DeSantis Demands: Declassify ALL docs related to the BOGUS Trump-Russia ‘dossier’

(National SentinelFull Disclosure: A leading Republican has sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., demanding that all documents the House Intelligence Committee has related to the discredited “Trump-Russia dossier” be declassified and released to the public.

“The American people deserve answers; the American people have the right to know,” Rep. Ron DeSantis of Florida wrote.

Previously, DeSantis, who has been demanding more disclosure over regarding the dossier, also wants the House to release all documents related to Obama-era FISA court requests related to spying on the Trump campaign.

DeSantis’ request is pursuant to Rule X of the House rules.

“The bureaucracies at FBI and DOJ have refused to answer basic questions about the origins of the Russian counterintelligence investigation or provide a full accounting of how the government utilized the Steele dossier,” the lawmaker tweeted.

According to a tweeted picture of his letter, DeSantis wrote to Ryan, “The American people deserve answers. I’m requesting Speaker Ryan ask, pursuant to House rules, Chairman Nunes to declassify any documents his committee may have related to the Steele dossier.”

Rep. Devin Nunes is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which has been investigating the origins of the dossier and whether it was improperly used to justify a counterintelligence surveillance warrant from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign.

“The American people have the right to know whether government agents such as Peter Strzok inappropriately intervened in the 2016 presidential election against then-candidate Donald J. Trump,” he wrote.

“On January 3, 2018, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that his committee will receive all documents it sought from the Department of Justice related to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.

“The American people have a right to know to what extent the federal government made use of the dossier,” DeSantis wrote.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

That time when Rosie O’Donnell committed a FELONY

By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief

(National SentinelSlam-Dunk: Poor Rosie O’Donnell. The washed-up ‘comedian’ and actress is so distraught over Republican control of Congress and Donald J. Trump having beaten the most corrupt presidential candidate in the history of the republic (that would be one Hillary Clinton) she has been reduced to behaving like a Mafia figure.

On the eve of the Senate’s vote to support the Trump-led tax reform proposal — the first major reform and reduction of taxes in more than 30 years — O’Donnell took to Twitter to make this Mafioso-type offer: She offered to pay Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and/or Jeff Flake of Arizona $2 million eachif they would just vote “no” on the bill.

Wow. Rosie is just like her Democrat friends and soulmates; they really hate it when Republicans try to let Americans keep more of their own money rather than have it confiscated at gunpoint by the IRS so Democrats can redistribute it to constituents.

As The Daily Caller notes, O’Donnell was very plain and open, writing on Twitter, “so how about this i promise to give 2 million dollars to senator susan collins and 2 million to senator jeff flake.” Later in her tweet, she added, “no s**t 2 million cash each”.

No Republicans took her up on the offer; all 51 voted for the measure. (Related: Rosie O’Donnell’s contribution to treason.)

That said, she probably committed a felony when she made her offer.

So, a little statute called “18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses” states:

(a) (1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror

Naturally, a senator is a “member of Congress.”

There’s more:


(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

  1. to influence any official act


“The General Federal Bribery Statute punishes the offense of bribery in the U.S[iii].  According to 18 USCS prec § 201(b), whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence that person’s official act will be fined for the offense of bribery.”

That’s pretty much what O’Donnell did with her stupid, ridiculous, ham-handed attempt to “influence” the votes of two sitting U.S. senators. I mean, if I were a prosecutor who was handed this case, the only negotiating I would be doing with O’Donnell’s lawyers is over the amount of time in prison she’d be spending.

Which, according to the statute, can be “a fine of an amount not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both,” according to

So in other words, in her lunacy, O’Donnell stepped in it big time when she very publicly offered to bribe two sitting U.S. senators. And as such, we are now calling on the Trump Justice Department to do its job and prosecute this very obvious attempt to unduly influence the constitutional processes of our government.

There should be no excuses. Frankly, I’m surprised the president hasn’t picked up the phone to Attorney General Jeff Sessions yet and ‘requested’ this case be pursued, because if what O’Donnell just did doesn’t qualify as attempted bribery, then nothing does.

This story was originally published at

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Court: Seattle ‘wealth tax’ is illegal

(National SentinelPunishing Success: The city of Seattle’s tax on “wealthy” households has failed its first legal challenge after a King County Superior Court judge ruled it illegal.

In a summary judgment, Judge John R. Ruhl agreed with multiple challengers that the city ordinance adopted in July is not authorized under state law, the Seattle Times reported.

The ruling was applauded by opponents and legal challengers who said the city has long known the tax was not legal but nevertheless pushed it through.

“The city knowingly violated several laws in imposing this tax,” said Brian T. Hodges, a senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a number of Seattle residents who are challenging the law. “This ruling is probably the worst scenario for the city and the best scenario for the opponents of the income tax.”

That said, the city is already planning to appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court where they always believed that the case would end up, a spokesperson for Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes told the paper in an email.

Holmes and Seattle Mayor Tim Burgess, both Democrats, said that their goal remains getting rid of the city’s regressive sales taxes and to ensure that the wealth pay their fair share.

The Times said that Washington’s tax system has been called one of the most regressive in the country, taxing lower earners at higher rates than wealthy earners.

Protect your world, ensure your privacy, secure your data while online — Buy now!

The tax law the city is defending in court pegs the “wealthy” as single earners making $250,000 or more per year, and $500,000 for couples. The tax, signed into law by Mayor Ed Murray, the Seattle measure would impose a 2.25 percent tax on those earners.

Backers of the law say the increased income taxes would help lower property taxes and provide money to finance low-income housing.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?


GOP lawmakers widen probe into govt. workers illegal campaigning for Clinton

(National Sentinel) Federal workers: Republicans in Congress are casting a wider net in their search for illegal campaign work by government employees on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton after Postal workers were found to have violated the law with their activism.

Lawmakers have learned that the Postal Service violated the law by allowing employees to do union-funded work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign while on leave.

As reported by Fox News:

The lawmakers blasted out letters on Monday to 10 other federal government agencies questioning their unpaid leave policy for union-related political work. 

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., led the charge on the review of agencies’ practices after spurring an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) beginning in October 2016. That inquiry revealed that the USPS violated federal law by letting employees perform union-funded work for Clinton’s campaign and other Democratic candidates while on leave from the agency.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., joined Johnson’s efforts this week by penning joint letters to the departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration Monday. The letters concerned what’s known as “union official Leave Without Pay (LWOP)” for political campaign activity.

In their letters, the lawmakers cited the OSC’s findings pertaining to the Postal Service that “only [employees] who wanted to campaign for the [union’s] endorsed candidates were given the opportunity to take several weeks of leave on short notice, over the objections of local supervisors who raised concerns about potential operational impact.” The agency found that the USPS violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits certain political activities of federal employees. And though employees are permitted to do some political work while they are on leave, the report said the USPS showed “bias” favoring the union’s 2016 campaign operation.

“The procedures by which federal employees request LWOP, and by which managers and supervisors consider these requests, are the product of negotiation between the agency and the employees’ collective bargaining representative,” Johnson and Gowdy wrote, requesting specific information to “ensure federal agencies are granting LWOP in a politically neutral manner.”

If ever there was a reason to not allow government workers to unionize, this is it. Not only do unions drive up the cost of government labor, their traditional work on behalf of left-wing political candidates is a disservice to at least half, and probably more of the country, given the current GOP majority in Congress.

But now you understand that federal employees as well are part of the swamp President Donald J. Trump is attempting to drain.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here