“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, June 08, 2017

Nothing Burger Day?

82 comments:

  1. June 8, 2017
    Andrew McCarthy demolishes the argument that Trump obstructed justice, or even did anything wrong in dinner talk with Comey
    By Thomas Lifson

    In his trademark well-informed and lucid style, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy took just over 4 minutes to explain to Tucker Carlson’s viewers why President Trump’s dinner conversation with James Comey, bandied about as “obstruction of justice” by many on the left, was not improper.

    But before you view the video below, consider the false notion propagated by Comey in his written introductory statement to his testimony today. Comey writes of the “independence” of the FBI and Justice Department from the executive branch:

    My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

    This much is defensible, since he speaks of a “tradition,” although sneaking in the word “status” suggests some official categorization of the FBI as independent of the Executive Branch. But, later:

    At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

    This is still defensible.

    But later in the document, he segues quietly into an assertion that the FBI is an independent agency:

    I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.

    Sorry! Nowhere in the Constitution is the FBI (or DoJ) defined as anything other than a part of the Executive Branch. The FBI didn’t exist in 1787, and wouldn’t for almost a century and a half.

    Which brings us to Andrew McCarthy, explaining why President Trump had full authority to say what he did without compromising any ethics or laws:....

    VIDEO

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/andrew_mccarthy_demolishes_the_argument_that_trump_obstructed_justice_or_even_did_anything_wrong_in_dinner_talk_with_comey.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James Comey’s Latest Statement Is An Indictment Of Comey, Not Trump

      In his prepared statement, James Comey admits that President Trump was not being investigated, that Comey told the president and Congress as much, and that Comey deliberately refused to inform the public of those facts.

      Sean Davis By Sean Davis
      JUNE 7, 2017

      Ahead of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, the committee released the seven-page prepared statement Comey provided on Wednesday. While it’s clear that Comey and his allies believe the statement is proof that President Donald Trump acted inappropriately, and perhaps even illegally, the statement itself is a much bigger indictment of Comey’s own behavior over the last six months. Not only does Comey’s statement corroborate Trump’s claim that the former FBI director told him three times that the president was not being investigated by the FBI, it also reveals the Beltway game Comey was playing with the investigation.

      In his statement, as my colleague Mollie Hemingway noted earlier today, Comey acknowledges the accuracy of Trump’s claim — included in the letter announcing Comey’s firing — that Comey had on three separate occasions informed Trump that he was not being investigated by the FBI. The corroboration of the claim by Comey himself is by far the most newsworthy nugget from the lengthy statement. But several other claims from Comey also do far more to indict Comey than they do to implicate Trump.

      The most damning aspect of Comey’s prepared testimony is his admission that he deliberately refused to inform the public that Trump was not being personally investigated by the FBI. Comey’s justification for this refusal to publicly disclose material facts — that those facts might change — is laughable, especially in light of Comey’s 2016 two-step regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

      “I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change,” Comey claims.

      Recall that in 2016, Comey had no problem 1) publicly exonerating Hillary Clinton despite the fact that the authority to charge (or not charge) someone with a crime lies with federal prosecutors, not the FBI; 2) using the same press conference to excoriate Clinton’s behavior; 3) telling Congress that the investigation of Clinton was closed; and then 4) announcing days before a presidential election that the FBI had reopened the case and was once again investigating Hillary Clinton. Yet we’re supposed to believe that James Comey had grave moral concerns about disclosing facts that may be subject to change? Please.

      If anything, Comey’s latest statement only highlights why Trump was justified in firing Comey in the first place. Comey, according to his own testimony, repeatedly told Trump that the president was not being investigated by the FBI. Not only that, Comey also told Congress that Trump was not being personally investigated. How on earth is it inappropriate, in light of those facts, for the president to ask for those facts to be made public by the very individual asserting them? Trump’s exasperation looks far more justifiable given the behavior to which Comey admits in his own testimony, largely because Comey’s tortured explanation for refusing to publicly explain those facts, even after disclosing them to Congress, holds so little water.

      Delete
    2. “I explained [to Trump] that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump,” Comey writes. “I reminded him I had previously told him that.”

      Rather than elevating Comey’s moral stature, the statement he provided only makes him look smaller, and makes the game he was playing that much more obvious. According to his own testimony, Comey repeatedly told the president that the FBI was not investigating him. That’s exactly what you’d expect from a careerist looking to keep his job. It’s why Comey, in his own tortured words, pledged “honest loyalty” to Trump during a private meeting.

      If the conversation with Trump had really bothered Comey all that much, he would’ve walked out and quit on the spot. Instead, he did what all ambitious bureaucrats eager to keep their jobs do: he stayed, he pledged his loyalty, and he went home and wrote up a self-serving CYA memo just in case. Here’s how Comey describes what happened:

      [Trump] then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further.
      Really, Jim? Really? That’s how you’re going to try to argue around the fact that you personally pledged your loyalty to the president, only to decide after you were fired that it made you feel icky? And your rationalization of the whole thing is that maybe you understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently than the president?

      Not until after he was fired did Comey suddenly decide to inform the public of all these interactions that he said made him so uncomfortable. Comey’s similar refusal during his tenure to inform the public that the president was not being investigated is also clear evidence of the keep-my-job-at-all-costs game he was playing (if this game looks familiar, it’s the exact same one he played when he took the fall for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s refusal to prosecute Clinton in 2016). What better way to insure yourself against being fired than to give the impression that you are overseeing a grave investigation of potential wrongdoing by your boss?

      The public impression that Trump was being criminally investigated, amplified by the president’s critics in the media, was effectively Comey’s get-out-of-jail-free card. The former FBI director likely assumed that no president would be crazy enough to fire a man whom the public believed to be investigating the president. Only a madman would fire that guy, right? Everyone in Washington knows how this game is played. They all know the tune by heart.

      Unfortunately for Comey, Trump had no intention of playing that game and dancing that dance. What really happened is that Trump was wise to Comey’s con and finally had enough of it. He figured out what Comey was doing — deliberately refusing to correct a factually inaccurate impression of the FBI’s ongoing investigation as a means of protecting his job — and called his bluff.

      Comey’s own words reveal in lurid detail the game he was playing. They reveal that Trump’s claims about the investigation, and his claims about Comey’s characterization of the investigation, were completely accurate. They reveal that Comey was giving one impression to the president and Congress in private and deliberately allowing an entirely different one to gain currency in public. Comey’s mistake wasn’t in thinking the Beltway two-step was the best way to keep his job. His mistake was assuming that Trump wouldn’t dare to stop dancing.

      Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

      http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/james-comeys-latest-statement-is-an-indictment-of-comey-not-trump/

      Delete
  2. This must be a big deal because Sky News is broadcasting it even while an election is going on in England and a couple of Jewish restaurants have been firebombed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Blunt just snapped a combination on Comey and got him back on his heals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clearly, Comey has been leaking to the press.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comey looks like he just swallowed his mouth piece.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Comey is now singing the best of John Phillip Sousa to the marshmallow smores being tossed to him by Mancin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So far I haven't heard that The New York Times has reported anything that is actually true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Update: The media coverage of the Russia investigation and on Flynn especially has taken a beating from Comey, and Jake Tapper has noticed it:

      Follow
      Jake Tapper ✔ @jaketapper
      Comey agrees with Cotton reference to NYT Feb 14 story as "almost entirely wrong"

      this story --> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0 …
      9:06 AM - 8 Jun 2017

      http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/08/live-stream-comeymas/

      Delete
  8. Update: Tom Cotton gets Comey to acknowledge that he never threatened to resign over Trump’s behavior, as he did in the famous 2004 confrontation in John Ashcroft’s hospital room. That’s an important point.

    SEE ALSO: Confidence game: Trump has “no intention” to fire Sessions?

    Follow
    David M. Drucker ✔ @DavidMDrucker
    .@SenTomCotton made sure to raise this topic, possibly to establish that Trump's behavior wasn't particularly out of bounds. => https://twitter.com/mviser/status/872848113446400000 …
    9:10 AM - 8 Jun 2017

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/08/live-stream-comeymas/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Comey may be the tallest "woman" I've ever seen. He is a big time drama queen. IMO

    This whole thing will be a Seinfeld episode. About "nothing."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trump does come off as an asshole the way he fired Comey.

    IMO, Trump will dodge the bullet and better delete his Twitter account.

    ReplyDelete
  11. from Alan Dershowitz:

    In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit.

    Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

    As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

    Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

    Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.

    Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.



    Director Comey’s testimony was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. He is obviously angry with President Trump, and his anger has influenced his assessment of the president and his actions. But even putting that aside, Comey has provided useful insights into the ongoing investigations.

    I was disappointed to learn that Comey used a Columbia law professor as a go-between to provide information to the media. He should have has the courage to do it himself. Senators must insist that he disclose the name of his go-between so that they can subpoena his memos and perhaps subpoena the professor-friend to provide further information.

    I write this short op-ed as Comey finishes his testimony. I think it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request – “hope” – that he let go the investigation of General Flynn. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

    So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was disheartened that the Russians were so often mentioned as monkeying in our elections, though not one vote was said to be changed, without the most important part of that subject, the Macedonians, even being mentioned.

    It was not a confidence builder for me seeing that Comey, nor any of the Senators, seemed to have ever heard of the Macedonians, who were of course the linchpin in the defeat of Hillary, that and, secondarily, misogyny on the part of vast numbers of American voters, many women included.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't there anyone in the FBI even aware of the Macedonian Threat ?

      Delete
  13. Seriously, I thought Trump came off fine. After all he is new to D.C. And if Comey can't say Trump tried to corrupt him I don't see how anyone else can come to that conclusion.

    If there was a criminal in the room it was Comey. He did his best to allow Hillary to skate, colluded with Lynch, exceeded his authority and richly deserved to be fired.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is nothing I heard that makes Trump look good. Politically, he is toast. He will not lose his base, but we are almost half way trough the year. The decisions made by Trump were terrible and he has an uphill fight to outgrown this.

    If Trump does not learn from this, it will be every man for himself in the congress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pubs are doing a fine job on their own of accomplishing NONE of the things they campaigned on.

      I hold them responsible more than Trump.

      ...if they were functional, the playing field would be different in spite of the overwhelmingly corrupt press.

      Delete
  15. To your earlier point, I think Trump is an Asshole. First Class. I don't know any Billionaires personally, and only a handful of CEOs. All of The CEOs, except one, were assholes. If you were to put 10 figures in their pocket, they would get promoted to Asshole FC.

    ReplyDelete



  16. Leaky Pussey

    In a startling disclosure, Comey revealed that after his firing he actually tried to spur the special counsel's appointment by giving one of his memos about Trump to a friend of his to release to the press.

    "My judgment was I need to get that out into the public square," Comey said
    .

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COMEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-08-12-37-50

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All we've seen from this walking Vagina for the past year is a bunch of inappropriate spills.

      Delete
    2. How come half the assholes in DC have giant bags around their eyes seen only rarely in the general pop?

      Delete
  17. The takeaway is there is no reason for the special prosecutor.

    Comey testified there was no crime, other than calling Trump a liar and admitting Comey was a leaker of privileged documents, it would seem to me that Comey is the one with the problem.

    Bill Clinton colluding with Susan Rice seems to be problematic.

    Washington is a sewer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He testified that he'd never run into a lying asshole before.

      Remarkable.

      Delete
  18. Somebody better tell Mitch McConnell to get his head out of his ass, kill the filibuster, cancel the summer vacation and legislate, legislate, legislate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Trump better take his cell phones and throw them into Potomac. He should consult with Bill Clinton on what helps to get to sleep at night.

    ReplyDelete
  20. “After Trump said all this, why didn’t you resign? I mean, if it’s such a great affront — if Trump saying, ‘Gee, I hope you could find a way to let this Flynn thing go.

    “‘You know, he’s a good guy,’ and you, Comey, said, ‘Yeah, he’s a good guy.’ Why didn’t you quit, and why didn’t you report this to the attorney general? Why didn’t you go out and immediately tell your colleagues at the FBI?”

    Comey says, “I guess I just wasn’t courageous enough,” and then he said, “I didn’t want to taint the investigation.”

    How in the world can the FBI director “taint” the investigation by announcing new information?

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/06/08/pathological-cnn-is-making-professor-dershowitz-go-bald/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Comey says, “I guess I just wasn’t courageous enough,”

    Google has changed again: That phrase gets TWO Results!

    Press a button for more, you get SEVEN.

    Kevin Durant yields the usual thousands, or millions.

    I'll admit he's more impressive than all the assholes in DC...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fired FBI Director James Comey saw a tweet from President Donald Trump and made a decision that will have untold ramifications.

    "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Trump tweeted on the morning of May 12.

    ...

    Daniel C. Richman, a close Comey adviser and former federal prosecutor, confirmed to CNN in an email that he was the friend Comey was referencing in his testimony.

    During the hearing, Comey was asked specifically if the "friend" he referred to was journalist Benjamin Wittes, who is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

    ...

    Trump's outside counsel, Marc Kasowitz, slammed Comey over the leak.

    "Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified," Kasowitz said at a news conference. "He also testified that immediately after he was terminated, he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to 'prompt the appointment of a special counsel.'"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rubio to Comey: Only Thing Not Leaked Is That POTUS Was Not Under Investigation

    Video

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/rubio-only-thing-not-leaked-russia-probe-trump-not-under-investigation/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Americans watched agog on Thursday, as sacked FBI director James Comey used his forensic legal skills and flashes of anger to inflict significant damage on President Donald Trump, laying out a case of what seemed to amount to a presidential obstruction of justice. But at the last minute, he declared it was not his job to write the charge.

    ...

    Idaho Republican Senator James Risch persisted in trying to shield Trump.

    Risch: He did not direct you to let it go?

    Comey: Not in his words, no.

    Risch: He did not order you to let it go?

    Comey: Again, those words are not an order.

    Risch: No; he said 'I hope.' ... Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice - or for that matter, any other criminal offence - where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?

    Comey: I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction.

    ...

    And that's the rub for Trump, who is so desperate to get beyond "this Russia thing". The Mueller investigation and the myriad congressional investigations will take months or longer - with aides and other White House staff lawyering up and constantly waiting for the investigator's call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. MOME Thu Jun 08, 01:22:00 PM EDT

      from Alan Dershowitz:

      In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit.

      Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

      As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

      Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

      Delete
    2. "I write this short op-ed as Comey finishes his testimony. I think it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request – “hope” – that he let go the investigation of General Flynn. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

      So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority."

      Delete
    3. Speaking of Royalty -

      TWITTER 'verifies' Bill Clinton 'son' -- before Bubba does!....DRUDGE

      Delete
    4. Bad day for Prince Ash.

      He was hoping King Trump would be overthrown and he would become King Ash.

      Delete
  25. Comey said he still has no idea whether the president has tapes of their conversations, but he said: “I hope there are, and I will consent to the release of them. . . . The president surely knows whether he taped me, and if he did, my feelings aren’t hurt.”

    When the hearing was over, Burr and Warner, the two senior members of the committee, walked out to greet reporters camped in the hallway outside.

    “This is nowhere near the end of the investigation,” Burr said.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bad day in June for May.

    Hung Parliament.

    Chaos reigns.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Didn't realize to recently what an arse this muzzie apologist anti-semitic Corbyn really is....

    ReplyDelete
  28. But Mr. Comey said he had distrusted Mr. Trump from the first time they met, at Trump Tower before Inauguration Day. Mr. Comey ended the day in an F.B.I. vehicle, taking detailed notes about his conversations.

    ...

    Then, in February, when Mr. Trump cleared the Oval Office to talk about Mr. Flynn, Mr. Comey described an ominous feeling. “My impression was, something big is about to happen,” he said.

    “I need to remember every single word that is spoken.”

    ReplyDelete

  29. Fuck it, everything is fucked up, IMHO.

    And on top of that that fucking Quirk's done run off to Sun Meadow, abandoning his responsibilities here.

    Hard times.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Reality Winner loses bond hearing though.

    She sits in slammer.

    This at least is good news.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Comey did more damage to himself and the press than he did to Trump.

    1. He admitted he manipulated events to bring on a special prosecutor

    2. He admitted leaking privileged government information to the press ( Makes one wonder how many other times he did it)

    3. Comey admitted Trump was never under investigation (Since Comey admitted he was leaking to the press, why did Comey not leak that there was no investigation of Trump)

    4. Comey demonstrated that he was and is a political animal

    5. Trump wasn't colluding with Russia ( The real colluding was Comey and the media)

    6. Comey admitted that Trump did not try and stop investigation of Flynn

    7. Comey testified that the smear campaign for the New York Times and Wapo was mostly bullshit from uninformed sources and laughably incorrect ( Comey obviously did nothing in his showboating to have exposed that earlier)

    8. Comey admitted Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton conspired to interfere with the investigation of Hillary Clinton

    9. Comey called Trump a liar but in his ramblings appeared to me nothing more than a leaking disgruntled ex employee, something that every boss that ever was would recognize immediately

    I admit to having contempt for Comey since his outrageous political moves in jailing Martha Stewart. On a post six months ago, I called Comey a "dirty cop". He is a dirty cop, a slime ball and if I were a defense attorney, I would review Comey's prosecutions over his entire career.

    BOTTOM LINE

    It was a bad day for Trump. He needs to grow up and get to work without a cell phone in his hand. He is POTUS not some ball busting slick NYC real estate developer.

    It was a real bad day for Comey. He is a slime ball and he should be investigated for corruption and mishandling government documents.

    It was a terribly damaging day for all the shit birds in the media who were willing to make relations with Russia worse with the absurd portrayal of Trump colluding with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL - Deuce carrying Trumps water as usual.


      Life in Wingnut world.

      Delete
    2. Deuce doesn't need to carry Trump's water, Comey carried it for him.

      Comey has no water of his own new, he pissed all his own water out on his shoes.

      It was a really bad day for your outlook, Ash, whether you are able to realize it or not.

      Delete
  32. After former FBI director James Comey testified about his private conversations with President Trump regarding the agency’s Russia investigation, the president’s lawyer gave a brief statement that contained inaccurate and disputed claims:

    - Marc Kasowitz, the president’s personal attorney, said Trump “never in form or substance directed or suggested” that Comey stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Comey testified that Trump asked him at a Feb. 14 meeting if “you can see your way clear … to letting Flynn go.”

    ...

    - Kasowitz accused Comey of being disingenuous about his motive for sharing a memo with The New York Times. Comey said he arranged to give the story to the paper after Trump tweeted about having “tapes” of their conversations.

    ...

    - Trump’s lawyer also wrongly claimed that Comey “admitted that he leaked to friends of his purported memos.” Comey admitted to giving one memo to one friend.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Seems to me Comey exonerated The Donald from everything.

    No collusion, Trump urging Comey to investigate his 'satellites', Trump never under investigation, no Russian funny business....

    It's Comey ought to be in jail with Hillary, Bill, Lynch and Reality Winner and go ahead and throw in your least favorite Democrat, too, for good form's sake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND Comey even accused The New York Times of printing total falsehoods....

      Delete
  34. I call it a great day for The Donald.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 'It was a dreadful day for PM May, and it waits to see if she can cling on'

    Report From England

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'The bandwagon seems stuck in traffic'

      Delete
    2. Crewe and Nantwich goes Labour

      Delete
    3. Quirk on Avon goes missing....

      Delete
    4. Gordon goes Conservative.....

      Delete
    5. Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath goes Labour....

      Delete
    6. Glasgow North East goes Labour....

      Delete
  36. Accused NSA leaker wanted to ‘burn the White House down’
    By Associated Press June 8, 2017 | 9:39pm | Updated


    Reality Winner exits the Augusta Courthouse June 8, 2017 in Augusta, Georgia. Getty Images

    AUGUSTA, Ga. — A federal judge ordered a young woman charged with leaking classified U.S. documents to remain jailed until her trial after prosecutors argued Thursday she might possess more stolen government secrets.

    MORE ON:
    REALITY WINNER

    Mugshot of NSA 'leaker' released

    NSA 'leaker' feared feds would 'make her disappear': mom

    NSA leak proves nothing about possible Russian hacking

    Accused NSA leaker cursed out Trump in social media posts

    Prosecutors also said 25-year-old Reality Winner might try to flee the U.S. if released on bond. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari told the judge Winner had written in a notebook: “I want to burn the White House Down … find somewhere in Kurdistan to live. Ha-ha!”

    Wearing an orange jumpsuit and leg shackles, Winner pleaded not guilty in U.S. district court to charges that she illegally retained and transmitted national defense information. The federal crime carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if she’s convicted.

    The former Air Force linguist, who speaks Arabic and Farsi and had a top-secret security clearance, was working as a government contractor in Augusta when she copied and mailed a classified report containing top-secret material to an online news organization, prosecutors say.....

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/08/accused-nsa-leaker-wanted-to-burn-the-white-house-down/

    At least she wants to live with the Kurds, not ISIS.

    That shows some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Israel National News: Muslim attackers of 5-year-old in Idaho unpunished
    By Pamela Geller - on June 8, 2017

    There has been no media coverage of the gruesome and outrageous news story concerning the “sentencing” of the Muslim migrant rapists of a five-year-old girl in Idaho and the subsequent release of her attackers, with the exception of this Israel National News story.

    Judge Thomas Borresen of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District gave the attackers probation (no jail time) and issued a gag order barring those present in the courtroom from discussing it.

    THE DECADENT WEST:
    MUSLIM ATTACKERS OF 5-YEAR-OLD IN IDAHO UNPUNISHED
    PAMELA GELLER: ‘OFFICIALS SACRIFICED GIRL’S WELL-BEING TO PROTECT MUSLIM BOYS’.
    By Mordechai Sones, Israel National News, June 7, 2017:

    The three Muslim refugee boys who plead guilty to the heinous sexual assault of a five-year-old girl in Idaho received no jail time in their sentencing yesterday (Tuesday), according to Pamela Geller, President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). The judge barred everyone in the courtroom, including the victim’s own parents, from speaking about the case and threatened anyone with serious consequences if they violated his directive, Geller reported.

    The rape occurred at Fawnbrook Apartments, in Twin Falls, when the three Muslims lured a 5-year-old girl into a laundry room and there committed upon her the most infamous acts of cruelty and barbarism, while the oldest boy filmed the entire incident.

    Following a sentencing hearing Monday at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls, Judge Thomas Borresen of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District issued a gag order barring those present in the courtroom from discussing it.

    Geller says that the victim’s lawyer is facing contempt charges because of a benign comment he made to the Idaho Statesman about the parents’ unhappiness with the verdict.

    WorldNetDaily consulted with Mathew Staver, chairman and co-founder of the nonprofit legal assistance agency Liberty Counsel, about the legality of issuing such a gag order after the fact in a criminal case: “It’s unconstitutional for the judge to do that. There are gag orders that can be put on people during a jury trial, or if it’s a minor they can prohibit you from mentioning the name of the minor, but they can’t gag you after the fact,” Staver said. “This is public at this point. This judge, it just seems like he’s forgotten about the First Amendment in this case. He has no authority to do this, he can’t hold someone in contempt to keep them from speaking out about their displeasure with the case after the fact.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Staver said case law is clear on the subject of gag orders.

      “The travesty of justice in Idaho is now complete,” wrote Geller. “In the summer of 2016, a 5-year-old girl was sexually assaulted and urinated upon by three Muslim migrant boys in Twin Falls, Idaho. Since then, instead of getting justice, the victim’s family has been abused by law enforcement and governing authorities as if they were the criminals – because what happened to their little girl contradicts the politically correct narrative about Muslim migrants. On Monday, the perpetrators were sentenced, and the final injustice was done to this poor girl.

      “The injustice began in the proceedings at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls when Judge Thomas Borreson of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District ordered the little victim’s parents to say nothing to anyone – ever – about what was said in the courtroom Monday, or to disclose the sentence he gave to the savage attackers. He did allow them to say that they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they disclosed why they were unhappy with it.

      “But even though the victim’s parents were not allowed to talk to me, there were 12 to 15 people in the courtroom who saw and heard the whole sorry business. I was informed of what happened by an anonymous source inside the courtroom – and the more I heard, the more I understood why this judge wanted to keep all the proceedings secret.

      “Janice Kroeger, the senior deputy prosecuting attorney, who was supposed to be trying these boys for their crimes, defended the boys and repeatedly attacked Lacy, the victim’s mother. A therapist for the boys was present, as well as a parole officer and a detective. Everything that was said was designed to portray the perpetrators as victims. Throughout the proceedings, they were repeatedly called victims, and the youngest one was called ‘the biggest victim of them all.’

      “The court heard all about how the attackers are doing well in school, and about how smart they are. They were praised for the supposed ordeal they had to go through. It was claimed that all three are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from having to go through courtroom proceedings.

      “After this lovefest, which lasted for five hours in the courtroom, all three boys were sentenced, one after the other. All three were given probation. They were not found guilty of rape, but of sexually lewd conduct.

      “In the midst of this judicial mugging, every time Lacy’s lawyer tried to speak up, he was silenced. The little victim, Jayla, was never even mentioned once by Kroeger or the judge – or by the police or anyone else. Only Lacy mentioned her, when she made her statement. Lacy detailed how the poor girl is still suffering the effects of this attack…

      “Yet when Lacy completed her statement, Kroeger lashed out not at the perpetrators or their parents, but at Lacy. She viciously tongue-lashed Lacy for a full 15 minutes, until finally Judge Borreson had to stop her.

      Delete
    2. “Understandably, the parents of the victim were and are devastated. Back in April, when the attackers initially pleaded guilty, Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said: ‘I am pleased that we were able to resolve this case in a way that was approved and agreed to by the victim’s family. This continues to be a serious and sad case, but it was resolved properly.’

      “Nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution of the case was not accepted by the victim’s family, and it was not resolved properly.

      “From the beginning to the end, for Idaho officials this case was about one thing, and one thing only: not justice for this poor little girl who was brutalized and abused, but about making sure that Americans don’t start to realize what is happening and oppose the Muslim migrant influx. Idaho officials were willing to sacrifice this girl’s well-being for that goal – to their everlasting shame,” wrote Pamela Geller.

      http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/israel-national-news-muslim-attackers-5-year-old-idaho-unpunished.html/

      I have not seen nor read a word about this in the media here.

      Delete
  38. The Counter Attack has begun.

    The Donald has authorized his DoJ to investigate the leaking by Comey and his pals....

    This could possibly lead to criminal charges....

    ReplyDelete
  39. 'T Rex' Tillerson Gets Conned

    130 UK imams hailed for refusing to perform funeral prayers for jihadis, but Islam forbids funeral prayers for jihadis

    JUNE 8, 2017 10:07 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER



    The Muslim Council of Britain has gained worldwide headlines — and praise — for the announcement. Secretary of State Tillerson said Monday in New Zealand: “I was actually encouraged when I heard on the news this morning that a number of imams in London have condemned these attackers and said they will not perform prayer services over their funerals, which means they’re condemning their souls. And that is what has to be done, and only the Muslim faith can handle this.”

    Moderate Muslims stand up at last, right? Here is the MCB’s statement:

    “Over 130 Imams & Religious Leaders from diverse backgrounds refuse to perform the funeral prayer for London attackers in an unprecedented move,” Muslim Council of Britain, June 5, 2017

    Imams and religious leaders from across the country and a range of schools of thought have come together to issue a public statement condemning the recent terror attack in London and conveying their pain at the suffering of the victims and their families.

    In an unprecedented move, they have not only refused to perform the traditional Islamic prayer for the terrorist – a ritual that is normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions – but also have called on others to do the same. They said:

    “Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer over the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam.”

    This all sounds great, but there’s just one catch: Muhammad is depicted in hadiths as forbidding funeral prayers for martyrs, and Islamic law forbids such prayers as well:

    “Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger used to shroud two martyrs of Uhud in one sheet and then say, “Which of them knew Qur’an more?” When one of the two was pointed out, he would put him first in the grave. Then he said, “I will be a witness for them on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood (on their bodies). Neither was the funeral prayer offered for them, nor were they washed. Jabir added, “When my father was martyred, I started weeping and uncovering his face. The companions of the Prophet stopped me from doing so but the Prophet did not stop me. Then the Prophet said, ‘(O Jabir.) don’t weep over him, for the angels kept on covering him with their wings till his body was carried away (for burial).'” (Bukhari 5.59.406).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. “Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: The Prophet collected every two martyrs of Uhud in one piece of cloth, then he would ask, “Which of them had (knew) more of the Qur’an?” When one of them was pointed out for him, he would put that one first in the grave and say, “I will be a witness on these on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood on their bodies and they were neither washed nor was a funeral prayer offered for them.” (Bukhari 2.23.427)

      Muhammad’s words in hadiths that are deemed authentic are normative for Islamic law, and Islamic law consequently states: “It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr (O: even if in a state of major ritual impurity (janaba) or the like) or perform the funeral prayer over him. A martyr (shahid) means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims (O: from fighting them, as opposed to someone who died otherwise, such as a person killed out of oppression when not in battle, or who died from fighting non-polytheists, such as (N: Muslim) transgressors).” — Reliance of the Traveller g4.20

      So what has been taken by Rex Tillerson and the world as a great show of Muslim rejection of terrorism is actually a display of Muslim adherence to Islamic law, acceptance of terrorist deaths as Islamic martyrdom, and application of Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit.”

      (Thanks to Lars.)

      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/130-uk-imams-hailed-for-refusing-to-perform-funeral-prayers-for-jihadis-but-islam-forbids-funeral-prayers-for-jihadis

      Delete
  40. May to seek permission to form Government. UKIP can't help, they don't have any seats. Maybe the DUP...

    ReplyDelete
  41. COMEY UNMASKS HIMSELF AS LEAKER
    The fired FBI director tells a Senate panel he’s a well-meaning victim of Trump.
    June 9, 2017 Matthew Vadum

    Former FBI Director James Comey, who claims President Trump ordered him to end an investigation into former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s ties to Russia, admitted he leaked his notes from a private conversation with Trump in hopes of spurring an investigation of the president himself.


    This raises the question, Why isn’t Comey being investigated? He has proven himself to be a prolific liar who abused his power in the vein of J. Edgar Hoover but without Hoover’s competence.

    For Comey, leaking was revenge for the humiliating, public way President Trump fired him. His leaking to the media of what amount to official FBI documents may itself be unlawful and may violate the terms of his employment as FBI director. He’s not the victim he paints himself as.

    Comey’s comments came as he testified for hours before the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of a massive fishing expedition against the Trump administration that should never have been launched in the first place. (A transcript of Comey’s testimony is available here.)

    Commentators were all over map in their evaluations of the political significance of the testimony.

    It was a bad day for Trump, retired Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox News Channel. Interfering with a federal criminal investigation for a corrupt purpose would be obstruction of justice, he told Shepard Smith on Fox News Channel. Some of Comey’s testimony was damning, Napolitano added, particularly Comey’s statement that he understood Trump was seeking some kind of a quid pro quo.

    In response to a question from Sen. Angus King (I-Me.), Comey said during the hearing that Trump’s "hope" that he would "drop" the investigation into Flynn’s connections to Russia reminded him of 12th century English King Henry II’s annoyance with Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket.

    The use of the word “hope,” Comey said, "rings in my ear as kind of, 'will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?'" A group of Henry’s followers interpreted the statement as an indication that he wanted Becket dead and they did the king’s will.

    But this is weak sauce. It is extremely unlikely a criminal case would arise out of a president’s stated “hope” that a probe be ended, with no actual evidence to back it up. Besides, the ultra-manipulative Comey has already proven himself an unreliable witness possessed of a self-serving memory.

    And even if President Trump did order Comey to make the probe into Flynn go away, the president is entitled to do such things.

    Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat, made the point that in his testimony yesterday,

    Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

    “As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct,” Dershowitz said.

    As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

    In a rush to “get” President Trump, almost all Democrat commentators have “willfully ignored these realities,” Dershowitz said, and in so doing “have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Despite the nonstop media hype, there is no criminal investigation of the president underway, a fact Comey confirmed openly in public for the first time yesterday. And there is no underlying crime to speak out. The intelligence reports and newspaper articles alleging Russian interference in the election are based on unidentified sources.

      The notes found their way to the fourth estate in an indirect manner.

      Comey told Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.) he took the notes he made from a private meeting with President Trump and gave them to a law professor friend of his who in turn gave them to the media. The goal, Comey said, was to get an investigation of Trump launched.

      The notes, like Hillary Clinton’s purloined emails, are property of the U.S. government. Comey claims that during the one-to-one conversation Trump ordered him to end the investigation into Flynn’s ties to Russia. To defend himself and undermine the president after a Trump tweet suggested a recording of their chat may exist, Comey said he felt he needed to get his version of events “out into the public square.”

      George J. Terwilliger III, formerly U.S. Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, expressed disgust on PBS, saying he was “saddened by this entire spectacle that we saw today” and going back to Comey’s bizarre presser last summer about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email abuses.

      Comey’s conduct at that infamous media event strikes at the heart of the rule of law. On July 5, 2016, he acknowledged the massive body of evidence against Clinton and described it at some length. He said the former secretary of state probably broke the law when she used hacker-friendly homebrew private email servers to conduct official business.

      But after airing Clinton’s dirty laundry, Comey then let her off the hook. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

      Comey said Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in their handling of classified documents but there was no evidence of criminal intent. He said this even though federal law does not actually require intent in such cases: mishandling intelligence, even inadvertently, is enough to land people who don’t have political connections in hot water.

      For example, Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, a machinist's mate on the submarine USS Alexandria from 2007 to 2012, went to the hoosegow for an apparently innocent infraction of the sort that the military normally deals with administratively. Saucier used his cellphone to snap pictures of the vessel's nuclear propulsion system. For taking photos to show his future children what he did aboard the submarine, Saucier was convicted of felony unauthorized retention of national defense information, sentenced to one year in prison, and given an "other-than-honorable" discharge from the U.S. Navy.

      Months after the sentencing, President Obama commuted the prison term of Army Private Chelsea Manning who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables. Hillary Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin have yet to be prosecuted for their egregious mishandling of classified information.

      “It smacks of two types of justice systems in the United States,” Saucier attorney Greg Rinkey said in January.

      Delete
  42. ....The day after the presser then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed no charges would be laid against Hillary. Lynch had a clandestine meeting with former President Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport a week before, raising wholly justified suspicions of corrupt bargaining taking place.

    Blogger Ace of Spades (@AceofSpadesHQ) mocked Comey for his testimony, summarizing in a tweet, “Comey: Loretta Lynch told me to lie and I didn't write that down, but I wrote down Trump's stuff because I was afraid he would lie[.]”

    Terwilliger excoriated Comey for his shameful behavior.

    There’s a thrusting that results from this, of the Justice Department and the FBI, into the middle of political affairs that seems to follow Mr. Comey around. He’s become kind of a one-man wrecking ball as to accusations and recriminations against several other major government figures, candidates, presidents, attorneys general. And I hope that all of this will get dialed back. I’d much rather see the Intelligence Committee and [Justice Department Special Counsel and former FBI Director] Bob Mueller continue their investigations and come to some conclusions and then let’s talk publicly.

    At the hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Comey why he allowed Trump to kick other administration officials out of the room for the conversation about Flynn, something that out of respect for the independence of the FBI presidents don’t generally do.

    She said:

    Now, here's the question. You're big, you're strong. I know the Oval Office and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong? I cannot discuss this with you.

    Comey floundered. “It is a great question,” he said. “Maybe if I were stronger I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in.”

    Sure.

    More likely what happened was the cunning then-FBI director knew exactly what he was doing and decided after the meeting that he wanted to hold what he considered to be damning information in reserve to be used against Trump later.

    When asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) if he believed Trump “colluded with Russians,” Comey replied,

    It’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an open setting, as I said, when I left we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump but that’s a question that’ll be answered by the investigation, I think.

    Comey whined during the hearing about how the Trump administration treated him after he was shown the door.

    And although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray. That it was poorly led. That the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple. And I am so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them and I'm so sorry the American people were told them. I worked every day at the FBI to help make that great organization better.

    Except it has already been widely reported that FBI employees were dismayed by Comey’s bungling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. They didn’t think he was a good leader. They were demoralized after he politicized the agency through his meddling.

    As commentator Sean Davis of The Federalist website tweeted, “Comey has worked for three presidential administrations. He's trashed each one [with] narratives in which he was the only honest man around.”

    He added, “At some point, it might be time to consider the possibility Comey's a scheming coward who only comes clean when he has nothing left to lose.”

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266946/comey-unmasks-himself-leaker-matthew-vadum

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, it seems the alt-left Trump haters keep playing these poor hands they deal themselves, try to bluff with raises, waiting on Trump to fold, but he doesn't. What's next?

    Like I mentioned in an earlier post, Trump is a First Class Asshole. He is a political outsider and neophyte, who, I think, will continue to learn on the job, and seems to be determined to crash the DC insider party.

    There will be a new catastrophe next week, more accusations, more unhinging from the left, more liberal celebrity hate quotes, more calls for impeachment (I doubt most even knows the true definition), more Marches, and, of course, more name calling. Because.............that's what they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. side note: being an asshole and a stubborn asshole at that, makes him too mean to quit or fold.

      Delete
  44. From Alex Hollings, SOFREP

    A drone launched by “pro-Syria regime” fighters attacked U.S. backed forces in Southern Syria on Thursday, prompting a U.S. warplane to shoot it down.

    This incident is the latest in a number of altercations that have placed Iranian backed militias that support Syrian President Bashar al Assad against fighters trained by the United States, the U.K. and other coalition nations. These clashes have many concerned that a proxy war is developing in Syria, as groups with backing from several foreign nations continue to engage ISIS and increasingly, one another.

    The drone, which U.S. officials claim appeared to be Iranian made, began dropping munitions near Syrian fighters who were accompanied by advisers from the American-led coalition. The ordinance missed, and the drone was promptly shot down by a U.S. F-15E fighter.

    The United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said the drone destroyed on Thursday was similar in size to the U.S. MQ-1 Predator and still had unspent munitions on board when it was shot down, meaning it still posed a direct threat to Syrian fighters and U.S. advisors.

    Earlier in the same day, coalition forces destroyed two pro-regime armed technical vehicles as they advanced toward coalition positions at At Tanf, inside the established deconfliction zone intended to prevent such altercations from occurring. The vehicle’s advance “threatened coalition and partner forces,” the U.S. military claimed in a statement released on Thursday.

    “The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the statement said. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them. The demonstrated hostile intent and actions of pro-regime forces near coalition and partner forces in southern Syria, however, continue to concern us, and the coalition will take appropriate measures to protect our forces.”

    The positions U.S. forces took action to protect in At Tanf, the statement notes, have been occupied by coalition forces for more than a year, and that its presence is intended only to combat the global threat posed by the Islamic State out of Syria. ISIS claims the Syrian city of Raqqa as its defacto capital. According to the Pentagon, their presence in the region to train Syrian fighters is required because of the Syrian government’s inability to root out ISIS on its own.

    “As long as pro-regime forces are oriented toward coalition and partnered forces, the potential for conflict is escalated,” the statement said. “Coalition forces are oriented on ISIS in the Euphrates River Valley. The coalition calls on all parties to focus their efforts in the same direction to defeat ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

    On May 18th, American planes conducted an air strike on a tank, a bulldozer, and an excavator that Iranian-backed militia fighters were using to build a fighting position after attacking coalition forces. Prior to the air strike, U.S. fighters attempted to dissuade the militia from its advance by strafing the area with warning shots, but it failed to have the desired effect.

    The U.S. has received warnings, or threats, depending on interpretation, from Iran-backed militias in the area. On Wednesday, the media arm of Hezbollah issued a warning to coalition fighters that they would strike if Americans crossed any “red lines.” It went on to claim that it was only “self-restraint” that was keeping them from attacking American forces.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Maybe the left will begin a ritual monthly beheading of The Donald. This should keep their blood flowing and keep their lust for violence high.

    They've already used up their profanity quota.

    They're already closed down many of the universities.

    Their jokes have gotten stale.

    Escalate.....or become irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nothing Burger Day ?

    Where's the beef ?

    There wasn't any beef.

    It was a Nothing Burger Day, except Comey came away with lots of ketchup and mustard on his face.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It was a real let down to Ash.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Seeing that it's Comey, and not The Donald, that may be in legal trouble now.

    ReplyDelete