Daily Recap — February 26

Welcome to the inaugural Daily Recap on realnewsrevolt.com! Every Monday is free to give you an idea of what you’d be receiving every weekday should you choose to subscribe.  Enjoy!


 

THE SCOTUS PUNTS

 

Today, that supposedly omniscient body sent from God himself known as the Supreme Court announced that it would not (yet) intervene to negate a lower court ruling temporarily blocking the implementation of PDT’s DACA termination. The program, which grants legal status to approximately 700,000 Dacamanians, would have ended on March 5. Now, until further notice, those waivers will remain available. I suppose there is a silver lining here, though, given that the SCOTUS did request that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “act expeditiously to decide this case.”

There is no doubt that the case should be decided expeditiously, if for no other reason than DACA itself is patently unconstitutional. A POTUS simply can’t undercut federal immigration law with the stroke of a pen from the Oval Office. That’s what we who care about the Republic call “dictatorial government,” not that any of our friends on the Left care. They’re too busy protesting Trump’s imaginary authoritarianism to lift a finger to combat the real thing, even as it slaps them in the face. 

What’s worse is this ruling is even simpler than determining he constitutionality of DACA. It’s about whether a president has the authority to rescind an executive action taken by a predecessor, which he clearly does. Why in the world would one president’s executive authority be beyond the scope of another? If a POTUS signs an order, a POTUS can rescind it. It really is that simple. There simply is no legal argument to deny PDT the right to undo a presidential action. If DACA were codified into law, it would be a much different story. But it’s not. The lower court has essentially declared Obama to have more executive power than Trump. I can think of no more grotesque example of far-left judicial activism.

Before we gather our pitchforks and torches, though, there are a couple facts to consider.

First, this type of decision not to intervene in the lower court appellate process is not new to the SCOTUS. If anything, it’s standard operating procedure. The Supreme Court has agreed only a handful of times in the past century to bypass the federal appeals courts, and those were events of national emergency. Thus, the decision to refrain from weighing in at this time shouldn’t be seen as an indicator of the case’s merits one way or another, but rather a matter of respect for procedure. The DACA challenge is now pending before the California’s ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit, whose overturn rate at the Supreme Court level rests well over 80%. Unless by some miracle the Ninth Circuit appeals the decision by themselves, it’s likely to be defeated once it (almost inevitably) reaches the high court. 

Secondly, while this punt back to the lower courts is certainly a defeat for common sense, it’s a political victory of sort for the Trump administration. Democrats refuse to come to the table for a DACA fix because they wanted the issue for ammo in the midterms. They wanted headlines and viral photos showing big mean ICE agents coming to take away da churren. DACA is somewhat of a niche immigration issue. While data shows that most Americans favor strong immigration enforcement, the majority don’t fault DACA recipients for their predicament. The optics would’ve been bad leading up to November, as Democrats would have painted the Trump administration as bypassing common sense immigration law in favor of heavy-handed, unreasonable enforcement. They’ll no longer have that in the back pocket. 

BIG PICTURE: While the lower court ruling defies common sense and even basic law, the Supreme Court decision to allow appeals to run their usual course isn’t the end of the world. And given the likelihood of ultimate failure at the SCOTUS level, this could work out well for us politically, as PDT will be able to blame the courts for immigration insanity while avoiding the kind of child deportation headlines that might have lost him support from folks in the middle, who he’ll need come November. 

In the meantime, he’ll have plenty more opportunity to work over Democrats on the Hill to get the long term immigration reforms he and his base seek. 

He won’t have forever, though. We need #TheWall. 

 


TRUMP MEETS THE GOVERNORS

 

PDT, continuing his possibly revolutionary style of participatory governance that focuses on solutions rather than parties, met governors across the nation today to discuss some of the most important issues facing our country.
 .
He spoke about issues ranging from immigration and North Korea to trade and the economy, but the central focus was undoubtedly the nation’s gun laws. It’s no secret that PDT has come under pressure from Democrats, and some Republicans (undocumented Democrats), to approve stricter laws cracking down on so-called “assault rifles” such as the AR-15 that was used in Parkland.
 .
Thankfully, not everyone has reactively jumped aboard the gun-grabbing train. Many (actual) Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have resisted new restrictions on guns, arguing for stronger mental health programs and measures to turn schools into harder targets.
 .
PDT said he ate lunch last weekend with top NRA executives Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox and continues a strong relationship with gun rights advocates, but also made headlines today by showing a willingness to take them on:
 .
“If they’re not with you, we have to fight them once in a while, that’s OK,” the president said. “But sometimes we’re going to have to be very tough and we’re going to have to fight them.
 .
That language is sure to make second amendment proponents nervous, as will some of his latest proposals, which include bolstering the gun background check system, raising the age limit to buy certain high-powered rifles, giving guns to trained teachers and staff.  and banning “bump stocks.” Despite their previous opposition to some of those measures, Trump expressed confidence that the NRA would stay on board:
 .
“Don’t worry about the NRA,” the president told the governors. ”They’re on our side. Half of you are so afraid of the NRA — there’s nothing to be afraid of.”
 .
That statement is also sure to unnerve the second amendment crowd, as it essentially parrots the talking points of the Left; that Republican lawmakers won’t enact gun control because the NRA has them by the you-know-whats. In reality, the NRA can’t even crack the top 50 in terms of lobbying donations. Gun control has been hard to pass simply because voters raise 100 kinds of hell anytime the gun-grabbers show their fangs in DC, and for good reason. The right to bear arms was among the first amendments to be passed because our entire Constitution was designed to be a hedge against the tyranny from which the Founders escaped, and a means of fighting back was (and is) viewed as essential to that end. 
 .
The recent language used by Trump in terms of the NRA and their relationship to gun law is disappointing. There’s no other way to put it. The good news, though, is none of his proposals are unprecedented or even that vehemently opposed by the mainstream of gun owners, with the possible exception of a raise in minimum buying age. And not all of his proposals are headed in the gun control direction.
 .
Trump’s greatest emphasis has been on arming teachers, a proposal that has run into opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R). 
PDT dismissed criticism of the idea, saying that educators would need to have a “natural talent” for handling firearms, “like hitting a baseball or hitting a golf ball.”
 .
“The headline was Trump wants all teachers to have guns. Trump wants teachers to have guns. I don’t want teachers to have guns. I want highly trained people,” he said. 
 .
And while Trump’s recent language against the NRA has been tough, he says no proposals will be submitted to Congress without a robust debate within the gun rights community. Well, except for one proposal: the banning of bump stocks.
 
 .
“I’m writing that out myself. I don’t care if Congress doesn’t,” Trump said. 
 .
Bump stocks are attachments that allow certain semi-automatic rifles, like the type used in the Florida shooting, to fire much more rapidly. It was also used in last year’s massacre at a Las Vegas outdoor concert, which left 58 people dead. Frankly, I don’t think that many gun enthusiasts will lament the end of bump stocks because they’re garbage. And assuming they are banned, they’re not hard to duplicate. If someone wants to create a device for rapid fire, it’s not hard. But if it will make Dianne Feinstein feel better, sure, ban away.
 .
BOTTOM LINE: Gun rights proponents have reason to be uneasy with the recent language coming from the White House. Republicans aren’t afraid of the NRA; they’re afraid of the constituents who will (rightly) vote them out should they infringe on their constitutional rights. The biggest worry, however, comes from the Left. Appeasement never works. Sure, a strengthening in background checks and perhaps some other nibble-around-the-edges legislation, such as banning bump stocks, could likely pass without causing upheaval on the Right, but the Left won’t be satisfied with so-called “common sense” measures. They want your guns, period. They’ve wanted them for a long time, regardless of what they say. 
 .
No tragedy will be allowed to go to waste, and no rifle will be off the chopping block once they get started. I don’t believe our president will allow them himself to be taken down that road, if for no other reason than his base won’t allow it. But we must be vigilant to remember just who it is we’re dealing with here. Our political enemies believe in the State. They believe in the power of almighty government, and that begins with an impotent population.
 .
Let’s keep that in mind with every inch we give. 

 


THE DEMOCRAT MEMO: A SWING AND MISS

 

For the last few weeks, we were told of the so-called Democrat memo and how it would undermine all the claims made by the so-called Nunes memo, which exposed FISA abuses by the Obama administration.

It’s fair to say that this Ambien Schiff special (I call him “Ambien” because I can’t listen to him speak for more than 30 seconds without dozing off) isn’t a nothingburger. It’s a somethingburger, for sure, but in the wrong direction. Far from disproving the claims in the Nunes memo, it confirms them once and for all. That is, if you’re actually willing to look into the matter, rather than simply lapping up talking points from the legacy media. But Democrats have always relied upon the ignorance of the American public to further their agenda, which Ambien knows all too well, so their memo will no doubt be used to knock down the facts revealed by the House Intelligence Committee investigation.

All the same, let’s examine and get to the bottom of the most important points made in Ambien’s fake newser. 

 

1) “The Steele dossier was only a small part of the FISA application.”

 

Nonsense. While the Democrat memo alludes to the “narrow use” of the pee-pee dossier in obtaining the FISA warrant, what they fail to (overtly) mention is that the “narrow” use of which they speak contained very critical information, or disinformation for those who care about verifying facts. 

Remember, Carter Page was the focal point of this investigation. He was the target of this surveillance warrant for his supposed ties to the Russian government, and theoretically the link between OMG PUTIN and the Trump campaign. The main piece of (dis)information used to convince the judge of Page’s nefarious connections was a trip he took to Moscow in July 2016, in which he allegedly met with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Putin and executive chairman of Roseneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. 

The truth, because that still matters, is that Page’s trip to Russia was anything but clandestine. Page is someone who constantly seeks attention for his mission to improve US/Russia relations. He’s been called a Russia sympathizer, which is accurate, but a sympathizer is not a traitor or a crook. The fact is, there has been no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Page and he repeatedly reached out to the FBI to be an open book for anything they’d like to know, even back when it was brought to his attention that he may be a “target for recruitment” by the Putin regime. Another inconvenient fact is he lost his status as a “target for recruitment” when the Russians deemed him to be an idiot. Even unwitting foreign agents require a certain level of competence.

The guy is a goofball who presented himself as much more important than he was. But the FBI knew that. They had to, or they’re the most incompetent players of this entire scenario. 

In any event, that trip to Moscow was the key information used to obtain the FISA warrant, and it came from the pee-pee dossier. The Democrats’ claim that the dossier played a minor role in obtaining the warrant is misleading at best. Even good ole Andy McCabe testified before Congress that the warrant would not have been secured without the dossier, a point that isn’t rebutted in this insult of a document put forth by Schiff. 

 

2) “The DOJ was transparent with the Court about the source of the dossier.”

 

No, they weren’t. Schiff contends that since the FISA application notes that there was likely a political motivation behind the dossier, they were fully transparent with the court. This is an insult to anyone with a modicum of common sense or functioning BS radar. 

Here is the passage cited by Schiff to make his case:

“indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

First off, the FBI didn’t “speculate” anything. They knew good and damn well of Steele’s motivations. Secondly, the dossier was funded and pushed by the Clinton campaign, the opposing campaign to the very one under investigation. That’s NOT a minor detail. It’s called lying by omission, and a very big lie at that. The DOJ played a very dishonest game of hide-the-ball with the FISA court, minimizing the political nature of the pee-pee dossier in the most shameful of ways. 

 

3) “It was George Papadopoulos, not the Steele dossier, that launched the probe.”

 

This claim simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’m sure you’ve all heard by now the Deep State’s claim that this whole thing started when low-level Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos drunkenly bragged to some Australian diplomat in a bar that the Ruskies had dirt on Hillzdawg Clinton. 

Ok then, tell me this: If Papadopoulos was the impetus of the investigation, why was he not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017, after PDT had taken office and a full six months after they first received info regarding his bragging? By contrast, a FISA application was submitted within days of their receiving the Steele pee-pee dossier. Additionally, a surveillance was never submitted for Papadopoulos; pretty odd for someone who is supposedly the centerpiece of the investigation. But guess who they did submit one for: Carter Page.

Given these facts, the claim that Papadopoulos was a bigger impetus for Trump campaign surveillance than the pee-pee dossier is, again, an insult to our intelligence. 

 

4) “The DOJ was forthright with the Court about why Steele was terminated as a source.”

 

More disingenuous gobbledegook. Ambien points out that the court was apparently told that Steele was dismissed over contacts with the press. That’s true, they were. What he doesn’t mention is that the FISA judges were never told that Steele had lied to the FBI about contacts with the press.

Steele wasn’t merely terminated for having press contacts, but his dishonesty regarding them. The integrity of a politically-motivated source is pretty important when said source is the basis for spying on an American citizen, doncha think?

Just another “minor detail” Ambien failed to disclose.

 

5) “Bruce Ohr informed the FBI of his relationship with Steele and his wife’s work with Fusion GPS.”

 

Uhhh, cool story, bro. So what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? These following facts still weren’t disclosed to the FISA court: (a) Ohr was meeting with Steele about the anti-Trump project; (b) Steele had told Ohr in September (i.e., before the first FISA application) that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president”; and (c) Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was a Russia expert at Fusion who was collaborating with Steele on the dossier.

So what is Ambien’s argument here; that since Bruce told his colleagues about he and his wife’s connections to Fusion, that everything was above board? I couldn’t care less what the FBI knew about his connections. That actually makes it even worse that this information was withheld from the Court. 

You’re implying that the bureau willfully kept important information from the FISA court, Ambien. Good job.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

If Democrats were hoping to exonerate Team Barry for their surveillance of the Trump campaign before and after election day, they failed miserably. This memo may give warm fuzzies to their base for a short while, but the truth still remains. Critical information was withheld from the FISA court in order to spy on Americans. This scandal isn’t going anywhere, and we’re just getting started.

Stay tuned. 

 


There you have it, today’s news recap. Remember, if you’d like to receive content like this, please subscribe to realnewsrevolt.com. by going to the homepage and clicking “Become a Member.” It’s only $5/month and you receive so much more. Thank you for reading and I hope to see you again soon!

Donations

If you enjoyed this piece and would like to support my work, I would very much appreciate any kind of support you can give. If not, I still love ya and please keep up the fight! I’m unable to post anything but a set dollar amount at this time, but if you have a different amount in mind, my PayPal address is: dafifflike@gmail.com. Thank you so much for visiting my site and I hope you return!

$5.00


Categories Uncategorized

5 thoughts on “Daily Recap — February 26

  1. Very good Trey. I love the darker print. Easy to read. Good job. And thanks again for all your help. ❤️

  2. I think the 9th and the 6th take turns to be the most overturned court in the country. Weird claim to fame there.

  3. Kathryn Suzanne Sower February 27, 2018 — 2:24 am

    Great print size & appearance of the blog. Quality is as usual, excellent. Thank you for setting up this entire process.

  4. Much more readable for these old eyes with the larger font. Good recap on today’s news. Really like the new site as it is far more professional and has a great look and feel to it.

  5. I love how simple and idiot proof you made the section on the NRA and gun control.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close