Election 2016...

[68fastback]

Great summary!

And notice how the lame media is foisting on the public that Trump says the memo nixes Russian involvement (untrue and a red-herring to distract) vs nixes the criticism Trump got when he said (over a year ago now?) that Trump tower was being tapped (true! ...and what he actually said).

You can almost bet the dems 'memo' will have stuff in it that MUST be redacted -- this way they can blame "the Trump Administration" as if Nazi censorship orchestrated by POTUS ...just as they are saying Trump orchestrated the memo (nonsense, house committee did). It's sad but even the folks on Fox miss the sledgehammer implications of these 'subtleties.'

Ok, so the GOP will need to (keeping it proportional -lol) issue a 25-page rebuttal to the 10-page rebuttal with even more detail and loaded with detail that necessitates redactions ...eventually there will be only a few non-redacted words left in the dems then 100-page rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal of the memo

DNC and
Clintons and
FBI with
DOJ
fed Steele's phony dossier via Fusion GPS and third party law firm
and then a second (incomplete) Steel dossier (new news today) seemingly fed by DOJ/FBI (!!)
and conned FISA court (using one or both (dunno)
to screw Trump's campaign
by unjustifiably instituting SC Mueller based on
claiming Trump collusion based on phony dossier(s)
based on DNC made up stuff
while Clintons were actually colluding with Obama FBI (Comey and others) and DOJ (Lynch and others)
After Al Franken set up Sessions with a leaked news report to the NYTimes Sessions could not know about because it was leaked while Sessions was testifying to Congress -doh!

That Al Franken turd that caused Sessions to (unnecessarily) recuse himself from Russian stuff and appoint Rosenstein (a-fox-watching-the-chickens) was also a dem set-up because it was the DNC that leaked the info to the NYTimes that Sessions actually was in a 'meeting' with Sergey Kislyak (perfectly okay) but was actually just in the same room with him, but didn't remember that while testifying -doh! (you may recall that the dems invited Kislyak to their convention dinner where Pelosi sat next to him -- but apparently that's okay too!! -doh). That whole Sessions recusal leverage was a set-up snooker so the dems could scream "recusal" for a month (perception is everything) because they were afraid Sessions would instigate an investigation into the FISA court unmaskings (f you recall), so they had to nullify him ...it was stupid of him to name Rosenstein -- who is in the dems camp and as dirty as Comey and his long time boss Mueller in all this.

The dems are masters of staged bullsh!t and Adam Schiff is a very dangerous person, imo. Good to see Trump going after him directly in tweets the last couple days ...Trump knows the game they're playing now, just as he suspected a year ago, but has to be careful what he says. Oh, and remember that Mueller only exists because of the DNC fake stuff that Comey leaked to his professor friend who went to the NYTimes which is how the dems initiated the clamoring for a Special Council in the first place -doh!

All this was staged to nullify and distract. Such talent wasted on actions that divide this country ...the specialty of the dems!

[68fastback]

Well, it's pretty clear the shadow left government is trying to take down a duly elected POTUS.

Nice to at least see someone actually calling it what it really is: Civil War.

---

Like it or not ... we have become engaged in a civil war.


Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.


That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.


The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.


What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.


That's a civil war.


There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.


This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.


Your very own dictatorship.


The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.


Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.


If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.


But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.


When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.


The Constitution has something to say about that.


Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.


Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.


Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.


That's not a free country.


It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.


Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist, anarchist Democrat professional government.

[twobjshelbys]

That is so true. Is there a source or did you write it yourself? Good thought process by whomever.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a real-life version of the Manchurian Candidate going on right now. Only instead of the military coup we have a left-leaning judicial branch trying to dismantle the executive branch under the direction of a party that couldn't get anyone elected dog catcher. And they keep doing it. Hint to democrats: Recall that this time around the Republicans didn't really win. You lost. They didn't vote for Republicans, they voted against democrats. Learn from it.

They are really going to try to dismantle the Electoral College. They recognize that it is how the smaller portions of the nation are represented, and really just want the 7 largest cities in the country to elect a president.

The dems now seem to have come out in favor of splitting California into three states. They were dead set against it until they realized that even split, it's still a Democrat state, and split they would gain 4 more senators making the Senate a Democrat body forever.

[68fastback]

Got it from a friend in an email but he didn't write it either ...just so right-on.

[HSURB]

Well, it's pretty clear the shadow left government is trying to take down a duly elected POTUS.

Nice to at least see someone actually calling it what it really is: Civil War.

---

Like it or not ... we have become engaged in a civil war.


Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.


That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.


The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.


What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.


That's a civil war.


There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.


This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.


Your very own dictatorship.


The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.


Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.


If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.


But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.


When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.


The Constitution has something to say about that.


Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.


Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.


Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.


That's not a free country.


It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.


Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist, anarchist Democrat professional government.

That is well written.

HSURB®

[68fastback]

Long, but an excellent and worthwhile read. This will not go away -- Backer will not let it drop -- tho it may take some time. And given the inspector General's recent report which contained documents that indicate Obama's DOJ diddled in suppressing an existing FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, we could see much more that this may tie into. Congress has now subpoenaed all the documents that the IG had access to and I suspect we will eventually see another special prosecutor get into this -- essential, imo, to get to the bottom of ALL (or at least much more) of the corruption that went on ...this is just one small tip of a giant iceberg, it would seem.

---

FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.


By Margot Cleveland April 24, 2018

The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.

Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

From Bundling To Money Laundering

Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor’s Business Daily: Under federal law, “an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.”

This legal loophole allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.

Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign—in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.

Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars

During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.

FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.

For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.

Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Democratic parties.

On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99 percent wound up at the DNC. They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Democratic committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to the DNC.

Again, the evidence is damning. According to Politico, “[w]hile state party officials were made aware that Clinton’s campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said that some of their officials have complained that they weren’t notified of the transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact.”

‘Using The Party As A Fundraising Clearinghouse’

But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed. Rather, public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”

By excercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from the HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.

The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal

The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”

The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”

This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”

FEC Declines To Follow The Law

Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.

Last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty.

But in this case, the FEC did nothing, other than pressumably notify the DNC and Clinton of the charges. Accordingly, last week Backer turned to federal court, seeking to force the FEC to fulfill its statutory duty, as provided by federal law.

Specifically, the controlling statute provides that should the FEC fail to act, “during the 120-day period beginning on the date the complaint is filed,” the aggrieved party “may file a petition with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” alleging the FEC’s “failure to act is contrary to law, [the court] may direct the Commission to conform with such declaration within 30 days.”

Given the overwhelming evidence of illegal campaign contributions Backer detailed in the complaint he filed with the FEC against Clinton, the DNC, and the state Democratic parties, there is more than sufficient evidence for the FEC to have “reason to believe” they violated federal campaign finance law.

So why didn’t the FEC act? The answer to that question came Thursday, when FEC Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub issued a statement in another case, involving another complainant and another provision of federal campaign-finance law, but which nonetheless showed the FEC is dysfunctional.

Senate Democrats’ Delay Could Prove Fatal

As noted above, the FEC can investigate a complaint only upon a finding of “reason to believe” by four commissioners. But the six-member FEC currently only has four commissioners. By statute, the commissioners must come from different political parties, and by practice, the Senate confirms newly nominated commissioners in pairs, one Democrat and one Republican. Democrats, however, have yet to name a replacement, holding up the confirmation process and leaving in place for the foreseeable future a likely deadlock.

This deadlock, though, might prove fatal to Clinton and the DNC because, as Weintraub explained in her statement, Congress provided for just such a contingency: “Fire alarms are sometimes housed in boxes labeled ‘Break glass in case of emergency.’ The Federal Election Campaign Act has such a box; it’s the provision that allows complainants to sue respondents directly when the Federal Election Commission fails to enforce the law itself (52 USC § 30109(a)(8)(C)). In the 44-year history of the FEC, this provision has never been fully utilized. Today, I’m breaking the glass.”

Weintraub then went on to say that she believed the complainant in that case should pursue litigation, “as Congress provided for under the Federal Election Campaign Act,” because by placing the matter in private hands, the goal of enforcing “America’s campaign-finance laws fairly and effectively” can be best achieved. Just yesterday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington took Weintraub’s hint and filed suit in federal court directly against the nonprofit group American Action Network, alleging violations of federal campaign-finance law.

Using Democrats’ Tactics Against Them

While Weintraub is a Democrat and complained about charges against the right-leaning American Action Network, the same glass-breaking provisions provide Backer the right to pursue his case against the DNC and Clinton directly.

Placing the matter in Backer’s hands, as an advocate for his client the Committee to Defend the President, in a federal court, and with the tools of discovery—including the ability to subpoena bank accounts, DNC communications, and question party officials and bundlers—promises to shine more sunlight on the Clinton and DNC shennanigans than the FEC’s behind-closed-doors consideration and investigation. Also, the Clintons and party officials should not be the only ones concerned: Every big-time donor in on the scheme and acting with the requisite intent faces criminal prosecution, as well.

Yet even with the overwhelming evidence of tsunami-level campaign-finance criminality—more than $84 million—the media instead chases the cloud cast over President Trump because of the $130,000 payment his attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels, and claims that payment constituted an illegal campaign contribution. One wonders what it will take to break through the mainstream media blackout. Maybe a few pointed unpresidential tweets from our commander-in-chief?

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

[68fastback]

How quickly we forget ...or is it just the media brainwashing

---

What did Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

This is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for Returning veterans.

In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The program was called Operation Wetback.

It was done so WWII and Korean War veterans would have a better chance at jobs.

It took two years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could surely do it today.


If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback =



https://www.google.com.au/?gfe _rd=cr&ei=xFaxV--bH67M8get6oW4 AQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Operation+Wetb ack into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Why, you might ask, can't they do this today? Actually the answer is quite simple.


Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians looking for votes!

[Boston Mike]

How quickly we forget ...or is it just the media brainwashing

---

What did Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

This is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for Returning veterans.

In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The program was called Operation Wetback.

It was done so WWII and Korean War veterans would have a better chance at jobs.

It took two years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could surely do it today.


If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback =



https://www.google.com.au/?gfe _rd=cr&ei=xFaxV--bH67M8get6oW4 AQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Operation+Wetb ack into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Why, you might ask, can't they do this today? Actually the answer is quite simple.


Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians looking for votes!

Can you imagine the uproar if Trump decided to call this Operation Wetback II?

[68fastback]

For sure!
All hell would break loose ...not that it hasn't already and every day

[68fastback]

For those who may have missed Trumps brief but consequential speech yesterday prior to signing a Presidential Memorandum removing the US from JCPOA.
Only 11 minutes -- touches all the right stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtn83kxo0Kc



---

Btw, three American hostages held by NK will likely touch down at Andrews w/Pompeo at 2am ...the Trumpster will be there to meet him and, hopefully, them.