Trump news on Youtube Jun 27 2018

A Bombshell Email Is The Smoking Gun In FBI Scandal Of Spying On Trump

The FBI's spygate scandal continues to take a turn for the worse.

An FBI spy attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Now a bombshell email offers smoking gun evidence that the FBI's covert operation was even

worse than anyone thought.

The FBI claims they opened operation "Crossfire Hurricane" – the codename given to the

counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign – on July 31st, 2016.

This supposedly occurred after the FBI was informed that Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos

blabbed to an Australian diplomat that a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud informed him

the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But this story is beginning to look like a cover up for the real truth.

The ugly truth is that the FBI began spying on the Trump campaign far earlier than they

claimed, and their spy contacted even more Trump campaign officials than previously thought.

J.D. Gordon – the director of the Trump campaign's national security committee and

who is also a veteran – told the Daily Caller that top Trump aide Stephen Miller had also

been invited to the same Cambridge event as Carter Page back in May 2016 by the FBI spy.

Miller could not attend the July event, but Page did and described having an uneventful

conversation with Stephan Halper, the FBI spy.

The Daily Caller reports: "J. D. Gordon, the director of the campaign's national

security advisory committee, told TheDCNF he believes the invitation from Cambridge

to Miller was sent in May 2016. That's a month before a graduate assistant of FBI informant

Stefan Halper sent an invitation to Page to visit the campus.

"The invitation was to Stephen Miller who could not attend," Gordon, a former Pentagon

spokesman, told TheDCNF. "In the midst of our policy office search for a surrogate,

Carter Page informed me that he had also been invited and would like to attend."

This is a troubling development.

It was initially believed Page was targeted because in 2013, Russians agents were caught

on a wiretap discussing recruiting Page.

But what gets left out of that story was that the Russian agents never moved forward and

Page worked with the FBI to help catch the Russian spies.

The email to Miller indicates the spy wasn't necessarily targeting Page.

What the FBI was looking for was a point of entry into the Trump campaign.

The spy turned to Page when his approach to Miller failed.

This presents the FBI's conduct in an entirely new light.

The investigation was not a grand spy hunt to capture Russian agents.

Bureau officials – most likely colluding with the Obama White House – launched a

politically motivated fishing expedition into the Trump campaign to see what they could

turn up.

Operation Crossfire Hurricane did not begin on July 31st.

The FBI began digging into the Trump campaign months earlier.

President Trump sent out a series of tweets relaying the contents of an interview with

Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs.

Trump quoted Farrell as stating that the active measures against Trump actually began in December

2015.

The FBI's scheme to run covert operations to spy on Donald Trump and to sabotage his

campaign is the real scandal.

That is what should be investigated. This nonsense about collusion with Russia is fake

news and the investigation needs to be shut down immediately.

We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this story.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and

is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you

greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article

with

your

friends

and family. Thank you.

For more infomation >> A Bombshell Email Is The Smoking Gun In FBI Scandal Of Spying On Trump - Duration: 12:43.

-------------------------------------------

Right After Huge Supreme Court Travel Ban Win, Trump Stuck It To Dems With How He Celebrated. - Duration: 4:53.

Right After Huge Supreme Court Travel Ban Win, Trump Stuck It To Dems With How He Celebrated.

President Donald Trump just stuck it to the Democrat haters like a rusty thumbtack in

a piece of old rotten chicken.

The President of the United States celebrated a Supreme Court victory, and rubbed it like

salt on a slug.

The President doesn't hold back when it comes to him voicing his opinion, and slapping

people with some wordplay on Twitter.

After all, Twitter seems to be Trump's favorite form of getting the word out, so when the

Supreme Court ruled to uphold portions of his travel ban, then, of course, he hopped

on his device and smashed the buttons to remind people, who the boss is now.

Tony Danza will have to take a step back because, Trump might be taking over as the new boss

these days.

Let's keep in mind that Trump's travel ban is not exactly a ban, but increased steps

in security to help ensure that safe people come to America, while unsafe people are filtered

out.

Calling it a "travel ban" is much easier than saying something long winded like "travel

restrictions" – hard, right?

Of course, it is!

We're a country of cutting things the short and easy way.

We're also a country of calling things the more provocative term, so "travel ban"

just sounds more interesting than something, so basic and simple such as "travel restrictions"

which we all go through on a daily basis, and don't even realize it.

Can you take a 40 ounce of liquid on the plane?

No, because it's restricted, right?

All those flavors and Trump's haters choose to be salty.

He may as well dump a little bit of salt on those wounds and hand his opponents a tissue.

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump's controversial travel ban affecting

several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president's

executive authority, on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy.

It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory "Muslim

ban" but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American People

and the Constitution."

As critics continued to decry the policy as "xenophobic," Trump described the court

decision as "a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary

from the media, and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our

border and our country."

Trump's celebratory Tweet was enough to get people fired up.

There were immediate hateful and spiteful messages sent as a reply to this message,

as is the case with many of Donald Trump's messages on Twitter.

People love to hate the guy.

One of the people who seem to constantly badger the president is a verified account of a man,

who claims to be a doctor.

It's unknown if he still practices medicine, but it appears as though he's constantly

getting, on Trump's case when he should've been paying more attention to his career,

and helping to save lives or make discoveries in medicine.

It's a shame when someone would waste time on Twitter arguing with people, when they

could be making people's lives better.

Trump only needed one "Wow" to get people thrown off their course for the day.

One little Tweet is all it takes to break the brittle crumbs who oppose Trump and hate

everything he does.

It doesn't make any sense why people are so spiteful towards him when Supreme Court

voted in his favor.

No matter what Trump does, it will not ever be enough to please everyone.

Trump is no different than any other president in that regard.

Every president will always have people who simply do not like him no matter what.

It's just the way of life for a president, however, Trump seems to have a lot more hateful

and violence-inducing people than most presidents in recent history.

It's absurd to see what people are doing out of their own misery and hate.

People like Maxine Waters seem to be calling for violence when they're supposed to be

representing the party of tolerance.

It's very odd that the party who constantly demands everyone else to be tolerant always

seems to be the most intolerant.

They don't realize that it's OK to have different beliefs and it's acceptable to

support the president.

Of course, Trump isn't their guy, so they're slowly becoming the party of intolerance.

Maybe they can have a pity party once a month in a safe space to cry on each other's shoulders

as everyone else carries on with their day and enjoys life.

what do you think about this?

Please Share this news and Scroll down to comment below and don't forget to subscribe

top stories today.

For more infomation >> Right After Huge Supreme Court Travel Ban Win, Trump Stuck It To Dems With How He Celebrated. - Duration: 4:53.

-------------------------------------------

Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations - Duration: 1:53.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority

countries.

The ruling gives Trump one of the biggest domestic victories of his presidency thus

far.

For more on this and other new around the world we turn to our Ro Aram…

Aram…run us through the details.

Well Mark…

A lower court had ruled that the travel ban was unconstitutional.

But the top court overturned the decision in a 5 to 4 conservative majority ruling on

Tuesday, after a fierce battle among the justices.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejects a challenge stating that

the travel ban discriminated against Muslims.

It also states that Trump was squarely within the scope of his presidential authority regarding

immigration and national security policy.

It didn't take long for President Trump to hail the ruling.

"……a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the American people and for our

Constitution.

This is a great victory for our Constitution…."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a dissent aloud in court, which stated that the court failed

to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the first amendment.

Tuesday's decision also came as protestors gathered outside the court building demanding

the travel ban be scrapped.

"…. I never thought I would stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and hear the most

fundamental pillar of our Constitution freedom of religion challenged.

It is wrong."

The travel ban, which is in its third iteration, was put in place last December after the Supreme

Court put the brakes on rulings from lower courts in the state of Hawaii and others.

For more infomation >> Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations - Duration: 1:53.

-------------------------------------------

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban - Duration: 11:48.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks it is necessary to protect the United States, a victory

in what has been a priority since Trump's first weeks in office and a major affirmation of presidential power

The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief.Justice John G.Roberts Jr

finding that a string of unprecedented comments and warnings from Trump about Muslims did not erode the president's vast powers to control entry into this country

Later, the White.House issued a formal response that also took a swipe at Trump's declared enemies

It called the ruling a "vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who

refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country." Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president's travel ban, the first of

which was issued in January 2017.But the administration said it fortified the order in response to each judicial setback, and it had reason to be optimistic about the Supreme Court, since

the justices previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it

The ruling was one of a string of 5-to-4 decisions this term in which the.justices on the right reasserted themselves, after the addition of Trump-nominated Justice Neil M

Gorsuch last year restored a conservative majority.The campaign of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky

), who for 10.months kept the Republican-controlled Senate from voting on President Barack Obama's nominee to the court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, celebrated by posting a picture on Twitter

It.was of him shaking hands with Gorsuch.The current ban, issued last fall, barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities

They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia,.North Korea and Venezuela.Restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the challenge

Chad was later removed from the list.Roberts tried to play down the political aspects of the case,

writing that the proclamation that led to the ban "is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority" and noting that its text does not mention religion

His opinion gave a short history.of Trump's comments about Muslims, starting with a campaign pledge for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is

going on."The pledge remained on the campaign website after Trump became president

And other tweets and statements followed."But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements," Roberts wrote

"It is.instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility

In doing so, we must consider not only.the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself

" He added: "We express no view on the soundness of the policy." Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a

stinging rebuttal, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.And she read part of it in a dramatic moment on the bench

Sotomayor noted the campaign statements and anti-Muslim videos and comments the president

shared on Twitter, including one titled "Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!" "Take a brief moment and let the gravity of those statements sink in," she said

"And then remember,".Sotomayor added, that the statements and tweets were spoken or written "by the current president of the United States

" Sotomayor repeatedly called out Trump by name in her lengthy statement and.said the majority's decision "repeats tragic mistakes of the past" and "tells members of minority religions" in the United States that "they are outsiders

" The court, she wrote, was "blindly accepting.the Government's misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy

" In her passionate dissent, Sotomayor compared the decision to Korematsu v.United States, in which the Supreme Court in 1944 upheld the detention

of Japanese Americans during World War II.Both rulings, she said, will be considered historic mistakes

Roberts objected."Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with

this case," he wrote, adding that "it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission

" But he.said the reference did give the court a chance to make official something it never had before: "Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the

court of history, and — to be clear — has no place in law under the Constitution." Justices Stephen G

Breyer and Elena Kagan also dissented, in an opinion with less-explosive language

Breyer.said it was not clear that an important part of the order — its "elaborate system of exemptions and waivers" for refugees, asylum seekers, students and others — was working

"While more.than 15,000 Syrian refugees arrived in the United States in 2016, only 13 have arrived since January 2018," he wrote

Breyer thought the case should be sent back to a lower court.for an examination of that issue

But without that, he said, he would, "on balance, find the evidence of antireligious bias

 . .a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside." Neal Katyal, the.Washington lawyer who argued the case for Hawaii and other challengers, expressed disappointment at the ruling and called on Congress to step in

"We continue to believe, as do four dissenting justices,.that the travel ban is unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and un-American," he said in a statement

". . .The travel ban is atrocious policy, and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals

Now that.the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump's unilateral and unwise travel ban

" The administration said the third edition of the.ban responded to the judicial criticisms of the first two and was a result of a "worldwide review of the processes for vetting aliens seeking entry from abroad

" But a unanimous.ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the third version of the travel ban suffered from the deficiencies of the first two

— that Trump had again exceeded his lawful authority and that he had not made a legally sufficient finding that entry of those blocked would be "detrimental to the interests of

the United States." The U.S.Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond struck down the ban on the constitutional question

The 9-to-4 decision took a deep dive into Trump's statements and.tweets, and concluded that the proclamation, like the first two, was motivated not by national security concerns but by antipathy toward Muslims

Even the Supreme Court dissents did not make much of.a claim that Trump lacked the statutory authority to bar the entry of those the administration had reason to believe could harm the country

And Roberts rejected the notion that the court.was prohibited from examining the reasoning for the president's actions on immigration matters

But Sotomayor said the majority failed by not finding that the policy was inspired by "animosity toward a disfavored

group." "Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments," she wrote

"Because the Court's decision.today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent

" Roberts seemed careful not to tie the court to Trump's remarks."The President of the United States possesses an extraordinary power

to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf," he wrote, and was almost wistful in remembering presidents — he named George Washington, Dwight D

Eisenhower and George W.Bush — who."used that power to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance

" "The very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the

more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise," he wrote

For more infomation >> Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban - Duration: 11:48.

-------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Muslim Travel Ban – EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY - Duration: 12:37.

Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Muslim Travel Ban – EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

President Donald Trump scored a huge victory on Thursday when the Supreme Court voted to

uphold his travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries.

Fox News reported that the 5-4 ruling upholds the selective travel restrictions that outraged

liberals claimed were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed with Trump that these rules are necessary for security reasons.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who said that the order

was "squarely within the scope of presidential authority" under federal law.

"The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry

of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here," he wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was one of the four justices who dissented, and along with Justice

Stephen Breyer, she made the unusual move of reading her dissension from the bench.

"This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination

that the president's words have created," she said.

"Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the

proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus."

Trump has always denied that this was a "Muslim ban," but liberal judges have cited statements

he made when he was a candidate in declaring the rules to be unconstitutional.

However, Roberts effectively said in his decision that Trump's prior comments were not relevant

to the constitutionality of his travel ban.

"The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements," wrote Roberts.

"It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive,

neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.

In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but

also the authority of the Presidency itself."

President Trump himself took to Twitter to celebrate the ruling.

"SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN.

Wow!" Trump wrote.

SHARE this story if you support the Supreme Court's ruling!

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and

is instead promoting mainstream media sources.

When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content.

Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends

and family.

Thank you.

For more infomation >> Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Muslim Travel Ban – EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY - Duration: 12:37.

-------------------------------------------

Trump just accused a sitting Senator of being drunk in unhinged Monday night tweet - Duration: 3:49.

For more infomation >> Trump just accused a sitting Senator of being drunk in unhinged Monday night tweet - Duration: 3:49.

-------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban - Duration: 3:03.

For more infomation >> Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban - Duration: 3:03.

-------------------------------------------

Trump lashes out at Harley-Davidson - Duration: 1:11.

President Donald Trump set his sights on Harley-Davidson in a round of Twitter attacks on Tuesday,

saying the iconic motorcycle company "will be taxed like never before!"

It follows a proposed plan by Harley-Davidson to move some of its production overseas.

The EU raised an existing tariff it had on the company's motorcycles by almost five times

in retaliation for the U.S.' tariffs on EU aluminum and steel.

Harley-Davidson says it would lose about $2,200 for each bike it exported, and a total of

up to $100 million a year, due to the hike.

But Trump says the tariffs are just an excuse and that the company had existing plans to

move.

Either way, moving some production overseas looks like it may be in Harley-Davidson's

best interest.

Its last quarter sales fell by 12 percent in the U.S. but grew by about 7 percent in

multiple continents, including Europe.

The rift is particularly notable because Harley-Davidson has traditionally, had strong support within

the GOP.

Trump himself once said,

For more infomation >> Trump lashes out at Harley-Davidson - Duration: 1:11.

-------------------------------------------

HAPPENING NOW: Supreme Court Hands Trump Another HUGE Victory on His Travel Ban - Duration: 1:07.

The Supreme Court of the United States just smacked down another misguided, unprofessional

activist judge.

This time involving the travel ban, and specifically the case with Obama's pal, activist Judge

Derrick Watson, who did his best "Deep State" work, to try and block President Trump's

common sense travel ban.

Well, the good news is, it backfired, and the SCOTUS just upheld Trump's travel ban,

and now Americans will be that much more safe, despite Democrats efforts to sabotage.

From Vox

The Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban Tuesday by a vote of

5 to 4, ruling that Trump's decision to ban or restrict travel and immigration from

seven countries, most of them majority-Muslim, was within his constitutional authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with the court's four liberals

— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting.

For more infomation >> HAPPENING NOW: Supreme Court Hands Trump Another HUGE Victory on His Travel Ban - Duration: 1:07.

-------------------------------------------

La coiffure de Donald Trump - Le JPI 6h50 (27/06/2018) - Duration: 1:09.

For more infomation >> La coiffure de Donald Trump - Le JPI 6h50 (27/06/2018) - Duration: 1:09.

-------------------------------------------

Trump's New Border Plan Shakes Washington Swamp, Sends 'Undocumenteds' Scrambling - Duration: 4:47.

President Trump suggested a plan that is sure to send illegal aliens scrambling and it provoked

an uproar out of the Swamp and the left almost immediately.

Frankly, I'm all for it.

He's suggesting that illegal aliens not be given constitutional rights and due process

in court.

That they should just be immediately deported.

I have a few thoughts on this one.

It's true that the Supreme Court ruled that any person who is on American soil has constitutional

rights.

But that doesn't make the ruling correct and personally, I don't think that is ever

what the Founding Fathers intended.

They intended our rights to be applied to American citizens.

Therefore, I would agree with putting these illegal aliens on a bus and immediately sending

them back where they came from.

I am not in the majority on this opinion, unfortunately.

Judge Napolitano disagrees with me and says they do have rights.

But he also points out there is an easy fix to all this… just don't let them over

the border in the first place.

If we had a wall and security, that would be the case.

Until we can get there, according to SCOTUS, these people must be adjudicated.

This means housing and providing for tens of thousands of them.

It is untenable and a horrific mess.

Brought to you by Democrats and progressive Republicans alike.

Americans, when they stray into Mexico, are arrested, tortured, beaten and treated abysmally.

They do not have the same rights as Mexican citizens do.

I'm not saying we should treat illegal aliens as the Mexicans do… we should be fair and

humane.

But we should not treat them as if they are actual Americans and the president agrees

with that.

Although yesterday he did concede that it would be more workable to just prevent them

from coming across the border and to transport them back to wherever they came from.

Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy is the right call here to be used against

those who don't respect the rule of law.

I support the move 100 percent.

From Reuters:

"President Donald Trump said on Sunday that people who enter the United States illegally

should be sent back immediately to where they came from without any judicial process, likening

them to invaders who are trying to "break into" the country.

"His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates

who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision, which applies to citizens

and non-citizens alike.

"In a series of tweets on Sunday, Trump said: "We cannot allow all of these people

to invade our Country.

When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them

back from where they came."

""Cannot accept all of the people trying to break into our Country.

Strong Borders, No Crime!""

They are invaders and they have declared that is what they intend to do.

If you listen to the current leading candidate for the presidency in Mexico, he is urging

Mexican citizens to go to the U.S. to basically invade and conquer America.

They see it as taking back land they claim is theirs.

In my book, that is an act of war.

I also do not share in the sentiment that illegal alien children should be reunited

with their parents.

We do not do that when Americans break the law and go to prison.

That's just insane.

I'm not alone in thinking this way.

Many legal scholars support my point of view… especially constitutional originalists.

Dinesh D'Souza, a man I greatly respect, stated during a Fox News interview that, "Citizenship

is a kind of bargain among citizens of a country, and it comes from a social contract with certain

rights and responsibilities.

The whole idea of letting non-citizens vote and shape the governmental process falls outside

the social contract.

They need to go through the citizenship process, become citizens, and then they get the protections

and benefits of being a citizen."

That's what my son-in-law did.

He's from Denmark and we spent several years getting him over here legally.

He adopted my daughter's children and is now a citizen.

It took a lot of effort, time and money, but it was the right thing to do and I'm very

proud of him.

Democrats know all this.

That's not the point.

They want open borders so they have a permanent voting bloc to utilize in politics.

It's power for them.

They don't care about illegal immigrants' children.

But they use that for their political agenda.

This has gone on for far too long.

A wall needs to be built, border security truly enforced and the rule of law upheld.

Without borders and without the rule of law, we are not really a sovereign nation and the

left knows that.

President Trump is absolutely correct that they need to be sent back.

This lawfare over illegal immigration that is weaponized by the left has to stop.

For more infomation >> Trump's New Border Plan Shakes Washington Swamp, Sends 'Undocumenteds' Scrambling - Duration: 4:47.

-------------------------------------------

Granny Spots CNN's Jim Acosta At Trump Rally, Gives Him 'Nasty Surprise' On Live TV - Duration: 4:59.

President Donald Trump's rally last night in South Carolina was rocking as loyal supporters

filled the auditorium to maximum capacity.

CNN's Jim Acosta was hiding out in the back, and all hell broke loose when he came down

to the floor and was spotted by a huge Trump supporting grandmother.

This granny gave him a "nasty surprise" right on live TV, and Acosta will never be

able to live this down.

You'll love this.

CNN's Jim Acosta got a real taste of what a majority of the country thinks about him

last night as he covered the presidential rally in South Carolina.

This was smack dab in the middle of Trump country.

The good people of South Carolina are well aware that Donald Trump is hated by Jim Acosta,

who is routinely disrespectful to Sarah Huckabee Sanders during press conferences.

Acosta first felt the heat when he was broadcasting live from the rally, ripping the president

in his tired ranting about the border crisis.

Acosta says, "Kids are in foster care in this state almost a 1,000 miles away [from

the border], and of course, President Trump will be here later on tonight campaigning

for the man who wants to be governor…"

Acosta is then drowned out by a group of Trump supporters who realize he's broadcasting

live.

They repeatedly chant that "CNN sucks," causing the White House correspondent to cut

his live report short.

Lol.

Jim Acosta interview with 'CNN Sucks' sign and 'Go Home, Jim' chant to boot!

— Chet Cannon (@Chet_Cannon) June 25, 2018

But Acosta had no idea he was about to get his behind kicked by an elderly grandmother.

This South Carolina granny who has been identified as Maria Rojas wasn't playing around.

Just the sight of the Trump-hating Acosta made granny go nuts.

We have to consider the Democrats' new tactic against Trump and his supporters to really

understand why an elderly woman would go berzerk when she sees Jim Acosta.

We have seen the radical leftists attack DHS Kirstjen Nielsen in public and at her home,

run Sarah Sanders out of the Red Hen Restaurant, and attack Florida's AG Pam Bondi at the

movies.

All of this stalking and harassment has been encouraged by Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters.

CNN and Jim Acosta love what Auntie Maxine is doing.

So when South Carolina granny sees him, she's off the charts screaming at him, "Get out!

Get Out of here!

Go!"

Acosta makes the big mistake of saying, "I have a right to be here," and granny answers

him, "No you don't, get out!"

Here's some video of a woman berating @Acosta.

This went on for several minutes as many in the crowd cheered her on.

As someone who's covered my share of Trump rallies, it feels like 2016 all over again.

— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) June 25, 2018

But there's more.

Whiny Acosta is claiming Rojas screamed, "Get the f*ck out!"

But according to the Daily Wire who searched all available video, there is no evidence

of that.

"I had an elderly woman just a short while's come up to me—she came up to me and said

that we at CNN should get the f*** out of this auditorium," Acosta later claimed.

"She turned to the crowd and whipped them up into a frenzy."

The Daily Wire reports, "[We] searched through all available video clips of the encounter

and was not able to find any proof that the woman said, 'get the f*** out."'

There is one more clip where Rojas accuses Acosta of "not respecting the United States,"

and idiot Jim walks right into that one saying, "Yes I do respect the United States."

Maria Rojas responds, "No, you do not respect it!"

One last clip of the exchange as she accuses @Acosta of not respecting the United States.

When he replies that he does, she says, "No!

You do not respect it!"

#SCGov pic.twitter.com/lZhMDKwAED

— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) June 25, 2018

Now, it's pretty clear that South Carolina granny Maria Rojas is fed-up with the mainstream

media lies.

Radio host Wayne Dupree weighed in, saying, "How long did the mainstream media think

that they can keep serving slop to the American people before they responded harshly?"

He added, "Way to go Maria Rojas.

Good job confronting Jim Acosta.

I wonder how Acosta would respond to people showing up at his house to confront him the

way liberals such as him to do conservatives."

Now, leftist losers are pissed off, pointing to Maria Rojas as an "out of control vile

Trump racist."

Except, Maria Rojas is no racist.

She's a proud American who is too old to take their nonsense.

She's a proud supporter of President Donald Trump, and she let CNN and Jim Acosta know:

they clearly aren't welcome down in the heart of the Palmetto State.

For more infomation >> Granny Spots CNN's Jim Acosta At Trump Rally, Gives Him 'Nasty Surprise' On Live TV - Duration: 4:59.

-------------------------------------------

Trump gloated about his 'endorsement' from David Lynch. Lynch's response just broke the internet - Duration: 3:28.

For more infomation >> Trump gloated about his 'endorsement' from David Lynch. Lynch's response just broke the internet - Duration: 3:28.

-------------------------------------------

Trump To Meet Republicans Before Immigration Vote - Duration: 0:21.

For more infomation >> Trump To Meet Republicans Before Immigration Vote - Duration: 0:21.

-------------------------------------------

Trump's New Border Plan Shakes Washington Swamp, Sends 'Undocumenteds' Scrambling - Duration: 4:41.

Trump's New Border Plan Shakes Washington Swamp, Sends 'Undocumenteds' Scrambling

President Trump suggested a plan that is sure to send illegal aliens scrambling and it provoked

an uproar out of the Swamp and the left almost immediately.

Frankly, I'm all for it.

He's suggesting that illegal aliens not be given constitutional rights and due process

in court.

That they should just be immediately deported.

I have a few thoughts on this one.

It's true that the Supreme Court ruled that any person who is on American soil has constitutional

rights.

But that doesn't make the ruling correct and personally, I don't think that is ever

what the Founding Fathers intended.

They intended our rights to be applied to American citizens.

Therefore, I would agree with putting these illegal aliens on a bus and immediately sending

them back where they came from.

I am not in the majority on this opinion, unfortunately.

Judge Napolitano disagrees with me and says they do have rights.

But he also points out there is an easy fix to all this… just don't let them over

the border in the first place.

If we had a wall and security, that would be the case.

Until we can get there, according to SCOTUS, these people must be adjudicated.

This means housing and providing for tens of thousands of them.

It is untenable and a horrific mess.

Brought to you by Democrats and progressive Republicans alike.

Americans, when they stray into Mexico, are arrested, tortured, beaten and treated abysmally.

They do not have the same rights as Mexican citizens do.

I'm not saying we should treat illegal aliens as the Mexicans do… we should be fair and

humane.

But we should not treat them as if they are actual Americans and the president agrees

with that.

Although yesterday he did concede that it would be more workable to just prevent them

from coming across the border and to transport them back to wherever they came from.

Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy is the right call here to be used against

those who don't respect the rule of law.

I support the move 100 percent.

From Reuters:

"President Donald Trump said on Sunday that people who enter the United States illegally

should be sent back immediately to where they came from without any judicial process, likening

them to invaders who are trying to "break into" the country.

"His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates

who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision, which applies to citizens

and non-citizens alike.

"In a series of tweets on Sunday, Trump said: "We cannot allow all of these people

to invade our Country.

When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them

back from where they came."

""Cannot accept all of the people trying to break into our Country.

Strong Borders, No Crime!""

They are invaders and they have declared that is what they intend to do.

If you listen to the current leading candidate for the presidency in Mexico, he is urging

Mexican citizens to go to the U.S. to basically invade and conquer America.

They see it as taking back land they claim is theirs.

In my book, that is an act of war.

I also do not share in the sentiment that illegal alien children should be reunited

with their parents.

We do not do that when Americans break the law and go to prison.

That's just insane.

I'm not alone in thinking this way.

Many legal scholars support my point of view… especially constitutional originalists.

Dinesh D'Souza, a man I greatly respect, stated during a Fox News interview that, "Citizenship

is a kind of bargain among citizens of a country, and it comes from a social contract with certain

rights and responsibilities.

The whole idea of letting non-citizens vote and shape the governmental process falls outside

the social contract.

They need to go through the citizenship process, become citizens, and then they get the protections

and benefits of being a citizen."

That's what my son-in-law did.

He's from Denmark and we spent several years getting him over here legally.

He adopted my daughter's children and is now a citizen.

It took a lot of effort, time and money, but it was the right thing to do and I'm very

proud of him.

Democrats know all this.

That's not the point.

They want open borders so they have a permanent voting bloc to utilize in politics.

It's power for them.

They don't care about illegal immigrants' children.

But they use that for their political agenda.

This has gone on for far too long.

A wall needs to be built, border security truly enforced and the rule of law upheld.

Without borders and without the rule of law, we are not really a sovereign nation and the

left knows that.

President Trump is absolutely correct that they need to be sent back.

This lawfare over illegal immigration that is weaponized by the left has to stop.

For more infomation >> Trump's New Border Plan Shakes Washington Swamp, Sends 'Undocumenteds' Scrambling - Duration: 4:41.

-------------------------------------------

Right After Huge Supreme Court Travel Ban Win, Trump Stuck It To Dems With How He Celebrated - Duration: 4:14.

Right After Huge Supreme Court Travel Ban Win, Trump Stuck It To Dems With How He Celebrated

President Donald Trump just stuck it to the Democrat haters like a rusty thumbtack in

a piece of old rotten chicken.

The President of the United States celebrated a Supreme Court victory and rubbed it like

salt on a slug.

The President doesn't hold back when it comes to him voicing his opinion and slapping

people with some wordplay on Twitter.

After all, Twitter seems to be Trump's favorite form of getting the word out, so when the

Supreme Court ruled to uphold portions of his travel ban, then, of course, he hopped

on his device and smashed the buttons to remind people who the boss is now.

Tony Danza will have to take a step back because Trump might be taking over as the new boss

these days.

Let's keep in mind that Trump's travel ban is not exactly a ban, but increased steps

in security to help ensure that safe people come to America while unsafe people are filtered

out.

Calling it a "travel ban" is much easier than saying something longwinded like "travel

restrictions" – hard, right?

Of course, it is!

We're a country of cutting things the short and easy way.

We're also a country of calling things the more provocative term, so "travel ban"

just sounds more interesting than something so basic and simple such as "travel restrictions"

which we all go through on a daily basis and don't even realize it.

Can you take a 40 ounce of liquid on the plane?

No, because it's restricted, right?

All those flavors and Trump's haters choose to be salty.

He may as well dump a little bit of salt on those wounds and hand his opponents a tissue.

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump's controversial travel ban affecting

several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president's

executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy.

It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory "Muslim

ban" but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American People

and the Constitution."

As critics continued to decry the policy as "xenophobic," Trump described the court

decision as "a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary

from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our

border and our country."

Trump's celebratory Tweet was enough to get people fired up.

There were immediate hateful and spiteful messages sent as a reply to this message,

as is the case with many of Donald Trump's messages on Twitter.

People love to hate the guy.

One of the people who seem to constantly badger the president is a verified account of a man

who claims to be a doctor.

It's unknown if he still practices medicine, but it appears as though he's constantly

getting on Trump's case when he should've been paying more attention to his career and

helping to save lives or make discoveries in medicine.

It's a shame when someone would waste time on Twitter arguing with people when they could

be making people's lives better.

Trump only needed one "Wow!" to get people thrown off their course for the day.

One little Tweet is all it takes to break the brittle crumbs who oppose Trump and hate

everything he does.

It doesn't make any sense why people are so spiteful towards him when Supreme Court

voted in his favor.

No matter what Trump does, it will not ever be enough to please everyone.

Trump is no different than any other president in that regard.

Every president will always have people who simply do not like him no matter what.

It's just the way of life for a president, however, Trump seems to have a lot more hateful

and violence-inducing people than most presidents in recent history.

It's absurd to see what people are doing out of their own misery and hate.

People like Maxine Waters seem to be calling for violence when they're supposed to be

representing the party of tolerance.

It's very odd that the party who constantly demands everyone else to be tolerant always

seems to be the most intolerant.

They don't realize that it's OK to have different beliefs and it's acceptable to

support the president.

Of course, Trump isn't their guy, so they're slowly becoming the party of intolerance.

Maybe they can have a pity party once a month in a safe space to cry on each other's shoulders

as everyone else carries on with their day and enjoys life.