Comey Dismissal Memo Suggests Turf War Between DOJ, FBI

/0 Comments/in , /by

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter detailing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) rationale for calling for the dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey is heavy on professional grievance.

The memo, submitted to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, strongly suggests that officials at the Justice Department felt Comey improperly assumed prerogatives that rightly belong to career prosecutors at DOJ, instigating a bureaucratic turf war that left department officials displeased.

The memo opens with Rosenstein’s conclusion that Comey’s press conference on July 5, 2016, where he announced he would not recommend criminal charges over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, “usurped” the authority of his superiors at the Justice Department.

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.

The use of terms like “usurp” and “supplant” are both arresting and telling, as is Rosenstein’s assertion that Comey effectively “assumed command” of DOJ. This section of the memo argues Comey’s public statements stripped DOJ officials of prosecutorial discretion. In disclosing legal conclusions to the public, the former director foreclosed a number of options for department officials, leaving them little choice but to decline to pursue a case against Clinton. What’s more, the memo also states it was improper for Comey, whose role is restricted to finding facts, to reach any legal conclusions in the first place. (Read more from “Comey Dismissal Memo Suggests Turf War Between DOJ, FBI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undercover Call Shows How Easy It Is to Get a Late-Term Abortion in This US State

/0 Comments/in , /by

A shocking undercover phone call has revealed just how easy it is to get a late-term abortion in New Mexico paid for by taxpayers.

Priests for Life and Abortion Free New Mexico released a recording the call. The groups wanted to determine what it would take to get a third-trimester abortion. They also wanted to know if Medicaid would pay for reasons other than the health of the mother, rape or incest.

The Call

Pro-life activist Tara Shaver called Southwestern Women’s Options, New Mexico posing as a mother who already had children and whose husband recently lost a job. Shaver made clear she was in her third trimester but didn’t want another child. The baby would be too expensive and be a strain on her marriage.

The clinic worker ran through a series of questions determining that neither the woman nor the child had health issues and the woman had prenatal care. Staver was then put on hold so the worker could consult with the abortionist.

After a few minutes, the clinic worker came back on the line and said the abortion could be performed. She then began describing the procedure. The abortion would take several days. The clinic worker explained that the fetus would be euthanized on the first day. The mother would then be dilated and induced. She was told that she’d still be going through labor and deliver a stillborn child.

The mother was also advised that she would need to be observed for a couple more days to recover.

Listen to the harrowing undercover phone call here:

What It Shows

Shaver said that the undercover call proves that late-term abortions are being performed even if the mother isn’t at risk. Late-term abortions are those after 20 weeks gestation. In New Mexico, late-term abortions are legal until 28 weeks. Babies can survive outside the womb as early as 23 weeks. “Our latest call dispels this myth with proof that in New Mexico late-term abortions are easy to come by.” She added that New Mexicans need to know the truth about what is happening in their state.

If that wasn’t bad enough, taxpayers can be made to foot the bill. In a separate call, Shaver told a clinic worker at Southwestern Women’s Options that she was 33 weeks along with a Down’s Syndrome baby. She was told that an abortion could be performed and that Medicaid would cover the charges.

Father Frank Pavone, a member of Priests for Life, said that most Americans do not support abortion on demand. He noted that every baby needed protection. But, “to educate our fellow citizens, let’s start with the most obvious and outrageous part of the story: Taxpayer-funded third-trimester abortions of healthy babies carried by healthy mothers.” (For more from the author of “Undercover Call Shows How Easy It Is to Get a Late-Term Abortion in This US State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Donald Trump Could Teach Ellen DeGeneres About Diversity and Tolerance

/0 Comments/in , /by

OK. I admit it. The title of this article is meant to be catchy. But there’s an important truth I want to convey, which is simply this: tolerance and diversity are two-way streets.

While appearing on The Ellen Show, the Today Show’s Matt Lauer turned the tables and began to interview his host, asking her about her coming out as a lesbian, since this is the 20th anniversary.

He then asked her if she would have President Trump on her show, to which she replied, “No.”

Ellen explained, “Because I’m not going to change his mind. He’s against everything I stand for. We need to look at someone else who looks different than us, and believes in something that we don’t believe in and still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

And for that reason Ellen won’t have him on her show? Look at her reasoning again. She won’t have him on her program because “we need to look at someone else who looks different than us, and believes in something that we don’t believe in and still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

So, Ellen is refusing to sit across from someone who looks different than her and believes in something that she doesn’t believe because we need to be able to sit with those very people? Am I the only one who sees a glaring contradiction here?

Acceptance Through Nonacceptance?

Let’s parse Ellen’s words carefully, not to attack her but rather to probe how tolerant and inclusive our friends on the left really are.

First, she says, “I’m not going to change his mind.”

But is that the criterion for being a guest on her show? That you either agree with her or else must be willing to have your mind changed? How about healthy interaction with those with whom you differ? Isn’t that an important part of tolerance and diversity?

I recently took exception to an article written on the Huffington Post by a humanist journalist. So I wrote an article in response, after which I invited him to join me on my radio show. He joined me earlier this week, and we had a delightful one-hour discussion in the midst of our disagreements. How can discussions like this hurt? What if Ellen, who is obviously a master host, had a civil discussion with the president? Couldn’t we all benefit from that?

Second, Ellen said, “He’s against everything I stand for.”

Perhaps that’s true on several issues. But the president has hardly been an aggressive opponent of LGBT activism. He’s been strong on pro-life issues and has appointed men to his administration like Dr. Ben Carson and Jeff Sessions, both of whom oppose LGBT activism. But Trump has sought to present himself as a friend of the LGBT community, and it appears that Ivanka and Jared Kushner certainly push him in that direction.

I hoped that Trump would take a more conservative stand when it comes to LGBT activism. But it’s hard to understand how Trump is “against everything” Ellen stands for. If they spoke face to face before Ellen’s massive audience, maybe a few areas of agreement would emerge?

Third, how I can tell you that we should be able to sit and talk with those we differ with, only to turn around and say, “I won’t sit and talk with you because we differ”? (I once had a company refuse to work with me because they were “inclusive.” Come again?)

Fourth, Ellen says that when it comes to people who are different than us, we must “still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

Is this, then, Ellen’s way of accepting Trump, by saying she would not have him on her show? (I’m sure this is of no concern to the president, who hardly needs to find a way to get more TV exposure. I’m simply addressing the issue.)

Whose Rights Does Ellen Affirm?

When it comes to people having “rights,” we could obviously debate many aspects of LGBT rights. For example, does a biological male who identifies as a female have the “right” to use the ladies’ bathroom? But right now, President Trump is not campaigning to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage” (again, I would be glad if he did), so I’m still not sure whose “rights” he is opposing.

It would be odd if Ellen wasn’t thinking about LGBT issues at all in her statement, given the immediate context of the interview. The context was her coming out as a lesbian, then asking if she’d have Trump on her show. Perhaps she has caricatured the president even beyond his own caricatured personality?

And when it comes to rights, is Ellen willing to affirm the right of a photographer not to be forced to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony because of deeply held, sacred beliefs? Do Christian conservatives and other people of faith have rights too?

A Good Host — But a Bad Move

This is the kind of discussion that I think Ellen really should have on her show. Why further demonize each other? And as bombastic and combative as Trump can be, he also seems to like sitting face to face with those who differ with him. After all, isn’t that a part of negotiating and deal-making?

There are many reasons why Ellen DeGeneres is so loved by so many Americans. She must have many fine qualities as a human being created in the image of God. The fact that she is so dismissive of the president of the United States that should we not welcome him on her show is a point against her, not for her. (For more from the author of “What Donald Trump Could Teach Ellen DeGeneres About Diversity and Tolerance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former NSA Director James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee this week about the unmasking of surveillance on Trump and his associates. It was part of a congressional investigation into whether Russia interfered in the election. Democrats claim the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election.

The questioning focused heavily on Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor. Flynn was forced to resign after the unmasking revealed he had lied to the vice president about a conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Media coverage of the testimony is focusing on the fact that Trump did not act right away to remove Flynn. But that is only a small part of what was revealed. More importantly, Clapper and Yates did not provide any evidence of collusion with Russia. They also revealed more evidence of the surveillance of Trump’s team.

Unmasking

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked several piercing questions. He asked the two if they reviewed classified documents where Trump or his associates had been “unmasked.” The identities of Americans taped talking to a foreign official are “masked,” unless a request to unmask them is approved.

Clapper and Yates both responded yes, but refused to provide details.

Grassley asked them if they had any evidence that Trump or his associates colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election. Clapper responded no. Yates refused to answer. She added, perhaps tellingly, “Just because I say I can’t answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes.”

Next, Grassley asked, “Did you request the unmasking of Trump, his associates or any members of Congress?” Clapper said yes, but would not disclose any details. Yates said no.

Grassley asked the pair if they know how details of Yates’ conversations were leaked to The Washington Post. They both denied being the source.

Should Michael Flynn Have Been Fired Earlier?

Yates testified that she warned Trump’s White House counsel Donald McGahn about Flynn almost three weeks before Flynn was forced to resign. He was “compromised by the Russians” and “could be blackmailed,” she said.

Surveillance recorded a conversation Flynn had with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak on December 29 about recent U.S. sanctions against Russia. When Vice President Mike Pence asked Flynn about it, Flynn denied discussing the sanctions.

The lie, not the conversation, reportedly led to his resignation. Members of a presidential transition team frequently speak with foreign officials. Yates refused to name what of Flynn’s behavior she thought illegal.

Flynn didn’t resign until 18 days after Yates warned Trump. However, Reince Priebus, Trump’s Chief of Staff, explained on CBS’s Face the Nation in February that the White House legal department “said they didn’t see anything wrong with what was actually said.” When Yates told McGahn about Flynn, he told her that the White House was concerned that taking action might interfere with the FBI probe.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Flynn was forced to resign due to a “trust issue,” not a legal issue. The White House became aware of the lie on Friday, February 10. Flynn was asked to resign the next business day, on Monday, February 13.

Former President Barack Obama told Trump two days after the election not to hire Flynn. In 2014, Obama fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn worked on Trump’s presidential campaign and had been considered as a running mate. Spicer dismissed the warning as “sour grapes” from a “sore loser.”

Was Surveillance Really Just Part of ‘Incidental Collection?’

When Yates was asked whether Flynn was unmasked due to “incidental collection,” she declined to answer. Nor would she reveal whether anyone had asked to unmask Flynn. She said answering the question would reveal classified information.

Members of Trump’s transition team were reportedly caught in surveillance of foreign officials. Trump maintains that he was subject to surveillance. The Obama administration insists it was routine surveillance of Russians, who happened to be speaking with Trump and his associates.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has asked the House Intelligence Committee to disclose whether the Obama administration conducted surveillance on him or other members of Congress. He said an anonymous source told him it occurred. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, was caught in a lie about unmasking Trump or his associates. At first she denied having any role in unmasking. After evidence emerged showing otherwise, she admitted she requested unmasking. She has refused to testify before Congress.

Republicans also questioned Yates about her refusal to enforce Trump’s travel ban. Yates was fired after refusing to enforce the ban. Judicial Watch is suing for Yates’ emails. (For more from the author of “Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A 2016 Election Battleground State Is Investigating Potential Voter Fraud

/0 Comments/in , /by

New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate race was decided by little more than 1,000 votes in November, while the spread between the top two presidential candidates was fewer than 3,000 votes.

While 458 potentially fraudulent votes aren’t enough to have changed the outcome of either race, the questionable votes prompted an investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office and legislation to reform the state’s same-day voter registration.

“It’s not enough to change the result of the national level races, but it could impact state or local races that are often decided by just one vote,” New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan told The Daily Signal.

Though New Hampshire is a small state, its House of Representatives has 400 members—the largest state legislative body in the United States.

While President Donald Trump and some other Republicans have said voter fraud occurred in last year’s elections, it wasn’t a conservative outlet that turned up inconsistencies in New Hampshire.

A public records request by New Hampshire Public Radio determined that 5,903 New Hampshire voters registered on Election Day using an out-of-state ID under the state’s same-day voter registration law.

To register to vote with an out-of-state ID, a person must show documented evidence of living in New Hampshire. In lieu of that, voters may sign a legal document affirming their address, under penalty of prosecution if they lie. For confirmation, election officials send a letter to that address after the election.

The New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office sent out a total of 6,033 letters to people who voted in New Hampshire without proof of a domicile in the state (including but not limited to same-day registrants), according to a follow-up report by NH1 News Network.

Of those, 458 letters came back as undeliverable. This is the evidence of potential voter fraud. New Hampshire has 984,920 registered voters.

In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Scanlan said that after the letters came back as undeliverable, the office sent the matter to the state Attorney General’s Office for investigation as required by law.

“Just because these were undeliverable doesn’t mean they were illegal votes. We’re seeking further investigation to find out,” Scanlan said.

No update is available, New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Brian Buonamano told The Daily Signal, and the office continues to review the information.

Attorney General Joseph Foster and Secretary of State William Gardner both are Democrats.

The Republican-controlled state Senate passed a measure 14-9 on March 30 reforming the same-day voter registration system.

The legislation would require a same-day registrant to provide a document showing he or she lives or plans to live in New Hampshire for more than 30 days.

Documentation could include real estate contracts, leases, school enrollment forms, or utility service agreements. A false statement could lead to a fine of up to $5,000.

If passed, the bill would continue to allow people to vote without proof, but they would have to fill out an affidavit promising to provide proof within 10 days. This shifts some of the burden to the voter who lacked necessary ID, rather than local election officials who currently have to send the confirmation letter within 90 days of the election.

“The thrust of this bill does not change same-day voter registration,” state Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester, vice chairman of the Election Law and Internal Affairs Committee, told The Daily Signal. “This is about making sure folks who vote here do live here.”

Under the legislation, the local election supervisor would seek to verify a voter’s address. The official would first use available public documents. If the official is unable to verify the voter’s location, the official will remove the name from the voter rolls and send the matter for review by the Secretary of State’s Office.

Republicans control the state’s House of Representatives, and Gov. Chris Sununu also is a Republican, so the political climate favors the legislation. However, the bill faces opposition from national groups.

Amy Busefink, a national voter registration director for Project Vote, an organization opposing voter ID laws, wrote that the bill “will make registering to vote more difficult for students and low-income people.”

Busefink said the bill “proposes steep penalties and issues the threat of criminal investigations that can deter or intimidate voters—especially those who may not have physical proof of domicile because they recently moved—from registering and voting.”

The legislation clearly is needed given what’s known about New Hampshire elections, argued Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that advocates stronger voter integrity measures.

“Those votes were cast and still count. That 458 [questionable votes] only reflects the addresses that were undeliverable, it doesn’t reflect the potential fake names that might have been provided,” Churchwell told The Daily Signal. “There could be more who gave a good address and name, it just wasn’t theirs. How many voters might have come from Massachusetts? We don’t know.” (For more from the author of “A 2016 Election Battleground State Is Investigating Potential Voter Fraud” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Considers Expansion of America’s Longest War. What That Means.

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an early test of his foreign policy, President Donald Trump is facing a decision on whether to contribute thousands of additional U.S. troops to America’s longest-running—and often overlooked—war.

As first reported by The Washington Post, Trump’s senior military and foreign policy advisers recommend that the president send 3,000 to 5,000 more troops to bolster an existing U.S. force of 8,400 in Afghanistan and help that country’s government gain momentum in a 15-year war against the Taliban, the Islamist insurgent group.

Experts who study the Afghanistan War say the plan is designed to break a stalemate in the fighting, and to pressure the resurgent Taliban to negotiate a peace agreement with the Afghan government.

These experts, in interviews with The Daily Signal, say the proposed strategy does not represent a dramatic U.S. escalation to a war in which America once committed 100,000 troops.

But they say if Trump were to approve the plan—he’s expected to make a decision before a May 25 NATO meeting in Brussels—it would challenge the president’s evolving foreign policy doctrine. That doctrine has trended toward a narrow counterterrorism-first approach rather than deep commitments to overseas conflicts.

“My best guess is [Trump’s advisers] are looking to at least stop the bleeding in Afghanistan at the moment,” Bill Roggio, who edits the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “They are also doing what they think they can get away with and what is politically acceptable. There is not a lot of support in the American public, and among members of Congress, for a significantly deeper U.S. commitment to the Afghanistan War.”

Roggio said he did not think the additional troops would fundamentally change the situation in Afghanistan, where more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died and another 20,000 have been wounded.

“The Taliban have had momentum for several years now,” Roggio said. “They have weathered a full surge of U.S. forces. The Afghan security forces have not been able to hold the gains. So I don’t think an incremental increase in troops will affect the situation all that much.”

‘Rise From the Dead’

Yet Roggio and others say an extra U.S. presence could reverse declines in the security situation in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama, who had pledged to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, steadily reduced the American role, but did not completely pull out troops due to a number of security challenges.

The Taliban is gaining territory. Reuters reports the Islamist group controls 40 percent of the country, and that casualties for government forces reached record levels last year. In addition, the terrorist group al-Qaeda has established new footholds in Afghanistan, the country it used to plan the 9/11 attacks. And ISIS also has established a small presence in Afghanistan.

“Afghanistan is not the only place, and even the most important place at any given time [for U.S. interests],” Michael O’Hanlon, director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But as we have seen with the Taliban surge, and ISIS gaining a foothold there, it’s pretty clear this area has an ability to allow bad guys to rise from the dead. You want a sustained presence in Southeast Asia as the easternmost pillar in the counterterrorism capacity of the United States.”

‘Not a Surge’

Currently, American forces in Afghanistan have two primary missions: advising and training Afghan forces and conducting counterterrorism missions, including a recent raid that killed the leader of ISIS’ affiliate there, Abdul Hasib.

According to The New York Times, the new Trump administration plan would allow American advisers to assist a larger number of Afghan forces, and work closer to the front lines. Under the proposal, the U.S. would also not set a firm deadline for withdrawing troops, as Obama did.

“This is not a surge,” said James Jay Carafano, vice president for foreign and defense policy at The Heritage Foundation, who advised Trump’s transition team. “This is still going to be an Afghan-led thing.”

Carafano, a retired Army officer, added:

It’s not a dramatic expansion of the conflict where we go in there and say we will win once and for all. It’s about how we get to conditions on the ground that keep Afghanistan on a path to stability. That’s what’s driving the troop numbers.

Others say the Trump administration risks being stuck in a middle-ground position, with little realistic chance for new peace talks unless both sides make concessions.

The challenges for peace are exacerbated at a time when Afghanistan’s security leadership faces allegations of corruption, and the Taliban has shown little inclination to make concessions.

The Taliban also has been buffered by support from Iran and Russia, while Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, continues to provide a safe haven for militant groups.

Testifying before Congress in February, Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the top American commander in Afghanistan, called for a “holistic review” of policy toward and financial aid for Pakistan.

“It’s always been a close call on its merits, on whether it’s worth waging war in Afghanistan or not,” Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

You can still make a reasonable case for it and against it. I don’t think this is a hopeless situation. It’s not crazy to suppose we can get a compromise settlement. But that requires we get serious about this, which includes the Trump administration owning this process and expending political capital to build a constituency to support it.

Guarding Against ‘Catastrophic Events’

Rebecca Zimmerman, a policy researcher at RAND Corporation who focuses on Afghanistan, sought to downplay expectations for what an enhanced U.S. presence in the country could do.

She says U.S. support is most needed to prevent collapse of the Afghan government, which would make the country an ungoverned space to be exploited by extremist groups.

“The biggest threat to the U.S. is government collapse in Afghanistan,” Zimmerman told The Daily Signal. “If that happens, there is a likelihood of a multiparty civil war, and the countryside will be open to anyone who wants to plant a terrorist flag there. If we can support the Afghan forces to guard against catastrophic events that can fell the government, we would be using those troops effectively.”

With no near-term endgame, Roggio of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies says it’s fair to question whether the U.S. should continue to supply troops and funding — about $23 billion annually — to the Afghanistan War.

But he says walking away from Afghanistan would present immeasurable costs.

“It’s never wrong to question why we are still at war 15 years later,” Roggio said. “We should be asking hard questions about why we are sending service members to die. But it would be massive victory for jihadist groups across the world if the U.S. decided to pull out of Afghanistan.” (For more from the author of “Trump Considers Expansion of America’s Longest War. What That Means.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Veteran Justice Department Officials Weigh Need for Special Prosecutor in Russia Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey gave more fodder to Democrats, many of whom were already calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, is unsure this case measures up to past cases involving special prosecutors.

“Usually, there is some intractable conflict where the Justice Department is unable to do its job,” Whitaker, now the executive director for the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a watchdog group, told The Daily Signal.

“It’s not so much about the level of evidence or the sensibilities of the case,” he continued. “It’s about the confidence in the system.”

In the past, administrations have named special prosecutors that could conduct an investigation independent of the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch. This is usually the case when there is consensus that the Justice Department cannot objectively investigate a matter, or can’t assure public trust that the probe was done without bias.

Under President Bill Clinton, an independent counsel was named to investigate the Whitewater matter, which eventually led to the investigation of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. After President George W. Bush took office, and the independent counsel statute had expired, the administration named a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged leak of a CIA operative’s name.

Whitaker said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is highly respected. Rosenstein, who recommended to Trump that Comey be fired, will ultimately oversee any Justice Department probe into the Trump campaign and Russia because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any investigation that could relate to the 2016 election.

However, Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor who worked for special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, believes this case is ripe for an independent view.

“This is a classic example for the need of a special prosecutor,” Akerman, who later became the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, told The Daily Signal. “It’s extremely serious when there is Russian interference in an election and the possibility that one of the candidates was in cahoots with the Russians.”

Democrats and critics of the Trump administration allege that the firing came as a result of Comey stating the FBI is investigating potential Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Wednesday that every investigation that was going on Monday is going on today.

“There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Sanders told reporters.

While Sanders said the administration welcomes the investigation, she said a special prosecutor isn’t necessary because the House, the Senate, and the Justice Department are all separately investigating the matter.

When Trump met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the White House, a reporter asked, “Why did you fire Director Comey?”

Trump responded: “He wasn’t doing a good job. Very simply. He was not doing a good job.”

He was also asked if this affected his meeting Wednesday at the White House with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He answered, “Not at all.”

During the press briefing, a reporter asked a question about Trump meeting with Kissinger and a Russian official at a time when Democrats are talking about Russian ties and making President Richard Nixon comparisons. Sanders said the two meetings were planned well in advance.

Previous administrations, including independent counsel Ken Starr during the Clinton administration and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during the George W. Bush administration, expanded their investigations beyond the original topic of inquiry.

Both former federal prosecutors say that doesn’t have to be the case.

“The more narrow, the better,” Akerman said. “The scope of this shouldn’t expand beyond possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”

Whitaker said past precedents demonstrate why an administration would be concerned about naming a special prosecutor to any case.

“The investigations can go far afield if the prosecutor is outside the regular chain of command, so, that’s viewed as a risky proposition,” Whitaker said. “But the investigation can be narrowly focused.”

This isn’t a matter that needs an independent investigation if the FBI has the proper resources to look into the matter, said Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director.

“What would make me feel better is knowing that the FBI will get every tool they need to explore the scope of Russian interference,” Hosko, now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, told The Daily Signal. “I think Congress is a pile of politics and hypocrisy and is incapable of investigating this.” (For more from the author of “Veteran Justice Department Officials Weigh Need for Special Prosecutor in Russia Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Confirms Trump’s Nominee to Lead Food and Drug Administration

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate confirmed Dr. Scott Gottlieb to lead the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, filling in the list of presidential appointments at the Department of Health and Human Services.

President Donald Trump’s nominee for commissioner of food and drugs was confirmed by a vote of 57-42.

As commissioner of the FDA, Gottlieb, a physician, will report to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and oversee the regulatory and approval process for new drugs.

Gottlieb was a senior FDA administrator under former President George W. Bush, and has advised the Department of Health and Human Services on health IT policy. He has written extensively on drug and health reform topics for a variety of journals and newspapers, and practiced internal medicine for many years.

Like other Trump nominees, Gottlieb has criticized the agency he will now lead. He once decried the “harmful culture” as damaging to the agency’s core mission. (For more from the author of “Senate Confirms Trump’s Nominee to Lead Food and Drug Administration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Colossal Pedophile Ring Busted, 900 Arrests, 300 Kids Saved — Corporate Media Ignores It

/0 Comments/in , , /by

After a nearly two-year investigation, 870 suspected pedophiles have been arrested across the world, and least 259 sexually abused children have been identified in the wake of major underground online global pedophilia network being taken down, according to the FBI and European authorities.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Europol announced the arrests on Friday, only days after a court sentenced Florida-based Steven Chase, founder of the so-called Playpen pedophilia network, to 30 years in prison.

The arrest of Chase in December 2014 was the impetus for a global probe into the users of the members-only forum, which culminated in the nearly 900 arrests.

Unsurprisingly, this massive pedophile bust has failed to crack the pervasive US media censorship regime, as not a single mainstream corporate media source in the United States has reported on this story. Perhaps, within those 900 sickos, there are some folks who have enough power not to let their names out.

According to a report by German media conglomerate, Deutsche Welle:

Playpen was accessible in what is known as the “darknet,” where internet users can engage in illegal activities using encryption and anonymity software in an effort to hide their identities. The secret network allowed anonymous users to engage in a forum where they could share photos and videos showing the sexual abuse of children.

As part of its investigation, called “Operation Pacifier,” the FBI managed to use to malware to seize the Playpen website and server, which allowed authorities to track and identify Playpen users.

Law enforcement authorities then took over the network and operated the pedophile site for several weeks – technically making them facilitators of child pornography themselves — hacking and tracking users of the site by installing malware onto their computers.

And while virtually everyone applauds the arrest of pedophiles, civil libertarians have pushed back as to the legality and manner in which the FBI operated, rightly claiming that a single search warrant should not allow law enforcement to hack into and search over 1,000 computers, according to comments made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) regarding “Operation Pacifier.”

“The warrant here did not identify any particular person to search or seize. Nor did it identify any specific user of the targeted website,” the EFF said. “It did not even attempt to describe any series or group of particular users.”

In a statement Friday, Steven Wilson, head of Europol’s European Cybercrime Center, said the case demonstrated how law enforcement needs to use such methods to fight criminals who can hide behind online anonymization and encryption programs.

“We need to balance the rights of victims versus the right to privacy,” he said. “If we operate by 19th century legal principles then we are unable to effectively tackle crime at the highest level.”

Essentially, Wilson is trying to claim there is virtue in giving up liberty for safety – a complete and utter fallacy of the highest order – but which underpins the rise of the ever-growing global police state that is built upon a framework of an unflinching military-intelligence-industrial complex with imperial ambitions.

Make no mistake that this is just the latest case to emerge in what is now being dubbed #PedoGate. #PedoGate refers to the increasingly common recognition of international pedophile rings, which has previously been steadfastly covered up by the Western fourth estate.

Speaking to the scope of the problem, after President Trump held a press conference in February, in which he detailed his plans to go after the victims of the “human trafficking epidemic,” former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney weighed in on the subject, noting that going after child predators will lead to the downfall of both Republicans and Democrats in the United States — as this problem goes all the way to the top.

As the Free Thought Project has consistently pointed out, pedophilia among the global power-elite is rampant.

In February, the Free Thought Project reported that the police chief recently came forward and confirmed that the former Prime Minister of England, Sir Edward Heath, had raped dozens of children. The department also noted how those within the government helped cover up these crimes.

We previously reported on the high-profile elite pedophilia scandal that gripped the U.K. – with its thousands of victims – being unceremoniously swept under the rug, which is indicative of the scope and breadth of the actual problem. In fact, the problem is so rampant in England that officials issued an order last month to stop naming streets and landmarks after local heroes and politicians because they could later be exposed as pedophiles.

In the case of the U.K. Inquiry, historical abuse of thousands of children by politically connected elites, celebrities, and politicians was brought to light — with an official inquiry being started — only to have the inquiry “crumble” after heavy pressure was exerted by highly placed power brokers within the U.K. establishment.

This was almost the exact same scenario as what took place in the United States in what became known as the Franklin child sex ring coverup — which involved high-level Republicans during the George H.W. Bush administration. Once the FBI took over the investigation from state authorities, it turned into a witch hunt to persecute the child victims – going so far as to charge them with perjury in a successful attempt to scare the other 70+ victims to recant their testimony regarding the child sex ring.

While the story received a small measure of newspaper coverage, there was a complete blackout of the scandal by the mass media, thus most Americans have never heard about this scandal that reached all the way to the White House.

Domestically, there are relatively few high-level arrests, as anytime ‘the elite’ are mentioned alongside the term ‘pedophile,’ the Praetorian guard, aka the corporate media, shout down all those who dare pose any questions about those in power abusing the most vulnerable among us.

For example, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, a known serial child rapist, was never charged for his numerous crimes against children, which the FBI knew about, and had evidence of, for over a decade.

According to FBI whistleblower and Newsbud Editor-in-Chief, Sibel Edmonds:

Since 1996 the FBI has had tons of information on Hastert which was gathered in Chicago by the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. The incriminating criminal evidence in those files range from bribery, extortion, fraud, money laundering and embezzlement, to sexual crimes against minors and participation in foreign-operated drug operations.

Since 1997 the FBI has had much hard evidence on Hastert gathered by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The documented deeds range from espionage to foreign bribery.

But that’s not all. The FBI also has had hard data on Hastert’s sexual violations outside the United States. The involved countries include Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey and Morocco, among others. This also included sexual favors as means of foreign bribery. Interestingly, the CIA had been documenting those sexual activities for many years, and not only on Hastert but on many others; elected and appointed.

Edmonds has noted that the intelligence apparatus utilizes the damning information they maintain on these public officials’ pedophilic activities as a means controlling public policy decisions from the shadows. The fact that Hastert rose to Speaker of the House, when it his activities were well documented by the FBI and CIA highlights precisely to how intelligence services utilize total information awareness to influence and control elected officials.

Additionally, NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who was a key source in the 2005 New York Times report, which blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping, has publicly confirmed the targeting – and blackmailing – of top government officials and military officers, including Supreme Court Justices, highly-ranked generals, Colin Powell and other State Department personnel.

In an appearance on Edmond’s Boiling Frogs Post blog, Tice stated that he held NSA wiretap orders targeting numerous members of the U.S. government, including one for a young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

In the summer of 2004, one of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a forty-some-year-old senator from Illinois. You wouldn’t happen to know where that guy lives now would you? It’s a big White House in Washington D.C. That’s who the NSA went after. That’s the President of the United States now.

Tice added that he also saw orders to spy on Hillary Clinton, Senators John McCain and Diane Feinstein, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus, and a current Supreme Court Justice.

How much information on pedophilia and child pornography does the deep state have on all these politicians like they had on Hastert? Is it not possible, indeed, likely, that the shadow state maintains this information on individuals for the sole purpose of controlling them?

Make no mistake that illegal spying and wholesale collection of American data allows for that very control system whereby the elected officials, who appear to be in control of our state apparatus, are nothing more than a puppets who are blackmailed over their depraved pasts and bribed by the unelected power centers that pull the strings from the shadows. (For more from the author of “Colossal Pedophile Ring Busted, 900 Arrests, 300 Kids Saved — Corporate Media Ignores It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Prosecutors Cheat Justice to Protect Aliens

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s an outrageous new phenomenon in the criminal justice system: local prosecutors giving special treatment to illegal (and legal) aliens.

Michael Daly graphically illustrates the problem of prosecutors failing to prosecute in his Daily Beast story about Abhishek Gattani, an alien computer industry executive in Silicon Valley. Despite repeated, iPhone-recorded domestic abuse of his wife, Gattani got a special deal from local prosecutors. Why? According to the prosecutor in the case, Steve Fein, it is because his boss, Santa Clara County district attorney Jeff Rosen, wants to ensure that Gattani doesn’t get deported because of his immigration status.

This is the same Santa Clara County that sued the Trump administration and obtained a district court injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing its new rules that bar giving Justice Department and Homeland Security grants to sanctuary jurisdictions like Santa Clara County. Apparently, the county really wants to make sure that domestic abusers and other criminals stay in Santa Clara County rather than get sent back to their home countries.

Gattani was facing his second felony domestic violence charge. He was arrested the first time when a postman saw him punching his wife outside their home and called the police. More recently, his wife and victim, Neha Rastogi, actually recorded the audio of her beating on her iPhone.

It makes for painful listening. One can hear Gattani repeatedly calling his wife a “bitch” and repeatedly hitting her in the presence of their infant daughter. Rastogi also has a second recording, made a month later, in which Gattani tells her he would like to see her murdered.

Gattani pleaded “no contest” to the charge. Yet the prosecutor reduced the charge from felony assault to accessory after the fact, along with a misdemeanor charge of “offensive touching.” Fein tried to defend his actions by claiming that being an accessory after the fact was still a felony charge and therefore a fair resolution of the case. But because this is not a charge involving violence, it would no longer put Gattani at risk of being deported back to India. In fact, according to Fein, if Gattani carried out the very light terms of his sentence recommended by Fein – only 30 days in custody, served on weekends, and three years of probation, even the felony charge will get reduced to a misdemeanor with no objection from the prosecutor.

The Daily Beast reports that his victim is not at all happy about this “resolution.” Rastogi wonders how someone who is arrested for a crime can be charged with being an accessory after the fact without being charged with the crime itself. And she is particularly offended that being beaten was treated as only “offensive touching.” In her victim statement, she said she felt “FOOLED, disgraced and ridiculed as a victim.”

Prosecutors are charged with administering justice objectively and without bias. That includes taking into account the severity of the crime and the injuries suffered by a victim. Reducing the charges against a criminal because of who he is in society, as opposed to the exact circumstances surrounding the crime, is morally wrong and offensive to the rule of law.

We would all think it wrong if two criminals who committed the exact same crime and inflicted the exact same injuries were treated differently because one was a poor, working-class individual and another was a white-collar executive at a big company.

What is happening in Santa Clara is just as bad.

The county powers that be are giving a domestic abuser a break because he is not a citizen. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently criticized such behavior when it was reported that the acting district attorney in Brooklyn, New York, Eric Gonzalez, issued similar instructions to his prosecutors to avoid leveling charges that might lead to deportation. The chief deputy state’s attorney in Baltimore, Michael Schatzow, the Baltimore Sun reports, has also given such a directive to his prosecutors, telling them to think twice before they charge aliens with non-violent crimes in order to prevent “potential collateral consequences” – like deportation.

Sessions found it disturbing that prosecutors would “openly brag about not charging cases appropriately – giving special treatment to illegal aliens to ensure these criminal aliens aren’t deported from their communities.” Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., called it shameful that the Baltimore prosecutor “is unwilling to enforce the law against illegal aliens who commit crimes in the United States.”

These prosecutors are deliberately discriminating against American citizens. As Sessions said, they are “advertis[ing] that they will charge a criminal alien with a lesser offense than presumably they would charge a United States citizen. It baffles me.”

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. A well-connected former career prosecutor recently told me that he has been hearing complaints from his prosecutor friends around the country. They have been prohibited from notifying federal immigration authorities about felons they are prosecuting who happen to be illegal immigrants, prohibited from speaking to the media about recidivist illegal immigrant felons, and in some cases prohibited from requesting immigration removal proceedings to commence against convicted felons who are in the country illegally.

The consequences of this kind of reckless behavior are all too predictable. Aliens will have criminal charges reduced or eliminated for purely political reasons. They will be let loose back into society even sooner, with the repeat offenders among them able to victimize even more residents of their community.

And that is all but guaranteed to happen. A 2011 GAO study reviewing the criminal histories of 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons found they had been arrested nearly 1.7 million times – for close to three million criminal offenses.

Apparently, prosecutors in Santa Clara County, Baltimore, and Brooklyn want to make sure that this crime spree continues. (For more from the author of “When Prosecutors Cheat Justice to Protect Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.