The FBI’s False Prosecution and Railroading of Roger Stone

“The U.S. prosecution service is eating at the soul of the American republic. It is an absolute danger to everyone.” –  Conrad Black

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” –  Thomas Jefferson

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it.  For them, the ends always seem to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.” –  Margaret Thatcher

Roger Stone is a veteran Republican Strategist, New York Times Bestselling author, pundit and longtime consultant to the Trump Organization. Mr. Stone is the grandmaster of 10 Republican Presidential campaigns including his seminal role in Donald Trump’s political emergence. This is detailed in the recent PBS Documentary series on Donald Trump as well as in the award-winning Netflix Documentary “Get Me Roger Stone.” He also served as chairman of Donald Trump’s Presidential Exploratory Committee in 2000 and 2012.

Roger and his wife of 29 years, Nydia, live in Fort Lauderdale Florida.  President Trump was an honored guest at their wedding in Washington, D.C.  The Stones have two grown children and five grandchildren.  They are parishioners at Saint Anthony’s Catholic Church in Fort Lauderdale.

An intensive two-year multi-million-dollar investigation into Stone by the Special Counsel began in 2017.  They turned up no evidence of Russian Collusion, no collaboration with Wikileaks, and no evidence that Roger Stone had advance notice of the source or content of any of the Wikileaks disclosures, including the e-mails of John Podesta before their release.  Mueller indicted Roger Stone for lying to Congress.

The Gestapo

Gestapo tactics were obvious when on Friday, January 25, 2019, twenty-nine FBI agents in bullet proof protective gear and armed with submachine guns showed up pre-dawn at Roger Stone’s home.  There were seventeen vehicles, two of which were armored, two boats behind Roger’s home and one helicopter was circling overhead.  Link

Prosecutors knew Stone was represented by counsel and had spoken with Stone’s lawyer the previous day. Yet, their claim that Stone had to be arrested in this manner because he was considered a “flight risk” was disproven hours later when the government did not oppose his release without a cash bond. Stone had neither a valid passport nor a firearm when arrested.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson prohibited Stone’s lawyers from questioning the FBI’s actions, clearly designed to portray Stone negatively in the court of public opinion prior to trial.

FBI raids are not broadcast to the media, but one of Mueller’s FBI boys saw to it that this one was widely shown. Beirut-born Assyrian-American George Piro, Special Agent in Charge Miami, most likely authorized the raid and leaked the information to CNN.  The same thing was done to Paul Manafort who is dying in prison and is culpable for wrong doings, but so are many others on the left with ties to Russia and the Ukraine, many of whom were never charged including the Podesta brothers.

This was the start of the nightmare for the Stone family, all of which was begun by the Mueller Russia investigation and none of the people charged had anything to do with Russia.

The month prior to Stone’s Gestapo style arrest, on December 3, 2018, President Trump tweeted,

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about President Trump. Nice to know some people still have guts.

Vindictive Prosecution

In order to secure search warrants on all Stone properties and possessions, prosecutors told a federal judge that they had probable cause of money laundering of foreign money in campaign contributions, mail fraud, wire fraud, and various cyber-crimes including unauthorized access to a computer server. In fact, prosecutors had no such evidence other than Stone’s Twitter feed.  They found no evidence of these crimes.

Stone was ultimately charged with lying to Congress and one count of witness tampering. Stone’s contrived indictment was crafted by Mueller Deputy Andrew Weissman based on the meta-tags on the copy of the indictment blast e-mailed to the press at 7am the morning of his arrest (even though a Federal Magistrate did not unseal the indictment until 9:30am that same morning) where Weissman left his initials.

Because of the “fake news” media black-out regarding Roger Stone’s vindictive prosecution by Mueller and the DOJ, few Americans understand how and why the long-time Trump political advisor and loyalist was convicted for lying to Congress, how flimsy the case against him was, and how he was railroaded in a Soviet-style show trial in Washington, DC.  Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, barred every powerful line of defense and carefully stacked an anti-Trump jury comprised totally of liberal Democrats.

The Jury Foreperson was former Democratic congressional candidate Tomeka Hart.  Her anti-Trump tweets were uncovered, including a March post about the Mueller investigation, which led to the charges against Stone and the pre-dawn raid.  Judge Andrew Napolitano has publicly stated that Stone deserves a new trial.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Robert Mueller was allowed to “Judge Shop.” Amy Berman Jackson also presided over the case of former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. She had him incarcerated prior to and during his trial, even in solitary confinement for nine months, despite the fact that he hadn’t been convicted of any crime. A motion for a different Judge and a different venue by Stone’s lawyers was denied.

Special Counsel argued that Stone’s case should be before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. They claimed his case was related to the still untried case in which Mueller charged 75 Russians for the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee.  Prosecutors asserted that Stone’s e-mail address was found by a search warrant in that case, and that this case is related to Stone’s.  Where’s the proof?

They asserted that certain “stolen documents” are a topic in both cases, and second, that warrants used in the Russian hacker case surfaced “certain evidence that is relevant” to Stone’s case. In fact, no evidence from the Russian hacking case was introduced at Stone’s trial. Nothing in Stone’s indictment alleged he had access to “stolen documents.”

Obama appointee, Judge Jackson is a liberal activist Judge who dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit in Benghazi against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the suit by the Catholic Church challenging Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide free coverage for contraception and abortion. Jackson’s decision on the Catholic Church was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson ruled for the prosecution and against Stone’s lawyers on every motion in the case save one. It was reported that the Judge would smirk and roll her eyes at the jury whenever Stone’s lawyers were speaking in court.

The Prosecutors

Overseeing Stone’s case for the Office of Special Counsel was Jeannie Rhee, who represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the e-mail case. She gave the maximum contribution to Hillary’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016 as well as Obama’s in 2008.

Aaron Zelinsky, a former Huffington Post Columnist and Assistant U.S. Attorney worked under and was recommended by Acting AG Rod Rosenstein to assist Rhee in Stone’s prosecution.

Stone’s case would ultimately be prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis who worked in the White House Counsel’s office during the Obama administration as associate counsel to the President.

Adam Jed, an Obama DOJ official who successfully argued that the act of Congress outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional rounded out Mueller’s prosecution of Stone.

The Charges

Stone was charged with Violation of the False Statement Act, which requires not only that the statement be false but also that it be material and there was an intent to deceive. The prosecution claimed that Stone lied because “the truth wouldn’t look good for Donald Trump” is ludicrous in view of that fact that candidate Trump himself spoke openly about his campaign’s interest in the Wikileaks disclosure.

  • October 10, 2016 in Wilkes-Barre, PA: “This just came out,” Trump said. “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”
  • October 12, 2016 in Ocala, FL: “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said. “It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it.”
  • October 13, 2016 in Cincinnati, OH: “It’s been amazing what’s coming out on WikiLeaks.”
  • October 31, 2016 in Warren, MI: “Another one came in today,” Trump said. “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”
  • November 4, 2016 in Wilmington, OH: “Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks, and I wanted to stay there, but I didn’t want to keep you waiting,” said Trump. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”

In fact, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 141 times in the month before the 2016 election, according to MSNBC. So, what was Stone “hiding?” Stone, who appeared before the committee voluntarily and not under subpoena, had no motive to lie about what was a completely legal political activity. There was no testimony at trial that he told any Trump campaign official anything about Wikileaks that they could not have read on Stone’s Twitter feed! The House Intelligence Committee voted to turn over Stone’s classified testimony at Mueller’s request but did not refer Stone for prosecution. The Committee’s final report did not find that Stone had mislead the Committee.

One count that Stone engaged in “witness tampering” is also false. Stone had already divulged to the House Intelligence Committee that progressive radio host and comic impressionist Randy Credico who Stone had worked with for criminal justice sentence reform was his source regarding the significance and timing of the coming Wikileaks disclosures to the House Intelligence Committee.

Stone urged Credico to assert his fifth amendment rights not to testify before the House Intelligence Committee because Credico said he feared public exposure in the progressive community because he had “helped elect Trump.” Credico admitted that his own lawyer advised him to assert his fifth amendment rights as did numerous reporters as well as the ACLU.

Charges by prosecutors that Stone had threatened to “steal Credico’s dog” to pressure him into silence were specifically denied by Credico at trial. On January 20th, 2020 Credico wrote a letter to Judge Jackson saying that he “never felt threatened by Stone.” Nonetheless, Stone was convicted on the charge of witness tampering.

The prosecution insisted that Credico was not Stone’s source regarding the general significance and October release of the Wikileaks disclosures despite Stone’s release of a chain of e-mails which indisputably prove that he was.


Prosecutors insisted Dr. Jerry Corsi was the source of Stone’s limited knowledge of Wikileaks plans but produced no evidence whatsoever to prove this and pointedly did not call Corsi as a witness at Stone’s trial. A text exchange between Corsi and Stone on October 3rd showed Corsi saying, “Assange has nothing and has made a fool of himself.”

Judge Jackson would not allow Steve Bannon’s sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee saying it was hearsay when Bannon stated that Trump’s campaign had no “access point to Wikileaks.”

Convicted felon Rick Gates testified at Stone’s trial that he overheard a cell phone conversation between Stone and Trump while in an SUV on the way to LaGuardia Airport in August 2016. Gates admitted that he could not hear the actual conversation and federal prosecutors produced no phone record or additional witness to corroborate this claim, although Gates said there were two Secret Service Agents in the SUV. Both Trump and Stone have denied this conversation ever took place. In written responses to questions from Mueller, President Trump specifically denied ever discussing the Wikileaks disclosures. Gates, who was convicted of conspiracy and lying to the FBI received a 45-day sentence in return for his testimony against Stone and federal prosecutors declined to prosecute Gates for not paying taxes on millions of dollars of income he admitted he embezzled from his partner Paul Manafort.

Guilty on All Charges

The jury found Stone guilty of all charges. While one juror, a Beto O’Rourke contributor, told the Washington Post that the jury was “diverse in age, gender, race, ethnicity, income, education and occupation, his claim is misleading to say the least. The jury included no Republicans, no military veterans, no Roman Catholics, no black men and no one with less than a college education, but did include a former Democratic candidate for Congress, two lawyers who worked in democratic administrations, three jurors with ties to the FBI, three jurors with ties to the DOJ, and two jurors with ties to the CIA, as well as an Obama appointee to the position of Communications Director of a Federal Department. It is questionable whether any Republican can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia.

The underlying premise of the federal indictment of Roger Stone contained in the first two pages of his indictment is that the Russians hacked the DNC and provided this allegedly hacked data to Wikileaks. All of the questions Stone allegedly lied about relate to this alleged action, yet Judge Amy Berman Jackson would not allow Stone’s lawyers to disprove this by calling forensic witnesses as they had for whistleblower Bill Binney of the National Security Agency. Having based their prosecution of Stone on this premise federal prosecutors insisted it was irrelevant.

Judge Jackson barred Stone’s attorneys from raising any questions regarding the misconduct of the special prosecutor, the DOJ, the FBI or members of Congress. “There will be no investigating of the investigators in my courtroom,” she said despite the appointment of Special Counsel John Durham, by AG Bill Barr to do exactly that.

Deep State

Congressman Adam Schiff admitted his coordination with the office of the Special Counsel in violation of House Rules in a letter to Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, but Judge Jackson prohibited Stone’s lawyers from pursuing this evidence of a “set-up” by Schiff.

The Washington Post reported that Mueller had an advance copy of Stone’s classified testimony (another violation of House Rules) prior to the full committee voting to release the testimony to the Special Counsel at Mueller’s request but did so with no referral for prosecution for perjury.

Schiff, Congressman Eric Swalwell and Congressman Joaquin Castro all predicted immediately after Stone’s testimony that he would be indicted for perjury, impossible for them to know without having seen the fruits of surveillance on Stone.

The Gag Order

I do not believe gag orders are constitutional.  General Flynn suffered under the same order for years. This unconstitutional order disallows public defense of charges when one is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the prosecution is allowed to join with their Deep State mainstream media friends to destroy the innocent victims before trial.

Even after conviction, Stone is still under a gag order imposed by Judge Jackson.  While Stone has been gagged by the Judge based on the claim that his public defense of himself would “taint the jury pool” the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, the Daily Beast , Vox, Vice and others orchestrated an 18-month drumbeat of leaks from Mueller claiming that Stone would be prosecuted for treason and conspiracy against the United States and would prove to be the link between the Trump Campaign and Russia. None of this would prove true.

Roger’s wife, Nydia Stone has said publicly that her husband was prosecuted because he refused a deal to falsely testify against the president regarding the content of more than 25 phone calls between candidate Trump and Stone in 2016, which was proposed by prosecutors just prior to the transmittal of the Special Counsel’s Report to AG Bill Barr.


Roger Stone was indicted for lying to Congress despite the failure of Mueller to find any underlying crime for Stone to lie about. At trial, prosecutors provided evidence that Stone tried (unsuccessfully) to learn the content of the announced Wikileaks disclosures (which is not a crime). Mueller criminalized perfectly legal political activities in the indictment and conviction of Stone.

Stone was the last victim of Mueller’s witch hunt. He was railroaded in a vindictive, politically motivated prosecution by a biased Judge and a stacked jury. He now faces years in prison. He and his family have been bankrupted, they’ve lost their home, their savings, their insurance and Stone’s ability to make a living. Roger wife, Nydia Stone, is deaf and has no means to support herself if Roger is incarcerated for what amounts to a life sentence.

Over 150,000 Americans have now signed a petition urging President Trump to “Free Roger Stone.” President Trump has called Stone’s prosecution a hoax, he should pardon Roger Stone as an act of both mercy and justice now. At a minimum President Trump should commute Roger Stone’s sentence immediately after sentencing as prosecutors are demanding instant remand of Roger Stone into custody. Please urge the President to do so.

Obvious to many is the Deep State targeting and prosecution of those who supported Donald J. Trump for U.S. President.  The real criminals still walk free.

Stone is scheduled to be sentenced February 20th, 2020.

Part 2 shortly.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Manslaughter or Medical Choice? Ask a Democrat.

The pills were supposed to kill her baby. Kalina Gillhum had ordered them from India and taken 12. She was in her third trimester, a dangerous time to try an at-home abortion. But Kalina and her boyfriend, Braden, had decided they didn’t want their son. So when he was born in their bathroom, alive and breathing despite the drugs, they let him die. When police found the baby’s body in a trash bag, tucked away in a shoebox, an Ohio prosecutor charged the couple with manslaughter. The question Princeton Professor Robbie George has for Democrats is: “Should they be?”

For liberals, the story out of Licking County couldn’t come at a more inopportune time. Senate Democrats had just spent the day defending infanticide in committee when this pair of 20-year-olds put a face on the horrific crime they call “choice.” If a local hospital hadn’t been suspicious of the couple, this baby — like the thousands of other abortion survivors — would have probably gone unreported. Only when a doctor noticed Kalina’s overly large umbilical cord, with no child attached, did they realize something was horribly wrong. It was far too big, the police were told, “for it not to be a full-term infant.”

A search of the apartment found what nurses and eyewitnesses say happen every day: a born baby, treated like common waste. The only difference is, this newborn was left to die home — not at a hospital or abortion clinic, where Democrats argue he’s fair game. Apparently, if it’s do-it-yourself infanticide, it’s murder. But if a doctor does it, 44 senators say, it’s “health care.”

It’s an absolutely shocking position for anyone to take, let alone four dozen leaders in the U.S. Senate. And yet, for whatever reason, these men and women refuse to acknowledge that at its very core, protecting born-alive babies has nothing to do with abortion. “This is not about a woman’s body,” FRC’s Patrina Mosley, one of the expert witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing, argued. “This is about the infant who’s become the patient.” Eighteen years ago, this was a no-brainer for both parties. “We’re about a living, breathing infant who survived one of the most violent acts you can undergo — abortion — defied the odds and survived. Shouldn’t they be given a chance to defy the odds again and receive medical care? You would think that would be bipartisan.”

Of course, Democrats rushed to their familiar talking points: we don’t need a born-alive law because we already have homicide laws on the books. (A lie, since 35 states and the federal government don’t have adequate protections for babies who live through a botched abortion.) This is just another attack on reproductive rights, others cried. But, as Patrina and so many conservatives fired back, this doesn’t have anything to do with abortion! “We’re just saying don’t discriminate against infants who are born as a result of a failed one.”

In all honesty, Patrina said, “there is no good reason for obstructing care to infants born alive from abortion, except for two reasons. One, that you buy into the philosophy of eugenics, meaning [you believe in targeting] the disabled, the minorities, and the poor. You think these children should not have been born at all, so why not kill them? Or, you have something to gain financially from the illegal harvesting of fetal parts that we know has been taking place for years now and [thanks to video] captured by the Center for Medical Progress.”

As Senator Marsha Blackburn pointed out on “Washington Watch,” under any other circumstance, a newborn in distress “would be rushed to the hospital and given neonatal care… But [Democratic leaders] think this… should be a mother’s choice. But they don’t stop and think about it… [T]hey’re saying it’s okay for a woman to decide if she wants to keep that baby or kill that baby. But they try to change the language and nuance this so that it doesn’t sound quite that barbaric.” But barbaric is exactly what this is. And no civil society — least of all ours — should tolerate it.

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.

NH Voters Take Klobuchar’s Record for Granite

Sesame Street: Brought to You by the Letters L-G-B-T

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Best 2020 Campaign Ad So Far . . . too delicious for words!

Hat tip to bigrims405 for publishing this video titled Best 2020 Campaign Ad So Far on YouTube:

© All rights reserved.

For more articles on immigration click here.

Jewish Harvard Club member says Muslim Harvard prof called her a whore and bruised her arm

And she was expelled from the lecture. That’s the state of academia today.

“Jewish Harvard Club member assaulted during pro-Palestinian lecture, lawsuit says,” by Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, February 8, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A Jewish member of the Harvard Club claims she was assaulted by a professor during a pro-Palestinian lecture at the swanky venue — and then was booted by the Ivy League institution.

Vanesa Levine is suing to get reinstated to the prestigious Midtown club, whose notable present and past members include Michael Bloomberg, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Levine, 28, a marketing manager in Brooklyn, said she was a newly minted member of the 154-year old club when she and her mom attended a February 2019 lecture called, “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” by Rashid Khalidi, a former press officer for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

She said she “peacefully” asked during a question-and-answer session how Mideast peace could be achieved if Palestinians are taught “to support terrorism against Jews and Israelis.”

The audience erupted in “mob-like” fury at her query, according to the lawsuit.

Harvard finance professor Faris Mousa Saah, 53, called her a whore in Arabic and grabbed her by the arm, bruising it as he tried to take the microphone, according to court papers.

“I’ve been to hell and back ever since the Harvard Club incident,” Levine told The Post.

Though she was eventually able to ask her questions, Levine and her mom, who was born and raised in Israel, were asked by security to leave — with angry audience members following them into the hall, photographing her and chanting, “We’re going to get you expelled,” she charges.

Once on the sidewalk, Levine filmed herself talking about the incident and posted it to Facebook, where the video was viewed more than 50,000 times.

Saah later claimed he had feared Levine would hurt Khalidi and that she had been “aggressively and maniacally” dancing around with the microphone, according to court papers….

“I don’t remember having been at the lecture,” Saah told The Post. “There’s not a single word of accuracy in any of that,” he said of Levine’s charges.

A spokeswoman for the Harvard Club claimed Levine “disrupted a Club program. She was subsequently removed from membership in accordance with the Club’s bylaws.”


France: Teen hunted for criticizing Islam moves to new school “to allow her to continue her life”

Belgium: Two Catholic universities to offer programs to train Muslim imams

India: Director of Malala biopic gets death threats, fatwa for poster of her seeming to hold Qur’an next to a blast

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

At Least 3 Federal Agencies Investigating Ilhan Omar

With President Trump acquitted of impeachment charges, the focus is back on at least three federal agencies investigating Ilhan Omar.

David Steinberg, who has been closely tracking Ilhan Omar’s legal controversies offers a breakdown on the latest investigations against the freshman congresswoman. Steinberg reports that Omar is under investigation by at least three federal agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Education (DOE) Inspector General, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

  • In 2019, the FBI held a formal meeting to discuss the evidence against Omar. It has since found this evidence compelling enough to share with the other agencies
  • The DOE is evaluating evidence that Omar married a UK citizen in 2009 with the possible intent to commit student loan fraud
  • ICE is looking at the marriage to a UK citizen through the lens of immigration fraud. This is in reference to the widely circulating rumor that Ilhan Omar married her brother

Possible crimes by Ilhan Omar date back to 2016 when there was already enough evidence to formally look into her background. Publicly available state records plus her own social media posts were significant first-hand evidence. Most were saved before Omar began scrubbing the evidence.

Throughout the investigations, Omar has sailed through media scrutiny because she was packaged and presented by liberals as an opportune foil against President Trump.

The most recent controversy around Omar includes accusations that, while married, she is was having an affair with her political consultant Tim Mynett, which resulted in a divorce for the Mynetts. Despite Omar denying the affair, Mynett’s wife pointed to the affair with Omar as grounds for the divorce.

In January 2020, it was also confirmed that 40 percent of Omar’s campaign fourth-quarter spending in 2019 went to Mynett’s political consulting group. Total amount to Mynett at the tail end of 2019 comes out to $216,564.64.

The only media outlets that challenge Ilhan Omar’s identity-based narrative and are doing their job as journalists are independent personalities and outlets. Those include Scott W. Johnson, Preya Samsundar, PJ MediaJudicial Watch, and Laura Loomer.

Omar’s 2020 re-election for Minnesota’s 5th district is being challenged by Dalia Al-Aqidi.

Al-Aqidi represents the same diverse identity markers the Left loves: She’s a refugee; she’s an immigrant; she’s escaped a war zone; and she’s a Muslim American. Dalia is also a journalist, bringing the same grit to the race to challenge Omar on the one thing that matters most: ideas, service to constituents and community.

Clarion Project spoke with Dalia Al-Aqidi on the issue of multiple law enforcement branches looking into Ilhan Omar’s history. Dalia shares,

“While the FBI does its job, I will continue to do my job as a congressional candidate in Minnesota’s 5th district. The constituents need someone to work for them and that’s what I’m doing. I’m here but where is she?”

While the race is on, journalists with integrity like David Steinberg continue to do the heavy lifting that mainstream media outlets have long abandoned in favor of agenda-driven journalism.

As Steinberg warns Americans of Ilhan Omar’s conduct, he underscores that, “The facts describe[d] perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”


Ilhan Omar Asks for Protection of a Somali Company Linked to Terror

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Ilhan Omar Forces New Conversation Around Somali Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Attorney General William Barr Vows Lawsuits And ‘Significant Escalation’ Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Attorney General William Barr vowed Monday to escalate the fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and announced a round of lawsuits that target states and localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The top attorney for the Trump administration announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be slapping several states and localities with lawsuits over their sanctuary policies while delivering remarks at the National Sheriffs’ Association in Washington, D.C., on Monday. DOJ later on announced complaints with California; New Jersey; and King County, Washington, over various policies that hinder the work of federal immigration authorities.

The moves were the latest in the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown against sanctuary jurisdictions across the country.

“This evening, I am announcing further actions the Department of Justice will take to protect the American people and allow for the proper and lawful functioning of our nation’s federal immigration system,” Barr said Monday while giving his address.

Barr announced that the DOJ was filling a complaint against New Jersey for a directive that limits what information state and local law enforcement can share with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive — an order the attorney general of New Jersey launched in 2018 — also forbids local and state law enforcement from participating in ICE operations and includes other restrictions.

The GOP attorney general also said his department would file a complaint with King County, which encompasses the liberal city of Seattle, for not allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use the King County International Airport to remove illegal aliens ordered to be deported from the U.S.

The DOJ isn’t stopping there. Barr said his department will be conducting reviews of sanctuary jurisdictions across the country

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies and laws of other jurisdictions across the country,” he said. “This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States.”

Shortly after his address, the DOJ announced the two lawsuits against New Jersey and King County. Additionally, the department lodged a complaint against California that challenges a state law, A.B. 32, which prohibits the operation of private detention facilities. Barr said the law was intended to forbid the detention of aliens in its state.

“Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’ But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe,” Barr said.

“We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law,” he added. 

The lawsuits follow DHS revocation of Trusted Traveler Programs for New Yorkers in response to the state barring DMVs from sharing information with ICE and Custom and Border Protection (CBP). ICE has also begun issuing subpoenas for information with jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal officials.


Jason Hopkins

Immigration and politics reporter. Jason Hopkins is a sci-fi reader, runner, coffee addict and an immigration reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.


A NYT Writer Said Trump’s Immigrant Crime Stories Were ‘Bogus’ – Then DHS Provided Him Examples

Barr: Justice Department Handling Giuliani’s Ukraine Information With Caution

Bill Barr Shocks Entire Nation – He Just Signed The Order

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

FLORIDA: Man Deliberately Rams Vehicle Into Duval County GOP Tent Full of Volunteers, President Trump Responds

Yet another example of the hate against those who are members of the Republican Party in Florida.

On Saturday, February 8, 2020, a dispute was reported in the area of 11900 Atlantic Boulevard. Officers with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office responded and determined that an aggravated assault had occurred. The victims reported that the suspect drove a van through the tent where they were working to register voters. The suspect was subsequently identified and arrested.

The suspect has been identified as:

Gregory William Loel Timm
27 years old

The suspect has been charged with two counts of Aggravated Assault on a Person 65 Years of Age or Older, one count of Criminal Mischief, and Driving While Driver’s License Suspended.

After this unprovoked attack Republican Party of Duval County Chairman Dean Black stated:

“We are outraged by this senseless act of violence toward our great volunteers. The Republican Party of Duval County will not be intimidated by these cowards and we will not be silenced. I call on every Republican in our great city to stand up, get involved and show these radicals that we will not be intimidated from exercising our Constitutional rights.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Police: Driver Who Targeted GOP Voter Registration Tent ‘Did Not Like’ Trump

RELATED VIDEO: Mayor Curry, Duval GOP Leaders Speak Out Against Attack On Volunteers

Judicial Watch Study Uncovers Dirty Voting Rolls in Iowa

Judicial Watch stepped up this week to call attention to the issue of dirty voting rolls in Iowa.

A Judicial Watch study found that eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than their eligible voting-age population. According to their analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2019 and U.S. Census Bureau’s five-year American Community Survey (also released in 2019), eight Iowa counties are on the list of 378 counties nationwide that have more voter registrations than citizens living there who are old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark. In Iowa, there are at least 18,658 “extra names” on the voting rolls in the eight counties at issue.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), we sent notice-of-violation letters to 19 large counties in five states (California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado) that we intend to sue unless the jurisdictions take steps to comply with the law and remove ineligible voter registrations. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act requires jurisdictions to take reasonable efforts to remove ineligible registrations from its rolls.

The chart below details our data on eight Iowa counties’ registration rate percentages:

Reg. Rate Total Pop.
Dallas County
114.8 80,864
Johnson County 107.9 144,425
Lyon County 102.5 11,745
Madison County 102.5 15,720
Poweshiek County 102.1 18,428
Dickinson County 100.9 17,000
Scott County 100.8 171,493
Warren County 100.5 48,630

In addition to the eight counties listed above, Polk County, Iowa’s largest, has an unusually high registration rate of 95.9% of total eligible citizen voting-age population.

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections, and Iowa needs to undertake a serious effort to address its voting rolls.

Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters Registration Act, which requires states to take reasonable steps to clean their voting rolls. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a massive voter roll clean up that resulted from our settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California also settled a similar lawsuit we brought against the state that last year began the process of removing up to 1.5 million “inactive” names from Los Angeles County voting rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of up to 250,00 names last year after it entered into a consent decree with us to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

Despite our demonstrated expertise and court successes, after our numbers were announced a key government official spread falsehoods about Judicial Watch’s data, which was gleefully picked up by the leftist media. To be clear, it is shameful that the secretary state of Iowa would mislead Iowans and Americans about the accuracy of the state’s registration rolls.

Again, our analysis of Iowa’s state registration rolls is based on official voter registration data provided by Iowa to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for publication in 2019. Data concerning such registrations must be reported to the EAC by law under federal regulation 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7. This is how we found the eight counties with registration rates over 100% of the voting age population. The next reliable report on Iowa’s registration rolls won’t occur until after the November election, as the EAC’s next report will be released in 2021.

The Iowa secretary of state’s release of interim voter registration data further confirms our concerns and shows that five of the eight counties we listed are still over 100%. Nearly three dozen counties have a registration rate over 95% of the voter age population, which is extraordinarily high. Our data has proven to be a strong indicator of voter registration issues and a basis for further inquiry.

Iowa’s secretary of state and local officials need to clean up the election rolls and reassure voters that the state’s election process is being administered in compliance with federal law and common sense.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VINDICATION: U.S. Senate Acquits President Donald Trump in Baseless Impeachment Proceedings

Congratulations to President Trump on the overwhelming vote by the U.S. Senate to acquit him and reject the baseless impeachment charges against him. Thankfully, the U.S. Senate rejected this act of tyranny by the Pelosi-Schiff coup cabal that controls the House of Representatives. That was “Vindication Day” for the President, the rule of law and the Constitution.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the president’s defense team deserve thanks for limiting the damage to our republic by successfully combating efforts to expand the trial to further abuse President Trump and the rule of law.

I attended to President Trump’s celebration of his acquittal at the White House this week. President Trump rightly called out the corrupt coup cabal that abused him and his family. This was great to see in person. I was honored to represent Judicial Watch at this historic marking of the vindication.

There must be accountability for this unprecedented abuse of power that targeted not only President Trump but also the Constitution. We have little doubt the president’s opponents will corruptly continue to abuse and harass him.

That’s why Judicial Watch will continue to investigate and pursue its dozens of lawsuits on the Biden-Ukraine scandal, details about Schiff’s misconduct as well the illegal spying on President Trump and other innocent Americans.

Judicial Watch Uncovers Emails Showing Involvement of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in Launching of FBI’s Operation Crossfire Hurricane

We recently uncovered 144 pages of emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page that show their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the Department of Justice (DOJ) was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that DOJ was making edits to FBI 302s (summaries of interviews) related to the Clinton investigation, also known as Midyear Exam (MYE). The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.

The records were produced in response to a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).

The FBI is only processing the records at a rate of 500 pages per month and has refused to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications won’t be completed until late 2021.

Strzok and Page were key investigators in both the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations.

On July 31, 2016, the day that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane was launched, Strzok sent an email under the subject line “Opening EC” [presumably standing for Opening Electronic Communication, which would have been needed to launch the FBI investigation] to Johnathan Moffa, a deputy assistant director in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, Page and an unidentified FBI Office of General Counsel official.

Strzok: Hey just realized I need a succinct statement for the Opening EC. To open bidding I propose: [redacted]. Comments, please.

Moffa: I would recommend: [redacted].

Page: I like Jon’s additions and subtraction.

Strzok: Thanks. So: [redacted].[TF1]

In his December 2019 report on the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) applications and other aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted that “[Bill] Priestap, Strzok’s supervisor, told us that ultimately he was the official who made the decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and Strzok then prepared and approved the formal documentation, as required by the DIOG.”

Horowitz also noted: “We found that while she attended some of the discussions, Lisa Page did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases.”

The new records show that on July 15, 2016, 10 days after Comey’s statement recommending no criminal charges against Clinton in the email investigation, Moffa emailed Strzok and Page informing them that additional classified emails were found among Clinton’s emails “beyond the number presented in the Director’s statements.”

Moffa: I just talked to [redacted]. Yesterday she reviewed some additional USDS classification determinations (which I’m not sure we’ve received via email) and identified additional confirmed emails beyond the numbers presented in the Director’s statements. [Redacted]

I assume you guys may want to get that info up the chain at some point, but I would recommend waiting a couple of hours so we can really lock down the details. This is going to be an ongoing thing I guess since there are still determination requests out there …

Strzok: Yeah I think that’s fine. We anticipated and I think everyone is aware that number would shift as the process went forward.

In his July 5, 2016 statement, Comey said:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

In a heavily redacted August 10, 2016, email exchange Strzok sends Page a forwarded message from unidentified agents from the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) who discuss Seth Rich. Rich, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, was murdered in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016. The case reportedly remains open.

A [redacted] official in the Public Affairs office of the WFO opens the email chain, writing:

Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during a recent overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich was a Wikileaks source, and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileak’s was offering $20,000 for information regarding Rich’s death last month. Based on this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in class today; however, when you have a moment, can you please give me a call to discuss what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation.

An unidentified WFO agent responds:

“I’m aware of this reporting from earlier this week but not any specific involvement in any related case.”

An unidentified WFO agent subsequently writes to Moffa and Strzok:

“Just FYSA. I squashed this with [redacted].”

Strzok then forwards the email chain to Page.

In a July 22, 2016, email exchange, Strzok and his boss, assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, are critical of how deferential the DOJ is being to Clinton’s legal team.

In the exchange, an associate at the law firm representing Clinton’s aides, Hal Brewster of Wilkinson Walsh, asks DOJ officials in the National Security Division (NSD) if they could schedule a meeting the following week. An unidentified NSD official notes, “It is my understanding that [deputy assistant attorney general George] Toscas may have called over to Jim [presumably FBI General Counsel Jim Baker] and Trisha [presumably FBI Office of General Counsel lawyer Trisha Anderson] regarding some high-level participation for at least the first few such calls.”

Later in the thread, an unidentified NSD official says:

In the meantime, I’ll tell Hal that we will certainly schedule a call and will get back to him as to timing. Since he knows Beth [presumably Clinton aides’ attorney Beth Wilkinson] personally, it could be useful to have Jim [Baker] on the phone if she is going to be haranguing us re: the laptops.

Strzok then writes to an unidentified FBI OGC official, Moffa and Page:

You are perfectly competent to speak to the legal obligations and FBI policies/procedures. We should NOT be treating opposing counsel this way. We would not in any other case.

Priestap agrees, telling Strzok:

Thank you, and I agree with you on both fronts. My guess is that George [Toscas] will not change his behavior, but thank you for trying. Let me know if it continues, as I can always try to get the DD to refer the issues to us.

In another July 22, 2016, email exchange, Strzok and Priestap seem to be critical of Baker’s handling of the Clinton case. Baker tells colleagues:

Got it. George asked me to participate if possible, so maybe I can join this one and then see where we are at.

Baker’s email is forwarded to Strzok, who tells Page, Moffa and Priestap:

Lisa/Bill, can you talk to him [presumably Baker]? This is wrong.

Page responds:

I’m planning to. I agree, I find his participation wholly unnecessary.

Priestap writes: “Lisa: When you speak to him, please tell him that I also believe it is unnecessary, and please let me know the outcome of your conversation.”

Page replies:

I spoke with Jim a little earlier, I explained [redacted]. Anyway, he said he appreciated the call and would give it some thought. I also offered that if he felt badly about backing down from what he told George, Trisha would be acceptable, but still was entirely unnecessary. Let me know if you have any questions.

A redacted FBI attorney then responds:

We spend entirely too much time in this case soothing [redacted’s] hurt feelings. I cannot believe that a grown man, a professional adult, continues to tattle. AND IT WORKS. Seriously … I am completely bewildered that this goes on in a professional workplace. And then he calls MY professionalism (and the FBI’s) into question. [Emphasis in original]

Strzok responds:

I know; it’s very frustrating. I talked at length with [redacted] and as best I can tell it was his feeling out of the loop (following a week he was on leave, in an environment where a lot of new actors we don’t control are participating), coupled with a strong desire not to be yelled at by opposing counsel. Truly.

On August 5, 2016, an unidentified official from the DOJ’s Office of the General Counsel, National Security Branch, emailed Strzok, Moffa, Page and others noting that:

Today [redacted] brought over additional 302s from WFO. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday?

Page replies:

To the best of my knowledge, yes, they will. When Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are, but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions.

Strzok responds:

The new PRN 302s do not. All of the rest do need to be redacted.

On August 4, 2016, Strzok forwards to Moffa, Page and unidentified OGC officials a link to a PBS interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Strzok writes:

A lot of interesting quotes in here. Is Trisha’s write-up done?

Page replies:

Yes. She wanted [redacted] to have one more look, but there’s no reason you couldn’t ask her for it.

Strzok responds:

Well, I want to serialize it to the file. Ideally before it breaks publicly. It it’s not ready, it’s not ready. And we sure as hell better try to get the AG brief done before this breaks.

On July 26, 2016, Strzok emails Page under the subject “AG defensive brief.” Strzok writes:

Hey has the AG defensive brief been scheduled? Probably smart to do that soon in the event it leaks out via Wiki or others…. [Loretta Lynch was attorney general at the time.]

These emails show that disgraced anti-Trump officials Strzok and Page were directly involved in the launching of the abusive spying on President Trump and his campaign. And, the emails reconfirm the urgent need for Attorney General Barr to reopen the Clinton email investigation, which was compromised by unprecedented bias for Clinton by senior Obama FBI and DOJ officials.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Why Impeachment Failed

It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has engendered less loyalty than the average president.

It’s difficult to recall, after all, a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama’s way, which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the next.

In 1998, no Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP’s case being far more methodical and incriminating.

The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history—unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon—and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary descent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.

And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion—a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial—the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.

You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.

Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess. House Democrats and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history. (I’m not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always “the worst thing ever!”

Even if Trump’s actions had risen to the level of removal, Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were terrible messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they’re the politicians you pick to rile up your base.

Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he’s been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion, but because he played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.

Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building a solid case, subpoenaing all the “vital” witnesses, and laying out a timeline, House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward.

They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.

That wouldn’t have been a big deal if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hadn’t exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks.

She did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them, and no political leverage.

In the end, she got nothing from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for her trouble.

Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on difficult-to-prove specific criminal offenses of “bribery” and “extortion”—poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “quid pro quo” didn’t play as well with the public.

Then, they didn’t even bother including the “crimes”—no, you don’t need a violation of criminal law to impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Democrats anyway—in their open-ended articles of impeachment, written expressly to compel Senate Republicans to investigate for them.

The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment, Democrats began dropping one “bombshell” leak after the next—the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings—to drag out the spectacle and maximize the political damage.

Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump’s call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate, even if it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But Democrats keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules.

The Constitution, a document under attack by the very people claiming to save it from the president, worked exactly as it should.

The House is free to subpoena all the “vital” witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn’t tantamount to a “coup” any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.

Pretending that democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn’t get your way, though, is nothing but histrionics.



David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How History Will Judge the Trump Impeachment

The Senate has voted against impeaching President Donald Trump, defeating two articles of impeachment by votes of 52-48 and 53-47. Trump joins two former presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, in being impeached by the House of Representatives before being acquitted by the Senate.

The House failed to produce credible evidence that the president committed any “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” or engaged in any action that justified his impeachment by the House, let alone his conviction and removal from office by the Senate.

Despite Democrats’ loss in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., are no doubt basking in the admiration of their liberal allies for their actions, and they are hoping that their attempt to damage the president in the eyes of the public will be successful in the 2020 election.

However, history is often an unforgiving critic.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Historians in the future may judge them far more harshly for abusing the impeachment power in the Constitution. That provision was not intended to allow 285 members of Congress—a simple House majority and two-thirds of senators—to remove a duly elected president for partisan reasons or over matters of style, no matter what his margin of victory in the last election.

Impeachment was to be used only in the direst of circumstances to remove a president clearly guilty of such serious, substantial misconduct that he posed a danger to the nation, and who was clearly unfit to continue in office until the next election when the public could make its own choice.

House Democrats did not come even close to meeting that standard.

It seems highly likely that Pelosi and company will be viewed in the same manner as historians now view the “radical Republicans” who impeached Johnson, and who came within one vote of convicting and removing him from office.

Republicans personally hated Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and they virulently disagreed with Johnson’s decision to implement Lincoln’s conciliatory policies toward the Southern states.

As Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen outline in “A Patriot’s History of the United States,” in inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of that heard from some Democrats today, radical Republicans claimed that Johnson was a “wild-eyed dictator bent on overthrowing the government.”

Schiff was just as inflammatory when he called Trump a “despot” and the type of tyrant the Founders feared, while Nadler called Trump a “dictator.”

Last time I checked the news, I didn’t see any stories about despotic activities by this president, such as a refusal to follow court orders or the abuse of federal law enforcement power to spy on and investigate political opponents. The latter is something only the prior administration did.

Liberals can certainly criticize the president for some of his policies that they may disagree with, but claiming he is a despot and a dictator is so over the top, so far from reality, that it helped destroy whatever credibility the House managers may have had at the start of the impeachment process. Their wild exaggerations made it pretty clear this was a partisan, politically-driven impeachment.

Paul Johnson, in his book “A History of the American People,” also records that during the impeachment proceedings, Andrew Johnson was subjected to “torrents of personal abuse” and other claims that Paul Johnson characterizes as “nonsense.”

Seem familiar? It should, because Trump was also subjected to “torrents of personal abuse” by House managers during the impeachment trial.

Included among the impeachment articles adopted by the House in 1868 was a charge that Andrew Johnson had “challenged the authority” of Congress and had criticized Congress with “intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues.”

Sounds an awful lot like the House’s claim in the impeachment resolution that Trump “impeded” the House and engaged in “unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance” of Congress.

Furthermore, the Johnson impeachment charged that the president had unlawfully removed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (an ally of the radical Republicans) and replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant.

Although it was not in the impeachment resolution, Schiff and his compatriots spent an enormous amount of time going after the president for firing the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch (who was appointed by President Barack Obama), as if that was an abuse of power. This despite the fact that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Once again, the parallels between the Trump and Johnson impeachments are eerie.

Historians almost universally condemn the Johnson impeachment as “rash, reckless, and unwarranted,” as Schweikart and Allen explain. As Paul Johnson says, no “constructive purpose was served by this vendetta, and the only political consequence was the discrediting of those who conducted it.”

Now that the process is over, at least for now, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that this impeachment, which Democrats started talking about doing as soon as Trump was inaugurated, was the result of personal and political “vendettas” against the president.

Given that some polls show that Trump is now more popular with the public than at any time during his presidency, Democrats may also end up suffering the “political consequences” of their abuse of the impeachment process and the “discrediting of those who conducted it.”

Originally published in Fox News


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: .


His Foes ‘Vicious’ and ‘Genius’ in Impeachment, Trump Tells Supporters

House Conservatives Outline Playbook for Government Reform

Pelosi Omits Christians as She Lists Religious Persecutions Around World

Trump Lauds Black Pastor Who Is Rebuilding Church After Arson

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Only 4 of Glasgow’s 71 Muslim Refugee Child Rapists Have Gone to Prison by Daniel Greenfield

By the summer of last year, Glasgow had the highest number of housed refugees in the UK with almost 10% of the “asylum seekers” setting up shop in the Scottish city. The overflow of refugees, many of them from Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, has brought in government money, but also violence and crime. Refugees whose requests for asylum are rejected refuse to leave and remain on in Glasgow.

Glasgow had been eager to cash in on asylum seekers, and in the last two decades was fundamentally transformed by the tide of migrants filling up its neighborhoods. As Pakistanis became the largest minority group in Scotland, 42% of the country’s Muslim population took up residence in Glasgow.

By the 2011 census, a fifth of Glasgow’s population was non-Scottish. In Pollokshields, a quarter of the population is Pakistani. Pollokshields is also where Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old Scottish teenage boy, was kidnapped in the spring of 2004, stabbed all over his body and then set on fire by a Pakistani gang.

“His violent death was a result of political correctness that has gripped the police in Scotland,” Mike Liddell, a senior police officer warned. “Crime within Glasgow’s Asian community has been allowed to grow unfettered for years. Why? Because the police have been afraid to fight it in case they are accused of racism.”

Ayub Khan, a member of the Multi-faith Coalition group in Pollokshields, agreed, “people know that the police are too scared to come into the area and be accused of racism.”

That was 15 years ago.

Last year, Mohammed Maqsood, had his appeal thrown out. Maqsood had been accused of the Kriss Donald murder, but had remained free until he raped an 18-year-old girl, who got into what she thought was a taxi in Glasgow, before she was brutalized and left half-naked in the street.

Mohammed then generously dumped her clothes in a charity bin to hide the evidence.

The assault was one of many that involved taxis and Glasgow’s growing Muslim community. The taboo topic has been the subject of multiple police investigations after reports began to circulate in the press.

2011 report in the Evening Times documented the story of a teenage girl who had been abused and prostituted by a man named Nasir.

“One minute I was a normal teenage girl, the next, I was being forced to have sex with these old men,” she revealed. “I had never even kissed a boy before – they completely took my innocence from me.”

Nasir raped her in front of his fellow gang members while they recorded the assault on their cell phones. After she was prostituted, harassment by the gang forced her family to flee from Glasgow’s immigrants.

In 2011, Operation Cotswold was set up to focus on the Muslim refugees who were abusing young girls in care homes, facilities for children from broken families.

The police identified 26 potential victims, but no one was prosecuted.

In 2013, Operation Dash tracked the role of Muslim taxi services and fast food places in the grooming and sexual abuse of young girls. It focused on the Strathclyde area, a center of the city’s Pakistani population going back decades. That was where the police had launched and then shuttered Operation Gather a decade earlier because its focus on Muslim gangs had been deemed politically incorrect.

Operation Dash found that girls as young as 10 years old were being abused. 84 victims were identified and 27 suspects were reported. Only three were reportedly actually sent to prison.

And only one, Javaid Akhond, a refugee from Afghanistan working in a fast food place, was named.

Akhond got only 6 years in prison for grooming and sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl, grooming and sexually abusing her 13-year-old friend, sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl, and then, raping a 16-year-old girl who tried to intervene. Then, once he was locked up, he tried to pressure the 15-year-old from prison to name him officially as the father of her child so that he could avoid deportation from Scotland.

The Muslim refugee, like many foreign criminals, was hoping to rely on EU rules that prevent the deportation of even the worst criminals if they have left behind a child in a European country.

The Muslim refugee gangs aren’t just raping young girls, they’re using them as asylum requests.

In a familiar pattern, Cotswold and Dash turned up over 100 victims, but very few actual results.

Operation Cerrar, the latest successor to these operations, identified 56 members of a Glasgow grooming gang. The perpetrators were Pakistani, Iraqi, Egyptian, Turkish, and Moroccan refugees.

44 girls were abused by these refugees. Many were abused many times. Including one who was assaulted by 28 of the perpetrators and another by 23 of them.

14 of the abusers have been deported. Only 1 is in prison.

The police kept the investigation and its results secret. With results like these, it’s easy to see why.

After three investigations that have taken place over a decade with 154 identified victims, and at least 71 perpetrators, there have been seemingly only four actual prison sentences.

And the only one that has been made public amounted to a slap on the wrist.

If British authorities prosecuted Muslim grooming gangs as vigorously as they do ‘Islamophobia’, then the countless thousands of girls abused across major cities would sleep soundly in their beds at night.

Like many of these cities, Glasgow opened its doors to Muslim migrants for economic and political reasons. Labour and the Scottish National Party then fought eagerly over Muslim votes.

The 154 abused girls paid the price for the UK’s migration policies, for Glasgow’s eagerness for the economic benefits of opening up to migrants and refugees, and of the Scottish National Party’s desire to achieve independence for Scotland, even if it had to do it by submitting to the EU and Islam, and replacing the native population with a more reliable voting base for its social welfare and green energy.

In 2007, Bashir Ahmad became the first Muslim member of the Scottish Parliament for the SNP from Glasgow. He was followed by Humza Yousaf, his former assistant, who became the first Muslim cabinet minister holding down the justice portfolio and took his oath of allegiance in the Scottish Parliament in Urdu. Jahangir Hanif, a Glasgow SNP councilor, was caught teaching his children to fire an AK-47 at a training camp in Pakistan, near Kashmir.

The SNP’s Islamic squad came through the Muslim Brotherhood’s local outlet, the Scottish Islamic Foundation. And the SNP generously funneled money to the SIF in recognition of their support.

The SIF’s boss, Osama Saeed, who has cheered a return of the Caliphate, was an adviser to former First Minister Alex Salmond, the SNP’s dirty leader, who ran Scotland into the ground.

Salmond is currently on trial for assaulting 10 women.

The Scotland National Party’s answer to Harvey Weinstein even stands accused of trying to rape a woman in Bute House, the official residence of the First Minister, and in the Scottish Parliament.

Is it really any wonder that Scottish authorities have managed to do an even worse job of tackling Muslim sex grooming gangs than their counterparts in Manchester, Rotherham, and Oxford?


EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: Stolen Lives — Victims of Illegal Alien Crime

The idea that illegal immigration is a victimless crime has been promoted by open borders activists, special interest groups, and the media elite. Tragically, there is a growing number of American mothers and fathers who will never see their children again.   A growing number of Americans who have lost their loved ones speak for them and countless other unheard voices.  These are their stories:

More details on victims of illegal alien crime.

Shayley Estes, was killed on July 24, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona by Igor Zubko, an illegal alien from Russia.  Shayley obtained an order of protection against Zubko just 10 days before her murder, but he entered her home and fatally shot her. Zubko entered the U.S. legally, but overstayed his visa and remained in the U.S. illegally. He is in police custody and faces first-degree murder charges.

Lennox Lake was 6 years old when he was seriously injured when the car in which he was riding was hit by a drunk driver, Constantino Banda Acosta, an illegal alien who’d been deported more than a dozen times. His parents, Ingrid and Benjamin Lake, were also in the car but were not hurt.  After two mistrials, a judge ruled there would be no more trials of Banda and he was placed into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He remains in federal custody awaiting sentencing for illegally reentering the country.

Sarah Root, 21, from Omaha, Nebraska was killed on January 31, 2016. Her SUV was rear-ended by Eswin Mejia, an illegal alien from Honduras, who was street racing. Sarah had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA the day before she passed away. Omaha is in Douglas County, Nebraska which has sanctuary policies that impede local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with ICE officers. Mejia was charged with motor vehicular homicide but posted bond to get out of jail and was released. He is still on the run.

Tessa Tranchant, 16, was killed on March 30, 2007 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Tessa and her friend, Ali Kunhardt, were sitting at a stoplight when Alfredo Ramos, an illegal alien from Mexico who was intoxicated and speeding, rear-ended their car. Ramos had a history of prior convictions, but due to Virginia Beach’s sanctuary policies, he was never detained. He was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Ronald da Silva was standing with a friend on April 27, 2002, in his driveway when he was shot and killed by an illegal alien who had been previously deported. The illegal alien was sentenced to 21 years in prison but will be released in 2020. Ronald da Silva’s mother, Agnes Gibboney, has made a powerful statement, “The guy that killed my son has a determinate sentence in prison but I have a lifetime sentence of grief and pain.” Since the tragedy occurred, Agnes has been on the front line pushing for immigration reform.

Dominic Durden was riding his motorcycle to work on July 12, 2012 when he was hit and killed by an illegal alien. The illegal immigrant who killed Dominic only served 35 days in jail. In the years since his passing Dominic’s mother Sabine Durden, a legal immigrant from Germany has been fighting for true immigration reform.

Send your love to an angel mom…

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Magnificent State of the Union Address

“Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results. Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging and our country is thriving and highly respected again.” – President Donald J. Trump

“One hundred and thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million very happy Americans. To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American health care.” – President Donald J. Trump

“We terminated his evil reign of terror forever. (Qasem Soleimani) Our message to the terrorists is clear: You will never escape American justice. If you attack our citizens, you forfeit your life!” –  President Trump

“A special man, someone beloved by millions of Americans, who just received a stage 4 advanced cancer diagnosis. This is not good news, but what is good news is that he is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet. Rush Limbaugh, thank you for your decades of tireless devotion to our country.” – President Donald J. Trump

Of course, the socialist left has vilified the spectacular State of the Union address given by our President.  Donald Trump succeeds in making America and her people love him more with each passing day.  His true love of our country and her people emanate from this man in everything he does, but more so in the SOTU speeches he has given.  It’s about others, not about him.  The word “I” doesn’t keep popping up in his speeches as it did in our former president’s every utterance.

What shocks and dismays Americans who support the Office of the President as well as the person who resides there, is the defiance and hatred, the classless disrespect of the president Americans elected to represent them, all because he’s not one of their globalist elitists.  Not only are they churlish in their lack of civility, but they openly disdain every wonderful advance our President has made in the past three years to Make America Great Again.

The Democrat Party has become the Communist Party USA.  They have shown they have little to offer America or her people other than the desire to bring us down to the level of third world Marxist nations run by Communist dictators who bleed and destroy the very soul of their people.

President Trump gave one of his finest speeches to the nation when he told the many stories of those who love America and who have been saved because America helped them.

Medal of Freedom to Rush

On Monday, the 3rd of February, Rush Limbaugh announced on his program that he had been diagnosed by two major medical institutions with stage four lung cancer that had metastasized to other parts of his body.

President Trump asked Rush and his wife Kathryn to be at the State of the Union address.  Our President surprised Rush with the honor of the Medal of Freedom given to Rush by First Lady Melania Trump during the SOTU speech and the Democrats wouldn’t even clap. Watch this magnificent video and please watch Kathryn Limbaugh’s face…you can see the love and the pain in her face for her sweetheart.

It has been reported that Rush was brought into the House Chamber via wheelchair.  This tells us all that his prognosis has been in effect for a lot longer than he has told us.  Stage Four is in reality a death sentence.  The life span is at most eight months and I don’t believe there’s that long for our Rush Limbaugh.

Without a miracle from our God, who Rush and family all worship and adore, we know we are going to lose one of the greatest men who has brought conservative talk radio to the forefront.  Two million listeners a day tune in to hear Rush’s take on politics, and if there was ever a time when we needed him, it’s now.  I haven’t agreed with everything Rush has said, but I know he steers the audience to truth, and I’ve seen him in person and he is one magnificent speaker.

I watched as Rush’s wife Kathryn looked at him when it was announced that First Lady Melania would give him the Medal of Freedom.

I saw in her face, her love for him and the knowledge that Rush is dying and without a miracle from God Almighty, he will be lost to us.  Heaven will rejoice, and we will mourn.

A good, perhaps great life, albeit short, has been lived by a man who tried to help keep America great. Pray for him, and pray for his family…losing Rush truly is a great loss to America.  God does supply miracles…pray for one!

President Trump’s Guests

Here is the list of the many beautiful guests President Trump invited and honored at this 2020 State of the Union address.

How magnificent…to see the great, great grandson of a hundred-year-old Tuskegee Airman…a black man whose team guarded the pilots carrying bombs, they were trained for aerial combat. They are the real heroes and history has recorded them as such.  Now, the great, great, grandson of this Airman is working to join the Air Force Academy and eventually going to space.

From a mother who wanted the very best education for her only daughter, to a man who lost his beloved brother because of a criminal illegal alien, to a reunited family with the soldier who is at war and not with his wife and children, to parents who lost their daughter Kayla to a terrorist…a menace to the world who was eliminated by the orders of our Commander in Chief.  And to so many more, even a baby who is now a healthy two-year-old who survived despite being born at 21 weeks gestation.  And a veteran who came home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), who ended up on drugs and then because of a Trump program, got clean and is now reunited with his family and holds a great job.

Here is the full video of the State of the Union 2020 address.  You will have to watch it twice because of the distraction of Speaker Pelosi’s classless disrespect for the Office of President of the United States.

Speaker Pelosi

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke congressional tradition by introducing President Donald Trump as only “the president of the United States.”  Previous House speakers have introduced the sitting commander in chief by saying they had the “high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.”

The mainstream media is saying that the President snubbed her by not shaking her hand when she extended it.  He didn’t shake hands with the Vice President either, and personally why would he want to shake hands with someone who has led the House to impeach him.

As if it wasn’t bad enough that Pelosi would not stand or clap for the achievements of our President, she wouldn’t even applaud or stand for the many guests who were featured by President Trump.  She disgraced herself, and her Party for leading them in a “deplorable” attitude of disdain toward the President of the United States, and the 63 million Americans who elected him.

We watched as she shook her head when he made statements she didn’t like.  We watched her tongue run around her mouth in distaste for the truth our President presented, and we watched her speak to Vice President Pence who ignored her as he was listening to the President.  We watched her as she stared at her comrades in the Democrat Party, who like her wore white. They claim the wearing of white pays homage to the women’s suffrage movement that led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which guaranteed women the right to vote.  What hogwash!

What I see is not women in white, signifying purity before marriage and first communion to Christ, what I see is women in white with the blood of the unborn they’ve chosen to murder in their mother’s wombs, dripping across their white robes of defiance.  They look like Ku Klux Klan members covered in scarlet stripes.  They represent evil, they represent hatred of America’s freedoms, they represent the disgrace of honor, they represent the intent to destroy the beauty of the founders of this nation’s liberties, they represent death, not life, and they represent destruction not hope, and certainly not joy.  They belong to their father the devil.

But Speaker Pelosi, your petty and vicious acts of hatred in front of the horrified and dismayed invited guests, and the millions of American citizens who watched you tear up the four pages of our President’s speech…this went beyond evil…this was an atrocity born only of mediocrity and hatred, of rudeness by a person of ill-bred graceless incivility and black hearted wickedness.

Video surfaced Wednesday appearing to show House Speaker Pelosi testing and pre-ripping paper during President Trump‘s State of the Union address before she would later rip it up at the end of his speech.  She literally tore in half each sheet of the Commander in Chief’s State of the Union address on national TV at the conclusion of his remarks Tuesday night.  This is one of the most classless acts ever done at the State of Union.  She was unmoved by the American stories our President presented.

Pelosi ripped up one of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen.  She ripped up the survival and growth of a beautiful little girl.  She tore up the mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller.  She shredded a soldier’s reunion with his family and she pulverized the glory of the Medal of Freedom given to the number one talk radio host who is now in the fight of his life.

That’s her legacy.  She is filled with demons of hatred for Americans and America.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be forced to resign, she has overstepped all bounds of decency.

Senate Votes to Acquit

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to acquit the President for the fraudulent impeachment led by Nancy Pelosi.

Willard “the rat” Mitt Romney was the only Republican who voted against acquittal for the unethical impeachment of this great President. Although President Trump was innocent of anything improper, Romney hates him despite the fact that Donald Trump supported him both when he ran for President and for the Senate.

Republican Utah state Rep. Tim Quinn has introduced a bill in that state’s legislature that would allow voters to recall U.S. senators — a possible swipe at Utah Senator Romney, despite Quinn saying the bill isn’t targeted at anyone in particular.  Let’s hope it passes.


Pray for our President, pray for our country, and pray for Rush Limbaugh, his wife and his family.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s State of the Union Address Affirms Americanism as Nation’s Guiding Ethos

EXCLUSIVE: Pence Blasts Democrats Failed Impeachment Attempt

Vice President Mike Pence blasted Democrats on Wednesday for their failed attempt to impeach President Donald Trump in a sit-down interview with the Daily Caller.

Pence sat down with the Caller as the Senate was voting to acquit the president, and was not at all worried about the outcome, saying, “well, we’ve you know, we have supported this administration and supported the president every step of the way. And the truth is, I think the American people have seen this for what it is, it’s nothing more than a sham investigation where the president was given no due process at all, followed by a partisan impeachment, which today will result in the president of the United States being acquitted by the United States Senate,” Pence told the Daily Caller.

“We simply sought to continue to support the president. Look, the American people have the facts. I mean, we started out with a whistleblower complaint. We never hear about the whistleblower anymore because the American people can read the transcript. They could see there was no quid pro quo President Zelensky said there was no pressure. The president did nothing wrong. And Ukraine received all of the military aid that was approved by the Congress,” Pence said.

“His acquittal today will be a confirmation of all of that. And I hope also it’s it gives us an opportunity to move on,” Pence concluded.


Check out TheDC’s videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel to avoid missing out.


Senate Votes To Acquit President Trump

EXCLUSIVE: Pence Rips Pelosi’s Behavior During Trump’s State Of The Union

White House Rebukes Nancy Pelosi And Adam Schiff In Post-Acquittal Victory Lap

Acquitted Of All Charges, “The Greatest President” Overcomes Impeachment In Heroic Fashion

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.