Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Politics

BOMBSHELL! Facebook on Defense After LEAKED Info of Employees Seeking to Stop Trump Campaign

Published

on

Facebook on Defense After LEAKED Info of Employees Seeking to Stop Trump Campaign

This week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared to publicly denounce the political positions of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign during the keynote speech of the company’s annual F8 developer conference.

“I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others,’” Zuckerberg said, never referring to Trump by name. “I hear them calling for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, for reducing trade, and in some cases, even for cutting access to the internet.”

For a developer’s conference, the comments were unprecedented—a signal that the 31-year-old billionaire is quite willing to publicly mix politics and business. Zuckerberg has donated to campaigns in the past, but has been vague about which candidates he and his company’s political action committee support.

Inside Facebook, the political discussion has been more explicit. Last month, some Facebook employees used a company poll to ask Zuckerberg whether the company should try “to help prevent President Trump in 2017.”

facebook pollEvery week, Facebook employees vote in an internal poll on what they want to ask Zuckerberg in an upcoming Q&A session. A question from the March 4 poll was: “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

A screenshot of the poll, given to Gizmodo, shows the question as the fifth most popular.

It’s not particularly surprising the question was asked, or that some Facebook employees are anti-Trump. The question and Zuckerberg’s statements on Tuesday align with the consensus politics of Silicon Valley: pro-immigration, pro-trade, pro-expansion of the internet.

But what’s exceedingly important about this question being raised—and Zuckerberg’s answer, if there is one—is how Facebook now treats the powerful place it holds in the world. It’s unprecedented. More than 1.04 billion people use Facebook. It’s where we get our news, share our political views, and interact with politicians. It’s also where those politicians are spending a greater share of their budgets.

And Facebook has no legal responsibility to give an unfiltered view of what’s happening on their network.

“Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants,” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Gizmodo. “Facebook has the same First Amendment right as the New York Times. They can completely block Trump if they want. They block him or promote him.” But the New York Times isn’t hosting pages like Donald Trump for President or Donald Trump for President 2016, the way Facebook is.

“Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants.”

Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company—an outlet designed to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine, or news website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its algorithm—altering what we see—it’s akin to an editor deciding what to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on. The difference is that readers of traditional media (including the web) can educate themselves about a media company’s political leanings. Media outlets often publish op-eds and editorials, and have a history of how they treat particular stories. Not to mention that Facebook has the potential to reach vastly, vastly more readers than any given publication.

With Facebook, we don’t know what we’re not seeing. We don’t know what the bias is or how that might be affecting how we see the world.

Facebook has toyed with skewing news in the past. During the 2012 presidential election, Facebook secretly tampered with 1.9 million user’s news feeds. The company also tampered with news feeds in 2010 during a 61-million-person experiment to see how Facebook could impact the real-world voting behavior of millions of people. An academic paper was published about the secret experiment, claiming that Facebook increased voter turnout by more than 340,000 people. In 2012, Facebook also deliberately experimented on its users’ emotions. The company, again, secretly tampered with the news feeds of 700,000 people and concluded that Facebook can basically make you feel whatever it wants you to.

If Facebook decided to, it could gradually remove any pro-Trump stories or media off its site—devastating for a campaign that runs on memes and publicity. Facebook wouldn’t have to disclose it was doing this, and would be protected by the First Amendment.

But would it be ethical?

“I’m inclined to say Facebook has the same responsibility of any legacy media company,” said Robert Drechsel, a professor of journalism ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He thinks Facebook should provide coverage that is thorough, fair, accurate, complete, and contextual. “There is no legal issue.”

The only way that Facebook could legally overstep, experts say, is by colluding with a given candidate. “If Facebook was actively coordinating with the Sanders or Clinton campaign, and suppressing Donald Trump news, it would turn an independent expenditure (protected by the First Amendment) into a campaign contribution because it would be coordinated—and that could be restricted,” Volokh said.

“But if they’re just saying, ‘We don’t want Trump material on our site,’ they have every right to do that. It’s protected by the First Amendment.”

We’ve reached out to Facebook for comment and will update if we receive one.

Update: Facebook says it doesn’t try to influence how people vote.

Via Gizmodo

Jeff was the national rally organizer to free Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi from the Mexican prison, chairman emeritus of Ross Perot’s Reform Party of California, and a former candidate for governor. Jeff is editor-in-chief at Freedom Daily. He wrote for former Hollywood talent agent & Breitbart contributor, Pat Dollard, and headed up his 30 person research team. Mr. Rainforth also wrote for the Wayne Dupree Show. Jeff is single & says he is not gay.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Politics

BREAKING News From DC… MAJOR SCAM To Take Out Trump! LOCK HER UP NOW!

This Is Bad & They Have To Be Stopped Now!

Published

on

More evidence has been released and reported on indicating that President Trump had some strong forces out against him during his election. Sources show that it’s possible that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department under President Obama tried forcefully getting Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton elected.

Democrats simply blow off these ideas as an anti-Trump conspiracy and something that is simply based in right-wing nonsense based not on facts. But there are facts that prove these allegations, at least circumstantially.

Text messages were released between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest there were two points to the anti-Trump election plot. The first being a way to exonerate Clinton from her crimes with her private email server and her breaking the Espionage Act through her mishandling of classified documents.

Had Clinton been charged for her crimes she would have been forced to drop her candidacy in 2016. Which is why people were working to make sure she wasn’t prosecuted so she could continue her race. The second part of the plot was getting a crime that President Trump committed. Which is why they fictionalized the Trump and Russia collusion story. They needed a way to make him look like a criminal instead of Hillary.

The text messages prove this. Strzok and Page exchanged these messages because they were romantically involved and at the time would trash talk President Trump. They called him an idiot and loathsome on numerous occasions. While the comments about Clinton were nothing but adoring.

In one set of text messages they said,

“Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency). 

Strzok:  “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…””

The clear implication is that Strzok had done many other things unmentioned that he thought was protecting country. Which very well could have been concocting false allegations and evidence against the President to somehow prove he was colluding with a Russian to get him impeached or not even in office.

Fox News reported,

“Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard. This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.” As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.    

This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings. Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved?  After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency. Strzok:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”

The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton. What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates?  Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.”

The faux dossier was also another way to try and delegitimize President Trump. The dossier turned out to be fake and full of alternative facts and reporters were fired because of it. Turns out that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. While Comey said it was salacious and unverified.

It’s been alleged the dossier was used to try and illegally place Carter Page who was a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer questions about it when he was questioned on Capitol Hill. That speaks for itself.

Fox News also reported,

“The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document. Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not. Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign. 

Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed. This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes. 

If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted. The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.
It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.”

Share if you agree the Trump Russia collusion story is a farce

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Politics

BOMBSHELL Evidence How CIA Made Obama A US Citizen – DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!!

Trump was right!

Published

on

Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery may have discovered the CIA and/or other government entities illegally hacked into the Hawaii Department of Health records in an effort to search for birth records on Barack Obama.

Investigators report government breaches began on November 14, 2008.  This was just after Obama’s first presidential victory. Those breaches continued through January 12, 2011 – some three months before the White House issued a computerized version of what Obama claimed was the authentic long-form version of his birth certificate from 1961. Meanwhile, the mainstream media scoffed and laughed at anyone that dared to question the authenticity of said document.

A database created in 2013 by Montgomery contained large sections of an electronic surveillance database was provided to Michael Zullo, formerly the commander and chief investigator of the Cold Case Posse (CCP), a special investigative group created in 2006 in the office of Joseph M. Arpaio, formerly the sheriff in Maricopa County, an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. It shows this database was created by the NSA as part of the NSA’s illegal and highly unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens in violation of their 4th amendment rights under the label of Project Dragnet.

Dennis Montgomery is former U.S. intelligence contractor and he walked away with more than 600 million classified documents on no less than 47 hard drives from both the NSA and the CIA. His breach is considered even larger than that of Edward Snowden. The evidence provided by Montgomery detailed warrantless collection of phone, financial and personal data and the unmasking of identities in spy data about millions of Americans. He has accused the Bureau of massive and flagrant amendment violations of the American people. Among those 47 hard drives included information supplied to Zullo regarding Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate.

Montgomery also filed suit against the FBI, NSA, DOJ, and several other government agencies in June 2017 for their illegal conducted surveillance of millions of American citizens for years, as reported by AFF in June 2017.  Circa reported Montgomery divulged to the FBI “a pattern and practice of conducting illegal, unconstitutional surveillance against millions of Americans, including prominent Americans such as the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as Plaintiffs themselves.” As such Montgomery is represented by prominent Conservative attorney Larry Klayman of FreedomWorks in U.S. District Court.  The case is being heard by the exact same federal judge who has already ruled that the NSA’s collection of data on Americans is a Fourth Amendment violation making for a legal proceeding that will affect all Americans for the future.

 

Date

 

Time Target

 

11/14/08

 

03: 13 PST     Hawaii Government Department of Health

Vital Records

 

07/03/09

 

05:12 PST Hawaii Government Department of Health

Archives

 

09/03/09

 

03 :11 PST Hawaii Government Department of Health

Vital Records

 

12/13/09

 

01:11 PST Hawaii Government Department of Health

Vital Records

 

11/17/10

 

05:12 PST Hawaii Government Department of Health

Archives

 

11/22/10

 

05:12 PST Hawaii Government Department of Health

Archives

 

12/22/10

 

06:11PST Hawaii Government, Office of the Governor
01/13/11

 

11:10 PST Hawaii Government, Office of the Governor

According to InfoWars.com – 

The IP addresses, both from the Hawaii government offices breached and from the CIA proxy IP addresses used in the breaches.

“Montgomery also traced the IP data paths of the breached servers and discovered on a number of occasions information was sent from the breached Hawaii computers, only to be routed to a server located in Jakarta, Indonesia,” Zullo said.

From Indonesia, the data was sent back through the server in Jakarta, routed back to government servers in the United States.  Montgomery claims the server used in Jakarta was operated by the CIA at the time the breaches were executed.”

Montgomery brought forward to Arpaio and Zullo the information presented here regarding the CIA breaches of Hawaii government computers that Montgomery alleges was collected while he was employed as a subcontractor for the NSA, working on PROJECT: SPEARIT and various surveillance projects.

Court documents do verify Montgomery was contracted by the NSA, in part to develop computer breaching software that has been utilized in government mass surveillance operations targeting American citizens without legal justification.

While Montgomery’s credibility has been called into question, Zullo maintains that the amount of information provided by Montgomery related to Operation Dragnet was extraordinarily voluminous and that Montgomery had shared information with investigators in 2013 that is only now being revealed by media outlets.

Zullo claims to have received information from top officials with the Hawaii Department of Health claiming prior to the release of the long Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate by the White House the Hawaii Department of Health was in the process of forging a birth certificate for Obama. Arpaio’s investigators also revealed that this same source revealed the attending physician named on the forged document was known to be deceased and was believed to have destroyed all birth records after leaving practice making him an ideal candidate for forgers.

Zullo also claimed to have received information from two different hospital administrators independent of one another regarding meetings held in 2008 as Obama was preparing for his initial presidential bid where all hospitals on the island worked to identify which hospital Obama was born in. Both administrators attested to the fact no hospital in Hawaii could locate any records to prove Ann Dunham Obama had been a patient, or that Barack Hussein Obama was born there.

Zullo states –

“Queens Hospital was the hospital originally named by the Obama family as the birth hospital, but when it developed that Queens did not have records of Obama’s birth, the family shifted to story to claim Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Queens Hospital quickly reported publicly that Obama was not born in their hospital. The admission of Queens Hospital that no birth record existed presented a serious problem for the already belabored Obama birth narrative. Kapiolani refused to comment neither confirming nor denying Kapiolani Hospital was Obama’s birth hospital. 

To date, Kapiolani has not produced a single shred of evidence that any original birth records exist, nor has Kapiolani Hospital ever produced any supporting documentation or released any information that proves Stanley Ann Dunham was a patient at Kapiolani in August 1961 who gave birth to a son, Barack Obama, supposedly born on Aug. 4, 1961.”

InfoWars.com also reveals that Zullo went on to point out that a written statement of former Hawaii Director of Public Health Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued in October 2008 cast further doubt that an original 1961 LFBC for Obama ever existed in the Hawaii Department of Health archives.

On Oct. 31, 2008, Fukino issued a statement that read in part:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

Zullo was not convinced, stating –

“That statement would indicate, if true, that Fukino simply walked in to the file vault at the Hawaii Department of Health, went to the shelf containing the bound book volume holding some 500 certificates including Obama’s, located it inside that bound book, touched it, and returned the bound volume back to its proper place, back on the shelf along with 500 others.

The CIA breach would also enable the undetectable insertion of fraudulent digital information of a fictitious birth event to be surreptitiously implanted into the Hawaii Department of Health vital records computers database.Once the fictitious record has been created that would allow an unsuspecting clerk to simply locate the fraudulent record in the computer database and print a computer-generated Short-Form Birth Certificate (SFBC) without ever verifying the existence of the original Long Form Certificate (LFBC) in the file room vault.

Hawaii did in fact originally produce a Short-Form Birth Certificate in 2008.  In an attempt to quell the growing controversy and to satisfy the questions surrounding the Obama birth narrative, a Short-Form was released in 2008 during Obama’s presidential campaign. However, that was a digital record and not an original Long Form Birth Certificate. This did not satisfy the growing number of skeptics. In various discussions with Montgomery, he suggested ‘three-letter agencies’ had the ability to not only hack into a computer network unnoticed and to download information out of that computer network undetected, but also had the ability to upload information into a computer, again undetected. 

That upload capability would allow the implantation of completely fictitious or altered information at will. Once implanted, this would grant an unsuspecting clerk the ability to create and issue a Short-Form Birth Certificate that was retrieved from Hawaii Department of Health legitimate computers in accordance with Hawaii Department of Health procedures and customary practices.”

Montgomery turned this information over to the FBI along with 600 million records illegally obtained by the federal government for an immunity deal 2 years ago.

Zullo went on to explain –

“The Obama birth certificate information was included in the information Montgomery turned over to the FBI. The FBI has done nothing with Montgomery’s information for more than two years.

That’s when the White House released to the public via the internet a computer-generated PDF File of a purported Long-Form Birth Certificate claiming to be a copy of Obama’s birth records located in the Hawaii Department of Health vault on April 27, 2011.

What the White House released was not a physical hard copy document. It was not a copy of any verified authentic document, it was absolutely nothing. It was a computer-generated PDF file containing a copy of something that had its metadata erased from the electronic file, making it impossible to determine origin and authenticity of the file. This PDF file cannot be relied on as proof a birth event in any legal setting,” Zullo insisted. “It is not paper, it was created in cyberspace and resides in a computer.  On April 27, 2011, Obama showed the nation and the world absolutely nothing.”

Arpaio and Zullo held a press conference showing Obama’s birth certificate where a forensic expert explained it contained “nine points of forgery,” establishing that Obama’s Long-Form computer-generated birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, had been copied from Johanna Ah’Nee’s birth certificate.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Politics

BREAKING BOMBSHELL! Trump Is Going To FIRE HIM!!! This Is HUGE!

Published

on

And it’s about damn time!

On Friday, Liberal California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, the Obama Administration lapdog from my own home district, sat down at the KQED Newsroom to whine and moan about the Republicans’ so-called effort to shut down Capitol Hill’s investigation into the fake Trump Russian collusion narrative.

All kidding aside, someday I will understand why the ignorant extreme far left liberals in my home district keep electing this hack politician into congress with a margin of almost 80%. She hasn’t done a damn thing to help anyone here or anywhere else in the nation. In fact, her only claim to fame was that she was shot on her rear end during the Jonestown massacre where Congressman Leo J. Ryan was killed back in 1978.

Via Gateway Pundit:

When asked why there are no witnesses scheduled for the probe in January, Speier replied, “well, we can read between the lines, I think there is a rush to try and shut this committee investigation down.”

“This week was a great example, three interviews simultaneously, one of the off the Hill with someone who comes to Washington frequently but wanted to do it now and so we were actually off the Hill doing the interview, had to race back to vote….this is a circus at this point,” added Speier.

Speier then went on to claim President Trump wants all Russia investigations to be “shut down.”

The California lawmaker then told KQED Newsroom that, “The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on December 22nd, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire…Robert Mueller.”

President Trump should fire Mueller and the whole team. The investigative team was originally set up to get to the bottom of the accusations started by the Clinton Machine of Russia Collusion in order to excuse the fact that she lost in an electoral landslide. But after it became apparent that nothing was coming of it they started to go after President Trump’s and his families finances. When that amounted to nothing they charged Michael Flynn with lying to the FBI, I guess the FBI doesn’t like it when citizens do the same to them than they do to the whole nation.

Via Heavy:

At least nine of the lawyers on special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team of 16 attorneys donated to Democrats, with most giving money to either the campaigns of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, a review of Federal Election Commission records shows.

Seven other lawyers on the team do not have previous federal campaign donations, a review of FEC records shows, and Mueller himself has served in the administrations of both Republican and Democratic presidents (and was a registered Republican in the past). None of the 16 lawyers on his team is listed as donating money to President Donald Trump’s campaign or to the presidential campaigns of any past Republicans, although one donated to two Republicans in non-presidential races in addition to giving more money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and a string of Democrats.

Whether the donations matter is a question that tends to divide along partisan lines (conservative sites say it’s important; liberal sites like ThinkProgress argue that Trump himself previously donated to Democrats and say it’s irrelevant). However, the campaign donations are likely to receive more attention now that Mueller, according to CNN, is poised to announce the first criminal charges in the Russian probe. The New York Times is reporting that Mueller has indicted Manafort and his former business associate, Rick Gates.

Of the nine who donated to political candidates, all gave to Democrats (with one giving mostly to Democrats and also to two Republicans), five gave to Hillary Clinton and seven gave to Barack Obama. Putting it another way, of the nine with donations, 8 of those gave money to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and the ninth gave money to Senate Democratic candidates.

The Los Angeles Times reported that “at least seven of the 15 lawyers have previously given money to Democrats.” However, other lawyers have been added to the team since that time. The lawyers on Mueller’s team include mostly attorneys with backgrounds in the Justice Department, Solicitor General’s Office, and east coast U.S. Attorney’s offices. In addition, one of the team members is married to a U.S. District Judge who is an Obama appointee, and another served as a clerk for liberal Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

In June, CNN reported that “three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats,” naming Jeannie Rhee, James Quarles, and Andrew Weissmann. That was before most of the lawyers on the team were identified, however. The list of Mueller team members with previous Democratic campaign donations has risen to nine.

A review of FEC records and news reports shows that these are the seven identified Mueller lawyers with no campaign donations to their names: Michael Dreeben (although some media outlets initially falsely reported a donation as his that was made by a person with the same name); Aaron Zebley; Lisa Page; Adam Jed; Aaron Zelinsky; Scott Meisler; and Zainah Ahmad. (A 17th member, Peter Strzok, who had no campaign donations, is no longer with the probe.) In addition, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr joined the team as its spokesman; he previously served as spokesman for Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

This whole thing has been a sham since day one, and it’s time to put a stop to it. The only Russia Collusion there was was the paying of the fake Trump Dossier by the DNC and the Crooked Hillary Campaign. Michael Flynn did contact the Russians but that was after Candidate Trump had been elected. And it’s 100% normal for a President-Elect to start reaching out to foreign leaders once he is about to be sworn in as President.

Please share if you agree the Democrat Party needs to go back to the drawing board…

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending