Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

Dems Entrenched in Power Institutionally – We Must Eliminate Institutional Power

By Leave a Comment

big_brother_watchingDemocrats have changed America in a truly dramatic way. They failed to maintain the evil practice of slavery, losing the Civil War to the Republicans, then instituted Jim Crow laws to keep American blacks as an underclass, and fighting civil rights and voting rights laws, right up until they could no longer resist Republican pressures in the 1960s.

With the aid of Margaret Sanger they introduced Eugenics to America, resulting in the current 1,800 daily abortions of black Americans–whom they term “human weeds.”

Democrats have pursued several ploys to break down the American way of life, diluting the personal protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution by championing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and constantly attacking the First and Second Amendments.

The advent of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments allowed the government to take the wealth of individual Americans through the taxation of their income–something specifically disallowed by the founders in the Constitution. Why were the founders against this? Because it takes the power of the purse away and individual decisions from families and citizens, and puts it in the hands of the government. We can see how annual trillion dollar spending to enforce government authority has greatly changed the nature, size and scope of the federal government.

detroit-destroyed-by-democrats

Once the jewel of American cities, Detroit was taken over by Democrats and imploded on its own boat and corruption.

With the limitations on the federal government thus lifted, it has increased its power and scope continually, flooding the countryside, businesses and families with federal intrusions.

Democrats have also infiltrated teachers unions and universities, along with media and the press, all constantly bombarding our American youth with messages that the federal government is the answer to every question and every problem, and that it continually needs more power and money to perform its needed tasks. These institutions simultaneously broadcast that America is evil, and that personal liberty and free enterprise are destructive and unfair to minority groups.

How to De-fund and De-fang Democrat Institutions

Democrat_Rights_1961_2012Because the power of the Democrats is institutionalized, lurking in government bureaucracies, federal agencies, school administrations and university faculty, and news producers, record companies and motion picture studios, at this point we must utilize the opportunities afforded us by the current anti-establishment wave, and do everything in our power to de-fund and de-fang these entrenched institutions.

We must:

  1. Eliminate the student loan program and replace it with a federally backed online university system–which halts the leftist indoctrination of our college-age youth and de-funds leftist propaganda universities (see our article “It’s Time to Overhaul Higher Education,” Oct. 25, 2015;
  2. Eliminate teachers’ unions, and support school choice and charter schools for all children;
  3. Eliminate 80% of all federal agencies, and lay off 80% of federal employees, returning them to the workforce to find productive work in the private economy;
  4. Return the federally withheld lands in Western states to those states;
  5. Pass a balanced-budget Amendment, and cut the federal budget by a significant amount;
  6. Make American History courses mandatory in our educational institutions (ensuring that real history is taught).

By eliminating these institutional strongholds of Democrats and other leftists, we can begin to rid ourselves of the permanent stranglehold they have on our nation, and move the population back toward an informed, invested citizenry. As people become less dependent on government handouts and institutions, and are better informed, they will naturally abandon propaganda-based political philosophies.

PUBLIUS

Freddie Gray Case: Charges Against Three Remaining Officers Dropped

By Leave a Comment

attorneys-in-freddie-gray-case-drop-bombshell-claim-about-evidence-they-say-was-withheld-by-prosecution_2Prosecutors dropped all remaining charges against three Baltimore police officers accused in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray in a downtown courtroom on Wednesday morning, concluding one of the most high-profile criminal cases in Baltimore history.

The startling move was an apparent acknowledgement of the unlikelihood of a conviction following the acquittals of three other officers on similar and more serious charges by Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams, who was expected to preside over the remaining trials as well.

It also means the office of Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby will secure no convictions in the case after more than a year of dogged fighting, against increasingly heavy odds, to hold someone criminally accountable in Gray’s death.

Officer William Porter‘s trial ended with a hung jury and a mistrial in December, before Williams acquitted Officers Edward Nero and Caesar Goodson and Lt. Brian Rice at bench trials in May, June, and July, respectively.

In a hearing Wednesday meant to start the trial of Officer Garrett Miller, Chief Deputy State’s Attorney Michael Schatzow told Williams that the state was dropping all charges against Miller, Porter and Sgt. Alicia White.

Porter had been scheduled to be retried in September, and White had been scheduled to be tried in October.

Gray, 25, suffered severe spinal cord injuries in the back of the van in April 2015 and died a week after his arrest. His death sparked widespread, peaceful protests against police brutality, and his funeral was followed by rioting, looting and arson.

Prosecutors, the officers and their attorneys were all barred by a gag order from discussing the case, until after all of the officers’ cases have been adjudicated.

With Wednesday’s decision, the gag order is now lifted, though prosecutors and defense attorneys were not immediately available for comment.

In clearing Nero, Goodson and Rice, Williams had repeatedly said that prosecutors presented little or no evidence to support their broader theory in the case – that the officers acted unreasonably, and willfully disregarded their training and general orders, when they decided not to secure Gray in a seat belt, and that the decision directly led to his death.

All of the officers had pleaded not guilty. Their attorneys have said they acted reasonably and professionally, and that Gray’s death was the result of a tragic accident.

The decision Wednesday to drop all charges came during what was expected to be a contentious hearing surrounding the prosecution’s ability to proceed with Miller’s trial without using anything he said on the witness stand in Nero’s trial against him.

Miller was compelled to testify at Nero’s trial under a limited form of immunity designed to protect his constitutional right against self-incrimination while freeing him to speak about the events that transpired on the morning of Gray’s arrest. Before Miller’s trial could proceed, prosecutors were required to show that they had not gleaned any evidence or strategic advantage in Miller’s trial from his immunized testimony.

Miller’s defense attorneys had argued that in order to do so, the prosecutors who argued in Nero’s trial and the special “clean team” of prosecutors assigned to argue in Miller’s trial without knowledge of his previous testimony should have to take the stand.

Catherine Flynn, one of Miller’s attorney, also suggested that Schatzow and Deputy State’s Attorney Janice Bledsoe, who argued Nero’s case, had inappropriately remained involved in Miller’s case. Flynn had subpoenaed Schatzow and Bledsoe, as well as Assistant State’s Attorneys Lisa Phelps and Sarah David, who were assigned to the clean team.

Having dropped the charges, prosecutors avoid taking the stand.

By Kevin Rector

New Democrat Email Scandal Rocks Clinton’s Crowning at Convention Start

By Leave a Comment

wasswermanPHILADELPHIA –  Hillary Clinton, who spent the entirety of her presidential primary campaign battling allegations over her improper use of a personal email server while secretary of state, once again faces an email headache just days before her crowning as the Democratic presidential nominee.

This time, the leak of thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, some of which indicated an anti-Bernie Sanders bias at the very top of the organization, led to the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The controversy now hangs over the start of the convention as Sanders supporters prepare to protest, outside and potentially inside the convention hall. On Monday, Schultz tried to explain her new role in the party, vowing to get to work electing Hillary Clinton.

“You’ll see me every day between now and November 8 on the campaign trail,” she said, even as Sanders supporters waved signs in front of her and shouted, “Shame!”

On the sidelines, Sanders supporters and others angry at the Democratic establishment are poised to turn out, potentially in the thousands, on Monday to protest all over Philadelphia. This, before the convention formally gavels in late Monday afternoon – after which Sanders himself, as well as liberal icon Elizabeth Warren, are set to speak.

Whether they can help to unify the divided party remains to be seen.

But while Wasserman Schultz’ resignation could calm the email storm, the liberal wing still appears intent on protesting over other grievances including Clinton, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, picking Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as her running mate.

Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate from California, said Sunday that Clinton picking a centrist like Kaine is an “assault” on the progressive agenda. He said the roughly 1,250 Sanders delegates connected to his Bernie Delegates Network are considering walking out during the Virginia senator’s expected acceptance speech at the Wells Fargo Center, and they are even looking into contesting his nomination.

He said their response “reflects anger and disappointment” over Clinton and like-minded Washington Democrats’ control over the party.

“We don’t know exactly what to expect” on the convention floor, Solomon also said.

The uncertainty and rancor on several fronts puts the Democrats in a similar position as the Republicans when they entered their convention a week ago looking to soothe tensions between their presidential nominee and those who backed his primary rivals.

Only the clashes on the Democratic side have already outmatched last week’s fireworks in Cleveland, with Wasserman Schultz’ resignation standing as a stunning development on convention eve.

The political spectacle already has distracted from the historic convention where Clinton is set to become the first female presidential nominee of a major party.

While Wasserman Schultz has been largely sidelined from the convention — though she will open and close it — Sanders is set to speak Monday. In a written statement, he praised the DNC chairwoman for stepping down.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party. While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race,” he said.

The resignation comes after WikiLeaks on Thursday released roughly 20,000 DNC emails, with more revelations emerging Sunday about Wasserman Schultz criticizing the Vermont senator to staffers.

“He isn’t going to be president,” she wrote in one May 21 email, also saying that Sanders vowing at the time to replace her as chairwoman was a “silly story.”

Clinton chief strategist Joel Benenson, on “Fox News Sunday,” defended the fairness of the primary elections and said the DNC would conduct a full review of the emails. He said people should not jump to conclusions.

“The DNC’s impact in these things is minimal compared to the results. What candidates and campaigns spend and do on the ground, talking to voters day in and day out, that’s what determines who wins,” he said.

On Sunday in Philadelphia, several large protests took place near City Hall, in nearly 100-degree temperatures and under the watchful eye of city police officers.

“A lot of Democratic supporters labeled Bernie Sanders supporters conspiracy theorists. The WikiLeaks confirms what we thought all along,” said Perry Mitchell, a 32-year-old Maryland who came to Philadelphia to participate in protests.

FoxNews.com’s Joseph Weber contributed to this report.

Make America Democrat-Proof

By Leave a Comment

trump_revolutionDemocrats have changed America in a truly dramatic way. After failing in their bid to keep slavery legal in the late 1800s, they came back with several ploys to break down the American way of life, finally diluting the personal protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution by championing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments.

The Sixteenth Amendment allowed the government to take the wealth of individual Americans through the taxation of their income–something specifically disallowed by the founders in the Constitution. Why were the founders against this? Because it takes the power of the purse away and individual decisions from families and citizens, and puts it in the hands of the government. We can see how annual trillion dollar spending to enforce government authority has greatly changed the nature, size and scope of the federal government.

detroit-destroyed-by-democrats

Once the jewel of American cities, Detroit was taken over by Democrats and imploded on its own boat and corruption.

The Seventeenth Amendment eliminated one of the specific checks and balances embedded into the Constitution, to divide power between the two chambers of Congress. The House of Representatives was to be elected by the people, in geographical districts. The Senate, however, was to be elected by the legislatures of the various states, and was to represent the interests of the states. The Seventeenth Amendment changed those checks and balances, rendering the Senate subject to election by the same electors as the House of Representatives. Rather than protect the rights of the states, which are often at odds with the fickle will of the people (especially on bringing home the bacon issues), both chambers of the Congress are now forced to pander for votes from the same constituency–the people–whose votes are easily purchased with their own tax dollars.

With the limitations on the federal government thus lifted, it has increased its power and scope continually, flooding the countryside, businesses and families with federal intrusions. Democrats have infiltrated teachers unions and universities, along with media and the press, all constantly bombarding our American youth with messages that the federal government is the answer to every question and every problem, and that it continually needs more power and money. These institutions simultaneously broadcast that America is evil, and that personal liberty and free enterprise are destructive and unfair to minority groups.

How to De-fund and De-fang Democrat Institutions

At this point we must utilize the opportunities afforded us by the current anti-establishment wave, and do everything in our power to de-fund and de-fang these entrenched institutions. We must:

  1. Eliminate the student loan program and replace it with a federally backed online university program–which halts the leftist indoctrination of our college-age youth and de-funds leftist propaganda universities (see our article “It’s Time to Overhaul Higher Education,” Oct. 25, 2015;
  2. Eliminate teachers’ unions, and support school choice and charter schools for all children;
  3. Eliminate 80% of all federal agencies, and lay off 80% of federal employees, returning them to the workforce to find productive work in the private economy;
  4. Return the federally withheld lands in Western states to those states;
  5. Pass a balanced-budget Amendment, and cut the federal budget by a significant amount.

By eliminating these strongholds of Democrats, we can rid ourselves of the permanent stranglehold they have on our nation.

PUBLIUS

Trump Leads Clinton Nationally by 7 Points: Rasmussen Poll

By Leave a Comment

trump_HillaryDonald Trump has opened up a 7-point lead over Hillary Clinton nationally, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Thursday.

Trump has 44 percent support to Clinton’s 37 percent among likely voters polled by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen. Another 13 percent favor another candidate, and 6 percent are undecided.

Thursday’s survey marks the third week in a row that the presumptive Republican nominee has led Rasmussen’s poll. It shows Trump at his highest level of support in a Rasmussen poll since October.

According to a RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton holds a 3.1-point lead over Trump, 44 percent to 40.9 percent. Most recent polls show Clinton ahead by a small margin, but a CBS News/New York Times poll also released Thursday showed Clinton and Trump tied.

The poll found that voters view Trump and Clinton equally regarding their preparedness for the White House.

Trump has the support of 80 percent of Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats. Clinton has the support of 72 percent of Democrats and just 5 percent of Republicans.

Trump also leads among voters not affiliated with either major party. Among those voters, though, 27 percent prefer another candidate or are undecided.

Trump also leads Clinton by 17 points among white voters and 21 points among men. He also has an advantage over Clinton among voters age 40 and over. Clinton leads by 8 points among women.

The candidates are tied among younger voters.

The survey was conducted among 1,000 likely voters July 12–13. The margin of error is 3 points.

By Rebecca Savransky

The 15th Obamacare Co-Op Has Collapsed, Wasting Many Millions in Taxpayer Funds

By Leave a Comment

OregonHealthCoOp

Another co-op is shutting down, becoming the 15th to do so and bringing the total number of federal loans given to the failed nonprofit insurers to more than $1.5 billion.

Oregon’s Health Co-Op announced last week it will no longer be able to continue operating and will be shutting down. The insurance company is the third in the state to struggle financially and Oregon’s second co-op, following Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, to close its doors.

Oregon’s Health Co-Op’s closure affects more than 20,000 consumers living in the state, and customers have been advised to select new plans by July 31.

“It is with great sadness that I announce Oregon’s Health Co-Op is shutting down its doors immediately,” Phil Jackson, the co-op’s chief executive officer, said in a statement. “The board of directors agreed that it is in the best interests of our members and community that we wind down our operations.”

Oregon’s Health Co-Op was one of 23 co-ops that launched under Obamacare. The co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans, were intended to create competition and choice in areas of the country where consumers had few options.

The 23 co-ops—not including Vermont’s co-op, which never opened its doors—received $2.4 billion in startup and solvency loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The 15 co-ops that have since closed their doors received more than $1.5 billion in loans. The federal government awarded Oregon’s Health Co-Op specifically $56.6 million.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not yet said if the money given to the failed co-ops will be recouped.

Oregon’s Health Co-Op lost $18.4 million in 2015, the bulk of which the nonprofit insurer attributed to high medical claims from its policyholders. The co-op also pointed to money it owes the federal government through its risk adjustment program as delivering the final blow to its bottom line.

The risk adjustment program redistributes money from insurers with healthy customers to those with sicker, most costly customers.

Officials with Oregon’s Health Co-Op expected to receive $5 million from the risk adjustment program. But late last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the co-op would instead owe $900,000.

“The result is a sudden deterioration of the company’s financial position that cannot be sustained and the company must stop doing business,” the co-op said in an announcement to customers.

One other co-op, HealthyCT, also closed its doors because of money it owes through the risk adjustment program. Two others, Maryland’s Evergreen Health and Illinois’ Land of Lincoln Health, have since taken action to prevent the collection of the risk adjustment payments.

Health policy experts expect more co-ops to collapse in the wake of the federal government’s announcement.

Just eight of the 23 co-ops that launched remain.

By By Melissa Quinn

Obamacare

Rep. Corrine Brown (Dem) Indicted in Fraud Case over Charity ‘Slush Fund’

By Leave a Comment

15242797JACKSONVILLE, Fla. –  U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida and her chief of staff have been charged with multiple fraud and other federal offenses in a grand jury indictment unsealed Friday after a federal investigation into a fraudulent charity with ties to the congresswoman.

Brown, a 69-year-old Democrat, was to appear later Friday in Jacksonville federal court on charges of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction and filing of false tax returns. She has represented a Jacksonville-based congressional district since 1993 and is seeking re-election in a newly-redrawn district.

The indictment comes after an investigation into the charity One Door for Education Foundation Inc., which federal prosecutors say was purported to give scholarships to poor students but instead filled the coffers of Brown and her associates.

Also charged in the 24-count indictment was Elias “Ronnie” Simmons, 50, of Laurel, Maryland, who has served as Brown’s chief of staff since 1993. It wasn’t immediately clear from court records whether Brown and Simmons had attorneys to represent them.

Earlier this year, One Door President Carla Wiley pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after it as determined that she had deposited $800,000 into the foundation’s account over four years. Over that time, federal prosecutors say it gave one scholarship for $1,000 and that Wiley transferred herself tens of thousands of dollars.

“Congresswoman Brown and her chief of staff are alleged to have used the congresswoman’s official position to solicit over $800,000 in donations to a supposed charitable organization, only to use that organization as a personal slush fund,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement.

“Corruption erodes the public’s trust in our entire system of representative government,” Caldwell added.

The indictment says that Brown, Simmons and Wiley “used the vast majority” of One Door donations for their personal and professional benefit, including tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits that Simmons made to Brown’s personal bank accounts.

According to the indictment, more than $200,000 in One Door funds were used to pay for events hosted by Brown or held in her honor, including a golf tournament, lavish receptions during an annual Washington conference and the use of luxury boxes for a concert and an NFL game in the Washington area.

Documents previously obtained by The Associated Press from Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer’s office show that he received an invitation bearing the seal of the House of Representatives to a July 13, 2013 golf tournament called the “Corrine Brown Invitational.” It was sponsored by the One Door organization and coincided with a freight and rail industry symposium in Jacksonville.

Potential donors attending the tournament received letters from One Door with Brown’s signature and official House seal asking them to give from $125 up to $20,000 to One Door, according to Wiley’s plea agreement.

The invitation said the donations would benefit a scholarship fund for the Jacksonville chapter of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials, or COMTO, and other charities. Authorities say none of the charities received any of the money raised.

Dallas Sniper who Gunned Down 5 Cops ‘wanted to kill white people,’ Chief Says

By Leave a Comment

Dallas_KillerThe sniper who killed five Dallas police officers Thursday night as they guarded protesters at an anti-police brutality march was angry about recent shootings by police and “wanted to kill white people,” according to authorities.

The Associated Press identified the gunman as Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, who was blown up by a police robot while holed up in a parking garage early Friday morning after negotiations with police broke down.

The murderous rampage was the deadliest day in American law enforcement since 9/11 and prompted President Obama to declare it a “vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement.”

“We’re hurting,” said Dallas Police Chief David Brown in a Friday morning news conference. “Our profession is hurting. Dallas officers are hurting. We are heartbroken. There are no words to describe the atrocity that occurred to our city. All I know is this must stop, this divisiveness betweeen our police and our citizens.”

The protest was one of several around the country, prompted by police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota.

 

Brown said the dead suspect told authorities he was angry about police shootings.

One of the police officers killed has been identified as Dallas Area Rapid Transit Officer Brent Thompson, 43. (LinkedIn)

“He said he was upset at white people,” Brown said. “He said he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers.”

Initial reports said there was more than one sniper, but at the news conference, Brown indicated the dead suspect may have been the sole gunman. Although he told police he was “not affiliated” with anyone else, three others were being held.

The sniper is believed to have fired from a downtown parking garage. (Associated Press)

A woman was taken into custody near the garage and two men reportedly seen packing a camouflage bag into a Mercedes before speeding from the scene were apprehended and detained, the mayor said.

A Dallas police source estimated to Fox News that at least 60 rounds were fired over a “large kill zone.” The source added that the shooting would have required considerable planning.

The suspect was killed when police sent an explosives-equipped robot into the El Centro Community College parking garage to detonate the bomb after negotiations went nowhere, Brown said, refuting earlier reports that the man killed himself. Before he died, he had claimed that explosives had been set around the city, and much of downtown Dallas was locked down while police searched before determining there were no bombs.

“It’s a heartbreaking moment for the city of Dallas,” Mayor Mike Rawlings said. “I ask that everybody focus on one thing right now, and that is Dallas police officers, their families, those that are deceased [and] those that are in the hospital fighting for their lives.”

Obama, speaking from a NATO summit in Poland, said America is “horrified” over the shootings and asked all Americans to pray for the fallen officers and their families. He renewed his calls for more gun control.

“There’s no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any violence against law enforcement,” Obama said, hours after a pre-attack speech in which he cited two racially charged police shootings earlier in the week and called for an end to bias in law enforcement.

One of the cops killed was identified as Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police Officer Brent Thompson, 43. The others were picked off as they stood guard during the protest.

Three other DART officers were wounded, but they are expected to recover, Lyons said. As many as three city police officers reportedly were in critical condition.

Witness Carlos Harris told the Dallas Morning News the gunfire was “strategic. It was tap-tap-pause. Tap-tap-pause.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement saying he has directed the Texas Department of Public Safety director to offer “whatever assistance the City of Dallas needs at this time.”

“In times like this we must remember — and emphasize — the importance of uniting as Americans,” Abbott said.

The protesters had gathered after a Minnesota officer on Wednesday fatally shot Philando Castile while he was in a car with a woman and a child in a St. Paul suburb. The aftermath of the shooting was purportedly livestreamed in a widely shared Facebook video.

A day earlier, Alton Sterling was shot in Louisiana after being pinned to the pavement by two white officers. That, too, was captured on a cellphone video.

Other protests across the U.S. on Thursday were peaceful. In midtown Manhattan, protesters first gathered in Union Square Park. In Minnesota, where Castile was shot, hundreds of protesters marched in the rain from a vigil to the governor’s official residence. Protesters also marched in Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia.

Anti-police protests have roiled the nation in each of the last two summers following controversial police shootings, including the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and last April’s death of Freddie Gray while in custody of Baltimore police.

A Department of Justice investigation cleared the police officer who shot Brown, and, of the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray’s death, two have been acquitted, one’s case was declared a mistrial and three more face trial.

The attack made Thursday the deadliest day for law officers since Sept. 11, 2001, when 72 officers died, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, Casey Stegall, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

7 Key Takeaways From FBI Director’s Hearing on Clinton Email Use

By Leave a Comment

Hillary Clinton testifiesFBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday to further detail the FBI’s yearlong investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and handling of classified information while she was secretary of state.

Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, hastily scheduled the hearing just two days after Comey announced the findings of his agency’s investigation into Clinton and recommended that no criminal charges be filed against her.

Although the FBI ultimately concluded Clinton’s handling of classified information did not warrant criminal charges, Comey criticized her Tuesday for being “extremely careless” in setting up a server in the basement of her New York home and using a private email address.

A spokesman for Clinton said that she was happy the investigation is over.

“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the [Justice] Department is appropriate,” Brian Fallon said in a statement to Politico. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

The FBI’s findings contradicted some of what Clinton has said publicly and to members of Congress regarding her private server and handling of classified information.

Those conclusions left many Republican lawmakers wondering how Comey and the FBI ultimately came to the decision not to recommend criminal charges and ultimately prompted Thursday’s hearing.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Comey was given a “thankless” task in investigating Clinton.

“No matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized,” Cummings said. “In a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial.”

Here are seven of the key takeaways from Comey’s appearance before the Oversight Committee:

1) Comey says there is no basis that Clinton lied to the FBI.

Nearly one year ago, on July 25, Clinton told reporters at a press conference that she was “confident” she “never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

However, during its investigation, the FBI concluded that 110 emails in 52 email chains Clinton returned to the State Department contained classified information when they were sent or received. Eight of those communications contained “top secret” information, 37 received “secret information,” and the rest contained “confidential information,” the FBI said.

Of those emails, a “very small number” had markings identifying them as classified.

During the hearing, Chaffetz questioned whether Clinton lied to the FBI during a three-hour interview that took place Saturday. Though Clinton told the public she never sent or received classified information, Comey said she didn’t lie to the FBI.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey said Thursday.

2) Chaffetz plans to file a referral to the FBI to look into whether she lied to Congress under oath.

While questioning Comey on Clinton’s statements regarding her handling of classified information, Chaffetz asked Comey if the FBI looked into whether the former secretary of state lied under oath about receiving and sending classified information.

During an October hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Clinton about classified information sent in emails stored on her server.

“There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received,” Clinton told Jordan during the hearing.

Comey told Chaffetz that, although he was aware of Clinton’s exchange with Jordan, the FBI hadn’t investigated whether she lied under oath because the agency never received a referral to do so from Congress.

Chaffetz confirmed the committee would send a referral to the FBI to probe Clinton’s testimony.

3) Comey says Clinton’s case is very different from that involving David Petraeus.

Since the FBI’s announcement, many have been pointing to an investigation into former CIA Director David Petraeus’s handling of classified information in comparison with the FBI’s handling of the Clinton matter. Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge after disclosing classified information to his biographer Paula Broadwell.

Cummings, the committee’s ranking member, urged Comey to point out the similarities or differences between Petraeus’s and Clinton’s cases.

“He was caught on audio tape telling [Broadwell], and I quote, ‘I mean, they are highly classified,’” Cummings said.

Comey, though, said the case involving Petraeus “illustrates perfectly the kinds of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute.”

“Clearly intentional conduct. Knew what he was doing was violation of the law,” Comey said of the former CIA director. “Huge amounts of information. If you couldn’t prove he knew it, raises the inference [that] he did it and effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution. A misdemeanor prosecution, but a prosecution nonetheless.”

4) There is no transcript or recording of Clinton’s meeting with the FBI on Saturday, and she wasn’t placed under oath.

Clinton met with the FBI for a three-hour interview Saturday, which Comey said was the agency’s last step before concluding its investigation.

During his testimony before the Oversight Committee today, Comey said he wasn’t involved in Clinton’s interview and admitted there was no transcript or recording of the meeting. Furthermore, Comey said Clinton was not put under oath during her interview with the FBI.

However, Comey stressed that it is still a crime to lie to federal agents.

5) Comey said Clinton isn’t sophisticated in her knowledge of classification systems.

Many of the Republicans questioning Comey wondered how Clinton, whose résumé includes first lady, U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state, would not understand the government’s classification requirements.

“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified information and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., asked Comey.

“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I have to think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

Included in three of the emails found on Clinton’s server were paragraphs marked with a “(c),” indicating that the information referenced was to be treated as classified.

Much of that classified information originated from Clinton’s aides, but was included in emails the former secretary of state sent and received.

Comey said he would have assumed that any “reasonable” person would have known the importance of those markings. However, Comey later concluded he wasn’t sure “whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parentheses means.”

“One of the things I’ve learned is that the secretary may not be as sophisticated as people would assume,” Comey said.

He further noted that Clinton didn’t have a computer in her office at the State Department.

6) Clinton gave people without security clearances access to classified information.

Comey told lawmakers Thursday that Clinton’s personal server set-up exposed people without security clearances to classified information.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

Though the FBI director could not say exactly how many “non-cleared” people had access to that classified information, Comey did estimate it was between two and 10.

Both Chaffetz and Jordan questioned whether Clinton’s lawyers had security clearances and were exposed to that classified information when they were sorting through the emails that would later be turned over to the State Department.

Though Comey said Clinton’s lawyers were among those who were “non-cleared” and accessed classified information, Fallon, spokesman for Clinton, tweeted that the lawyers who sifted through the former secretary of state’s emails had Top Secret-level clearance.

7) Comey contradicted a number of statements Clinton made to reporters and Congress regarding the use of her private email server.

During his line of questioning, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Comey to respond to a number of comments Clinton made over the course of the past year regarding her handling of classified information, some of which he said were found to be untrue throughout the course of the FBI’s investigation.

Comey first confirmed there was information marked classified found on Clinton’s server, despite her reassurances she neither sent nor received any information marked classified.

The FBI director then said that Clinton did, indeed, email classified material, though she in the past said she never did.

Gowdy then asked Comey if Clinton only used one device, as she said she did, to which Comey said she used multiple devices during her tenure as secretary of state.

Gowdy also questioned whether Clinton returned all work-related emails to the State Department. Thousands, Comey said, were not returned and were later recovered by the FBI.

Others were deleted, and traces of work-related emails were found “on devices or in slack space,” Comey said.

“Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system,” he said.

By Melissa Quinn

FBI Director Comey Recommends that DOJ Not Prosecute Hillary Clinton

By Leave a Comment

TPNN-Comey-ClintonIn a statement before the press FBI Director James Comey announces that the FBI is not recommending to the Department of Justice that Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, be prosecuted for her acts in regard to leaving her email communications vulnerable to interception.

Comey cited thousands of emails that were classified, which Clinton made vulnerable through her actions. However, he says that the FBI cannot find “intent” to divulge those materials.

PUBLIUS

What We Celebrate This Day: The Declaration of Independence

By Leave a Comment

jefferson-declarationIN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Former CIA Agent Says Obama Will Not Allow Hillary to be Indicted

By Leave a Comment

Hillary-and-ObamaDespite clear guilt, there is absolutely no chance that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton.

For the past few days, ever since Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators, I’ve observed one political analyst after another discuss the implications of Clinton being indicted.  For the entirety of the 2016 presidential primary season, the controversy regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server has never been far from the headlines.  There can be no doubt that Clinton violated Department of State security policy, but some politicians always seem to swim in a different pond than the rest of us.  I have no hesitation in identifying both Bill and Hillary Clinton as two exceptional “fish”, who in forty plus years of political service have yet to be held accountable for any mess that they have caused or law that they have broken.  As for the analysts who keep reminding us ad nauseam that Barack Obama is the most popular president since George Washington, I do understand the obligation to at least “pretend” that the email server investigative process is not a complete waste of time.  As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sets their sights on separate conventions, the drama and suspense created by the possibility of a major presidential candidate facing an indictment will only increase viewer interest in the 2016 election.  In all seriousness, though, I’m compelled to ask a rhetorical question: does anyone in the United States with the ability to reason at least as well as a housefly, actually believe that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton?

Since Bill Clinton burst onto the scene as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, he and his wife have had their share of controversies.  When she was an attorney at the Little Rock clintonbilllynchlorettaRose Law Firm, Hillary attracted attention with her involvement in the Whitewater real estate deal, and her behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the White House travel office fired and replaced with personal friends just after Clinton took office in 1992 caused a bit of a stir.  As for Bill, we all remember the Lewinsky affair, but what about Paula Jones?  Kathleen Willey?  Does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?  During Bill Clinton’s second term, his association with known money launderers for the Chinese Red Army caused a few raised eyebrows.  Over the years, both Bill and Hillary have associated with campaign donors who end up either in jail or deported.  Forgive me for not getting into the trenches of more recent controversies, including concerns over the Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s vote in support of the Iraq War, and the apparently never-ending issues regarding campaign donations, but I have faith that most of these events will already be familiar.

I have listed but a handful of issues that come to mind.  No doubt the list could be expanded with little effort, but I think I have included a sufficient number of incidents to make my point.  At no time have the Clintons ever been held to account.  Hillary Clinton seriously damaged the lives and reputations of the White House travel office employees in 1993…..no accountability.  She claimed that as Secretary of State, she accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy.  Really?  How?  Bill and Hillary’s involvement with persons who are known to be donors who purchase influence for the Chinese Red Army…….no accountability.  Bill Clinton maneuvers himself into a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when the Attorney General at that time happens to be in charge of investigations not only into Hillary’s personal server and email, but also Bill and Hillary’s “Clinton Foundation”.  We have yet to discover if Bill’s decision to “hop on over” to the AG’s plane will have any lasting negative ramifications, but I doubt it.

At the end of the day, this is a reality we must accept.  Bill and Hillary Clinton live by a different set of rules.  If you have some faith left in our system, that Hillary Clinton will be held responsible for KNOWINGLY violating State Department security protocols, please think again.  Remember who sits in the White House, and just how accountable his Administration has been since 2008.  He will not allow Hillary Clinton to be indicted, regardless of the opinions of the lawyers and experts, and there can be no doubt that Lynch will ensure compliance from the Justice Department.  There is hope, though, that enough people will be enraged to keep the Clintons from another eight-year romp in the White House.  So you don’t like Trump?  Take a good, long look at the alternative.

By Eric Burkhart : http://mukhabaratbaby.blogspot.com


Independence Day 2016: Revolution

By Leave a Comment

america-under-siegeWith the level of the federal deficit approaching $19,000,000,000 (trillions), the interest on which costs Americans the first $1,500,000,000 they make every day, and the recent explosion of federal power over the citizens and the states as handed to U.S. socialists by the Supreme Court, the independence from government rule and tyranny sought by our Founders is all but neutralized. We and our children are indebted and imprisoned by design of a leftist attack on our country.

A polarization has occurred in the nation—as the left has chipped away at personal liberty and individual sovereignty over the past several decades, those who cherish freedom have finally begun to become more vocal in their resistance. But is it too little, too late? The left has made tremendous inroads in their quest to replace King George with its own elitist panels, commissions and czars, and within the past week its inches of ground winning have become feet.

In the name of laborer parity and elevating the ethnically or socially disadvantaged, the socialists and communists of the past century have robbed the people of the world of their birthright, established by the labor and sacrifice of their 18th and19th Century Forbearers. In the name of pretended “fairness” leftist forces have lowered the wealth and opportunities of everyone rather than elevate the status of the less fortunate.

Look at any country where socialism and liberalism have penetrated the veil of liberty. Not one of them has improved the quality of life of their working people.

Where do we find the bottom half of earners in America? With all of the talk of the 1% and the 99% in this country, and the mindless chants of brain-dead occupiers in the streets, even an overtaxed economy like ours has rendered our own 99% the 1% of the world. Nearly all of our poor live in good housing, have clean water and food aplenty, a computer of some kind, and cell phones and cable television. They live better than the royalty of many of the earth’s nations.

Additionally, the tremendous generosity and military might of Americans has been the salvation of billions of people around the world, whose leftist economies have left them with nothing but squalor, want and exposure to dictators and war lords (usually leftists).

We hear of the Tea Party these days, and the name is spoken with disdain by over half of the country, and almost all of the mainstream media. Does any of them actually recall where the term originated? Do they remember how an oppressive monarch imposed taxes that were hard to bear and intruded into the personal liberties of a hardworking people, and that those people finally decided that they would take no more and rose up in rebellion, starting with throwing British tea into the harbor?

No, sadly enough, most young adults these days are the products of a dumbing-down campaign launched by the left and its educational arm, the National Education Association. They have mush for brains and their education consists of nothing more than pop culture and global warming propaganda.

We have nearly come full circle. We have hundreds of millions dependent on government and its handouts, a White House dedicated to the overthrow of the Constitution, and a Supreme Court has decreed that the people are to be taxed even for services they DO NOT purchase at the government’s command.

King George is back, liberty has been strangled to near enslavement, and this time it will take more than a few muskets to rid us of the burgeoning oppression. America has not seen such dark times since the Civil War. I say the Civil War, because in all other wars the enemy was external. If we fail to immediately change our course, we will be irretrievably carried back under the oppression of dictatorship. We invite all liberty loving Americans to join the revolution, and to regain our independence from oppressive, centralized government.

PUBLIUS

House Benghazi Report Slams Clinton and Obama Response to Attacks

By Leave a Comment

Hillary_ClintonA damning report authored by the Republican-led House committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks faulted the Obama administration for a range of missteps before, during and after the fatal 2012 attacks – saying top administration officials huddled to craft their public response while military assets waited hours to deploy to Libya.

The report released Tuesday pointedly blamed a “rusty bureaucratic process” for the slow-moving response the night of the attack. The report said despite orders from President Obama and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to deploy, the first military force did not do so until more than 13 hours after the attack started.

The report said one anti-terrorism security team known as the FAST unit sat waiting for three hours in Rota, Spain, as Marines changed “in and out of their uniforms four times,” and even debated whether they should carry personal weapons, according to one witness. All together, the report said, “it would take nearly 18 hours” for that team to move.

The report described a web of internal debates and hold-ups, including apparent State Department guidance that “Libya must agree to any deployment,” though Panetta would later say Libya approval was not necessary.

While various officials debated how to proceed, U.S. personnel were under attack at two sites in Benghazi.

In the end, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed in the attacks.

CLICK TO READ THE REPORT.

In a stunning detail, the report said the security force that helped evacuate U.S. personnel from the so-called “annex” in the end – “likely saving over two dozen lives,” according to the report – was a unit known as Libyan Military Intelligence composed of former military officers under the Qaddafi regime, which the U.S. helped topple.

The CIA did not know that unit existed. “In other words, some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks,” the report said.

The committee’s work itself was fiercely contested, with Democrats accusing Republican members of trying to politically harm presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks.

Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Americans to “read this report for themselves … and reach their own conclusions.”

At a press conference, Gowdy and other GOP lawmakers lamented that no forces were ordered to Benghazi.

“Nothing was ever coming to Benghazi,” Gowdy said.

Lawmakers contrasted the “heroism” of those on the ground with the discussions in Washington. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., described the D.C. attitude as “near fecklessness.” He said, “They were more concerned about how they’re going to offend the Libyan government than how this rescue is going to take place.”

The findings about the military asset response the night of the attacks contrasted with the relatively robust internal debate over the public narrative regarding the attack – namely, claims that the attacks were sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Watch Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and committee member Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Ind., Tuesday at 6 p.m. ET on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier.”  

The committee report identified for the first time a White House meeting that was convened roughly three hours into the attack and included deputies to senior Cabinet members and Clinton.

Stevens was missing at the time. But the report found “much of the conversation focused on the video (which) is surprising given no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time.”

The report found that “five of the 10 action items from the rough notes of the 7:30 pm meeting reference the video.”

The report also showed that there were top-level calls to have the video removed from the Internet, before any of the forces that were ordered deployed “had actually moved.”

The report, meanwhile, found the video narrative was crafted in Washington by Obama administration appointees and reflected neither eyewitness nor real-time reports from the Americans under attack.

One U.S. agent at the American outpost in Benghazi, whose name was withheld for security reasons, told the committee he first heard “some kind of chanting.”

Then that sound was immediately followed by “explosions” and “gunfire, then roughly 70 people rushing into the compound with an assortment of “AK-47s, grenades, RPG’s … a couple of different assault rifles,” the agent said.

In addition, a senior watch officer at the State Department’s diplomatic security command described the Sept. 11, 2012, strikes as “a full on attack against our compound.”

When asked whether he saw or heard a protest prior to the attacks, the officer replied, “zip, nothing, nada,” according to the Republican majority report.

“None of the information coming directly from the agents on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks mentioned anything about a video or a protest. The firsthand accounts made their way to the office of the Secretary through multiple channels quickly,” the report concluded.

Five days later, then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice went on every national Sunday talk show. She told Fox News Sunday, “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.”

The report also said, “Security deficiencies plagued the Benghazi Mission compound in the lead-up to September 2012.”

Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks.

The committee proposed 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel overseas. Among them were: Figuring out who is in charge in such situations, holding joint training exercises, and improving communication.

The GOP report came after a report by the Democrats on the panel saying that security at the Benghazi, Libya facility was “woefully inadequate” but Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional protection.

Democrats have long slammed the committee’s work as partisan, and Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon repeated that charge Tuesday.

“Far from honoring the four brave Americans who died, the Benghazi Committee has been a partisan sham since its start,” he tweeted.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner defended the department in a written statement issued shortly before the report’s formal release, while saying the “essential facts” surrounding the attacks have been known “for some time.”

“We have made great progress towards making our posts safer since 2012,” Toner said. “… Our implementation efforts include work to expand the corps of Diplomatic Security personnel, enhance interagency coordination to address threat information, expand the Marine Security Guard program, and accelerate projects to build and upgrade secure facilities.”

He said the department “cooperated extensively with the Select Committee,” providing over 50 current and former employees for interviews and over 100,000 pages of documents.

The report, though, said the department “withheld a number of documents from the Committee based on ‘executive branch confidentiality interests,’ an administration-constructed privilege not recognized by the Constitution.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Bret Baier contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Exec Order on Immigration

By Leave a Comment

supreme_Court_ObamaSUPREME COURT’S TIE DECISION BLOCKS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ACTIONS, DELIVERING A VICTORY TO STATES CHALLENGING HIS REPRIEVE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DEPORTATIONS

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants.

The justices’ one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama’s presidency.

The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states’ lawsuit.

The case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

FoxNews.com/The Associated Press contributed to this report.

DC Fed App Court Upholds Obama’s ‘Net Neutrality’

By Leave a Comment

net_neutralityWASHINGTON –  A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the government’s “net neutrality” rules that require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally.

The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a win for the Obama administration, consumer groups and content companies such as Netflix that want to prevent online content from being blocked or channeled into fast and slow lanes.

The rules treat broadband service like a public utility and prevent internet service providers from offering preferential treatment to sites that pay for faster service.

The Federal Communications Commission argued that the rules are crucial for allowing customers to go anywhere on the internet without a provider favoring its own service over that of other competitors. The FCC’s move to reclassify broadband came after President Barack Obama publicly urged the commission to protect consumers by regulating internet service as it does other public utilities.

Cable and telecom opponents argue the new rules will prevent them from recovering costs for connecting to broadband hogs like Netflix that generate a huge amount of internet traffic. Providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T say the rules threaten innovation and undermine investment in broadband infrastructure.

But Judges David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan denied all challenges to the new rules, including claims that the FCC could not reclassify mobile broadband as a common carrier. That extends the reach of the new rules as more people view content on mobile devices.

Judge Stephen Williams dissented in part and said he would have struck down the rules.

The industry had argued that broadband was an information service, and the FCC didn’t have the authority to change in which camp it fell. But the court ruled that the FCC was justified in reclassifying broadband as a telecom utility because consumers see broadband as a pipe for internet service and use it mostly to get to websites and apps.

The same appeals court had previously struck down the FCC’s efforts to enforce net neutrality twice before. The latest decision is expected to be appealed.

Associated Press

Islamic Terror Attack at Orlando Gay Nightclub – 50 Dead, 53 Wounded

By Leave a Comment

gay_orlando_islamic_terrorA gunman who federal authorities say had possible ties to terrorism opened fire early Sunday morning in a packed Orlando nightclub, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more in a bloody scene that ended hours later when police stormed the building and killed the shooter.

Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in Orange County following the attack.

President Obama was set to speak from the White House about the shooting at 1:30 p.m.

The gunman was identified as Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, Rep. Alan Grayson said during a Sunday morning press conference. Mateen was a U.S. citizen, Grayson said, though that was “not true of other family members of his.” Mateen, 29, lived in Fort Pierce, Fla. He was born in New York to parents of Afghan origin and was a Muslim, Fox News confirmed. Mateen was married in 2009 to a woman who was born in Uzbekistan.

A licensed security officer, Mateen also had a Statewide Firearms License, Fox News reported.

 

Authorities were going through Mateen’s belongings on Sunday morning trying to identify a motive for the attack, Grayson said.

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff said on CNN that local police in Orlando told him that Mateen “made a pledge of allegiance to ISIL” and “was heard praying in a foreign language” at some point.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said he was told by Intelligence Committee staff members that there was some connection to ISIS, but nothing could be immediately confirmed.

 

“More likely than not, that it was an ideologically motivated attack,” Grayson said, though he said it was unclear if Mateen was linked to any terror groups.

“It’s not coincidence the attack took place where it did and when it did,” Grayson said.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper said the investigation was looking into possible threats made previously by the suspect in connection to radical Islam groups.

 

Orlando Regional Medical Center called in six trauma surgeons, including a pediatric surgeon, as victims poured in, Dr. Michael Cheatham said. Many of the wounded were “critically ill” due to their injuries, Cheatham said, and the hospital was trying to reach out to their families.

“I think we will see the death toll rise,” Cheatham told The Associated Press.

The shooting in Orlando at Pulse, which bills itself as “the hottest gay bar” in the city and was packed with more than 300 people for “Latin Night,” was reported minutes after 2 a.m. Sunday. In addition to those killed inside the club, at least 53 people were taken to area hospitals. Dozens of partygoers remained hostages in the club for several hours after the initial shooting, prompting SWAT teams to rush inside. Shortly after 6 a.m. local time, Orlando police tweeted that the gunman had been killed.

Authorities said there was not believed to be any further threat to the area.

“This is an attack on our people,” Scott tweeted around 11:40 a.m. “It’s an attack on Orlando. It’s an attack on FL. It’s an attack on America. It’s an attack on all of us.”

Chief John Mina of the Orlando Police Department said officers were initially engaged in a gun battle outside the club before the suspect, armed with a handgun and “assault-type rifle,” went back into the building, where more shots were fired. He said the gunman then took several hostages.

“It appears he was organized and well-prepared,” Mina said.

Officials said Mateen had some communication with police during this standoff, though they did not reveal what was said.

 

At least 9 officers were involved in raiding the nightclub, and one officer was injured, according to Banks. The injured officer was hit by a bullet and his Kevlar helmet saved his life, Banks said.

A hotline for victims’ families was set up at 407-246-4357.

Witnesses in the club reported mass chaos after hearing several shots ring out inside the nightclub.

 

Pulse posted on its own Facebook page around 2 a.m.: “Everyone get out of pulse and keep running.”

Mina Justice was outside the club early Sunday trying to contact her 30-year-old son Eddie, who texted her when the shooting happened and asked her to call police. He told her he ran into a bathroom with other club patrons to hide. He then texted her: “He’s coming.”

“The next text said: ‘He has us, and he’s in here with us,'” she said. “That was the last conversation.”

Jon Alamo said he was at the back of one of the club’s rooms when a man holding a weapon came into the front of the room.

“I heard 20, 40, 50 shots,” Alamo said. “The music stopped.”

Club-goer Rob Rick said it happened around 2 a.m., just before closing time.

“Everybody was drinking their last sip,” he said.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fed 9th Cir Court in San Francisco: No Right to Bear Arms

By Leave a Comment

CA-9th-Circuit-CourtSAN FRANCISCO –  A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.

The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.

 

UCLA Shooter Was Muslim – Entered U.S. On Foreign Student Visa In 2001

By Leave a Comment

sarkar-700x340A Ph.D. gunman crossed a victim off his “kill list” yesterday when he fatally shot a UCLA professor over allegations of stolen code and sparked a campus-wide lockdown in the middle of finals week. Mainak Sarkar, 38, had accused Professor William Klug, 39, of the theft in March 2016. On June 1, Sarkar confronted Klug in UCLA’s engineering complex and shot him dead with a 9mm handgun. Sarkar then took his own life.

The victim was a professor in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, according to his official bio on UCLA’s website.

Sarkar was first named in a report by CBS News. He had a Ph.D. in solid mechanics from UCLA.

The shooting prompted a two-hour lockdown and massive police response at the school, with LAPD Chief Charlie Beck telling the media when it was over, “The campus is entirely contained. We believe there are no suspects outstanding and no continuing threat to UCLA’s campus.”

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Sarkar Had a ‘Kill List’ in His Home in Minnesota & Also Shot His Wife Ashley Hasti Dead There

On June 2, Chief Beck told the L.A. Times that Sarkar had a “kill list” at his home in St. Paul, Minnesota, and had shot a woman dead in her home in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park. The kill list included her name, Klug’s name, and another professor who is thought to be safe. The woman has been named as 31-year-old Ashley Hasti.

It was originally reported that Hasti was Sarkar’s ex-girlfriend, but WCCO-TV is reporting that they were married in 2011. It is not clear if they were still together or had separated.

Beck said the professor was not on campus at the time of the shooting, but it is not known if Sarkar tried to find him before killing himself.

In his press conference immediately after the shooting, UCLA Police Chief James Herren suggested the incident may have been a murder-suicide. KNX reporter Rob Archer tweeted that a suicide note was recovered at the scene. But Chief Beck told the L.A. Times the note listed Sarkar’s home address and requested that someone “check on my cat.” At a later press conference, Beck said there was no reference to suicide in the note.

The kill list led police to check Hasti’s home, where they discovered her body.

Authorities are also trying to track down Sarkar’s 2003 gray Nissan Sentra with Minnesota plates 720KTW. He is thought to have driven from Minnesota to Los Angeles.

The Daily Bruin originally reported that the shooter was a white male who was 6 feet tall. The newspaper added that the shooter was wearing a black jacket and black pants. That was based on a campus police description.

KNX reporter Claudia Peschiutta tweeted that Sarkar was “despondent” over his grades, which prompted the shooting.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Klug was killed inside an office in the engineering complex.

Police recovered two pistols at the scene, along with extra ammunition magazines. Beck told reporters both guns were purchased legally, and at least one was registered to Sarkar.

Investigators later found “extra ammunition and a box for one of two pistols found at UCLA” in Sarkar’s Minnesota home, the Times reports. It is not yet known when or where Sarkar purchased the guns.

CBS News reports that Sarkar has no previous criminal history. But police have not said whether Sarkar had a history of mental health issues.

2. In March 2016 Blog Post, Sarkar Wrote That Professor Klug Was a ‘Sick Person,’ but in 2014 He Thanked Klug & Called Him a ‘Mentor’

In a now-deleted blog post on his WordPress site LongDarkTunnelblog, Sarkar wrote about Professor Klug. On March 10, the shooter was scathing in his criticism of Klug saying:

William Klug, UCLA professor is not the kind of person when you think of a professor. He is a very sick person. I urge every new student coming to UCLA to stay away from this guy…

My name is Mainak Sarkar. I was this guy’s Ph.D student. We had personal differences. He cleverly stole all my code and gave it another student. He made me really sick.

Your enemy is your enemy. But your friend can do a lot more harm. Be careful about whom you trust.

Stay away from this sick guy.

The Los Angeles Times reports that in 2014 in a doctoral commencement booklet, Klug was listed as Sarkar’s advisor, the shooter wrote to Klug, “Thank you for being my mentor.”

A source at UCLA told the Los Angeles Times that Sarkar’s theft claims were “absolutely untrue.” The source added, “The idea that somebody took his ideas is absolutely psychotic” and that Klug “bent over backwards” to help Sarkar finish his dissertation.

Neighbors of Ashley Hasti identified her as the victim found dead in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. The St. Paul Pioneer-Press reports that she was 31-years-old. The LAPD had asked police in the Brooklyn Park area to perform a welfare check on her home.

According to her LinkedIn page, Hasti had been studying at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School, first registering 2012. She got her undergrad there in Asian languages and literature.

A woman named Stacy told the Pioneer-Press that she saw Sarkar in the area around Hasti’s home about a week before the UCLA shooting. She added that she regularly saw cats around the apartment.

KARE 11’s Lou Raguse reports that the home in Brooklyn Park was owned by Hasti’s father and the neighbors were more familiar with him than his daughter.

3. Sarkar Was a Member of Klug’s Research Group at UCLA & Got His Master’s Degree at Stanford After Studying in India

Klug had his own research group at the school. On their website, the Klug Research Group says:

We are primarily interested in theoretical and computational biomechanics. In particular, we are developing continuum and multiscale methods to understand the mechanics of biological structures from the molecular and cellular scales upward. Some of our projects are listed below.

There are six doctoral students involved in the research group, including Mainak Sarkar. On that page, Sarkar is said to have been studying at UCLA since 2006.

According to his LinkedIn page, which has been taken down, Sarkar got his master’s degree at Stanford and also studied aerospace engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur. After that, he apparently returned to the U.S. to work as a research assistant at the University of Texas in 2003 before working as a software developer.

Sarkar also worked for a rubber company named Endurica as an engineering analyst. The Los Angeles Times reports that he left that job in August 2014, according to the company’s president William Mars.

He wrote a glowing tribute to Sarkar on LinkedIn saying:

Mainak is a steady contributor with solid technical skills in FEA and software development. I appreciate the quality of his work, and his careful approach to new problems. He has worked for Endurica in an off-site situation requiring great trust and independence, and he has performed well under those conditions.

Sarkar represented Endurica at a conference in Cleveland in October 2013.

Another of those who provided an endorsement on LinkedIn, Matthew Uy, told the Los Angeles Times that he hadn’t seen Sarkar in years and the Uy felt “pretty disconnected” from the shooter.

In 2010, Mainak was a teaching assistant in an aerospace engineering course at UCLA under Melissa Gibbons.

Klug’s friend Lance Giroux told CBS Los Angeles that, “Kids loved working with him because he was such an easy coach to work with.”

A professor of integrative biology and physiology, Alan Garfinkel, told the Los Angeles Times, “I am absolutely devastated. You cannot ask for a nicer, gentler, sweeter and more supportive guy than William Klug.”

By Paul Farrell

NY Times Caught Lying About Trump

By Leave a Comment

Trump-exA former model who was featured at the center of a lengthy New York Times report that assailed Donald Trump’s treatment of women said Monday that her account was taken out of context, misquoted and “spun” by the Times in order to portray the Republican presidential candidate in a negative light.

“They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump,” Rowanne Brewer Lane told “Fox & Friends.”

Lane briefly dated Trump after the 1990 encounter described in the Times article. But the way she described their relationship and that encounter on Monday was much different than the way it was portrayed in the front-page weekend article that ran under the explosive headline, “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.”

The article opens by describing how Lane, then 26 years old, met Trump at a pool party at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., estate. According to the piece, Trump had barely met her “when he asked her to change out of her clothes.” He gave her a bikini, which she changed into. Lane is quoted as saying, “He brought me out to the pool and said, ‘That is a stunning Trump girl, isn’t it?’”

The Times goes on to describe the incident as “a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew.”

But Lane told Fox News that was not the case.

“He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way,” she said, calling the article “very upsetting.”

“The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story that I was telling came across … that it would not be a hit piece,” she said. “That my story would come across the way that I was telling it … and it absolutely was not.”

Lane said she did in fact meet Trump at that pool party, but said he had simply offered her a swimsuit – she said “okay,” since she hadn’t brought one.

As for Trump’s comment about her being “stunning,” she said, “I was actually flattered” by that, not demeaned. “That’s what I told the Times and they spun it completely differently.”

She described the now-presumptive GOP presidential nominee as a “gentleman” and said she planned to support him in the election.

The Times reporters, meanwhile, defended their story on Monday.

“I think readers of the story can digest what happened to her at Mar-a-Lago,” reporter Michael Barbaro said on CBS’ “This Morning.”

He said, “Recall in my interview with her … she basically expressed that ‘I was taken aback by this.’ And I think that’s how we depicted it.”

“We gathered a variety of voices. And our story is not just Rowanne’s account. It’s the experience of many women,” reporter Megan Twohey said on the same program. According to the article, the reporters interviewed dozens of women who had worked for, dated or interacted with Trump.

In a written statement, a New York Times spokesperson also said: “Ms. Brewer Lane was quoted fairly, accurately and at length. The story provides context for the reader including that the swimsuit scene was the ‘start of a whirlwind romance’ between Ms. Brewer Lane and Mr. Trump.”

Trump, though, took to Twitter to hammer the Times over the piece, following Lane’s comments on Fox News. Trump initially misspelled Lane’s first name as “Roseanne,” before correcting himself.

FoxNews.com

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses