The OBAMA factor in the FISA memo scandal: AG Lynch signed off on ALL requests to spy on Team TRUMP; Prez likely BRIEFED about the spying

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

(National SentinelFISA Corruption: More information continues to be revealed and released following Friday’s publication of the scandal-filled FISA memo.

It has now become clear that there is a direct link from the FISA approval process to the former president of the United States, Barack Obama.

As ABC News reported:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courtcommonly referred to as the “FISA Court,” is a secret tribunal with legal authority to grant (or deny) warrants for electronic surveillance against would-be spies or terrorists.

The court — made up of 11 federal judges, serving 7-year terms and selected by the chief justice of the Supreme Court — meets in private, sometimes in the middle of the night. FISA targets are highly classified.

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved.

The Obama administration said after President Donald J. Trump claimed he was “wiretapped” by his predecessor March 2017, “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

But changes made to the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 — via the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (and renewed in December 2012) give presidents and the intelligence community much more latitude when it comes to surveillance of “foreign” persons.

As explained by Yale Law professor Jack Balkin in 2009:

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President – now President Obama – the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New FISA no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be ‘vacuum cleaner’ programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) without any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no US person is directly targeted as the object of the program.

As the Brookings Institute noted in a policy paper arguing for the Trump administration to renew legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the FISA Act, which clarifies warrant requirements of the Act, information gathered via FISA warrants “sometimes known as PRISM, comprises a large part of the President’s Daily Brief.” 

If you can believe that Obama’s attorney general — the one who spoke with the former president-husband of a suspect currently under investigation for Espionage Act violations (Hillary Clinton) — would not have informed the head of the Executive Branch that his intelligence community was spying on a rival presidential campaign, well, okay.

But then, that information very probably was included in the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief.

There’s more; Brookings’ policy paper arguing on behalf of maintaining Sect. 702 also noted this important distinction:

We often think about 702 as an NSA authority, but it is also to a significant degree an FBI authority. Thus, the person and the integrity of the FBI director is critically important to the integrity of the program.

We now know, thanks to the release of the FISA memo on Friday, that fired FBI Director James Comey was involved in approving the FISA warrants used to spy on Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page over his alleged “ties” to Russia (foreign intelligence targets). As Fox News reported, “The memo stated that then-FBI Director Comey signed three FISA applications for [Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter] Page and McCabe signed one.”

Comey has testified before Congress that he had no idea the so-called “Trump dossier” used as justification for the FISA spy warrant against Page was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — that it was a political, not intelligence, document. As House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said on Saturday, either Comey’s telling the truth or he’s lying — either way that’s a problem.

Given all of this, how likely is it that Obama — whose FBI director and AG were heavily involved in securing the FISA warrant (information included in daily presidential briefs) — really didn’t know that Trump’s campaign was under surveillance?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

 

Obama AG Loretta Lynch KNEW that Hillary wouldn’t be recommended for indictment by corrupt COMEY before she ‘RECUSED’ herself

analysis

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

(National Sentinel) The Fix: As the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified emails was peaking, the most criminally investigated presidential contender ever made a bold declaration during a June 2016 interview with Fox News.

When she was asked by correspondent Bret Baier if she believed the investigation was going to result in charges, she confidently replied, “Absolutely that is not going to happen.”

She went on to to deny that anyone inside the Justice Department told her or any of her campaign associates how the investigation would conclude.

But — how could she possibly know that? How could Clinton be so confident that she would be indicted over what was, by then based on public reporting, obvious criminal violations of federal statutes governing how classified materials could not be handled?

Easy. As we now know, the fix was in from the beginning. (Related: Former federal prosecutor details Obama’s ‘BRAZEN PLOT’ to exonerate Hillary Clinton and ‘FRAME’ Donald Trump (Video.)

She already knew she was never going to be indicted, in large part because the corrupt Obama administration was already hatching a plan to undermine the Trump candidacy with the bogus “Russian collusion” narrative.

But there are additional indications proving that she knew well ahead of time she wasn’t ever going to be indicted by the Obama regime (or ever because she and most everyone else believed she would be our next president).

Recently we discovered that then-FBI director James Comey had decided months before his infamous July 2016 press conference exonerating Clinton that he would do so — even before she was even interviewed.

We have also discovered that FBI counterterrorism agent Peter Strzok changed terminology in Comey’s statement describing Clinton’s actions from “grossly negligent” — language drawn straight from the statutes regarding the handling of classified information — to “extremely careless,” a legally meaningless phrase that is not actionable.

And now we learn that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided to essentially “recuse” herself from deciding Clinton’s fate because she also knew Comey wasn’t going to recommend Clinton for prosecution.

As reported by PJ Media’s Debra Heine, according to new documents that have been turned over to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lynch was already aware of Comey’s plan to clear Clinton when she announced just days before she would ‘accept whatever the FBI decided.’

Comey made his announcement during an unbelievable press conference on July 5, 2016 — unbelievable, because before he said “no reasonable prosecutor” would take up the case, he laid out everything she had done wrong (that agents had found up to that point). And everything Comey laid out was legally actionable. In other words, the national security violations committed by Clinton were many times worse than violations by “regular” Americans who did far less but were nevertheless tried, convicted and jailed.

Days before his press conference — on June 27 — as Lynch’s plane sat on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport, it was boarded by former President Bill Clinton. We were all led to believe that this meeting was pure chance and that they two only discussed golf and grandchildren.

Two days later, stories began to appear in the media about the ‘chance’ meeting, and FBI officials were trying to find out how details about the meeting leaked.

Then, on July 1, Lynch came out publicly and said that because of that meeting, she would accept Comey’s recommendation, whatever it was.

The next thing we know, Comey’s exonerating Hillary.

But no, there wasn’t anything wrong or abnormal about his exoneration or Lynch’s pre-determined decision to step away from the decision over whether to prosecute Hillary — right?

Wrong.

Lifestraw Water Filter

Strzok, who was kept in the loop as all of this developed because he was in charge of Clinton’s email investigation, received a text from his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page on July 1, the day Lynch ‘recused’ herself:

‘And yeah, it’s a real profile in courage [sic] since she knows no charges will be brought.

Are you getting briefed on all of this, Attorney General Jeff Sessions? Hello?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Did Obama AG Holder just threaten the GOP Congress over potential firing of Mueller?

(National SentinelBlast from the Past: Former Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted what appears to be a warning on Thursday regarding any future effort by Republicans in Congress to fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

“Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the American people, Republicans in Congress be forewarned: any attempt to remove Bob Mueller will not be tolerated. These are BS attacks on him/his staff that are blatantly political-designed to hide the real wrongdoing. Country not party,” he wrote.

The warning came a day after Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee grilled Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over allegations of blatant political bias against President Donald J. Trump within the FBI and DoJ.

 

Earlier this year Holder’s replacement, Loretta Lynch, in a video produced for Democrats, called for violence and bloody civil unrest against newly-elected Trump, saying, “They marched, they bled. Yes, some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

“Has there ever been a time when the previous administration’s attorney’s general threatened Congress and tried to provoke civil unrest against the new administration?” The Gateway Pundit noted.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Newly uncovered documents reveal the FBI is nothing more than a criminal enterprise that must be stopped

analysis
By J. D. Heyes

(National SentinelDeep State: If ever Americans needed a president like Donald J. Trump, now is the time, because only a chief executive not owned by or beholden to the stinky, disgusting D.C. swamp can fix what used to be one of the world’s most competent, effective law enforcement agencies: The FBI.

New documents have emerged that further prove just how politicized and compromised the bureau became under President Obama, one of the most scandal-ridden presidents most Americans never knew about, thanks to the equally disgusting (and biased) “mainstream” media.

According to 29 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that has doggedly pursued Obama-era malfeasance, FBI agents on the ground when former President Bill Clinton met then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac of an Arizona airport were more worried about covering it up than the appearance of impropriety caused by the meeting itself.

For you see, if you remember, the “impromptu” meeting between the AG and the former president just happened to take place as the Department of Justice was conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton, over her illegal mishandling of classified documents via her unsecured private home email server.

In a statement, Judicial Watch noted:

The new FBI documents show FBI officials were concerned about a leak that Bill Clinton delayed his aircraft taking off in order to “maneuver” a meeting with the attorney general.  The resulting story in the Observer is seemingly confirmed and causes a flurry of emails about the source of the article.  FBI official(s) write “we need to find that guy” and that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.”  Another FBI official, working on AG Lynch’s security detail, suggests instituting non-disclosure agreements.  The names of the emails authors are redacted. There are no documents showing concern about the meeting itself. 

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people. No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them,” he continued, in reference to the time it took for the bureau to actually turn them over.

“These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation,” Fitton added.

They also confirm that the FBI has been infested with political careerists and agents who are more interested in protecting the swamp than serving the American people. (Related: Harvard Prof Dershowitz says Trump’s lawyers ought to start “reining in,” “challenging” special counsel Mueller.)

None of this has been lost on Joe Hoft, a contributor at The Gateway Pundit. In a Friday column decrying the corruption, Host called on the Trump administration to begin rooting out the bureau’s miscreants and, if necessary, prosecute some of them for any criminal behavior.

“These documents confirm what has long been suspected, that the FBI is a compromised entity that no longer is engaged in law enforcement but instead is a vehicle used by the deep state and corrupt politicians to attack and besmirch innocent American civilians,” he wrote.

He listed a litany of improper and illegal activity by Swamp creatures from the past twoadministrations — Obama’s and that of George W. Bush — as examples of why the FBI is nothing more than a tool for the deep state, since no one in the swamp ever seems to be held to account, despite evidence of criminal activities.

Many of those crimes occurred during then-FBI Director Robert Mueller’s watch, but again, were not prosecuted.

Now Mueller is busying himself with jailing or trying to jail Trump administration figures for major crimes like fibbing to [corrupt] FBI agents. Meanwhile, people like Hillary get to compromise our national security and put every American in harm’s way, without any legal repercussions. It’s pathetic, and it’s high time these people were held to account.

Who watches the gatekeepers? I’m hoping the Trump administration is.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting: Docs show FBI more concerned about LEAKS than impropriety

(National SentinelScandal: Documents obtained by legal watchdog Judicial Watch indicate that James Comey’s FBI was more concerned that details of a controversial meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac in Arizona would leak than the appearance of impropriety.

The documents, the release of which the FBI stalled, appear to support allegations that the bureau wasn’t as concerned about the scandalous nature of the meeting as it was details about it would leak to the public.

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” said Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton.

“The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people. No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them,” he added.

“These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.”

At the time Bill Clinton met with Lynch, his wife and then-Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, was under criminal investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified emails through an unauthorized, secret personal email server she had set up in her New York state home.

The legal watchdog organization said that the documents also indicate that Comey seemed to learn of the meeting from news reports.

The group also said the documents about a leak that Bill Clinton intentionally delayed his plane from taking off so he could “maneuver” into a meeting with Lynch.

“The resulting story in the Observer is seemingly confirmed and causes a flurry of emails about the source of the article,” Judicial Watch said in a press release. “FBI official(s) write ‘we need to find that guy’ and that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted ‘in an attempt to stem any further damage.'”

Another FBI official who was with Lynch’s security detail suggested the implementation of non-disclosure agreements.

“The names of the emails [sic] authors are redacted,” the release stated. “There are no documents showing concern about the meeting itself.”

Several Republican members of Congress have questioned the veracity of Lynch’s claim that she and the former president only made small talk regarding family and golf.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump VINDICATION: Report says Obama admin DID ‘wiretap’ campaign

(National SentinelPolitical Conspiracy: When President Donald J. Trump claimed in a tweet in March that the Obama administration “wiretapped” his campaign, he was widely mocked and ridiculed — which, even by then, had become standard operating procedure for most of Washington’s political and media establishment.

Turns out, though, that the president — once again — is being vindicated.

A report from CNN claims that onetime Trump campaign official Paul Manafort was “wiretapped” under a secret court order last year, allegedly as part of a probe into “Russian collusion.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

What’s even more alarming — and outrageous — is that the secret electronic surveillance continued into this year, and likely included occasions when Manafort was actually talking to the president.

CNN noted further:

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

[…]

The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.

The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.

red-alert-FO-160x600Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI’s efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

It is unclear when the new warrant started.

So it’s clear now that not only was Trump correct, after he became president he found out that his Justice Department (which, you may recall, at the time still included FBI Director James Comey) was still spying on members of his campaign, despite the fact that, for yearsno evidence of any wrongdoing had been found.

And still hasn’t been found, if we’re to believe two of the sources who leaked this information to CNN.

There is also this: Comey, under oath, disputed Trump’s “wiretapping” claims in sworn testimony to Congress, which could now open him to charges of perjury. Then again, lying to Congress is against the law even if you’re not under oath.

It is worth noting that Breitbart News editor Joel Pollak had reported the day before Trump’s tweet that the Obama administration “sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign: continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found.”

At the time both the president and the news site were mocked as conspiracy theorists.

As for Manafort, The New York Times reports that he’s under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team for possible violations of tax laws, money-laundering prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign lobbying. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is also under investigation.

Regardless of how Mueller’s probe turns out, let us also never forget that it was Comey’s strategy all along to get a special prosecutor appointed to ‘investigate’ Team Trump — under the guise of “Russian collusion,” though Mueller’s probe has since extended way past that initial mandate. The swamp is deep and wide.

Some House Republicans have called for probes into possible collusion between Mueller, also a former FBI director, and Comey. That definitely needs to happen. In addition, Congress should also be prepping subpoenas for former Obama administration officials involved in this political debauchery.

And finally, the president should go on offense. He should pick up the phone and dial his attorney general; special counsel probes can go both ways.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

FBI reopening conservative group’s case on Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting

(National SentinelCorruption: What a difference a change in presidential administrations can make.

Last October the FBI told the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal watchdog organization, that it had no actionable records regarding former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s meeting last summer with ex-President Bill Clinton at the height of the bureau’s investigation into his wife’s mishandling of classified material on her home-brewed email server.

But, the Washington Free Beacon reports, that turns out to be untrue: There likely are records to be had, according to a recent letter the bureau sent to the legal group:

The agency told the ACLJ in October of last year, when the FBI was still under the direction of James Comey, that it had no records related to the infamous meeting between Lynch and Clinton on the Phoenix tarmac.

The letter reopening the FOIA dated Aug. 10 came after [the ACLJ’s Jordan] Sekulow pointed out in an appearance on Fox and on the ACLJ’s website that it had recently received documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that FBI emails and other agency documents exist about the tarmac meeting.

Critics of Comey’s handling of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email abuses point to the tarmac meeting as a turning point in the probe. After the late June meeting created a media firestorm questioning whether Lynch could remain impartial in the probe, Lynch announced that she would accept Comey’s determination on whether or not to indict Clinton based on the FBI’s email findings.

Just days later, Comey held a press conference announcing that the investigation determined that Clinton had been grossly negligent but her actions were not criminal.

“It is clear that there were multiple records with the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then-AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI,” Sekulow wrote on this website.

He also said the FBI’s claim last fall that no responsive documents existed is a “direct contravention to the law” and the ACLJ will continue its legal battle to “hold the FBI’s feet to the fire and demand an expeditious and thorough search for all documents responsive to our request.”

“We know they exist, and we’re willing to go to court to get them if necessary,” he said.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Swamp: Dem attorney working to investigate former AG Lynch helped edit her talking points after meeting with Bill Clinton

(National SentinelThe Swamp: If you needed another reason to support President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to “drain the swamp” in D.C., or another reason to hate what our government has turned into in general, here you go.

As noted by The Washington Times, a Democratic attorney now working for the Senate Judiciary Committee as it probes former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s alleged efforts to influence former FBI Director James Comey to downplay the investigation into Hillary Clinton for her improper use of a private email server had a part in editing Lynch’s talking points after she met with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix.

The paper noted in its online edition:

Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lynch met in what the two insist was a chance social encounter at the airport in Phoenix in June 2016 — just hours before the Obama Department of Justice weighed in on whether Mrs. Clinton had revealed classified information while secretary of state by using a private email account. That private meeting sparked a wave of FOIA requests by Judicial Watch, the American Center for Law, and others — which produced 413 pages of documents, including email correspondence — released earlier this week.

On Wednesday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that former Justice Department attorney Paige Herwig, who was on the airplane when Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lynch met and later drafted the department’s media talking points, is now serving as counsel for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to her LinkedIn profile and other sources.

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the Clinton email investigation, suggesting it made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s impartiality. Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton in the midst of last year’s chaotic presidential election.

You’ll notice that Lynch’s interference in Comey’s investigation didn’t cause him to leak memos to the press in the hopes it would trigger a special counsel appointment — like he said he did in the case of Trump — but hey, they don’t call them “double standards” for nothing.

The point is, it’s a joke to rely on the stinking swamp to police itself, because of the incestuous nature of the place. Everyone literally knows everyone else — their secrets, their dirty laundry, their lies, their behind-the-scenes cover — which makes it impossible to hold anyone to account.

That’s why it is vitally important to support the president in his efforts to clean the place up.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

GOP ready to go on OFFENSE to protect Trump from Deep State attacks; wants probes of Lynch and Comey

(National SentinelCongress: Since about 9 p.m. EST on Election Night, Democrats, the Deep State and the disgustingly dishonest “mainstream” media have been relentlessly assaulting the duly-elected president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, his administration, his Cabinet and his family.

But precious few Republicans have stepped up to defend the president, despite the fact that he represents their party in the Oval Office.

That, hopefully, is about to change.

As reported exclusively by Breitbart News, several House Republicans are preparing to launch an effort that, if successful, would put the GOP back on offense against the continued attacks by the Left and the Deep State against the White House.

The site reported:

Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) have drafted an amendment that would compel government cooperation with a congressional probe into Lynch’s and Comey’s activities.

Specifically, the amendment — a draft of which was obtained by Breitbart News — would compel the production of documents and evidence regarding Lynch’s order to Comey to “mislead the American people by stating he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a ‘matter,’ rather than a criminal ‘investigation.’”

Specifically, the amendment requires the Department of Justice to cooperate with the congressional investigation, which would then make it much easier — politically and otherwise — for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into these and other matters related to the behavior of Comey and Lynch in their official capacity.

The amendment comes on the heels of public criticism of Sessions by Trump in an interview last week with The New York Times. In the interview, Trump made it clear he likely would not have chosen Sessions to lead the Justice Department if he had known in advance that the former U.S. senator was going to quickly recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations.

But now, allies of the president in Congress are stepping forward to provide a way for Sessions to not only get back in the president’s good graces but also go on the offense against the Deep State and its never-ending allegations of “Russian collusion.” (Related: Is Trump set to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani?)

The one obstacle is Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Breitbart reported that it was not clear whether he would permit the amendment to proceed.

Also, it’s not yet clear when the amendment would even be introduced, but its principles have confirmed their intention to try to file it.

“For the past several years, Democrats have obstructed justice and blocked every Congressional investigation imaginable,” Jordan told Breitbart in an email. “Now they want to investigate? Ok, let’s investigate! Both parties have criticized James Comey over the past year for his performance as FBI director. Even Sen. Feinstein says there should be an investigation into Loretta Lynch and James Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Let’s have a special counsel for that and see how serious Congressional Democrats are about getting to the truth.”

Added Gaetz, “It’s time for Republicans in Congress to start playing offense.”

Biggs noted that his constituents are always asking why investigations into Obama-era officials either have stopped or were never begun. “There was a whole lot of fire there and they just seemed to end when the new administration came in and I think there’s two or three reasons,” he told Breitbart. “Number one, I think you want justice and that leads to number two — if you don’t have justice and you’re not following the rule of law then government and lawmakers and those who enforce the law are held in derision by the public.”

The news site said that White House sources have said the administration is supportive of the effort.

“The American people are tired of focusing on Russia and ignoring some of the inconsistencies of the previous administration,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. “They don’t understand why Republicans are not coming to the defense of this president.”

This story originally appeared at Trump.news.

Update: [08:12 am CST] — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are pressing the Justice Department to appoint a second special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton, along with Comey and Lynch, to balance current special counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into Trump-Russia connections, among other things. “The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected,” the Republicans say.

House conservatives will press for investigation into James Comey, Loretta Lynch to counter against Deep State attacks against White House

(National SentinelCongress: Tired of seeing Deep State operatives launch one broadside after another at the duly-elected President Donald J. Trump and his administration, House conservatives plan to go on the offense to call for a Judiciary Committee investigation into actions taken by Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and his FBI director, James Comey.

BustedTees - The Best Thing To Happen To T-Shirts Since SleevesAs Breitbart News reported exclusively:

Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) have drafted an amendment that would compel government cooperation with a congressional probe into Lynch’s and Comey’s activities.

Specifically, the amendment—a draft of which was obtained by Breitbart News—would compel the production of documents and evidence regarding Lynch’s order to Comey to “mislead the American people by stating he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a ‘matter,’ rather than a criminal ‘investigation.’”

The amendment specifically presses the Department of Justice to cooperate with the congressional investigation this would create, making it easier for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to probe these and the other matters laid out.

Last week the president publicly expressed his frustration with his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for his recusal from the bogus Russian investigations now being conducted by both chambers of Congress, the Justice Department and a special counsel, Robert Mueller. But now these congressional allies of Trump are attempting to empower Sessions to help them learn more about the actions of Lynch and Comey.

It’s not clear if House Speaker Paul Ryan, RINO-Wis., will allow the effort to proceed.

“For the past several years, Democrats have obstructed justice and blocked every Congressional investigation imaginable,” Jordan said in an email. “Now they want to investigate? Ok, let’s investigate! Both parties have criticized James Comey over the past year for his performance as FBI director. Even Sen. Feinstein says there should be an investigation into Loretta Lynch and James Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Let’s have a special counsel for that and see how serious Congressional Democrats are about getting to the truth.”

Outdoor Gear

“It’s time for Republicans in Congress to start playing offense,” Gaetz added in his own emailed statement.

Other House conservatives are on board with the effort.

“The American people are tired of focusing on Russia and ignoring some of the inconsistencies of the previous administration,” said Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a big Trump ally. “They don’t understand why Republicans are not coming to the defense of this president.”

 

COLLUSION? Obama’s Justice Dept. let Russian lawyer who met with Donald Jr. into U.S. under special circumstances

(National SentinelConspiracy: New details have emerged surrounding the mysterious Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower a year ago, suggesting her presence in the U.S. may have been part of a larger political operation.

The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, met with Trump Jr., then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, for what Don Jr. expected would be a meeting to receive potentially damaging information about his father’s rival, Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton. Prior to the meeting, reports noted, Veselnitskaya was portrayed as being tied to the Russian government.

But how did she get into the U.S. to see Don Jr. in the first place? That’s where the story takes a new twist. (RELATED: SHOCKER: Obama Justice Dept. let into U.S. the Russian lawyer before she met Trump Jr.)

As reported exclusively by The Hill, the Obama Justice Department, then led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, granted Veselnitskaya special permission allowing her entry without a visa, after she had been denied entry prior:

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country…

And in addition, the website noted:

Just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Trump Jr., Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

In addition, Veselnitskaya — who is said to be unable to speak English — also took part in a pro-Russia lobbying effort at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., where supporters showcased a movie challenging the basis of the Magnitsky Act, a human rights law signed by President Obama in 2012 that angered Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has since tried to get it repealed. The law put in place financial restrictions and other sanctions on Russia for claimed human rights abuses tied to the death of a Russian lawyer who was said to have uncovered massive fraud under Putin.

As a result of the U.S. law, Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian children.

In any event, the conditions under which Veselnitskaya entered the country are the most interesting aspect of this new development:

— In an interview with NBC News this week, she said she had no Kremlin connections, and that her purpose for seeing Don Jr. was to lobby for overturning the Magnisky Act — not to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Clinton, as Don Jr. was originally told in a series of emails he has released.

— That differs, however, from the very narrow reason under which the Obama administration gave for allowing her into the U.S. in late 2015, per federal court records. The Moscow-based attorney was turned down for a visa for lawful entrance into the U.S., but then was given special immigration “parole” by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch “for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case” in New York City, The Hill reported.

— As her permission to remain in the U.S. was about to expire in January 2016, federal prosecutors described in court the rarity of being granted immigration parole, as she pleaded for additional time to remain in the U.S.

“The court record indicates the presiding judge asked the Justice Department to extend Veselnitskaya’s immigration parole another week until he decided motions in the case. There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring,” The Hill reported.

The news site noted that officials with the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York City confirmed that she was allowed into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 until early January 2016; however, no one at the Justice Department or the State Department could explain how it was she remained in the country until June for her meeting with Don Jr., as well as the other events she attended in the nation’s capitol.

Nothing is as it seems in this “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative, is it? But it doesn’t surprise us that, somehow and some way, the Obama administration was involved.

This story originally appeared at Trump.news.

Document dump: Newly released emails show how FBI, Obama Justice Dept. tanked the Hillary email investigation

(National Sentinel) Obama administration:  Whether it was on purpose, due to incompetence or a byproduct of massive political interference — or a combination of all of those things — newly released documents pertaining to the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in handling highly classified information show the bureau botched it big time.

As reported by Fox News, the FBI’s probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam” and contained “Grand Jury” information, intimating that at least some investigators believed it to be serious enough it would eventually warrant prosecution:

Some 42 pages of highly redacted documents from the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified materials paint a picture of a serious, but flawed investigation hindered by a lack of cooperation, according to a key watchdog group.

[…]

One redacted exchange reveals a back and forth subpoena response to the FBI from one of Mrs. Clinton’s private attorneys, Katherine Turner, a partner at Washington DC powerhouse firm Williams & Connolly. In the document, Turner agreed to turn over one of Mrs. Clinton’s non-secure Apple iPads and two of her BlackBerrys to the FBI.

But neither smartphone received from the law firm contain SIM cards or Secure Digital (SD) cards, and a total of 13 mobile devices identified by the FBI as potentially using clintonemail.com email addresses were never located by Williams & Connelly.

“We are presuming there are still 13 devices at issue,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Fox News. “The new records show how badly the Obama Justice Department and FBI mishandled the Clinton email investigation. They get the equivalent of wiped phones from the Clinton lawyers and do nothing?”

You may recall that Clinton often tasked aides including Monica Hanley with supplying her during her tenure as secretary of state with non-secure BlackBerrys she could use for all of her government work. You may also recall that a number of these devices wound up falling prey to hammers — destruction ordered by longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin after Clinton’s home-brew servers went down or upon news that Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal’s email was hacked in 2013 by “Guccifer” — Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar.

Affordable prepping and survival gear at DayOne Gear LLC

Fox News noted further:

Nearly a year has passed since [fired FBI Director James] Comey’s then-boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, held her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton in Phoenix, Arizona. Eight days later, Comey announced on July 5, 2016, that “regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case [against Clinton].”

The latest document dump by the FBI only adds to the mystery: A whopping 325 pages are cited as “total deleted pages,” and the 42 pages that were released are only readable in parts and include 177 redactions. The redactions include those made citing Freedom of Information Act exemptions  under (b) (7) (e) in which the information is denied because revelations could “disclose investigation techniques.”

In all the talk about Trump-Russia “collusion,” we merely wanted to remind readers that collusion occurred within the Obama administration on many levels in its attempt to keep Hillary Clinton out of jail and on the campaign trail — where they expected her to win — at all costs. Including the cost of the FBI’s reputation and integrity.

But look, the FBI and the Justice Department are filled with smart careerists who know how to conduct investigations; to believe they were too incompetent to bring charges against a woman who was so obviously guilty of violating just about every statute governing the handling of classified information is absurd.

They were stonewalled every step of the way by Obama, Hillary and their court jester appointees.

Did Loretta Lynch set herself up to fall over the CLINTON email scandal?

(National SentinelCorruption: Long-time Washington watchers have seen Bill and Hillary Clinton slither away from scandal after scandal ever since they hit town more than two decades ago. And now it looks as though someone else may actually take the fall for Hillary’s gross criminal misconduct involving her improper use of a private email server while serving as Obama’s secretary of state.

That person? Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As reported by Paul Sperry at the New York Post, Lynch may be in legal hot water over “holes” in testimony she provided the House Judiciary Committee last year. While many of her statements were incredulous at best, one in particular has caught the attention of Senate investigators looking into potential obstruction of justice, on behalf of an investigation launched by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And it could land her in legal jeopardy.

Sperry reported:

When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.

Among other things, [senators] want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

The committee also wants to know if Lynch or any of her aides were in contact with former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz regarding the Clinton email investigation, according to a three-page list of questions that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein recently sent to Lynch at her New York apartment.

When she testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. David Trott, R-Mich., laid into Lynch for refusing to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation though she met privately with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona, just a week before she ultimately let Hillary off the hook for criminal mishandling of classified information via her unsecured server, as then-FBI Director James Comey laid out.

Then, in reference to rumors she may possibly remain as attorney general in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration, Trott asked Lynch if she had met with anyone on Clinton’s campaign staff during the yearlong investigation into her email server; she replied: “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”

Opps.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now knows about a document that was obtained by the FBI, which reportedly shows a Democratic operative’s claim that Lynch in private assured Renteria that her Justice Department “would not push too deeply” into Clinton’s email server investigation, though the server was found to have contained highly classified information from the State Department.

“And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document,” Sperry wrote, offering this next:

There are three explanations: Either Lynch lied under oath, or she never in fact talked to Renteria, or her categorical denial was meant to later claim she was merely discussing her role post-election.

The committee also plans to double down into why Lynch met Bill Clinton in Arizona.

Is it possible that, after all of the hullabaloo over Clinton’s email server, which Obama knew about and used, Lynch is the one administration official who will go down for it?

Only in Washington. And only when the real criminal is named Clinton.

Napolitano: Loretta Lynch could face ‘5-10 years in prison’ if convicted of misconduct

(National SentinelCorruption: Only the most Left-wing sycophantic supporters of former President Obama could look you straight in the eye and deny that his was the most corrupt, constitutional questionable administration in modern American history.

His first attorney general, Eric Holder, botched the “Fast and Furious” operation that left federal agents dead while flooding Mexican drug gangs with thousands of guns; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was guilty of criminal handling of sensitive materials via an unauthorized (and unsecured) private email server; Obama himself was guilty of his chronic abuse of the U.S. Constitution; and his administration abused the U.S. intelligence community strictly for political purposes, to undermine his successor.

Yes, the Obama regime was dirty throughout, and from start to finish.

Now, it seems, his second attorney general, Loretta Lynch, may be in some real legal trouble for her alleged misconduct in how she handled herself during the FBI’s criminal probe of Clinton’s email server. According to former judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News‘ legal analyst, she could be facing serious jail time.

As reported by Infowars:

If emails exist between Lynch and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz improperly discussing the Clinton email investigation, the former attorney general could be charged with “misconduct in office,” a felony carrying five to ten years in jail, the Fox Business contributor stated.

“It is alleged, this document has not seen the light of day if it exists, that there are one or several emails between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Loretta Lynch concerning the behavior that Loretta Lynch will take to further the DNC interests while Mrs. Lynch was attorney general,” Napolitano stated. “That, if it happened, would be ‘misconduct in office.’”

“It’s a felony. Depending upon exactly what they charged her with, it could be five or 10 years in jail. It’s very serious. It’s the equivalent of obstruction of justice. It’s the same allegation they are making about the president.”

Recall, as NewsTarget reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has launched a probe of Lynch. In a letter sent to her from Grassley last week, the chairman asked if she’d ever had any communications with Schultz.

“During your time in the Justice Department, did you ever have communications with Rep. Wasserman Schultz, her staff, her associates, or any other current or former DNC officials about the Clinton email investigation?” Grassley’s letter read, with another question asking if “any of your Justice Department staff or your other associates” had similar communications.

Top Dem on House Intel panel: ‘Queasy’ feeling over Loretta Lynch’s meddling in Clinton FBI case

(National SentinelCongress: The top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says he felt “queasy” after learning that Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch politicized – likely on her boss’ instructions – the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member on the intelligence committee, becomes the latest prominent Democrat to question Lynch’s instructions to fired FBI Director James Comey to downplay the severity of the probe against Clinton, who was at the time locked in an election battle with then-GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

As Fox News reported:

Another prominent Democrat has come forward to voice concerns about allegations ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch may have sought to keep a lid on last year’s Hillary Clintons email probe, with California Rep. Adam Schiff saying he’s “queasy” at the thought.  

[…]

“I’d like to hear what Loretta Lynch’s explanation for that is, either by having her come to the Hill or by having her speak publicly,” he said.

The call significantly ups the pressure on Lynch, as the push to scrutinize her conduct in last year’s Clinton email investigation becomes more bipartisan. 

The renewed attention stems from fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony earlier this month that Lynch had instructed him to describe the probe as a “matter” – not an “investigation.” Comey said this “confused” him and cited that directive, along with Lynch’s unusual tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton while the investigation was ongoing, in his decision to announce the FBI’s findings on his own.

[…]

Yet even as Democrats focus heavily on the Russia allegations, a handful of high-powered lawmakers like Schiff now want to hear from Lynch. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN earlier this month that Comey’s charges gave her a “queasy feeling.”

Schiff agreed with Feinstein’s characterization.

“It does give me a queasy feeling as well,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “There may be a perfectly accurate explanation by Loretta Lynch about why she thought ‘matter’ was the appropriate term rather than ‘investigation.’ So I wouldn’t assume James Comey’s characterization is the last word on it even although though I’m sure it’s accurate.”

When asked if he would have the former attorney general come to the House intelligence panel, he said he’s not sure that’s part of the Russia probe.

“But I would like to hear what her explanation for that was. But I certainly wouldn’t want that to distract us from what we need to do to get to the bottom of the Russia allegations,” he said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, however, does want to hear from Lynch on the matter. As we have reported, the committee, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has opened an investigation into the Comey-Lynch-Clinton nexus. Also, the Trump State Department has opened an inquiry into Clinton’s improper use of a private, unsecured email server during her stint as Obama’s secretary of state.

Comey has said the FBI found plenty of evidence that she mishandled highly classified intelligence via that server – enough to land Americans not named Clinton behind bars for double-digit years.