Politics

Comey: Obama, Loretta ‘Jeopardized’ Hillary Investigation

James Comey’s new book goes to great lengths to defend the integrity of the Department of Justice and the FBI both of whom he defends as entirely apolitical and with no bias.

Of course, that claim flies in the face of obvious evidence both of the leaking and corruption of Andrew McCabe (not ‘Neil McCabe’ as we incorrectly referred to him yesterday) and the very blatant bias and collusion of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (who worked directly for McCabe).

But Comey does pin the tail on the donkey (pun intended) by calling out Obama for his unfortunate comment in a 60 Minutes interview in which he called Hillary’s server a ‘mistake’.

And then there was the move by Loretta Lynch to urge the FBI to call it a ‘matter’ rather than an investigation.

Other than those slight problems, everything was tip-top.

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

Former FBI Director James Comey doesn’t believe anyone in the government brought politics into the Hillary Clinton email investigation — aside from then-President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who he believes “jeopardized” the Department of Justice.

In his upcoming book, A Higher Loyalty, due out on Tuesday, Comey defends the FBI investigators who were charged with investigating Clinton’s private email server and her mishandling of classified information. The Washington Examiner obtained a copy of the book Sunday.

“I never heard anyone on our team — not one — take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations. And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never,” Comey writes in his book. “Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil’s advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions.”

Read More...

Culture, States

‘Infiltration’: NY Mag Bashes Chik Fil A in NYC

These days news, satire and parody all have become one and the same, as truth and fiction are indistinguishable.

So it comes as no surprise that the New Yorker magazine, a reliably leftist iconoclast in the long-form print media, has taken to its next boogeyman: Chik Fil A.

It’s no secret that the owners of the corporation are overtly evangelical and politically conservative.

Everyone, including the corporate executive, is entitled to his opinion, even the soft-communist CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.

But what the New Yorker laments is how Chik Fil A has the right to ‘infiltrate’ their city. The crime? They’re conservative, Christians.

So much for the First Amendment and the right of religious expression.

Here’s more from Hotair…

A little diversion for a lazy Friday afternoon on which absolutely nothing is happening news-wise. The worst part of this isn’t the casual hostility towards Christians or the fact that the author seems so much a caricature of the tedious, ostentatiously right-thinking liberal intellectual that populates the New Yorker readership that the piece plays like parody for the first few paragraphs. (It’s overwritten and his author bio notes that he lives in Brooklyn, deepening the parody suspicions.) Although both of those things are obnoxious in different ways.

The worst part is this sentence, which made me pause to pray for an asteroid to come and let our world start anew: “Its expansion raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.” What we expect from our fast food.

Cleanse this planet with fire.

New York has taken to Chick-fil-A. One of the Manhattan locations estimates that it sells a sandwich every six seconds, and the company has announced plans to open as many as a dozen more storefronts in the city. And yet the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays. Its C.E.O., Dan Cathy, has been accused of bigotry for using the company’s charitable wing to fun anti-gay causes, including groups that oppose same-sex marriage. “We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” he once said, “when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ” The company has since reaffirmed its intention to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. When the first stand-alone New York location opened, in 2015, a throng of protesters appeared. When a location opened in a Queens mall, in 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a boycott. No such controversy greeted the opening of this newest outpost. Chick-fil-A’s success here is a marketing coup. Its expansion raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.

Read More...

Media, Politics

Comey’s Book Proves Hillary Lied About Investigation

It seems like a century ago that Hillary Clinton was outed for the use of a personal email server after which the FBI’s investigation threatened to derail her nascent presidential ambitions.

Now fully three years later, James Comey’s new book is proving that Hillary was lying then, as we all knew she was.

Shortly after the investigation was made public, the NY Times ran a story about how the nature of the investigation was criminal.

Hillary exploded and the NYT issued a correction that the investigation simply concerned a ‘security referral’. But Comey’s book corrects the record: “By the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on [Hillary’s] conduct.”

Game, set, match.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Bill and Hillary are both talented attorneys and know how to parse language with the best of them. They’re at their best when attempting to convince the public they’re innocent victims of a nefarious conservative plot to take them down.

A shining example comes out of James Comey’s book. Interestingly enough, the story appears in The New York Times, the same news organization that cowered in the face of Clinton campaign protests about a story they wrote in 2015:

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, confirms in his new book that the bureau had already begun a criminal investigation focused on Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email in 2015 when her campaign and its allies excoriated journalists for reporting that such an inquiry was being contemplated.

The New York Times reported in July 2015 that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department recommending an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled sensitive information by using a private email server as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, relying on a statement from President Obama’s Justice Department, complained vigorously to The Times, resulting in two corrections to the article.

The corrections said that the inspectors general had made a “security referral” rather than a “criminal referral” and that the referral did not request that Mrs. Clinton specifically be investigated. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign called the article an “erroneous story” with “egregious” errors that misled voters into thinking that she was at risk of being investigated by the F.B.I. for possible criminal violations when the referral was a more routine security matter not focused on her in particular. Critics of the news media, including the public editor of The Times, agreed.

Naturally, there is a “but” that follows:

But in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” his memoir that is scheduled for release next week, Mr. Comey said the word-parsing by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department was actually misleading because the F.B.I. was already conducting a criminal investigation focused on Mrs. Clinton by that point.

“Though The Times may have thought those clarifications were necessary, their original story was much closer to the mark,” Mr. Comey wrote. “It was true that the transmission to the F.B.I. from the inspector general did not use the word ‘criminal,’ but by the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on the secretary’s conduct.”

Read More...

International, Politics, War on Terror

U.S. Launches Bombing Raid on Syria, Russia Responds

In case you’ve been in a cave or a coma in the last 72 hours, we’re as close to going to war with Russia as we’ve ever been since the inauguration of President Trump little more than a year ago.

Last week, chemical attacks were launched against innocent civilians in Syria which left many dead, including women and children.

In the days following, accusations were leveled on all sides concerning who was responsible. Russia blamed everyone except the Assad regime.

But after deliberating for days, a coalition including the US, Britain, and France argued that intelligence proves Assad launched the attack.

President Trump announced yesterday that the coalition is attacking Syrian chemical weapons assets in response.

That’s when Russia responded with a promise of ‘consequences’. Stay tuned…

Here’s more from Redstate…

Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov has posted the first official response from the country regarding the allied strikes on chemical weapons targets in Syria that took place late Friday night.

“A pre-designed scenario is being implemented,” he warns.

This is a screenshot of the Facebook post from the Russian Embassy, and below that is the text typed out, followed by Gen. Mattis predicting exactly what Russia is doing.

Statement by the Ambassador of Russia to the USA Anatoly Antonov on the strikes on Syria

The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.

A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

Read More...

Politics

IG Releases Report Faulting Fired FBI Official McCabe

The first shoe to drop from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz just hit, and it’s not what the FBI had hoped.

IG Horowitz’s report argues that Andrew McCabe leaked critical details to the press about ongoing FBI investigations “designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

So much for all the bluster about how the ‘truth will come out’ in his defense.

Um, Neil, it just did and you’re a liar, liar, pants on fire.

There’s plenty more to come from Horowitz, and it’s gonna be fun to watch.

Here’s more from The Hill…

The Department of Justice’s inspector general concluded that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe made a leak to the media “designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership,” according to a copy of the report obtained by The Hill.

The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz makes the case that McCabe authorized disclosures to the media that were designed to combat the perception that he had a conflict of interest in overseeing dual FBI investigations related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“We concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception,” Horowitz wrote.

Read More...

Politics, States

Three More CA Cities Reject ‘Sanctuary’ Status

Last month, Las Alamitos city officials voted to reject the ‘sanctuary state’ policy imposed by the California legislature on the grounds that it violates federal law and that it’s generally a bad idea.

Now Gov. Jerry Brown is stuck between a rock and hard place as three more cities have joined the growing coalition of local government rejection of the policy.

All of this why federal DHS and ICE authorities continue to put the squeeze on California with raids of businesses to crack down on illegal immigration.

And if that weren’t enough, the fact that California may soon be split into three has got the liberals foaming at the mouth.

Chickens are coming home to roost.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The “Sanctuary State” of California isn’t as committed at the city level as Gov. Moonbeam might hope. Individual cities aren’t so keen on the absurd policy of defying the Federal gov’t and abandoning American sovereignty.

In March, it was Los Alamitos that voted to resist the insanity. Now it’s three more: Newport Beach, Westminster, and Orange City.

They join what is now a true trend in Central California, joining Aliso Viejo, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, Barstow, Escondido, San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Linda, Hesperia, and above-mentioned Los Alamitos in opposition to the state’s Sanctuary policy or in support of the Trump administration’s lawsuit against it.

Here’s more from Fox News Insider:

“It’s a tool in the toolbox for our police to help keep criminals off the street,” Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter said of the vote against the law.

He said the issue is not about opposition to immigrants – as critics allege – but about keeping “illegal alien criminals” from re-entering the community.

The sanctuary law is heavily supported by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and State Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).

Peotter also said that Brown is sending National Guard troops to the border for reasons other than to prevent illegal immigration.

“You listen to Jerry Brown, and he’s sending [troops] there for other reasons. Not for immigration purposes,” he said. “In either event, the troops end up being at the border.”

Read More...

Politics, States

Break Up California Into 3 Smaller States on Ballot?

There’s been talk for at least the last four years about the potential break-up of California into new states.

And so far it’s been a pipe dream.

But this week the third attempt for a ballot initiative submitted nearly double the number of required signatures to put the measure on the November ballot for California voters.

The effort has been backed by billionaire Tim Draper whose idea is to slice the state into three new states: Northern California, Southern California, and California proper.

If approved by election authorities, November could be the beginning of the end of the Left

Coast as we know it.

Here’s more from Fox News…

Could California be split up to better represent its citizens?

Billionaire venture capitalist Tim Draper says his petition to break up California into three states has garnered enough signatures for the initiative to be added to the ballot this November.

Draper lobbied unsuccessfully for similar ballot initiatives in 2014 and 2016, but this year he said he was able to amass approximately 600,000 signatures, well more than the 365,880 required. The initiative reportedly will be submitted to election officials next week.

CBS Los Angeles reported that the initiative proposes a central state that would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties; a southern state made up of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera and Mono counties; and the 40 remaining counties grouped into a northern state.

Read More...

Issues, Politics, States, War on Terror

Poll: Nearly Half Support Troops Along The Border

Surprise, surprise. Nearly half of Americans are in favor of President Trump’s order to send the National Guard to the US-Mexico border.

The poll conducted by Politico shows 48 percent of respondents agree that the Guard is needed in order to counteract the flood of illegal immigrants across the border.

While it’s not quite a majority, it’s far greater than the 42 percent who disagreed.

That’s a stark contrast leading up to the November elections, and it could serve as a marker for how those elections will go if immigration remains a major issue.

Stay tuned.

Here’s more from Hotair…

A poll by Politico/Morning Consult found nearly half of Americans surveyed support sending National Guard troops to the border. Of course, there is a stark divide between Democrats and Republicans on the issue.

A plurality of 48 percent support sending troops to the border — greater than the 42 percent who oppose dispatching the National Guard. Nine percent of voters have no opinion of Trump’s order…

“President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops is a hugely popular move with his base,” said Dropp. “Sixty percent of Trump voters ‘strongly’ approve of the decision. Among this same group, 49 percent ‘strongly’ approve of Trump’s job performance overall.”

The partisan split on the issue underscores this divide: Just 22 percent of Democratic voters support sending troops to the border, compared to 84 percent of Republicans. Independents are evenly divided: 44 percent support sending the National Guard to the border, and 44 percent oppose doing so.

As Jazz pointed out Monday, Border Patrol agents appear to be among those who are in support. The number of troops at the border will gradually ramp up until it reaches up to 4,000. CNN reports they are armed but are not expected to be interacting directly with illegal immigrants because they have no authority to detain or arrest anyone.

Read More...

Politics

Judicial Watch Files Suit Against FBI Over Uranium Scandal

Amid the furor over DOJ/FBI collusion and obstruction on the FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign, the Uranium One scandal (and Hillary’s role in it) has been lost in the shadows.

But not for long.

Judicial Watch — which has earned a reputation for being the attack dog on Obama and company — just filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the DOJ AND the State Department for all documents related both to the FBI’s investigation and to the DOS’s approval of the Uranium One deal that handed over 20% of the world’s uranium to the Russians.

Which curiously coincided with millions from Russia ending up in the Clinton Foundation coffers.

This will be fun.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The investigation into the Uranium One scandal, which has been woefully under-reported, is going into overdrive as the organization Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act against the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of State in order to attain information about Uranium One.

Read More...

Issues, States

LA Is Painting Streets White to Combat Global Warming

Because the state of California is totally flush with dollars and citizens absolutely don’t mind being taxed even more, the city of Los Angeles has decided to paint their roads…white.

Apparently global hot air is getting so bad that it’s time to paint the roads a lighter color to reflect the sunlight and drop the temperature.

This is a really great idea, provided global warming is really real.

Plus, it only costs a low, low price of 40 grand…per mile.

Given that LA is among the nation’s largest metros, they’ll eventually have to increase that to 40 billion.

At that rate, no one will be able to afford air conditioning. Brilliant.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The city of Los Angeles is taking going to combat global warming, and now they’re taking it to the streets, and I mean literally.

According to Fox News, LA found that applying a coat of sealant to the road, and giving it a white hue reduces the temperature of the roads:

The LA Street Services began rolling out the project last May, which preliminary testing shows has reduced the temperature of roadways by up to 10 degrees. The project involves applying a light gray coating of the product CoolSeal, made by the company GuardTop.

“CoolSeal is applied like conventional sealcoats to asphalt surfaces to protect and maintain the quality and longevity of the surface,” according to the company website. “While most cool pavements on the market are polymer based, CoolSeal is a water-based, asphalt emulsion.”

This reportedly reduces climate change…somehow.

Read More...