Rod Rosenstein needs to be investigated also. He looks like a child molester.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page shortly after taking office last spring, according to the New York Times.
That is one of the revelations in a memo compiled by House Intelligence Committee staffers that is set to be released within weeks, according to “three people familiar with it” who spoke to the Times.
The memo is expected to detail abuses by senior FBI officials in their investigation of the Trump campaign, which began the summer of 2016.
The House Intelligence Committee could vote to release the memo as early as Monday. It would give President Trump five days to object; otherwise, the memo will be released.
Democrats, as well as the Justice Department, have warned that releasing the memo to the public would be “extraordinarily reckless,” although the leaks of the memo to the Times makes those claims dubious.
Democrats have also claimed that the memo, which summarizes classified information held by the Justice Department, is misleading and paints a “distorted” picture, and they have prepared their own counter memo they want to release.
The people who spoke to the Times argued that Rosenstein’s renewal of a spy warrant on Carter Page, Trump’s former campaign foreign policy adviser, “shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent.”
The memo, however, is expected to detail how the surveillance warrant was initially obtained inappropriately using the Trump dossier — a political document funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
It is expected to show that FBI and DOJ officials did not explain to the secret court granting spy warrants that the dossier was politically fueled opposition research. To obtain the warrant, the officials needed to show “probable cause” that Page was acting as an agent of Russia.
Page joined the campaign in March 2016, around the time the team was under pressure to release names of foreign policy advisers.
The former investment banker and Navy officer took a personal trip to Moscow to deliver a speech at a graduation ceremony in July 2016, which fueled nascent allegations that Trump was somehow colluding with Russia. Page left the campaign in September.
The Trump dossier claimed he met with two high-level Russian officials on that trip, despite no evidence of it and Page’s testimony under oath that he never met with them. Page has sued BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier.
The FBI had been tracking Page, who was previously based in Moscow, since 2013, but was never charged with any wrongdoing. The FBI reportedly received the surveillance warrant on him in fall of 2016, but Page had left the campaign by then.
Rosenstein, after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general in late April 2017, approved renewing the surveillance warrant, according to the Times. When Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to lead a special counsel.
Rosenstein has been in charge of the Russia investigation since Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself.
There is a dumbing down happening at colleges today. The Democrats call $1000 crumbs for Americans. George Soros is in Devos talking crap about President Tump and calling out Google and FaceBook. Illegal Immigration still being forced on the American people.
Liberals are like Nazi Scum. They allow illegals to have sanctuary cities but want you in jail for a straw.
A group of California legislators wants to punish waiters who offer “unsolicited” plastic straws to customers with a six-month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.
Democratic California Assembly Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon has introduced a bill that could put waiters in jail for offering their patrons a plastic straw without them asking for one.
“This bill would prohibit a food facility, as specified, where food may be consumed on the premises from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer,” the bill reads. “By creating a new crime and imposing additional enforcement duties on local health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
Yes this looks real dangerous.
“Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, a person who violates any provision of the code to be guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both,” it states.
Calderon estimated that Americans use 500 million plastic straws per day. A report on the bill from Reason revealed that the estimate came from a 2011 survey conducted by then 9-year-old Milo Cress. Cress calculated the number by calling straw manufacturers.
In a press release, Calderon explained that the bill is motivated by a push to create greater awareness about the effects of plastic straws on the environment.
This Sissy Drank From A Straw.
“We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and oceans,” Calderon said in the release. “AB 1884 is not ban on plastic straws. It is a small step towards curbing our reliance on these convenience products, which will hopefully contribute to a change in consumer attitudes and usage.”
After intense scrutiny, Calderon issued a series of tweets that contradict with the text of his bill. Calderon claims now that the bill would not make serving plastic straws a crime. “I’d like to clarify that #AB1884 (Straws Upon Request) is (a) NOT a ban; (b) should it become law, it will NOT make it a crime for servers to provide plastic straws,” he wrote. “My intention is simply to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of plastic straws on our environment.”
I’d like to clarify that #AB1884 (Straws Upon Request) is (a) NOT a ban; (b) should it become law, it will NOT make it a crime for servers to provide plastic straws. My intention is simply to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of plastic straws on our environment.
This conflicts with the text of your bill. “By creating a new crime…” Why do you need a bill to raise awareness? Go make a TV spot, create a website, get Buzzfeed to do a write-up. Legislation is a last resort. https://twitter.com/IanCalderon/status/956691670522724352 …
Why in the hell can’t these so-called GOP members get it? It is never a good idea to reward people for braking the damn law.
A plan by President Trump’s administration to give 1.8 million illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program a pathway to U.S. citizenship matches up with previous amnesty bills that have failed.
In the week that new polling from Harvard-Harris revealed bombshell support for his legal immigration-cutting, merit-based, and pro-American worker initiative on immigration, rather than touting the widespread support for his “America First” ideals, Trump explained why a pathway to U.S. citizenship for DACA illegal aliens would be beneficial.
When asked about citizenship for DACA illegal aliens, Trump said: “We’re going to morph into it, it’s going to happen. Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they’ve worked hard.”
“It’s a nice thing to have the [citizenship] incentive of after a period of years, being able to become a citizen,” Trump continued.
On Thursday, senior adviser Stephen Miller revealed a few of the details from the White House’s expansive amnesty. It’s most prominent provision: Giving a pathway to citizenship to 1.8 million illegal aliens after a 10 to 12 year period.
The White House expansive amnesty plan is hardly different from previous amnesties, one of which failed miserably under Obama and another that the White House shot down this week.
For example, the “Gang of Eight” amnesty plan in 2013, which practically destroyed all conservative support for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in his presidential aspirations, would have given the entire illegal alien population of about 12 to 30 million illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship as early as five years after being granted amnesty.
Likewise, the current “Gang of Six” amnesty plan sitting in the Senate, pushed prominently by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Dick Durbin (D-IL), would begin giving at least 3.5 million illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship as early as ten years after getting amnesty.
On the other hand, the White House-backed House immigration plan, authored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), would remain in line with Trump’s concession of only giving legal status to DACA-enrolled illegal aliens with no special path to citizenship.
In exchange for the amnesty solely for DACA-enrolled illegal aliens, the Goodlatte bill implements mandatory E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens over Americans, major reductions to legal immigration levels, and full funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as a slew of other reforms that would help raise the wages of America’s working and middle class.
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd questioned Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) about his claim President Donald Trump did not call some counties “shitholes.”
Thus, Todd accused Cotton of calling Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) “liars.”
Partial transcript as follows:
TODD: I’ve got to ask you about the infamous meeting of ten days ago. Did the president use a vulgarity?
COTTON: Chuck, I’m not going to get into every word that was or was not said. I will say, as many people have said, Kirstjen Nielsen under oath, a lot of strong language was used. I think it is fair to say there was cursing behind closed doors.
TODD: What I don’t understand is in the first 48 hours if there was a controversy about whether it was said, you implied it wasn’t said at all. you didn’t — and it made it seem as if you were accusing Dick Durbin of being a liar and Lindsey Graham of being a liar.
COTTON: As far as I know Lindsey Graham hasn’t spoken on the record about this, Chuck. Here’s the point that Senator Durbin represented that President Trump used repeatedly, repeatedly used vile, racist, lays if the language. That’s not the case. If he was, why didn’t he slam anything and slam his paper up and get up and walk out. What Trump and others in that meeting expressed was astonishment that Senator Durbin and Senator Graham would bring a proposal that won’t move us towards a skill-based system but towards a system where we’re rewarding people based on where they come from, not who they are. the point of immigration reform is to judge people as individuals based on who they are and what they can contribute to society, not who they are and who they are related to.
TODD: But to go back to the issue of trust on both sides, You let it sort of hang out there that Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham were misleading the public completely and only now are you admitting, well, yeah, there was some vulgarity used. That isn’t what you said a week ago or ten days ago at the time. Why?
COTTON: Chuck, I’ve never denied that there wasn’t strong language used in the meeting by lots of people. You know, I’m not a shrinking violet about these things. I’ve been in a command post overseas and I’ve heard salty language before. What I’m saying it’s a gross mess representation.
TODD: Were you offended? Lindsey Graham appears to be offended. He said his piece. Were you offended by what the president said.
COTTON: I was not offended and nobody in the meeting expressed their offense.
TODD: Lindsey Graham didn’t make his peace?
COTTON: Lindsey Graham made a case about immigration policies, not about what the president was saying.
TODD: He said he said his peace about what American ideals are about.
COTTON: Yes, he did and that’s part of immigration policy because immigration policy is a part of who we are, who we’re going to bring to this country to become new American citizens.
These hypocrites want the tax-cut money from a President they hate.
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers are targeting the expected windfall that companies in the state would see under the federal tax overhaul with a bill that would require businesses to turn over half to the state.
A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, and Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million so that half of their federal tax cut would instead go to programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families.
“Trump’s tax reform plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase,” Ting said in a statement. “It is unconscionable to force working families to pay the price for tax breaks and loopholes benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals. This bill will help blunt the impact of the federal tax plan on everyday Californians by protecting funding for education, affordable health care, and other core priorities.”
As a constitutional amendment, the bill would require approval from two-thirds of the Legislature to pass, a difficult hurdle now that Democrats have lost their supermajority. If passed and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, it would then go to voters for final approval.
Democrats lost their supermajority following resignations of two Assembly Democrats, Matt Dababneh of Encino (Los Angeles County), and Raul Bocanegra of San Fernando Valley (Los Angeles County) amid sexual misconduct allegations. Another Assembly Democrat, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas of Los Angeles, resigned citing health issues. In the Senate, Democrat Tony Mendoza of Artesia (Los Angeles County) is taking a leave of absence pending an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations.
California Democrats have been exploring ways to help those in the state who could end up paying higher federal taxes next year under the Republican tax overhaul.
The GOP overhaul caps state income taxes and local property tax write-offs on the federal income tax return at $10,000, a move expected to hurt high-local-tax states such as California, where the average state and local tax write-off in 2016 was $22,000.
State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced legislation this month that would allow Californians to get around the state and local tax cap with a voluntary donation to a charitable fund created by the state of any amount of owed taxes above $10,000. That donation — in lieu of taxes — would allow donors to write off the gifts on their federal tax returns.
