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

Connect with us

News

Adam Schiff Shifts from Russian ‘Collusion’ to POTUS’ Pockets

The dog whistles coming from Camp Mueller have Adam Schiff’s ears perking up.

Published

on

Adam Schiff

With Robert Mueller’s investigation into “Russian collusion” moving heavily in the direction of anything else, it should come as no surprise that resistance-minded democrats would do the same.

After all, the left is hanging their hopes for delegitimizing the President on the shoulders of Mueller almost entirely.

For his part, Mueller has delivered the democrats a few convictions here and there, but none so far that fit the bill of a Kremlin conspiracy – a fact that has drawn the ire of the American people frequently over the course of the last 18 months plus.

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Tim Allen Beats Liberal Establishment, Ratings Soar for ‘Last Man Standing’

Now, as Mueller’s dog whistles reach the Congressional population, it seems as though the obedient liberals are falling in line with this new focus as well.

President Trump said some time ago that he believes his personal finances should be off limits to investigators. In an interview with the Times in July, 2017, he asserted that if Robert Mueller, the special counsel, sought to investigate the Trump family’s business dealings he would be crossing a “red line.” When, later that year, several news reports suggested that Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records relating to Trump’s businesses, the President reportedly told members of his staff that he wanted to fire Mueller in response. It was never confirmed whether Mueller had actually subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, but the President’s aversion to the scrutiny of his business interests caught the attention of Representative Adam Schiff, who will become the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence next year. On a recent weekend, at a busy restaurant in downtown Burbank, in the heart of his congressional district, Schiff talked about his plans for conducting an investigation that will be parallel to Mueller’s, probing Trump’s connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other places around the world. As Schiff described his approach, it became clear that he wasn’t just planning to cross Trump’s red line—he intended to obliterate it.

And Schiff appears to be adamant.

“Our role is not the same as Bob Mueller’s,” Schiff told me, over a vegan burger. (He changed his eating habits a few years ago, in order to lower his cholesterol.) The job of prosecutors like Mueller is to identify and prosecute crimes, not necessarily to inform and educate the public. Congressional committees, like the one Schiff will soon lead, are supposed to monitor the executive branch and expose wrongdoing. Mueller is supposed to file a report on his findings, but, in keeping with the regulations for the office of the special counsel, it will be up to his supervisor in the Justice Department, who is now Matthew Whitaker, the acting Attorney General, to determine whether Mueller’s report is made public. Schiff has his own agenda for areas to investigate. “The one that has always concerned me is the financial issues, which obviously have come much to the fore this week,” he said. Shortly before Schiff and I spoke, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, had pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his role in the negotiations for building a Trump tower in Moscow. Cohen had said earlier that these discussions ended in January, 2016, but he admitted in court that he had been negotiating with Russian officials, and keeping Trump apprised, through the first half of 2016, during the Republican Presidential primaries. Trump has denied that he was doing business with the Russians during this period.

Now the only question will be whether or not Trump is ready to enforce that “red line” that he has already drawn in the sand.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Democratic Senator Says We’re Headed Toward INDICTMENT of POTUS!

It may all come down to whether or not Mueller is looking to play by the rules or not.

Published

on

Robert Mueller

There have certainly been a number of firsts within this still-young Trump administration.

It may or may not be the first time that we’ve served McDonald’s to a championship team.

And it is certainly the first time that a sitting President might be indicted.  At least according to one Senator from Rhode Island.

Never in thee history of our great nation has something like this been considered, and many on the left are clamoring for it.

Unfortunately for them, there is a longstanding belief in the Department of Justice that a sitting President cannot be indicted, however, he would be eligible to face the music once he leaves office.

According to Rudy Giuliani:

“The Justice Department memos going back to before Nixon say that you cannot indict a sitting president, you have to impeach him. Now there was a little time in which there was some dispute about that, but they acknowledged to us orally that they understand that they can’t violate the Justice Department rules.

“We think it’s bigger than that. We think it’s a constitutional rule, but I don’t think you’re ever going to confront that because nobody’s ever going to indict a sitting president. So, what does that leave them with? That leaves them with writing a report.”

But does that mean that Mueller would play by the rules?

I suppose the only way to find out is to see this out to its inevitable end, whether that be calm, collusion, or calamity.

Continue Reading

News

RED-HANDED! Google’s Anti-Conservative Bias Revealed with SMOKING GUN

Google thought they were too big to get caught. They thought wrong.

Published

on

Google

For months, it has been readily apparent that Google, YouTube, and other mainstream media platforms were actively working to suppress the conservative beliefs of America.

This seemingly newfound animosity toward the right side of the aisle came only from the left’s intense hatred for President Donald Trump.  For what reason?  Seemingly because he was victorious over Hillary Clinton in November 2016, and for few other reasons at all.

With companies such as Google and YouTube, (Google’s video streaming platform), being novel in their gargantuan size, there are no set rules about just how these very public platforms can operate only as private entities, with no regard to Americans’ Constitutional right to free speech.

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now, however, we finally have something resembling a smoking gun in the case.

In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

President Trump has hinted in the past about taking a look at regulations regarding free speech on the internet.  Perhaps this will be the impetus to real action.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend