VIDEO: ABC Debate Covering President Trump’s Accomplishments

A live debate recapping President Trump’s 1st year of accomplishments on ABC. Debate featured Republican State Committeeman Christian Ziegler and prominent local Democrat Frank Alcock. The debate was heated at times, but covered a lot of the WINNING that has been going on.

Click on a topic below to jump to that portion of the debate:

1:15Discussing The Positive Effects Of Trump’s Tax Reform Bill  
4:07Defining Trump’s Legislative Accomplishments & The Media’s Bias 
5:54Russia, Russia, Russia, Democrats Can’t Stop Talking Russia
8:29“Purging” The Deep State 
12:13Trump Foreign Policy Successes 
14:10ISIS Being Exterminated By Trump, Mattis And Our Brave Armed Forces
15:47Jeff Flake & Establishment Grasping To Maintain Control & Power

Supporting Documents:

Download President Trump’s Top 10 Accomplishments Of 2017

Featuring:

  • Tax reform
  • Cutting regulations
  • Appointment of judges
  • Exterminating ISIS
  • Much, much more.

Download Your Copy Now

44 Page Comprehensive List of President Trump’s Accomplishments In 2017

Featuring President Trump’s Successes In:

  • Record economic growth
  • Cracking down on illegal immigration
  • Restoring law & order
  • Putting America First around the globe

Download Your Copy Now

RELATED ARTICLE: 138 things Trump did this year while you weren’t looking – Politico

Cutting Through the Media’s Falsehoods About ‘Dreamers’

When members of Congress battled over the budget, some threatened to block funding unless Congress provided amnesty to illegal alien Dreamers who benefited from President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump announced he is ending.

Conscientious members of Congress should not give in to this threat. Amnesty will encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act did.

That bill provided citizenship to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Yet by 1995, another 5.7 million illegal aliens were residing in the U.S. Many of them crossed the border to join their newly legalized friends and family. Others, no doubt, believed that since the U.S. provided amnesty once, it would do so again.

However Congress decides to deal with Dreamers, it should be based on the real demographics of the DACA populace, not the glamorized image typically presented by the media.

Watching television reports concerning Dreamers, one would think that the DACA program applied only to college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally.

We are led to believe that most are so fully Americanized that they would now have trouble speaking their native language and are all but ignorant of their birth countries’ cultural norms. Thus, we are supposed to believe returning them to their native lands would be a cruel hardship.

In fact, many DACA beneficiaries came here as teenagers. All were eligible for the program as long as they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday. By that time, there is no doubt that they spoke the language of their native countries fluently and knew their culture intimately.

DACA had no requirement of English fluency, as evidenced by the application form that had a space to list the translator used to complete the form.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”

Unfortunately, many Dreamers are poorly educated. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults. And while military service could also qualify an illegal alien for DACA, out of the current 690,000 DACA beneficiaries, only 900 are serving in the military.

The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.

This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliation.

Even if a random background investigation produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA if he wasn’t convicted.

Thus, it seems that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries have serious limitations in their education, work experience, and English fluency. What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to function in American society without being substantial burdens to U.S. taxpayers?

Without changing the sponsorship rules, any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit beyond the immediate DACA beneficiaries. Giving lawful status to Dreamers will allow them and their families to profit from illegal conduct.

History shows that providing amnesty will attract even more illegal immigration and won’t solve our enforcement problems. Congress shouldn’t even consider such relief unless and until we have a sustained period of concentrated enforcement that stems illegal entry and reduces the illegal alien population in the U.S.

Congress should instead concentrate on providing the resources needed to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

EDITORS NOTE: This column was originally published by The Washington Times. The featured image of a protester partaking in a demonstration in support of DACA outside the U.S Capitol. (Photo: Alex Edelman/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Hi Daily Signal Reader:

We hope you enjoyed this article.

The Daily Signal exists to be a trusted alternative to biased mainstream media. We take pride in delivering the truth about what is happening in Washington and how it affects your life.

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and for good reason. Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, the liberal slant of many major media outlets has been exposed.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts believe you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington–and they rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

As time runs out for December, will you make a donation to make sure we can continue to bring you the truth in 2018?

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts—and it will advance our mission to help all Americans understand what must be done to save our country.

Supreme Court Tellingly Rejects Lower Court Roadblock to Elimination of DACA Program

On Dec. 20, in an unsigned, four-page opinion, the Supreme Court struck down a lower court order that severely burdened efforts by the Trump administration to end the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has shielded certain younger illegal aliens from deportation.

This is good news, a helpful sign that the Supreme Court will not give unelected judges carte blanche to hamstring the federal government’s legitimate efforts to enforce immigration law restrictions, consistent with the current statutory law.

Continuation of DACA offends the rule of law. As Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky has explained, DACA should be eliminated as a matter of law:  “Why? Because the president doesn’t have the authority to decide who should be in the United States legally when it comes to immigrants. That power resides entirely in Congress [because] . . . the Constitution says it.”

In short, allowing a category of illegal aliens not to be deported requires an act of Congress, not an arbitrary presidential decision.

DACA was established in 2012 by a Department of Homeland Security memorandum. It applied to a large number of young illegal aliens who met certain conditions: they illegally entered the U.S. before the age of 16; were under the age of 31; had “continuously” resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007; and were in school, graduated, or honorably discharged from the military.

DACA provided a period of deferred action (a promise that the alien would not be deported) as well as access to certain government benefits (including work authorizations, Medicare, Social Security, and the earned income tax credit). The period of deferred action was initially for two years, but that period was extended to three years by a second DHS memorandum on Nov. 14, 2014.

The Trump administration took a different approach. On Sept. 5, then-acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke issued a new memorandum terminating the DACA program and all benefits provided under it effective March 18, 2018, unless President Donald Trump provides another extension of the program or Congress passes a bill addressing the issue.

The acting secretary stated that her determination was based in part on the attorney general’s conclusion that DACA was unlawful and likely would be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation.

Shortly thereafter, the administration found itself in a legal battle. Five related lawsuits challenging the acting secretary’s Sept. 5 determination were filed in a federal district lower court in California. The suits argued that the determination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs the way in which federal administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations), and denied affected aliens due process and equal protection under the law.

On Oct. 17, the district court issued an order accepting plaintiffs’ contention that the 256-page record DHS used to support its Sept. 5 determination was “incomplete.” In so doing, the court imposed an enormous burden on the government, ordering it to turn over all “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials” that fell into several broad categories.

The Justice Department unsuccessfully challenged this ruling before the largely liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its short unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court held that, before imposing its heavy-handed documentary request, the district court first should have ruled on the government’s two “serious” threshold arguments—that the decision to terminate DACA was unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was “committed to agency discretion,” and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the lower court of jurisdiction.

As the court explained, “[e]ither of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the [d]istrict [c]ourt to examine a complete administrative record.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the district court to rule on the government’s threshold arguments and certify its ruling for immediate appeal “if appropriate.” Thereafter, if the case was not dismissed, the district court and the 9th Circuit “may consider whether narrower amendments to the record are appropriate.” The Supreme Court concluded by stating that its order “does not suggest any view on the merits of” the case.

In sum, although the Supreme Court has removed (for now) one unnecessary burden to elimination of DACA, the final judicial word has not been said. Let us hope that, in considering this case, the federal courts remember that it is their job to construe the law and say what it is—not to impose their subjective immigration policy preferences on the American people.

Portrait of Alden Abbott

Alden Abbott

Alden Abbott is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow. Read his research. Twitter: @AldenAbbott1.

Hi Daily Signal Reader:

We hope you enjoyed this article.

The Daily Signal exists to be a trusted alternative to biased mainstream media. We take pride in delivering the truth about what is happening in Washington and how it affects your life.

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and for good reason. Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, the liberal slant of many major media outlets has been exposed.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts believe you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington–and they rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

As time runs out for December, will you make a donation to make sure we can continue to bring you the truth in 2018?

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts—and it will advance our mission to help all Americans understand what must be done to save our country.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom.

Why the Constitution is still the most important government document, but is always overlooked

The Constitution is something we all take for granted in a era where there are accusations about the Constitution that the Founding Fathers have built. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the key player in the AKP party of Turkey, and the current president of this regime, has just recently made a constitutional reform that will drastically change the way the country is governed. Turkey’s fundamental part of the constitution that maintains it as a secular republic is now hanging in the balance, coming under threat of Islamic nationalism.

This has a big effect on the minorities of Turkey, both Jews or Christians that live abroad or are of dual nationality. This means that those people of dual nationality are even more likely to value the ideals of American freedom of ideas and the separation of government and religion. However, the threat in Turkey is greatest for journalists who have had the highest amount of human rights based solely on the fact that they have an opinion which makes them an enemy of the state. According to a CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) special report by Elena Beiser for the second year in a row, the number of journalists who have been imprisoned for their work is high. One can’t help but see how superficial the a “social justice warrior” mentality comes off as being fake to those who actually have a real fear and safety for their life in a certain country, and now what it really is like to be in danger of your life for having an opinion.

This is one of the key constitutional values of (which the court system has frequently sided with in many cases) freedoms which makes America so unique and special, not to mention important to those who actually value freedom and the right to live their life in the way they believe to be right, and being able to not be afraid of being labelled an enemy of the state. The new leftist ideology which incites the idea that the Constitution may somehow be “out of date” is one of the most atrocious claims they seem they feel the need to make. It makes you wonder if all these social justice warrior liberals have actually experienced life anywhere outside their bubble of the East Coast or the far West (just look at Berkeley).

The other remark that is seemingly made about Islamic nationalism is that it is a “feminist” religion, which defies all common sense, based on what we know about sharia law. Sharia law is also the only religious guide that governs not only Muslims, but also anyone else that does not follow the Islamic faith in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which just recently had a court case which just recently gave women the right to drive.

According to Pew Reports’ research, the number of Muslims who believe Sharia should extend to non-Muslims is sizable, which in its self is a frightening statistic. “The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38%) and Morocco (29%) hold this opinion. Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58% in Jordan hold this view.” With this being said, the argument that freedom of religion in the Constitution should apply to everyone is a tricky one. Because we have a unique part of our Constitution which states that religious bodies and government ones have to maintain a strict differentiation as one of the foundations of this country. Islam is unique in the way in which their code and rule of law applies to the rest of the population other than their own followers. No other law of religion (Canon Law, for example, the laws that govern the Church) has been set up in such a way where it interferes with others’ liberty. In this sense, it is reasonable to assume that Islam is uniquely capable of undermining all of America’s core constitutional values.

About the author: A half-Turkish American born in Texas, now living in New York, who has family that works for the Turkish government directly.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

VIDEO: Legal and Illegal Aliens in the U.S. Are Disproportionately Dangerous Criminals

Since taking office President Trump has made safety of the American people a top priority of his administration. On January 25, 2017 President Trump signed Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. Section 9 reads:

(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.

There are four reports giving criminal data on aliens, both legal and illegal. Each report details how aliens, both legal and illegal, are in federal prisons for serious crimes including: murder, drug trafficking, smuggling and money laundering. These reports also give an indication of the cost to taxpayers to incarcerate criminal aliens at the federal and state level.

The four reports are:

  1. Government Accounting Office Report 05-337R
  2. Government Accounting Office Report 05-646R
  3. United States Sentencing Commission Reports
  4. Declined Detainer Outcome Report

NOTE: Aliens make up approximately 7% of the population. 

WARNING: The following statement by an illegal alien and convicted cop killer contains graphic language.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

  • Aliens account for 22 percent, more than a fifth of all federal murder convictions.
  • Aliens account for 18 percent of fraud convictions.
  • Aliens account for 33 percent of money laundering convictions.
  • Aliens account for 29 percent of drug trafficking convictions.
  • Aliens account for 72 percent of convictions for drug possession.
  • Alien offenders were mostly Hispanic (93.6%), citizens of Mexico, and were sentenced in the districts along on the Southwest Border.

In a March 2017 column titled “What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity” Hans A. von Spakovsky and Grant Strobl from The Heritage Foundation reported:

For example, the Government Accountability Office released two unsettling reports in 2005 on criminal aliens who are in prison for committing crimes in the United States, and issued an updated report in 2011.

The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.

Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny.

Once again, these statistics are not fully representative of crimes committed by illegal aliens: This report only reflects the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. If there were a way to include all crimes committed by criminal aliens, the numbers would likely be higher because prosecutors often will agree to drop criminal charges against an illegal alien if they are assured that immigration authorities will deport the alien.

The GAO reports also highlight another important flaw in the study referenced by the Associated Press. It uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of people living in the United States. Thus, the study does not take into account some potentially key factors highlighted in the GAO reports: that criminal aliens from Mexico disproportionately make up incarcerations (GAO-05-337R) and that most arrests are made in the three border states of California, Texas, and Arizona (GAO-05-646R and GAO-11-187).

As immigration reform will be a top priority in 2018, perhaps these report will continue to tell the true story on alien criminal activity in America. Many believe we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg because these reports deal with federal data. State and local data on alien arrests and convictions will give the American people a better idea of what is happening in their communities.

The Trump administration has begun targeting criminal aliens, including members of gangs like MS 13. The President has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to aliens both in America and those attempting to enter America. Many believe Congress has failed to act to protect the American people for decades. Immigration will be a hot topic in 2018.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pennsylvania: Muslim who shot police officer arrived in US via chain migration

Democrats’ Favored DACA Amnesty Bill Would Cost $26 Billion

Jewish resettlement contractor in court to try to stop Trump’s latest refugee restrictions

That would be the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society one of the nine federal contractors*** that monopolize all refugee resettlement in America.

They have been the most litigious of the nine while they receive more than $20 million a year directly from the US Treasury to place refugees in US cities. HIAS has also been the leader of the contractors’ political agitation campaign against the President.

hetfield at NY anti-Trump rally

We told you here just last Saturday that they are closing some of those offices because the paying client (a.k.a. refugee) numbers have dropped (especially those on the Iran to Austria express that HIAS liked so much).

Mark Hetfield [right] speaking at HIAS anti-Trump rally in New York last February.  Rep. Keith Ellison was also a featured speaker. Hetfield collects a salary and benefits package of $358,718 (2015). I call that doing well by doing good.  HIAS pockets over $20 million annually from you—the taxpayers of America.

Here is the news about today’s court case from The Times of Israel:

A federal court in Seattle will hear an argument brought by Jewish groups challenging the latest Trump administration ban on refugees.

One of the two challenges being heard, Jewish Family Service v. Trump, has been brought by HIAS, the Jewish immigration advocacy group, on behalf of its partners, Jewish Family Service of Seattle and Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley. The second case is ACLU of WA v. Trump.

The cases will be heard Thursday morning in the US District Court in the city.

The new set of restrictions on refugees include a minimum 90-day suspension of admission of refugees from 11 countries, nine of which are predominantly Muslim, and a suspension of the so-called follow-to-join process, which reunites family members with refugees already in the United States.

[….]

“The global refugee crisis has reached record high proportions, yet the Trump administration has set a record low ceiling for refugees that may be resettled to the United States,” HIAS President Mark Hetfield said in a statement announcing the suit.

There is no legal question about whether the President can set the number of refugees to be admitted to the US (Refugee Act of 1980 gives him that power), so not sure why the number issue is relevant to the case involving restrictions on certain countries.  I can only assume this is all about whacking Trump (again) through the media as they take a major hit to their pocket books.

Will the feds give them money anyway?

BTW, watch for this!  Right after 9/11 when President Bush lowered the refugee numbers dramatically (less than 30,000 for 2 straight years), we have been told that the contractors, hysterical about the hit a reduction in paying clients would be to their budgets, were able to get funding for doing very little from the federal government.  We will be watching for any news of that happening and will be raising the red flag if we get wind of it!

***For new readers, these are the nine federal resettlement contractors that are paid by you, the taxpayer, to place refugees in your towns and cities. There will be no serious reform of the US Refugee Admissions Program as long as they are paid by the head to place refugees and as long as they are effectively Leftwing community agitators as well:

Endnote:  New readers might want to see last week’s weekly roundup for more information on RRW and rules of the road.  Click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on refugee admissions program is useful

St. Cloud Somali ‘peacemaker’ and community organizer says Somalis want to integrate, not assimilate

Bowling Green, KY “stakeholder” meeting was informative

Is Lutheran Linda Hartke talking about Stephen Miller? Sure sounds like it!

Trump: Chain Migration ‘Totally Incompatible with National Security’

RELATED VIDEO: Chain migration

The Bundy Ranch/Bunkerville standoff — When Armed American Citizens Stood Against Their Government

The events associated with the stand-off in Bunkerville, Nevada in April of 2014, supporting the protection of sovereignty came seriously close to the U.S. Government agencies gathered there opening fire on their own citizens; yes, citizens of the United States. Among the citizens present and supporting a “cease and desist” against infringement upon local sovereignty were State Legislators from six states and former State Legislators from three states, current and former County Supervisors or Commissioners, several former City Councilmen from various states, a couple of former Mayors, former law enforcement officers, husbands and wives, and moms with children. Deriving from states across our country; yes, even as far as states along the east coast, and throughout all the western states up to Washington State, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota (possibly South Dakota as well, I am only recalling participants I personally met), and the list goes on and on. Citizens driving many hours to reach the outskirts of a town called Bunkerville in support of a family named Bundy. So many arrived some basic necessities had to be quickly organized; water bottles, bathroom facilities, food of multiple kinds, even parking and traffic flow all became significant issues with the large inflow of citizens. Several hundred (unofficial counts had the numbers around 450 to 600) with people coming and going but a large number remained constant through a long, hot and dusty few days.

The U.S. Government also arrived including Sniper Teams, a SWAT Team from LAPD, Department of Bureau and Land Management, and a fair number of FBI, including the Bureau’s Hostage/Rescue Team. Then there were assault teams from the County Sheriff in Nevada along with Las Vegas Police and Nevada State Police plus the U.S. Department of the Interior sent Federal Agents. As video and still photos will demonstrate at one juncture under a bridge, if the Lord had not intervened, it is very, very likely Federal Agents would have opened fire on citizens. It came terribly close.

But how did all this begin? Why so many federal departments present, and ready to clash with private citizens? The absolute arrogance, incredibly evident disrespect for citizens, the near impossibility to even communicate with federal agents or any of their liaison or Public Information Officers (PIO), and the aggressive manner clearly present was very sad and alarming. A partial answer as to how did all this begin is that a federal government that no longer respects the very Constitution they are supposed to defend; a federal government believing it is accountable to no one; a federal government (and its’ agencies and departments) that believes all citizens should be herded and then strongly managed for the welfare of the federal government; that sovereignty over one’s private property is by the choice of the federal government; that only the federal government can choose whether or not citizens can be left alone on any given matter are all part of the answer. In 2014, America was well on her way of losing Hope and fearing Change at the hands of Obama and his crew. The Bundy Ranch/Bunkerville standoff became a national overnight rallying cry for Americans to arrive, and take a stand against an out-of-control federal government changing America into something we were never, ever to become! To be sure there were several tense incidents and even clashes with federal authorities by citizens. And if you squinted, you could almost imagine what it must have been like for citizen’s way back in 1775 who stood on the grounds of Lexington and Concord and confronted tyrannical forces of the British who were not acting much more different than the tyrannical federal forces at Bunkerville in 2014.

Please read the investigative article below by Michael Stickler. Michael has provided some detailed testimony from the actual Bundy Trial which will shed even more light on the dark and sad days at Bunkervile in 2014. Thank you Michael Stickler for exposing the acts of a despotic federal government the Feds would greatly prefer the public didn’t know.


Dan Love Now a Whistle Blower?

Round-Up Operation

A Sad Day in The Bundy “Mis”-Trial

As a citizen of this great country, I have just experienced one of the saddest days in my life.

Let me explain…

I sat in the courtroom of day 15 of the Cliven Bundy trial (at this point that is six calendar weeks in the courtroom).  Over the previous weeks, I’ve made the journey from my Northern Nevada home, staying weeks at a time in Las Vegas, to watch the wheels of justice turn … slowly … painfully slowly.

It was clear from the beginning motions and evidential testimony of Special Agent in Charge Daniel P. Love — and from the additional officers that were involved in the round-up operations in April 2014 — that there has been much more to the story than most were aware.

While I have come into this story later than most who are involved, I have had access to Cliven Bundy like no one else.  I spent two months at the detention center in Pahrump, NV, carefully chronicling Cliven’s story as his biographer.  Since my release, I have immersed not only my entire life; but, my editors, and research team in the Bundy drama.

Going into the trial, I quickly recognized that because of my background, I was more educated on the issues than most folks in the courtroom.  As I listened to the opening statements, the prosecution’s witnesses, the cross examinations, evidentiary hearings, I didn’t hear much information that was new (at least, to me). Most of what I heard only confirmed all I had already written about in my book on Cliven’s story, Cliven Bundy American Patriot.

December 11th; however, was something different.

As we arrived in the courtroom this last Monday, I could see with stark disbelief that there were just a few spectators in the gallery – just four reporters and only a handful of Bundy supporters.  The jury had been called and waited in the jury room; the defendants, their attorneys, and the prosecution were in position and ready for a new week of battle.  Quietly, we waited for the judge to enter the courtroom and then the jury.

And we waited.

Nearly an hour we waited.

“All Rise,” the court clerk called out and Chief Judge Gloria Navarro entered.

As we retook our seats, Judge Navarro began; “I would like to get some clarifications on the mistrial motions. Though these matters are not ripe, I want and give the parties some idea of my concerns.” And, with that, she spent the next full hour listing each motion and 14 of her concerns. Of those she listed there were seven possible “Brady” violations.

The Brady Rule, named after the Court’s rulings in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession to the defense.

“Brady material,” that is, the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes: evidence favorable to the accused, evidence that goes towards negating a defendant’s guilt, evidence that would reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

While Brady violations have several remedies; only one of these – and the most drastic – is a mistrial.  Typically, a Brady violation is discovered after a trial has concluded and is used to petition the court to rule for a mistrial and to set aside the conviction. In order to win a mistrial, the defense must prove that there is reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different in order for a mistrial to be granted.

In the Bundy case, Judge Navarro may be considering a mistrial just as the trial has begun to gain steam, months away from its conclusion with a jury verdict. Most judges would prefer that the jury make the final verdict, as is in our legal tradition. But, there is yet another reason for Brady violation ruling: the proof that if the evidence were made available, the case would have taken a different light. And it is with this aspect that Judge Navarro may be taking serious consideration.

As careful as Judge Navarro was in listing her concerns, she did not give too many specifics.  In a previous (and rare) pre-trial order, Judge Navarro placed certain evidence under seal. Thus, by her own order, she cannot be overly specific. But, if you listen carefully and you understand the background as thoroughly as I do, you can extrapolate some of the issues at hand that might shed a “different light” on this trial.

Cliven Bundy has always taken the stance that the Federal Government has had no jurisdiction to take the action they did in impounding his cattle. Moreover, the government took the extraordinary action during the impound operation to surround his home, set up checkpoints, threaten his family, and physically abuse his family. He also told me that they had snipers surrounding his home. Ammon Bundy claimed to have seen the snipers’ red targeting lasers not only on him; but, dancing on the bodies of the Bundy children. And, much, much more.

Honestly, when I first heard of these things while incarcerated with Cliven and ‘The Bundy 19,’ (as he, his four boys, and the 14 other supporters who also had been arrested and detained with the 5 Bundy men before their trials) were called by the inmates in the detention center in Pahrump, I just figured Cliven was embellishing his story. To my surprise, after I was released and began the research for the book, there they were, in fact, snipers clearly visible in the videos of the various incidents related to the April 2014 cattle round up.

As it turns out, it was much worse than even Cliven knew.

All along, the prosecution has just scoffed, and dismissed, Cliven’s claims.

But, on Monday, we learned from Judge Navarro several things we didn’t know before:

SNIPERS: It turns out that there were indeed snipers. The Bundys have been saying this for years. The prosecution has denied it; but since, have acquiesced saying only that although there were some people lying down along the ridges, they were merely “Over-Watch” people – just guys with binoculars and radios. We learned; however, from Special Agent in Charge Dan Love (of all people), in his sworn testimony of October 25, 2017, that actually there were snipers. With guns. Now the prosecution is saying they were just “practicing” and there was nothing to it. My question is what were they “practicing” when they aimed their guns at unarmed American citizens? Does it stop being “practice” and become “implementation” only when they pull the trigger?

ORDERS TO CEASE OPERATIONS: It appears that de-escalation was not a personal option for Dan Love.  Pete Santilli was trying to get Love to understand that the Bundy protest was beginning to escalate beyond the Bundys’ local family and friends.  National and international media was taking an interest in the story and social media was beginning to blow up, with over one million views of the videos that had been posted of Davey’s arrest and the assaults on Margaret and Ammon.  And, of course, the existence of the Government’s so-called, “First Amendment” areas created by the BLM to contain the protestors well away from the focus of the protest were becoming explosive issues, as well.

Additionally, Love’s Washington D.C. superiors were taking notice of the protest size and media attention being gained and, not being able to control it to their narrative, they decided to cease the operation.  It seemed unpalatable that so many lawmakers were criticizing the BLM actions and, as the BLM director of media relations stated, they never could get ahead of the narrative that the media was carrying by saying “it was frustrating.” It’s also clear that this order was received by Love, as revealed in the October 25, 2017 (and following), testimony – again, under oath – of the BLM agents who ran the Communications Center and the Operations’ Agent Dispatch Desk therein. The agents in the Communication Center in the BLM compound were ordered to start packing up and shredding documents on April 10th.  Note: This was two full days before the events of the April 12th “Standoff” (as the Government called it) that following Saturday. That also seems to be the same day the FBI and the contract cowboys left, leaving only the BLM Law Enforcement element and NPS Rangers under Dan Love’s command.

PROSECUTORIAL INVOLVEMENT: We also know, according to the testimony of Dan Love on October 25, 2017, Love had a conference call with the then U.S. Attorney Dan Bogden in Las Vegas.  Together, they planned how they would bring Cliven to justice.  If they could get Cliven to be the one to release the cattle – or “Pull the Pin” (which meant to remove the pin on the gate holding the cattle) as it was referred to – then they felt they could charge him with impeding a federal officer in his duties and then tie Cliven and his boys into a conspiracy in relationship to all the other charges of weapons and assault of the Bundy 19.  What they didn’t anticipate is Cliven would never leave the stage area that day.

Now we also know that the now acting US Attorney Steve Myhre and his assistant prosecutor Nadia Ahmed, the actual prosecutors in the Bundy trials, were photographed at the Command Center compound during the round-up operations meeting with the Operation’s leadership. So, it seems, the prosecutors have become participants – or, at least, witnesses. They seem to have forgotten to mention that to the defense.

PROSECUTORIAL INVOLVEMENT II: It is also now known that acting US Attorney Steve Myhre was working with the Department of Interiors OIG office on a weekly basis to “aid” the OIG Inspectors’ investigation into the handling of the shredded evidence, Dan Love’s “lost” laptop, and his “lost” notebook. It was found that Mr. Myhre discouraged the investigators from interviewing anyone actually physically related to the act of shredding. On the stand, none – NOT ONE – of the responsible officers remember who did the actual shredding. They testified that they knew they hadn’t and they didn’t remember seeing anyone else do it; but, they knew they were ordered to do it. And, of course, the OIG investigators never interviewed any of them prior to their testimony. But, somehow, all that huge volume of evidence was shredded – as the photographs of the shred bags laid bare.  So, it seems again – this prosecutor has become a participant – or, perhaps – the architect, or at least, a witness.

THE BUNDY THREAT: The defense has been asking for copies of any evaluations from the government regarding the threat, if any, the Bundys might pose. It wasn’t until November 2017 that the prosecution coughed them up. Why? Because, again, Dan Love mentioned them under oath. It turns out that there was not one; but, in fact, five such Threat Assessments, starting in 2011, that all showed that the Bundys were a low threat risk.  The Government also paid a consultant – of sorts – $60,000 to evaluate the Bundys; no one knows why they were hired or where that report is, either. The only reason the defense knows about its existance is because they found the receipt in the discovery. Oops…

TECHNICAL SURVIELLANCE: Ryan Bundy remembered seeing a camera setup and monitoring the Bundy household during the weeks leading up to April 12, 2014. The prosecution flatly denied the existence of such a camera or its deployment or its coverage. They also claimed that the FBI was not involved in the roundup operations nor were they onsite. It turns out, yet again from Dan Love and another BLM officer, that the camera was there, maybe more than one of them, setup and maintained by the FBI. Moreover, the FBI had their own trailer within the compound and the live video feed from the camera(s) with parabolic-type (listening?) devices came into the compound. The defense teams have asked for the footage from those cameras and recordings from the listening devices, but the prosecution claims that no recordings were made and no one was watching them. Even Judge Navarro has had a hard time with this one – before it was impeached by yet another Government witness – the Chief of the Communications Center, herself, who testified that the FBI liaison ran the live feed and that the command element watched it regularly and especially as the ranks of the protestors began to swell.

WIRETAPPING: Also revealed through the testimony of Region 4 BLM Law Enforcement officer Robert Schilackin, who had come in from Colorado to help the Region 3 BLM Law Enforcement officer deliver to the Bundy family the BLM intent to enforce the refreshed court orders for removal of the Bundy’s cattle from the public lands (which lie under the Bundy’s grazing and water rights) and solicit from them what resistance to this BLM action the Bundys might mount. In his testimony, he admitted they had interviewed an employee of the Bundys’ and secretly recorded the conversation. When asked by the defense if he was aware that was a crime, he blew it off saying that it wasn’t a crime.

WIRETAPPING II: Officer Schilackin was similarly cavalier with his actions and perhaps, with Federal and state law, when he testified on cross examination that he had recorded his Region 3 partner’s telephone conversation with Ryan Bundy without revealing this fact at the beginning of the call to the parties. This thusly-“poisoned” recording was even played in court (first as snippets and then in its full 46 minutes) by both the Government and the defense, respectively.  He added that such recordings were “not part of the plan” – but, such recordings are done so routinely that it was never given a thought.

In the session without the jury’s presence between these two wiretapping admissions, the Judge allowed their use; but in passing, made mention of possible criminal charges and that they would be dealt with later – not wanting this trial to get bogged down on a separate issue.

WIRETAPPING III: It’s now clear, through revealed documents, the government has been listening in on attorney-client phone calls between the defendants and their counsel. The prosecutors want the public to believe that their content is ‘so mundane and innocuous’ that it has no bearing on trial, but that the recordings themselves have been reviewed by a special FBI team and marked as privileged. So, the recordings remain in the hands of the prosecution. But, if they are ‘so mundane and innocuous,’ why hide them?

SPECIAL FORCES: New revelations also included information that not only was the Clark County Sheriff’s Department Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team was deployed to the Toquah Wash on April 12, 2014; but, the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, The National Park Service Special Event Tactical Team (SETT), AND the Los Angeles SWAT team were all present on site and had been ready to deploy the entire week. Though apparently, they all departed when given the stand-down order on April 10th.

All along, Cliven Bundy has said that there were 200 armed, military-type government men and women surrounding his ranch. The prosecution said in their opening argument that there were only about twenty. We now know the official number is 197. The prosecutors reason excuse for not disclosing all of these other Special Forces Teams was that they were there for ‘training and practice’ and because they were never used. Hence, there was no need to disclose them to the defense teams.

DEPLOYMENT: Cliven Bundy has also said all along that he was surrounded for over a week. He said there were checkpoints and spying was done on him and his family. The prosecution denied such “crazy” notions. But, again, Judge Navarro’s concern is that the organizational chart that was created to explain the communication and reporting authority between the BLM, FBI, NPS, NV Highway Patrol, Las Vegas Metro, LA SWAT and all the other agencies deployed there is – of course – missing. Missing along with all the maps showing the agents deployment locations, the paperwork and handwritten materials – perhaps, all put though the shredder. Was this done all in an effort to cover-up the magnitude of what all was involved?

REPORTS: Another concern Judge Navarro has, is the revelation that some of the Government Criminal Reports, called 302’s, were written in November 2017 – NOT in 2014 as one would expect. And they were written only after being requested by the defense upon the testimony of Dan Love and the other BLM and OIG officers in October 2017. It seems that the reports may have been written to corroborate the narrative the prosecution has put forth and to dispute Love’s testimony.

HIT LIST: The most worrisome of all the concerns that Judge Navarro has on her decision plate is the revelation that there was an actual hit list maintained by the Government with Cliven Bundy’s name at its top. This list seems to be an actual shooting list that has only been revealed by a BLM agent who is now trying to cover his backside. This agent has become a whistle blower. When I asked Cliven about who it was, he wouldn’t answer me directly, only to say that this BLM agent is no longer employed by the government. I wonder who that might be…

As Cliven and I reviewed, “Well we got a couple of BM guys who have turned into whistle blowers, ya see. And all kind of things are coming out.”

“Okay, I need to ask, what this I am hearing about a kill, list? It’s all over social media,” I ask.

“Well yay, there has always been a kill list, for me. Remember the militia guys in front of the stage with me, they were there to protect my life. I was on the kill list for quite a long time. For two years I have had bodyguards. I have been on it for quite a few years.”

“In my own mind I don’t need a bodyguard. But, they were always been bodyguards around me … fer two years I have had ‘em.”

Then, now you read about what came out last Monday, you find out, well he was right.

“They had a kill list and I was number one on the kill list,” (he uncomfortably chuckles).” “This thing is more serious than most people want to think about it.”

“So,” I asked – somewhat stunned, “did they have a list that was like priorities of who to shoot first?”

“No it’s just a book, where a guy is keepin a kill list. Where they mark off guys they already got rid of.  I guess they had a big poster, up in there with my picture on it – the BLM office – with a big “X” thru it.”

I wonder if Dan Love’s “lost” computer and “lost” notebook will be “found” soon.

Of course, all of this stuff being hidden from them puts the defense at an extreme disadvantage. Not only has the prosecution not revealed these “Brady” documents; but, there are dozens of personnel that have not been subpoenaed, reports reviewed, or even the existence thereof known.

And this last Monday assistant US Attorney Daniel R. Schiess complained at length about how much work all of this ‘last-minute response’ to the defense requests has been to their office.  But it has been requests for discovery material that had never provided them before and whose existence was only just admitted to in court by the Government witnesses’ testimony. “Just last night the defense had file a 28-page motion for a mistrial (one of six that I count). We need time to answer.” The entire day, prosecutors Meyer and Ahmid sat uncharacteristically quietly. Not wanting to dig themselves in deeper, I wonder?

I mentioned at the beginning that on my way home that afternoon, I was sad. It’s an “in my gut kind of sad.” I wondered why I wasn’t angry or surprised. I was sad. In the few days I have had to think about this situation, I realized that my government, in the country that I love so much, was actually acting illegitimately – criminally – with its people. I had heard about it, denied that it could possibly happen, and had even seen it before in my own trials with the government. But never so defiantly. I told my friend that night, “I am sad because we depend and respect the judicial system, we rely on it’s fairness, for it to be just. And, I want this fairness for every accused, even the most heinous of criminals, let alone for Cliven Bundy… A simple rancher standing up for OUR rights.

UPDATE: The Second Whistler Blower has been identified as Larry Whooten. You can see his complaint the Associate Deputy Attorney General Andrew Goldsmith HERE

About Michael Stickler

Mike is an author, radio host, ex-felon, and a highly sought after motivational speaker.

In “Cliven Bundy: American Terrorist Patriot”, author Michael Stickler went behind the razor wire of a federal detention center for 60 days to get Bundy’s real story. (ClivenBundy.net)

RELATED ARTICLE: This Case Against Western Ranchers Shows Why Americans Are Right to Fear Government

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Cliven Bundy’s family and supporters parade after his cattle were released by the Bureau of Land Management back onto public land. Photo by Jason Bean / Associated Press.

VIDEO: Growing Number of Obama DOJ/FBI Anti-Trump Abuses

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records About Removal of Alleged Anti-Trump FBI Official From Mueller Team

The FBI and Justice Department are engulfed in a rule of law crisis because of new revelations of evident bias among FBI officials and key DOJ prosecutors. Recently, we exposed how Andrew Weissmann, a top Mueller special counsel deputy has anti-Trump bias.  And this week, we’re in the forefront of a related scandal about an anti-Trump bias infecting the top echelons of the FBI.

Just yesterday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI for records about the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, from the special counsel’s investigative team led by former FBI director Robert Mueller. Strzok also was the FBI’s chief of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server, interviewing Hillary Clinton himself on July 2, 2016.

We filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI failed to respond to an August 17, 2017, FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-02682)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  • All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
  • All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
  • All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.

According to reports (here and here) Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, who worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and with whom Strzok was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, “exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

It is disturbing the FBI has stonewalled our request about Mr. Strzok’s demotion for four months. One can only conclude the FBI and Justice Department, including Mr. Mueller’s operation, wanted to hide the truth about how Strzok’s and Page’s political biases and misconduct have compromised both the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations.

Agent Strzok’s texts about Hillary Clinton and President Trump are responsive to another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit but have not yet been produced by the FBI.

We worked the airwaves hard this week to educate Americans on the anti-Trump rule of law crisis.  You can view our important Fox hits here and here.  We also have been highlighting our battles on OANN here and here.

Obama State Department Cut Deal with Hillary to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret

It has been clear all along that Hillary Clinton was doing things at the State Department that she doesn’t want anyone to know about. Judicial Watch already exposed her email scandal, but the secrecy went beyond emails.

Judicial Watch just released Obama State Department documents showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” including files of Clinton’s calls and schedules, which were not to be made public. Outrageously, the documents show the Obama State Department records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”

Curiously, the new records also show that Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”  (We recently found how Abedin’s controversial Islamist activist mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to “democracy/elections/freedom” and “empowerment of women” for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia.)

We found the info about the secret Clinton-State Department deal thanks to our two-year-old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:

Any and all DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials) forms completed by, or on behalf of, any of the following individuals:

  • Former Secretary Hillary Clinton
  • Former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills
  • Former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin
  • Former Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan

The documents include a list of official and personal calls and schedules that Clinton removed, which carry a special notation that the documents were not to be made public records. The notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who was the reviewing officer:

NOTE: The Secretary’s call log, grid and schedules are not classified, however, they would not be released to the general public under FOIA. They are being released to the Secretary with this understanding. [Emphasis in original]

  • Electronic copy of “daily files” – which are word versions of public documents and non-records: speeches/press statements/photos from the website, a non-record copy of the schedule, a non record copy of the call log, press clips, and agenda of daily activities
  • Electronic copy of a log of calls the Secretary made since 2004, it is a non-record, since her official calls are logged elsewhere (official schedule and official call log)
  • Electronic copy of the Secretary’s “call grid” which is a running list of calls she wants to make (both personal and official)
  • 16 boxes: Personal Schedules (1993 thru 2008-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State.
  • 29 boxes: Miscellaneous Public Schedules during her tenure as FLOTUS and Senator-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State
  • 1 box: Personal Reimbursable receipts (6/25/2009 thru 1/14/2013)
  • 1 box: Personal Photos
  • 1 box: Personal schedule (2009-2013)

(JW has a pending request for the deposition of Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.)

The originals of some Clinton documents were retained, such as the call logs and schedules. For other records, including material that predates Clinton’s tenure, there is no indication that a copy was made. The most significant of these are her personal correspondence and gift binders, which could reflect Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative ties.

Through our previous investigations we made public numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server (for example, see hereherehereand here).

The records also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements,” as well as other records.

The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.”

The receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated:

A “prohibited source” [of gifts] under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.

A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.” Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.

We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal. They show that the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her call logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws. When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?

Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls

Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in the legal effort to ensure the integrity of our elections.

To that end, we took a big step forward with the filing of a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc.et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)).

We filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.

We argue that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:

Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.

Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.

The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.

We point out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:

About 21% of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.

California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.

Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.

We explain that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”

We sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but we were told each time that there were no responsive records.

Last summer, we sent a broader request for voter roll records that Los Angeles County and the State of California are required by the NVRA to keep and to make publicly available. Nothing was produced in response to this request. We point out that it is impossible to believe that there were no responsive records:

Los Angeles County, with over five million active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary of State of California [must] have exchanged emails responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request for “all email or other communications between the Secretary’s Office and all California County voter registration officials concerning . . . [i]nstructions to the counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations” and “[n]otices to the counties concerning any failure to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations.” Such emails should have been produced.

Federal law is clear. Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA requires states to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to turn over relevant records and information. We argue:

Los Angeles County is failing to properly conduct the list maintenance required by the NVRA by failing to properly train employees, failing to require and enter registrants’ birthdates, and failing to timely process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are mentally incompetent, or have registered twice.

Our lawsuit asks the court to enjoin Los Angeles County and the state of California from further violating the NRVA and to compel them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” We also want to inspect and copy the requested voter roll records.

We sent a notice-of-violation letter in August 2017 threatening to sue California and certain of its counties over their violations of the NVRA. California was one of 12 states to receive such letters from Judicial Watch.

Bottom line is that California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.

Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

We sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Judicial Watch informed the states that should they fail to take action to correct violations of Section 8 of the NVRA, it would file suit.

We previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. We are currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and we are suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

We are being assisted by Charles H. Bell Jr., of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP; and H. Christopher Coates of Law Office of H. Christopher Coates.

Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Restrain FCC Ability to Impose Government Control Over the Internet Through “Net Neutrality”

President Obama and his minions spent eight years illicitly drawing as much power as they could to Washington D.C., and we’re doing our part to rectify that.

We have joined the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in submitting an amici curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to hear the appeal of the 2015 case regarding an Obama-era FCC decision that reclassified broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality rules (United States Telecom Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (No. 15-1063)).

We argue that the circuit court’s decision “undermined the constitutional separation of powers” by allowing the FCC to directly intervene in the broadband Internet economy.

Our amici brief also argues that the lower court’s ruling will expose the FCC to undue influence from politicians and lobbyists now and in the future:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave an administrative agency like the Federal Communications Commission extended future powers to destroy enormous amounts of national wealth by reclassifying and regulating broadband Internet service… The result will be constant risk of damage to a major portion of the American economy and a simultaneous increase in wasteful rent-seeking behavior and agency lobbying. Amici are additionally concerned that unless this Court acts to rein in an unchecked administrative state, federal separation of powers doctrine will be badly undermined.

Additionally, we and AEF argue that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “is blessing Congress’ evasion of its constitutional responsibility to make laws. This will lead the executive branch to continue to usurp this authority with bolder and more inventive interpretations of decades-old statutes until eventually all real lawmaking power will lie in the executive and the judiciary.”

In May 2017, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FCC seeking records of the Obama White House’s influence in the FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality regulatory rules (Judicial Watch v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 1:17-cv-00933)).

On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to propose a new review of the Obama-era net neutrality regulations passed in 2015 on Internet service, which greatly increased the FCC’s management of Internet content delivery and operations. In July, we and AEF submitted comments to the FCC:

[T]he prior FCC was not content to merely protect Internet openness. Rather than adopt simple rules toward that end, the prior FCC adopted a raft of economic regulations that serve little purpose other than to bring a thriving and successful industry to heel, placing it under the control of federal regulators. This was a simple power grab, taking decision-making authority away from entrepreneurial businesses and putting it in the hands of the FCC.

Judicial Watch/AEF also highlighted the political motivation behind the Obama FCC “power grab” that produced this “politically corrupted decision” to regulate the Internet:

The prior FCC’s adoption of the net neutrality regulations was a politically corrupted decision, which will do far more to increase the wealth of Washington DC power-brokers and lobbyists than it will to protect consumers… These net neutrality rules are a far-left, base-appeasing federal power grab. The regulations as written are certain to increase the amount of rent-seeking behavior already present in a usually smoothly functioning industry. As industry players position themselves to curry favor with federal bureaucrats possessed of far-reaching adjudicatory powers, Internet innovation, investment and consumers all will suffer.

The Judicial Watch/AEF comments were quoted twice in the FCC’s recent order:

Should the hypothetical harms that proponents of Title II imagine eventually come to pass, application of the antitrust laws would address those harms. fn. 517 … Judicial Watch Comments at 12 (asserting that “most of the potential or imagined future violations of net neutrality principles are already illegal under antitrust laws, including acts like website blocking, charging monopoly rents, collusion between industry players, and unfair competition. The existing antitrust laws can already be enforced against broadband providers by the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 50 State Attorneys General.”)

And to the extent an ISP has market power, antitrust law would only allow such ISPs to engage in pro-competitive paid prioritization practices. fn. 910 Judicial Watch Comments at 9-10 (“Allowing a two-sided market to flourish is more effective than regulation for keeping consumer prices low even in true monopoly provider cases, which broadband Internet is likely not, given the ubiquity of wireless broadband.”)

The Obama FCC’s attempted takeover of the Internet under the fake guise of “net neutrality,” which was blessed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, must be stopped and not allowed to serve as a precedent for further expansion of unconstitutional actions by the federal bureaucracy.

The Trump-controlled FCC just voted this week to undo Obama’s Internet takeover.  But this court battle could determine whether a future administration could come back with another government power grab of our Internet freedoms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Did the FBI Conspire to Stop Trump?

Report: How Fusion GPS and the Obama Administration Weaponized the Trump Dossier

Nellie Ohr, Wife of Demoted Justice Official in Trump Dossier Case Who Worked for Fusion GPS, Also Worked for CIA

Secret Government Settlement in Democrat Rep. Hastings’ Sexual Harassment Case Filed

It turns out the government secretly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve a sexual harassment case filed by Judicial Watch against a Florida congressman with a long history of unscrupulous behavior. The veteran Democrat, Alcee Hastings, is most famous for getting impeached by Congress as a federal judge following a scandal involving the solicitation of a $150,000 bribe in return for “favorable treatment for defendants in a racketeering case before him.” The disgraced judge was an unindicted co-conspirator, but there was enough evidence against him for Congress to boot him from the bench. Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be impeached by Congress and removed from the bench.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against Hastings was on behalf of a female employee that he regularly harassed. Her name is Winsome Packer and she was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching” and retaliation by Hastings when he chaired the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. For over two years, from January 2008 through February 19, 2010, Packer was forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments, and unwelcome touching by Hastings while serving as the Representative of the Commission to the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Although Packer repeatedly rejected Hastings’ sexual attention and complained about the harassment to the Commission Staff Director, Fred Turner, Hastings refused to stop sexually harassing her. Instead, the congressman and Turner retaliated against Packer—including making threats of termination—because she continued to object to Hastings’ conduct.

Filed in 2011 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit got dismissed a year later but led to a House Ethics Committee investigation of Hastings. Not surprisingly, the notoriously remiss panel absolved the congressman after a laughable, two-year probe. Charged with investigating and punishing corrupt legislators, the committee instead has a long tradition of letting them off the hook. In Hastings’ sexual harassment case, the panel found that the most serious allegations were not supported by the evidence, though Hastings “admitted to certain conduct that is less than professional.” For instance, the lawmaker admitted hugging Packer, asking her about her underwear and telling her he doesn’t sleep well after having sex.

For all these years, the American taxpayers that unknowingly doled out the cash to settle the case believed it was over. Hastings was absolved by a federal court and the Ethics Committee. Turns out there was an undercover deal in which the Treasury Department paid Packer $220,000 to settle the sexual harassment lawsuit against Hastings, who represents Florida’s 20th District, which includes portions of south Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties. A Washington D.C. news outlet dedicated to covering Capitol Hill broke the story last week after obtaining documents about the covert arrangement. “The 2014 payment to settle the case involving Hastings was not apparently included in a breakdown of payouts to settle discrimination complaints against House lawmakers from the past five years released last month by the Office of Compliance, which approves the payouts,” the article states. “That total included only one payment to resolve a sexual harassment claim — $84,000 paid to settle a complaint against Texas GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold.”

This indicates that there’s no telling how much the government, through various accounts and agency divisions, is spending to settle sexual harassment cases. The public may never know the magnitude of the problem, especially since most politicians will never come clean. Even after his secret settlement was exposed, Hastings denied harassing Packer and told a newspaper in his south Florida district that he knew nothing about the settlement. “I am outraged that any taxpayer dollars were needlessly paid to Ms. Packer,” the congressman says. In the meantime, the legislator’s unscrupulous behavior hasn’t changed. Earlier this year Hastings was in hot water after a watchdog revealed he gave his girlfriend the maximum taxpayer salary for five consecutive years to work in a field office. Top congressional salaries are supposed to go to the Washington D.C.-based chief of staff.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Four Congressmen Remaining In Congress Despite Sexual Misconduct Accusations

GUILTY: Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Company Surrenders In First Successful Prosecution [+video]

In the first successful prosecution of Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking network, the companies DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics have admitted guilt in a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney’s office for selling baby body parts for profit.

The DaVinci companies harvested and sold late-term aborted fetal parts from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties for 7 years, and made kickback payments to Planned Parenthood. The OCDA credited CMP’s investigative journalism reporting with prompting their investigation.

This news comes right after the U.S. Department of Justice has announced their own investigation of Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts in violation of federal law, which David Daleiden discussed on December 11th on Fox News Channel with Tucker Carlson:

CMP’s statement is available here:

Two of Planned Parenthood’s business partners, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, have admitted guilt in a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney for selling aborted baby body parts from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties for profit in violation of federal and California law. The OCDA’s press release credits citizen journalism reporting from The Center for Medical Progress for prompting the investigation of baby body parts trafficking in Orange County.

“The DaVinci companies’ admission of guilt for selling baby parts from Planned Parenthood is a ringing vindication of CMP’s citizen journalism methods and accuracy,” says CMP Project Lead David Daleiden. “In light of the news that Planned Parenthood is now under federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for the sale of fetal body parts, the next step is for Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties to be held accountable under the law for their 7-year-long aiding, abetting, and profiting in DaVinci’s criminal scheme to sell baby parts for profit.”

You can watch CMP’s previous undercover journalism about Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties and their relationship with the DaVinci companies here.

Planned Parenthood and their business partners’ commodification of our unborn brothers and sisters is an atrocity against humanity that deserves the full attention of the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Always Believe the Women — Really?

It’s become de rigeur for public figures and media personalities to repeat the tired mantra: Always believe the women. This refers, of course, to any accusation of sexual harassment, no matter how far in the past it took place and even if it was interpreted at the time as innocent flirting.

Leftists seized on the harassment lawsuits that took place at the Fox News Network last year, when Andrea Tantaros, Gretchen Carlson, and other broadcasters walked away with multimillion-dollar settlements after accusing the late chairman, Roger Ailes, and the host with through-the-roof ratings, Bill O’Reilly, of sexual harassment.

Seeing that their Russian-collusion fairy tale was going in the wrong direction––indeed pointing every day to massive collusion between Democrats and Russia––the by-now hysterical anti-Trumpers figured that the sexual-harassment gig was a sure-fire way to bring down their nemesis and rake in some big bucks at the same time.

In true Keystone Kop form, however, it was overwhelmingly Democrats who started falling like flies––movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, actor Kevin Spacey, editor Leon Wieseltier, Today Show host Matt Lauer, comedian Louis C.K., Congressman John Conyers, Senator Al Franken, on and on.

But Republicans did not go unscathed. Judge Roy Moore, candidate for a senate seat in Alabama, whose accusers waited 40 years to come out of their victim closets, managed to spend those 40 years in public life, including running for office, without a single accusation being hurled in his direction.

What’s wrong with this picture?

For one thing––and it’s a big thing––all the people who say “always believe the women” are operating on the presumption of guilt! What happened to the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence, to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Uh uh…not for the leftists who have spent the past fifty or more years crying “separation of church and state” to defend their loathing of Christianity, and “a woman’s right to choose” to defend their fetish for pre-birth infanticide. To them, ironically, the sanctity of the law stops, both figuratively and literally, when lawyer Gloria Allred enters the scene.

THE CREDIBILITY FACTOR

Two recent incidents reminded me why casting doubt on all these newly-minted victims is more right than wrong.

In the first instance, I was watching the TV show “Blue Bloods” in which Detective Danny Reagan was part of a jury deciding the fate of an accused murderer. From his seasoned tenure as an NYPD detective, Reagan doubted the charge, in spite of testimony that convinced most of the jury of the defendant’s guilt.

“But there was an eyewitness,” one juror reminded him, to which the detective turned his back and asked the juror what color his tie was. The best she could do was guess “red,” which turned out to be wrong. And the point was made: even if you’re directly facing a person, spending hour after hour with him, looking at his expression, his posture, his outfit, the report you give of his appearance is not always reliable. And that is under good circumstances and not in the chaos and adrenaline and frenetic nature of a crime scene.

The second thing I witnessed was the TV show “Judge Judy,” where not one but two people, in two separate cases, looked directly at a sitting judge and––wait for it––lied to her face! As it happens, Judge Judy worked for years in the New York City criminal courts and can spot a three-dollar bill from a mile away.

She could teach a thing or two about vetting credibility to the sanctimonious arbiters of morality among us––including Ms. Allred, RINOs like Mitch McConnell, and just about every broadcaster on the fake-news shows of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS.

Do any of them know about the characters, the moral fiber, the mental-health history, or the political activism of the moist-eyed damsels in distress who are now claiming victimhood? My bet is a categorical no, they don’t!

And yet they consider testimony from women who have never uttered a peep of objection before this recent outbreak of outrage and reports from four decades ago credible. Now that is incredible!

THE WHEAT/CHAFF PROBLEM

Is every woman now claiming to be the victim of harassment lying? Probably not. There will always be schlubs like Harvey Weinstein, jealous of the cool guys and angry from years of rejection, who get some power and promptly abuse it by using women like so many throwaway rags.

There will always be predators like Bill Clinton who you can picture cackling to himself at just how much exploitation and abuse he could get away with.

And there will always be hypocrites like Matt Lauer, creepy crawlers like Kevin Spacey, phonies like Charlie Rose, and unfunny gropers like Al Franken whose treatment of females––in spite of their delusions about supporting women––speak volumes about their lack of both character and impulse control.

I mention these men particularly because they either admitted to the charges against them or were fired or stepped down as a result of their bosses seeing such persuasive and overwhelming proof of their excesses that there seemed to be no doubt of their guilt.

Hard to believe, isn’t it, that these men have mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters?  Clearly, that’s why some woman (probably) coined the word “ugh”!

But in most cases, the presumption of guilt is dead wrong. As I wrote in a previous article, “Sexual Harassment––Puhleeze”:

“If you didn’t have the character or courage or moral discernment to call a wrong a wrong when it was taking place, don’t expect sympathy years later when it appears that all you’re doing is jumping on a lynch-mentality bandwagon. [And] if you didn’t come out volubly and convincingly against the immoral predations of Bill Clinton and in support of the many women who claimed harassment and even rape during the ‘90s, don’t expect sympathy years later when your grievances all point to rabidly partisan politics.

That’s exactly what we’re witnessing today….a political witch hunt, the ultimate goal of which is to bring down the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

At this point, the nefarious Deep State is reeling at their abject failure to destroy their archenemy––the man who is systematically dismantling their labyrinthine network of secrecy and possibly sedition.

The fake-news media (and farcical talk shows like “The View”) have also utterly failed even to dent the chief executive’s buoyant enthusiasm and mountain of accomplishments.

And this latest and most transparent attempt to ensnare the POTUS in their latest gotcha game will fail as well.

But before this egregious epidemic goes further and the Democrats among us continue to spit on the Constitution they loathe, some grown-up should step forward and speak up for due process. If not, a lot of innocent men are going to pay a steep price and a lot of innocent women may be the next targets to be falsely accused.

RELATED VIDEO: The Ingraham Angle Newt Gingrich warns against the “lynch mob.”

SPECIAL REPORT: Exposing The Deep State

Judicial Watch, the leading American non-partisan watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials, has issued a report titled “Exposing The Deep State.

Clcik on the image to download the report.

The report begins by defining the “deep state”:

Deep State operatives are ensconced in every agency of the government; they have their own agendas; and many of them think they don’t have to answer to an elected president, the rule of law or the American people. They also are enmeshed in and interface with outside networks of organizations, media companies, universities, think tanks and corporations that share their views, help shape their views and exert enormous influence on policy and its day-to-day implementation. The “military-industrial complex” President Dwight Eisenhower warned about is a reality but it is not the only complex providing the architecture of the Deep State; there are several of them: the intelligence/security-industrial complex, the environmental/academic-industrial complex, to name but two.

The Special Report explores the workings of the Deep State through four case studies, in each of which Judicial Watch is involved in investigative action and litigation. Three agencies that are part of the deep state  and highlighted in the report are:

  1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), involving three JW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. One lawsuit focuses on the efforts by agency political officials and civil servants to hide their communications and circumvent the Federal Records and Freedom of Information Acts. The second lawsuit demands to see documents surrounding the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, which Judicial Watch suspects to be “fake science” used to justify the Obama EPA’s health claims in the Clean Power Plan, a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming. The third lawsuit is aimed at EPA’s efforts to propagandize the American People illegally to promote its power grab over a clean water rule it was attempting to promulgate at the time.
  2. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), involving four JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the political targeting of President Barack Obama’s political enemies, including conservative non-profit organizations and individuals, and the unlawful collusion among the IRS and other agencies of government, such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, to spy on innocent American citizens, propagandize them and bring criminal charges against political enemies of the Obama administration and/or the Deep State. l United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Soros Open Society Foundations, involving two JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the Soros Open Society Foundations’ use of U.S. taxpayer money channeled through USAID to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected governments of Macedonia and Albania.
  3. The Intelligence/Law-Enforcement Community, involving six JW FOIA lawsuits, an additional FOIA request and an advisory/demand letter, all focused on the surveillance, unmasking and illegal targeting of President Trump and his associates during the government’s investigation of purported Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and alleged collusion with the Russians by Trump and his team. The Special Report examines the flood of leaks and innuendos coming out of the government surrounding Trump and his associates, including the Gen. Michael Flynn episode; the Obama administration’s misuse of the NSA database of surveillance intercepts to target and unmask the identities of Americans; the Trump Dossier and the FBI’s involvement in it; along with James Comey’s purloined memoranda and the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump and his associates, including unsubstantiated accusations of obstruction of justice by the president when he allegedly ask Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. The Report assembles the evidence at hand and finds it supports the conclusion that the Deep State, working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, is actively engaged in subversive measures (a “soft coup”) designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail.

The report notes, “The only way to observe and evaluate the workings of the Deep State is to penetrate the veil of Deep State secrecy that shields the actions of political appointees, career civil servants, private contractors and their relationship with the media and outside agents of influence that comprise the Deep State. ”

The Special Report concludes that:

[I]t is time to tear down the wall of secrecy surrounding the Deep State. President Trump should order federal agencies to stop the stalling and start obeying the nation’s open-records laws. Until they do, the dangerously malignant Deep State will continue to grow and undermine American democracy.

Read the full “Exposing the Deep State” report by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Justice Department Records Show Strong Support by Mueller Deputy Andrew Weissmann, Other Top DOJ Officials for Yates’ Refusal to Enforce President Trump Travel Ban

Three Women Brutally Rape 19-year Old, Post Video of the Rape on Facebook

Three Percent Nation reports:

Cumbria police said that they have arrested 26-year-old Brogan Gillard, 22-year-old Paige Cunningham, and 20-year-old Shannon Jones, after being accused of plying a 19-year-old man with alcohol and having sex with him against his will.

A judge warned Brogan Gillard, 26, Paige Cunningham, 22, and Shannon Jones, 20, they faced jail after they admitted sexual assault at Preston Crown Court. “Put in his bum?” Brogan Gillard Not guilty pleas to charges of sexual assault by penetration and causing actual bodily harm were accepted. The court heard the clip showed the 20-year-old victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, on the floor as Gillard cut his hair and sliced vegetables over him.

All three women were found guilty of sexual assault by penetration and causing actual bodily harm. Gillard has been sentenced to serve 31 months in prison and Cunningham was ordered to serve 10 months in prison.

Jones will be sentenced at a later date. The women were also ordered to register on the sex offenders list.

Read more.

European Union Suing Countries that Refuse to take Migrants

Pressure from Brussels is being ratcheted up against the so called Visegrad three (there were four!) to take thousands of those illegal migrants that have ‘made their way’ across the Mediterranean or came in via Turkey to Greece and are now piled up in Italy or Greece.

I’m calling them migrants because in most cases their status as legitimate refugees has not been determined.  Asylum seekers who can prove they would be persecuted if returned to their own countries become legitimate refugees only after having had their asylum claims processed and approved.

Orban and Soros

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (left).

We learned this week that Germany was preparing to begin returning to Syria those migrants who failed their asylum requests.  See here.

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban says George Soros is working to push migrants throughout Europe. As I have said repeatedly, Donald Trump should invite Orban to a state dinner and send a powerful message!

Here is news from News Europe:

The European Commission is suing Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary for failing to fulfill their obligations in the context of the European refugee relocation programme.

The Visegrad four had all objected, with Slovakia joining Hungary in suing the European Commission for interfering with their sovereignty. Slovakia stepped down from its confrontation with Brussels, but Prague, Warsaw, and Budapest continue to express objections to the programme. Turning the tables, the European Commission is now taking the three countries to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The refugee relocation plan was adopted in 2015 and envisaged the relocation of 160,000 refugees from Greece and Italy to the rest of the EU. The resettlement scheme took into account unemployment, GDP, and population. The quota for the Visegrad countries was 8,000 refugees.

The Law and Justice (PiS) government insists Poland will not accept migrants from Africa and the Middle East citing security concerns.

I wonder if these countries are thinking about getting out of the EU as the UK is now (slowly) doing.  Each could trade directly with the UK and the US.  But, they would need to build up their armies, shore up their borders as the Muslim population grows in Germany, France, Belgium, etc. in the coming decades.

See my complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bulgaria Moves to Criminalize Radical Islam, Support of Jihad, Sharia, Caliphate

Resettle Rohingya ‘refugees’ in Muslim countries where they can have a future

Politifact: There is no way to get at the true cost of resettling refugees in the US

US Conference of Catholic Bishops not happy with the President

Refugees lured to Aberdeen, South Dakota are now going to be jobless!

We have admitted 130,000 Somalis to the US since 1983! Do we have any obligation to clean out Kenyan camps? NO!

Plane with deportees lands in Africa and then returns to US without dropping off Somalis

GOP Lawmakers Press for Investigation of FBI’s ‘Special Treatment’ of Hillary Clinton Probe [+Video]

Conservatives are calling for an investigation of what they say was the FBI’s “special treatment” of Hillary Clinton ahead of the Dec. 7 testimony of FBI Director Christopher Wray before the House Judiciary Committee.

“I am proud to be joined by my fellow conservatives in the House to call for an investigation into the FBI’s procedures that allowed Hillary Clinton to receive special treatment,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said at a press conference Wednesday. “We’ll also investigate the unprecedented bias against President [Donald] Trump that exists when we allow people who hate the president to participate in the investigations against him.”

Gaetz, who was joined at the press conference by Reps. Jody Hice, R-Ga.; Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; Scott Perry, R-Pa.; and Mark Meadows, R-N.C., called for an investigation into the FBI’s treatment of Clinton’s email use. The FBI investigation was deemed as “special,” according to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

“Each day, we learn more information that reflects the double standard that, unfortunately, seems to be pervasive at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,” Gaetz said. A “small team” at FBI headquarters was assigned to conduct the Clinton investigation, according to emails released from McCabe, he noted.

On Nov. 15, documents were released that show McCabe “wrote an email on his official government account stating that the Hillary Clinton email probe had been given ‘special’ status,” The Hill reported.

During Clinton’s tenure at the State Department from 2009 to 2013, she used a private email account and server while conducting State Department business.

“For me, this question is why,” Perry said at the press conference. “Why are there two different standards of justice? Why doesn’t the FBI and the Justice Department have to comply with subpoenas by the Congress for information that the American people need to have and should have and should have access to? Why is that happening?”

Hice said justice has not been impartial toward Clinton.

“This is all about, ultimately, whether or not Lady Justice is still blindfolded, and whether or not she is peeking out from underneath to show favoritism with certain individuals,” the Georgia lawmaker said. “The more we hear about how the FBI handled the investigations involving Hillary Clinton, the more we understand that she received special treatment, and that is unacceptable.”

From then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch secretly meeting with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27, 2016, to the description of how Hillary Clinton handled classified information being downgraded from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” Hice said, there are many questions with no answers.

“[T]he FBI’s process and procedures that allow this type of activity to occur must come to an end. We must have justice at this point, and at the same time, we must make sure that this type of favoritism never occurs again,” he said.

Additional concerns of the lawmakers are outlined in a letter, dated Nov. 28, to Wray signed by Gaetz, along with Biggs and Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas. Those concerns include questions with respect to why then-FBI Director James Comey moved Clinton’s investigation from the FBI’s Washington field office to a “small team,” and why Lynch asked Comey to refer to Clinton’s case as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.”

Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to get involved in the investigation.

“It is time that we get to the bottom of it, and I call on Attorney General Sessions. It is time for him to show the type of leadership to make sure the American people get the answers they deserve, because we can not allow the highest law enforcement agency in the land to actually be in a situation where they allow partisanship to determine who is actually not only guilty or innocent, but certainly we can’t allow it to happen when indeed it should be a nonpartisan, nonbiased way,” Meadows said.

Lawmakers say they want answers from Wray, who will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time as FBI chief on Thursday.

“Tomorrow, FBI Director Christopher Wray will testify before the Judiciary Committee, and we want answers as to how we can reform our systems and practices, so that no one gets special treatment and no one is subjected to any special bias,” Gaetz said.

WATCH LIVE: FBI Director Wray testifies before House Judiciary Committee on Russia investigation.

COMMENTARY BY:

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL