He is right the Bob Mueller investigation is nothing but a destruction project to destroy Donald Trump. There is no such thing as justice in America for the rich and powerful.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich laid into special counsel Robert Mueller on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Wednesday night, labeling the Russia probe a “Trump destruction project.”
Gingrich’s observation came in response to the sentencing recommendation Mueller made earlier this week regarding President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
“Mueller is not involved in a investigation,” Gingrich charged. “Mueller has a Trump destruction project. He brought on a team, all of them dedicated to destroying Trump. They have done everything they could to destroy Trump.”
Gingrich explained, “You basically threaten somebody and say, ‘I’m going to bankrupt you. I’m going to put your son in jail. I’m going to charge you with so many different crimes, you’ll never get out from under it. Now would you like to talk?’”
ABC News reported Flynn put his home in Alexandria, Virginia up for sale last spring to pay his mounting legal bills.
Additionally, a month before entering into a plea agreement with Mueller in December 2017, the retired general reportedly expressed concern about his son being prosecuted for failing to register in relation to consulting work the two did for foreign entities, according to Forbes.
“It has nothing to do with the truth. It has nothing to do with justice,” Gingrich alleged.
He predicted, “Historians one day will comment that this was one of the most extraordinary efforts to undo the will of the American people by an established bureaucracy, and its establishment friends, that we’ve seen in all of American history.”
Hannity then raised the issue of new reporting by The Hill’s John Solomon indicating that former FBI Director James Comey was in email exchanges with other top DOJ officials and FBI investigators, which provides “the most damning evidence to date of potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
“The email exchanges show the FBI was aware — before it secured the now-infamous warrant (to spy on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page) — that there were intelligence community concerns about the reliability of the main evidence used to support it: the Christopher Steele dossier,” wrote Solomon.
Gingrich responded, “You had the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation actively trying to destroy a presidential candidate.”
He argued that Comey and others who were involved in the efforts to undermine Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, “operated on a premise … Hillary was going to win. So they never thought this would come to light. They thought they were helping the winner.”
Gingrich believes Mueller has taken up the banner and reiterated that the special counsel’s team is “actively trying to destroy the President of the United States.”
“And I know it’s frustrating but the fact is, this is a clear cut drama. They hate him, they want to destroy him, it has nothing to do with the truth and nothing to do with the law.”
Twitter is allowing dozens of pedophiles to use the social network and promote their pro-pedophile messages, focusing its time instead on banning conservatives and cracking down on “hate speech.”
In a series of posts, Saturday, one anonymous Twitter account documented the dozens of pedophiles openly using the social network. Breitbart Tech confirmed the listed accounts on Twitter.
Over 50 accounts which openly described themselves either as pedophiles or MAPs, an acronym for Minor-Attracted Persons, were listed — some of which have been active on Twitter since 2012.
One account, named Virtuous Pedophiles, described itself as an account for “pedophiles against adult-child sex,” while another user described himself as a “50ish year old anti-contact paedophile.”
This is the sick metrosexual CEO of twitter.
“howdy, i’m davey,” declared one user in his bio. “i’m attracted to boys 4+.”
“I’m out to around 15 ppl and all of them love me and no-one was aggressive or disrespectful,” claimed another self-proclaimed “anti-contact pedophile,” who used an image of a young boy as his profile picture. “My friends are even better friends now.”
A more recently-created account, which has made over 1,000 posts since its creation in October, posted, “MAPs have every right to talk (including, yes, on public blogs) about their fantasies, sexual and romantic, as long as sexually explicit material is hidden from children. It’s not bad or disrespectful to talk about people you think are cute.”
“I agree we have the right to do it. Whether we should or not is another matter,” replied an account claiming to be Todd Nickerson, the infamous “virtuous pedophile” who previously wrote several articles for Salon, including, “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster,” and “I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine.”
Salon later deleted Nickerson’s articles, blaming them on “old management.”
Other accounts discovered included a user who has been on the platform for six years, and described himself as “sexually and emotionally attracted to children,” and a user which spoke about being attracted to her cousin.
“So recently I saw one of my cousins who has been in my AoA [Age of Attraction], but hasn’t really been my type,” the user expressed. “Turns out she just needed to change a little bit, because she was certainly my type when I saw her.”
Twitter’s pedophile problem has previously been reported on by news outlets, including the Daily Mail, the Sun, and Vice News, however many of the previously reported accounts remain on the social network, with Twitter deciding to take no action unless the accounts explicitly engage in “child sexual exploitation.”
In 2017, British MPs from both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party called on Twitter to take action against pedophiles on its social network — a call Twitter has decided to ignore, focusing instead on the blacklisting of conservatives and libertarians.
Meghan Murphy, a prominent feminist who was recently banned from Twitter for stating that men aren’t women, wrote an article for Quillette on Wednesday explaining how formerly “banal” facts have become “heresy — akin to terrorist speech.”
Murphy, who accused Twitter of “censoring basic facts and silencing people,” was permanently suspended from the social network last week for stating, “Women aren’t men,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?”
This fraud is the problem since he is the CEO.
After Twitter made Murphy delete the posts, she made another post calling out Twitter, and was subsequently blacklisted.
“The statement that ‘Men aren’t women’ would have been seen as banal—indeed, tautological—just a few years ago. Today, it’s considered heresy—akin to terrorist speech that seeks to ‘deny the humanity’ of trans-identified people who very much wish they could change sex, but cannot,” declared Murphy in an article for Quillette, Wednesday. “These heretics are smeared as ‘TERF’—a term of abuse that stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist—and blacklisted. On many Twitter threads, the term is more or less synonymous with ‘Nazi.’”
In her article, Murphy also described transgender identity as a “religious faith,” making it impossible to argue with.
“I was angry to have lost a Twitter account with tens of thousands of followers. I was angry to have lost a book deal. But I will recover,” she proclaimed. “I have countless supporters, and my career is far from over. Certainly, I don’t plan on shutting up.”
“But this isn’t just about me. It’s about a cultish movement that is flexing its muscle on campuses, in civic organizations, at public events, and in the back offices of social-media companies, to strike down anyone who dares point out that the gender emperor wears no clothes,” Murphy concluded. “It is about our ability to debate important issues and speak the truth in the public realm. It’s time for all of us—not just women and feminists, who are now taking the worst of it—to put their collective foot down and demand a return to sanity.”
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to issue an unusually quick ruling on the Pentagon’s policy of restricting military service by transgender people. It’s the fourth time in recent months the administration has sought to bypass lower courts that have blocked some of its more controversial proposals and push the high court, with a conservative majority, to weigh in quickly on a divisive issue.
Earlier this month, the administration asked the high court to fast-track cases on the president’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields young immigrants from deportation. Administration officials also recently asked the high court to intervene to stop a trial in a climate change lawsuit and in a lawsuit over the administration’s decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a frequent target of criticism by President Donald Trump, is involved in three of the cases. Trump’s recent salvo against the “Obama judge” who ruled against his asylum policy — not one of the issues currently before the Supreme Court — prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to fire back at the president for the first time for feeding perceptions of a biased judiciary.
Joshua Matz, publisher of the liberal Take Care blog, said the timing of the administration’s effort to get the Supreme Court involved in the issues at an early stage could hardly be worse for Roberts and other justices who have sought to dispel perceptions that the court is merely a political institution, especially since the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. At an especially sensitive moment for the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is “forcing it into a minefield that many justices would almost surely prefer to avoid,” Matz said.
The Supreme Court almost always waits to get involved in a case until both a trial and appeals court have ruled in it. Often, the justices wait until courts in different areas of the country have weighed in and come to different conclusions about the same legal question.
So it’s rare for the justices to intervene early as the Trump administration has been pressing them to do. One famous past example is when the Nixon administration went to court to try to prohibit the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
In the immigration case, the administration told the high court that it should step in and decide the fate of DACA ahead of an appeals court’s ruling because the policy otherwise could be in place until the middle of 2020 before the justices might otherwise rule. The appeals court has since ruled, but the administration’s request that the court hear the case stands.
In the military case, the administration argued that the Supreme Court should step in before an appeals court rules because the case “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces.”
In a statement, Peter Renn, an attorney for Lambda Legal, which brought one of the challenges to the transgender military policy, called the Trump administration’s action Friday a “highly unusual step” that is “wildly premature and inappropriate.”
The Pentagon initially lifted its ban on transgender troops serving openly in the military in 2016, under President Barack Obama’s administration. But the Trump administration revisited that policy, with Trump ultimately issuing an order banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under limited circumstances. Several lawsuits were filed over the administration’s policy change, with lower courts all ruling against the Trump administration.
Still ongoing in lower courts are the census and climate change cases. The Supreme Court for now has refused to block the climate change trial. In the census question case, the court has agreed to decide what kind of evidence a trial judge can consider and indefinitely put off questioning of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. But it rejected an administration request to delay the trial and allowed other depositions to take place.
The court will hear arguments in the census question case in February. It’s unclear when it will act on the administration’s other requests.
Justice Department Fast-Tracks Military Transgender Cases to Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to bypass two federal appeals courts and render a final decision on President Donald Trump’s military transgender policy by summer 2019.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been litigating several cases regarding that policy since 2017. Transgender individuals had never been able to serve in the U.S. military, but Barack Obama attempted to change that policy shortly during his final term, and President Trump inherited that attempted policy change shortly after taking office.
“To assemble a military of qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons, the Department of Defense [DOD] has traditionally set demanding standards for military service,” the “cert petitions” explain. “Given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service, a history of most mental health conditions and disorders is automatically disqualifying.”
The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has long categorized transsexuality as such a condition, first calling it “transsexualism,” then “gender identity disorder,” and most recently, “gender dysphoria.” But with the 2013 change to the latest label, the association shifted its stance to say that it no longer considered nonacceptance of a person’s biological sex to be a disorder, unless accompanied by certain symptoms.
The Obama administration decided to allow transgender individuals to serve in uniform, sparking a debate among military policy experts, though the new policy stance was not set to take effect until July 2017, six months after the end of Obama’s tenure in office.
On July 26, 2017, President Trump settled the debate by announcing that the U.S. military would not include transgender individuals. DOD subsequently formulated a policy allowing some transgender individuals but not others. On December 2017, a federal district judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking DOD’s policy across the country.
Pursuant to later, more detailed instructions from the commander-in-chief, Defense Secretary James Mattis conducted a study, modifying the original assessment and recommending that some transgender individuals can serve, but those with a history of gender dysphoria that results in expensive gender-reassignment surgery and others therapies that render them unable to serve for significant lengths of time should not be able to serve in uniform. The specific military need is that those serving in uniform must be “free of medical conditions or physical defects that may require excessive time lost from duty.”
In March 2018, President Trump adopted that recommended policy. On April 13, 2018, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington [State] refused to lift the preliminary injunction blocking the first version of the policy. The District of Columbia federal court likewise refused to lift its identical injunction on August 6 and the Central District of California did the same on September 18.
DOJ appealed all three of those decisions. On November 23, Francisco took the extraordinarily rare step of asking the Supreme Court to take each of those cases now, rather than wait for perhaps another year for the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and D.C. Circuit to issue decisions. Those two appellate courts are currently two of the most liberal courts in the nation, and widely expected to affirm the lower courts’ blocking of the policy.
“This Court has long accorded a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments in the area of military affairs,” explains the first petition. It adds:
That deference reflects the recognition not only that courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have, but also that military authorities have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out the Nation’s military policy. The Mattis policy would thus warrant deferential review even if an analogous policy in the civilian context would call for closer scrutiny.
Although the Supreme Court almost always waits for a federal appeals court to render a final decision on a case before the justices will review it, federal law and Supreme Court rule 11 give the justices jurisdiction over a case at any point after it is first docketed with the appellate court. The Trump administration has asked for the High Court to exercise that rule a couple times, most recently in the legal challenges to the DACA amnesty program for illegal aliens.
This upsurge in petitions for certiorari before final judgment is attributed to the rapid increase of district judges with liberal judicial philosophies issuing nationwide injunctions over the past two years, essentially blocking entire federal policies. Historically, district courts would render relief only for the parties in the case before them, or at minimum would often stay broad decisions while the government takes the case up on appeal.
The cases are Trump v. Karnoski, Trump v. Jane Doe 2, and Trump v. Stockman, and have not yet been assigned docket numbers in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Amber Tamblyn’s frank discussion about her feelings the night that Donald Trump was elected president are generating a lot of anger on Twitter.
A star of The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants movie and co-founder of the #TimesUporganization advocating for women’s equality, Tamblyn read part of her upcoming book, Era of Ignition: Coming of Age in a Time of Rage and Revolution, on Sunday at the “Feminist AF” event at Vulture Fest in L.A. The excerpt she read was about spending the night of the 2016 presidential election at the Javits Center in New York with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and her thoughts at the moment Clinton supporters were told that the presidential candidate would not be addressing the crowd.
“A dark realization swallowed me: I was going to bring a baby into this world. And not just any baby: a girl,” Tamblyn recalled. According to the Hollywood Reporter, she recalled “imagining if she should give her baby away to Canadians or Swedes.” Tamblyn’s team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
That last part, about Tamblyn’s now 18-month-old baby, drove a lot of people straight to Twitter.
’MERICA 1st@rb_leto
@WilkowMajoritynow I’ve heard everything!!! Hollywood is planning to boycott filming in Georgia and amber tamblyn says she imagines her baby growing up in Canada all these people are dilusional !!!!
11 yr old girl gets gang raped in Sweden. Then her attackers get let go. Now she faces them as they laugh at her on the way to school everyday. USA is next unless we take a STAND! Fight Mass Immigration!
PamelaR@prichvisalia
Hey- @ambertamblyn ~ Like I said in my first TW to you- you surely dodged a bullet. You and your husband shout horrid things about OUR PRESIDENT ~ WHILE SITTING COMFY IN YOUR MANSION? & “WE THE PEOPLE” (#patriots#maga) ARE SUPPOSED TO HEAR YOU? You R both hypocrites! Move to
Do us all a favor and leave the country! People like you are why people like me voted for Trump. If you can’t figure out why then you deserve the Communist life you’ll have because you just don’t get what it means to be an American. #Trump2020
@ambertamblyn nice article of how you thought you would have to give your daughter to Canada or Sweden after 2016 election. It just goes to show how irrational and unhinged some people are. If it’s that bad why did yih just take your baby and leave. Not as dramatic I guess
If you’re one of those news organizations that treated Clinton’s private emails like they were a national emergency, the solution isn’t to treat Ivanka’s private emails like they’re also a national emergency—rather, it’s to acknowledge that you kinda fucked up on Clinton.
Just Jeff@TrumpTheHaters1
Just read that Amber wrote that she thought about giving her baby to Canada after Trump won the election. Looks like someone is looking for attention. Pretty pathetic.
Tamblyn herself jumped into the fray to make a joke about a headline from an extremist website about what happened. She thanked another writer for sharing a poem called “Stay Vigilant,” adding that she “needed this.”
Although commenters didn’t pay much attention, Tamblyn’s moment at the reading included a more hopeful message too. She remembered her doctor suggesting that she deal with her anxiety about protecting her daughter by listening to a one-minute recording of the baby’s heartbeat each and every day, so she shared it with the audience.
Amber Tamblyn Believes Entertainment Is Slowly But Significantly Increasing Inclusivity
How in the HELL is this the USA’s problem. Close the damn border and send their asses back to the hell hole they came from.
CIUDAD HIDALGO, Mexico (AP) — Despite Mexican efforts to stop them at the border, a growing throng of Central American migrants resumed their advance toward the U.S. border early Sunday in southern Mexico.
Their numbers swelled to about 5,000 overnight and at first light they set out walking toward the Mexican town of Tapachula, 10 abreast in a line stretching approximately a mile.
This Is A Damn Invasion.
Kate Linthicum
✔@katelinthicum
I’m only just realizing the massive scale of this caravan as they march north into Mexico. It’s several thousand people. Just look.
Despite Mexican efforts to stop them at the border, a growing caravan of Central American migrants on Sunday resumed their advance towards the US border in southern Mexico.
Their numbers swelled to about 5,000 overnight and at first light they set out walking.
It was not immediately clear where the additional travelers had materialized from since about 2,000 gathered on the Mexican side Saturday night. They seemed likely to be people who had been waiting on the bridge over the Suchiate River or in the Guatemalan town of Tecun Uman and who decided to cross during the night.
At dawn there were still an estimated 1,500 migrants on the Guatemalan side hoping to enter legally.
They marched on through Mexico like a rag tag army of the poor, shouting triumphantly slogans like “Si se pudo!” or “Yes, we could!”
As they passed through Mexican villages on the outskirts of Ciudad Hidalgo, they drew applause, cheers and donations of food and clothing from Mexicans.
Maria Teresa Orellana, a resident of the neighborhood of Lorenzo handed out free sandals to the migrants as they passed. “It’s solidarity,” she said. “They’re our brothers.”
Olivin Castellanos, 58, a truck driver and mason from Villanueva, Honduras, said he took a raft across the river after Mexico blocked the bridge. “No one will stop us, only God,” he said. “We knocked down the door and we continue walking.” He wants to reach the U.S. to work. “I can do this,” he said, pointing to the asphalt under his feet. “I’ve made highways.”
The migrants, who said they gave up trying to enter Mexico legally because the asylum application process was too slow, gathered Saturday at a park in the border city of Ciudad Hidalgo. They voted by a show of hands to continue north en masse, then marched to the bridge crossing the Suchiate River and urged those still on it to come join them.
The decision to re-form the migrant caravan capped a day in which Mexican authorities again refused mass entry to migrants on the bridge, instead accepting small groups for asylum processing and giving out 45-day visitor permits to some. Authorities handed out numbers for people to be processed in a strategy seen before at U.S. border posts when dealing with large numbers of migrants.
But many became impatient and circumventing the border gate, crossing the river on rafts, by swimming or by wading in full view of the hundreds of Mexican police manning the blockade on the bridge. Some paid locals the equivalent of $1.25 to ferry them across the muddy waters. They were not detained on reaching the Mexican bank.
Sairy Bueso, a 24-year old Honduran mother of two, was another migrant who abandoned the bridge and crossed into Mexico via the river. She clutched her 2-year-old daughter Dayani, who had recently had a heart operation, as she got off a raft.
“The girl suffered greatly because of all the people crowded” on the bridge, Bueso said. “There are risks that we must take for the good of our children.”
In addition to those who crossed the river, immigration agents processed migrants in small groups and then bused them to an open-air, metal-roof fairground in Tapachula, where the Red Cross set up small blue tents on the concrete floor.
Mexico’s Interior Department said it had received 640 refugee requests by Hondurans at the border crossing. It released photos of migrants getting off buses at a shelter and receiving food and medical attention.
At least half a dozen migrants fainted in the crush.
Some tore open a fence on the Guatemala side of the bridge and threw two young children, perhaps age 6 or 7, and their mother into the muddy waters about 40 feet below. They were rafted to safety in on the Mexican bank.
Mexican workers handed food and bottled water to the migrants on the bridge. Through the bars, a doctor gave medical attention to a woman who feared her young son was running a fever.
Sustenance also came from Guatemalan locals — for Carlos Martinez, a 24-year-old from Santa Barbara, Honduras, the plate of chicken with rice was the first bite to eat he’d had all day.
“It is a blessing that they have given us food,” Martinez said. “It gives me courage to keep waiting, as long as I can.”
Migrants cited widespread poverty and gang violence in Honduras, one of the world’s deadliest nations by homicide rate, as their reasons for joining the caravan.
Juan Carlos Mercado, 20, from Santa Barbara, Honduras, says corruption and a lack of jobs in Honduras has stymied him. “We just want to move ahead with our lives,” he said Sunday. He said he’d do any kind of work.
The caravan elicited a series of angry tweets and warnings from Trump early in the week, but Mexico’s initial handling of the migrants at its southern border seemed to have satisfied him more recently.
“So as of this moment, I thank Mexico,” Trump said Friday at an event in Scottsdale, Arizona. “I hope they continue. But as of this moment, I thank Mexico. If that doesn’t work out, we’re calling up the military — not the Guard.”
“They’re not coming into this country,” Trump added.
“The Mexican Government is fully engaged in finding a solution that encourages safe, secure, and orderly migration,” State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Saturday, “and both the United States and Mexico continue to work with Central American governments to address the economic, security, and governance drivers of illegal immigration.”
After an emergency meeting in Guatemala, presidents Hernandez of Honduras and Jimmy Morales of Guatemala said an estimated 5,400 migrants had entered Guatemala since the caravan was announced a week ago, and about 2,000 Hondurans have returned voluntarily.
Morales said a Honduran migrant died in the town of Villa Nueva, 20 miles from Guatemala City, when he fell from a truck.
’MERICA 1st
all these people are dilusional !!!!
}
