Category Archives: Dept of Justice

50 state attorneys general launch antitrust investigation of Google

Something is finally being done about Google, the tech behemoth that systematically discriminates against conservatives and Christians.

Tellingly, more than a year ago in May 2018, Google got rid of its unofficial “Don’t be evil” motto that had been part of the company’s corporate code of conduct since 2000.

On Monday, Sept. 9, 2019, attorneys general for 50 U.S. states and territories officially announced an antitrust investigation of Google‘s threat to competition, consumers and the continued growth of the web.

The Washington Post reports that the investigation is led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and seven other attorneys general, four Democrats and four Republicans in total. Every state except Alabama and California, the latter ironically the home of Silicon Valley, so far has signed onto the bipartisan effort, as have Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

During a news conference on Monday on the steps of the Supreme Court with officials from 11 states and the District of Columbia, Texas AG Ken Paxton, a Tea Party conservative, said the probe’s initial focus is Google’s online advertising, but promised the probe would go wherever the facts lead. State officials already have sent Google official legal demands for documents related to the investigation of online ads.

According to eMarketer, Google is expected to rake in more than $48 billion in U.S. digital ad revenue this year, far rivaling its peers, while capturing 75% of all spending on U.S. search ads. Describing Google as dominating “all aspects of advertising on the Internet and searching on the Internet,” Paxton said “They dominate the buyer side, the seller side, the auction side and the video side with YouTube.”

The other attorneys general raised additional complaints about Google, from the way the company processes and ranks search results to the extent to which it may not fully protect users’ personal information:

  • Sean Reyes, the Republican attorney general of Utah, said “There’s nothing wrong with being a dominant player when it’s done fairly,” and that while there is a “presumption” of innocence in such an investigation, still there is a “pervasiveness” to complaints about Google’s business practices.
  • Jeff Landry, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana, added: “We’re here because there’s an absolutely existential threat to our virtual marketplace.”
  • Ashley Moody, the Republican attorney general of Florida, said the states’ Google probe starts with the company’s vast data stores: “Google monitors our online behavior, and captures data on every one of us as we navigate the internet. This investigation will initially focus on capture of that information and whether Google embedded itself on every level of the online market [for] ad sales to monopolize this industry.”
  • Leslie Rutledge, a Republican attorney general from Arkansas, described Google as an “online search engine juggernaut” and raised her concern that searches for businesses, including doctors, are colored by the way the tech giant’s algorithms and advertising systems work — “I want the best advice, from the best doctors — not the doctor, not the clinic who can spend the most on advertising.”

Six years ago, federal watchdogs wrapped up an antitrust investigation into Google’s search and advertising practices and opted against bringing major penalties against the company, including breaking it up. Regulators around the world, however, have been more skeptical of Google: The European Union has issued the company $9 billion in competition-related fines over the past three years.

The attorneys general’s investigation marks the latest regulatory headache for Google and the rest of Silicon Valley, which have faced growing criticism — and widening state and federal scrutiny — into whether they’ve grown too big and powerful, undermining rivals and resulting in costlier or worse service for web users. Other probes include:

  • The Department of Justice and FTC also are scrutinizing Big Tech. DOJ has taken early interest in Google, and recently issued its first legal demand for records.
  • Another group of 11 state attorneys general — led by New York’s Letitia James — has begun their own probe against Facebook, on whether it violates competition laws and mishandles consumers’ personal information.

Some state leaders said they are working closely with their federal counterparts as these investigations unfold. But Karl Racine, the Democratic attorney general for D.C. and a participant in both the Facebook and Google probes, said he and the other state attorneys general wouldn’t hesitate to forge ahead if Washington once again opts against taking action against the tech giants: “The state attorneys general, they are an independent bunch, and they can be quite tenacious. So I’m very confident that this bipartisan group is going to be led by the facts, and not be swayed by any conclusion, that may fall short, if you will, if it’s inconsistent with our facts, on the [federal] side.”

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

DOJ wants Apple & Google to surrender names of 10k+ users of a gun-scope app

Do you own a rifle? Do you have a scope to go with it, like the ATN X-Sight 4K Rifle Scope?

If you do, the U.S. government may soon know who you are, your phone number and other personal information.

Obsidian 4, made by American Technologies Network Corp, is an application that connects via Wifi your smart phone or tablet to the ATN X-Sight 4K or ThOR 4 rifle scope. This connection enables you to watch a live video stream of your hunt on your smart phone or tablet, as well as review the images and videos stored on your scope’s microSD card.

The Obsidian 4 app can be downloaded from Apple or Google.

Thomas Brewster reports for Forbes that on Sept. 5, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an application for a court order asking Google and Apple to hand over the personal information — names, phone numbers and other identifying data — of at least 100,000 users of the Obsidian 4 app, i.e., rifle-owners.

If the court signs off on the order, Apple and Google will be told to hand over the names, phone numbers and IP addresses (which could be used to determine the location of the user) of anyone who downloaded the scope app from August 1, 2017 to the current date. The government also wants to know when users were operating the app.

According to the Google Play page for Obsidian 4, it has more than 10,000 downloads. Apple doesn’t provide download numbers, which means the actual number of Obsidian 4 users far exceeds 10,000. 

Forbes calls this “an unprecedented move” because never before has the U.S. government demanded personal data of users of a single app from Apple and Google, or asked the Silicon Valley giants for information on so many thousands of people in one go.

According to the DOJ court order, which is supposed to be sealed and hidden from public view but Forbes obtained a copy, the ostensible reason for this unprecedented request is because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department wants the information as part of a broad investigation into possible breaches of weapons export regulations, including illegal exports of ATN’s scope. Finding out where the Obsidian 4 app is in use will likely indicate where the hardware has been shipped. In the words of the court order: “the information requested herein will assist the government in identifying networks engaged in the unlawful export of this rifle scope through identifying end users located in countries to which export of this item is restricted.”

But privacy activists warn that if the court approves the demand, and Apple and Google decide to hand over the information, it could include data on not just users abroad who might be engaged in illegal shipments of the gun scope, but also on thousands of people who have nothing to do with the crimes being investigated:

  • Edin Omanovic of Privacy International’s State Surveillance program said it would set a dangerous precedent and scoop up “huge amounts of innocent people’s personal data. Such orders need to be based on suspicion and be particularized—this is neither.”
  • Tor Ekeland, a privacy lawyer, said the order amounted to a “fishing expedition” and that there’s a long history of that kind of behavior from the U.S. government. Ekeland warned that the government could apply this demand to other types of app, such as dating or health apps.: “The danger is the government will go on this fishing expedition, and they’ll see information unrelated to what they weren’t looking for and go after someone for something else. There’s a more profound issue here with the government able to vacuum up a vast amount of data on people they have no reason to suspect have committed any crime. They don’t have any probable cause to investigate, but they’re getting access to data on them.”
  • Jake Williams, a former NSA analyst and now a cybersecurity consultant at Rendition Infosec, said: “The idea that this data will only be used for pursuing ITAR violations is almost laughable. Google and Apple should definitely fight these requests as they represent a very slippery slope. This type of bulk data grab is seriously concerning for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the download of an application does not automatically imply the ‘intended use’ of the application. The idea that Google could be compelled to turn over, in secret, all of my identifiers and session data in its possession because I downloaded an application for research is such a broad overreach it’s ridiculous.”

Though the DOJ order is unprecedented in America, non-U.S. governments have tried a similar tactic before on a grander scale. As Forbes reported, an unnamed government had asked Apple for data on 58 million users of a single app as they tried to trace a terrorist cell. Apple declined to provide the data.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

DOJ Inspector General referred Comey for prosecution but AG Barr refused to prosecute

Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz is the chief watchdog of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Katie Pavlich reports for Townhall that on Thursday morning, August 29, 2019, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released an 83-page long report on fired FBI Director James Comey‘s misconduct — that Comey set a “dangerous precedent” by purposefully leaking to the media confidential FBI memos about conversations with President Trump for personal and political gain, so as to launch the Special Counsel investigation into the 2016 presidential election on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s alleged (but wholly without evidence) collusion with the Russians. During sworn congressional testimony in 2017, Comey himself admitted that he’d purposely leaked the confidential memos to a friend, who then gave them to the New York Times.

The IG’s report specifically addresses a number of claims made by Comey that the memos he leaked were “personal documents.” But the IG concluded the memos, which were written on an official FBI computer while Comey was working in his official capacity as FBI director, belong to the FBI. Even worse, after Comey was fired he held onto the memos, which was against FBI protocol. From the report:

We conclude that the Memos were official FBI records, rather than Comey’s personal documents.  Accordingly, after his removal as FBI Director, Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the “CONFIDENTIAL” level.

Comey told the Office of the Inspector General that he considered Memos 2 through 7 to be his personal documents, rather than official FBI records.  He said he viewed these Memos as “a personal aide-mémoire,” “  like [his] diary” or   “like [his] notes,” which contained his “recollection[s]” of his conversations with President Trump. Comey further stated that he kept Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 in a personal safe at home because he believed the documents were personal records rather than FBI records. Comey’s characterization of the Memos as personal records finds no support in the law and is wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records, and the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.  

We conclude that the Memos are official FBI records as defined by statute, regulations, Department and FBI policies, and Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement. Because they are official FBI records, Comey was required to handle the Memos in compliance with all applicable Department and FBI policies and the terms of his Employment Agreement.

The IG report concluded that by retaining and leaking official FBI documents, including confidential documents, James Comey  violated:

  1. The DOJ and policies pertaining to the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information; and
  2. The requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement.

In the words of the Inspector General’s report:

[A]fter his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

Incredibly, despite the DOJ Inspector General’s findings, Comey will not be prosecuted.

About a month before the release of the Inspector General’s report, The Hill had reported that “Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution,” ostensibly because the prosecutors “did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.”

A source told The Hill that prosecutors “working for” Barr were particularly concerned with one memo that Comey had leaked to a friend for publication by the media contained information that the FBI subsequently classified at the lowest level of “confidential” only after Comey had transmitted the information. And so the Attorney General’s office decided not to prosecute Comey so as not to “look petty and vindictive,”

After he learned that Attorney General Barr will not prosecute him, James Comey then completely misrepresented and twisted the Inspector General’s report into what it was not.

In a tweet on August 29, 2019, Comey crowed that the DOJ Inspector General found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media. Comey accused President Trump of giving the public “bad information”. Then Comey had the chutzpah to demand “a public apology from those who defamed me” or “a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

Justice really is dead in America.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Lindsey Graham claims we’ll soon know the ugly truth about Russian probe & it will be “damning” for intelligence communities

Well, if you got the goods sir, produce them NOW. Because I’m not going to hold my breath.

From Daily Mail: Republican senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday that the Inspector General’s report on how the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia began will be ‘ugly and damning’ for the Department of Justice.

During an interview with Fox News, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham said the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report is ‘going to be ugly and damning regarding the DOJ handling of the Russian probe.’

Graham said that Horowitz’s report is now expected to be released in the coming weeks and he is determined to have the report released so that the American people can find out what it says about the Russia probe.

When asked why the report, which was expected to have been submitted months ago, was delayed for so long, Graham said that ‘Every time you turn around you find something new.’

He added that ‘Mr. Horowitz is doing a very in-depth dive’ into how the FBI made use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in an effort to obtain a warrant allowing them to monitor Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page.

Graham said that when Horowitz submits his report, the DOJ will evaluate it for classified information, but that he wants to ‘declassify as much as possible. ‘I want the American public to hear the story, I want all this information to come out,’ Graham said. ‘I don’t want people to believe what I say about it, I want them to read for themselves how bad it was.’

Graham said he wants ‘people to see how off the rails this investigation got’ and that he wants ‘people to be held accountable.’

‘I am patient,’ Graham said. ‘I am not in a hurry, I want to do it right.’

Graham said that he wanted George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign staffer who pleaded guilty to making false claims to the FBI, to testify in front of his Senate Judiciary Committee after Horowitz’s report is released.

The senator said he believes that Papadopoulos’ interview transcripts reveal that he was ‘clearly’ not working with the Russians as has been claimed.

Papadopoulos is said to have been responsible for initiating the Russia probe by telling an Australian diplomat that he had heard that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The diplomat was said to have alerted US officials about what the ex-campaign staffer said.

Graham also noted that he believe the FBI’s application for a FISA warrant was a ‘fraud on the court’ because the FBI relied in Christopher Steele’s dossier to get the warrant, even though Steele was, what Graham called, ‘an unreliable informant’ who disliked Trump.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell hiding in plain sight

We are told that on August 10, 2019, a day after the unsealing of documents with names of prominent Democrats, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide-by-hanging in his jail-cell in a federal detention center in Manhattan although he should have been under suicide watch.

We are also told that his guard actually had fallen asleep, and so was oblivious to Epstein’s screams. (Who screams while hanging himself?)

The unsealed documents are related to a defamation lawsuit by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims to be one of Epstein’s sex-trafficking victims, against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, 57, Epstein’s accomplice in sex trafficking who procured girls as young as 14. Maxwell’s father, British media tycoon Robert Maxwell, had died in 1991 supposedly from a heart attack and drowning.

Giuffre claims Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her when she was a 16-year-old spa attendant at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., and trained her to be Epstein’s sex slave. In 2015, Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation because Maxwell publicly accused Giuffre for lying about being sexually abused by Epstein, whereas for years, Maxwell “assisted in internationally trafficking” girls for Epstein and his pedophile buddies “for sexual purposes.” Maxwell has denied the allegations.

Ghislaine Maxwell is also a defendant in another lawsuit by another of Epstein’s accusers, Jennifer Araoz, for conspiring “to make possible and otherwise facilitate the sexual abuse and rape of [Araoz].”

But it’s not just Giuffre and Araoz who are accusing Ghislaine Maxwell for sex-trafficking. According to the New York Post :

  • Investment banker Euan Rellie recently told The Cut: “Every pretty girl in New York in those days, Ghislaine would invite to Jeffrey’s. Her job was to jazz up his social life by getting fashionable young women to show up.”
  • A source close to Maxwell recently told Vanity Fair that Maxwell spoke openly about procuring girls for Epstein: “Ghislaine was in love with Jeffrey the way she was in love with her father. She always thought if she just did one more thing for him, to please him, he would marry her. When I asked what she thought of the underage girls, she looked at me and said, ‘They’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.’”

In spite of the lawsuits and accusations, for some mysterious reason, the FBI has not arrested Ghislaine Maxwell although Attorney General William Barr declared that “Any [Epstein] co-conspirators should not rest easy.” We were told she could not be found anywhere.

But Gislaine Maxwell was hiding in plain sight.

Two days after Epstein’s supposed suicide, on August 13, 2019, Maxwell was spotted scarfing down a burger, fries and shake at an In-N-Out Burger in Los Angeles, while reading The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives, a nonfiction best-seller by journalist Ted Gup.

She even posed for this pic:

As the New York Post reports: “Sitting alone with a pet pooch, she was surprised to have been found and told an onlooker, ‘Well, I guess this is the last time I’ll be eating here!’”

Maxwell, accused in court papers of providing sex slaves for Epstein and engaging in threesomes with the financier and underage girls, had not been photographed in public since 2016.

Maxwell hopped onto the New York social scene in the early 1990s and was linked to Epstein by 1992, first romantically, then platonically, according to media reports. A 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein dubbed her the financier’s “best friend.” She was spotted on his private plane, the Lolita Express, and at his Upper East Side townhouse, hobnobbing with everyone from Prince Andrew to Bill Clinton.

On August 12, 2019, it was reported that since 2016, Ghislaine Maxwell had been living with tech CEO Scott Borgeson in his mansion in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass. A neighbor told the New York Post that Maxwell left the residence about one month ago.

There are persistent rumors that Jeffrey Epstein worked for Mossad and might have been an informant for the CIA. Was Ghislaine Maxwell sending a message via the book she was reading, The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives?

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

President Trump is drafting executive order on social media’s censorship of conservatives

About three months ago, in May 2019, President Trump finally heeded the cries of conservative bloggers (including Fellowship of the Minds) and users of social media of being censored, blacklisted and abused by the tech giants. The White House created a webpage for us to relate our travails — as individuals, websites, and blogs.

The evidence that conservatives are being censored is overwhelming. See:

It is, of course, in President Trump’s self-interest to do something about this censorship. See “Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent ‘Trump situation’ in 2020“.

In July, at a White House social media summit, President Trump decried the censorship and directed his administration to explore all “regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans.” Last Tuesday, citing the case of a Google engineer who says he had been fired for his conservative views, Trump warned that he is “watching Google very closely.”

Now, it is reported that the Trump White House is preparing an executive order to address the anti-conservative bias of the tech giants.

Tech giants’ love-fest with Barack Obama

Politico reports, August 7, 2019, that according to a White House official and two other people familiar with the matter, the Trump White House is circulating drafts of a proposed executive order to address social media companies’ anti-conservative bias.

The unnamed White House official said: “If the internet is going to be presented as this egalitarian platform and most of Twitter is liberal cesspools of venom, then at least the president wants some fairness in the system. But look, we also think that social media plays a vital role. They have a vital role and an increasing responsibility to the culture that has helped make them so profitable and so prominent.”

The executive order, which deals with other topics besides tech bias, is still in the early drafting stages and is not expected to be issued imminently. None of the three individuals would describe the contents of the executive order or what penalties, if any, would be visited on companies deemed to be censoring political viewpoints. But its existence, and the deliberations surrounding it, are evidence that the Trump administration is taking a serious look at wielding the federal government’s power against Silicon Valley.

The Trump White House faces many obstacles in crafting a policy against the censorship:

  1. The federal government’s options on combating online bias are limited by the First Amendment. Before he left his job in May, John Morris, who handled internet policy issues at the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), said: “There’s very little in terms of direct regulation the federal government can do without congressional action, and frankly I think that’s a positive thing. Although the government may be able to support and assist online platforms’ efforts to reduce hate and violence online, the government should not try to impose speech regulations on private platforms. As politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have historically urged, the government should not be in the business of regulating speech.”
  2. Another obstacle is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which both protects online platforms from liability for content their users post and empowers the companies to remove content without fear of liability. Section 230 has increasingly come under fire from lawmakers of both parties frustrated with tech companies’ content moderation practices.
  3. A crackdown on social media companies would involve at least four federal agencies: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),  Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice, and Department of Commerce. However:
    1. Although the Justice Department has announced a sweeping antitrust review of whether tech giants are harming competition or stifling innovation, antitrust cases have not traditionally been used as tools to address complaints about online speech.
    2. Republicans at the FCC and FTC already have said publicly that they don’t see a role for their agencies in policing companies’ online content:
      1. Republican FCC Commissioner and Trump appointee Brendan Carr tweeted: “Outsourcing censorship to the government is not just a bad idea, it would violate the First Amendment. I’m a no.”
      2. Republicans at the FTC, which punishes companies for unfair or deceptive acts, also have said they don’t see a role for the agency in policing allegations of social media bias. During an FTC oversight hearing in the Senate last year, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued that a tech company could be considered “actively deceptive” if it appears to be a neutral public platform and then engages in censorship. But Republican FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips said the FTC’s antitrust and consumer protection authorities are “not authorities to police the First Amendment itself.”
  4. Conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, have also spent decades opposing any attempt to revive the FCC’s old Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to be balanced in their programming on controversial issues.

What the Trump White House can do:

  1. One potential approach could involve using the government’s leverage over federal contractors, a tactic the Obama administration used to advance LGBT rights via a 2014 executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Trump did just that last March when he signed an executive order to promote free speech on college campuses by requiring schools to agree to promote free inquiry (which they are already supposed to do, but many don’t) in order to receive federal research funding.
  2. The administration could have the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which handles communications policy, to convene interested parties to explore the issues.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

1 of 14 inmates in Nevada are illegal aliens

Washoe County in the state of Nevada provides “sanctuary” to illegal aliens.

Citing a Las Vegas Review-Journal article that requires a subscription to read, John Binder reports for Breitbart that a sizeable number of inmates in Nevada’s prison population — as many as 1-in-14 inmates — are illegal aliens:

  • The illegal-alien inmates number about 1,000.
  • About 200 of those illegal-alien inmates had previously been convicted of crimes in the U.S. but were never deported, or had committed crimes after reentering the country for at least a second time.
  • Nearly half of the illegal-alien inmates population were convicted of violent crimes against Americans, including:
    • 150 illegal aliens convicted of murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder.
    • 320 illegal aliens convicted of sexual assault, including 240 child sex offenders.

Costs to taxpayers:

  • Those illegal-alien inmates cost Nevada’s taxpayers more than $21 million every year. The average cost to taxpayers to house an inmate in Nevada is about $22,000 a year, with the Department of Justice reimbursing only a small amount of the cost.
  • In 2017, the Justice Department — that is, American taxpayers — reimbursed local and state prisons across the U.S. almost $190 million to help offset the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.
  • Criminal foreigners in federal prisons cost American taxpayers about $1.4 billion every year.

Between Fiscal Year 2011 and 2016, about 91% of all criminal illegal and legal immigrants in federal U.S. prisons were nationals from 5 Latin American countries: Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Thousands of ex-prisoners to reunite with their families as part of President Trump’s First Step Act

President Trump with some receiving commuted sentences

More good news for some families that the demorat-loving media will try to bury.

From Fox News: More than 2,200 federal inmates are returning to their families this month from behind bars under the bipartisan prison reform bill President Trump signed into law last year, according to policy experts and prisoner advocates involved in the effort.

This month will see the largest group to be freed so far under a clause in the First Step Act that reduces sentences due to “earned good time.” In addition to family reunification, the formerly incarcerated citizens, 90 percent of whom have been African-American, hope to get employment opportunities touted by Trump last month at the White House as part of the “Second Chance” hiring program.

“We’re a nation that believes in redemption,” the president said, noting Americans with criminal backgrounds are unemployed at rates up to five times the national average, which was around 3.8 percent earlier this year. “You’re gonna have an incredible future.”

The Trump Administration has asked the private sector to help the ex-prisoners reacclimate to their newfound freedom with jobs and housing in one of the largest criminal justice public-private-partnerships ever assembled.

“I just want to thank the president for really standing behind this issue and seeing the compassion that he’s had for criminal justice has been really remarkable,” the “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” star Kim Kardashian said during a Second Chance Hiring and Re-entry event at the White House in June.

The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) has offered 300,000 human resources professionals behind this effort and Goodwill International pledged its national network of reentry providers.

Matthew Charles, the first inmate released from the program and recognized by Trump for being a “model citizen,” told “America’s Newsroom” barriers to employment and housing need to be “eliminated” so former inmates don’t find themselves back in prison.

The Trump Administration has a broad amount of support across governmental departments from labor to DOJ to DOE, as well as governors across the country streamlining state services in order to reduce the barriers Charles mentioned.

Another provision of the First Step Act is moving prisoners to within 500 miles of their families to help with visitation.

Jessica Jackson, an attorney and national director of #cut50, told The Stream it’s a “huge benefit to everyone” involved. “Relationships have been destroyed by the isolation of incarceration,” Jackson said. “This way, people will be able to grow their support network prior to release. It’s a huge benefit to public safety.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Just what we need: Celebrities lecturing us about the “truth about Trump collusion”

I made it through about a minute of this video. That’s about all I can take of self-righteous celebrities with TDS.

And if the “collusion” is there, why isn’t President Trump impeached yet? Why the wait? Huh?

Expect the delusional hysterics to continue well until 2020…

DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ruh roh! TDS-infected Robert De Niro pens “strongly worded” letter to Robert Mueller

From Yahoo: After a half dozen episodes of playing the man on “Saturday Night Live,” Robert De Niro is doing his best to offer professional advice to Robert Mueller.

In a New York Times op-ed response to Mueller’s Wednesday morning press conference, the actor pleaded for the Justice Department’s outgoing special counsel to be more active in the aftermath of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Displaying a surprising amount of deference to a man he’s spent the past few months trying to turn into a tool for comedy on broadcast television, De Niro wrote, “As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better. I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law. I watched how you presided over the special counsel’s office apparently without leaks. And you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.”

Still, after Mueller’s impromptu announcement this (yesterday) morning — in which he stated that he would be closing the special counsel’s office and would not be appearing before any further congressional hearings on matters related to last month’s report on his findings — De Niro wants more.

“In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work ‘speaks for itself.’ It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King),” De Niro wrote.

Whether or not De Niro had some version of this chambered and ready to go before this morning’s surprise announcement is unclear. But this is far from the first time De Niro has been vocal about matters related to the current White House occupant. “Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him,” De Niro wrote on Wednesday, referring to an ongoing string of public statements he’s made during the Trump tenure.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0