Thursday, August 31, 2017

Emergency: Col. Shaffer Confirms Treasonous Plan To Assassinate Trump


Mar 5, 2017 ... Lt. ColShaffer on wiretapping: This is Soviet behavior. Posted by JM Talboo ... Labels: Lt. ColShaffer on wiretapping: This is Soviet behavior ...
Jun 20, 2017 ... J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger"... said data was gathered ... html
Oct 13, 2010 ... Tony Shaffer, prompting an editorial published at Investors Business Daily ... 9/11 Coverup: Judge Napolitano interviews Col, Anthony Shaffer ...

A Message to Antifa- You Are All Being Dickheads - Berkeley Mayor Treasonous and may belong in JAIL. Watch it all!

DRAIN THE SWAMP OF GOP RINO'S IN 2018 HARLAN HILL EXPLAINS ON CAVUTO - Pelosi did what RINOs couldn’t: Denounce Antifa



The top 25 politicians in Conservative Review’s Top 25 RINOs (Republican in name only) are determined by CR editors using a points system. A politician who receives a first-place vote is assigned 25 points, second-place votes receive 24 points, and so on.

A federal judge reaffirms that the Democratic Party cheated Sanders supporters by rigging primaries to favor Hillary—then says there’s nothing he can do about it

Tuesday, August 29, 2017 by 

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, got some satisfaction from a federal judge this week when he ruled that the party and its then-boss, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, indeed cheated in order to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party’s eventual nominee.
Then Judge William Zloch said despite that, there isn’t anything he can do about it.
As reported by the New York Observer, Sanders supporters filed suit against the Democratic National Committee and Wasserman Schultz in June 2016, claiming they were defrauded out of millions of dollars in campaign contributions after learning through news reports that the party and its chief rigged the nomination process, against the DNC’s published rules.
Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, now retired, admitted that the party gave Sanders a raw deal. “I knew — everybody knew — that this was not a fair deal,” he told The Hill in July 2016.
That very well may be, Zloch said in his ruling. But despite that, federal courts were in no position to pass judgment, he noted. So he has dismissed the suit following several months of litigation, in which lawyers for the DNC had been arguing the party has every right to rig its own primaries and select a candidate of its choosing. (Related: DNC admits in court that it rigged the nomination process to get Hillary on the ballot.)
“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” Zloch wrote.
Of that startling admission, which was nonetheless devoid of satisfaction for Sanders supporters, the Observer noted:
Though this assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is inherently taken to be true in a class action lawsuit, the court’s decision reflects a dire state of democracy in this country where the DNC’s own rules in holding primary elections is out of the court’s hands, proving the DNC attorney’s claims that the DNC is within their right to rig primaries.
Dire state, indeed.
Zloch went onto explain why the court could not grant Sanders plaintiffs monetary relief.
“The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” He also said the case did not fall within his jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”
Zloch noted further that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz considered the party’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” in selecting nominees to be mere political rhetoric and as such not enforceable in a court of law.
“The court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles,” Zloch wrote. “While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”
So in essence, Zloch found that the DNC most definitely did rig the nomination process, but that there isn’t anything he — or a federal court — can do to rectify things.
Just as there was populist, anti-establishment fervor in Republican ranks this past election, which led to the nomination of Donald J. Trump, there was a surge of support among Democrats for Sanders’ populist campaign (even though he has spent his entire life in politics).
The big difference that Democratic voters should take away from all of this is that unlike their party, at least the GOP didn’t rig its nomination process (much as party leaders may have wanted to).
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Sources include:

Trump Delivers Powerful Speech On Tax Reform

Trump Delivers Powerful Speech On Tax Reform by debunkerbuster


Styx: Trump to "Cut" Corporate Taxes to 15%... I Support This, Here's Why - DEBUNKED: Anti-Trump Tax Plan Arguments! | Louder With Crowder - Trump Tax Cuts Set To Boost Federal Revenue:

Trump Delivers Powerful Speech On Tax Reform


Interview with @nikoCSFB on MORE #DNCFraudLawsuits on the horizon!! PLEASE WATCH MY INTERVIEW WITH #DNCFRAUDLAWSUIT ATTORNEYS JARED AND ELIZABETH BECK!! SUPPORT H. A. GOODMAN ON PATREON: Worth recalling that we exposed who you are last year: … Wasserman Schultz, DNC Rigged the Primary, but Judge Dismisses Fraud Suit Anyway WATCH MY INTERVIEW WITH GARY OF ANTIFA! Subscribe to BREAKING: DNC Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed READ AND SUPPORT: PLEASE SHARE THIS SEGMENT WITH ANYONE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO THINK NAZIS EXIST. SKIP TO 6:00 MINUTES PLEASE. SHARE. H. A. Goodman: Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Only Bernie Sanders can win. 3 min Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch 'tarmac meeting' under more FBI scrutiny INTERVIEW: DNC LAWSUIT ATTORNEY JARED BECK EXPOSES DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ Nobody Benefits More From #Charlottesville Than Democrats Who Take Prison Lobbyist Money .@POTUS: "What the prosecutors should be looking at are Hillary Clinton's 33,000 deleted emails." Please share my two interviews with the great @CharlesOrtel on #ClintonFoundation & U.S. House committee chairman asks Justice Department to prosecute Platte River Network’s CEO H. A. GOODAMN VS. BEN DIXON DEBATE CLINTON FOUNDATION LINKED TO PUTIN, RUSSIA AND PAY FOR PLAY: Interview with Charles Ortel SHARE!! EVERYWHERE!! Suzie Dawson Internet Party interview: Charles Ortel Clinton Foundation/Awan Scandal Interview: FOLLOW AND SUPPORT RANDY CREDICO: @Credico2016 H. A. Goodman CrossTalk on Awan Scandal: One of the fellow staffers said some of the computers the Awans managed were being used to transfer data to an off-site server. H. A. GOODMAN VS. ALEX RUBENSTEIN DEBATE WIKILEAKS PLATTE RIVER EMAIL Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands So many people are asking why isn't the A.G. or Special Council looking at the many Hillary Clinton or Comey crimes. 33,000 e-mails deleted? ADAM CARTER GUCCIFER 2 DEBUNKED: New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not Hacked H. A. Goodman on CrossTalk: 'Seth Rich' SUBRSRIBE TO TIM BLACK! H.A. Goodman Says Bernie Sanders Still Has a Chance H.A. Goodman Goes After Pro-Clinton Media Bias Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election

Petition for FBI to Release of Clinton Emails - Lahren: Public has right to know what's in Clinton's emails

Petition Link: Good morning, I’m still reporting on: Petition for FBI to Release of Clinton Emails, 1772 Synopsis: As a result of our story yesterday that the head of FBI records management is refusing to release records to New York attorney Ty Clevenger who is trying to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prosecuted for perjury, Clevenger has opened a petition to bring about the release of those documents. In the lamest claim in the history of lame claims of the previous 8 years, FBI records chief David M. Hardy wrote to attorney Mr. Clevenger on Monday: “It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA.” FOIA requests should not be based on popularity contests. They should be based on upholding the rule of law. It is named the Justice Department, isn’t it? Records chief Hardy has been caught lying before in regards to the infamous tarmac-gate meeting between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Clinton in June of 2016. Presidential Attorney Jay Sekulow filed a FOIA request for whatever records the FBI had on that meeting. Initially, records chief Hardy responded that no records existed. After a federal judge ordered the FBI to comply with Sekulow’s FOIA request, records chief Hardy magically discovered that some documents may exist. Attorney Clevenger, has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal attorneys disbarred for their handling of her official emails. How much longer will President Trump put up with Obama holdovers getting away with in-your-face felonious activities in their attempts to continue covering for Obama officials? President Trump needs to immediately remove Mr. Hardy from duty – like this morning.

Bob Crestwood 4 hours ago
Of course the public has the right to know what's in Clinton's emails -- that's why she hid them on her private server in the first place -- because she knew that the FOIA would let us see what was in them, and she didn't want us to see what was in them, so she hid them on her private server, and then destroyed them with Bleach Bit when they were subpoenaed. But I'm sure the NSA has copies of them all, so we should be able to see them.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Nancy Pelosi denounces Antifa - Antifa So Awful in Berkeley, Media Finally Change Their Tune | As the Narrative Crumbles

Why Trump Was Right to Reverse Obama’s Policy on Military Gear for Police - President Trump to lift Obama ban on military gear for cops - Riots About To Come To Screeching Halt After What Trump Just Gave ALL Police Permission To Do

"It's important to point out that this program has been around for a very long time before President Obama decided to put a hold on it essentially... President Obama's argument for taking it off of the table was that it creates distrust between local communities and local police that they're over-militarized. That's a fine and fair argument to make, however, the police would argue that in the age of terrorism response and rioting they have to be prepared with the equipment they need to stop riots from turning into full-fledged chaos as we saw in Ferguson...

We're talking about leftover ammunition, body armor, shields, in some cases grenade launchers, people think oh my gosh local police are going to have grenade launchers, they're not going to use them for grenades, they're going to use them for tear gas...

Again I wan't to stress that this is not something that the Trump administration is really changing or putting forward that's any different than administrations prior to the Obama administration. In fact, throughout President Obama's, the majority of his terms, 7 years of his first and second term, he had this policy in place because it's something that had worked in previous administrations, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. So the Trump administration is simply reverting back to something that they saw used against the drug war in the 90s going into the 2000s that will certainly use against the opioid crisis here in 2017...

Officials pointing out further to FOX News, most of this equipment... is defensive in nature or used in search and rescue and disaster relief, such as by the way what we're seeing down in Houston right now..."

How a Trump administration decision could send military surplus to police departments

Many of the of the 2,400 line-items detailed in the data obtained by NJ Advance Media were for construction and maintenance such as tools, medical kits, forklifts, dump trucks, mop heads and sandbags...
Local agencies also received 196 Humvees and military cargo trucks over the same two-year span. No weapons or helicopters were acquired by Garden State agencies over that time. 

Why Trump Was Right to Reverse Obama’s Policy on Military Gear for Police

John G. Malcolm /  / 
Speaking to a supportive crowd at the national convention of the Fraternal Order of Police, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that President Donald Trump would shortly sign an executive order—which he has now done—rolling back limitations that had been placed by the Obama administration on the ability of the military to transfer excess equipment to civilian law enforcement authorities.
Sessions told the crowd:
President Trump is serious about this mission. He is doing all he can to restore law and order and support our police across America. And that is why, today, I am here to announce that President Trump is issuing an executive order that will make it easier to protect yourselves and your communities. He is rescinding restrictions from the prior administration that limited your agencies’ ability to get equipment through federal programs, including life-saving gear like Kevlar vests and helmets and first responder and rescue equipment like what they’re using in Texas right now.
The so-called “1033 program” was created by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. This program allowed the Defense Department to transfer excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>
As of 2014, approximately 8,000 local law enforcement agencies have participated in the program resulting in more than $5.4 billion in previously purchased, surplus military gear—including computers, air conditioners, clothing, medical supplies, flashlights, ammunition, rifles, helmets, helicopters, and armored vehicles—being recycled for domestic law enforcement purposes.
In the wake of the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014 following the death of Michael Brown, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13688, which established a Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group.
That group subsequently issued a report recommending that the military be prohibited from transferring certain equipment, such as camouflage uniforms, high-caliber weapons, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles, with additional controls placed on the transfer of other equipment.
At the time he signed the executive order, Obama stated, “We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting and serving them.”
He continued, “It can alienate and intimidate local residents and send the wrong message.”
While there have been occasions where law enforcement officials have overreacted and have unwittingly inflamed a situation, it is also true that there are occasions where law enforcement authorities need such equipment in order to protect the public—for instance, during terrorist attacks, search and rescue operations, or in the wake of natural disasters.
Equipment provided through this program is currently being deployed in Texas to save lives in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. Such equipment also resulted in lives saved during police operations in response to the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino in 2015 and at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016.
study released earlier this month, titled “Police Officer on the Frontline or a Soldier? The Effect of Police Militarization on Crime,” concludes that a “10 percent increase in the total value of military aid [given to a community] leads to a decrease of 5.9 crimes per 100,000 population” and that such aid is associated with a reduction in complaints about crime from local citizens.
The authors of this study estimate that $5,800 worth of military gear can result in savings to society (based on the average cost of a crime) of $112,000, thereby making military aid “a very inexpensive crime-reducing tool” compared to other types of law enforcement expenditures.
Obama certainly had a point that law enforcement authorities must be vigilant as to how and when they deploy such equipment, and should guard against overly aggressive approaches that might unduly and unnecessarily alarm the public.
Law enforcement officers should establish guidelines governing such usage and should be adequately trained in using it.
Nonetheless, one cannot deny that when law enforcement authorities need such equipment, they really, really need it—and we need them to have it. As Sessions stated in his remarks to the Fraternal Order of Police, referring to the restrictions imposed by the Obama administration:
Those restrictions went too far. We will not put superficial concerns above public safety. All you need to do is turn on a TV right now to see that for Houstonians this isn’t about appearances, it’s about getting the job done and getting everyone to safety. The executive order the president will sign today will ensure that you can get the life-saving gear that you need to do your job and send a strong message that we will not allow criminal activity, violence, and lawlessness to become the new normal. And we will save taxpayer money in the meantime.

Republican Senator Rand Paul should have said “the militarization of our law 
enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of Antifa and BLM violence in 
this realm. Thanks for militarizing the police you Useful Idiot dumb-asses.


Why Trump Was Right to Reverse Obama’s Policy on Military Gear for Police - President Trump to lift Obama ban on military gear for cops - Riots About To Come To Screeching Halt After What Trump Just Gave ALL Police Permission To Do

Monday, August 28, 2017

FIVE REASONS WHY TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO PARDON ARPAIO - REBUTTAL: Trevor Noah's SJW Freakout Over Trump's Arpaio Pardon - "Let Me Tell You Who Obama Pardoned" Trump Destroys Reporter Over Joe Arpaio Pardon - President Trump pardons ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio - Sheriff Arpaio Tells Infowars How It Feels For Trump To Stand Beside Him

I am pleased to inform you that I have just granted a full Pardon to 85 year old American patriot Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He kept Arizona safe!


Sheriff Joe was charged under the wrong statute and was denied a jury trial

First off, Sheriff Joe Apraio’s prosecution was a political “revenge prosecution” initiated by the Obama DOJ to stop him from rigorous enforcement of the immigration laws.
As previously reported, the case against Arpaio began with the 2007 traffic stop that resulted in the arrest of Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist who was a passenger in an automobile stopped in Cave Creek, Maricopa County. 
Melendres charged the Maricopa County sheriff’s officers were “fundamentally stopping brown-skinned people with the pretext of looking for criminals.”
The case developed into a class action lawsuit that caught the attention of Tom Perez, then in the Civil Rights division of the Obama Justice Department. 
As explained in an article published by the Law Enforcement Charitable Foundation, Inc., the Obama administration unleashed Perez to utilize the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, authored by then Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware – a law that gave the Obama administration under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch a club with which to “police the police.”
That club in the form of “consent decrees” allowed the leftist “open borders” administration of Barack Obama eight years to utilize the Justice Department as a club to intimidate and force any state and local government law enforcement authority attempting to enforce immigration laws to buckle under various charges of civil rights violations.
Thorough court-ordered “consent decrees” the Obama administration Justice Department forced Sheriff Arpaio’s office in Maricopa County to accept a consent decree imposed by an Obama-sympathetic U.S. district judge that effectively put the MCSO under the direction of a court-ordered federal monitor.
Arpaio, a target of the Obama administration for years because of his determination to enforce strictly existing immigration laws, was seen by Perez as implementing in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) a “systematic policy” that set law enforcement rules and procedures to be intentionally discriminatory to the rights of Hispanics.
Perez began his legal career as a LaRaza attorney in Maryland. He currently is Chair of the Democratic National Committee, a major force in moving the Democratic Party in a hard-left direction.
2. DOJ staged prosecution to oust Arpaio from office.
Largely as a result of the adverse publicity from facing criminal contempt charges, Arpaio lost on Nov. 8, 2016, his seventh bid to be elected Maricopa County Sheriff. 
The challenger, Paul Penzone, a Democrat and a former Phoenix police sergeant who lost to Arpaio in 2012, wonthe sheriff’s election, 54.9 percent to 45.1 percent, running on a campaign designed to be sympathetic to Arizona’s growing Hispanic voter base.
Throughout the entire case, Perez pursued Arpaio with a vengeance.
On Jan. 5, 2012, when the Department of Justice dropped the initial criminal case against Arpaio in favor of pursuing the civil case, the Department of Justice sent the author an email, explaining, “If MCSO wants to debate the facts rather than fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”
According to information provided the author by a credible whistleblower, while the Department of Justice was prosecuting Arpaio from 2008 to 2010, the National Security Agency conducted electronic surveillance of the various Arizona-based federal judges on the case, as well as on Arpaio, and on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
At the same time, Department of Justice attorneys under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder maintainedan on-going telephone back-channel discussion with the federal judge assigned to handle the case.
That the Department of Justice conspired to defeat Arpaio is suggested by the timing of his criminal indictment.
On Oct. 2, 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ruled that Arpaio and his agency had relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Hispanic.
Snow ordered Arpaio to make mandatory changes in MCSO office law enforcement procedures, requiring officers to radio the basis for each traffic stop before contacting people in the vehicle, the video recording of all traffic stops, increased training for and monitoring of MCSO office employees, and the implementation of comprehensive record keeping.
On May 12, 2016, Judge Snow held Arpaio in civil contempt of federal court, ruling that Arpaio an three of his aides violated the judge’s 2013 order that was meant to curtail “racial profiling” by MCSO officers.
In mid-October 2016, with the election approximately three weeks away, the Justice Department announcedthat lawyers were preparing to file criminal contempt of court charges against Arpaio for his alleged violation of Judge Stone’s orders in the Melendres case.
Then, on Nov. 4, 2016, four days before the election, Politico reported Soros had contributed $2 million to a Soros-funded PAC, Maricopa Strong, to defeat Arpaio.
Largely as a result of the adverse publicity from facing criminal contempt charges, Arpaio lost on Nov. 8, 2016, his seventh bid to be elected Maricopa County Sheriff. 
The challenger, Paul Penzone, a Democrat and a former Phoenix police sergeant who lost to Arpaio in 2012, wonthe sheriff’s election, 54.9 percent to 45.1 percent, running on a campaign designed to be sympathetic to Arizona’s growing Hispanic voter base.
3. Charged under the wrong statute and denied a jury trial.
Arpaio’s attorney, Mark Goldman, Goldman & Zillinger PLLC in Scottsdale, AZ, sent to Attorney General Sessions a letter dated June 22, 2017, that was requesting the Department of Justice to consider various pleas before the start of the bench trial then scheduled to begin on Monday, June 26, 2017, before U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Several efforts were made to contact Attorney General Sessions directly and through trusted intermediaries in an effort to get Justice Department attention to Goldman’s letter.
Attorney General Sessions was insolated within the Justice Department so that all attempts to communicate with him failed.
Ultimately, Goldman’s letter was ignored, and with the Justice Department’s failure to intervene in the case, Judge Bolton began the bench trial against Arpaio as originally scheduled.
That letter, on, went unanswered.
“The criminal contempt allegations stem from an alleged failure of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Offices (MCSO) to comply with an Order of the Court (preliminary injunction) dated December 23, 2011,” Goldman’s letter read.
“This charge relates back to the prior Obama administration and a time when the Sheriff’s practices were in direct opposition to the Obama administration in regards to immigration policy,” Goldman’s letter continued. “The Sheriff was enforcing the law. The Obama administration appears to have been interested in doing the opposite for apparent political reasons.”
In the letter, Goldman argued the Obama Justice Department allowed Arpaio to be charged with criminal contempt misdemeanor charges under the wrong statute, precisely because the statute of limitations on the correct statute had run out, and the incorrect statute allowed Judge Bolton to deny Arpaio the right to a jury trial.
Here is what Goldman wrote:
In regards to other aspects of the prosecution, we request that you reconsider the DOJ’s prosecution of this matter because it was incorrectly brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 401. Section 401 relates to a simple criminal contempt of a lawful order. The matter should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 402. Section 402 applies to contumacious conduct that is also a separate crime as more particularly described in the attached Petition. The allegations in this matter compel it to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 402 that entitles the offender to a jury trial in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 3691. Additionally, Section 402 offenses come with a one year statute of limitations.
Given that the matter was not charged under the correct statute, and consequently the Department of Justice has deprived Sheriff Arpaio of his jury trial right and the applicable statute of limitations, in the interest of justice we request that you move the Court to dismiss the criminal contempt proceedings or, at the very least, move the Court to stay the trial pending a full review of this matter by your office.
Time is of the essence for the reason that this matter
  Goldman also argued the Obama Justice Department had timed various announcement coincident with Arizona voting deadlines in 2016, so as to influence voters to defeat Arpaio’s bid for re-election – an effort Goldman claimed was successful.
“The announcements had an undeniable effect upon Sheriff Arpaio’s campaign to be elected to a seventh term in office,” Goldman wrote. “The impact on Sheriff Arpaio’s re-election campaign is clear.  He is no longer Sheriff.”
4. Obama holdovers in the DOJ Public Integrity Section
The irony of the case is that the criminal misdemeanor contempt charge is being pressed against Arpaio by the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice – the section within the Justice Department that holds exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of alleged criminal official misconduct.
“How can the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department prosecute me when all I did was to honestly enforce immigration laws on the books?” Arpaio asked in an exclusive telephone interview. 
“The Public Integrity prosecutors who are still after me are all Obama hold-overs who went so far as to charge me under the wrong statute so they could deny me a jury trial, refusing to drop their open-borders amnesty agenda,” he argued.
“If this is Attorney General Sessions’ idea of ‘public integrity,’ then Sheriff Arpaio is right and Barack Obama is still running the Justice Department,” Arpaio said.
“How is it that Attorney General Sessions ignored a letter Sheriff Arpaio’s attorneys had hand-delivered to his office, when all Sheriff Arpaio requested was that the Justice Department consider insisting the Public Integrity Section would allow me my right as a U.S. citizen to a trial before a jury of my peers?” Arpaio asked. 
“It’s ironic that Sheriff Arpaio is being persecuted by an Obama hold-over Justice Department Public Integrity Section that thinks denying him a jury trial doesn’t implicate them in official misconduct for which they should be charged and criminally prosecuted,” Arpaio insisted.
5. Arpaio’s attorneys prepare federal ethics charge against District Judge
After filing on Monday, Aug. 14, with the U.S. District Court two motions – one asking for acquittal and the other asking for a new trial, lawyers for Arpaio are preparing to file after sentencing, a federal ethics charge against Judge Bolton.
Arpaio’s attorney, Mark Goldman, Goldman & Zillinger PLLC in Scottsdale, AZ, explained to in an exclusive telephone interview and follow-up email that the judge in the case, U.S. District Susan R. Bolton, was so biased against Arpaio that she could have written her opinion before the trial even started, stating her prejudice from the start that Arpaio was guilty of misdemeanor civil contempt guilty conviction.
“The court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law totally ignored all of the overwhelming evidence at trial that exonerated the Sheriff,” Goldman told 
“Most importantly, there was no testimony or other evidence produced that in any way proved that the order was ‘clear and definite’ which it must be in order to prove that the order could be disobeyed in the first place,” he continued.
“Not only did the government fail to prove that the order was clear and definite, we proved that it was not clear and definite,” Goldman insisted.  “The government’s own star witness, Tim Casey, admitted under cross-examination that the order was ‘ambiguous.’  Just about every witness testified that the order was misunderstood at the time.  No one testified that the order was clear and definite.”
Goldman explained that the Obama Department of Justice had charged Arpaio under the wrong statute, both because the statute of limitations had run out on the correct statute and by charging Arpaio under the wrong statute, Judge Bolton could deny him a jury trial.
“There was not testimony that the Sheriff ever told anyone that he was violating or going to violate the order,” he said.
“The government had the FBI and the DOJ working on this case, yet they couldn’t find one person to state that the Sheriff ever suggested that he’d violate the order,” he pointed out. 
“Finally, it was proved at the trial that no one at the Sheriff’s department understood the voluminous 40-page order while it was in effect,” Goldman argued.  “Only in hindsight did they learn what the order meant after the Melendres court issued a subsequent order!”

Home_Fry1 day ago 
They hated Joe for many reasons....
1. He was messing up the Dems illegal voting game in Arizona by enforcing immigration laws.
2. Brought attention to sanctuary cities and the fact that the police couldn't ask illegals for identification and immigration status but at the same time carting off citizens to jail if they don't have any identification.
3. Making the prison population work for their keep. (Dems hate to work, they want free money because they are communists)
4. He proved that the Obaminations birth certificate was a forgery. Of course a forged birth certificate doesn't prove where the Obamination was born.
5. A forged birth certificate raises questions as to Why or how the media never investigated the Obamination. 

6. He made everyone see how much the Dems and their illegal criminal trespassers hate America.



"Let Me Tell You Who Obama Pardoned" Trump Destroys Reporter Over Joe Arpaio Pardon - President Trump pardons ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio - Sheriff Arpaio Tells Infowars How It Feels For Trump To Stand Beside Him