Connect with us

News

Trump Came To Dover After My Wife Was Killed Fighting ISIS

Published

on

He Absolutely Respects Our Service

Hey, Joe,” a quiet but familiar voice said to me from the doorway of a small room with plush furniture. The room was meant to provide as much comfort as possible for the families of military members on the worst day of their life: the day the remains of their loved ones are returned to them at Dover Air Force Base.

I had been alone in the room for only a few minutes and was exhausted but restless; the previous three days felt like three years and three minutes all at once, because so much had been taken from my family so quickly and irrevocably that I felt like I was back at war and had just gotten attacked, but unlike in war, I couldn’t fight back.

That voice from the doorway, though, was familiar because it belonged to a man I had seen on television countless times: President Donald Trump. As he approached me, he extended his right hand to shake mine, placed his left hand on my shoulder, looked me in my eyes and said, “I’m so sorry for your loss. Shannon was an amazing woman and warrior.”

I still have no idea what exactly I said in response. The days after my wife, Shannon Kent, was killed by a suicide bomber during a mission to fight ISIS in Syria in January 2019 had been such a blur and, anyway, I’d never met a president before.

But (I am told) I thanked President Trump, and I remember he held eye contact with me. And in his eyes, I could see — unmistakably — the same pain I’d seen in the eyes of other senior leaders who ultimately bear the responsibility for sending men and women to their deaths in combat.

As we unclasped our hands, the president said to me, “Shannon was the real deal, we are lucky to have people like her willing to go out there and face evil for us.” He kept his arm on my shoulder.

Together, as we waited for the plane that would bring Shannon home, we spent another 20 minutes talking about my wife, our children and what an amazing mother, wife and soldier she was. It was clear to me that President Trump truly cared — not just that Shannon and three others had been killed in Syria, but about who Shannon and the three others were as people.

Then the president did something that I did not expect: He asked me what I thought about Syria and what we were doing there. He talked to me — a Green Beret and a combat veteran, not some expert at the Pentagon or a think tank — about the wisdom leaving troops in harm’s way once ISIS’ territorial caliphate had been destroyed. It was clear to me that he was deeply conflicted about whether staying in Syria was worth the lives lost — Shannon and her three colleagues — on that day in January.

Following that hard day in Dover when President Trump was with my family as Shannon came home, I attended another event with him and was able to (perhaps more clearly) talk with members of his staff and family about foreign policy and Gold Star family issues, such as the casualty assistance officer program and changing Defense Department regulations in Shannon’s honor.

So, when I read the anonymous allegations this week that President Trump spoke disparagingly of our troops, I knew they simply weren’t true — or were taken completely out of context in order to hurt him before the election.

President Trump’s actions have shown our troops more respect than any president in my lifetime. His use of decisive military force only when absolutely necessary, combined with his reluctance to use the military as the sole tool of foreign policy, is not only good and smart, but the sign of utmost respect for the lives of our troops.

Since 9/11, America’s all-volunteer force has served under two presidents who were quick to ceremoniously praise our sacrifices without taking any real action to change the grinding status quo that has become the hallmark of the Global War on Terror. Instead of asking hard questions about what we were gaining or could ever gain and taking action based on those answers, Global War on Terror Trump’s predecessors fought wars with our troops in an effort to build new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, while letting the perpetrator of that terrorist attack escape to Pakistan (whose government we continue to support).

Former President Barack Obama may have offered eloquent rhetoric, but very little changed during his tenure from his predecessor, except that he also got us involved in the conflict in Syria.

Previous presidents’ support of endless wars has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives and cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars, whereas President Trump’s limited use of military force and swift action when needed marks a decisive change from that policy. (Look no further than what happened to Qassem Soleimani: When Soleimani ordered an attack that killed an American in late 2019, President Trump immediately ordered a strike that killed him.) And this president has avoided getting us into any new wars — something his recent predecessors seemingly could either not avoid or not resist.

As both a veteran of our nation’s wars and a Gold Star spouse, I find that platitudes about respect for our nation’s troops from leaders without a strategy to keep us from getting into pointless or unwinnable wars are the highest form of disrespect. Our troops and our nation deserve a president who has our best interests in mind, not just meaningless platitudes about our service meant to paint a rosy picture of war and destruction.

America — and the men and women in uniform — need a president who will ask the hard questions about why we are fighting and dying and, yes, whether it was or will be worth it, and then will do his utmost to protect America, our troops, its military and its standing as the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Author : Joe Kent

Source : Nbc News : Trump came to Dover after my wife was killed fighting ISIS. He absolutely respects our service

News

Sarah Palin Threatens To Primary Lisa Murkowski Over SCOTUS Vote

Published

on

‘I Can See 2020 From My House’

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin threatened to run a primary challenge against GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski for refusing to back a nominee to the Supreme Court before the 2020 election.

Palin posted a video to her Instagram account on Thursday addressed to Murkowski. In it, Palin is standing in front of her home in Alaska and says that she can “see 2022” from her house, a reference to when Murkowski is next up for reelection.

Lisa Murkowski, this is my house,” Palin begins. “I’m willing to give it up … for the greater good of this country and this great state.”

Palin tells Murkowski to “walk back” her position that the winner of the presidential election should nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week from cancer.

Murkowski said on Sunday, “For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”

I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia. We are now even closer to the 2020 election – less than two months out – and I believe the same standard must apply,” she added.

Murkowski has already shifted away from her stated position on Sunday. On Tuesday, the Alaska Republican said she “can’t confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don’t know who the nominee is.”

Early in her Thursday video, Palin hinted that Murkowski may face repercussions for not voting to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, expected to be announced on Saturday.

If you can’t find it within yourself to do the right thing this time, and at least give a fair shake to the Supreme Court nominee that your president will be bringing before you, if you can’t find it within yourself to do the right thing, … and [do] what the majority of Americans want you to do, to do what you were sent to Washington, D.C., to do,” Palin says.

“Walk back what you have already committed yourself to. You better backtrack. You know, you have already put yourself in this box saying no matter who it is, you’re not going to support the person, not until you have a chance to appoint a judicial nominee under another president instead of this one,” Palin continues. “You’re hoping, what, that this president doesn’t win? Otherwise, you’d be cooperating with the president. Really, what it is is cooperating with the majority of Americans who know that it’s now or never for America.”

“So much hinges on the Supreme Court. You know the reason, you know why it’s so important, and that’s why you’re thinking you’re going to go rogue. You know, there’s a time and a place to go rogue. This isn’t the time, this isn’t the place. We sure hope you have it within you to do the right thing this time. So you should walk back,” Palin says, adding in a reference to her 2009 book “Going Rogue.”

We’ll forgive you. Wait … we’ve done this how many times before, though? And we kept saying we’d forgive this? If you can’t do that, remember my house. I can see a lot of things from my house. … Lisa, I can see 2022 from my house,” Palin says.

View this post on Instagram

Dear Lisa. Murkowski.

A post shared by Sarah Palin (@sarahpalin97) on

Palin made a similar threat to Murkowski in 2018 after the senator voted against pushing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation out of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate.

“Hey @LisaMurkowski – I can see 2022 from my house,” Palin said.

Author : Tim Pearce

Source : Daily Wire : Sarah Palin Threatens To Primary Lisa Murkowski Over SCOTUS Vote: ‘I Can See 2022 From My House’

Continue Reading

News

FBI Official On Mueller Team: Flynn Prosecution Had ‘Get Trump’ Attitude

Published

on

Collusion Probe Was ‘Not There’

An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there” and considered it to be a “dead end.”

FBI agent William J. Barnett made the comments during an interview on Sept. 17 at the Justice Department, before Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen, who was tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the case against Flynn. Jensen has joined U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team in his review of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Those comments have surfaced in new government documents.

Fox News reviewed Barnett’s FBI 302, which was filed by the U.S. government early Friday as part of the Flynn case.

Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the bureau’s original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name “Crossfire Razor,” which was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the bureau’s code name for the original Trump-Russia probe.

Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe was “opaque” and “with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.”

“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”

After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.”

Barnett began asking agents what they thought “the end game” was in the Flynn investigation, and suggested that they interview Flynn “and the case be closed unless derogatory information was obtained,” but said he was “cautioned against” an interview of Flynn, due to concerns that it would “alert Flynn as to the investigation.”

Barnett, though, told investigators that he believed that Flynn’s position as White House national security adviser in the incoming Trump administration “offered an opportunity for the FBI to conduct the interview without alerting any suspicion and Flynn would see such an interview as being standard procedure.”

The 302 stated that Barnett ran the request to interview Flynn “up the chain,” but said the request was denied, and described the FBI’s investigation into Flynn as “top down”–meaning that “direction concerning the investigation was coming from senior officials,” specifically then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who Barnett believed was “directing” the Flynn investigation.

Barnett, at the time, said that he believed the investigation was “problematic and could result in an inspector general investigation.”

“Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” the 302 stated. “Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law.”

Barnett told investigators he believed the investigation into Flynn was a “check the box exercise, making sure all bases were covered, before the case was closed,” and said he “did not” think the case “was leading or headed toward prosecution.”

Nevertheless, Barnett said that he believed there were grounds to investigate “the other three subjects in Crossfire Hurricane, however, he thought Flynn was the ‘outlier.’” But Barnett, in the spring of 2017, gave a briefing on the Flynn investigation to a group of attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, including Jeanne Rhee.

Barnett said he briefly went over the investigation, including the assessment that there was no evidence of a crime, and then discussed [REDACTED], which he thought was the more significant investigation,” the 302 stated.

Barnett told investigators that he thought “Rhee was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.”

A day following the briefing, Barnett said he was contacted by former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who said “he really wanted Barnett to work with the special counsel’s office.”

According to the 302, Barnett told Strzok that he “did not wish to pursue the collusion investigation as it was ‘not there,'” Ultimately, though, Barnett decided to work with Mueller’s team, “hoping his perspective would keep them from ‘group think.’”

Barnett added that he believed the appointment of Mueller in May 2017 “changed everything,” and described the situation pertaining to the special counsel’s office as “‘upside down’ with attorneys drafting search warrants and getting agents to simply act as affiants,” the 302 stated.

“Barnett thought there was a ‘get Trump’ attitude by some at the SCO,” the 302 continued.

placeholder
One example Barnett shared was comments made by the president, saying investigators “needed to ‘get to the bottom’ of a matter. One of the SCO attorneys said Trump wanted to ‘cover it up.’”

Barnett “corrected it saying, ‘no, he said get to the bottom of it.’”

Barnett also said that “another example,” was when the president fired FBI Director James Comey, which he said was interpreted as “obstruction when it could just as easily have been done because Trump did not like Comey and wanted him replaced.”

But Barnett went on to tell investigators that it seemed that the attorneys on Mueller’s team “wanted to be part of something ‘big,’ a successful prosecution.”

“There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more the attitude of ‘the evidence is there we just have to find it,’” Barnett’s 302 stated.

Meanwhile, Barnett said that in May 2017, former Trump campaign aides Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were interviewed several times. Barnett said “both investigations seemed to be nearing an end with nothing left to pursue.”

Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with making false statements to investigators as part of Mueller’s investigation.

Barnett also described the special counsel’s interview of former deputy White House national security adviser KT McFarland, who Mueller, according to Barnett, described as “the key to everything.”

“Barnett said it seems there was always someone at SCO who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove collusion, only to have the information be a dead end,” the 302 stated.

Flynn pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador. Barnett said “some individuals” in Mueller’s office “assumed Flynn was lying to cover up collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“Barnett believed Flynn lied in his interview to save his job, as that was the most plausible explanation and there was no evidence to contradict it,” the 302 stated. “Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by Mueller’s office was used as a means to ‘get Trump.'”

The government’s filing of Barnett’s 302 in the Flynn docket comes just days before Flynn’s team and Justice Department attorneys will present arguments before Judge Emmet Sullivan with the hopes that he will dismiss the case.

Federal prosecutors, earlier this year, moved to dismiss Flynn’s case — in which he had previously pleaded guilty to providing false statements to the FBI — after FBI records called into question the circumstances surrounding Flynn’s interview with investigators. The Justice Department maintained that the FBI’s interview of Flynn was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

Flynn is set to be in federal court in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, Sept. 29.

Mueller’s investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the election, although it did find that the Russian government “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion.” The question of whether Trump obstructed justice was not answered, but it did state that the final report “does not exonerate [Trump]” on this matter.

Meanwhile, Barnett’s interview with Jensen appears to be part of Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.

Durham was appointed by Attorney General Barr last year to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe shortly after Mueller completed his yearslong investigation into whether the campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Durham’s timeline has been focused on July 2016, when the FBI’s original Russia probe began, through the appointment of Mueller in May 2017.

Durham’s investigation has been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but that has not blunted the level of anticipation from President Trump, his Republican allies on Capitol Hill and his supporters, some of whom have called for findings to be released before November’s presidential election.

Author : Brooke Singman

Source : Fox News : FBI official on Mueller team said Flynn prosecution had ‘get Trump’ attitude, collusion probe was ‘not there’

Continue Reading

News

Charles Barkley Blasts ‘Fools’ Pushing ‘Defund The Police

Published

on

Who Are Black People Supposed To Call? Ghostbusters?’

Former NBA player and current commentator Charles Barkley blasted the “fools on TV” who are pushing the leftist “defund the police” movement, saying that black people need police “when we have crime in our neighborhoods.”

“We have to really be careful on these, you know, I hear these fools on TV talking about ‘defund the police’ and things like that,” Barkley said. “We need police reform and prison reform and things like that because you know who ain’t going to defund the cops? White neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods.”

“So, that notion they keep saying that, I’m like wait a minute, we’re just going [sic], who are black people supposed to call, Ghostbusters, when we have crime in our neighborhoods?” Barkley continued. “We need police reform, but like I said, white people and especially rich white people, they’re always going to have cops. So, we need to stop that defund and abolish the cops crap.”

Contrary to narratives promoted by those on the political left, the overwhelming majority of those in the black community want either the same amount or more policing in their neighborhoods, not less.

Newsweek reported:

A Gallup poll conducted from June 23 to July 6 surveying more than 36,000 U.S. adults found that 61 percent of Black Americans said they’d like police to spend the same amount of time in their community, while 20 percent answered they’d like to see more police, totaling 81 percent. Just 19 percent of those polled said they wanted police to spend less time in their area.

Black Americans’ responses to the question were nearly on par with the national average, in which 67 percent of all U.S. adults said they wanted police presence to remain the same and 19 percent said they wanted it to increase.

The poll came as violent riots and protests broke out across the U.S. in the days following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The New York Post Editorial Board noted that it was “easy to understand why” minorities overwhelmingly want the same amount or more policing in their neighborhood.

Minority groups are the overwhelming victims of crime. Take away cops and they’re the ones who’ll suffer most. In the city, 88 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter victims were black or Hispanic last year — as were 74 percent of rape victims,” The Post wrote. “People want better policing, the poll also shows — with respect and diligence. But that’s not ‘defunding,’ as Democrats across the country have proposed.”

“It doesn’t take a criminologist to see that fewer cops — and fewer resources for them — mean less safety, more crime and more victims,” The Post added. “Americans clearly know that. Why not Dems?”

Author : Daily Wire News

Source : Daily Wire : Charles Barkley Blasts ‘Fools’ Pushing ‘Defund The Police’: ‘Who Are Black People Supposed To Call? Ghostbusters?’

Continue Reading

Join Our Mailing List

Recent News

Trending

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!