Did TRUMP HINT THAT SCALIA WAS ASSASSINATED In O’Riley Interview … LISTEN CLOSELY [VIDEO]

ELDER PATRIOT – President Trump’s recent interview with Bill O’Reilly touched a nerve with establishment politicians following this exchange:

O’Reilly: He’s a killer.  Putin is a killer.

Trump: There are a lot of killers, a lot of killers.  What, you think our country is so innocent?




On its face many people were aghast at Trump morally equating Putin’s alleged killing of his political enemies with the manner in which the U.S. leaders handle their political enemies.

But, recent events suggest that’s a question worth investigating,

First, David Brock the Clinton loyalist, who is best known for smearing and defaming his candidates’ opponents without regard for the facts, hosted a retreat for 125 of the Democratic Party’s most affluent donors at the Turnberry Isle Resort in Adventura, Florida the third weekend of January.  The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the confidential memo that Brock circulated at the meeting, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” that outlines Brock’s four-year agenda to attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Shareblue.

The memo discusses a number of strategies for blocking Trump’s America First agenda including one pertinent to this discussion, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration.




The Marxist movement (AKA The Democratic Party) has relied on judicial activism for virtually all of the gains it has made over the years.  As the agenda moved from one of compassion towards others, and to the destruction of our economy and our culture, the American people have increasingly rejected its candidates at the ballot box. 

The federal court system offers no opportunity for the public to unseat activist judges making it the lone branch of government where liberals are free to force their poisonous ideological design on the American people by decree and with impunity. 

It is here in the courts, after decades of disastrous appointments by liberal presidents, that David Brock and the Democrats have one of the few opportunities still open to them to block the Trump agenda.

This is playing out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where a federal district court judge has ignored the Constitution and decided that he is more qualified to set foreign policy than the president is.  It’s really as simple as that.

That won’t stop The Ninth Circuit that is why it is the most reversed court in America.  Its three-judge panel is now reviewing the judge’s decision.  If they rule to continue the original judge’s decision the case will go to the Supreme Court.

This brings us to the mysterious timing of Antonin Scalia’s death.  Winning in the lower courts only to be reversed in the Supreme Court has so far prevented the radical left from shredding the Constitution entirely but many decisions regarding free speech, property rights, gun rights and virtually every other protection guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights has turned on a single vote.

For this reason there is no denying that Democrats and their crazed supporters coveted the seat that Scalia occupied so that they could turn the court of last resort liberal and sympathetic to their desires rather than remaining strident in its interpretation of the law.

Of course there’s a big difference between coveting someone’s seat and murdering that person to get it, but judging by the current climate of violence the left has whipped up against Trump, including an uncomfortably high number of calls for his assassination, why would we discount the possibility that was a club they pulled out of their bag to eliminate Scalia?

Before you dismiss this possibility consider the unanswered questions surrounding Scalia’s passing including the fact that he died at the ranch of John Poindexter a career black ops operator, meaning he spent his life killing people.

Then, there was this email that John Podesta sent less than three days prior to Scalia’s death:

Wetwork refers to assassination or a job that is likely to include killing someone.

Is this definitive proof that Scalia was murdered?  Maybe not, but perhaps when President Trump, who under advice employs his own security detail and is under constant threat of assassination, says that, “There are a lot of killers, a lot of killers.  What, you think our country is so innocent” maybe he knows something that the rest of us refuse to consider.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’