therightscoop--2020-05-27--Where is Twitter on the fake racist photo of the Minneapolis officer going around?

Twitter has suddenly become the arbiter of truth with their ‘ fact check ’ warnings on Trump ’ s tweets .
So where are they with this photo ?
No matter how evil you may believe this officer is , the photo of the man in the racist red hat is not him .
But it ’ s been retweeted by big names who are understandably upset about the death of George Floyd .
Over 93,000 likes and 32,000 retweets at last check .
It ’ s been up all day and Twitter hasn ’ t touched it .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tweet it .
I believe this man was : Again , not him .
But notice that the tweet is still up ?
This was tweeted late last night .
When this ‘ Bishop ’ was confronted about the fakery by other users , he got angry and told everyone to go to ‘ hades ’ : In any event , I ’ m certainly not here to defend the cop .
Nope , not gon na do that based on what we know at this point .
Just asking , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided they know what ’ s best ?
I will note that Kathy Griffin ’ s tweet was finally taken down by Twitter , so they aren ’ t completely absent .
I haven ’ t seen Griffin tweet today yet , so I don ’ t know if she ’ s been officially locked out of her Twitter account or not .
But I doubt very seriously that given what it appears this officer did , that Twitter will even take down this photo .
It ’ ll just be another case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labels on Trump and other likely other conservatives , but letting everything else slide .

Twitter has suddenly become the arbiter of truth with their ‘fact check’ warnings on Trump’s tweets. So where are they with this photo?
A wolf in wolves clothing. The demons are among us. #Fightthecowards pic.twitter.com/UYw7zXNabQ — Ice Cube (@icecube) May 27, 2020
No matter how evil you may believe this officer is, the photo of the man in the racist red hat is not him. But it’s been retweeted by big names who are understandably upset about the death of George Floyd.
A wolf in wolves clothing. The demons are among us. #Fightthecowards pic.twitter.com/UYw7zXNabQ — Ice Cube (@icecube) May 27, 2020
Over 93,000 likes and 32,000 retweets at last check. It’s been up all day and Twitter hasn’t touched it.
But he wasn’t even the first to tweet it. I believe this man was:
Here is Derek Chauvin, the racist cop who kept his knee on #GeorgeFloyd’s neck, cut off his air passage and murdered him, wearing a “Make Whites Great Again” hat, a clear sign that this piece of excrement should’ve been taken off the streets a long time ago.#JusticeForFloyd pic.twitter.com/KxGxHAIzlH — Bishop Talbert Swan (@TalbertSwan) May 27, 2020
Again, not him. But notice that the tweet is still up? This was tweeted late last night.
When this ‘Bishop’ was confronted about the fakery by other users, he got angry and told everyone to go to ‘hades’:
To you bigots outraged about Derek Chauvin allegedly being misidentified as a white man in a ‘Make Whites Great Again’ hat but not about him murdering #GeorgeFloyd, go to Hades. His knee on Floyd’s neck and murdering him is more proof of his racism than a hat could ever be. pic.twitter.com/zGbEnQUrio — Bishop Talbert Swan (@TalbertSwan) May 27, 2020
In any event, I’m certainly not here to defend the cop. Nope, not gonna do that based on what we know at this point.
Just asking, where are our Twitter overlords who’ve decided they know what’s best?
I will note that Kathy Griffin’s tweet was finally taken down by Twitter, so they aren’t completely absent. I haven’t seen Griffin tweet today yet, so I don’t know if she’s been officially locked out of her Twitter account or not.
But I doubt very seriously that given what it appears this officer did, that Twitter will even take down this photo. It’ll just be another case of selective liberal amnesia, putting warning labels on Trump and other likely other conservatives, but letting everything else slide.
Ugh. Literally not the same person. Such a perfect way to divide people on an incident over which we were all united https://t.co/TAAEEm2DiU — Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) May 27, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-27--Tom Cotton says this is the RIGHT question we should be asking about Democrats and mail-in voter fra

Tom Cotton says this is the RIGHT question we should be asking about Democrats and mail-in voter fraud

I love the way Tom Cotton thinks .
Today he tweeted that there ’ s no question that expanding voting @ @ @ @ @ for fraud .
Rather , he says this is question we should be asking about @ @ @ @ @ : Cotton took it right from their 3 trillion dollar bill .
Boom .
Cotton @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballot voter fraud that the ‘ smug liberals ’ at Twitter tells us aren @ @ @ @ @ Cotton is just a hack .
Don ’ t believe your lying eyes , because @ @ @ @

I love the way Tom Cotton thinks. Today he tweeted that there’s no question that expanding voting by mail opens up opportunities for fraud. Rather, he says this is question we should be asking about Democrats and mail-in voter fraud:
The question isn't whether expanding voting by mail opens up opportunities for fraud—it does. The question is why are Democrats obsessed with eliminating all election safeguards? — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
In HEROES Act, along w/ billions for illegals, Dems require: -No voter ID
-No notary/witness requirements
-Effectively no applications (voters get mail in ballots for all future elections)
-Effectively ban signature requirements
-Mandatory ballot harvesting everywhere pic.twitter.com/ESQ3gm00Gx — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Cotton took it right from their 3 trillion dollar bill. Boom.
Cotton also noted some cases of mail-in ballot voter fraud that the ‘smug liberals’ at Twitter tells us aren’t happening:
.@Twitter is "fact checking" the argument that mandatory vote-by-mail would be ripe for fraud. It's absurd for twitter to exercise editorial control over a public policy argument. And like most smug liberals, they're wrong on the facts. — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Voting by mail is *already* a prime opportunity for criminals to try to rig elections. There are countless examples. Imagine how much worse it would be if suddenly nationwide & mandatory? — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
1,600 ballots were found not delivered in WI, sitting in tubs in USPS facility. https://t.co/xkZrfVoddq — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
A West Virginia mail carrier was charged with fraud for altering ballots. https://t.co/UdG8lO3rJ7 — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Five individuals were charged in voter fraud ring in Texas. https://t.co/eGmEX27ID2 — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Multiple convictions in Oregon for voter fraud following the 2016 election. https://t.co/8ogfR30Buw — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Conviction for absentee voter fraud in FL that swung an election. https://t.co/aGLoIWBJ6S — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Conviction for falsifying an absentee ballot and the article notes there have been seven felony convictions for violations of election laws in St. Clair county alone. https://t.co/LebBkJHECV — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) May 27, 2020
Tom Cotton is just a hack. Don’t believe your lying eyes, because Twitter knows best!


therightscoop--2020-05-27--WATCH LIVE: SpaceX launches NASA Astronauts to the International Space Station

Elon Musk ’ s SpaceX is teaming up with NASA to launch two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station @ @ @ @ @ .
The two NASA astronauts are named Doug Hurley ( left ) and Bob Behnken @ @ @ @ @ they are outfitted in brand new space suits and they ’ ll be launching today @ @ @ @ @ , should the weather permit .
Right now there are a few rain cells over @ @ @ @ @ will be gone before launch .
You can watch the launch on one of the @ @ @ @

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is teaming up with NASA to launch two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station in their Crew Dragon spacecraft. The two NASA astronauts are named Doug Hurley (left) and Bob Behnken:
As you can see they are outfitted in brand new space suits and they’ll be launching today at 4:33PM from Cape Canaveral, should the weather permit. Right now there are a few rain cells over the area but hopefully they will be gone before launch.
You can watch the launch on one of the live streams below:
NASA:
C-SPAN:
FOX NEWS:
WHILE YOU WAIT:
An Oklahoma mom says her hero of the day is her UPS driver – who noticed her American flag was twisted, and took time to fix it 🇺🇸 https://t.co/5lmEzTXhdr pic.twitter.com/GHLsSfaOuA — CBS News (@CBSNews) May 27, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-27--JUST IN: Lindsey Graham’s first Crossfire Hurricane hearing is next week and he’s got his first witn

JUST IN: Lindsey Graham’s first Crossfire Hurricane hearing is next week and he’s got his first witness…

Lindsey Graham has scheduled his first Judiciary Committee hearing into Crossfire Hurricane for next Wednesday and he ’ s already got his first witness : FOX NEWS – Former acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be the first witness to testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe .
The Senate Judiciary Committee , chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , announced Wednesday that Rosenstein is scheduled to testify before the committee on June 3 at 10:00 a.m .
The hearing , according to the committee , will be titled “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day 1.
” “ Crossfire Hurricane ” is the FBI ’ s internal code name for the bureau ’ s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election .
That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016 .
Former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team eventually announced that it found no evidence of coordination .
Rosenstein is the first witness called to testify before the panel as part of its investigation , which Graham laid out the parameters for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee will , among other things , look at “ whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel.
” Rosenstein , in May 2017 , appointed Mueller as special counsel .
Rosenstein also penned the “ scope memo ” for Mueller ’ s investigation in August 2017 , which outlined the authority of Mueller .
Earlier this month , the memo was released in full , and revealed for the first time that Mueller ’ s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known .

Lindsey Graham has scheduled his first Judiciary Committee hearing into Crossfire Hurricane for next Wednesday and he’s already got his first witness:
FOX NEWS – Former acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be the first witness to testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Wednesday that Rosenstein is scheduled to testify before the committee on June 3 at 10:00 a.m.
The hearing, according to the committee, will be titled “Oversight of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation: Day 1.”
“Crossfire Hurricane” is the FBI’s internal code name for the bureau’s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016. Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team eventually announced that it found no evidence of coordination.
Rosenstein is the first witness called to testify before the panel as part of its investigation, which Graham laid out the parameters for earlier this month. Graham noted that the committee will, among other things, look at “whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel.”
Rosenstein, in May 2017, appointed Mueller as special counsel.
Rosenstein also penned the “scope memo” for Mueller’s investigation in August 2017, which outlined the authority of Mueller. Earlier this month, the memo was released in full, and revealed for the first time that Mueller’s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known.


therightscoop--2020-05-27--“All you did was try to help your friend, the president” – CNBC melts down over the stock market ral

“All you did was try to help your friend, the president” – CNBC melts down over the stock market rally

Two CNBC hosts went after each other this morning over the stock market rallying back up to 25,000 , with things getting quite heated at times : It essentially boils down to Joe Kernen accusing Andrew Ross Sorkin of trying to panic people throughout this pandemic and Sorkin accusing Kernen of pretending like everything was ok in order to “ help your friend , the president.
” Two hosts of the CNBC show Squawk Box got into a heated argument over their reactions to the recent stock market bump .
A discussion between co-anchors Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused his colleague of being too pessimistic in his evaluation of the positive market turn .
Sorkin defended his point by claiming that “ a lot of smart people ” are questioning how the market could be so high despite the coronavirus ’ s impact on the economy .
“ Why is that the smart people ?
!
They ’ ve been wrong for 35 % !
” Kernen said , referring to gains the Dow Jones Industrial Average has made since its free fall in March .
“ Why are they smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s right in front of their nose ?
!
That doesn ’ t make them smart !
It makes them not savvy about the market !
” “ Joe !
You missed it a 100 % on the way down !
” Sorkin shot back .
“ And you missed 100,000 deaths !
” After Kernen criticized him for raising his voice , the verbal confrontation began subsiding before it was quickly restarted when Kernen said , “ I ’ m sorry ?
” in an apparent demonstration that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , you ’ re not !
” Sorkin responded , reigniting the clash .
“ Go ahead with the news !
” “ You panicked about the market , panicked about COVID , panicked about the ventilators , panicked about the PPE , panicked about ever going out again , ” Kernen said .
“ Joseph !
Joseph !
You didn ’ t panic about anything !
Joseph , 100,000 people died !
One hundred thousand people died , Joe !
And all you did was try to help your friend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s what you did !
Every single morning on this show !
Every single morning on this show !
You used and abused your position , Joe !
” While I don ’ t watch CNBC , I tend to like Kernen ’ s explanation of things noting that we were always going to rebound and there was never any real reason to truly panic as though the sky were falling .
Certainly it ’ s disheartening to see the stock market crash and everything around it , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff in this country and we always bounce back .
But I think for many in the media it ’ s more than just about panicking at what we see right in front of us .
There ’ s obviously a political dimension to this , where a lot of this ‘ panic ’ exists to rile viewers up so that they blame Trump for everything that ’ s happened .
I think that ’ s what is really going on and is at the heart of this argument between Kernen and Sorkin @

Two CNBC hosts went after each other this morning over the stock market rallying back up to 25,000, with things getting quite heated at times:
It essentially boils down to Joe Kernen accusing Andrew Ross Sorkin of trying to panic people throughout this pandemic and Sorkin accusing Kernen of pretending like everything was ok in order to “help your friend, the president.”
Here’s more from DC Examiner:
Two hosts of the CNBC show Squawk Box got into a heated argument over their reactions to the recent stock market bump. A discussion between co-anchors Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin on Wednesday morning got heated after Kernen accused his colleague of being too pessimistic in his evaluation of the positive market turn. Sorkin defended his point by claiming that “a lot of smart people” are questioning how the market could be so high despite the coronavirus’s impact on the economy. “Why is that the smart people?! They’ve been wrong for 35%!” Kernen said, referring to gains the Dow Jones Industrial Average has made since its free fall in March. “Why are they smart?! Just because they can see what’s right in front of their nose?! That doesn’t make them smart! It makes them not savvy about the market!” “Joe! You missed it a 100% on the way down!” Sorkin shot back. “And you missed 100,000 deaths!” After Kernen criticized him for raising his voice, the verbal confrontation began subsiding before it was quickly restarted when Kernen said, “I’m sorry?” in an apparent demonstration that he was taken aback by the conversation. “No, you’re not!” Sorkin responded, reigniting the clash. “Go ahead with the news!” “You panicked about the market, panicked about COVID, panicked about the ventilators, panicked about the PPE, panicked about ever going out again,” Kernen said. “Joseph! Joseph! You didn’t panic about anything! Joseph, 100,000 people died! One hundred thousand people died, Joe! And all you did was try to help your friend, the president!” Sorkin rebuked. “That’s what you did! Every single morning on this show! Every single morning on this show! You used and abused your position, Joe!”
While I don’t watch CNBC, I tend to like Kernen’s explanation of things noting that we were always going to rebound and there was never any real reason to truly panic as though the sky were falling. Certainly it’s disheartening to see the stock market crash and everything around it, but we’ve been through some pretty terrible stuff in this country and we always bounce back.
But I think for many in the media it’s more than just about panicking at what we see right in front of us. There’s obviously a political dimension to this, where a lot of this ‘panic’ exists to rile viewers up so that they blame Trump for everything that’s happened. I think that’s what is really going on and is at the heart of this argument between Kernen and Sorkin.


therightscoop--2020-05-27--REPORT: The real reason behind Trump’s aggressive tweets against Jeff Sessions…

Ryan Girdusky , formerly with OAN , is reporting some insider information on what ’ s really going on behind @ @ @ @ @ against Jeff Sessions in the US Senate election in Alabama , saying it has less @ @ @ @ @ recusal in the Russia probe and more to do with Kushner : Just to note @ @ @ @ @ bail reform ’ he really means the ‘ First Step Act ’ .
He clarified @ @ @ @ @ his tweets .
We ’ ve quote Girdusky ’ s reporting before and it seemed @ @ @ @ @ probably put stock in this reporting as well .

Ryan Girdusky, formerly with OAN, is reporting some insider information on what’s really going on behind Trump’s aggressive push against Jeff Sessions in the US Senate election in Alabama, saying it has less to do with Sessions’ recusal in the Russia probe and more to do with Kushner:
SCOOP: The real reason for the tremendous push against Sessions coming from the White House has little to do with Russia and more to do with Jared Kushner's bail reform. — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
Just to note, when Girdusky says ‘bail reform’ he really means the ‘First Step Act’. He clarified it at the end of his tweets.
He continues…
Kushner was one of the lead architects of bail reform and Sessions constantly pushed back against him. Sources inside the WH told me Kushner hated Sessions more than any other person inside Trump's WH. — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
Using the Russia probe, Kushner used to remind Trump of Sessions' recusal during heated moments over bail reform to ensure he would never take his side. — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
Sessions warned Trump (correctly) that the First Step Act would lead to dangerous criminals being freed. That's exactly what happened time and time again.https://t.co/GVJyxb5pvm — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
It was Kushner that lead the charge against Sessions for his run for the Senate. But sources said the Russia investigation was just a facade for the fact that he didn't want Sessions in the Senate to push back on his Second Term agenda. — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
Sessions was often used as a distraction for Trump to cover up multiple people's screw ups in the WH. Often times Gen. Kelly would bring up Sessions when Nielsen was in trouble. Now Russiagate is being used for Trump to endorse the pro-amnesty Tommy Tuberville. — Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) May 26, 2020
We’ve quote Girdusky’s reporting before and it seemed solid. So you can probably put stock in this reporting as well.


therightscoop--2020-05-27--Republican sue Nancy Pelosi over unconstitutional proxy voting and here’s why…

Republicans in the House are suing Nancy Pelosi over their use of proxy voting , which would allow members here in Washington vote on behalf of representatives who are still in their districts : NY POST – House Republicans have filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other chamber officials as part of a long-shot effort to block the use of proxy voting before it goes into effect this week .
The lawsuit alleges that the proxy vote legislation passed by the House earlier this month is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent .
Filed on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit names House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) as the top plaintiff .
He is joined by Reps. Steve Scalise ( R-La . )
, Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) , Liz Cheney ( R-Wy . )
, Tom Cole ( R-Okla. ) and 16 other members .
Four constituents are also included as plaintiffs in the suit .
Under the changes approved by House Democrats , lawmakers are now permitted to vote on behalf of up to 10 other members who are left unable to travel during the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trapped in their home districts .
The reform was passed earlier this month in a near-party-line 217-189 vote , with all Republicans opposed and joined in their nay votes by three Democrats and Rep. Justin Amash ( L-Mich. ) .
As of Wednesday morning , 63 Democrats had submitted letters to the House Clerk ’ s office to authorize their vote to be cast by proxy .
Last week , less than 20 Democratic lawmakers were on the list .

Republicans in the House are suing Nancy Pelosi over their use of proxy voting, which would allow members here in Washington vote on behalf of representatives who are still in their districts:
NY POST – House Republicans have filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other chamber officials as part of a long-shot effort to block the use of proxy voting before it goes into effect this week.
The lawsuit alleges that the proxy vote legislation passed by the House earlier this month is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.
Filed on Tuesday in DC Federal District Court, the lawsuit names House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as the top plaintiff. He is joined by Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and 16 other members. Four constituents are also included as plaintiffs in the suit.
Under the changes approved by House Democrats, lawmakers are now permitted to vote on behalf of up to 10 other members who are left unable to travel during the coronavirus pandemic, which has left dozens of politicians trapped in their home districts.
The reform was passed earlier this month in a near-party-line 217-189 vote, with all Republicans opposed and joined in their nay votes by three Democrats and Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.).
As of Wednesday morning, 63 Democrats had submitted letters to the House Clerk’s office to authorize their vote to be cast by proxy.
Last week, less than 20 Democratic lawmakers were on the list.


therightscoop--2020-05-27--Kathy Griffin sends out death threat to Trump on Twitter

Last night Kathy Griffin posted a death threat for Trump Twitter , suggesting someone stab him with a syringe full @ @ @ @ @ kill him : Geez , Griffin is completely off her rocker .
She doubled down @ @ @ @ @ reported by DC Examiner : When a reporter with the DC Examiner noted that Twitter @ @ @ @ @ her tweet Griffin then threatened him : If Twitter said they would look into Griffin @ @ @ @ @ is it still up ?
How long does it take to decide that a death @ @ @ @ @ their policies ?

Last night Kathy Griffin posted a death threat for Trump Twitter, suggesting someone stab him with a syringe full of air in order to kill him:
Syringe with nothing but air inside it would do the trick. FUCK TRUMP https://t.co/UR2rfymQNY — Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 26, 2020
Geez, Griffin is completely off her rocker.
She doubled down on it when it was reported by DC Examiner:
When a reporter with the DC Examiner noted that Twitter said it would look into her tweet Griffin then threatened him:
Go fuck yourself. Do you wanna tussle with me, you fucking amateur?#100ThousandDead https://t.co/pFN5SSxMiZ — Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 27, 2020
If Twitter said they would look into Griffin’s tweet, why is it still up? How long does it take to decide that a death threat against the president violates their policies?


therightscoop--2020-05-28--BREAKING: AG Barr appoints US Atty to review ‘unmasking’ before and after 2016 election

The spokeswoman for the DOJ , Kerri Kupec , announced on Fox News tonight that Attorney General Bill Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the practice of unmasking , both before and after the 2016 election : Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped US Attorney John Bash ( Texas ) to review the practice of ‘ unmasking ’ before and after the 2016 presidential election .
@ KerriKupecDOJ said AG Barr determined certain aspects of ‘ unmasking ’ needed further review .
AG spox tells @ seanhannity that Bill Barr has appointed another US Attorney to probe issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request , @ USAttyBash will look at “ unmasking.
” AG spox notes unmasking “ inherently isn ’ t wrong , ” but “ frequency ” & “ reasoning behind unmasking ” can problematic .
@ KerriKupecDOJ says on Fox that AG Barr asked @ USAttyBash to launch a separate look into “ unmasking , ” an issue that has gotten a lot attention thanks to Flynn .
Bash 's work will be in support of Durham 's ongoing criminal investigation into the roots of Mueller 's Russia inquiry .
Attorney General Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western District of Texas John Bash to review the practice of “ unmasking ” before and after the 2016 presidential election , a controversy that has picked up steam after the Justice Department moved to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , the DOJ announced .
Republican lawmakers have demanded more information about the extent of the practice after a previously clandestine list of Obama-era officials who sought to reveal what turned out to be the identity of Michael Flynn in intelligence reports was recently released .
Kerri Kupec , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Fox News ’ ‘ Hannity ’ Wednesday that U.S. Attorney John Durham , who is reviewing the origins of the Trump Russia Investigation , was looking into “ unmasking ” but that Barr determined that certain aspects of the practice needed further review , and Bash has been assigned to do so .
“ The frequency and who was unmasking whom , and what happened after President Trump was elected as well , ” Kupec said .
The DOJ spokesperson also affirmed that the Washington D.C. appeals court has invited the DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ and we will.
” Kupec maintains that the DOJ has the ability to drop the case against Flynn– President Trump ’ s former National Security Adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI back 2017 about his Russian contacts– and are weighing the possibility .
“ We have the prosecutorial discretion to make that decision .
”

The spokeswoman for the DOJ, Kerri Kupec, announced on Fox News tonight that Attorney General Bill Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the practice of unmasking, both before and after the 2016 election:
Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped US Attorney John Bash (Texas) to review the practice of ‘unmasking’ before and after the 2016 presidential election. @KerriKupecDOJ said AG Barr determined certain aspects of ‘unmasking’ needed further review.
AG spox tells @seanhannity that Bill Barr has appointed another US Attorney to probe issue of interest to POTUS. At Barr request, @USAttyBash will look at “unmasking.” AG spox notes unmasking “inherently isn’t wrong,” but “frequency” & “reasoning behind unmasking” can problematic
. @KerriKupecDOJ says on Fox that AG Barr asked @USAttyBash to launch a separate look into “unmasking,” an issue that has gotten a lot attention thanks to Flynn. Bash's work will be in support of Durham's ongoing criminal investigation into the roots of Mueller's Russia inquiry.
Here’s more from Fox News:
Attorney General Bill Barr has asked U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas John Bash to review the practice of “unmasking” before and after the 2016 presidential election, a controversy that has picked up steam after the Justice Department moved to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, the DOJ announced.
Republican lawmakers have demanded more information about the extent of the practice after a previously clandestine list of Obama-era officials who sought to reveal what turned out to be the identity of Michael Flynn in intelligence reports was recently released.
Kerri Kupec, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said on Fox News’ ‘Hannity’ Wednesday that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is reviewing the origins of the Trump Russia Investigation, was looking into “unmasking” but that Barr determined that certain aspects of the practice needed further review, and Bash has been assigned to do so.
“The frequency and who was unmasking whom, and what happened after President Trump was elected as well,” Kupec said.
The DOJ spokesperson also affirmed that the Washington D.C. appeals court has invited the DOJ to weigh in on the Flynn case, “and we will.”
Kupec maintains that the DOJ has the ability to drop the case against Flynn– President Trump’s former National Security Adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI back 2017 about his Russian contacts– and are weighing the possibility.
“We have the prosecutorial discretion to make that decision.”


therightscoop--2020-05-28--LISTEN: Mark Levin interviews Rick Grenell about unmasking and the Obama administration

Tonight Mark Levin had former Acting DNI Richard Grenell on his show to discuss his short tenure in the ODNI departement .
The interview runs about 19 minutes but it ’ s a great interview from beginning to end : Levin asked Grenell about his dealings with both Adam Schiff and Mark Warner , and in his answer Grenell suggested that what frustrated him was that some of these Congressmen would write him a letter and then leak it before he ’ d even gotten it .
So he had no chance to reply to the letter before he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed out that when he was accused of ‘ politicizing ’ his position to make changes within the department , Grenell said that he was actually listening to the career officials who worked there and doing what they really felt needed to be done .
He said the overwhelming majority of people who work in the ODNI are very professional and hate the leaking that ’ s coming from a few in the department .
In fact the said they are trying to police themselves to get rid of it .
Grenell had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the interview for much more…

Tonight Mark Levin had former Acting DNI Richard Grenell on his show to discuss his short tenure in the ODNI departement. The interview runs about 19 minutes but it’s a great interview from beginning to end:
Levin asked Grenell about his dealings with both Adam Schiff and Mark Warner, and in his answer Grenell suggested that what frustrated him was that some of these Congressmen would write him a letter and then leak it before he’d even gotten it. So he had no chance to reply to the letter before he was being questioned about it.
Grenell also pointed out that when he was accused of ‘politicizing’ his position to make changes within the department, Grenell said that he was actually listening to the career officials who worked there and doing what they really felt needed to be done. He said the overwhelming majority of people who work in the ODNI are very professional and hate the leaking that’s coming from a few in the department. In fact the said they are trying to police themselves to get rid of it.
Grenell had a lot more to say so listen to the interview for much more…


therightscoop--2020-05-29--BREAKING: Matt Gaetz to file FEC complaint that Twitter is interfering in 2020 election against Trum

BREAKING: Matt Gaetz to file FEC complaint that Twitter is interfering in 2020 election against Trump…

Rep. Matt Gaetz announced tonight on Tucker Carlson ’ s show that he ’ s filling an FEC complaint against @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election against President Trump : Gaetz says the Trump campaign has lost the element @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , when no one though they could win the rust belt .
So @ @ @ @ @ be aggressive to keep big tech from stealing the election .
Gaetz added that the @ @ @ @ @ off their duff ” and investigate Twitter for interfering in the election , which is @ @ @ @ @ such a complaint tomorrow .
In very much related news Trump just tweeted what Facebook @ @ @ @ @ his interview with Dana Perino .
He then asked why Twitter didn ’ t ‘ @ @ @ @ @ lying that people would be able to keep their doctor with Obamacare :

Rep. Matt Gaetz announced tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show that he’s filling an FEC complaint against Twitter for interfering in the 2020 election against President Trump:
#BREAKING: I'm filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission because of Twitter's domestic election interference against President @realDonaldTrump. If we just wait around, big tech will steal this election from @realDonaldTrump and the American people. pic.twitter.com/Yi6afv8bbP — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) May 29, 2020
Gaetz says the Trump campaign has lost the element of surprise that they had in 2016, when no one though they could win the rust belt. So he believes they have to be aggressive to keep big tech from stealing the election.
Gaetz added that the FEC needs to “get off their duff” and investigate Twitter for interfering in the election, which is why he’ll file such a complaint tomorrow.
In very much related news Trump just tweeted what Facebook’s Zuckerberg said in his interview with Dana Perino. He then asked why Twitter didn’t ‘fact check’ Obama for lying that people would be able to keep their doctor with Obamacare:
.@Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is today criticizing Twitter. “We have a different policy than Twitter on this. I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Did Twitter criticize Obama for his “you can keep your Dr.”? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-28--Former FBI intel director explains just how ABYSMAL Peter Strzok’s official justification was for Cr

Former FBI intel director explains just how ABYSMAL Peter Strzok’s official justification was for Crossfire Hurricane

A former intelligence director for the FBI , Kevin R. Brock , said a newly declassified document came out last week in which there ’ s been very little reporting .
It was the origin document for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump ’ s campaign created by Peter Strzok , and Brock says it was worse than he ever expected .
He lays out two major problems with document .
First he notes the document was created by and approved by Peter Strzok , which is completely absurd : First , the document is oddly constructed .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or EC , there would be a “ To ” and a “ From ” line .
The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “ From ” line ; it is from a part of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok .
The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok .
And , finally , it was approved by Peter Strzok .
Essentially , it is a document created by Peter Strzok , approved by Peter Strzok , and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document is an absurdity , violative of all FBI protocols and , therefore , invalid on its face .
An agent can not approve his or her own case ; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans .
Yet , for this document , Peter Strzok was pitcher , catcher , batter and umpire .
Brock notes that there were other names redacted that the document was cc ’ d to , and judging by the placement of the names he believes it likely included both Comey and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are always listed in cascading fashion , with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior .
On this EC , Strzok is listed last , so the redacted names should be more senior to him .
Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey , then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap .
The document also establishes these redacted names as “ case participants.
” Secondly , Brock addresses the non-existent justification Strzok used to fire up the investigation : Second , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) investigation .
A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case , a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment .
It is rarely investigated .
In a normal EC opening a FARA case , we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocate that government ’ s goals .
Got that ?
Strzok is asserting someone in the Trump campaign did work for another government and didn ’ t report it to the US government .
That ’ s the basis , or at least that ’ s what he wanted it to be .
This , however , was no normal EC .
Try as we might to spot them , those reasons are not found anywhere in the document .
Despite redactions , it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign adviser , George Papadopoulos , in a London bar for drinks ; Downer then reported the conversation , which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London .
The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer .
In it , Downer claims Papadopoulos “ suggested ” to him that the Trump team had received “ some kind of suggestion ” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama .
In other words , a suggestion of a suggestion .
Strzok apparently took this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia ’ s behalf .
This , despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email : 1 ) It was “ unclear ” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2 ) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not .
Strzok then concludes the EC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “ individual ( s ) ” associated with the Trump campaign are “ witting of and/or coordinating activities ” — also unspecified — “ with the Government of Russia.
” He doesn ’ t even mention Papadopoulos .
Strzok used this vague reporting from an Australian diplomat to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign , all based on a FARA violation that did not exist : Ultimately , there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , because there are none .
Instead , there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign , again , with no supporting facts listed .
What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit , made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication , sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump , and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases .
To paraphrase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC .
They know the rules too well .
Yet this is what consumed the first three years of Trump ’ s presidency and what Democrats had hoped to use as a basis to impeaching Trump out of office .
If Peter Strzok and his cronies aren ’ t prosecuted for this , what a grave injustice that will be .

A former intelligence director for the FBI, Kevin R. Brock, said a newly declassified document came out last week in which there’s been very little reporting. It was the origin document for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump’s campaign created by Peter Strzok, and Brock says it was worse than he ever expected.
He lays out two major problems with document. First he notes the document was created by and approved by Peter Strzok, which is completely absurd:
First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok. On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.
Brock notes that there were other names redacted that the document was cc’d to, and judging by the placement of the names he believes it likely included both Comey and McCabe:
Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as “case participants.”
Secondly, Brock addresses the non-existent justification Strzok used to fire up the investigation:
Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated. In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals.
Got that? Strzok is asserting someone in the Trump campaign did work for another government and didn’t report it to the US government. That’s the basis, or at least that’s what he wanted it to be.
Brock continues…
This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London. The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion. Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia’s behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not. Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “individual(s)” associated with the Trump campaign are “witting of and/or coordinating activities” — also unspecified — “with the Government of Russia.” He doesn’t even mention Papadopoulos.
Strzok used this vague reporting from an Australian diplomat to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, all based on a FARA violation that did not exist:
Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed. What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases. To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.
Yet this is what consumed the first three years of Trump’s presidency and what Democrats had hoped to use as a basis to impeaching Trump out of office. If Peter Strzok and his cronies aren’t prosecuted for this, what a grave injustice that will be.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--‘The Five’ erupts in laughter when Donna Brazile says there’s no First Amendment right to lie

Oh boy , this one is a doozy .
Donna Brazile lied about the constitutional right to free speech , @ @ @ @ @ about whether you have the right to lie under the First Amendment .
Check this @ @ @ @ @ minute mark : The reaction from the panel is pretty great .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ and then , wait a minute , actually , YES you can lie under the @ @ @ @ @ !
What the heck is she talking about ?
!
It ’ s not even @ @ @ @ @ should lie , but that if you tell the government that they can ban people @ @ @ @ @ give the government the power to DETERMINE what is truth and what is a lie @ @ @ @ @ what we call a slippery slope to tyranny , folks .
Nice try , though @ @ @ @ @ you faceplant on that one .

Oh boy, this one is a doozy. Donna Brazile lied about the constitutional right to free speech, and ironically, it was about whether you have the right to lie under the First Amendment. Check this out at about the 6:40 minute mark:
The reaction from the panel is pretty great. There’s a second of complete confusion and then, wait a minute, actually, YES you can lie under the First Amendment! LOL!! What the heck is she talking about?!
It’s not even a matter of whether you should lie, but that if you tell the government that they can ban people from lying, then you give the government the power to DETERMINE what is truth and what is a lie. And that’s what we call a slippery slope to tyranny, folks.
Nice try, though, Donna. Enjoyed watching you faceplant on that one.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--BREAKING: Minnesota Gov. calls out the National Guard in response to rioting over George Floyd

Now the governor of Minnesota has called out the national guard in order to prevent more looting and rioting .
@ @ @ @ @ good thing .
I think it ’ s pretty clear that the majority of the @ @ @ @ @ happened to George Floyd , and they want the cops to be investigated and prosecuted @ @ @ @ @ ve seen a lot of support for the non-violent protests even among those on the @ @ @ @ @ this kind of stuff .
BUT , there is a huge difference between protesting and @ @ @ @ @ , the scumbag opportunists are taking this event in order to justify stealing and destroying @ @ @ @ @ to equate the two groups .
Unfortunately , it ’ s very difficult for law @ @ @ @ @ two groups and protect one from another when enforcing the law during a riot .
@ @ @ @ @ law will be upheld again , for the sake of everyone involved .

Now the governor of Minnesota has called out the national guard in order to prevent more looting and rioting.
BREAKING: Minnesota @GovTimWalz has activated the state's National Guard "to Provide Safety and Protection to the People of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Surrounding Communities." pic.twitter.com/v80BALqaFv — Mukhtar M. Ibrahim (@mukhtaryare) May 28, 2020
That is probably a very good thing.
I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of the country does not support what happened to George Floyd, and they want the cops to be investigated and prosecuted over it. I’ve seen a lot of support for the non-violent protests even among those on the right who are usually against this kind of stuff.
BUT, there is a huge difference between protesting and rioting and looting. Clearly, the scumbag opportunists are taking this event in order to justify stealing and destroying property. It is dishonest to equate the two groups. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult for law enforcement to sort out these two groups and protect one from another when enforcing the law during a riot. Hopefully, the rule of law will be upheld again, for the sake of everyone involved.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--WATCH LIVE: Trump to sign executive order on social media

Trump is set to sign the executive order on social media very soon .
It ’ s scheduled for 4pm , but we were hearing 20 minutes ago that Trump would do it in a half hour , so it could happen any time .
Watch live below : According to reports about the executive order , Trump will ask the FCC to clarify Section 230 : The order would direct an agency within the Commerce Department to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered foundational to the internet ’ s expansion .
The statute provides platforms legal immunity for content posted by third-party users while also giving them legal cover to make good-faith efforts to moderate their platforms .
The draft order suggests that platforms like Facebook , Twitter and YouTube could be considered publishers in some cases , making them liable for content posted on their sites .
The Hill also notes it “ orders a review ” of the law , which one Republican FCC Chairman said makes sense : FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finance interview Thursday morning that the proposal “ makes sense.
” “ [ Section 230 ] has always said that if you engage in bad-faith takedowns , you don ’ t get those bonus protections , ” he said .
“ I think given what we ’ ve seen over the last few weeks , it makes sense to let the public weigh in and say , ‘ Is that really what Congress meant when they passed and provided those special protections ?
’ ” National Review ’ s David Harsanyi has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order an Obama-style executive abuse and explaining what the law actually did : No one should be fooled .
This would be an Obama-style executive abuse , meant not to “ clarify ” but to circumvent the will and intent of the legislative branch for partisan reasons .
Section 230 wasn ’ t passed to regulate fairness or neutrality of political speech on platforms — a nebulous and unenforceable demand , even if it had been — but to allow websites to deal with online indecency .
In effect , Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creates risk aversion and makes things like a free and open Internet impossible .
Minimal regulatory oversight of the Internet has fostered robust discourse , the kind that would have been unimaginable to someone passing an Internet bill back in 1996 .
Yet , conservatives , constantly — and rightly — grousing about government overreach want to hand more regulatory power to the state .
Clearly he ’ s against more government intervention and makes a few good points along the way .
But he also realizes that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He goes on more at length if you want to read it .
I post this not to oppose the president , just fyi , but to provide a different perspective on today ’ s order since we ’ re treading in somewhat uncharted waters .

Trump is set to sign the executive order on social media very soon. It’s scheduled for 4pm, but we were hearing 20 minutes ago that Trump would do it in a half hour, so it could happen any time. Watch live below:
According to reports about the executive order, Trump will ask the FCC to clarify Section 230:
The order would direct an agency within the Commerce Department to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that is considered foundational to the internet’s expansion. The statute provides platforms legal immunity for content posted by third-party users while also giving them legal cover to make good-faith efforts to moderate their platforms. The draft order suggests that platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube could be considered publishers in some cases, making them liable for content posted on their sites.
The Hill also notes it “orders a review” of the law, which one Republican FCC Chairman said makes sense:
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr (R) said in a Yahoo Finance interview Thursday morning that the proposal “makes sense.” “[Section 230] has always said that if you engage in bad-faith takedowns, you don’t get those bonus protections,” he said. “I think given what we’ve seen over the last few weeks, it makes sense to let the public weigh in and say, ‘Is that really what Congress meant when they passed and provided those special protections?’”
National Review’s David Harsanyi has an interesting article on this, calling this executive order an Obama-style executive abuse and explaining what the law actually did:
No one should be fooled. This would be an Obama-style executive abuse, meant not to “clarify” but to circumvent the will and intent of the legislative branch for partisan reasons. Section 230 wasn’t passed to regulate fairness or neutrality of political speech on platforms — a nebulous and unenforceable demand, even if it had been — but to allow websites to deal with online indecency. In effect, Section 230 has restrained the kind of litigiousness that creates risk aversion and makes things like a free and open Internet impossible. Minimal regulatory oversight of the Internet has fostered robust discourse, the kind that would have been unimaginable to someone passing an Internet bill back in 1996. Yet, conservatives, constantly — and rightly — grousing about government overreach want to hand more regulatory power to the state.
Clearly he’s against more government intervention and makes a few good points along the way. But he also realizes that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is bringing this on himself by abandoning neutrality. He goes on more at length if you want to read it.
I post this not to oppose the president, just fyi, but to provide a different perspective on today’s order since we’re treading in somewhat uncharted waters.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--WATCH LIVE: White House press briefing with Kayleigh McEnany happens at 2PM

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is set to give her a White House press briefing today at 2 PM .
You @ @ @ @ @

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is set to give her a White House press briefing today at 2 PM. You can watch it below:
WHITE HOUSE:
FOX NEWS:
PBS NEWSHOUR:
WHILE YOU WAIT:
The look of determination on her face when she crosses the finish line 👏😍 pic.twitter.com/zRgQACtsrn — The Dodo (@dodo) May 28, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-28--Trump hammers Twitter and their ‘hater’ Yoel Roth for denying mail-in voter fraud exists…

President Trump is out with a new tweet hammering Twitter for denying the reality that mail-in voter fraud exists , and specifically calls out their Trump ‘ hater ’ Yoel Roth , who is the head of Twitter ’ s Site Integrity : Trump writes “ So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD .
How stupid , there are examples , & cases , all over the place .
Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World .
Tell that to your hater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right here about mail-in ballot fraud as so many have pointed out .
I was just listening to an interview with Ari Fleischer and he pointed out just how incredibly stupid it was for Twitter to ‘ fact check ’ Trump ’ s tweets the other day .
Fleischer noted that Jack Dorsey says he wants to ‘ connect the dots ’ so people can make decisions for themselves or something , and says “ good luck Jack ” , because everything out there is a dot , everything is someone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arbiter of truth .
Fleischer noted he ’ s not a fan of government intervention , that Twitter is a private company and they are free to be as dumb as they want to be .
And clearly , he said , they ’ ve just shown everyone how dumb they truly are .

President Trump is out with a new tweet hammering Twitter for denying the reality that mail-in voter fraud exists, and specifically calls out their Trump ‘hater’ Yoel Roth, who is the head of Twitter’s Site Integrity:
So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World. Tell that to your hater @yoyoel — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
Trump writes “So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World. Tell that to your hater @yoyoel.”
Of course Trump is right here about mail-in ballot fraud as so many have pointed out.
I was just listening to an interview with Ari Fleischer and he pointed out just how incredibly stupid it was for Twitter to ‘fact check’ Trump’s tweets the other day. Fleischer noted that Jack Dorsey says he wants to ‘connect the dots’ so people can make decisions for themselves or something, and says “good luck Jack”, because everything out there is a dot, everything is someone’s opinion and now Twitter is making themselves the arbiter of truth. Fleischer noted he’s not a fan of government intervention, that Twitter is a private company and they are free to be as dumb as they want to be. And clearly, he said, they’ve just shown everyone how dumb they truly are.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--Richard Grenell SMOKES Eric Swalwell for his lies about Russian collusion in Twitter back and forth

The slimy failed Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell is spewing more lies about former acting Director Richard Grenell and the ODNI , accusing him of burying evidence to protect Trump : “ Slight correction on your tweet : I trust FBI & Director Wray .
I don ’ t trust @ ODNIgov Directors @ RichardGrenell or @ RepRatcliffe .
They ’ re the ones with the shovels burying evidence to protect @ realDonaldTrump.
” Grenell decided to engage on this one and hits Swalwell for his years of public lies about Russian collusion , saying “ I ’ m letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the one who worked to hide the information you didn ’ t like .
You listened to multiple people in classified hearings say they had no evidence and yet go on TV and say the opposite .
Transparency is now a must !
” Instead of defending himself , of which there is obviously no defense , Swalwell changes the subject to accuse Grenell of hiding Flynn ’ s call with Kislyak : “ Thanks for showing up on Twitter .
You never once came to brief the Intel Committee ( First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
If you have nothing to hide , why don ’ t you release Flynn ’ s call with Russia ?
” Grenell responds saying that the transcripts are indeed coming and once again hits Swalwell for his lies , saying “ Those are coming .
It ’ s very important for the public to see ALL of them .
For too long the public has been misled .
Just compare your committee ’ s transcripts to your public statements !
” Swalwell just continues his smear campaign against Grenell : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Well , you ’ re no longer director and the Flynn tapes never came .
All you have to show for your work is the dirt on your boots from shoveling and burying evidence for @ realDonaldTrump.
” Grenell reiterated that the transcripts are coming and hit Swalwell directly in the mouth , saying “ They are coming .
There ’ s a thoughtful process to transparency .
For years you went on TV spreading the Russian propaganda – knowing the entire time that not one single person under oath from your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s shameful !
” BOOM !
He ’ s exactly right .
It ’ s absolutely shameful to try and destroy a duly elected president with blatant lies when he knew no one from the Obama administration ever saw any evidence of collusion .
But apparently not for the man who clearly has no shame .

The slimy failed Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell is spewing more lies about former acting Director Richard Grenell and the ODNI, accusing him of burying evidence to protect Trump:
“Slight correction on your tweet: I trust FBI & Director Wray. I don’t trust @ODNIgov Directors @RichardGrenell or @RepRatcliffe. They’re the ones with the shovels burying evidence to protect @realDonaldTrump.”
Slight correction on your tweet: I trust FBI & Director Wray. I don’t trust @ODNIgov Directors @RichardGrenell or @RepRatcliffe. They’re the ones with the shovels burying evidence to protect @realDonaldTrump. https://t.co/geMiY8sjIq — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) May 22, 2020
Grenell decided to engage on this one and hits Swalwell for his years of public lies about Russian collusion, saying “I’m letting the public see more info. You are the one who worked to hide the information you didn’t like. You listened to multiple people in classified hearings say they had no evidence and yet go on TV and say the opposite. Transparency is now a must!”
I’m letting the public see more info. You are the one who worked to hide the information you didn’t like. You listened to multiple people in classified hearings say they had no evidence and yet go on TV and say the opposite. Transparency is now a must! https://t.co/C0pKnneuoh — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 22, 2020
Instead of defending himself, of which there is obviously no defense, Swalwell changes the subject to accuse Grenell of hiding Flynn’s call with Kislyak: “Thanks for showing up on Twitter. You never once came to brief the Intel Committee (First DNI Director who failed to do so). If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you release Flynn’s call with Russia?”
Thanks for showing up on Twitter. You never once came to brief the Intel Committee (First DNI Director who failed to do so). If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you release Flynn’s call with Russia? #ShowUsTheTape https://t.co/2CbV9O1xMA — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) May 22, 2020
Grenell responds saying that the transcripts are indeed coming and once again hits Swalwell for his lies, saying “Those are coming. It’s very important for the public to see ALL of them. For too long the public has been misled. Just compare your committee’s transcripts to your public statements!”
Those are coming. It’s very important for the public to see ALL of them. For too long the public has been misled. Just compare your committee’s transcripts to your public statements! #troubling https://t.co/gzyNJuQJDY — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 22, 2020
Swalwell just continues his smear campaign against Grenell: “Tick tock. “Those are coming.” Well, you’re no longer director and the Flynn tapes never came. All you have to show for your work is the dirt on your boots from shoveling and burying evidence for @realDonaldTrump.”
Tick tock. “Those are coming.” Well, you’re no longer director and the Flynn tapes never came. All you have to show for your work is the dirt on your boots from shoveling and burying evidence for @realDonaldTrump. #ShowUsTheTape https://t.co/ldYLn9LcQl — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) May 28, 2020
Grenell reiterated that the transcripts are coming and hit Swalwell directly in the mouth, saying “They are coming. There’s a thoughtful process to transparency. For years you went on TV spreading the Russian propaganda – knowing the entire time that not one single person under oath from your committee saw any collusion. Not one. It’s shameful!”
They are coming. There’s a thoughtful process to transparency. For years you went on TV spreading the Russian propaganda – knowing the entire time that not one single person under oath from your committee saw any collusion. Not one. It’s shameful! https://t.co/APPwAT05DQ — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 28, 2020
BOOM! He’s exactly right. It’s absolutely shameful to try and destroy a duly elected president with blatant lies when he knew no one from the Obama administration ever saw any evidence of collusion. But apparently not for the man who clearly has no shame.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--REPORT: Trump’s executive order on social media companies to target liability protections…

It ’ s being reported this morning that Trump ’ s executive order on social media companies will target the legal protections they ’ ve enjoyed for over two decades : CBS NEWS – The White House is preparing an executive order that could take aim at the legal shield that social media companies enjoy for content posted by users on their platforms , a senior administration official tells CBS News , as President Trump ramps up his attacks on tech giants over alleged censorship and a first-ever fact check on his own tweets .
The official said the order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media companies that shield them from liability for content like comments , posts and videos .
The order is still being drafted and reviewed , the official said , but would allow regulators to claim internet companies are censoring free speech when they delete users ’ posts or accounts .
The relevant portion of federal law , Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , provides the shield for Internet companies , as it protects them from liability for the material posted by users on their platforms .
The measure has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have targeted Section 230 and are calling for changes to the law that would weaken its protections .
The Wall Street Journal was the first to report this , according to CBS News .
Trump hinted this morning that this would be a big day for ‘ social media and fairness ’ : It ’ s hard to say at this point what exactly Trump ’ s executive order will do , because Section 230 is legislation that he can ’ t simply undo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new legislation to revoke section 230 .
So I ’ ll wait and see what Trump comes up with instead of making assumptions about it .
I do want to point out , however , that Trump isn ’ t alone in wanting to see these protections disappear .
Joe Biden called for this in January : …From my perspective , I ’ ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power , we should be worried about the lack of privacy and [ Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not exempt .
[ The Times ] can ’ t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued .
But [ Zuckerberg ] can .
The idea that it ’ s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked , immediately should be revoked , number one .
For Zuckerberg and other platforms .
That ’ s how he felt in January , but I suspect he ’ ll find a reason not to join Trump in this now .

It’s being reported this morning that Trump’s executive order on social media companies will target the legal protections they’ve enjoyed for over two decades:
CBS NEWS – The White House is preparing an executive order that could take aim at the legal shield that social media companies enjoy for content posted by users on their platforms, a senior administration official tells CBS News, as President Trump ramps up his attacks on tech giants over alleged censorship and a first-ever fact check on his own tweets. The official said the order is intended to curb legal protections for social media companies that shield them from liability for content like comments, posts and videos. The order is still being drafted and reviewed, the official said, but would allow regulators to claim internet companies are censoring free speech when they delete users’ posts or accounts. The relevant portion of federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, provides the shield for Internet companies, as it protects them from liability for the material posted by users on their platforms. The measure has been in place for more than two decades, though some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have targeted Section 230 and are calling for changes to the law that would weaken its protections.
The Wall Street Journal was the first to report this, according to CBS News.
Trump hinted this morning that this would be a big day for ‘social media and fairness’:
This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
It’s hard to say at this point what exactly Trump’s executive order will do, because Section 230 is legislation that he can’t simply undo. It would require Congress to pass new legislation to revoke section 230. So I’ll wait and see what Trump comes up with instead of making assumptions about it.
I do want to point out, however, that Trump isn’t alone in wanting to see these protections disappear. Joe Biden called for this in January:
…From my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and [Facebook] being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But [Zuckerberg] can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.
That’s how he felt in January, but I suspect he’ll find a reason not to join Trump in this now.


therightscoop--2020-05-28--REPORT: Looter shot dead by pawn shop owner as Minneapolis riots raged and fires burned…

As the riots raged in Minneapolis last night , a looter was reportedly shot and killed by the owner of a pawn shop as he tried to break into the shop : NY POST – A man was shot dead outside a Minneapolis pawn shop Wednesday night as violent protests over the death of George Floyd rattled the city , authorities said .
Minneapolis cops are investigating reports that the victim was a looter shot dead by an owner of the business , police department spokesman John Elder said at press briefing early Thursday .
The man was found with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewelry on East Lake Street near Bloomington Avenue at about 9:25 p.m. local time , Elder said .
“ That is one of the theories that we ’ re working into , ” Elder said in response to a reporter questioning if there ’ s any credence to the narrative that the owner shot dead a looter trying to break into his store .
“ As I said , the body was found outside .
And we have a couple of different scenarios as to what may have happened , ” Elder told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect in custody and that the incident is being investigated as a homicide .
He noted that the shooting occurred “ close to the area of protests ” over the death of Floyd , a black man who died in police custody .

As the riots raged in Minneapolis last night, a looter was reportedly shot and killed by the owner of a pawn shop as he tried to break into the shop:
NY POST – A man was shot dead outside a Minneapolis pawn shop Wednesday night as violent protests over the death of George Floyd rattled the city, authorities said.
Minneapolis cops are investigating reports that the victim was a looter shot dead by an owner of the business, police department spokesman John Elder said at press briefing early Thursday.
The man was found with a gunshot wound outside Cadillac Pawn and Jewelry on East Lake Street near Bloomington Avenue at about 9:25 p.m. local time, Elder said.
“That is one of the theories that we’re working into,” Elder said in response to a reporter questioning if there’s any credence to the narrative that the owner shot dead a looter trying to break into his store.
“As I said, the body was found outside. And we have a couple of different scenarios as to what may have happened,” Elder told reporters.
Elder said police have a suspect in custody and that the incident is being investigated as a homicide.
He noted that the shooting occurred “close to the area of protests” over the death of Floyd, a black man who died in police custody.


therightscoop--2020-05-29--BREAKING: Trump threatens to send National Guard to Minneapolis if ‘Radical Left Mayor’ doesn’t get

BREAKING: Trump threatens to send National Guard to Minneapolis if ‘Radical Left Mayor’ doesn’t get his act together…

President Trump just threatened to send the National Guard into Minneapolis in order to get the city under control if their ‘ radical left mayor ’ can ’ t get his act together and bring the city under control : “ I can ’ t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City , Minneapolis .
A total lack of leadership .
Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor , Jacob Frey , get his act together and bring the City under control , or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memory of George Floyd , and I won ’ t let that happen .
Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any difficulty and we will assume control but , when the looting starts , the shooting starts .
Thank you !
” So what happened to the National Guard that was supposed to be deployed tonight ?
Here ’ s a few videos from tonight , starting with MSNBC ’ s version of Baghdad Bob : The police let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are burning it down : Along with the rest of the city :

President Trump just threatened to send the National Guard into Minneapolis in order to get the city under control if their ‘radical left mayor’ can’t get his act together and bring the city under control:
“I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right…”
I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
“….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
So what happened to the National Guard that was supposed to be deployed tonight?
Here’s a few videos from tonight, starting with MSNBC’s version of Baghdad Bob:
MSNBC reporter just now: "I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly." The guy is literally standing in front of a burning building in the middle of a riot. pic.twitter.com/IzCV6On4sF — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) May 29, 2020
The police let the mob have the police station and they are burning it down:
Minneapolis is burning again tonight pic.twitter.com/InGlYWE6bN — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 29, 2020
Along with the rest of the city:
The entire police station is now on fire in Minneapolis and police and firefighters have been instructed to stand down. The city is going to burn to the ground tonight. pic.twitter.com/1MtIXAEWtD — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) May 29, 2020
A rioter cuts into CNN's feed of the #minneapolisriots shouting expletives on air pic.twitter.com/d27VxFOcpM — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 29, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-29--WATCH: Minnesota county prosecutor says there is “other evidence that does not support a criminal ch

WATCH: Minnesota county prosecutor says there is “other evidence that does not support a criminal charge” against officer in George Floyd’s death

The Minnesota prosecutor in charge of investigating the death of George Floyd said today in a press conference that while the video of the officer with his knee on Floyd ’ s neck is horrific , there ’ s other evidence that doesn ’ t support a criminal charge against the officer .
Freeman , the county attorney , was answering a question as to why the officer hadn ’ t been charged with a crime yet .
He replied that it violates his ethics to discuss the evidence before they announce their charging decision , but then said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video is graphic , horrific and terrible and no person should do that .
But my job in the end is to prove that he violated a criminal statute .
And there is other evidence that does not support a criminal charge .
We need to wade through all of that evidence to come to a meaningful determination and we are doing that to the best of our ability.
” It ’ ll be interesting to see exactly what that evidence is because the video looks bad .
But this is why we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Cranky T-Rex reminds us : In very much related news , Amy Klobuchar , who was once had Michael Freeman ’ s job and may be Biden ’ s VP choice , reportedly declined to prosecute the officer at the center of the Floyd ’ s death despite numerous complaints against him : DAILY WIRE – Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar ( MN ) declined to prosecute the police officer who is at the center of the death of George Floyd over previous conduct complaints while she was a prosecutor in Hennepin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a report from The Guardian .
Floyd died on Monday after an arrest that involved four Minneapolis police officers .
One of the officers , Derek Chauvin , appeared to have his knee on Floyd ’ s neck while Floyd said that he could not breath .
“ Between 1999 and 2007 , Klobuchar , the state ’ s then top prosecutor , declined to press charges against more than a dozen officers accused of killing civilians , ” The Guardian reported .
“ In 2006 , Chauvin was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death of a man who stabbed others before turning on the police.
” Klobuchar “ did not prosecute and instead the case went to a grand jury that declined to charge the officers with wrongdoing in 2008.
” WXII 12 News reported that Chauvin “ had 18 prior complaints filed against him with the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s Internal Affairs.
” Again , we don ’ t know what the evidence is that Freeman is suggesting may vindicate the officer .
Also , it may be that Klobuchar made the right decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seek to charge Chauvin and the other officers with any wrongdoing .
I ’ m not trying to say one way or the other given that I don ’ t know the details of those past cases .
I mention it only because it ’ s possible there could be blowback for her if this thing goes south for Chauvin in the end .

The Minnesota prosecutor in charge of investigating the death of George Floyd said today in a press conference that while the video of the officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck is horrific, there’s other evidence that doesn’t support a criminal charge against the officer.
Watch:
NEW: Minnesota prosecutor says video showing George Floyd's death is "terrible" but says there's "other evidence that does not support a criminal charge" pic.twitter.com/X3hzxQJtfe — BNO News (@BNONews) May 28, 2020
Freeman, the county attorney, was answering a question as to why the officer hadn’t been charged with a crime yet. He replied that it violates his ethics to discuss the evidence before they announce their charging decision, but then said:
“I will say this. That video is graphic, horrific and terrible and no person should do that. But my job in the end is to prove that he violated a criminal statute. And there is other evidence that does not support a criminal charge. We need to wade through all of that evidence to come to a meaningful determination and we are doing that to the best of our ability.”
It’ll be interesting to see exactly what that evidence is because the video looks bad. But this is why we say don’t jump to conclusions. As Cranky T-Rex reminds us:
Remember, Mike Brown absolutely had his hands up when he was shot. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon because he was black against explicit orders to stay in his car. Nick Sandmann was blocking the way of a Native American vet. Until it wasn't the case. — Inconspicuous Rex (@CrankyTRex) May 28, 2020
In very much related news, Amy Klobuchar, who was once had Michael Freeman’s job and may be Biden’s VP choice, reportedly declined to prosecute the officer at the center of the Floyd’s death despite numerous complaints against him:
DAILY WIRE – Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN) declined to prosecute the police officer who is at the center of the death of George Floyd over previous conduct complaints while she was a prosecutor in Hennepin County, which includes most of Minneapolis, according to a report from The Guardian. Floyd died on Monday after an arrest that involved four Minneapolis police officers. One of the officers, Derek Chauvin, appeared to have his knee on Floyd’s neck while Floyd said that he could not breath. “Between 1999 and 2007, Klobuchar, the state’s then top prosecutor, declined to press charges against more than a dozen officers accused of killing civilians,” The Guardian reported. “In 2006, Chauvin was one of several officers involved in the shooting death of a man who stabbed others before turning on the police.” Klobuchar “did not prosecute and instead the case went to a grand jury that declined to charge the officers with wrongdoing in 2008.” WXII 12 News reported that Chauvin “had 18 prior complaints filed against him with the Minneapolis Police Department’s Internal Affairs.”
Again, we don’t know what the evidence is that Freeman is suggesting may vindicate the officer. Also, it may be that Klobuchar made the right decision given that the grand jury didn’t seek to charge Chauvin and the other officers with any wrongdoing. I’m not trying to say one way or the other given that I don’t know the details of those past cases. I mention it only because it’s possible there could be blowback for her if this thing goes south for Chauvin in the end.


therightscoop--2020-05-29--Senate releases transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak calls and Swalwell looks awfully stupid now

So Eric Swalwell got what he wanted , the Senate released transcripts of calls between Mike Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak , and it ’ s not quite what he expected : Here ’ s part of what was released : The transcripts released included the call between Flynn and Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29 , 2016 , that had supposedly prompted the FBI to keep its investigation of Flynn as a potential Russian agent from shutting down .
The transcript showed that Flynn had asked Kislyak to respond to sanctions from the Obama administration in a “ reciprocal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ask Russia to do is to not — is — if anything , because I know you have to have some sort of action — to , to only make it reciprocal .
Make it reciprocal .
Don ’ t — don ’ t make it — don ’ t go any further than you have to .
Because I don ’ t want us to get into something that has to escalate , on a , you know , on a tit for tat , ” Flynn told Kislyak .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that its uh — the idea is , be — if you , if you have to do something , do something on a reciprocal basis , meaning you know , on a sort of even basis.
” Doesn ’ t sound terribly nefarious does it ?
This is the info that Grenell and Swalwell were fighting over in their fancy twitter fued .
Here ’ s what Grassley said about the release : “ It ’ s a shame it ’ s taken nearly three and a half years for everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Rosenstein and the Mueller team went to great lengths to keep hidden .
Our justice system doesn ’ t work when one side holds all the cards .
But this isn ’ t just about safeguarding access to justice ; it ’ s also about exposing shenanigans and abuses of power by those entrusted to uphold and defend the law , ” he said .
“ After all the screw-ups and malicious behavior by FBI and DOJ officials during the Russia investigation , we simply can not take them at their word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sort out this mess .
I ’ m grateful that former acting DNI chief Grenell took the important steps of properly declassifying this material and letting some sunlight in .
Transparency brings accountability .
Keep it coming.
” Yeah except , the left is claiming the transcripts PROVE he was a bad actor : Oh ok. Dang .
These docs are busy proving everything for everyone .
Here are the documents released :

So Eric Swalwell got what he wanted, the Senate released transcripts of calls between Mike Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and it’s not quite what he expected:
Eric Swalwell dared @RichardGrenell to release the Flynn transcripts. And so he did (via DNI Ratcliffe). We now see that Flynn was holding conversations w/ a Russian emissary exactly as we’d expect for his role. That makes Eric Swalwell the dumbest man in America. https://t.co/Al9b2ueNSK — BDW (@BryanDeanWright) May 29, 2020
Here’s part of what was released:
The transcripts released included the call between Flynn and Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29, 2016, that had supposedly prompted the FBI to keep its investigation of Flynn as a potential Russian agent from shutting down. The transcript showed that Flynn had asked Kislyak to respond to sanctions from the Obama administration in a “reciprocal” manner. “But what I would ask Russia to do is to not — is — if anything, because I know you have to have some sort of action — to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t — don’t make it — don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat,” Flynn told Kislyak. He also said, “And please make sure that its uh — the idea is, be — if you, if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of even basis.”
Doesn’t sound terribly nefarious does it? This is the info that Grenell and Swalwell were fighting over in their fancy twitter fued. Here’s what Grassley said about the release:
“It’s a shame it’s taken nearly three and a half years for everyone to see the underlying evidence against Flynn that Rosenstein and the Mueller team went to great lengths to keep hidden. Our justice system doesn’t work when one side holds all the cards. But this isn’t just about safeguarding access to justice; it’s also about exposing shenanigans and abuses of power by those entrusted to uphold and defend the law,” he said. “After all the screw-ups and malicious behavior by FBI and DOJ officials during the Russia investigation, we simply cannot take them at their word anymore. We need oversight and transparency to sort out this mess. I’m grateful that former acting DNI chief Grenell took the important steps of properly declassifying this material and letting some sunlight in. Transparency brings accountability. Keep it coming.”
Yeah except, the left is claiming the transcripts PROVE he was a bad actor:
The just-released Flynn-Kislyak transcripts show Trump’s incoming national sec. adviser speaking repeatedly to the Russian ambassador, buddying up to him, & NOT ONCE saying anything about Putin’s attack on the 2016 election. A stunning betrayal of the USA.https://t.co/ArXBuRqGGd — David Corn (@DavidCornDC) May 29, 2020
Here’s what the Flynn transcripts show: Gen. Flynn secretly discussed the U.S. response to Russia’s brazen election interference, and lied about it to the FBI and Vice President. No wonder Trump and his allies are trying to re-write history, Because the facts are so damning. pic.twitter.com/eNZMFlDSSa — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 29, 2020
These transcripts CONFIRM pretty much everything Mueller accused Flynn of doing, and they DEBUNK much of what Trump has said about Flynn. The transcripts corroborate Flynn’s guilty plea and further prove that he lied to the FBI about his Russian calls. https://t.co/amOEtAPrDR — Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) May 29, 2020
Oh ok. Dang. These docs are busy proving everything for everyone.
Here are the documents released:
Interesting.


therightscoop--2020-05-29--Breaking! Autopsy report says NO signs of “traumatic asphyxia” in George Floyd death

So the charging document against the cop that killed George Floyd also had a very important snippet from the autopsy @ @ @ @ @ is a preliminary report , but it ’ s very important .
It means that @ @ @ @ @ the murder lies somewhat with Floyd ’ s medical conditions .
That doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ T culpable .
But , it does mean , I think , that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ pin it on the cop .
Also it says that they ’ re still waiting @ @ @ @ @ If they find something you can bet that will be a firestorm as well , @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter at all because of what is seen on the video of the @ @ @ @ @ death .

So the charging document against the cop that killed George Floyd also had a very important snippet from the autopsy report:
Here’s the court document where prosecutors summarize what happened to George Floyd. Note: medical examiner says there are “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation” but also says police restraint likely contributed to Floyd’s death. pic.twitter.com/Fe9G48JDRi — Steve Lookner (@lookner) May 29, 2020
So, this is a preliminary report, but it’s very important. It means that some of the blame for the murder lies somewhat with Floyd’s medical conditions. That doesn’t mean the cop ISN’T culpable. But, it does mean, I think, that it’s a little tougher to pin it on the cop.
Also it says that they’re still waiting on a toxicology report. If they find something you can bet that will be a firestorm as well, even though it likely doesn’t matter at all because of what is seen on the video of the altercation that led to his death.


therightscoop--2020-05-29--ABC News: 21 states that opened up in early May have done great and they’re almost all red states!

ABC News has just finished a study of 21 states that opened up in early May and found that none @ @ @ @ @ increases in hospitalizations , deaths , or the percentage of people testing positive : “ @ @ @ @ @ at 21 states that eased restrictions May 4 or earlier & found no major increase @ @ @ @ @ % of people testing positive in any of them .
[ SC , MT , @ @ @ @ @ , AR , CO , ID , IA , ND , OK , TN , @ @ @ @ @ , KS , FL , IN , MO , NE , OH ] ” Both @ @ @ @ @ those states and , after all the grief their governors have gotten for opening up @ @ @ @ @ month , it ’ s awesome to see them on the list .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re almost all red states .
I couldn ’ t find any @ @ @ @ @ but if I do I ’ ll pass it on to you .

ABC News has just finished a study of 21 states that opened up in early May and found that none of them have any major increases in hospitalizations, deaths, or the percentage of people testing positive:
“JUST IN: ABC looked at 21 states that eased restrictions May 4 or earlier & found no major increase in hospitalizations, deaths or % of people testing positive in any of them. [SC, MT, GA, MS, SD, AR, CO, ID, IA, ND, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY, KS, FL, IN, MO, NE, OH]”
JUST IN: @ABC looked at 21 states that eased restrictions May 4 or earlier & found no major increase in hospitalizations, deaths or % of people testing positive in any of them. [SC, MT, GA, MS, SD, AR, CO, ID, IA, ND, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY, KS, FL, IN, MO, NE, OH] via @AMitrops — Eric M. Strauss (@ericMstrauss) May 28, 2020
Both Florida and Georgia are among those states and, after all the grief their governors have gotten for opening up at the beginning of the month, it’s awesome to see them on the list.
In fact unless I’m wrong, they’re almost all red states.
I couldn’t find any more on this study, but if I do I’ll pass it on to you.


therightscoop--2020-05-29--BREAKING: Trump announces he’s severing relationship with World Health Organization

President Trump just announced that his administration is severing its official relationship with the World Health Organization and will spend @ @ @ @ @ : Trump said he ’ s severing the US relationship with the WHO because they @ @ @ @ @ needed reforms .
Of course this is how the media is going to spin it @ @ @ @ @ journalist Jonathan Karl : It doesn ’ t matter that the WHO is a puppet @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter that they ignored Taiwan ’ s warning about the coronavirus being passed @ @ @ @ @ China doesn ’ t like them .
All that matters is that Trump dumped the @ @ @ @ @ Garbage media .
Here are a few other announcements Trump made with respect to China @

President Trump just announced that his administration is severing its official relationship with the World Health Organization and will spend that money on other organizations:
#BREAKING: President Trump severing ties to WHO: "We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization." pic.twitter.com/uLu5zoD899 — The Hill (@thehill) May 29, 2020
Trump said he’s severing the US relationship with the WHO because they refuse to make the greatly needed reforms.
Of course this is how the media is going to spin it, courtesy of Fake News journalist Jonathan Karl:
The president announces he is severing ties with @WHO in the midst of a pandemic — jonkarl (@jonkarl) May 29, 2020
It doesn’t matter that the WHO is a puppet for China. It doesn’t matter that they ignored Taiwan’s warning about the coronavirus being passed from person to person because China doesn’t like them. All that matters is that Trump dumped the WHO during a pandemic. Garbage media.
Here are a few other announcements Trump made with respect to China:
Takeaways from Trump's bombshell China presser. U.S. to: *Revoke separate customs/travel status for Hong Kong *Terminate US relationship with WHO *Suspend ability of some people deemed "security risks" to enter US *Sanction certain PRC and HK officials Took no questions. — (@dwertime) May 29, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-29--BREAKING: Trump clarifies his statement from last night “when the looting starts, the shooting start

BREAKING: Trump clarifies his statement from last night “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”

President Trump just clarified his statement from last night ’ s tweet that drew the ire of Twitter and others , where he said “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” : “ Looting leads to shooting , and that ’ s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot .
I don ’ t want this to happen , and that ’ s what the expression put out last night means .
It was spoken as a fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very simple , nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters , and those looking to cause trouble on social media .
Honor the memory of George Floyd !
” Trump put this out just ahead of his press conference that was supposed to begin at 2pm .
My guess is that they didn ’ t want to step on the Hennepin County prosecutor ’ s presser on the arrest of Derek Chauvin .
And now , it appears , Trump wants to address the confusion his tweet caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more sensitive .
Trump ’ s press conference should begin soon and you can watch it here .

President Trump just clarified his statement from last night’s tweet that drew the ire of Twitter and others, where he said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”:
“Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means. It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!”
Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
….It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
Trump put this out just ahead of his press conference that was supposed to begin at 2pm. My guess is that they didn’t want to step on the Hennepin County prosecutor’s presser on the arrest of Derek Chauvin. And now, it appears, Trump wants to address the confusion his tweet caused in an effort, perhaps, to be more sensitive.
Trump’s press conference should begin soon and you can watch it here.