Wednesday in New York City while giving a speech, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) said America “was never that great,” referencing President Donald Trump‘s “Make America Great Again” slogan.
Wrapping up his speech that was highly critical of Trump, Cuomo said, “We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.”
He added, “We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged. We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone, and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed, and every woman is making her full contribution. When that happens this nation is going to be taken even higher.”
Who Did The SOB Work For? Obama Needs To Be In Prison With His Whole Administration.
President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani announced on Monday evening that he believes former CIA Director John Brennan is the person responsible for the entire Mueller investigation. Giuliani made the claim during a segment of “Hannity” on Fox News.
“She got off because of that fixed investigation. A totally phony fixed investigation run by Peter Strzok who then turns around, the dossier is obtained on the day that they dropped the case against Trump — against Hillary. So that case gets dropped and they had to even up the score,” Giuliani stated.
“The reality is I’m going to tell you. We don’t have the time to go into it, we can do it later, I’m going to tell you who was the quarterback for all of this. It isn’t just Strzok. Strzok is a bit of a puppet. Then there’s Mueller, he’s a puppet. The people working for him, some of them are,” he continued.
Hannity cut of Giuliani saying, “I have a funny feeling you are about to drop a bomb on me.”
“Well the guy running it is [John] Brennan and he should be in front of a grand jury. Brennan took an affidavit – a dossier, unless he’s the biggest idiot intelligence agent that ever existed, although he never did much intelligence work, it’s false. You could look at it and laugh,” Giuliani stated.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) terminated special agent Peter Strzok on Friday, according to reports.
Strzok’s attorney, Aitan Goelman, says the firing was ordered by FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich, after the department which oversees personal disciplinary matters ruled the disgraced FBI agent would face a “demotion and 60-day suspension.”
Strzok was one primary subject in the highly anticipated Justice Department inspector general report released in July on the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) handling of Hillary Clinton email investigation, which found the now-fired agent possessed a “biased state of mind” and a “willingness to take action” during the probe.
Text messages exchanged between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer and his alleged lover, Lisa Page, showed the now-fired agent disdained Donald Trump’s candidacy during the 2016 presidential election. Among the explosive exchanges, Page sent a text message to Strzok asking “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president right? Right?!” Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Justice Department officials wrote Strzok’s anti-Trump bias may have caused inaction following the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of disgraced New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner in September 2016.
“Text messages of FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok indicated that he, McCabe, and Priestap discussed the Weiner laptop on September 28. Strzok said that he initially planned to send a team to New York to review the emails, but a conference all with [New York Office] was scheduled instead,” According to the timeline laid out in the inspector general’s report.
The report further states: “Additional discussions took place on October 3 and 4, 2016. However, after October 4, we found no evidence that anyone associated with the Midyear investigation, including the entire leadership team at FBI Headquarters, took any action on the Weiner laptop issue until the week of October 24, and then did so only after the Weiner case agent expressed concerns to [Southern District of New York], prompting SDNY to contact the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) on October 21 to raise concerns about the lack of action.”
Rather than probe the newly discovered emails, Strzok opted to further investigate possible collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. “[We] did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Clinton investigation]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias,” the report said.
Despite casting “a cloud over the entire FBI investigation,” the inspector general report concluded there existed no evidence to suggest Strzok’s decisions during the Clinton probe were tainted by political bias.
Goelman issued a highly critical statement after the watchdog report’s release, describing its conclusion as both “bizarre” and “critically flawed,” asserting his client had not acted on any political biases.
“In facts, all facts contained in the report lead to the conclusion that the delay was caused by a variety of factors and miscommunications that had nothing to do with Special Agent Strzok’s political views,” Goelman said in a statement. “The report itself provides indisputable evidence that, when informed that Weiner’s laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators.”
Following the discovery of Strzok’s anti-trump text messages in the summer of 2017, the 22-year FBI veteran was reassigned from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to the agency’s Human Resources department.
On July 12, Strzok publicly testified before House Judiciary and House Oversight Committee members over his role in the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference, pushing back on allegations his personal views of President Trump impacted the outcome of the Clinton email probe. “The suggestion that I’m in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards, and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me — it simply couldn’t happen,” Strzok told congressional investigators.
Although Strzok is no longer an employee of the FBI, his legal troubles are far from over. One week after the disgraced FBI agent’s public testimony, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told reporters that Page’s closed-door testimony yielded new leads in its investigation into the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign and handling of Hillary Clinton email probe. “I think there are significant differences between their testimony about important material facts. She gave us a lot of new information that we didn’t have before. That will lead us to ask for some more people to make some more requests for information we do not yet have,” Ratcliffe said. “On many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to agent Strzok, who thinks all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative.”
During his testimony, Strzok repeatedly claimed the anti-Trump text messages, including some describing President Trump as an “idiot” and a “disaster”, did not result in political bias during the Clinton or Russia investigations. The veteran FBI agent lamented the toxicity surrounding his circumstances, telling lawmakers that his testimony was evidence that a sustained Russian campaign to meddle in America’s political process was proving successful. “I have the utmost respect for Congress’ oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.”
Strzok and Page have frequently drawn the ire of President Trump and Republicans lawmakers over there explicit bias exhibited during the Clinton email probe.
“Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, is a TOTAL HOAX. The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful!” The president tweeted on August 1.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, is a TOTAL HOAX. The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful!
10:01 AM – Aug 1, 2018
85.3K
53.2K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
”Will the FBI ever recover it’s once stellar reputation, so badly damaged by Comey, McCabe, Peter S and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, and other top officials now dismissed or fired? So many of the great men and women of the FBI have been hurt by these clowns and losers!” The Commander-in-Chief wrote on Twitter over the weekend.

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
…..Will the FBI ever recover it’s once stellar reputation, so badly damaged by Comey, McCabe, Peter S and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, and other top officials now dismissed or fired? So many of the great men and women of the FBI have been hurt by these clowns and losers!
9:18 AM – Aug 11, 2018
102K
54.6K people are talking about this
This Child Molester Looking SOB Should Be Investigated For Obstruction.
Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and other House Republicans introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday.
Meadows and Jordan argued that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had problematic decision-making during the 2016 presidential campaign and failed to comply with House oversight requests. The House conservatives also chastised the DOJ and Rosenstein for withholding “embarrassing documents,” knowingly hiding information from Congress, abusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, and “failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas.”
The Constitution empowers the House to impeach any officer of the executive or judicial branches. However, that only occurs in rare instances. The House only requires a simple majority of of the legislative chamber, or roughly 218 votes, to impeach a member of the executive or judicial branch. If the House were to impeach Rosenstein, then the Senate will require a two-thirds majority to remove him from office.
Jordan said in a statement on Wednesday, “The DOJ is keeping information from Congress. Enough is enough. It’s time to hold Mr. Rosenstein accountable for blocking Congress’s constitutional oversight role.”
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said:
With Attorney General Sessions’ recusal, Rod Rosenstein has been in charge of the Department of Justice as the agency has made every effort to obstruct legitimate attempts of Congressional oversight. The stonewalling over this last year has been just as bad or worse than under the Obama administration. Multiple times we’ve caught DOJ officials hiding information from Congress, withholding relevant documents, or even outright ignoring Congressional subpoenas—and now we have evidence that Mr. Rosenstein signed off on a document using unverified political opposition research as a cornerstone of a FISA application to spy on an American citizen working for the Trump campaign. This level of conduct, paired with the failure to even feign an interest in transparency, is reprehensible. And whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, this kind of obstruction is wrong—period.
For 9 months we’ve warned them consequences were coming, and for 9 months we’ve heard the same excuses backed up by the same unacceptable conduct. Time is up and the consequences are here. It’s time to find a new Deputy Attorney General who is serious about accountability and transparency.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) said:
Congress gave Mr. Rosenstein plenty of time to comply with our requests. We have been reasonable and up front with him. Unfortunately, at almost every opportunity, Mr. Rosenstein has resisted and defied Congress’s constitutional oversight. His time to obstruct our investigations has expired. Mr. Rosenstein’s Department is subject to constitutional checks and balances. I call on my colleagues to assert our constitutional responsibility and approve these articles of impeachment.
So far, the articles of impeachment have 11 cosponsors.
Is this Tweet a threat? It sure sounds like one: “To US President Trump: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS”
Hogg, a social justice warrior who became famous after surviving the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to invent a story for himself every week. He tried unsuccessfully to start boycotts against popular Fox News host Laura Ingraham and has used similar tactics against other targets.
I’m sure the President Is Afraid of David Hogg’s Guns.
Hogg’s tweet mirrored Trump’s warning to the Iranian leader, as a warning to stop the war-like rhetoric and stop threatening America’s interests. Trump wrote, “To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
Twitter reminded Hogg just what a bad idea his Tweet was:
To US President Trump: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
To US President Trump: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
To US President Trump: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
This is a red flag that the Police / FBI / Secret Service need to investigate before this animal carries out this threat. Or incites some other lunatics to hurt #PresidentTrump BTW I reported him to twitter and no action taken @jack#FBI#SecretService
Perhaps Secret Service should investigate? Considering Hogg’s large social media audience, Hogg’s words are not just a threat, they are inciting violence. There’s no excuse for threatening the President’s safety. Why doesn’t this threat violate Twitter’s policies and why isn’t Hogg’s Twitter account permanently banned?
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that the U.S. has, like Russia, tried to influence many foreign elections.
Verdict: True
The U.S. attempted to influence over 80 foreign elections from 1946 to 2000, sometimes secretly.
Fact Check:
Paul mentioned the U.S.’s history of attempting to influence other elections in advance of President Donald Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday in Helsinki, Finland. News outlets asked Trump whether he would hold Putin accountable for Russian meddling in the 2016 election by asking him to hand indicted Russians over to the U.S.
“I think really we mistake our response if we think it’s about accountability from the Russians,” Paul said on CNN’s “State Of The Union.” “They are another country. They are going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They are going to interfere in our elections. We also do the same.”
Loch K. Johnson, a professor at the University of Georgia who began his career investigating the CIA as a Senate committee staffer in the 1970s, told The New York Times that the U.S. has certainly tried to influence foreign elections.
“We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the CIA was created in 1947,” Johnson said. “We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”
Paul cited research from Dov H. Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University. Levin identified 81 instances in which the U.S. interfered in foreign elections from 1946 to 2000. He could confirm that Russia interfered in 36 elections over the same period.
“One well-known example is in the case of Italy in 1948, the United States was really worried that the Italian Communist Party, the PCI, would come to power in Italy, which was seen as very likely to lead to Italy becoming a communist dictatorship and eventually becoming a Soviet ally,” Levin told The Daily Caller News Foundation. A declassified National Security Council report recommended that the U.S. end economic aid to Italy if it did not combat Communist control.
More recently, the U.S. spent millions of dollars to influence the election in Yugoslavia in 2000 and unseat its socialist leader, Slobodan Milošević.
“We gave them tens of millions of dollars in campaign funding, we sent in a campaigning adviser who basically did the polling for them,” Levin said. “We also trained thousands of campaign personnel in various campaigning methods – how to get out the vote, and so forth.”
The U.S. paid for 2.5 million stickers with the slogan “He’s Finished” and 5,000 cans of spray paint. “One of the techniques of the opposition’s election campaigns in Serbia and Yugoslavia was spraying slogans on peoples’ houses,” Levin said. “So we also gave them 5,000 spray cans to spray campaign slogans throughout Serbia.”
Opposition supporters wave flags and leaflets reading “He is finished” aimed at Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic during a pre election rally by the Democratic Opposition of Serbia’s candidate for upcoming Yugoslav presidential elections Vojislav Kostunica in Nis, some 200km south of Belgrade September 19, 2000. More than 25,000 opposition supporters rallied in the center of Nis in support of the opposition presidential nominee. PEK/FMS via Reuters
“Naturally, the consideration of breaking laws or not when it came to these types of interventions was not a major concern for secret or covert intervention,” Levin said. But he cautioned that instances of U.S. election interference are not directly comparable to Russia’s recent actions. “I do not see any moral equivalence between what Russia has done in 2016 and what we have done in past interventions in elections,” he said.
Steven L. Hall, the former chief of Russian operations for the CIA, told TheNYT that while U.S. actions in recent decades have not been morally equivalent to those of Russia, Russia’s actions were not far outside the norm of expected behavior. “If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” Hall said.
Levin’s report excluded actions taken independently by private citizens or non-state actors (such as private campaign consultants), instances where the U.S. or Russia tried to delegitimize elections as a whole and policy decisions that could have unintentionally affected the election results in another country.
He does not list any U.S. cyber election intervention methods comparable to Russian cyber hacks in the 2016 election, in part because the report only examines elections before the year 2000. But he said that the U.S. did use pre-internet “analog” methods which were similar in design.
The CIA, for example, planted agents in Japanese socialist youth groups, student groups and labor groups in the 1950s and 1960s. Levin said that informants during the 1958 Japanese election gave “dirt” on people in the Socialist Party to the U.S., and then the U.S. gave that information to the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). One LDP leader told TheNYT in 1994 that he had a “deep relationship” with the CIA.
Levin categorized instances of spying on opposing campaigns, spreading damaging information and encouraging the breakup of rival political coalitions as “dirty tricks.” Russia favored influencing elections with these tactics, he said.
He expects that foreign election interference will become more common. “The use of force is becoming more and more expensive for countries while at the same time opportunities to intervene in this way are expanding,” he said.
