Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. You are the one who needs help.... You should actually read some of your comments... They tend to be on the dark side. You realize anything you put on the web will be there forever, and you put a lot of hateful statements out there. B/A
  2. Poor excuse for an American. Certainly no patriot. In the colonial days he would have been flocked. Are you blaming democrats for mass shootings? Dude you've lost it completely. B/A
  3. Let's just stop the conspiracies. Summary Barack Obama will be succeeded as president of the United States by Donald Trump, who long challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency by questioning whether Obama, the first African American president, was, in fact, born in America. Trump wasn’t alone. For years, many of Obama’s fellow Americans questioned his citizenship. But the so-called “birther” claims weren’t the only spurious rumors about Obama. Over his eight years in office, we have written about hundreds of viral claims about the president, his family and his policies. Perhaps no bogus claim has persisted more than the falsehood that Obama is an anti-Christian Muslim. According to a 2015 CNN/ORC poll, 80 percent of Americans correctly believe that Obama was born in the U.S., but only a plurality, 39 percent, know that he is a Christian. Twenty-nine percent believe that he is a Muslim. For the record, Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1961. He is also a self-proclaimed Christian who adopted that faith as an adult. Below are some of the biggest whoppers we’ve addressed about Obama’s religion and background, as well as baseless claims that he is anti-America in general. Analysis Not a Muslim In a 2006 speech, Obama said that it “nagged” him in 2004, when Alan Keyes, his opponent in the Illinois U.S. Senate race, suggested that Obama wasn’t a “true Christian.” And not long after Obama announced that he would run for president in 2007, the New York Times wrote an article detailing exactly how Obama, whose Kenyan father was born a Muslim, came to Christianity while attending church in Chicago. Then, Obama told his own conversion story to those attending the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2009, just two weeks after he was sworn in as president. And Obama has talked about his faith annually at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast. None of that has swayed those who continue to wrongly believe that Obama is not a Christian, but also that he is a Muslim. His middle name is “Hussein” after all. A YouTube video titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim” has been viewed nearly 17 million times since April 2009. But it’s totally bogus and the result of deceptive editing. For example, when Obama says “I am one of them,” he doesn’t mean that he is a Muslim. He was talking about being like others who either have Muslim relatives or have lived in countries with large Muslim populations. At other times, the video edits out the words “I’m a Christian” and “my Christian faith” from Obama’s quotes. Truth on the Cutting Room Floor, Dec. 4, 2009 Obama also didn’t attend a radical “Wahabi” school in Indonesia, as a false viral email claimed. That rumor originated with an inaccurate 2007 Insight Magazine article that said Obama “was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage.” CNN interviewed the school’s deputy headmaster, Hardi Priyono, who said: “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion.” That same viral email also claimed that Obama was sworn in as a U.S. senator using a Koran. Wrong. Obama reportedly used his own Bible during his swearing-in ceremony in 2005. It was Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, who used a Koran for his own ceremony in 2007. Sliming Obama, Jan. 10, 2008 President Barack Obama bows his head during the closing prayer at the Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House in 2015. Photo Credit: White House/Flickr Year after year, concerned readers asked us if Obama had canceled the National Day of Prayer. Our answer was always no. The false rumor started in 2009 when Obama didn’t hold a public service in the White House as George W. Bush had done as president. However, Obama issued a National Day of Prayer proclamation in 2009 and every year after. The National Day of Prayer Task Force has also debunked the cancellation claim. Prayer Day Still Not Cancelled, May 5, 2016 The Viral Spiral of 2010, Dec. 21, 2010 Not only did viral rumors claim that Obama canceled the National Day of Prayer, they also incorrectly faulted Obama for allowing a Muslim prayer event to take place on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. The permit for the event in September 2009 was issued by the U.S. Capitol Police, not the White House. Obama’s only connection to the event was that its chief organizer, Hassen Abdellah, said that he was inspired by the president’s inaugural address in January 2009 and a speech Obama gave in June that year. Muslim Prayer Day Sept. 25, Sept. 21, 2009 And Obama didn’t issue a policy in 2009 preventing an Army veteran from speaking at a faith-based event, as an email claimed. The event in question was a fundraiser and had nothing to do with religion. A previously existing policy prohibited the veteran from participating in the fundraiser in an official capacity. New Army Policy Against ‘Faith-Based’ Events?, June 10, 2009 Another viral email expressed outrage at the Obama administration for using “tax dollars to rebuild Muslim mosques around the world.” But the State Department’s program to preserve overseas cultural landmarks started funding projects under President Bush in 2001. And the program funds the rebuilding of historic churches and temples, too. Funding Mosques Overseas, March 10, 2011 Obama also didn’t write that “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” in his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope.” We looked through the book and found that Obama actually said that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese American families in World War II. Obama’s ‘Dreams of My Father,’ June 3, 2008 And Obama didn’t exempt Muslims from having to purchase health insurance as required by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Nor does Obama’s health care law mention the word “dhimmitude,” which is an academic concept, not a tenet of Muslim faith. ‘Dhimmitude’ and the Muslim Exemption, May 10, 2010 Another viral email misquoted Obama as saying that the U.S. is “no longer a Christian nation.” What he actually said was that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just.” Obama stumbled when he delivered the quote live, but his prepared remarks show that he had intended to say that “we are no longer just a Christian nation,” but a nation of many faiths. Obama and the ‘Christian Nation’ Quote, Aug. 26, 2008 Yet another viral email wrongly accused Obama of creating a postage stamp commemorating the Muslim holidays Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. But Obama had nothing to do with the stamp, which was originally announced in 2001 when Bush was president. The stamp has been reissued in different designs several times whenever the postage rate has increased. Muslim Stamp, Sept. 24, 2009 And while we’re on holidays, Obama’s White House never stopped referring to the “White House Christmas Tree” as just that. The zombie claim about the White House “holiday tree” was first proved wrong in 2009, but has circulated online annually during the holiday season. ‘Holiday Tree’ Hooey, Oct. 14, 2009 We Repeat, Still a Christmas Tree, Nov. 10, 2011 Not an Immigrant President-elect Trump acknowledged last year that Obama was born in the U.S. and not in Kenya. But many Americans still haven’t accepted that fact about Obama. It hasn’t helped that some have gone out of their way to spread false information about the soon-to-be former president’s background. A widely shared graphic promoted the falsehood that many of Obama’s early records are “sealed,” including his “original birth certificate.” That’s nonsense. Obama released a copy of his short-form certification of live birth in 2008 — which staffers examined and photographed — and then released a copy of his long-form certificate of live birth in 2011. Both versions were validated by state health officials in Hawaii who have said repeatedly that Obama was born there. Obama’s college records aren’t sealed, either, as the graphic claimed. It’s simply illegal under federal law for Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard Law School to release Obama’s records to the press or the public without Obama’s written permission. Presidential candidates almost never voluntarily release such information. Obama’s ‘Sealed’ Records, July 31, 2012 That viral email on Obama’s “sealed” records was mostly a rehash of one we had debunked long before. The earlier version, from a so-called “Colombo,” also repeated the fanciful “birther” claim that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with a non-U.S. passport. According to the theory, U.S. citizens were barred from traveling there at the time, so Obama must have done so with a foreign passport, proving that he wasn’t a citizen. Hogwash. Americans traveled to Pakistan with no problem, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in June 1981. Clueless ‘Columbo,’ Jan. 18, 2010 More ‘Birther’ Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip, June 5, 2009 In addition, an April Fools’ Day hoax tricked some into believing that the Associated Press reported that Obama attended Occidental on a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students, proving that he isn’t a U.S. citizen. Not so. The AP confirmed to that the story attributed to the news agency was a fake. We received an email asking about Obama’s Fulbright scholarship as recently as May 2016, seven years after we first debunked the claim. So the April Fools’ joke is still fooling some people. Was Obama Born in the USA?, May 7, 2009 April Fools’… Still, April 1, 2010 And another viral email questioning what we know about Obama suggested that he didn’t attend Columbia University, calling it “very, very strange” that “no one ever came forward” to say that they knew Obama in school. Not only does the university proudly claim Obama as one of its own, but the New York Times wrote about Phil Boerner, who knew Obama in 1979 when they both attended Occidental, and then roomed with Obama after they both transferred to Columbia in 1981. Boerner wrote an article for the university’s student magazine in 2009, describing how he and Obama met and what it was like living with Obama in New York. Obama at Columbia University, Feb. 16, 2010 Not Anti-America We also have seen false claims purporting to show Obama doesn’t respect or like the country much. Obama didn’t say, as an email claimed, that he wouldn’t wear a U.S. flag pin because “I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” Nor did he suggest changing the lyrics of the national anthem because the current version “conveys a war-like message.” Those fake quotes were written as a joke by satirist John Semmens for his “semi-news” column. Obama and the National Anthem, April 22, 2008 And Obama didn’t tell his supporters that “we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world” and then ask them to “join with me as we try to change it.” That quote, too, was intended as a joke, according to former National Review contributor Mark Steyn, who said it was sent to him by a reader as “an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign.” Obama Quote Rumors, Aug. 6, 2008 Obama also didn’t ban the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S. public schools. That was a claim from yet another satirical article on a fake news website. But long before we wrote about that, there was the equally fictitious claim that Obama wouldn’t even recite the pledge. The support for that one? A 2007 photo of Obama without his hand over his heart during the national anthem, not the Pledge of Allegiance. Did Not Ban the Pledge, Sept. 2, 2016 Sliming Obama, Jan. 10, 2008 And if Obama wasn’t actively being anti-America, he was reading about it, according to another off-base email. The anonymous author of that viral message jumped to the wrong conclusion after seeing a photo of Obama carrying a popular book by journalist Fareed Zakaria. The book, “The Post-American World,” is about America’s role in a new global era. It isn’t an apocalyptic vision of a world “after America,” as the email claimed. Obama’s Reading Material, Oct. 1, 2009 This is just a sampling, really, of the bogus claims that have been made up about Obama over eight years. He also didn’t create the “Obamaphone,” call for a “new world order,” criminalize free speech, create a “private army,” or attempt to declare martial law. In all, we’ve written close to 200 Ask FactCheck articles about Obama and the first family, including Bo, the dog. But the attacks on Obama’s religion and patriotism stand out — not for what they purported to say about Obama, but for what they say about the biases of people who write and spread such nonsense.
  4. But our president isn't showing support for other hate groups... His followers accept his idea of good people on the white supremist side... That's not acceptable and should be inexcusable by his God fearing followers. B/A
  5. Lou Dobbs: DOJ IG Report Proves ‘Deep State’s Awesome Control’ of Our Government Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs tore into the Justice Department’s top watchdog on Monday night, calling DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the Russia probe a “whitewash” while claiming it was proof that the “Deep State” controlled the government. While some at Fox attempted to toss a pro-Trump spin on Horowitz’s finding that there was no political bias and the FBI had sufficient evidence to launch an investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, Dobbs began his show on Monday by immediately dismissing the report as “long-delayed and hardly worth the wait.” “After 621 days investigating some of the clearest abuses of power by the Obama-era intelligence agency, the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz declared he was unable to find any political bias behind the surveillance of the 2016 Trump campaign,” Dobbs, an informal adviser to Trump, groused. “All this is more evidence of the ‘radical Dimms’ and the Deep State’s awesome control of our permanent bureaucracy of our federal government,” he added. Noting that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham—who is investigating the origins of the Russia probe—both issued statements disagreeing with Horowitz’s findings, Dobbs insisted that Durham was putting “the Deep State on notice.” Moments later, speaking to Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, Dobbs agreed with his guest’s assessment that Horowitz accepted the FBI’s “bureaucratic excuses for targeting the President of the United State and a presidential candidate.” “We have an inspector general who should be a countervailing influence within the Justice Department and the FBI,” Dobbs grumbled. “Who should be bringing accountability to this corrupt cabal of agents and officials of both the FBI and the Justice Department. Instead what we have got here, in 434 pages without exception, is a whitewash.” Wow who didn't see that coming.... Tomorrow's headline for the cult of Trump... "The Deep State Did It" B/A
  6. Yes I certainly seen a change in demeanor amongst our Trump followers in recent hours. B/A
  7. (Bloomberg) -- Former Trump campaign official Rick Gates asked a judge to spare him from prison, put him on probation and order him to do community service for his crimes of conspiracy and lying to federal investigators. In a court filing Monday, Gates said he has accepted responsibility “in every way possible.” He’s scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington on Dec. 17. Gates was a critical witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. He was the star prosecution witness in the trial of his former boss Paul Manafort, who was convicted of bank and tax fraud in August. Gates was Manafort’s right-hand man in his political consulting firm and worked with him for a decade, lobbying on behalf of Ukraine before joining him on Trump’s presidential campaign. Gates remained on the Trump campaign after Manafort resigned in August 2016. He also testified in the trials of one-time White House counsel to Barack Obama, Gregory Craig, and Republican operative Roger Stone. Gates said his “cooperation likely represents the most extensive undertaking by any cooperating defendant in the work of the OSC or any matters arising out of, or related, to the activity of that office.” Additional and specific details of Gates’s cooperation are under seal, according to the filing. Nine letters of support from family and friends, urging Berman to show leniency, were included with the filing. Many described him as a religious man, committed to his family. One letter was filed under seal. Gates also asked that the judge doesn’t impose a fine. “Mr. Gates has remained unemployed since his indictment, and in lieu of any income with which to support his family and maintain their home, he has had to deplete savings and investment accounts, including college savings plans for his children,” according to the filing. The case is U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III, 17-cr-201, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington). Oh Ukraine will you never go away??? B/A
  8. And when the bully at school takes your kid's lunch money until he does his homework, your kid is not going to say he did, because your kid would be afraid. In simple terms, Trump is a bully. No Trump's job isn't to disperse money approved by congress... He could have tried to stop it before it was approved, but once approved it's done. He released the monies only after he knew he was going to be investigated. Which is where the problem lies. You guys can live in denial, you can blame the Deep State, heck you can even say it's all make believe, it doesn't matter because in November Trump will be gone and we can right this ship.. B/A
  9. I think the evidence is pretty obvious that he has obstructed a congressional investigation. There is no Executive Privilege or Clinton surely would have tried that one. And there is no doubt he didn't send the money until after congress said they were going to investigate. He also told his ambassador what to say a couple of days after the announced investigation. He was playing hard ball and got caught then tried to cover his bases, but you can't hide anything in today's world. With all that said, he will never be impeached because of the partisan senate. It will all have to come out in the election when the people have their say, which is fine with me. B/A
  10. And debunked the conspiracies of Trump's fantasy world. I agree with some that we could have simply waited for the next election. His defeat in the election would be way more of a crushing blow to his ego than him being thrown out. If he is thrown out that will only make the deranged cult members even more deranged. B/A
  11. That's so funny you posted that.... How about our president won't testify or let his people testify... That's all we really need to hear... What are they afraid of lying under oath??? We now know the entire Ukraine conspiracy Trump put out was a lie. Is he afraid to lie under oath? One would have to say yes. B/A
  12. Goldman Says Central Banks Gobble Up 20% of Global Gold Supply (Bloomberg) -- Central banks are consuming a fifth of the global supply of gold, signaling a shift away from the dollar that’s bolstering the case for owning bullion, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “De-dollarization in central banks - demand from central banks for gold is biggest since the Nixon era, eating up 20% of global supply,” Jeff Currie, the head of global commodities research at Goldman, said in a Bloomberg Television interview Monday. “I am going to like gold better than bonds because the bonds won’t reflect that de-dollarization.” Last week, Goldman analysts including Sabine Schels said investors should diversify their long-term bond holdings with gold, citing “fear-driven demand” for the precious metal. Bullion climbed to a six-year high in September as the Federal Reserve cut borrowing costs and the total pile of debt yielding less than zero climbed to a record $17 trillion, boosting the appeal of non-interest bearing gold. Hedge funds and other large speculators boosted their bullish bets on the precious metal by 8.9% in the week ended Dec. 3, government data showed Friday. That’s the biggest gain since late September. “Gold cannot fully replace government bonds in a portfolio, but the case to reallocate a portion of normal bond exposure to gold is as strong as ever,” Goldman said in a note Friday. “We still see upside in gold as late cycle concerns and heightened political uncertainty will likely support investment demand” for bullion as a defensive asset. Gold has fallen about 6% from its peak in September in the spot market. The precious metal rose 0.1% to close at $1,461.68 an ounce at 5 p.m. in New York. While Goldman said the correction in bullion prices has further room to run, the bank is still sticking to its forecast prices will climb to $1,600 over the next year.
  13. Goldman Says Central Banks Gobble Up 20% of Global Gold Supply (Bloomberg) -- Central banks are consuming a fifth of the global supply of gold, signaling a shift away from the dollar that’s bolstering the case for owning bullion, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “De-dollarization in central banks - demand from central banks for gold is biggest since the Nixon era, eating up 20% of global supply,” Jeff Currie, the head of global commodities research at Goldman, said in a Bloomberg Television interview Monday. “I am going to like gold better than bonds because the bonds won’t reflect that de-dollarization.” Last week, Goldman analysts including Sabine Schels said investors should diversify their long-term bond holdings with gold, citing “fear-driven demand” for the precious metal. Bullion climbed to a six-year high in September as the Federal Reserve cut borrowing costs and the total pile of debt yielding less than zero climbed to a record $17 trillion, boosting the appeal of non-interest bearing gold. Hedge funds and other large speculators boosted their bullish bets on the precious metal by 8.9% in the week ended Dec. 3, government data showed Friday. That’s the biggest gain since late September. “Gold cannot fully replace government bonds in a portfolio, but the case to reallocate a portion of normal bond exposure to gold is as strong as ever,” Goldman said in a note Friday. “We still see upside in gold as late cycle concerns and heightened political uncertainty will likely support investment demand” for bullion as a defensive asset. Gold has fallen about 6% from its peak in September in the spot market. The precious metal rose 0.1% to close at $1,461.68 an ounce at 5 p.m. in New York. While Goldman said the correction in bullion prices has further room to run, the bank is still sticking to its forecast prices will climb to $1,600 over the next year.
  14. Bullion is the only real hedge Gold has had a great run in 2019. Over the last year, gold prices are up nearly 20%. The yellow metal is on pace for its best year since 2010. In a note to clients published over the weekend, analysts at Goldman Sachs outlined why the strategic case for owning gold remains strong. The firm cites political uncertainty and recession fears that are unlikely to abate as primary catalysts, among other worries among the global elite like wealth taxes and increasing talk about MMT and central bank effectiveness. By 2020, the firm thinks the price of gold will reach $1,600 an ounce; on Monday, gold was trading near $1,460. But the firm also surfaces some really interesting data on how investors have expressed their desire to own gold. Which is that owning the physical metal seems to be the global elite’s preferred way to hedge against tail events. "Since the end of 2016 the implied build in non-transparent gold investment has been much larger than the build in visible gold ETFs," the firm writes, citing the chart below. View photos Trade data implies that gold in storage has increased far more rapidly than is reflected by financial market instruments, indicating a widespread preference for physical gold instead of gold-linked financial assets. (Source: Goldman Sachs) More In plain English, this means that for those including gold in their end-of-the-world trade, owning gold bullion is a must. "This [data] is consistent with reports that vault demand globally is surging," the firm writes. "Political risks, in our view, help explain this because if an individual is trying to minimize the risks of sanctions or wealth taxes, then buying physical gold bars and storing them in a vault, where it is more difficult for governments to reach them, makes sense.” "Finally, this build can also reflect hedges by global high net worth individuals against tail economic and political risk scenarios in which they do not want to have any financial entity intermediating their gold positions due to the counter-party credit risk involved." This thesis also brings to mind Evan Osnos' 2017 New Yorker story that chronicled efforts from the super rich to prepare luxurious hideaways that will see them through the apocalypse. The head of an investment firm told Osnos that, "A lot of my friends do the guns and the motorcycles and the gold coins. That's not too rare anymore." As Osnos chronicled, underground bunkers with air-filtration systems and helicopters that are gassed up and ready to go are now the real differentiators in the prepper community. If you want to be truly prepped, then owning gold is just table stakes. And for Goldman Sachs, that reality helps round out the already strong thesis for investing in gold. Maybe they know something we don't. B/A
  15. That's what I think about Trump... Lying to the people. Lying to Congress. Obstructing federal investigations. Making up conspiracies. Refusing to take part to prove his innocents. Turning against decorated veterans. Taking the word of Putin over Americans. All serious concerns when talking about national security. When you think about it, he really is a disgrace. And I haven't even mentioned his personal life, because however sleazy his decides to be on his time shouldn't play a roll in his job performance. Of course we impeached a president for lying about his sex life. Disgusting yes, of national security concern, no. B/A
  16. I know this is controversial, but it is meant to make people think. So if they showed up at our border today, do you think our country would turn them away? That's the question. I often wonder when I see the homeless and impoverished on our streets, what if that is Jesus? What if Jesus is searching for his true followers? Many, many people would fail his test of faith. Don't you agree? B/A
  17. A Southern California church has erected a nativity scene portraying the Holy Family as a refugee family separated at the U.S. border with Mexico, in a statement about the “thousands of nameless families separated at our borders.” Karen Clark Ristine, the lead pastor at Claremont United Methodist Church, posted an image of the scene on Facebook on Saturday, alongside a lengthy post. The image shows baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph in caged cells decorated with barbed wire. Ristine described the “theological statement” behind the nativity: “In a time in our country when refugee families seek asylum at our borders and are unwillingly separated from one another, we consider the most well-known refugee family in the world.” “Shortly after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary were forced to flee with their young son from Nazareth to Egypt to escape King Herod, a tyrant. They feared persecution and death,” she wrote. “What if this family sought refuge in our country today?” The pastor asked readers to imagine the Holy Family, with baby Jesus no older than two years old, separated at the border and placed into a fenced border patrol detention facility “as more than 5,500 children have been the past three years.” Citing a verse from Matthew, Ristine called upon readers to listen to the teachings of Jesus himself, to be kind, merciful and welcoming of all people. “Inside the church, you will see this same family reunited, the Holy Family together, in a nativity that joins the angels in singing “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and good will to all.” Luke 2:14,” the post concluded, with an #endfamilyseparation hashtag. Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Ristine said the church often uses its nativity scene to highlight societal issues. Previous depictions have reflected California’s homelessness crisis, and a traditional nativity scene showing the Holy Family reunited is located within the church, she said. The post sparked debate in the comments section. Many applauded the display as “powerful,” “relevant,” and “moving,” while others attacked the pastor and her message, arguing that the Holy Family were not refugees. The depiction appears to be portraying the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt to seek refuge after an angel warned Joseph that King Herod sought to kill Jesus, an account of which is in the Gospel of Matthew. In line with the pastor’s numbers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that close to 5,500 children have been separated at the border since July 2017 under the Trump administration’s policies. The organization received a court-ordered accounting of each of the families by the government in October after filing a lawsuit and found that of 1,556 children separated between July 2017 to June 2018, 207 were under five years of age. Of those children, 26 were one year old and 40 were two years old. A federal judge ordered an end to the practice last year except in limited circumstances like threats to child safety. However, Associated Press reported in October that more than a thousand children had been separated since the administration was ordered to stop. How many people would reject baby Jesus at the border? Makes you wonder doesn't it??? If Jesus shows up tomorrow, many in America would refuse to let him in because he's a foreigner. Remember Jesus is of middle east decent… He isn't going to look like the average white guy. B/A
  18. Watchdog report rips FBI handling of Russia probe December 9, 2019, 12:56 PM EST Full story linked below, but you have to love Comey's comment... Former FBI Director James Comey hailed the watchdog report, painting it as a forceful refutation of Trump’s claims that FBI officials engaged in “treason” by deliberately interfering in the electoral process. “There was no illegal wiretapping, there were no informants inserted into the campaign, there was no ‘spying’ on the Trump campaign,” Comey said in a Washington Post op-ed.. “Although it took two years, the truth is finally out.” Comey also swung at Barr, writing: “Those who smeared the FBI are due for an accounting. In particular, Attorney General William P. Barr owes the institution he leads, and the American people, an acknowledgment of the truth.” B/A
  19. It is a very long report.... Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice OVERSIGHT* INTEGRITY * GUIDANCE
  20. I'm sure you're not racist or a homophob, or think there are nice people in the white supremist movement, and I'm sure you are not against helping the poor and impoverished. And I know you would never be for leaving the earth for our grandkids worse than you found it. B/A
  21. Here are the biggest takeaways from the DOJ watchdog's highly anticipated report on the Russia probe's origins The Justice Department's inspector general released a highly anticipated report Monday of his findings in an investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia probe. The FBI had an "authorized purpose" to launch the Russia investigation, the report said. Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the FBI "spied" on his 2016 campaign. The report also found that there is no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page." Scroll down to read more of Horowitz's key findings and what they mean for the president. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. The Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, released a report Monday of his investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia probe. It was a sweeping inquiry; according to the report, Horowitz's team examined more than 1 million documents and conducted 170 interviews with more than 100 witnesses. Here are the main findings: The FBI had an "authorized purpose" to launch the Russia investigation. The FBI did not use the so-called Steele dossier to start the probe. The unverified dossier, compiled by the former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, has been at the center of Republican allegations about the investigation. Specifically, they accused the FBI of using uncorroborated and anonymously sourced information to justify starting the Russia probe. Horowitz found that FBI investigators didn't get Steele's dossier until after the investigation had been launched. The bureau's use of confidential informants complied with the rules. There is no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations" into Trump campaign aides George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. There were "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the Page FISA application, and FBI agents "failed to meet the basic obligation" to make sure the applications were "scrupulously accurate." "We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omissions, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome," the report said. "Nevertheless, the department's decision makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a US person associated with a presidential campaign." There is no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page." Steele called the allegation that he was biased against Trump "ridiculous." In fact, according to the report, Steele said he was "favorably disposed" to the Trump family before he began his research on the dossier "because he had visited a Trump family member at Trump Tower and had 'been friendly'" with that person for years. Steele "described their relationship as 'personal' and said that he once gifted a family tartan from Scotland to the family member." Multiple media outlets reported that the family member described in the report is first daughter Ivanka Trump, whom Steele first met in 2007 in London. The report uncovered several pro-Trump text messages exchanged between two FBI employees on November 9, 2016, the day after Trump won the election. "Trump!" a handling agent said in a text message to a co-handling agent. "Hahaha. S--- just got real," the co-handling agent replied. "Yes it did," the first agent said. The second responded, "I saw a lot of scared MFers on...[my way to work] this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha." The report's release was highly anticipated by both Democrats and Republicans, and both sides seized on different findings to bolster their talking points. "Clearly, there was a legitimate, factual basis; in fact the FBI had a moral imperative to begin this investigation," Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal told The Washington Post. He pointed specifically to Horowitz's report found that political motivation was not "in any way a factor" in launching the probe. Republicans, meanwhile, latched onto Horowitz's finding that there were irregularities in the Page FISA application. The report "is deeply disturbing," GOP congressman Mark Meadows tweeted. "Some former FBI and DOJ officials are about to have some serious explaining to do." Attorney General William Barr, who has been critical of the Russia probe and defended Trump since taking office this year, also put out a statement. "The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken," the statement said. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee at a hearing on the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., July 24, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis More The Russia investigation, spearheaded first by former FBI director James Comey and later by the special counsel Robert Mueller, found that President Donald Trump's campaign enthusiastically welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election, but there was not sufficient evidence to bring a conspiracy charge against anyone on the campaign. It also found over 10 instances in which Trump tried to obstruct justice in the investigation, but that he was largely unsuccessful because his own staff refused to carry out his orders. Mueller declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether to charge Trump, citing a 1973 Office of Legal Counsel memo that said a sitting president cannot be indicted. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed Horowitz to launch an internal investigation into the origins of the Russia probe after Trump and his allies accused the FBI of acting improperly when it sought a warrant to surveil the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during and after the election. The president also alleged that the FBI "spied" on his campaign, dubbing the purported scandal, "Spygate." Barr has told associates he disagrees with one of Horowitz's main findings: that the FBI had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to justify launching the Russia investigation, according to the Washington Post. He reportedly hasn't been convinced by Horowitz's findings. Barr has drawn sharp backlash from Democrats and legal experts who have said he functions more as the president's personal defense attorney than as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Indeed, he claimed months before Horowitz's report was released that the FBI improperly spied on Trump's campaign, a claim that led to discord and a drop in morale within the rank and file at the bureau. He also overruled Mueller with respect to his obstruction findings and cleared the president of wrongdoing before the public or Congress had a chance to see the special counsel's full report. But the president and his allies have cheered Barr on, particularly as he embarks on a separate, broader internal investigation with US attorney John Durham into the roots of the Russia inquiry. There's no sign so far that they've uncovered any incriminating evidence. The Washington Post reported that Durham also asked Horowitz if he'd obtained evidence that Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy Maltese professor who told the former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillarious Clinton's campaign, was secretly a Western intelligence asset. Horowitz said he had no information to support that theory, which has been widely popular in right-wing circles. Sung to Alice Cooper's "No more Mr. Nice Guy".... No more Mr. Spy Guy... No more Mr. Fantasyyyyyyy. B/A
  22. WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's internal watchdog found the controversial surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser was riddled with errors, raising questions about its justification. The voluminous report, released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, identified 17 separate inaccuracies across three surveillance applications, effectively inflating the justification for monitoring former foreign policy adviser Carter Page starting in the fall of 2016. Horowitz, however, concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. There was no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations," the report said. The 400-page report debunks claims by the president and his allies that political bias played a role in the FBI's decision to investigate members of the Trump campaign for possible coordination with Russia. The inspector general said there was "no evidence" the FBI placed any undercover sources or agents in the Trump campaign or had them attend campaign events. The criticism of the FBI’s surveillance activities, however, is central to the report’s findings and is likely to fuel new attacks from President Donald Trump and a cadre of Republican allies. Horowitz also singled out a Justice Department official for possible criminal investigation. Horowitz launched his review in March 2018 in response to requests from Republican lawmakers and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The review examined the FBI's decision to investigate four Trump associates and campaign aides: Page, former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Papadopoulos caught the attention of the FBI after he boasted to an Australian diplomat that Russia had offered political dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Hillarious Clinton. The diplomat alerted the FBI. Page had longstanding ties to Russia and admitted meeting with Kremlin officials on a July 2016 trip to Moscow. Manafort and Flynn also have ties to Russia and traveled there. The inspector general also examined the FBI's relationship with Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was hired by a research firm working for Clinton's campaign. Steele authored a now-infamous "dossier" alleging ties between Trump and Russia. Errors with requests to wiretap Page Throughout the report, the inspector general raised questions about the management of the high-profile, politically charged investigation. "So many basic and fundamental errors" were made by investigative teams handpicked to conduct one of the FBI's most sensitive investigations, the report said. "We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared (applications for wiretap warrants) but also by the managers and supervisors in the chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed," the report said. How we got here: The events that led to the inspector general's report on the origins of the Russia probe Among the most common errors in the wiretap applications for Page were the omission of important information, including some that contradicted investigators' suspicions. For example, the FBI didn't note Page's denial that he had been involved in revising a part of the Republican platform to be more favorable to Russia. In other cases, inaccurate information was included. At one point, the significance of Steele's prior cooperation with U.S. authorities was “overstated.” The FBI didn't corroborate Steele's account of Page's dealings with Russians, but still used it in its preparation of the surveillance applications. The decision to rely on Steele’s reporting "to help establish that Page was an agent of Russia" was supported by “FBI officials at every level," the report said. The inspector general found “no evidence” that FBI officials raised any concerns about the reliability of Steele's information with top officials, including then-FBI Director James Comey or Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Because the bureau's top leadership was not notified, the report said, they "authorized the FBI to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique targeting Carter Page based on significant omissions and inaccurate information in the initial and renewal FISA applications.” Horowitz singled out Bruce Ohr, an FBI lawyer and associate deputy attorney general, for additional review and possible criminal investigation. The inspector general sharply criticized Ohr for his relationship with Steele and for failing to inform his Justice supervisors of those contacts. In a written response, FBI Director Christopher Wray characterized the report as “constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization.” “We are vested with significant authorities and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity,” Wray said. “Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.” Barr disagrees with IG's findings Attorney General William Barr disagreed with Horowitz's overall finding that the FBI's investigation was justified. “The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said. Barr is overseeing a parallel criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. John Durham, whom Barr tapped to lead the parallel investigation, also refuted the inspector general's conclusion. "Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to the predication and how the FBI case was opened," Durham said in a statement. Democrats on Capitol Hill said the report debunks conspiracy theories fanned by Trump and Republicans about how the Russia investigation began. "Those discredited conspiracy theories were attempts to deflect from the President's serious and ongoing misconduct, first urging Russia and now extorting Ukraine into interfering with our elections to benefit him personally and politically," said Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, Democrats representing New York and co-chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees. The report comes as Democrats are drawing up articles of impeachment against Trump over allegations that he sought to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would help Trump politically. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, decried the FBI's "spying" on four Americans. "This is a grave matter that should deeply trouble Americans of all political stripes," he said. Political bias did not play a role in Russia probe Despite his criticism, Horowitz's investigation found that the FBI's decision to investigate Page, Papadopoulos, Flynn and Manafort was properly authorized and followed Justice Department policies. In determining whether bias played a role in the decision to launch the Russia probe, the inspector general examined text messages exchanged by Peter Strzok, a former FBI counterintelligence agent assigned to the investigation, and Lisa Page, a former FBI lawyer. Horowitz determined that the messages, which were hostile toward Trump, "created an appearance of bias" and "raised serious questions" about the validity of decisions involving the two. But Horowitz noted that Page did not play a role in the decision to investigate Trump's campaign aides. Although Strzok was involved, "he was not the sole, or even the highest level decision maker," the report said. "Witnesses told us that they did not recall observing during these discussions any instances or indications of improper motivations or political bias on the part of the participants, including Strzok," the report said. Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement that the report confirms that Strzok's "personal opinions never impacted his work as an official of the FBI." FISA report: Dueling investigations? Days before inspector general's report on FBI's Russia investigation, Trump promotes AG probe Special Counsel Robert Mueller took over the FBI's investigation in May 2017 and indicted three dozen individuals and entities, including six former Trump associates and campaign aides – all of whom have either pleaded guilty or have been convicted by a jury. Page was never indicted as part of the Russia probe. Mueller's two-year investigation found a “sweeping and systematic" effort by the Russian government to intercede in the election to help Trump win, but concluded neither the president nor his campaign conspired with Russians, according to the special counsel’s report released in April. The report, however, portrayed the campaign as an eager beneficiary of Russian efforts. Debunked... Discredited.... Deep State.... B/A
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.