Flashback: Obama plays ‘LIAR in chief’ with FOX News’ Chris Wallace over claim he doesn’t talk with FBI directors regarding investigations (unless it’s Hillary) (Video)

(National SentinelMisdirect: In an April 2016 interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, then-President Barack Obama claimed that he never spoke to Attorney General Loretta Lynch or any FBI directors regarding ongoing investigations.

“I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated,” the former president claimed.

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it.”

“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law,” he added.

Obama’s claim resurfaced on Wednesday after text messages exchanged between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, indicating otherwise were released by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Free Gift with Every Gift Membership!

“Potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” Page told Strzok in a text message dated Sept 2, 2016. Page then described preparing former FBI director  James Comey to brief Obama on the details of the then-ongoing investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails.

Watch:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump lawyer: Not possible for ‘president to obstruct justice’

(National SentinelExecutive Branch: President Donald J. Trump’s private lawyer said Monday as Democrats and liberal pundits claimed he obstructed justice in his handling of the James Comey firing that it isn’t possible for a president to do such a thing.

A “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” attorney John Dowd told Axios in an exclusive exchange.

That, the web site noted, is “a new and highly controversial defense/theory” as the Russia probe continues.

Down went on to say that he was the one who actually drafted a Trump tweet this weekend some pundits believe strengthened the case for obstruction. The tweet appeared to suggest that Trump knew his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, lied to the FBI when he was fired, which raised new questions regarding Trump’s firing of Comey.

Dowd, however, dismissed the notion. “The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion,” he told Axios.

The site noted further:

Trump’s legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn’t preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

Some lawmakers and other pundits have suggested that Trump’s actions are indicative of obstruction of justice, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She told “Meet the Press” over the weekend that the she could see “the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice” by the panel against the president.

She said she believed Trump’s firing of Comey came “directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation,” added, “That’s obstruction of justice.”

Other legal experts don’t see it that way, including former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. While he believes special counsel Robert Mueller is ultimately aiming to produce a report recommending Congress impeach Trump, he wrote in National Review on Monday that president’s have carte blanche power to fire Executive Branch employees.

“…[T]he president had undeniable power to fire the FBI director. You can argue that his reason was corrupt, but the truth is that he didn’t need a reason at all — he could have done it because it was Tuesday and he felt like firing someone; he could have done it because he figured that the Justice Department’s criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails investigation gave him the political cover he needed to dispense with a subordinate he found nettlesome,” he wrote.

“The point is that even if the president hoped that cashiering Comey would derail an investigation he was addled by, it was wholly in Trump’s discretion to fire the director,” he added.

“The president may not be prosecuted in a criminal judicial proceeding for exercising his discretion, however objectionably, in executive matters over which the courts have no power of review. If Mueller tried to indict him, Trump would have unfettered discretion to fire Mueller and to direct the Justice Department to drop the case.

“You may not like that, but that’s the way it is,” he wrote, adding that Congress could still consider the matter for impeachment.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump attorney Sekulow, Fox News’ Wallace, get testy over questions about obstruction investigation

(National Sentinel) Presidential lawyer Jay Sekulow and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace had a bit of a testy exchange over whether or not President Donald J. Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice.

Trump tweeted his disgust last week after the Washington Post ran a story claiming special counsel Robert Mueller had expanded his Russia probe to include potential obstruction by Trump involving his dealings with fired FBI Director James Comey.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875701471999864833

But Sekulow disputed that, drawing pointed questions from Wallace, as reported by Zero Hedge:

When Wallace asked whether or not Trump was under investigation, Sekulow responded that the President had not been notified of any, and that his tweet was in response to a Washington Post article based on five anonymous sources who allegedly leaked to the paper.

Sekulow: Nothing’s changed since James Comey said the President was not a target or a subject of investigation.

Wallace: Well, but, you don’t know that he isn’t under investigation now, do you.

Sekulow: No one’s notified us that he is, so I can’t read people’s minds, but I can tell you this – we have not been notified that there is an investigation of the President of the United States.

Afterward, Wallace pressed Sekulow over an earlier presidential tweet noting he relied, in part, on a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire Comey, then later said he was planning on doing so anyway.

Sekulow: There is a constitutional issue when you have this scenario. The President made a determination based on consulted advice he decided ultimately he’s the commander in chief – he gets to make that decision that James Comey had to go.

Then it really started to get interesting. Sekulow prefaced his response with “Here’s the constitutional threshold question,” which Wallace interpreted as an admission of an investigation:

Here’s the constitutional threshold question Chris – the President takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from his Attorney General and the deputy Attorney General’s office. He takes the action that they recommended, and now he’s being investigated by the Department of Justice…  So he’s being investigated for taking the action that the AG and deputy AG recommended him to take, by the agency who recommended the termination. So that’s the constitutional threshold question here.

Wallace then pounced:

Wallace: You just said that he’s being investigated.

Sekulow: No, Chris… Let me be crystal clear so you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the President of the United States. Period.

Wallace: Sir you just said two times that he’s being investigated!

Sekulow: No… I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the constitution works. If in fact it was correct that the President was being investigated, he would be investigated for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the constitution as his article 1 power. That’s all I said, so I appreciate you trying to re-phrase it.

Wallace: Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said that he is being investigated. And its’ not just being investigated for firing Comey, there’s also the question of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI Director.

Sekulow: Chris, let me be clear. You asked me a question about what the President’s tweet was… that’s what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the President is not and has not been under investigation. I don’t think I could be any clearer than that.

It appeared as though Sekulow was attempting to explain that Trump was responding to the Post story in his tweet regarding an alleged investigation – not that he knew he was actually being investigated.

But do you see how screwed up all of this has become?

Trump is, by no close margin, the most maligned president five months into his first term than any president before him; it’s so convoluted that even his attorneys are having trouble explaining things to a vulture-like media, which has been complicit (including Fox News) in perpetuating all of the bogus narratives.

Sadly, it’s not going to get any better for Trump, and that’s the real tragedy: As he tries to deliver on his campaign promises, he’s going to be continually under siege by a hostile opposition within the Democratic Party, the “mainstream” media and, sadly, establishment Republicans in Congress.

bypass-corrupt-media

Deep State just leaked proof that special counsel Mueller was appointed to bring down Trump

(National SentinelPolitical espionage: If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller, BFF of fired FBI Director James Comey, was appointed strictly as an “independent” counsel to probe alleged “collusion” between Team Trump and the Russians – and not a plant to bring down the president – you can stop thinking that.

Organic-Storable-Food-Supply-MRLeaks by the Deep State to the disgusting Washington Post on Wednesday – the day Republicans were scrambling for their lives on a baseball field in Northern Virginia – published a story claiming that Mueller is looking into obstruction of justice charges against President Donald J. Trump.

The report noted:

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

[…]

The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.

Of course, this could all be just a coincidence, right? After all, there’s nothing to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this president (again…and again…and again) who just happens to be a former FBI director himself and best bud of the guy who got fired…right?

It’s not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, right? Oh, wait….

Is it possible that this was all just a…set up? That perhaps Comey broke the law by leaking sensitive information in conversations he allegedly had with Trump – just so a special prosecutor would be named?

Well, call us conspiracy theorists, but yeah, it sure seems like this has all been a set up to get our president from the outset. And now the Deep State has all the pieces in place.

If this sham is allowed to proceed, there is only one logical outcome: The finding or, actually, more correctly, the creation of “evidence” that Trump somehow, acting in his constitutional role as head of the Executive Branch, did something improper to someone…at some point…when he, you know, tried to run the Executive Branch.

Constitutional experts have been saying for weeks now there is no there, there, when it comes to obstruction. Or anything else Trump and his administration have been accused of doing even after, as the Post reminds us, a year-long investigation, in which hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have no doubt been expended.

But not one dollar has been expended investigating Comey’s illegal leak. Or all of the leaking – from the Justice Department, intelligence agencies and the White House. Weird, huh?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875305788708974592

As the president has said repeatedly – and said again today – this is a “witch hunt.” It’s actually worse than that; this is the Deep State’s effort to take out a duly-elected president simply because they fear that he will do what he campaigned to do, drain the nasty, infested, incestuous swamp in which they swim.

It’s time to band together to support the president. He will need it in the months ahead.

Update [12:30 CST]: It should be noted that following Comey’s Feb. 14 private dinner with Trump, in which the president allegedly said (Trump has denied it) “I hope you can see your way past” the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the former FBI director never reported to anyone that he believed the president was ordering him to drop the investigation (which Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, has a constitutional right to do). Only after he was fired by Trump did Comey turn around and then claim the president was attempting to “obstruct” him.

As to the Post story, something stinks about it. Consider that in March, Comey told the president he wasn’t under investigation again – and he would have been had their been alleged “obstruction of justice.” And yet, as the Post stated, Trump did not come under investigation for obstruction until after Comey was fired.

Finally, if Trump had actually ordered the Flynn and Russia investigation halted, it obviously wasn’t halted – and the president would have followed up on such an order to ensure the investigation was shut down. As Donald Trump Jr. notes, when dad gives an order, there is no ambiguity; everyone knows it’s an order:

never-miss-story

Obstruction of justice? Wasserman Schulz appears to threaten DC police chief with “consequences” for investigating her IT staff’s alleged crimes

(National SentinelPolitics: Earlier this week NewsTarget published a report detailing the strange tail of three Pakistani brothers who, until February, worked as IT specialists for a number of Democratic House members. Essentially these three and a fourth relative had absolute control over all information systems related to said members — email, document storage, transfers and so forth.

The report noted that some of the Democratic House members were on sensitive committees such as the House Intelligence Committee and others dealing with foreign policy, both of which would deal with classified or otherwise sensitive materials.

The brothers — Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan — were barred from House IT systems after it was discovered they were allegedly accessing information of at least some of those House members without permission, a crime that would normally land the offender in very hot water.

Only, months later, these brothers have not been charged and, in fact, it appears to all the world that two factors are at play: 1) Democrats appear to be going out of their way to prevent justice from being served; and 2) insider IT specialists currently working with House systems believe that the brothers may have some dirt on the members they used to work for. (RELATED: Do these fired House IT workers have dirt on several Congress members?)

One such system belongs to the office of Florida Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz, the former head of the Democratic National Committee who was forced resign last year after leaked emails showed that she and other DNC officials were conspiring to ensure that the Democratic presidential nomination went to Hillary Clinton and not Sen. Bernie Sanders, who at the time was winning successive primaries against Clinton’s low-energy campaign. Clinton immediately named Wasserman Schulz to serve as “honorary chair” within her campaign to help elect Democrats around the country.

As posted by Zero Hedge, Bill Clinton has been seen with one of the brothers, Imran:

The heavy lifting on this story has been done largely by The Daily Caller, which reported on Wednesday that Wasserman Schulz grilled the D.C. police chief, even threatening “consequences” at one point if his department refused to turn over computer equipment belonging to her office that is subject to the department’s investigation into the Awan brothers. The encounter can be seen towards the end of the video at the 1-hour 24-minute mark:

It should be noted that as one of the eight members of the Committee on Appropriations’ Legislative Branch subcommittee, Wasserman Schulz is in charge of the department’s budget — the same department now investigating her staffer, and how he managed to extract some $4 million since 2010 from various House members, ostensibly for IT services.

And though the chief tells Wasserman Schulz that the equipment is important to “an ongoing investigation,” she continues to badger him about the process involved in returning it anyway.

In the follow-up report, The Daily Caller reported further that the Florida Democrat was attempting to get back equipment in a case involving cyber-security breaches and the offloading of sensitive congressional data to off-site locations.

When the chief said he could not return the equipment yet, Wasserman Schulz issued this veiled threat: “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.”

As to where the laptop came from originally:

A federal employee with knowledge of the situation and who requested anonymity told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group that as House authorities closed in on Imran Awan and his brothers, a laptop used by Imran was hidden in an unused crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building. Wasserman Schultz’s office is in Longworth House Office Building, a separate structure.

The laptop was later found by Capitol Police and seized because it was relevant to the criminal investigation, the source said.

On the surface, it sure appears that Wasserman Schulz was victimized by Imran Awan, but she also appears to be going out of her way to protect him, which baffled one Democratic IT staffer.

“I can’t imagine why she’d be that good of friends with a technology provider,” said the staffer. “Usually if someone does bad stuff, an office is going to distance themselves” rather than incur any political flak for a mere staffer.

But then, maybe he’s no mere staffer. Politico described Imran and his wife as having a “friendly personal relationship” with Wasserman Schulz.

Something stinks here, and gee, it happens to be centered — again — around Democrats.

This story originally appeared at NewsTarget.com.

never-miss-story

Here’s the BIG question Comey needs to answer during his open congressional hearing

(National SentinelPolitical Media: Former FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to testify at an open congressional hearing after Memorial Day, and already the disgusting #nevertrump establishment media is attempting to portray him as a victim of the president’s wrath…but of course, without reporting any real evidence of same.

CNN is one of the principle drivers of the false narrative that Trump attempted to ‘influence’ Comey into dropping the FBI’s investigation into his campaign staffers and former national security advisor Michael Flynn. On Sunday, the network reported:

Former FBI Director James Comey now believes that President Donald Trump was trying to influence his judgment about the Russia probe, a person familiar with his thinking says, but whether that influence amounts to obstruction of justice remains an open question.

“You have to have intent in order to obstruct justice in the criminal sense,” the source said, adding that “intent is hard to prove.”

[…]

Sources say Comey had reached no conclusion about the President’s intent before he was fired. But Comey did immediately recognize that the new President was not following normal protocols during their interactions.

So, what is the story here? Nothing. There is no story. There never has been a story. More smoke, more innuendo, more allegations, but no facts and no proof. Still, it’s part of the process of continuing the fake news narrative, and this will continue infinitum because that’s all the haters in the media have.

But let’s play along. In one respect, this CNN report does bring up the central questions that Comey should be asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and made to answer in public: Do you believe the president was improperly trying to influence an FBI investigation – and if so, why didn’t you report the attempt to obstruct justice, in your view, to the appropriate congressional committees, as you are required to do?

That secondary point is missing, not surprisingly, from the latest CNN report and all “mainstream media” reports on the central issue of obstruction of justice, though other outlets and experts have asked the question repeatedly since this bogus charge surfaced.

One other thing to note: A recently released Harvard study found that CNN‘s reporting on the president is negative 93 percent of the time.

bypass-corrupt-media