Monday Top Headlines

by Media Editors: Trump policy of separating migrant families threatens to engulf immigration talks (The Wall Street Journal)

DHS Secretary Nielsen slams “irresponsible” media, says no “policy of separating families at the border” (Fox News)

Five illegal immigrants killed after high-speed chase in Texas (NBC News)

Horowitz, FBI boss Christopher Wray face Senate grilling on bombshell report (Fox News)

FBI agent who sent anti-Trump texts offers to testify on Capitol Hill (The Hill)

Burning question in DC: Why does Peter Strzok still have a job at FBI? (Washington Examiner)

Supreme Court side-steps partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Maryland cases (The Hill)

U.S. expected to retreat from main UN rights forum (Reuters)

Illinois judge blocks village’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, magazines (The Washington Times)

Gun-control group to honor liar-Hillary Clinton for “unwavering” commitment to passing strict gun laws (The Washington Free Beacon)

liar-nObama presidential library will cost Illinois taxpayers more than $200 million (The Daily Wire)

Washington Post workers slam owner Jeff Bezos for “shocking pay practices,” demand “fair wages” (The Daily Wire)

After Seattle ditches its Amazon tax, Silicon Valley city mulls a Google tax (Reason)

Ted Cruz outlasts Jimmy Kimmel in grueling Blobfish Basketball Classic (The Texas Tribune)

Humor: Father’s Day updated to “Toxic Masculinity Awareness Day” (The Babylon Bee)

Policy: These five changes would fix the nation’s budget woes (The Daily Signal)

Policy: Streamlining infrastructure environmental review (Manhattan Institute) ~The Patriot Post


Yes, liar-Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted


{ } ~ I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election… the FBI, liar-Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that liar-Hillary should have faced a jury of her peers. The IG report on the liar-Hillary email investigation contains the most thoughtful and thorough explanation of the FBI’s decision to recommend against prosecuting liar-Hillary. At the risk of oversimplifying a long and complex discussion, the IG time and again noted that among other things the FBI focused on the apparent lack of intent to violate the law and the lack of a clear precedent for initiating a prosecution under similar facts. It also describes how the FBI wrestled with the definition of “gross negligence” — concluding that the term encompassed conduct “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention” or “something that falls just short of being willful.” After reading the analysis, I just flat-out don’t buy that liar-Hillary’s conduct — and her senior team’s conduct — didn’t meet that standard. The key reason for my skepticism is the nature of the classified information sent and received. Remember, as Comey outlined in his infamous July 5, 2016 statement, liar-Hillary sent and received information that was classified at extraordinarily high levels…


Developing: Judiciary Committee Says They’ll Drag Strzok Before Congress


{ } ~ In the wake of Thursday’s report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz… the House Judiciary Committee announced in a tweet that they want FBI Agent Peter Strzok to appear before Congress to explain potential biases which ought to have led to his recusal. The report contained more text messages from Strzok and his alleged lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, including what might have been the most damning exchange yet. In it, Page texted Strzok asking, “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied ominously. Strzok, in case you needed to be reminded, was in charge of the liar-Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation, including a short stint as the top investigator on Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation before his text messages came to light…


Steve King: Republican House Members Considering Forcibly Removing Paul Ryan from Speakership

by Matthew Boyle

{ } ~ Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told Breitbart News Tonight earlier this week that House Republicans are considering forcibly removing House Speaker Paul Ryan from the speakership… via a “motion to vacate the chair” over Ryan’s efforts to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda. “It’s kind of odd that he has as much power as he has,” King said of Ryan during the appearance on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel with Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Breitbart News Tonight earlier this week. “But I do predict, and it is happening, that that power is diminishing. I also have got information that there are–I’ll say ‘members’–I say that plurally, with knowledge, that are considering introducing a motion to vacate the chair. If they do that, that will throw this place into a tizzy and force the kind of election for a Speaker that may bring out someone who is a lot stronger on this.” A motion to vacate the chair would call a referendum on Ryan’s speakership to the floor. It could force a vote on whether Republicans want Ryan to remain as speaker as a lame duck for the rest of the year, especially after all these failures in strategy and his efforts to undermine the president with an amnesty bill that the president opposes and said he “certainly” would never sign…


Representative Jim Jordan Discusses IG Report

by sundance

{ } ~ Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) appears on Fox News to discuss the IG report and the upcoming appearance of Michael Horowitz… to the Judiciary and Oversight committee coming this Tuesday June 19th. On Monday June 18th both Horowitz and FBI Director Chris Wray will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley. Then on Tuesday Horowitz will appear before the House Joint Judiciary/Oversight Committee. We need Jim Jordan to ask some basic questions and gain clarity from Horowitz. Tuesday is likely the best hope for answers because we have Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Ron DeSantis, Louie Gohmert, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, Steve King, possibly Mark Meadows and Chairman Goodlatte asking the questions.



JW Videos of the Week

The Awan Bros/DNC IT Scandal featuring Luke Rosia

Tom Fitton’s Video Weekly Update: June 15, 2018

liar-Clinton, Russia Probes were Irredeemably Compromised

Chris Farrell: ‘The DOJ is Where the Truth Goes to Die’

IG Report will ‘Destroy’ Credibility of FBI, DOJ

Mueller is Focused on Justifying his own Operation


More Assaults on the Rule of Law

by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

{ } ~ Amid all the happy hoopla over President Donald Trump’s trip to Singapore, where he began the process for what he hopes will be the normalization of relations between the United States and North Korea and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, has come an effort by the House Intelligence Committee to interfere with the criminal investigation of the president.

The committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, and the Republican majority on the committee have demanded that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to the origins of the investigation of President Trump by special counsel Robert Mueller.

And Nunes has threatened Mueller’s superior, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, with censure, contempt and even impeachment if he fails to comply. Can Congress interfere in an ongoing federal criminal investigation? Can it get its eyes on law enforcement’s active files? In a word: No.

Here is the back story.

In the pre-9/11 era, when the FBI and the DOJ devoted their work primarily to investigating criminal activity, they both answered not only to the president but also to the House and Senate Judiciary committees. This long-standing relationship came about by way of a check on the exercise of prosecutorial power by the DOJ and the FBI.

These congressional committees approve the budget for law enforcement, the argument went, and as watchdogs, so to speak, they are entitled to know how the taxpayers’ money — and money borrowed in the taxpayers’ name — is being spent.

The relationship between the congressional committees on one hand and federal law enforcement on the other has been a give-and-take, push-me-pull-you relationship that generally led to compromise between Congress and federal law enforcement.

After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which, in addition to authorizing FBI agents to write their own search warrants for all sorts of custodians of records — legal, medical, postal and banking enterprises, supermarkets, and libraries, to name a few — gave the FBI a domestic intelligence mission not unlike that of the National Security Agency, which is America’s domestic spying apparatus.

The intelligence mission enabled the FBI to utilize new tools for law enforcement, under the guise of intelligence gathering. Stated differently, by pretending to be looking for spies, the FBI found crooks. Because the legal threshold for spying for intelligence purposes is far lower than the legal threshold for obtaining a traditional search warrant, FBI agents often took the easier route.

But the FBI’s spying mission also subjected it to the scrutiny of two additional congressional committees, one in the House and one in the Senate. This cross-pollination of law enforcement and intelligence gathering — this mixture of two distinct roles, one traditional for the FBI and the other novel to it, one clearly regulated by the Constitution and the other purporting to be outside of it — tempted not only FBI agents to use the tools of spy-craft for law enforcement (even though it’s prohibited by the Fourth Amendment) but also Congress.

Now back to Rep. Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee.

The Republicans on that committee are determined to use their regulatory powers over federal intelligence gathering to investigate federal law enforcement. They are doing this because they claim to smell a rat in the origins of the special counsel investigation and they want to get to the bottom of it. In order to get to the bottom of it, they have demanded to see documents in the custody of special counsel Mueller to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to commence the criminal investigation of Trump back in November 2016.

But it is not the role of Congress to do this in the midst of a criminal investigation, and it is not the role of a congressional intelligence committee to scrutinize law enforcement.

There are two dangers to the rule of law here. The first is that members of this committee could use their security clearances to examine classified materials and then use what they have seen for a political narrative. They cannot lawfully, except on the floor of Congress, publicly reveal classified documents they have seen, but they can (and they have done so in the past) summarize them publicly — and with a political spin.

That endangers the sources of criminal investigators, many of whom are people who communicate with investigators at great personal risk and to whom confidentiality has been promised. That confidentiality is recognized in the law as the informant’s privilege, and it keeps confidential criminal matters from public and peering congressional eyes until the investigation is concluded.

The second and equally harmful danger is that members of the committee could leak what they have seen. To prevent this, prosecutors have a privilege to keep their files secret until they charge or exonerate their targets or subjects.

Under the Constitution, we enjoy the separation of powers. Congress writes the laws; the executive branch enforces them; and the courts interpret them. Congress can no more constitutionally interfere with ongoing law enforcement for political purposes than the DOJ can interfere with the passage of congressional legislation that it doesn’t like.

The down and dirty fear that the DOJ and the FBI have is that revealing the contents of the criminal file on the president to his political allies in Congress in the midst of an investigation of him would be a dangerous precedent, one that would pollute the investigation and give present and future politically powerful potential defendants advantages that no one else has.

That disparate treatment of the president as defendant strikes at the heart of the rule of law. And the rule of law is what protects us from politicians who can’t restrain themselves from violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *