The media are just now beginning to dig into the explicit and implied obfuscation, er, um, ‘testimony’ delivered last week by Peter Strzok. Among the details that escaped broader reporting was the fact that Strzok admitted FBI officials debated whether to pursue a Russia collusion investigation based on Donald Trump’s polling numbers. According to Strzok,
The media are just now beginning to dig into the explicit and implied obfuscation, er, um, ‘testimony’ delivered last week by Peter Strzok. Among the details that escaped broader reporting was the fact that Strzok admitted FBI officials debated whether to pursue a Russia collusion investigation based on Donald Trump’s polling numbers. According to Strzok, his infamous ‘insurance policy’ text was a reference to that debate. The text aside, why would a federal agency base any official decision on the polls numbers of a presidential election? Shouldn’t the question be whether to do the job American taxpayers are paying for? And if Trump had been leading in the polls, would the FBI have been more dogged in pursuing the investigation earlier? Strzok is digging a deeper hole.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
In statements largely unreported by the news media, FBI official Peter Strzok described an alleged debate that took place within the FBI about how aggressively to pursue the Russia collusion investigation based on Donald Trump’s poll numbers in the 2016 presidential election.
Strzok made his statements about nine hours into Thursday’s televised congressional hearing during a section in which he was explaining his infamous August 2016 text message referencing an “insurance policy” in the event that Trump wins the election.
“The insurance policy text that has come up before?” began Strzok. “That text represented a debate on information that we had received from an extraordinarily sensitive source and method and that typically when something is that sensitive if you take action on it you put it at risk. And so there is a tension there. Maybe we should just roll slow. Take a typical 3, 4-year counterintelligence investigation because the more aggressive you are the more you put it at risk. And some people said that.”
Surprise, surprise. Democrats attempted to smear Republicans and the Trump administration on immigration by offering a bill to abolish ICE. But that was before the polls came out showing voter support for ICE. Now Paul Ryan and Republicans in the House are calling their bluff by promising to bring the bill up for a vote. And when it fails miserably, it’ll be just one more example of why Hillary lost in 2016: Democrats are out of touch with the American people. As long as immigration is the top issue going into November, Democrats are nearly guaranteed to lose.
Here’s more from PJ Media…
After Republicans promised to bring the “abolish ICE” bill to the floor for a vote in the House, Democrats now appear to have gotten cold feet.
Several of the lawmakers who introduced the bill now say they will vote “no” if it comes up for a vote. In truth, the proposal to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was never serious and was simply an exercise in tossing raw meat to their rabid, far-left base.
But Republicans have called them out for their political stupidity and they are backtracking as fast as they can.
“We know Speaker [Paul] Ryan is not serious about passing our ‘Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,’ so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt,” Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York told The Hill and other news outlets. “If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor.
Whoever said a House speaker had to be “serious” about passing a bill to bring it to the floor? I think Ryan was being quite magnanimous and accommodating in allowing Democrats the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is on abolishing ICE.
A major problem for the Democrats is that several potential candidates for the presidential nomination of their party backed the radical proposal.
Among the highlights of disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok’s testimony Thursday was his dismissal of DOJ reports concerning the threat of blackmail over his affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page. In response to questioning from Rep. Karen Handel, Strzok deflected, “I never, never could have been blackmailed or coerced by the nature of that relationship. The nature of my patriotism and the nature of what I believe in this country, you could not, nobody could have made that.” After everyone’s eyes finished rolling, the Google searches for ‘Benedict Arnold’ skyrocketed. Somehow attempting to derail the campaign for president of a Republican nominee now apparently qualifies as ‘patriotism’.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok testified before House Judiciary and House Oversight Committee members Thursday and contradicted reports that Justice Department officials expressed concerns of blackmail over his extramarital affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page.
A partial transcript follows:
REP. KAREN HANDEL (R-GA): I have found your testimony today, frankly, to be quite remarkable in its disingenuousness, and you have shown a disturbing degree of denialism about your actions and the impact of those actions. I think we would all agree that everyone does have personal viewpoints. That is very true, but against Strzok, there is a very big difference between someone expressing his or her political views generally and someone leading an FBI investigation making highly negative and explosive comments about the actual target of that investigation. Would you agree? That’s a yes or no.
FBI AGENT PETER STRZOK: Can you rephrase the question? I don’t understand.
REP. HANDEL: You have a really awesome talent for filibustering. Think about running for the Senate. I’ll just say again, you are the lead investigator, and you made highly negative, explosive comments about the actual target of an investigation. That is distinctly different from an individual expressing his or her political views.
What I also find stunning is that someone in your role and responsibilities that you’ve had engaged in such grossly unprofessional, unacceptable, and unethical behavior. Now, truly ironic – did I hear you say earlier you’re in a senior position at the HR division for the FBI?
STRZOK: Yes, ma’am.
REP. HANDEL: That’s very ironic. So let me ask you this. You were in a supervisory role within the FBI; suppose you found out that one of your direct reports was sending the kind of text messages that you were sending about the target of an investigation that they were working. What action would you take?
STRZOK: Ma’am, if they were sending personal opinion about a political matter, that’s their business. I think given my experience to date, I would caution them against doing that on a government device.
In his effort to avoid giving actual answers to members of Congress, disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok succeeded in firing up former prosecutor Rep. Trey Gowd, (R-TX). Strzok refused to acknowledge that his inherent bias played a role in his firing telling Gowdy: “If you want to represent what you said accurately I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.” Gowdy responded accordingly: “I don’t give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok.” Things did not improve for Strzok. Can you say ‘indictment’?
Here’s more from The Daily Caller…
Rep. Trey Gowdy got heated while questioning anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok Thursday.
Gowdy told Strzok that the doesn’t “give a damn” what Strzok appreciated or wanted.
Gowdy questioned Strzok on why specifically he was let go from the Mueller investigation.
“How long did you talk to him when he let you go?” Gowdy asked.
“My recollection it was a short meeting, somewhere between 15 to 30 minutes, probably around 15 minutes,” Strzok said.
“And your testimony is: Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your texts; he kicked out you off because of some appearance he was worried about,” Gowdy said.
“My testimony — what you asked and what I responded to — is that he kicked me off because of my bias,” Strzok responded. “I’m stating to you it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias — that it was done based on the appearance. If you want to represent what you said accurately I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.”
“I don’t give a damn what you appreciate Agent Strzok,” Gowdy shot back.
“I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.”
Parents in Delaware are taking on the transgender agenda at local schools with more than 11,000 filing objections to the Delaware Education Department’s Regulation 225 which sought to allow children to switch their gender at school without parental notification, let alone consent. In the midst of the parental outrage, the Department of Education and Indian River School District’s board of education unanimously voted against the original version, rewriting the decree to put parents back in the decision-making loop, though ‘trans’ students still have the choice of which locker rooms or bathrooms to use. Once upon a time, parents were the stewards of their children’s future; now they’re just bystanders for the government’s cradle to grave nanny state.
Here’s more from PJ Media…
Larry Mayo, a grandfather with two relatives who are gay, spoke out against the Delaware Education Department’s Regulation 225 when it was released for public debate last November. The regulation was a bureaucratic move to allow school recognition of children wanting to change their gender without notifying their parents.
“The authority to raise children is not for the state. It’s for the parent,” said Mayo during an Indian River School District Board of Education meeting.
In the face of a firestorm of protest — more than 11,000 people filed objections with the Department of Education and the Indian River School District’s board of education voted unanimously to oppose the original version — Regulation 225 has been rewritten to put parents back at the top of the decision-making process. However, the updated version of the regulation still instructs school districts to make sure kids who decide their birth gender is no longer a good fit can use the locker rooms and bathrooms of their choice.
“Transgender youth deserve equal protection under the law. They don’t deserve special protection,” Mayo added. “I got harassed because I was 5 feet, 3 inches in the ninth grade. I dealt with it.”
Like Mayo, Linda Schroeder told the Indian River Board of Education her disagreement with Regulation 225 didn’t come from a dislike or fear of transgender people.
“We are not against a community or a person for their choice that they make,” Schroeder said. “The Department of Education wants to take our rights away as a parent – not knowing these things that are detrimental to our children – and give the authority to somebody else to decide what is best of your child.”
Here’s more from PJ Media…
President Trump has nominated his pick for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, and predictably, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth from the left. The womyn are lamenting all those abortions they want to have but maybe won’t be able to have if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion to the states. In their minds, this means that they would be automatically dragged into an alley (pregnant or not) and assaulted with a wire hanger by Kavanaugh himself, or something. I really can’t figure it out. All I hear is a bunch of caterwauling histrionics about how they love to rip human babies into bloody pieces. Yay, rights!
— Red T Raccoon (@RedTRaccoon) July 10, 2018
These protests, we are to believe, spontaneously “broke out” just as the president announced his pick.
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) July 10, 2018
Too bad we’ve already seen the pre-planning all over Facebook, geniuses! This one, in particular, is my favorite of all the hysterical propaganda. Here we have a cartoon of Justice Roberts swearing in a KKK hood-wearing Supreme Court justice. Or is it supposed to be Trump? Who knows, but have they no shame?
“Trump will announce his new Supreme Court Justice nomination tomorrow, Monday, at 9pm, according to new reports,” said RefuseFascism.org. “Whoever he chooses will be dangerous for humanity. We must NOT allow this regime to lock in place a fully fascist Supreme Court that strips away the rights of women, Black people, LGBTQ people, immigrants, the environment, and so much more.”
Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, urged the Senate to start voting on the “504 bills they have” from the House, especially the legislation dealing with sanctuary cities.
Last year, the House passed Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which are both pending in the Senate.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that the city of Philadelphia is still able to receive federal grants despite its “sanctuary city” policies that prohibit full cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was seen on video dancing after the ruling.
Walker shared his reaction to the court ruling.
“Operating under Article I, our legislative powers allow us to be able to cut off funding to the sanctuary cities so we’re going to continue to look for legislative ways to be able to do that,” Walker told PJM after his speech at a Faith and Freedom Coalition town hall on Capitol Hill, organized as part of the group’s “Road to Majority” conference.
“We know the vast majority of the American people think that a sanctuary city is preposterous, that you could literally allow people to have safe harbor, people who have even broken the law, without fear of prosecution or arrest, even outstanding warrants – that’s not how we do things in this country,” he added.
Remember when Zuckerberg said times were going to change for the users on the social media leviathan’s platform? Well, now under the banner of fighting fake news, Facebook is outsourcing the fact-checking to liberal countries (Canada, for instance). That is when it’s not handing the job off to the agenda-driven hacks at PolitiFact and Snopes who have been proven to be stacked with leftwing ideologues. It may be time for Congress to police the police when comes to ensuring fair and balanced social media.
Here’s more from PJ Media…
Facebook announced last year that they will be using third-party fact-checkers to root out “fake news” on their platform. At the time of the announcement, conservatives sounded the alarm about how some of the fact-checkers they’re using are left-wing hacks like PolitiFact and Snopes (who recently, with straight faces, fact-checked a piece of satire from The Babylon Bee).
A recent warning that accompanied an article I wrote for PJM highlights the fallibility of Facebook’s fact-checking program.:
Why a Canadian outfit is fact-checking U.S. news is anyone’s guess, but they clearly flagged my article in error. [It was brought to my attention after this article was published that AFP Canada is part of France’s state-run Agence France-Presse, so let me rephrase that question: Why has Facebook chosen a state-run French news outlet to fact-check U.S. news?]
Facebook deprioritized my article after AFP Canada reported this:
No, it is not illegal to take a shower and do laundry on the same day in California
While some media outlets did indeed report (more or less) falsely that California had made it illegal to shower and do laundry on the same day, I made no such claims. In fact, having seen other reporting making that claim (stretching the truth a bit, in my opinion) I conscientiously avoided making it.
President Trump is still not finished taking Sen. Elizabeth ‘Fauxcahontas’ Warren (D-MA) to task over her alleged Native American heritage. While on the campaign trail stumping for Republicans, he offered a million greenbacks if Warren would take a genetics/ancestry test to ‘learn her heritage’. Warren has made a career of trolling Republicans with her socialist-light agenda. Now the shoe’s on the other foot.
Here’s more from The Hill…
President Trump said Thursday that if he were facing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during a debate, he would offer her $1 million to take a test to prove her Native American heritage.
“But let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas, I’ll do this,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Great Falls, Mont., referring to Warren by the racially charged nickname he gave her during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“I promise you I’ll do this, you know those little kits they sell on television for $2? Learn your heritage,” Trump said.
“I’m going to get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage — because her mother said she has high cheekbones, that’s her only evidence,” Trump continued.
“We will take that little kit, we have to do it gently because we’re in the “Me Too” generation, we have to be very gentle,” Trump said mocking the movement that seeks to expose sexual misconduct in media, entertainment and politics.
“And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no but we will hold it for the debates.”
A new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll reveals immigration is trumping the economy and healthcare as the deciding issue for American voters heading into the November midterm elections. The results reveal the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigrants is moving voters. What’s more, the leftwing outrage over the alleged Trump administration’s separation of children from parents is backfiring. In short, President Trump is playing the Democrats like a fiddle. If they can’t get their act together before the Labor Day sprint to November, the DNC may be taking a big red bath.
Here’s more from Reuters…
Immigration tops the economy and healthcare as the most important issue determining Americans’ vote ahead of the midterm elections in November, a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows.
Reuters/Ipsos data shows that immigration became a top concern for registered voters in the United States after the Trump administration in May announced its “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigrants, saying they would be criminally charged. The policy became a political lightning rod in mid-June with disclosures that thousands of children were separated from their parents who were accused of crossing illegally into the country.
The poll, conducted between June 28 and July 2, found:
– Fifteen percent of U.S. registered voters said immigration was the top issue determining how they will cast their ballot in November, while 14 percent said the economy was their biggest concern.
– Twenty-six percent of registered Republicans cited immigration as the most important issue likely to determine their vote, up 14 percentage points from a similar poll conducted at the beginning of June.