The leaks from the diplomatic cables of former British Ambassador Kim Darroch continue; this time the cables discuss the U.K. efforts to get President Trump to change his position toward the cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal.
Apparently the British ambassador wrote the Trump administration was “set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism.” Oh, the audacity of it all. Yes, according to the Brits President Trump was an intractable fellow when it came to the Iran Deal.
(Via Daily Mail) […] Sir Kim Darroch’s claim – made after Boris Johnson made a doomed trip to the White House to change the President’s mind – is revealed in leaked cables and briefing notes which led to Sir Kim’s resignation last week.
The new revelation comes after an extraordinary row over the freedom of the press blew up this weekend, with Mr Johnson and leadership rival Jeremy Hunt leading the condemnation of Scotland Yard over its threats to prosecute this newspaper.
[…] In other dramatic developments:
Spies at the Government’s ultra-secretive GCHQ were poised to joined the hunt for the leaker by targeting email and mobile phone records;
The Queen’s former private secretary Christopher Geidt was named by Whitehall sources as a frontrunner to replace Sir Kim in Washington;
Tensions ramped up further between Britain and Iran with the Royal Navy’s £1 billion destroyer HMS Duncan being sent to the Persian Gulf to protect UK vessels against attack by Iranian boats.
Sir Kim’s Iran memo was sent in May 2018, after Mr Johnson – who was then Foreign Secretary – had been dispatched to Washington to make a last ditch plea to President Trump not to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran designed to prevent the regime from building an atomic bomb. (read more)
After a day of conflicting media reports revealing additional uncertainty of testimony by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, has now confirmed the movement of Mueller’s appearance to July 24th:
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. As President Trump departs the White House for a trip to Wisconsin he stops for the assembled media pool. The president fielded questions on a variety of current topics leading off with the unfortunate resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. [ Watch Video andTranscript below]
.
[Full Transcript] – Q How do you think your Labor Secretary did?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he was a great Labor Secretary, not a good Labor Secretary. He’s done a fantastic job. He’s a friend of everybody in the administration. And I got a call this morning, early, from Alex. And I think he did a very good job yesterday. Under a lot of pressure, he did a fantastic job and he explained it. He made a deal that people were happy with, and then, 12 years later, they’re not happy with it. You’ll have to figure all of that out.
But the fact is, he has been a fantastic Secretary of Labor. And Alex called me this morning and he wanted to see me. And I actually said, “Well, we have the press right out here, so perhaps you just want to say it to the press.”
But I just want to let you know, this was him, not me, because I’m with him. He was a — he’s a tremendous talent. He’s a Hispanic man. He went to Harvard. A great student. And, in so many ways, I just hate what he’s saying now because we’re going to miss him.
But, please, Alex.
SECRETARY ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. President. Over the last week, I’ve seen a lot of coverage of the Department of Labor, and what I have not seen is the incredible job creation that we’ve seen in this economy — more than 5 million jobs. I haven’t seen that workplace injuries are down, bucking a three-year trend; workplace fatalities are down, bucking a three-year trend; that we had the safest year ever in mining, the lowest number of fatalities ever in mining.
I have seen coverage of this case that is over 12 years old, that had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice. And as I look forward, I do not think it is right and fair for this administration’s Labor Department to have Epstein as the focus, rather than the incredible economy that we have today.
And so I called the President this morning. I told him that I thought the right thing was to step aside. You know, Cabinet positions are temporary trusts. It would selfish for me to stay in this position and continue talking about a case that’s 12 years old, rather than about the amazing economy we have right now.
And so I submitted my resignation to the President –effective seven days from today, effective one week from today — earlier this morning.
Q If the Secretary explained himself, as you say he did two days ago, why the need for him to resign?
THE PRESIDENT: There’s no need at all, as far as I’m concerned. I would have — I watched Alex yesterday. I thought Alex did a great job. And, you know, you could always second guess people, and you could say it should have been tougher. They do it with me all the time. I make a great deal with anybody, and then they say — like, the Democrats — “Oh, it could have been better.”
I got $1.2 billion settlement fined from a company, from ZTE. And the next day — and everybody couldn’t believe it. The next day, the Democrats said, “Oh, he should have gotten more.” So you can always be second guessed. That’s what people do.
I just want to tell you: This is a person that I’ve gotten to know. There hasn’t been an ounce of controversy at the Department of Labor until this came up. And he’s doing this not for himself; he’s doing this for the administration.
And, Alex, I think you’ll agree. I said, “You don’t have to do this.” He doesn’t have to do this.
Q Why would you — why would you accept his resignation?
Q But you accepted the resignation. You accepted the — why did you accept the resignation if he hasn’t done anything wrong?
THE PRESIDENT: I do, and we have — we have — as everybody knows, we have Pat Pizzella, who right now is a deputy, and he’ll be Acting for a period of time. I think you know Pat. He’s a good man, highly recommended by Alex. But Pat is going to be Acting, and we’ve already informed him.
Q Why did you have a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein? Why did you have a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein? And did you ban him from Mar-a-Lago?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And I did have a falling out a long time ago. The reason doesn’t make any difference, frankly. But I haven’t spoken to him in probably 15 years or more. I wasn’t a big fan of Jeffrey Epstein, that I can tell you. And now, if you look, the remnants hurt this man. And I hate to see it happen.
I will say this, and I say it again and I say it loud and clear: Alex Acosta was a great Secretary of Labor. What he’s done with plans and — you see the plans coming one after another. You’re just about done with the 401(k) and —
SECRETARY ACOSTA: That’s correct.
THE PRESIDENT: — and that happened. Things that nobody would even think of. So it’s very sad. But at the same time, he wants the focus to be on accomplishments, not on what you’re talking about.
Q But do you believe — do you believe, Mr. President, that Epstein has become and Mr. Acosta has become a distraction to the Labor Department?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Alex believed that. I’m willing to live with anything, John. I think you know me. I’ve lived through things that you wouldn’t believe.
Alex felt that way. And he also felt — we’re so good; we’re doing so well. The economy — the stock market just hit the highest point yesterday in the history of our country. Our unemployment numbers are the best they’ve ever been. If you look at specifically certain groups — African American, Asian, Hispanic — the best unemployment numbers in the history of our country.
You know, there are so many good things, and he didn’t want to distract from that. And I understand that, 100 percent.
Q Did Paul Ryan prevent you from making any bad decisions?
THE PRESIDENT: For what?
Q Did Paul Ryan prevent you from making any bad decisions?
THE PRESIDENT: So Paul Ryan was not a talent. He wasn’t a leader. When the people in Freedom and great congressmen wanted to go after the Dems for things that they did very badly, he wouldn’t give subpoenas, whereas Nancy Pelosi hands them out like they’re cookies.
Paul Ryan was a lame duck for a long time as Speaker. He was unable to raise money. He lost control of the House. The only success Paul Ryan had was the time that he was with me because we got taxes cut. I got regulation cuts. I did that mostly without him.
But for Paul Ryan to be complaining is pretty amazing. I remember a day in Wisconsin — a state that I won — where I stood up and made a speech, and then I introduced him and they booed him off the stage — 10,000 people.
So for him to be going out and opening his mouth is pretty incredible. But maybe he gets paid for that. Who knows? Maybe he gets paid for that.
Q Mr. President, the raids — can you — Mr. President, are you putting law enforcement at risk by having these raids? Is the public at risk now that everyone knows that the raids are coming?
THE PRESIDENT: So people come into our country illegally. We’re taking them out legally. It’s very simple. It’s not something I like doing, but people have come into our country illegally.
We’re focused on criminals. We’re focused on — if you look at MS-13 — but when people come into our country, we take those people out and we take them out very legally. They all have papers. And it’s a process. And I have an obligation to do it. They came in illegally; they go out legally.
What the Democrats should be doing now is they should be changing the loopholes. They should be changing asylum. I’ve been talking to that — to you about this for a long time. They should be changing asylum. There’s so many things.
Now, let me — let me give you the good news: Mexico has done an outstanding job so far. If you look at the border, it’s down now 30 percent, and that’s only one week inclusive where they’ve gotten it together.
The June numbers just came out. It’s down. It looks like it’s going to end up being a little bit above 30 percent down. It’s going to be down more and more. They have 21,000 — and I say “21,000” — Mexican soldiers on the borders — both their southern border and our southern border.
And we really have it in control. The problem is — we have a big problem. The laws are so bad. The Democrats have to help us fix the immigration laws. But even with that, because of the job that Mexico is doing — and, yes, they maybe did it because of tariffs, but they’re doing a great job and I appreciate it.
Q Democrats are portraying your action yesterday on the census citizenship question as backing down. Do you believe that you backed down?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Who said — who said that?
Q Democrats are saying you backed down. Do you believe you backed down?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, anything you do, the Democrats will say it’s not good. In the meantime, they had a disaster. They had these laws that are so bad — catch-and-release, and you look at the different laws — visa lottery, that was a Chuck Schumer law. It’s a disaster. A lottery. You pick them out. A lottery.
The Democrats have caused tremendous problems. What they’ve let China get away with — for years and years, China has been ripping us off. They’re not ripping us off anymore. Right now, companies are fleeing China because of the tariffs. And right now, we’re taking in billions of dollars. And, by the way, our people are not paying for it. They’re paying for it — they’re paying for it by depressing their currency and they’re putting a lot of money.
Look, nobody’s ever done what I’ve done with China. And that’s fine. And we’ll get along with China. But you know, when I see a guy like Biden, who is weak and ineffective — and everybody that knows him knows it. He’s a weak man. He’s an ineffective man. President Xi laughs at guys like that.
Now, with that being said, I would say this: President Xi, Putin, all of these guys go to bed at night and they pray that Joe Biden or somebody like him becomes President so they can continue to rip off our country.
Q Two questions, please. With regard to Jeffrey Epstein, did you have any suspicions that he was molesting young women, underaged women?
REPORT THIS AD
THE PRESIDENT: No, I had no idea. I had no idea. I haven’t spoken to him in many, many years. But I had — I didn’t have no idea.
Q Secretary Acosta, now that you’re resigning, do you regret that plea deal that you struck with Epstein (inaudible)?
SECRETARY ACOSTA: I’ve already — I’ve already talked about the Epstein matter. I gave a press conference that, according to the media, was longer than any other Cabinet official in this administration.
You know, I will reiterate what I said previously. My point here today is we have an amazing economy. We have unemployment lower than we have seen, literally, in my lifetime. And the focus needs to be on this economy and on job creation, on the decreased fatalities in the workplace and in mining. And going forward, that’s where this administration needs to focus, not on this matter.
Q Mr. President, following up on your Social — following up on the Social Media Summit, you’re instructing agencies to look into this. How long do you think this review is going to take —
THE PRESIDENT: We are looking into it. The platforms are absolutely, in my opinion, 100 percent crooked. They discriminate against Republicans and conservatives. They’re 100 percent dishonest. That’s my opinion. And something is going to be done.
But I can tell you, from personal experience, I see it. I had something happen this morning — I won’t tell you about it yet — but these platforms are 100 percent — they’re 100 percent dishonest.
Please.
Q Mr. President, the reason for your falling out with Mr. Epstein matters. Was it related to business or the abuse of underaged girls? People want to know.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not a fan of Jeffrey Epstein. And you watched people yesterday saying that I threw him out of a club. I didn’t want anything to do with him. That was many, many years ago. It shows you one thing: that I have good taste. Okay?
Now, other people, they went all over with him. They went to his island. They went all over the place. He was very well known in Palm Beach. His island — whatever his island was, wherever it is — I was never there. Find out the people that went to the island.
But Jeffrey Epstein was not somebody that I respected. I threw him out. In fact, I think the great James Patterson, who is a member of Mar-a-Lago, made a statement yesterday that, many years ago, I threw him out.
I’m not a fan of Jeffrey Epstein.
REPORT THIS AD
Q Mr. President, are you planning to move ahead with deportations intensities this weekend? Are you planning to —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.
Q You are.
Q But what about the families, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: You know what? You know what? They came in illegally. They have to go out.
We have millions of people standing on line waiting to become citizens of this country. They’ve taken tests. They’ve studied. They’ve learned English. They’ve done so much. It’s — they’ve been waiting seven, eight, nine years. We have some waiting 10 years to come in. It’s not fair that somebody walks across the line and now they’ve become citizens of the United States.
Q (Inaudible) British ambassador resign?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wish the British ambassador well. Some people just told me — too bad — but they said he actually said very good things about me. He was sort of referring to other people. And I guess I quoted Lindsey Graham today; he said some things that were pretty nice from the British ambassador.
But look, I wish the British ambassador well. But they’ve got to stop their leaking problems there just like they have to stop them in our country.
Q Why have you pre-announced these ICE raids? Why have you given warning, essentially —
THE PRESIDENT: We’re not giving warning.
Q — to all of these illegals?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we’re not giving warning.
Q They know about the ICE raids, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: There’s nothing to be secret about.
Q They know about the ICE raids.
THE PRESIDENT: Can I tell you what?
Q Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: There’s nothing to be secret about. ICE is law enforcement. They’re great patriots. They have a tough job. Nothing to be secret about. If the word gets out, it gets out. Because hundreds of people know about it. It’s a major operation.
So if the word gets out, it gets out. It starts on Sunday, and they’re going to take people out and they’re going to bring them back to their countries. Or they’re going to take criminals out, put them in prison, or put in them in prison in the countries they came from. We’re focused on criminals as much as we can, before we do anything else.
Q [Crosstalk.]
THE PRESIDENT: For instance, MS-13 — very important — we’re taking them out by the thousands. We’ve already been taking — you know, we didn’t stop this. We’ve been taking criminals out for the last year. These people have been here for many years — MS-13. We’re taking them out by the thousands. We’re getting them out.
Q Mr. President, do you believe that using data to fill in the citizenship data on the census will be as effective as a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we’ll have it in the end where it’ll be actually more accurate than a census. Because we have information, gotten through other means, whether you look at Social Security or other places. We have — including loan applications — we have information that’s probably more accurate than the information we could get by going in and asking somebody, “Are you a citizen?” Because a lot of people aren’t going to tell the truth.
Q Did you back down on that (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: No. No. Not only didn’t I back down, I backed up. Becau- — anybody else would’ve given this up a long time ago. The problem is we had three very unfriendly courts. They were judges that weren’t exactly in love with this whole thing. And they were wrong. But it would’ve taken a long time to get through those courts. You understand that better than anybody, John. It would’ve taken a long time back up to the Supreme Court.
So I asked, “Is there another way?” And somebody said there’s a way that might be better. It might be more accurate. They explained it. I said, “Then what are we wasting time — we’re going to be in court for the next two years. What are we wasting time for?”
In the meantime, we have to, by law, have the printing done. So the printing has starting and we’re already finding out who the citizens are and who they’re not — and, I think, more accurately.
So, when I heard this, I said, “I think that’s actually better. I think what we’re doing is actually better.” And only the fake news, which there’s plenty, would say differently.
Q Did Wilbur Ross let you down, Mr. President? Did Wilbur Ross let you down?
THE PRESIDENT: No, he didn’t let me down. No.
Q How many people are you targeting? How many people are you targeting during the raids? And, again, are you worried at all about law enforcement — putting them at risk because everybody knows about the raids? Two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: These are great professionals. These are people that have done this for a long time. We’re really looking for criminals as much as we can. We’re trying to find the criminal population, which has been coming into this country over the last 10 years. We know who they are, too. We’ve been taking them out by the thousands — specifically, gang members from MS-13 and other gangs. We’ve been taking them out by the thousands.
Q How many?
THE PRESIDENT: But we are really specifically looking for bad players, but we’re also looking for people that came into our country not through a process — they just walked over a line. They have to leave.
REPORT THIS AD
Q The mayors don’t want ICE raid. The mayors don’t want the ICE raids, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Some do. No. No. No. The mayors in sanctuary cities, like — a mayor like de Blasio, who is probably the worst mayor in the country — from New York. I don’t even know what his attitude is. Nobody does because he doesn’t work very hard. Nobody knows what the hell he does. But a guy like de Blasio probably wouldn’t want the raid. But many mayors do — most mayors do. You know why? They don’t want to have crimes in their cities or states.
Q What do you think about Christine Lagarde? What do you think about Christine Lagarde running?
Q On military families — what about military families? Will you’re- — is your administration going to reconsider ending the parole in — policy — place on military families and provide assurance —
THE PRESIDENT: So nobody has treated the military better than President Trump. Nobody. Nobody has even come close. And you see that with budgets, you see that with the pay increases, and you see that with medical. But you know where you see it more than any place is with the vets. Because the vets now have Choice. They never had Choice before. For forty- —
Q But can you guarantee that their loved ones won’t be deported?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Wait. Wait. For 44 years —
Q Can you guarantee that their loved ones won’t be deported?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Wait. For 44 years — we are looking at that. For 44 years, they’ve tried to get Veterans Choice. I got it. Nobody else could’ve gotten it.
Q What did you mean — what did you mean, Mr. President, when you said —
Q Turkey — Turkey is planning to take delivery of —
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Go ahead.
Q What you would like Robert Mueller to tell Congress next week?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it.
Q What would you like Robert Mueller to tell Congress next week?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, how many bites at the apple do you get?
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: We’ve gone through 500 witnesses, 2,500 subpoenas. I’ve let them interview my lawyers. I’ve let them inter- — because I had nothing to do with Russia. Now that’s come out. There was no collusion.
Q You didn’t do an interview, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But how many — how many people and how many times — and this has been going on for two and a half years. Rush Limbaugh said there’s nobody else in the world that he knows that could’ve taken it. And on top of taking it, I’ve been a great President. I’ve done more —
Q But, sir, you did not sit down with the Special Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Listen. Listen. I’ve done more in two and a half years than any other President — nobody’s even close — including, we just said, Veterans Choice and all of the other things I’ve gotten.
But for two and a half years — so now they have Mueller go make a speech. That goes. Now they wanted to have him again. They want to go it again and again and again because they want to hurt the President for the election. Because I see what I’m running against. You got Sleepy Joe Biden. He doesn’t have the energy to be President. And the people that nipping on his heels — they don’t have what it takes.
And I can tell you that China and Russia — and I’ve been rougher on Russia than any President in the last 50 years. China and Russia and try North Korea — where I have a relationship. You don’t have a man testing nuclear anymore. You have a man —
Q Is there something you want Mueller to say in this hearing?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Wait. You have a man that was so happy to see me. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. You have a man that doesn’t smile a lot. But when he saw me, he smiled. He was happy. You have a man that, when I came into to office, all he was doing before under Obama was testing nuclear weapons and blowing up mountains. And now he’s not doing it.
Q But on Robert Mueller, is there anything you’d like Robert Mueller to say about you?
THE PRESIDENT: There’s nothing he can say. He’s written a report. The report said, “No collusion.” And it said, effectively, “No obstruction,” because there’s no obstruction. And the other thing, it’s very interesting —
Q But he couldn’t clear you on obstruction, sir.
Q Do you think he should (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: So they find out there’s no collusion. The whole thing is about collusion. So they find out it’s no collusion. Now, actually, it was different; it was bad crimes committed by the other side. We’ll find out about that. I’m sure that’s being looked at right now.
Q Do you regret not talking to Mueller?
Q Do you think he should show up? Should he show up show, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: So — so there’s no collusion and there’s no obstruction.
Now, we have a great Attorney General now — he’s strong and he’s smart — and he read it and he studied it — along with Rod Rosenstein, who worked it from the beginning. And Rod Rosenstein and Bill Barr said, “There’s no obstruction.”
It’s also interesting — number one, there’s no crime. And how do you obstruct when there’s no crime?
Also, take a look at one other thing. It’s a thing called Article II. Nobody ever mentions Article II. It gives me all of these rights at a level that nobody has ever seen before. We don’t even talk about Article II.
REPORT THIS AD
So they ruled: no collusion, no objection. Very simple.
Q [Crosstalk.]
THE PRESIDENT: And you can only — by the way, you can only get so many bites at the apple. We got to get on to running a country. You got immigration, infrastructure, drug prices. The Democrats aren’t working. All they’re doing is trying to hurt people like Alex Acosta, a man who has done —
Q Do you think Democrats hurt Mr. Acosta?
THE PRESIDENT: — a man who has done — I have no idea. Are you a Democrat?
SECRETARY ACOSTA: I am not, no.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. You know what I know? You know what I know about Alex? He was a great student at Harvard. He’s Hispanic, which I — which I so admire, because maybe it was a little tougher for him, and maybe not. But he did an unbelievable job as the Secretary of Labor. That’s what I know about him. I know one thing: He did a great job.
SECRETARY ACOSTA: And — and —
THE PRESIDENT: And until this came up, there was never an ounce of problem with this very good man.
Go ahead.
SECRETARY ACOSTA: And let me — let me just add — let me — let me just add, you know, I hear a lot about how individuals got jobs and whatnot. Before our interview, we had never met, we had never talked. The President selected me as it should be done. It wasn’t that we knew each other. It’s not that we had a longstanding relationship. And I think that’s a testament to his selection process.
Q Mr. President, what do you make of the infighting going on among Democrats in Congress between Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Cortez — who kept Amazon out of New York, and they don’t like her for that; thousands and thousands of jobs — I think Cortez is being very disrespectful to somebody that’s been there a long time.
I deal with Nancy Pelosi a lot, and we go back and forth and it’s fine. But I think that a group of people is being very disrespectful for her — to her. And you know what? I don’t think that Nancy can let that go on.
A group of people that came from — I don’t know where they came from. I’m looking at this Omar from Minnesota, and if one half of the things they’re saying about her are true, she shouldn’t even be in office.
But Cortez should treat Nancy Pelosi with respect. She should not be doing what she’s doing.
And I’ll tell you something about Nancy Pelosi that you know better than I do: She is not a racist. Okay? She is not a racist. For them to call her a racist is a disgrace.
Q Mr. President, are you visiting an immigration detention center like the Vice President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah — and very importantly, today, in a few hours, Vice President Pence and the head of Homeland Security are taking the press and congresspeople into detention centers. And we’re the ones that said they were crowded. They’re crowded because we have a lot of people. But they’re in good shape.
And the reason is because the fake-news New York Times wrote a phony story. What Border Patrol is doing — they’ve become nurses and janitors and doctors. And they’re not trained for that. What they’ve done is so incredible.
So they’re touring detention centers. And that was my idea because I read a phony story in the New York Times today — or the other day — about the detention centers, about the conditions. And I had people calling me up at the highest levels from Border Patrol and ICE, almost crying, about that phony story.
And they never saw anything. They have phony sources. They don’t even have sources. They write whatever they want. The New York Times is a very dishonest newspaper. They write what they want. And what they do is a tremendous disservice to this country. They are truly the enemy of the people, I’ll tell you that. They are the enemy of the people. And what they wrote about detention centers is unfair.
Now, I believe it’s going to be the center they wrote about, but we’re taking a tour. They are — I’d love to be there, but I’m going to Ohio, Wisconsin.
Q Are you going to — are you going any time?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll be going. I’ll be going.
But I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. And these centers are — I mean, to have Ocasio say, “They’re drinking out of toilets.” She made that up, okay? That’s a phony story. She made it up. And these people, they — I’ll tell you what, I’ve been with ICE and I’ve been with Border Patrol a lot. They love those people coming across the border. They love them. And I’ve seen it. They love them.
Q Does your administration have an estimate of how many illegals are living in the United States? Have they given you a number?
THE PRESIDENT: So one of the reasons the Democrats don’t want to have a census is because the number of people in the United States, for many years — you know, for years, you’ve heard 11 million; it’s far greater than that. But we’ll find out because I’m going to do something much more accurate than the way we — the way we did it in the census would never have been very accurate. What we’re doing will be much more accurate.
Q Anything on Iran, Mr. President? Anything on Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: The wall is being built. The wall is being built. We had a couple of very good decisions. We had one bad decision. It’s very tough.
Again, Paul Ryan let us down. Paul Ryan was a terrible Speaker. Frankly, he was a baby. He didn’t know what the hell he was doing. The wall let us down.
Now, in all fairness, the problem with — during — when we had both houses — in the Senate, you need 60 votes. Well, we don’t have 60 votes. We had 51 last time. Now we have 53 because we won during the ’18 election, which nobody wants to say, just so you understand.
So the wall is being built. We had one setback. We had one tremendous victory.
REPORT THIS AD
And I had a tremendous victory that was very rarely covered by the press. Two days ago, I won the emoluments case. That was the biggest case of them all. I won the emoluments case. People don’t know that, by being President, I lose billions of dollars. By my being President — and especially in money I can’t make because I don’t do deals. But I lose billions of dollars.
But, another thing, I get a salary of $400- or $450,000 a year. I don’t think any other President has ever given up — it’s a lot of money, almost a half a million dollars. I give it up. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody say, “I give up my salary.” I’m not looking for credit, but I give up my salary. I get zero. I get zero.
But you know what makes me happy? That we’re doing a great job. And I want to thank Alex Acosta. He was a great, great Secretary.
Q Anything on Iran, sir? Sir, I asked about Iran. I asked about Iran — I asked about Iran, not the wall. Could you give us an update on your thoughts on Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: Iran better be careful. They’re treading on very dangerous territory. Iran, if you’re listening, you better be careful.
Q Mr. President, on Turkey: Will you sanction Turkey?
Q Should Epstein stay behind bars?
Q Yesterday you got a win in the Ninth Circuit court over Title X funding. What’s your reaction? And are you trying to completely defund Planned Parenthood?
THE PRESIDENT: They had a big win yesterday. We have some very big cases having to do with that. We’ll see where it (inaudible).
U.S. President Donald Trump is attending an event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, today to discuss the importance of a North American trade bloc and support the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal.
The smartest man in the world once explained a metaphor apropos to this moment in time when Robert Mueller will testify before congress. It goes like this:
In front of you sits an ear of corn. You are trying to prove it’s an ear of corn to a room of corn cob deniers. Instead of trying to prove the true nature of what it is, focus your laser inquiry on one specific kernel and hit that single kernel with laser intensity. When that single kernel pops, you will have proved it’s an ear of corn.
In a rare moment CTH agrees with Trey Gowdy, as he discusses the upcoming Mueller testimony:
.
Back to the corn cob metaphor. Here’s how to make a single Mueller kernel pop.
QUESTIONS:
♦ When exactly did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
♦ Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
♦ How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?
♦ When exactly did Rod Rosenstein contact you about going to the White House on May 16th, 2017?
♦ Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’, prior to May 16th, 2017?
♦ On May 16, 2017, when you traveled to the White House, were you applying to become FBI Director?
♦ Other than Rod Rosenstein, did you speak to any members of the DOJ or FBI prior to going to the White House on May 16th, 2017?
♦ Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
♦ Were you aware of the nature of the Trump investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
♦ Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
♦ Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
♦ Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting (4:00pm) and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe (after lunch), when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
♦ Accepting you were without “your cell phone”, how did Rod Rosenstein contact you between the evening of May 16, 2017 and the morning of May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
There was less than 24 hours between the time Mueller and Rosenstein were in the Oval Office (4pm, May 16th), and the time Rosenstein told the Gang-of-Eight that Mueller was appointed Special Counsel (May 17th).
Occam’s Razor – A former FBI Director… meeting with the president of the United States… in the oval office…. in the middle of one of the more consequential time-periods in history… immediately after the firing of the former FBI Director… with family and a network of friends curious as to the outcome…. who is also communicating with the Deputy Attorney General… doesn’t *accidentally* leave his cell phone in the Oval Office.
I’ll bet you a dozen donuts the entire purpose of the Oval Office meeting with Mueller was part of the FBI investigation…. and Mueller’s cell phone wasn’t actually Mueller’s cell phone… it was an FBI phone set up so that McCabe’s investigators could listen to the conversation with the target of the investigation, President Trump.
Rather than listen to media pundits explain what President Trump and AG Bill Barr said today at the White House, here’s the transcript:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much everyone. Are you a citizen of the United States of America? “Oh, gee, I’m sorry, I just can’t answer that question.” And that’s after spending billions and billions of dollars. There used to be a time when you could answer questions like that very easily. There used to be a time when you could proudly declare, “I am a citizen of the United States.”
Now they’re trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing: citizenship. They’re even coming after the Pledge of Allegiance in Minnesota. I’m proud to be a citizen. You’re proud to be a citizen. The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word, “citizen.”
Today I’m here to say we are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the United States population. I stand before you to outline new steps my administration is taking to ensure that citizenship is counted so that we know how many citizens we have in the United States. Makes sense?
We will defend the right of the American people to know the full facts about the population size of citizens and non-citizens in America. It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the U.S. populations. Imperative.
Knowing this information is vital to formulating sound public policy, whether the issue is healthcare, education, civil rights, or immigration. We must have a reliable count of how many citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens are in our country.
The Department of Commerce sensibly decided to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census, as has been done many, many times throughout the history of the United States.
Unfortunately, this effort was delayed by meritless litigation. As shocking as it may be, far-left Democrats in our country are determined to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst. They probably know the number is far greater, much higher than anyone would have believed before. Maybe that’s why they fight so hard.
This is part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of the American citizen. And it’s very unfair to our country.
The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed our right to ask the citizenship question. And, very strongly, it was affirmed. But the Supreme Court ruled that we must provide further explanation that would have produced even more litigation and considerable time delays.
The case is already in three federal district courts that have been, to be totally honest, extremely unfriendly to us. These delays would have prevented us from completing the census on time. It’s deeply regrettable, but it will not stop us from collecting the needed information — and I think even in greater detail and more accurately. Therefore, we are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population.
Today, I will be issuing an executive order to put this very plan into effect immediately. I’m hereby ordering every department and agency in the federal government to provide the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in our country. They must furnish all legally accessible records in their possession immediately.
We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population, including databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.
We have great knowledge in many of our agencies. We will leave no stone unturned. The Census Bureau projected that using previously available records, it could determine citizenship for 90 percent of our population or more.
With today’s executive order, which eliminates long-standing obstacles to data sharing, we’re aiming to count everyone. Ultimately, this will allow us to have an even more complete count of citizens than through asking the single question alone. It will be, we think, far more accurate.
The Census Bureau can use this information, along with information collected through the questionnaire, to create the official census. In other words, as a result of today’s executive order, we will be able to ensure the 2020 Census generates an accurate count of how many citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens are in the United States of America. Not too much to ask.
This will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions. This information is also relevant to administering our elections. Some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter-eligible population.
Indeed, the same day the Supreme Court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility.
With today’s order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in Congress.
In everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the United States of America.
I would like now to introduce Attorney General Bill Barr to the podium. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. And congratulations on today’s executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and non-citizens live in our country.
As the Supreme Court recognized, it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the United States. And it’s entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and non-citizens there are in the United States.
In fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s. But while the Supreme Court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the Commerce Department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 Census — because, as the Supreme Court recognized, the defect in the Commerce Department’s decision was curable with a better record.
The President asked me to work with Secretary Ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. I did so.
In my view, the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census, and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the Supreme Court. And therefore, there is no question that a new decision to add the question would ultimately survive legal review.
The problem is that any new decision would be subject to immediate challenge as a new claim in the three ongoing district court cases. In addition, there are injunctions currently in place that forbid adding the question. There is simply no way to litigate these issues and obtain relief from the current injunctions in time to implement any new decision without jeopardizing our ability to carry out the census, which we’re not going to do. We’re not going to jeopardize our ability to carry out the census.
So as a practical matter, the Supreme Court’s decision closed all paths to adding the question to the 2020 census. Put simply, the impediment was not — it was a logistical impediment, not a legal one. We simply cannot complete the litigation in time to carry out the census.
One other point on this: Some in the media have been suggesting, in the hysterical mode of the day, that the administration has been planning to add the citizenship question to the census by executive fiat without regard to contrary court orders or what the Supreme Court might say. This has been based on rank speculation and nothing more.
As should be obvious, there has never been under cons- — this has never been under consideration. We have always accepted that any new decision to add a citizenship question to the census would be subject to judicial review.
Turning to today, I applaud the President for recognizing in his executive order that including a question on the census is not the only way to obtain this vital information. The course the President has chosen today will bring unprecedented resources to bear on determining how many citizens and non-citizens are in our country, and will yield the best data the government has had on citizenship in many decades. That information will be used for countless purposes, as the President explained in his remarks today.
For example, there is a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes. Depending on the resolution of that dispute, this data may be relevant to those considerations. We will be studying this issue.
Congratulations again, Mr. President, on taking this effective action.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.) Thank you very much.
The motives for Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff to call-up former special counsel Robert Mueller are transparently obvious. The committees are hoping to weaponize Mueller’s appearance to attain a political edge; and that’s why committee staff have spent weeks in detailed coaching and strategy sessions with Robert Mueller and his Lawfare team members.
House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins discusses the political collusion between Mueller, the DOJ/FBI “small group” and the House committee chairmen.
Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff have constructed the rules so there’s only one hour of open hearing, and one hour of closed-door testimony, per committee? C’mon man !! Their purpose to protect Mueller from questions about the corrupt investigation is stupidly visible.
.
There’s additional value in the notation from Bill Hemmer as he shares his discussion with Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes for those with eyes and ears to accept.
Does this sound like a statement from a well-informed man who has “confidence” in the current positions of Bill Barr at the U.S. Department of Justice?
.
It looks to me like Nunes can see DC’s institutional history preservation repeating; and he’s warning AG “Bondo” Barr that ‘we the people‘ might just know too much on this one to accept the typical DC cover-up maneuver.
President Trump tweeted that he will discuss his latest efforts at including the citizenship question as part of the census. Two senior administration officials confirmed to CBS News that President Trump will announce an executive action to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census. The announcement is scheduled/anticipated for 5:00pm EST today. U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr is expected to be in attendance.
The DOJ made a move today after a failed attempt to label Michael Flynn a co-conspirator in the case against his former business partner Bijan Rafiekian. [Backstory Here]
In today’s development [h/t Techno Fog] the DOJ is calling Michael Flynn Jr as a witness to replace the witness testimony of his father, Lt. Gen Gen Michael Flynn.
Given what we know about how the DOJ pressured Michael Flynn Sr. to take the plea deal based on threats against his son Flynn Jr; and against the backdrop of the DOJ losing with Judge Anthony Trenga in EDVA; the DOJ now appears to be re-leveraging the original plea to compel cooperation from Jr.
This explains why the DOJ said yesterday they would await the DC sentencing (against Flynn Sr.) pending the outcome of the EDVA case against Bijan Rafiekian.
The DOJ in DC said they anticipated Flynn Sr might be a witness for Rafiekian’s defense; so they’ve moved to put Flynn Jr. in opposition to any potentially supportive testimony from Flynn Sr. in EDVA by revisiting (re-leveraging) the threat against Flynn Jr.
If Flynn Jr. didn’t agree to testify in the Rafiekian case, the DOJ would likely have cancelled his father’s plea agreement in DC and re-initiated cases -with new charges- against both Flynns’.
This also explains why corrupt U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu added new lawyers in the DC case. Sneaky bastards. In essence, Jessie Liu is anticipating a change in plea from Flynn, per new Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell, and proactively positioning the DC case to reignite against both the father and the son if: (a) the Rafiekian case goes sideways; or, (b) Flynn Sr. changes his plea agreement.
The benefits for purposefully charging in two distinct courts now surfaces.
All of that said, it’s worth revisiting how Rod Rosenstein empowered Robert Mueller to target Michael Flynn Jr. as leverage over his father Michael Flynn Jr. Rosenstein created the leverage Mueller and Weissmann needed with the October 20th, 2017, scope memo.
The October 20th, 2017, third scope memo is what AG Bill Barr is hiding so that he can protect his friends Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein. In my opinion this institutional preservation objective is the primary reason why AG Barr asked President Trump to abdicate to him unilateral declassification authority.
Yes, it appears AG Bill Barr is using his complete control over declassification as a tool to protect the institution from sunlight upon the corrupt activity previously carried out. At the very least he’s using his new authority to mitigate the damage. If he wasn’t covering up for their wrongdoing; and considering the Mueller investigation is long since over; Barr would have already declassified the scope memos that showed under what legal authority the Mueller probe was operating.
This motive for AG Barr is not difficult to see. With the Muller investigation complete, there is simply no valid reason to keep the scope memos hidden; except to protect former Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.
The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017. However, when Mueller released his report it showed there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting by the Mueller probe.
The second scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.
The third scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the third scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes. One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.
As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:
This third scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally and strategically (you’ll see why), this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.
With Paul Manafort outlined as an investigative target in the original authorization and the second scope memo, the third scope memo authorizes expansion to his business partner Richard Gates and their joint businesses. This memo also permits the investigation of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and all of his interests; and in ultimate weasel sunlight, Rosenstein authorizes an investigation of his boss, AG Jeff Sessions.
Before getting to more targets, notice the underlined passage about starting with a lot of investigative material because the special counsel was picking up a Russian interference investigation that had been ongoing for “nearly 10 months.”
The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):
General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey.
The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016:
The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” does not appear to represent an individual, rather it’s an organization. However, The second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.
In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.
This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea.
Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.
The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.
The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening. A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:
I suspect the DOJ-NSD knew Flynn was lobbying for clients closely related to the Turkish government. I suspect Flynn was already under Title-3 surveillance (confirmed by Mueller report) and this lobbying issue -SPECIFICALLY THE NOV 8th OP ED- likely became the legal predicate for a Flynn Title-1 FISA warrant.
This is an important element that most have missed. The Op-Ed written by General Flynn became of significant interest for the DOJ-NSD (Laufman) because it enabled investigators to jump from Title III surveillance to Title I (FISA) surveillance:
Flynn was labeled an “agent of a foreign government” based on the Op-ed. Some leaked information from 2017 supports my conclusion:
WASHINGTON—The investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn began soon after a Justice Department staffer noticed a Nov. 8, 2016, op-ed article by the retired Army general in the congressional publication The Hill, according to a person familiar with the matter.
In the article, Mr. Flynn championed closer U.S. ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and maligned the Turkish government’s No. 1 foe, U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen.
The piece didn’t disclose Mr. Flynn’s business relationship with Turkish interests.
The Justice Department staffer, who works in the office that enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, checked the database of people registered to represent foreign interests. He found no entry for Mr. Flynn and sent him a letter inquiring about the article, according to this person, who said the staffer’s query triggered the FARA investigation. (read more)
[Go Deep To See] That 2016 FISA warrant, likely approved by FISA Judge Rudy Contreras, allowed the DOJ-NSD -via FBI (Strzok)- to launch a Title-One counterintelligence investigation into the people who hired Flynn as a lobbyist.
If my suspicion is correct, in addition to the larger surveillance issues upon Flynn, the DOJ-NSD knew the people who contracted with Flynn and Rafiekian were a ‘front‘ for senior Turkish officials (not withstanding possible WH coordination).
So when Flynn was confronted by DOJ-NSD head David Laufman, he was being *interviewed* by a DOJ official who knew more about the contract initiator than Flynn himself did. The DOJ-NSD and David Laufman was involved because manipulating FARA violations was their prior preferred approach to conduct political surveillance (SEE HERE).
David Laufman then pressured Flynn in January 2017 to sign a FARA submission, knowing it contained material that was false, but unbeknownst to Flynn. This later became the predicate for the FARA case against Flynn and Rafiekian.
The DOJ (Laufman first) knew the background of the FARA filing was false because they had conducted a FISA Title-1 investigation prior to the Flynn FARA submission; and the DOJ (Mueller team now in 2017) knew the Turkish government was behind the lobbying contract…..
….But the DOJ cannot tell the court how they knew the lobbying contract was from the Turkish government, because they didn’t want to reveal the FISA surveillance; AND the DOJ may have an additional interest… because the contract might have been somewhat coordinated by the Obama White House (pro-brotherhood, and pro-Erdogan).
USCG Frogmen Rule! The crew of U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro are back in San Diego after running a series of 14 separate drug smuggling vessel interdictions and disruptions off the coasts of Mexico, Central and South America by three Coast Guard cutters between May and July 2019. WATCH:
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro (WMSL 755) crew members board a self-propelled semi-submersible suspected drug smuggling vessel (SPSS) June 18, 2019, while operating in international waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Purpose-build smuggling vessels like SPSSs are designed to hold large quantities of contraband while evading detection by law enforcement authorities.
As a result of their latest deployment the crew of the Coast Guard Cutter Munro will offload more than 39,000 pounds of cocaine and 933 pounds of marijuana worth a combined estimated $569 million, which was seized in international waters in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to deliver remarks today at 2:45pm EST -from San Diego- while thanking the crews.
USCG Vice President Pence; James W. Carroll, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Uttam Dhillon, acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; and Vice Adm. Linda Fagan, commander of Coast Guard Pacific Area, are scheduled to visit Munro and give remarks.
.
Numerous U.S. agencies from the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security cooperated in the effort to combat transnational organized crime. The Coast Guard, Navy, Customs and Border Protection, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with allied and international partner agencies, play a role in counter-drug operations.
The fight against drug cartels in the Eastern Pacific requires unity of effort in all phases from detection, monitoring and interdictions, to criminal prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys in districts across the nation.
The Coast Guard increased U.S. and allied presence in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Basin, which are known drug transit zones off of Central and South America, as part of its Western Hemisphere Strategy. During at-sea interdictions, a suspect vessel is initially detected and monitored by allied, military or law enforcement personnel coordinated by Joint Interagency Task Force-South based in Key West, Florida.
The law enforcement phase of counter-smuggling operations in the Eastern Pacific is conducted under the authority of the 11th Coast Guard District, headquartered in Alameda, California. The interdictions, including the actual boarding, are led and conducted by members of the U.S. Coast Guard. (Link)
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro (WMSL 755) crew members aboard the cutter’s 35-foot Long Range Interceptor small boat supervising the intentional sinking of suspected drug-smuggling boats May 17, 2019, following the seizure of cocaine from the boats during an at-sea interdiction while Munro’s crew patrolled international waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Due to the distance from land, inadequate tow points and flooding in the engine rooms of the boats, the boats were sunk as a hazard to navigation. U.S. Coast Guard photo
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 