While the nation’s media are consumed with Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, intrepid heroes Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, leaders of the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees, were grilling the former top lawyer of the FBI, James Baker, behind closed doors. Baker, recall, was the right-hand man of James Comey and was closely involved in the FISA warrants that authorized electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign and presidency. Baker has since left the FBI. Some speculate that he is cooperating, but he notably came to the hearing with a bevy of lawyers representing him and the FBI.
Screen grab: Fox News.
Catherine Herridge of Fox News was able to elicit some comment on the testimony from Reps. Meadows and Jordan, though it remains confidential for now:
“During the time that the FBI was putting – that DOJ and FBI were putting together the FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election – there was another source giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the FBI’s Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators.
Baker is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week’s planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Baker, as the FBI’s top lawyer, helped secure the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Page, as well as three subsequent renewals. Prior to the deposition, Republican investigators said they believed Baker could explain why information about the British ex-spy behind a salacious Trump-related dossier, Christopher Steele, and Steele’s apparent bias against then-candidate Trump, were withheld from the FISA court, and whether other exculpatory information was known to Rosenstein when he signed the final FISA renewal for Page in June 2017.
Fox News asked Baker after the deposition about the handling of the Trump dossier, what he told Rosenstein about exculpatory evidence, and whether he is the subject of an FBI leak investigation. Baker told Fox News he could not answer such questions.
Imagine if the New England Patriots, the losing team of the 2018 Super Bowl, went into the 2019 Super Bowl with the 33 points they earned in their losing game in 2018. That’s the current Democrat game plan on how to implement the deceptively simple-sounding Equal Rights Amendment.
The ERA was first proposed in 1972 and died ten years later, on June 30, 1982, after it failed to gather enough support from the states following an initial seven years for ratification and an additional 39 months. It reads in part, “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged … on account of sex.” After it failed, ERA supporters started the process over with identically worded amendments introduced into the House and Senate in 1983.
On January 17, 2018, Rep. Rooney stated, “you can’t do jack s— for your constituents” without earmarks. Perhaps Rep. Rooney’s successor will find a way to do his or her job without resorting to the most wasteful and corrupt practice in congressional history.
$11,000,000 for the aquatic plant control program, an increase of 22.2 percent from the $9 million earmarked in FY 2017, and the largest amount ever earmarked for this program.
Since 1994, there have been 24 earmarks worth a total of $58.1 million for aquatic plant control projects, including three by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and one each by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
Watchdog exposes $14.7B of pork-barrel spending, including ‘brown tree snake eradication’ project
FNC: The federal government is spending millions to save Pacific Coast salmon. And it’s doling out more than $600,000 to kill brown tree snakes in Guam.
A watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, on Wednesday released its annual Congressional Pig Book of what it considers the most egregious examples of pork-barrel spending in Congress, drawn this time from fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills.
According to the group, earmarks in 2018 totaled $14.7 billion, an increase of 116.2 percent from $6.8 billion in 2017.
Among the most blatant examples of pork flagged by the group:
— $65 million for “Pacific coastal salmon recovery.” According to its website, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund “was established by Congress in 2000 to reverse the declines of Pacific salmon and steelhead, supporting conservation efforts in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska.”
— $11 million for an “aquatic plant control program.” The group said that since 1994, there have been 24 earmarks worth $58.1 million for aquatic plant control projects.
— $663,000 for a “brown tree snake eradication program.” According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the snakes are “native to northern Australia, Indonesia and many islands in Melanesia, and have caused damage to the ecosystem of Guam, where they were likely introduced by the U.S. military following World War II.”
— $10 million for “high-energy cost grants” within the Rural Utilities Service.
– $2.8 million for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs grant program, which funds arts and cultural institutions in Washington, D.C.
A number of Republican lawmakers attended Wednesday’s press conference on the list, including Sens. Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz and Joni Ernst, of Arizona, Texas and Iowa, respectively.
To be considered for listing in the group’s annual book, an earmark must meet at least one criterion, including whether it was requested by only one chamber of Congress; if it was not specifically authorized; if it was not competitively awarded; if it was not requested by the president; if it greatly exceeds the president’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; if it was not the subject of congressional hearings; or if it serves only a local or special interest.
If your contention is that President Donald Trump has the propensity to sound like a bully and an authoritarian, I’m with you. If you’re arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is sometimes coarse and unpresidential, I can’t disagree. I’m often turned off by the aesthetic and tonal quality of his presidency. And, yes, Trump has an unhealthy tendency to push theories that exaggerate and embellish small truths to galvanize his fans for political gain. Those are all legitimate political concerns.
Yet the ubiquitous claim that Trump acts in a way that uniquely undermines the rule of law is, to this point, simply untrue.
At National Review, Victor Davis Hanson has it right when he argues that “elites” often seem more concerned about the “mellifluous” tone of leaders rather than their abuse of power. “Obama defies the Constitution but sounds ‘presidential,'” he writes. “Trump follows it but sounds like a loudmouth from Queens.”
But while former President Obama’s agreeable tone had plenty to do with his lack of media scrutiny, many largely justified, and even cheered, his abuses because they furthered progressive causes. Not only did liberals often ignore the rule of law when it was ideologically convenient for them; they now want the new president to play by a set of rules that doesn’t even exist.
Remember ObamaCare? The fight is far from over on the future of the Obama-era health insurance overhaul. Republicans are making a last-ditch effort this year to turn the program and the money over to the state. This isn’t full Obamacare repeal, but it would make a world of sense. States would be free to experiment and find ways to reduce costs and provide better services.
Democrats are adopting a new political spin, which is that everything is fine with ObamaCare. They claim that the only reason premium and deductible costs keep exploding is because President Donald Trump repealed the individual mandate tax — which was nothing more than an unfair penalty on low-income families who couldn’t afford the high cost of the health law’s mandates. But if Trump is to blame, why were the costs skyrocketing two years before Trump even entered the Oval Office?
a friend wrote: “re the dossier on Trump and the supposed collusion with Russia , it was all made up as part of a much bigger plan to ensure a one-party one-branch government in perpetuity as part of the fundamental transformation of America. Where did we get Barack Obama to begin with? He came out of nowhere, seemingly. But everyone comes from somewhere. We just didn’t know where.
I deeply suspect that the rotten core of the Obama cabal, in which I’d include Jarrett and others, like Soros, simply determined that they were going to stay in control for the foreseeable future by any means necessary. Rather like Bolsheviks. They lie, cheat, steal, spy, and conceal, because that is what the left does. It needs no other reason. We are seeing it now with the Stalin-Beria style Mueller investigation in which the criminal is identified first and then the crime is found.
What the far left found, with Obama’s dictatorial tendencies, especially after losing the House, that the way to stay in control was to fundamentally change how government worked.
They would rely on extensive use of executive power, exploit their control of the bureaucracy to rule by fiat, control the military and the intelligence apparatus and use it to benefit the Party, and appoint progressive post-Constitutionalist judges en masse.
What Obama and his minions and masters realized very quickly was that they were going to have to get around Congress and the Judiciary, AND that the only way to guarantee continuity of power was to ensure that Republicans never again won the Presidency.
Socialism s not the Answer
by 1 Dragon
This is been bugging me for sometime and I cannot seem to find the answer. Then Rush asked the same question. When obama gave the $150 billion to Iran, where did he get the money? If Congress didn’t authorize it, where did he get the money? I don’t know of any ATM that has that much in it. So where did he get the money?