White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer appears on Lou Dobbs and gives the first set of explanatory points around the President’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey:
.
Why is President Trump so confident in this decision? Oh, that’s easy:
It was eight months ago when we first began discussing the “White Hats” -vs- “Black Hats” within the intelligence apparatus. It was obvious there was a battle going on within the ‘intelligence’ and ‘justice’ systems per se’ between two distinct groups, mostly centered around political leaks within the IC:
The four primary agencies who drove the media narrative were: CIA, DNI, FBI and NSA.
We identified Admiral Mike Rogers (NSA) as the only ‘white hat’ within the intelligence group at the center of the media intel controversies. Most, heck, all, of the media controversy was created by leaks of intelligence “reports”. NSA Director Mike Rogers was the only intel head without any participation in leaking. Rogers also controlled most of the raw intel from which the reports being leaked were constructed.
Initially, last year, FBI Director James Comey was challenging to gauge. However, it didn’t take long to discover his political corruption, and see his political agenda was all about himself – not the application of law.
[ Via White House ] President Donald J. Trump today announced his third wave of Federal judicial appointments. These appointments follow the successful nomination and confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Specifically, the President today announced his nomination of these individuals to the following Federal judgeships.
♦ If confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Amy Coney Barrett currently serves as the Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Professor of Law at the Notre Dame University Law School. Professor Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation—publishing scholarship in leading legal journals, such as the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Professor Barrett clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Following her clerkships, as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Professor Barrett has also served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia. Professor Barrett received her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, and her J.D., summa cum laude, from the Notre Dame University Law School, where she served as Executive Editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.
On March 20th 2017 FBI Director James Comey testified before congress. There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media. Everything else is political. FBI Director Comey testified his organization was “investigating” intelligence leaks. (link)
During congressional testimony today former acting Attorney General Sally Yates answered a direct question from Senator Chuck Grassley about whether or not she has been questioned by the FBI about intelligence leaks to media.
@01:20 of the video segment below:
Grassley: “Have any of you been questioned by the FBI about any leaks?”
Clapper: “Uh, I have not been”
Yates: “No”
.
How can FBI Director James Comey testify to congress the FBI has an open investigation into the source of the Flynn intelligence leaks on March 20th, and yet the primary person who controlled that leaked information, acting AG Sally Yates, testifies on May 8th she has never been questioned by the FBI about the leaks?
Several people have requested thoughts and analysis on the decision by South Carolina (former) Police Officer Michael Slager to plead guilty to civil rights violations.
From the outset this case was unique, stunningly so. Our research into this case was necessarily fact-driven because any emotional review of the shooting is fraught with over simplistic reaction. This is one of those cases where logic battles with emotion and the outcome, as it stands today, is even more evidence toward that end.
Michael Slager pleading guilty to federal charges against the State’s inability to gain any criminal charges shows how the dynamic of law can run parallel to justice but not necessarily merge. This is the framework for my perspective on this case.
It’s important to note what Slager’s plea isn’t. There is no admission of violation of statutory state law. Slager is not pleading guilty to any form of manslaughter, and most certainly isn’t guilty of level of statutory murder. The unusual nature of this dynamic is why the State of South Carolina has withdrawn any/all criminal charges now that Slager has plead guilty to a federal violation of Scott’s civil rights.
Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice has reversed her position and is now refusing to testify to a Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee investigating Russia’s interference with the 2016 election. The key risk to Susan Rice is public discussion and discovery of her requests to unmask names within NSA intelligence and surveillance reports on political opponents.
Against revelations that pointed to Susan Rice as the epicenter of the political surveillance programs, her testimony was a risk to herself, the Obama administration and the entire democrat apparatus. Her appearance at a Senate Committee where questions would sure to be raised was a significant risk.
The cover for Rice’s retreat from sunlight is brutally obvious. Kathryn Ruemmler, Rice’s attorney delivers a letter to CNN so the media outlet can push a narrative that Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse -ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee- has told Rice her attendance would not be needed.
“Senator Whitehouse has informed us by letter that he did not agree to Chairman Graham’s invitation to Ambassador Rice, a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses,” Ruemmler wrote. “Under these circumstances, Ambassador Rice respectfully declines Senator Graham’s invitation to testify.”
San Francisco based Federal Judge, William Orrick, issued a preliminary injunction today blocking any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
Judge Orrick said president Trump has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.
(Via AP) […] U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits — one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County — against an executive order targeting communities that protect immigrants from deportation. The injunction will stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through court. (read more)
Judge Orrick is a campaign bundler to former President Obama for over $200,000, and is married to a pro-abortion activist. You might remember Judge Orrick from 2015 when he blocked the release of videos made by the Center for Medical Progress, the group that unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared on This Week with former Clinton White House staff George Stephanopoulos to discuss current political events. Attorney General Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kelly spent three days this past week touring the Southern U.S. Border and listening to border patrol officers:
