Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Congress Officially Filing Impeachment Charges Against Anti-Trump Politician

It’s happening!

Published

on

Since we finally have a U.S. President in Donald Trump that actually keeps his promises, it’s starting to look like the Deep State is about to crumble. And this time with the help of the Republican Party.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the latest batch of indictments this week as Trump was busy on a trip abroad. The indictments had to do with the ongoing FBI special counsel probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Politico is reporting that some Republicans on Capitol Hill are now said to be getting ready to take the next steps needed to begin impeachment proceedings against Rosenstein.

Patriot Journal reports that conservatives claim that Rosenstein isn’t loyal to this administration and is totally biased in his actions when it comes to how he has drug his feet when it comes to going after biased agents within the agency such as Peter Stzrok.

Trending: Sarah Sanders Laughs In Hateful CNN Host’s Face After Catching Him In Huge Lie During Live Interview

Here is more on the Rosenstein saga via Politico:

“A long-simmering rift between Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump’s top Hill allies is starting to boil over as both sides fight over an effort to oust Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The Wisconsin Republican along with retiring House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) have stifled conservatives’ weekslong push to impeach Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian contacts with Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Gowdy scoffed at the suggestion on national television Sunday. And Ryan — who has long sought to avoid such confrontations with the Justice Department — told reporters Tuesday morning that DOJ is “now coming into compliance” with congressional subpoenas as part of lawmakers’ scrutiny into alleged FBI bias against Trump.

But those comments drew a swift rebuke from conservative Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who are leading the impeachment campaign and argue that Rosenstein is slow-walking their oversight of the FBI. Meadows told reporters Tuesday morning that Ryan appeared misinformed about what Justice has and has not turned over.

“I can tell you that I guess the speaker’s staff is not fully informing him of what DOJ’s actually complying with,” Meadows said.

Meadows also noted that the House had already adopted a resolution giving the Justice Department until July 6 to turn over the remaining documents lawmakers have requested. While Ryan has said those documents are being handed over, Meadows said that’s hogwash.

“We’re still waiting on tens of thousands… of documents that many of the people here today have been advocating for a long time,” Meadows said. “How long do we have to wait?”

The sniping follows Trump’s widely-criticized summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has led even loyal Republicans to question his judgment. Ryan allies and top Republicans thought the bipartisan outcry over Trump’s refusal to accept his own intelligence community’s conclusions — that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — would shift attention away from their own internecine procedural gripes.

Indeed, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say it has bolstered the importance of Mueller’s probe, which led to last week’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking into the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

But Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill are vowing to keep up the pressure on Rosenstein and are prepping an increasingly aggressive push against him for what they claim is his resistance to turning over documents connected to the FBI’s Russia probe.

“All options are still on the table,” said Jordan when asked about the prospect of impeaching Rosenstein. The Freedom Caucus co-founder argued that “we have caught them hiding information from us [and] redacting information that should not have been redacted.”

He added: “If that is not a sufficient reason to move forward [with impeachment], particularly when they are not in compliance with the resolution that was passed by the full House of Representatives two weeks ago, I do not know what is. … All options are still on the table.”

The conservatives’ swipe at Ryan is the latest indication of a deepening split among House Republicans over their posture toward the Justice Department and FBI. Conservatives say Rosenstein is intentionally misleading them, and that he’s protecting rogue FBI agents who were out to get Trump, including FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok who exchanged anti-Trump text messages.

“Rosenstein is really helping destroy what used to be a great Justice Department, so something’s got to be done,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).”

Now sadly the truth of the matter is that it’s a longshot that Congress would actually be able to impeach Rosenstein, so who knows if this is just more political theater or a well-intentioned try. But one thing is for sure, the only person who could put a stop to Rosenstein and Mueller is President Trump, who has the full authority to fire them all at will.

If the President does fire them it will bring on a huge backlash from the typical hacks in the Democrat party and the RINO’s in the GOP, but it would put a stop to this farse the left is trying to run that the only reason President Trump won the 2016 election was because Russia interfered, which is totally false. If it was this easy to interfere in elections then Obama would have won in his effort to oust Benyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel when he poured half a million American tax dollars into beating him back in 2015.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Obama & Brennan Praised For Taking Out Bin Laden Until Navy SEAL Who Did Shows Up And Makes Them Pay

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf

Published

on

As former disgraced CIA Director under the Obama administration, John Brennan collectively loses his mind for all to see, after current President Donald Trump revoked his security clearance, it is important to determine fact from fiction. Brennan has a rather checkered history and given that history, many have wondered allowed just how he was given security clearance in the first place.

Brennan was accepted into the CIA in 1980, this was in spite of his own acknowledgment that he voted Communist in 1976. For many thinking people, this simply defies comprehension. Brennan himself publicly revealed this fact at the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington on September 15, 2016. By this time he had already been appointed then-President Obama’s CIA chief.

In his speech, Brennan explained when he had applied in 1980 to join the CIA, he admitted to them that in the 1976 Presidential election, at the height of the Cold War against the “Godless” Soviet Union, when a strong Christian presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter was running against Gerald Ford, Brennan had voted instead for the candidate of the US Communist Party, Gus Hall.  He added that he was also greatly relieved to find that this particular bit of information did not cause a rejection of his CIA application.

The question begs to be asked just WHY that was the case considering it occurred some 11 years prior to the “end of the Cold War” in 1991. It cannot be overstated, Brennan quite literally voted for the Communist Party to take power in the United States of America, which is the complete antithesis of everything this country is supposed to stand for and Obama believed THIS man above all others was fit to obtain security clearance and lead one of America’s foremost intelligence agencies.

Even the mainstream media saw through Brennan with the Washington Post calling for Brennan to be fired in 2014 when Brennan was asked whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques. Many have also speculated that Brennan was the main architect of the investigation into the fictional collusion between Russia and President Trump, and the Trump administration.

Yet many are attempting to defend Brennan attempting to paint him as some sort of “patriot” since President Trump chose to revoke his security clearance, including former advisor and spokesman for Obama, Ben Rhodes. Rhodes took to social media to reminiscence and extol the virtues of Obama and Brennan, giving the pair all the credit for “killing Osama bin Laden.” Except Navy Seal, Rob O’Neill was not having any of it in a firey response they will not soon forget.

Lest people forget just who Rhodes is, here is a refresher. Rhodes’ social media is filled with hatred for all things Trump, daily using social media as a means to attack the current President and his administration. Serving as Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Rhodes also famously lied about the Iran nuclear deal. He is also Obama’s known source to leak things to the press, so naturally, when President Trump chose to revoke Brennan’s security clearance, Rhodes went on a Twitter tirade to announce his displeasure.

Rhodes tweets – “John Brennan was the point person for the Obama White House on the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He knows a lot more about defending our nation than someone who uses security clearances to punish his political adversaries.”

Recall that O’Neill is the Navy Seal credited with delivering the fatal shots that killed Osama bin Laden, and he clearly did not appreciate his own work putting life and limb on the line being credited to Obama’s henchmen for political purposes. Please note that military personnel referred to Osama bin Laden “UBL” which stands for his full name Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Ladin.

O’Neill is clearly no fan of the Democratic Party and this is a widely known fact.

O’Neill was quick to correct Rhodes, tweeting in response – “Actually, @brhodes, 23 conservatives went after UBL. No offense, in case you were wondering.”

There was the usual avalanche of liberals who clearly have no interest in the truth, regardless of the fact that O’Neill was ACTUALLY THERE. The 23 conservatives in question are those men who actually put their lives on the line on the late-night combat mission on May 1st, 2011, not Washington bureaucrats who merely sit in rooms to play “war games.” O’Neill was clear, stating these men were strong patriotic conservatives, not would be communists actively working against America and the interests of her people.

O’Neill summed up his opinions up best on his website stating – “During my military career, I was fortunate to serve with the best of the best — people I found to be so much better than me. I pushed myself every day to be every bit as good as they were. Most of those I worked with felt the same way, and together we accomplished some amazing things.

I was part of over 400 combat missions. Although major motion pictures have been made about some of them, our accomplishments never seemed like a big deal to us. I did what the guys next to me, in front of me, and behind me were doing. We all just did what our SEAL training prepared us to do.

During our missions, all I had to do was focus on my job and watch the back of the guy in front of me. I never worried because I knew my teammates were doing the same. I was part of a team that was bigger than any one man. Everything I ever accomplished could have been achieved by one of my teammates.”

O’Neill is the sort of man author George Orwell spoke of when he stated – “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Continue Reading

News

Benghazi Hero Exposes Massive Cover-Up: Brennan Tried Forcing Survivors To Sign NDA To Hide What Really Happened

Never forget…

Published

on

Just for the record, I have never trusted or had any respect for John Brennan. His actions for years are questionable, to put it mildly, and his voting for a Communist Party candidate should have been career-ending especially in the intelligence game. But because of political agendas, it wasn’t and here we are. Since President Trump has had John Brennan’s security clearance revoked, a number of high-powered individuals have come to his defense. But there are far more who agree with President Trump over this and notably, one well-known special ops hero is suggesting the former CIA director got what he deserves.

You remember Kris “Tanto” Paronto, the former Army Ranger and private security contractor who was part of the CIA team that fought back during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack. He’s impossible to forget and someone I admire a great deal. He’s flat out accusing Brennan of putting his “politics” before those in the field. And he did. “He is lucky the security clearance is all he is getting away with,” Paronto told Fox News in an interview on Friday. Frankly, in my opinion, Brennan should find himself in prison, but that’s just my take on it.

Paronto responded to a tweet from Brennan who laughably stated that his “principles are worth far more than clearances.” The Benghazi hero tweeted back a scathing rebuke, “My principles are greater than clearances too John, especially when you and the @CIA kool-aid drinkers punishes us for not going along with the Benghazi cover-up story in order to protect you, @HillaryClinton’s & @BarackObama’s failures. You put your politics before us.” Paronto was one of the authors of “13 Hours.” It was later turned into a feature film about the Benghazi terrorist attack. He stated that he and his team lost their security clearances for daring to speak out and tell what really happened that fateful day.

Security operators including Paronto previously had to sign non-disclosure agreements. I speak from experience here since I sign those a great deal of the time in my line of work. Those agreements were meant to silence those men to cover up what happened in Benghazi. Paronto told Fox News he signed three pertaining to Benghazi within a six-month period. Brennan told lawmakers in 2014 this was not a specific effort to prevent them from speaking to Congress. In my opinion, that was a bald-faced lie. Paronto claims he didn’t share classified information in telling the Benghazi story and continues to object to their clearances being revoked.

“Normally when you have a clearance suspended, you’re supposed to know why … I was never given that,” he said, blaming Brennan. “It was his determination whether we kept our clearances or not.” It was used as a weapon to shut these men up. Too bad it didn’t work as intended. Paronto also took exception with how his Benghazi team was treated when they returned to the U.S. “We come back from being on the ground to be treated as a second-class citizen. You come back and you’re called a liar,” Paronto told Fox News. “Brennan came in and there was no talk of ‘hey, good job guys,’ not that you look for it, but instead, it was ‘don’t say anything guys, we don’t want the truth to get out.’”

Paronto wasn’t done either. He shot back at Brennan on Twitter Thursday night, slamming him with accusations directly aimed at the former CIA director. “Or caught lying to congress OR caught spying on Pres. candidates OR caught using their positions to influence US elections OR caught fabricating stories about attacks on US personnel in Libya OR providing weapons to ISIS backed militias in Syria ..should I go on @JohnBrennan?” Nice to see someone call Brennan out for his treachery. Respect.

Then the either complicit or severely misguided leaders in the intelligence community lined up to defend Brennan. They called President Trump’s decision to revoke his security clearance “ill-considered and unprecedented.” I read yesterday that a dozen former intelligence officials signed a letter stating that sentiment. “The president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances—and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” the letter read. “As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech—even when that right has been used to criticize us—that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable,” they wrote.

From Fox News:

“The group included six former CIA directors, notably retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus; former director of national intelligence James Clapper, whose security clearance is also under consideration at the White House; and five former deputy directors of the CIA.

“Another senior official, William McRaven, who was commander of U.S. Joint Special Operations command from 2011 to 2014 and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed Usama bin Laden, penned an op-ed for the Washington Post Thursday, urging Trump to “revoke my security clearance, too.”

“McRaven called Brennan “a man of unparalleled integrity,” and said he would “consider it an honor” to have his security clearance revoked and add his name to “the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

“’If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken,” McRaven wrote. “The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.”

“Robert O’Neill, the SEAL Team 6 member who killed bin Laden, respectfully disagreed with McRaven.

“’I have nothing but respect and love for ADM McRaven. Yes, I’ve seen this. We simply disagree,” O’Neill tweeted with a link to McRaven’s op-ed.

“But O’Neill reserved a Twitter burn for former Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes, who touted the ex-CIA director’s involvement in the killing of the 9/11 mastermind in 2011.

“’John Brennan was the point person for the Obama White House on the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He knows a lot more about defending our nation than someone who uses security clearances to punish his political adversaries,” Rhodes tweeted.

“O’Neill responded: “Actually, @brhodes, 23 conservatives went after UBL. No offense, in case you were wondering.’”

Some of those men I actually respect, but as O’Neill states, I respectfully and forcefully disagree with them here. Rand Paul calls Brennan a national security threat and I agree. Paul also says Brennan leaked the name of an operative in Yemen and I believe Paul was instrumental in getting Trump to revoke his security clearance. It was long past due.

Paronto is right about Brennan’s covering things up and silencing people to protect politicians and their agendas. I hope that President Trump yanks a lot more security clearances for others that have betrayed the trust of Americans and their offices, as well as their duty to uphold the law.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend