’t truly conservative because they opposed the war in Iraq.

As it turned out, of course, that small band of thinkers knew more about what was in the national interest than anyone at National Review or myself, who was also a strong advocate for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

“I never received an apology note,” Buchanan told me on my radio show. “They’re Davos conservatives,” he added, referencing the annual meeting of the world’s elites in Switzerland.

Whatever you think of Trump personally, his supporters are pushing for three big things:

  • A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.
  • A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.
  • A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.

On each of these issues, Trump’s voters are calling for a return to policies that were GOP orthodoxy as recently as the late 1990s.

The matriarch of the conservative movement, Phyllis Schlafly, who likes but isn’t endorsing Trump, put it this way: “I’m not going to tell you that Donald Trump is perfect, or right on everything … but immigration is the top issue today, and he’s the one who made it a front-burner issue.”

By refusing to make room for these ideas within conservatism, NR risks creating the impression that the revolution brought about by George W. Bush — in particular, his belief in open borders, his effort to create a permanent U.S. military mission in the Middle East, and his notion that trade can never be regulated, no matter how unfair — is now a permanent part of conservatism that can never be questioned. They are also inviting those who disagree with Bush on those points to leave conservatism and start seeking their allies elsewhere.

This is an absolute disaster for conservatism. It is obvious by now that Bushism — however well-intentioned it may appear on paper — does not work for the average American. It is also clear that Bushism has almost no support within the rank and file of the GOP, much less within the country as a whole. Making the tenets of Bushism into an orthodoxy that conservatives cannot question will cripple conservatism for years to come.

National Review’s Manhattan-based editors brand Trump as a “menace to conservatism” and even ding him for his “outer-borough” accent. But who really is the menace — the rough-edged Queens native or the smooth-talking GOP Establishment that has brought us open borders; massive giveaway trade deals; monstrous debt; bank bailouts; and a sprawling government that never stops expanding? The failure to ruthlessly oppose and defeat such existential threats to the country — and the passivity in the face of such peril — is the real menace to the credibility of conservatism.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.

If blue-collar Americans are told that their concerns on immigration, trade, and foreign policy cannot be addressed within the conservative movement, they will look elsewhere — just as they looked elsewhere in the late 1960s after they learned that their problems couldn’t be addressed within liberalism. National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.

Portrait
Portrait

There is room for all voices in the GOP “big tent” — including relative newcomers like Trump, who has garnered such a following. That’s why I have an open door on my radio show to everyone from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz. (We look forward to having Lowry on radio soon.)

Back in 2008, another populist was running for president, and ended up winning the Iowa caucuses. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who’s running again in 2016, sympathized with Trump in the NR dust-up. Recalling that the publication also took after him during his primary fight with Arizona Sen. John McCain, he said, “This is a fool-hearty effort … [by] the elitists who live in their own little bubble.”

NR is “completely out of touch … [and] represents big business, not the American people,” he added, noting NR’s support for the 5,500-page Trans-Pacific Partnership. “Out here in Iowa, they are not representative and their views are not representative.”

Of course there is ample room to criticize Trump’s approach and his lapse into sloganeering where substance is needed — as I have done on many occasions. But if NR rejects the Trump voters, it will be reversing the decision by Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and others to welcome blue-collar voters, Democrats, and independents into the conservative fold. Whatever that means for the country, it will do major damage to conservatism. If the conservative movement devotes itself to defending the legacy of George W. Bush at all costs, it will become irrelevant to the debate over how to make things better for most Americans.

In the end, NR’s attempted hit-job on Trump won’t won’t matter much. Folks who like Trump will continue to like him. Those who don’t will feel reconfirmed in their views. One of the many reasons I loved Reagan is that he understood how important it was to grow the conservative movement.

“Conservatism,” Reagan biographer Craig Shirley said, “transcends any individual or organization, because it’s ultimately about the God-inspired belief that we are destined to be free.”

Hillary is going to be indicted

 she

Hillary is going to be indicted

By Cathy Burke   |   Friday, 08 Jan 2016 04:39 PM

The FBI and intelligence community “would go ballistic” if there’s no indictment in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova, formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told Laura Ingraham in a Tuesday radio interview. “They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime.

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

DiGenova is referring to the Watergate scandal’s “Saturday Night Massacre” Oct. 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon sacked Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned in protest.

DiGenova is well-sourced throughout the law enforcement community and his assessment has to be taken seriously. But interviews with other knowledgeable Washington insiders present a somewhat less concrete scenario developing around the former secretary of state.

At the center of Clinton’s difficulties is her use of a private email account and a home-brew server located in her New York home to conduct official business while serving as America’s chief diplomat between 2009 and 2013. Several of her closest aides also used the private server.

Clinton clearly didn’t abide by federal regulations requiring officials like her to use government computers and email accounts to conduct official business and take all of the necessary steps to preserve all such correspondence concerning official business.

watergate_montage_2

As first reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Clinton emailed Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden Sept. 7, 2010, asking for advice on what she, President Barack Obama and Democratic campaign officials should do to prevent a Republican victory in the upcoming congressional elections.
“Do you and CAP have any ideas as to how to change the dynamic before it’s too late? Losing the House would be a disaster in every way,” Clinton told Tanden. The CAP chief responded at length with clearly partisan recommendations, noted her supposedly non-partisan think tank’s polling efforts to identify winning themes for Democrats and described her conversations relaying her advice to Obama and other senior White House officials.

On its face, the Sept. 7 Clinton email appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, which bars partisan political activities by officials using government property while on official duty. But Clinton found a clever way to get around the law, according to a senior non-profit official with extensive experience investigating such activities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

First, that official said, by not preserving her email records until after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton avoided an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles Hatch Act violations. The reason is simple — OSC has no authority over former federal employees in Hatch Act matters.

Second, by refusing to comply “with Federal Records Act requirements to use an approved system for preserving records, [Clinton] arguably did not engage in political activities while on official duty or while using federal resources because she communicated with a personal computer,” the official said.

In other words, “had Secretary Clinton used a State Department e-mail address and a government computer and had Secretary Clinton complied with federal record-keeping and open government laws, [her] violations would have been discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and could have been remedied while Secretary Clinton was still in office.”

Thus, don’t expect a Clinton indictment for a Hatch Act violation.

But Clinton is far from out of the woods, according to a congressional source who is deeply involved in the multiple investigations of Clinton.  This source, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, pointed to the hundreds of Clinton emails that contained classified information.

“Her problem is the sheer volume of emails that were deemed classified,” said this source. “Her first defense was that she didn’t send any classified information in her emails. But that claim has been clearly rendered false because so many of the emails were later marked classified.” obama_hillary_cash-thumb

As the Department of State has released the Clinton emails she provided after leaving office, more than a thousand were marked classified after being reviewed prior to their public release. So what about Clinton’s subsequent distinction that she sent no information in her emails that was “marked classified” when it was sent?

“The volume matters because a reasonable person knows somebody like the Secretary of State, who is allowed herself to classify materials, who has handled it for 25 years or more, at some point the law says you are responsible for recognizing classified material when you see it. That gets to the negligence issue,” the issue said.

Negligence is critical because Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 regarding classified information that stated, among much else, that “Sensitive Compartmented Information involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods that is classified or is involved in a classification determination …”

Clinton and several of her closest aides must have read information “derived from intelligence sources or methods” on a daily or near-daily basis.Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

There is an ominous sentence buried in that agreement Clinton signed: “Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.”

What if Clinton is indicted for negligence in handling classified information? DiGenova predicts a showdown within a couple of months that will put Lynch in the same hot seat that prompted Nixon to fire Cox for getting too close to the truth about Watergate.

A Republican with direct knowledge of the investigation predicted political chaos if Lynch doesn’t decide to prosecute Clinton, a chaos that “would be the gift that keeps on giving right through the election.”

With or without resignations of FBI officials to protest such a decision, there would be a blizzard of news releases from congressional GOPers condemning Lynch, followed by hearings in which both the attorney general and FBI Director James Comey would be put under oath and asked about their actions.

hillary vicious

 

Rush Limbaugh Warns Obama Will Do Things We Can’t ‘Conceive of Now’

Rush Limbaugh Warns Obama Will Do Things We Can’t ‘Conceive of Now’

Radio host Rush Limbaugh is warning listeners: during Barack Obama’s upcoming, final year in office, the president will move ahead with whatever he desires because “he knows nobody’s gonna stop him.”

“We’re fast approaching Obama’s last year in office,” Limbaugh said. “I want to warn you again, in all likelihood, there are going to be things this president does in the next 12 months that you can’t even think of or conceive of now.”

Limbaugh continued that Obama recognizes no limits to his power and he will do what he wants – “it doesn’t matter what the courts say, it doesn’t matter if Obama policies have a stay on them or temporary halt.”

“It’s his last chance to have personal stamps or fingerprints on the transformation of this country,” Limbaugh added. “He knows the Republicans have taken impeachment — it’s late for that anyway. There’s not gonna be any effort to stop him.”

Obama and the Democrats have already made clear they intend to further diminish the Second Amendment by using executive action to expand background checks to cover private gun sales, as Breitbart News reported Tuesday.

According to Limbaugh, Americans can’t rely on Republicans to block Obama’s efforts to further shred the Constitution.

“The Republicans are looking beyond Obama and focusing on trying to win the White House themselves and they’ve just chalked it up, whatever happens this next year happens, and Obama knows all that,” he said, but added, “The American people are gonna be angry as they can be and demanding that some action be taken to stop some of these things.”

“I can’t begin to predict the outrageous things that are going to happen specifically, but I’m pretty safe in telling you that there are going to be such things because there continue to be such things today,” Limbaugh said.

He also observed that Obama’s apparent contempt for the limits of his office as provided for in the Constitution has set a precedent for future presidents.

“Obama has blown through the Constitution like a tornado and has, in the process, set precedents, and there have been people seeking office who have said that they are going to fix the things Obama has broken themselves using the singular powers that Obama has appropriated for himself,” he noted. “In other words, Obama’s wanton overstepping the Constitution has created precedent where future presidents, if they’re inclined, might feel that they could or should do so as well.”