BREAKING: McCabe, Under Criminal Investigation, Announces Lawsuit Against Trump For Defamation

By Ben Shapiro

Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director now referred by the inspector general for criminal prosecution over leaks to the media, is planning to sue the Trump administration for defamation and wrongful termination. McCabe, of course, was fired just days before he was set to legally retire, based on the IG report that stated that he had leaked to the media and had lied to federal investigators. According to Axios:

McCabe’s lawyers are also seeking ways to release emails and phone call transcripts between McCabe and former FBI Director James Comey, which would offer insight into their communication about the leaks to the Wall Street Journal.

Comey, of course, has said openly that McCabe did not have his permission to leak the material at issue in the criminal probe.

McCabe’s lawyer said that Trump had engaged in “continuing slander,” adding, “We’ve never seen anything like this before. It does damage not only to Andy McCabe individually but also to the FBI as an institution.” McCabe has already raised some $550,000 on GoFundMe thanks to his firing by the Trump administration.

It will be quite difficult for McCabe to win any such lawsuit for defamation. The legal standard for defamation of a public figure is quite high: actual malice must be proven. That standard includes a false statement that the defendant knows is false or that the defendant doesn’t care is false. Now, there are courts that may rule that Trump has shown actual malice against McCabe based on his myriad tweets regarding him, but that’s not an open and shut case.

This seems far more like McCabe trying to distract from his current legal situation by misdirecting toward Trump, rather than McCabe zealously protecting his reputation. But what else is new? According to the IG report, McCabe allegedly leaked to the media regarding his involvement in the Clinton Foundation investigation for his own personal benefit.

Last chance for Russiagate? Democrats file lawsuit against Trump campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks

Screen Shot 2018-04-20 at 3.06.26 PM

In a last-ditch effort to keep the Trump/Russia collusion story alive, the Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit on Friday against the Trump campaign, the Russian government, and WikiLeaks.

The suit alleges that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to hack the DNC’s computer network and publish the committee’s emails via WikiLeaks, reported the Washington Post.

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.

The DNC is seeking financial reparations for the alleged collusion, which the committee says amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election.

While heavy on blame, the suit is conspicuously light on evidence. White House Special Counsel Robert Mueller has found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, despite looking for almost a year.

Claims that Trump attempted to interfere with the FBI’s investigation were also dashed this Thursday, with the release of former FBI Director James Comey’s memos of his meetings with the president. The memos showed that Trump was cooperative and wanted all allegations of collusion properly investigated. Likewise, Russian responsibility for the DNC data breach has never been established.

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are among the defendants in the suit, as is the hacker Guccifer 2.0, who allegedly provided WikiLeaks with the trove of internal DNC emails detailing the Democrats’ financial and other dealings in the run-up to the 2016 election. The whistleblowing website is being accused of serving as a tool of Russian influence, and the hacker is summarily listed as an operative of GRU, the Russian foreign military intelligence.

Screen Shot 2018-04-20 at 3.08.01 PM

Trump is not named as a defendant. Rather, the Democrats are targeting key figures in the Trump team “who met with people believed to be affiliated with Russia” during the campaign.

Donald Trump Jr. is named, as is President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates. Manafort and Gates were charged by Special Counsel Mueller with money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion earlier this year, but not with any kind of collusion with Russia.

Republican strategist Roger Stone is named for allegedly meeting with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the campaign, a claim he denies.

Foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and London professor Joseph Mifsud are mentioned, as are Aras and Emin Agalarov, Russian businessmen who once held a Miss Universe beauty pageant in Moscow. As owner of the pageant, Trump attended.

The Agalarovs helped arrange a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in 2016. The suit also cites Trump traveling to the Soviet Union in 1987.

Even if the lawsuit was built on solid evidence, the DNC might find it difficult to actually sue Russia, as other nations enjoy immunity from US lawsuits.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


By Rick Wells

Sen Grassley is allowing a bill, part of the coup, which makes an un-elected special counsel more omnipotent, a parasite a President has no way of removing, to pass…

 Despite a statement by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that an effort to permanently affix the parasitic special prosecutor to President Trump would not be brought up on the Senate floor, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is determined to waste the American people’s money and appease Democrats, who effectively run the Senate despite there being a Republican majority.
Grassley (R-IA) is keeping his word to his good friend and never-Trumper swamp creature Lindsey Graham, agreeing to have a vote in the Judiciary Committee on a witch hunt insulation bill that would provide a means for the reinstatement of a fired special counsel. Two anti-Trump RINOs, Lindsey Graham and Tom Tillis (R-NC) have teamed up with two globalist Democrats, Chris Coons and the flaming radical Cory Booker.


Video Below

Acting as if he or the cabal of four had gone out of their way in service to the nation rather than in service to the globalist efforts to undermine and oust the President, Grassley said he was just keeping his word to the never-Trumpers and subversives. Maybe he should go home and work on his tractor.

He told the coup participants that he would schedule a committee vote if they worked together to merge two bills to protect Mueller into one. The people of Iowa are likely asking themselves when Grassley became a Democrat or why he’s being even more deferential to their anti-American demands than usual.

Now that they crafted the document protecting the point man in the coup attempt, Grassley says he owes it to them to keep his word and give the bill a committee vote. He could have acted with that same level of fidelity to the Constitution, and the President of his own party in the face of the outrageous and never before seen political attacks, but he chose not to. His constituents can ask him why.

The Bill that the four traitors produced is called the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, which says that Mueller or any future special counsel can only be fired “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause.” A special counsel who is fired could appeal to “the courts” to be reinstated.

Excuse us, Chuck, but if raiding the residences and office of the President’s personal attorney isn’t misconduct, if abandoning the original supposed criteria of the investigation, Russia-Trump collusion, and moving on to other areas beyond his scope rather than concluding the investigation isn’t misconduct, what is?

If ignoring the crimes of Hillary Clinton, and the obvious Russia collusion on the part of Democrats while trying to fabricate a crime on the part of President Trump isn’t dereliction of duty, what is?

If conspiring with criminal suspects and personal friends, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Clinton, Obama and Rosenstein, in order to maneuver into the chief witch hunter position and eliminate the President isn’t a conflict of interest, what is?

There’s a word for people who engage in a plot to overthrow a lawfully elected president and it fits most, if not all of those involved in this charade to seal President Trump’s baseless politically motivated overthrow – traitor.


Sanctimonious faux conservatives have been exposed as useful idiots

By Kurt Schlichter

You know all that insufferable babbling and crying about “principles” we had to endure from you Never Trump Konservative Ken Dolls? Your rending of your cheap suits, your 180s over classic GOP policies because The Donald actually tried to enact them, and your mortifying blubbering to suddenly sympathetic hosts on MSNBC and CNN about how awful our President is? With your sad, drawn faces and high-pitched voices, you True Conservatives of Conservatism™, you Keepers of the Flame of Conservativeness resisted the coming of Donald Trump (and those who supported him) because…because…

 Because that’s not who we are…

 Because we’re better than that…

 Because…our principles!

Our principles. Yeah, right. Well, it was all a crock, a con, a grift by a bunch of displaced Beltway strivers furious that the marks – that’s us Normals – wised up to their scam, played the players, and sent them packing.

Principles? You laughed uproariously at Sean Hannity’s confidential information being revealed for no good reason, just as you laughed at President Trump when federal agents marched into his lawyer’s office to steal privileged documents as part of the shameful collusion farce you’ve been applauding. Your principles didn’t stop you from supporting an effort to undo the results of an election that left you out in the cold.

What would the Founders say? Probably, “Stop trying to hang around with us.”

Where are your principles in the face of the gross injustices of the last few days? A federal judge who was nearly appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general and who officiated at Soros’s wedding ordered Hannity’s information disclosed, but that was cool with you. After all, Sean Hannity is so…oh well, I never!

Principles that depend on who is asserting them aren’t principles. They are poses.

If you actually adhered to them, your principles would have you shrieking, not cheering. A bunch of Hillary-donating feds should not be allowed to randomly pillage through privileged materials looking for a crime. No, the crime-fraud exception does not mean that the feds can just take all your stuff, read through it, and decide if some happens to fall into that narrow exception and leak the rest. But hey, why let some principles get in the way of a good laugh at the expense of one of those Trump people?

Gosh, it’s almost like your talk of principles was just…talk.

The government is mocking due process, shattering attorney-client privilege, and undermining the rule of freakin’ law, but you’re giggling like teen girls at a One Direction reunion concert, only you’re less butch. Where are your principles now that invoking them helps someone you don’t like?

Missing in action, like Bill Kristol and Max Boot when it comes to the wars they so eagerly advocate.

You and your principles. Your only principle is getting the president out of power so you can weasel back in.

You don’t hate Donald Trump because he feels he can ignore your glorious principles o’ convenience. You hate Donald Trump because he feels he can ignore you.

And same with the rest of the Normals, those of us who had to spend decades listening to your excuses and lies until we noticed that the cruise ship captains of the conservative elite had been treading water. Oh yeah, every election you promised to fight, and after every election all you did was fail. But you had a good gig, as long as the bipartisan elite grift was in effect. When the GOP won, you were the in-crowd, and you raked in donations and media hits with the promise that you would use the power we gave you to make real conservative change.

But that never seemed to happen.

And when the GOP lost, well, then you were in opposition, and so you raked in the dough and attention talking about how you would fight once we put you back into power.

It was a pretty good scam, that is, until we got tired of being lied to and installed a disruptor into office. And what we hired him to disrupt was your sweet little gig.

We rejected you. Us unwashed, uncivilized, non-DC/NY-living nobodies rejected you, and now you can’t even get your phone calls returned from that 24-year old guy in a MAGA hat down at the Old Executive Office Building. You’re a nobody, a punchline, writing articles nobody reads for magazines no one remembers.

It gnaws at you.

But you still have your principles, your precious principles, and the liberals will let you act out your Never Trump charade on their shows and in their pages because it’s helpful to them to have little Mr. Helper playing Sad Conservative Has-been Against Trump. But they don’t respect you. And they don’t like you. And when they are finished with you, it’s back in the gimp box.

You think you’re Michael Corleone Conservatives, pulling the strings, plotting to take power. But you’re really just Fredocons. You’re not smart, you can’t handle things, and you may want respect, but don’t hold your breath.

Still, you have your wonderful principles. Congratulations. And if you close your eyes and try real hard, you unaccomplished mediocrities can imagine that you aren’t just lying there on your bellies at the feet of your liberal overlords. But you are. Maybe if you beg, if you obey, if you please them by trashing the people you used to pretend to champion, perhaps your masters will drop a scrap off the table for you to gobble up.

Here’s a hit on NBC with Chuck Todd. Be ready with a bon mot about how Donald Trump is a moral cancer.

Here’s a chance to write for the New York Times. Be careful to stay within bounds, though, or else.

Here’s an invitation to a little cocktail soiree in Georgetown. Just make sure you shake your head in disgust when the other partygoers talk about those racist hillbillies and science-hating Christians with their guns and Jesus and masculinity.

You’ve talked and talked and talked about principles, but as James Comey and Robert Mueller and your gal Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit undermined every principle this country was founded on, all you did was clutch pearls about how Trump is icky. This country is in real danger of breaking apart, of actual conflict, but all you can think of is recovering your cheesy little seat on the Beltway bench.

No one’s fooled. And no one cares. Which ought to scare the hell out of you. Because when the liberals figure out that you have zero credibility with us real conservatives, you’ll stop being their useful idiot. You’ll just be a plain old idiot.

Mocking Dead Women Is Wrong, Unless They’re Republicans

Former First Lady Barbara Bush is interviewed for ‘The Presidents’ Gatekeepers’ project about the White House Chiefs of Staff at the Bush Library, October 24, 2011 in College Station, Texas. (Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images).

By Jim Treacher

One of my favorite rules of thumb is this: “Liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking.”

I try to live by that. Even if I disagree with you strongly, even if I think your opinions are ignorant and poisonous and dumb as hell, I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t say. I might not listen to you, but I won’t try to shut you down so nobody can listen to you. What you’re saying isn’t hate speech just because I hate it. Keep runnin’ that yap, dummy.

This theory is sorely tested every single day. And I find myself especially tested when something bad happens to someone who’s despised by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left, such as when a prominent Republican passes away. That’s when the floodgates of spite and rage open up, and libs show the rest of us who they really are.

Bryant-Jon Anteola, Fresno Bee:

A Fresno State professor called former first lady Barbara Bush an “amazing racist” who raised a “war criminal,” and expressed no concern that she could be fired or reprimanded for her outspokenness on social media.

Randa Jarrar, a professor in Fresno State’s Department of English, expressed her displeasure with the Bush family within an hour after the official announcement that Mrs. Bush died Tuesday at the age of 92.

Jarrar made her deep thoughts known to the world via the miraculous medium of Twitter. She’s locked her account for some reason, but here are some screenshots of her musings.

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 12.19.41 PM

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 12.20.37 PM

Jarrar now says she’s been placed on paid leave by Fresno State. It must be nice to have a job that gives you a free vacation for spewing bile in public. But I sincerely hope it’s only temporary and she’s back to work soon. Not because I want Jarrar to be proven right in her arrogant claim that she can never be fired, but because she’s a perfect advocate for liberalism. I want everybody to see how hateful and dimwitted it really is.

Also on Twitter, a self-described “poet” named Mira Gonzalez has added these similarly lovely contributions to the national discussion:

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 12.21.39 PM

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 12.22.48 PM

I guess I just don’t get modern poetry.

Then there’s this relatively mild example from a woman named Jen Spyra, who says she’s a writer for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. (I suppose that’s something to brag about, in certain circles.)

Insulting a woman’s looks as her friends and family mourn her. That might seem nasty, but I’ll remind you that Barbara Bush wasn’t a Democrat, so there’s an entirely different set of rules.

How to become ‘an Assad apologist’? Just question MSM rhetoric & welcome to the club


A child receives oxygen in Douma on April 7, 2018. © Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets / Global Look Press

Despite there being no clear evidence that the Syrian president launched a chemical attack, anyone who questions the common narrative is described as an “Assad apologist.” Still, some are speaking out against the echo chamber.

Syrians frantically hosing each other down and toddlers with oxygen masks – videos which claim to portray Douma’s alleged chemical attack horrify and shock.

Upon the news breaking, originally from the White Helmets – a group that operates partly in areas under the control of Syria’s opposition militants – French President Emmanuel Macron insisted that they had evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used chemical weapons in the militant-held city of Douma.

US President Donald Trump was eager to announce on Twitter that “smart” bombs would soon rain down on Syrian forces. UK PM Theresa May chipped in with a “significant body of information, including intelligence [that indicated] the Syrian regime is responsible for this latest attack” before joining the allies in a strike in the early hours of Saturday morning, without taking the issue to parliament.

Some are now querying the allies’ line of logic. Are the videos legitimate? Why would Assad, who was about to retake Douma, bomb his own people? And where is the proof from reliable, third-party sources?

Tucker Carlson

In a no-holds-barred monologue on his Fox News program, US journalist Tucker Carlson was quick to slam “genius” politicians, media, intelligence services, and think-tanks that confidently blame Assad for the alleged attack, despite not actually knowing what happened on the ground.

“All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don’t really know that. They’re making it up. They have no real idea what happened,” he said, while reiterating that both sides of the Syrian conflict have access to chemical weapons.

Cenk Uygur

The Young Turks journalist ran a segment in which he acknowledged that he agreed with Carlson about Syria.

“It pains me to say this, but I think Tucker Carlson’s exactly right,” he said after playing the Fox News journalist’s clip, noting that it is rare for him to agree with anchors on the network.

Uygur also replayed a clip of his own, in which he said the mainstream media appear to have been pushing Trump towards war with Syria. “The mainstream media poses as if they are neutral, objective,” but that their perspective is almost always “war is great.”

“So neocons, warmongers, defense contractors, and yes – mainstream media. Thank you very much,” Uygur said on his April 9 broadcast.

Jeffrey Sachs

The economist, UN special adviser, and Colombia University professor told MSNBC’s Morning Joe program that the current situation in Syria is a “US mistake that started seven years ago.”

Those seven years have been a “disaster,” he said, recalling a covert CIA operation called ‘Operation: Timber Sycamore.’ The US “started a war to overthrow a regime.”

“This is what I would call the ‘Permanent State.’ This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but we have no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria.

“And so, what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you… Get out. We’ve done enough damage in seven years,” he said.

Lord West

Retired First Sea Lord, Lord West of Spithead told the BBC he doesn’t understand the narrative that posits Assad as responsible for the attack. “President Assad is in the process of winning this civil war,” he said. “And he was about to take over and occupy Douma.

“He’d had a long, hard slog capturing that part of the city. Just before he goes in and takes it all over, he decides to go and have a chemical attack. It just doesn’t ring true.”

West, who had a seat on the National Security Strategy Committee – wondered what “benefit is there for [Assad’s] military.” He added: “We know in the past some of the Islamic groups have used chemicals and there would be huge benefit in them labeling an attack as coming from Assad.”

Robert Fisk

Multi-award winning journalist Robert Fisk is at the coal face on the ground in Douma, speaking to civilians, doctors, and nurses right there in the Eastern Ghouta city… none of whom, he says, can remember a chemical attack. They did, however, note that a panic was created in the underground hospital by members of the White Helmets while patients were being treated for hypoxia – Oxygen deficiency that was caused by a dust storm.

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred meters from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened,” a Syrian doctor, who was not an eyewitness to the attack, told Fisk. “There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived.

“People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet,’ shouted ‘Gas!’ and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

Peter Hitchens

Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens has taken to his blog to express his doubts over the Syrian chemical attack. Hitchens points out that publicly available evidence – as in, not the mysterious, unspecified proof from Macron – has no sources or way to verify its accuracy.

“How in that case did they reach their confident conclusion that the Syrians did it?” Hitchens queried. “Unnamed witnesses are cited along with films allegedly recorded at the time on which aircraft sounds have been heard. Since so much weight is given to this evidence, it is frustrating that we are not, in this version, given any details of the sources or of the verification methods used.”

Republishing a previous blog from earlier in April, Hitchens went on to say that: “In my view, a pretty arduous and definitive demonstration that the previous accusation of poison-gas use by Assad’s forces had never been proven, though it had been made to look as if it had been. It is also, though I say it myself, fascinating in many ways, if you are interested in evidence at all.”

Peter Ford

Former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, appeared on Fox News, slamming trigger-happy President Trump and his advisers. “It’s not certain by any means that it was a chemical attack,” Ford said. “There are reports from Western journalists who were in Douma yesterday that they could find no folks that could confirm that there had been a chemical attack.

“They went to the hospital where those videos were filmed and spoke to doctors – named doctors, so this can be checked – who said there was no chemical attack. What there was an ordinary bomb attack which had people streaming into the hospital with smoke inhalation problems.

“The White Helmets – the jihadist medical auxiliaries – started shouting ‘Gas,’ caused panic, and everyone went into gas mode, started with the hoses and the inhalers. Meanwhile, it was all being carefully videoed and put out by rich Arab country propagandists. There’s the distinct possibility that we’ve been deluded,” the former ambassador added.

Ford proceeded to lash out at the Trump administration for taking information from the White Helmets at face value. “I think the president’s advisers have served him extremely badly,” Ford said. “They’ve not been asking the hard questions like who are these White Helmets? Was the president told that these are the people involved with beheadings?”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!