Connect with us

News

BOMBSHELL: New Report Confirms Obama Is Directly to Blame For the Russia Hoax (Details)

BOOM goes the dynamite…

John Salvatore

Published

on

If you don’t know, now you know.

Barack Obama was involved in the whole Trump/Russia conspiracy from the jump.

Here’s the scoop…

Trending: Pro-Lifers Harassed, Kicked & Belittled By Pro-Abortion Radicals, & It’s All Caught On Tape (WATCH)

From Fox News:

take our poll - story continues below

Have smartphones made the world better or worse?

  • Have smartphones made the world better or worse?  

  • 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.

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

The message, from Page to Strzok, was among thousands of texts between the lovers reviewed by Fox News. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Continued:

Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

In texts previously revealed, Strzok and Page have shown their disdain for Republicans in general, as well as Trump, calling him a “f—ing idiot,” among other insults.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson explains how the FBI opened an investigation in 2017 to learn if President Trump was “secretly a Russian agent.”

You couldn’t make this up.

WATCH:

Businessman Donald Trump was thinking about the idea of a Trump Tower in Russia in 2015, 2016-ish.

Naturally, some paired this deal (that was never made) to Trump working with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Conservative rock star Mark Levin, lawyer and radio host, explains the legal consequences President Trump could be facing.

Hint: sorry liberals.

Listen:

People keep saying, ‘What are the legal implications for Trump?’ There are none. Zero. There’s no legal implication; there’s no legal jeopardy, period. Moreover, in all this so-called reporting and analysis by these phony experts, where did President Trump collude, coordinate, or conspire with the Russians during the election, to fix the result of the election? Where is this evidence? And since there’s not a scintilla of evidence, this should underscore the point that this entire investigation is bogus.

Shouldn’t [the media] be cheering over the fact that so far, all the leaks show that Trump did nothing? Shouldn’t they be celebrating that, that in our republic, the president that we chose is guilty of nothing? That he didn’t collaborate, he didn’t coordinate, he didn’t conspire with the Russians? But they’re not. They keep bringing in these phony experts, who are utterly predictable. ‘You know, uh, if I were Don Jr., I’d be worried about now’ — the country should be worried about now, about what’s taking place. The country should be worried.”

[…]

How many more damn times do I have to explain that it is the position of the United States Department of Justice that you cannot indict a sitting president? He’s not in any kind of legal jeopardy.

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments section…

 

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

New Women’s March Board Member Gets Kicked To The Curb After Two Days On The Job Over Anti-Semitic Tweets

This lady is deplorable.

Published

on

There seems to be something about the Women’s March that’s a beacon for individuals who just love to hate Jews and Israel. In fact, the group’s latest board member was only on the job two days before being booted after anti-Semitic tweets were discovered on her Twitter profile. Hmmm. Really does make you wonder. Why do these kind of people gravitate toward this group? via TheBlaze: On Monday, The Washington Post reported that inaugural co-chairs Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour had stepped down from their positions at the organization, noting that the trio had “been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement.” Conservative news outlets were quick to point out that many in the 17-member board replacing the former leaders were no better, and exposed an array of anti-Semitic tweets and messages expressing support for black nationalist Louis Farrakhan. One of the new board members was Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Washington Examiner reported that Billoo’s Twitter feed was “filled with anti-Zionist tweets, which the Anti-Defamation League has deemed ‘anti-Semitic.'” On Wednesday, Billoo revealed that she had been voted off the board of the Women’s March, following “an Islamophobic smear campaign.” She went on to slam the organization for letting her go, saying “it has effectively said, we will work on some women’s rights at the expense of others.” So wait a minute. Is she really going to play the victim card here? It certainly seems that’s what she’s doing. It’s kind of hard to garner any sort of sympathy for a person trying to claim they are the victim of some sort of hate and racism, when they themselves have been engaged in heinous acts of hatred themselves. Billoo wasn’t removed because she’s a Muslim. She was removed…

Continue Reading

News

New Video Shows Beto O’Rourke Moving Toward Openness Of Snatching ALL Semi-Automatic Firearms

Yeah, that’s a no from me, Beto.

Published

on

Not too long ago, failing Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke stated, in no uncertain terms, that he was all about openly confiscating citizens’ AR-15 rifles, despite the fact that owning such a weapon is protected under the Second Amendment. Because why allow a pesky little thing like constitutional rights get in the way of desperately trying to pull ahead in the political polls right? Well, a new video is out on the Internet that seems to suggest that Beto himself is open to grabbing up all semi-automatic firearms. Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, confronted O’Rourke in Aurora, after arriving an hour late to the event. Todd is actually a supporter of the Second Amendment, despite having been shot and wounded at the tragedy in Columbine, and wanted to know just how far O’Rourke was willing to go on gun policies. Here’s more from The Daily Wire: “I understand that you want to implement a mandatory buyback for AR-15s and AK-47s. None of my classmates were murdered with those weapons, 50% of mass murders don’t happen with those weapons.” “Don’t you think it’s time to get rid of all semi-auto firearms?” Todd asked. O’Rourke, who at one point said that if he was elected that he would be removing firearms from people’s “homes,” responded by saying that he wanted input from Todd about what types of weapons he thinks should be banned. Several minutes later, after the event ended and O’Rourke moved inside to answer questions from reporters, a reporter asked O’Rourke if he would be open to adding “additional classes” of firearms to his ban and confiscation plan. “Yeah, I want to listen to him,” O’Rourke responded. “If there’s a way to improve what we have proposed, I want to make sure that we are reflecting that.”…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend