Advertisements

Category Archives: Dept of Justice

Trump Fights Back on 3 Fronts: against Antifa, Democrats & Russian conspiracy theory

According to Joey Millar of Jews News, Aug. 17, 2017, Tony Schwartz, the ghost-writer of Donald Trump’s best-selling memoir The Art of the Deal, said President Trump could resign in a matter of weeks in exchange for immunity in the investigation into Russia’s alleged interfering with last November’s presidential election.

Schwartz, who has been a fierce critic of Trump throughout the first seven months of his presidency, said the situation is reaching boiling:

“The circle is closing at blinding speed. Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and Congress leave him no choice. Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till the end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner. He has gone over the line of acceptability so far there is no return. The Russia stuff will be huge. He doesn’t want to go to jail.”

Really, Schwartz?

Instead of resigning, President Trump is fighting back.

Two days ago, Sean Hannity sent out a series of intriguing tweets:

“3 different fronts”? Um . . . .

Here are three possibilities.

Front #1: Trump DOJ declares war on Antifa

DisruptJ20, a coalition of Antifa groups, was among the communist organizations that planned activities, including terrorist activities, to disrupt the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. (See “Video evidence of the Left’s terrorist plans for Trump inauguration”)

DreamHost, headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, is the firm that hosts DisruptJ20’s website, disruptj20.org.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally requested that DreamHost turn over 1.3 million IP addresses and other information to “unmask” disruptj20’s subscribers, as part of the investigation into crimes committed on and around January 20 by rioters. 

On July 12, 2017, the DOJ served DreamHost a warrant, ordering the web-host “to assist” law enforcement’s search of its electronic files because the DOJ “has probable cause to believe that in the premises controlled by DreamHost Inc., there is now being concealed property, namely stored electronic communications including but not limited to digital files, records, messages and photographs” that are “in violation of D.C. Code § 22-1322 [on rioting or inciting to riot] involving the individuals who participated, planed, organized, or incited the January 20 riot”.

The warrant specifies that the property to be searched is any “information associated with http://www.disruptj20.org that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by DreamHost”, including:

“all information in the possession of DreamHost that might identify the subscribers related to those accounts or identifiers, including names, addresses, telephone numbers…, e-mail addresses, business information, the length of service (including start date), means and source of payment for services (including any credit card or bank account numbers), and information about any domain name registration….”

DreamHost is challenging the DOJ warrant, on the grounds that the scope of data requested violates the first and fourth amendments because it is too broad. Interestingly, Goldman Sachs is a major investor in DreamHost. (ZeroHedge)

Front #2: GOP Meets with Wikileaks Julian Assange

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange met with a U.S. government official for the first time.

GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange has been living in political asylum for the past 5 years. The meeting was reportedly set up by conservative journalist Charles C. Johnson, who claimed that Rohrabacher “would be the envoy in charge of bringing back a deal to the Trump White House.”

Rohrabacher said that in the meeting, Assange “reaffirmed his aggressive denial that the Russians had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC during the election. He has given us a lot of information. He said there’s more to come. We don’t have the entire picture yet.”

Rohrabacher said the information he received from Assange would have “an earth-shattering political impact” and that “It wouldn’t be so important if Democrats hadn’t focused so inordinately on the Russians. Democrats are creating a total upheaval over this. I have some information to give the president before I give information to anyone else.” (Breitbart)

That suggests to me that the “earth-shattering” information Assange gave Rohrabacher has to do with iron-clad evidence that, contrary to what the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces keep insisting, Russia did not hack into the DNC emails nor interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Rohrabacher is recommending that Assange be pardoned. He told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview yesterday that Assange is hoping to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and that during the meeting they explored “what might be necessary to get him out.” Rohrabacher said: “if [Assange] is going to give us a big favor, he would obviously have to be pardoned to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.”

Front #3: Imran Awan Indicted

Yesterday, August 17, 2017, Imran Awan, 37, a former IT aide of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was indicted by a grand jury on four counts including bank fraud and making false statements.

The indictment also includes Awan’s wife Hina Alvi.

Fox News reports that the grand jury decision in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia comes roughly a month after Awan was arrested at Dulles airport in Virginia trying to flee the U.S. by boarding a plane to his native Pakistan.

Awan and other IT aides for House Democrats have been on investigators’ radar for months over concerns of possible double-billing, alleged equipment theft, and access to sensitive computer systems. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Schultz had kept him on even after Awan had been barred from the House IT network.

The indictment addresses separate allegations that Awan and his wife engaged in a conspiracy to obtain home equity lines of credit from the Congressional Federal Credit Union by giving false information about two properties – and then sending the proceeds to individuals in Pakistan.

Awan and other family members for years had a lucrative arrangement for IT-related work on Capitol Hill for House Democrats, from which the Awan family had made at least $4 million since 2009, according to The Daily Caller.

In a recent interview published in the Sun Sentinel, Wasserman Schultz blamed the “right-wing media circus fringe” for the attention on Awan, and that it’s all part of an effort to distract from the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign and possible ties to President Trump’s team.

Her colleagues in Congress, though, say there are serious security implications in her former staffer’s case. “We have to investigate how our systems may have been compromised,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., recently told “Fox & Friends.”

In his IT work in Congress, Awan had access to all kinds of sensitive information. Expect him to sing like canary so as to cut a deal with prosecutors for a lesser sentence.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

2016 Voter Fraud: VA university student convicted of registering dead Democrat voters

Virginia was a swing state in the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton won Virginia with 49.75% of the votes, vs. Donald Trump’s 44.43%.

Its governor is a Democrat and rabid Clinton supporter, Terry McAuliffe.

Victor Skinner reports for EAGNews.org that on Aug. 8, 2017, a James Madison University student, Andrew Spieles, 21, received a 100-day prison sentence in federal court, after he pleaded guilty to registering dead voters for the Democratic Party during the 2016 election.

While working for the Democratic campaign during the voter registration drive, Spieles falsified at least 18 Virginia Voter Registration Forms that were submitted to the registrar’s office in Harrisonburg last August, WSET reports.

According to the Department of Justice’s news release:

“On August 15, 2016, an employee of the Registrar’s Office contacted law enforcement after another employee in the office recognized a registration form submitted in the name of the deceased father of a Rockingham County Judge. The Registrar’s Office discovered multiple instances of similarly falsified forms when it reviewed additional registrations. Some were in the names of deceased individuals while others bore incorrect middle names, birth dates, and social security numbers.”

Spieles admitted that he prepared the false voter registration forms by obtaining the name, age, and address of individuals from ‘walk sheets’ provided to him by the Virginia Democratic Party, and by fabricating social security numbers and a birth date based on the ages listed in the walk sheet.

Spieles told investigators that he alone was responsible for the fake voter registrations and that his antics were designed to help his co-worker reach a registration “quota,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported in June.

WHSV reports:

“Spieles, whose grandfather had died earlier that year, said he had no idea that three of the names he used on those forms were for people who had died. Choking back tears, he said he would have felt ‘hurt and angry’ if his family had received a letter about registering to vote addressed to his grandfather, and he wanted to apologize to the families.

He also apologized to the court and said he wanted to find a way to transform this situation into a way he can help people.”

Although Spieles’ voter fraud is punishable by up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, he reached a plea agreement with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeb Terrien that reduced his sentence to between 100 and 120 days behind bars. A judge then waived the fine because Spieles couldn’t afford it and sentenced him to 100 days in prison.

The Times-Dispatch claims that “There is no indication any fraudulent votes were cast in November’s election as a result of the improper registrations.” How the newspaper knows that is not explained.

A James Madison University spokesman told The College Fix that Spieles already had graduated from the school before his misdemeanor conviction.

~Eowyn

House Judiciary Committee asks for second special prosecutor to investigate Clinton-Comey-Lynch

House Republicans are doing their utmost to bring Hillary Clinton to justice.

On July 26, 2017, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ingeniously turned a Democrat resolution witchhunt (HRes. 446) of President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey inside out into an amended HRes. 446 calling for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server. (See “House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!”)

A day later, on July 27, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee redoubled their effort by sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate matters connected to the 2016 election which are not addressed by HRes. 446 or Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey.

Below is the full text of the letter:

July 27, 2017

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics. While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and members of the Washington media previously called for a “special prosecutor” to investigate Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, once you actually made the decision to appoint a special counsel, the calls for further investigations by congressional committees continued, focused on allegations that have heretofore produced no evidence of criminality, despite the fact that over a year has passed since the opening of the original FBI investigation. Political gamesmanship continues to saturate anything and everything associated with reactions to President Trump’s executive decisions, and reveals the hypocrisy of those who refuse to allow the Special Counsel’s investigation to proceed without undue political influence. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

Your stated rationale for recommending Director Comey’s termination as FBI Director was his mishandling of former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation and associated public disclosures concerning the investigation’s findings. We believe this was the correct decision. It is clear that Director Comey contributed to the politicization of the FBI’s investigations by issuing his public statement, nominating himself as judge and jury, rather than permitting career DOJ prosecutors to make the final decision. But many other questions remain unanswered, due to Mr. Comey’s premature and inappropriate decision, as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to respond to legitimate Congressional oversight. Last week, the Republican Members of this Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department, asking for responses to those unanswered inquiries. These questions cannot, for history’s sake and for the preservation of an impartial system of justice, be allowed to die on the vine.

It is therefore incumbent on this Committee, in our oversight capacity, to ensure that the agencies we oversee are above reproach and that the Justice Department, in particular, remains immune to accusations of politicization. Many Congressional entities have been engaged in oversight of Russian influence on the election, but a comprehensive investigation into the 2016 Presidential campaign and its aftermath must, similarly, be free of even the suggestion of political interference. The very core of our justice system demands as much. A second, newly-appointed special counsel will not be encumbered by these considerations, and will provide real value to the American people in offering an independent perspective on these extremely sensitive matters.

Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly. We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.

As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.

During his testimony, Mr. Comey referenced a meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Comey raised concerns about Ms. Lynch’s conduct, and questioned her independence, stating:

At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.’

In addition, in preparing to testify in front of Congress for a September 2015 hearing, Mr. Comey asked Ms. Lynch at the time whether she was prepared to refer to the Clinton investigation as just that, an “investigation.” Mr. Comey testified that Ms. Lynch said, “Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.” Mr. Comey retorted, “Why would I do that?” Ms. Lynch answered, “Just call it a matter.” Mr. Comey stated that he acquiesced, but it gave him “a queasy feeling,” since it gave him the “impression that the attorney general was trying to align how we describe our work” with how the Clinton campaign was talking about it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not the Federal Bureau of Matters, one is hard-pressed to understand why Ms. Lynch directed then-Director Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” unless she intended to use such deceptive language to help wrongly persuade the American people that former Secretary Clinton was not, in fact, the subject of a full-scale FBI investigation, or to otherwise undermine the integrity of the investigation.

Following Director Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked about the testimony while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Senator Feinstein stated, “I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you, I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

We share Senator Feinstein’s and Mr. Comey’s concerns – specifically, that during the midst of a contentious Presidential election, which was already rife with scandal arising from Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would instruct the FBI Director, her subordinate, to mislead the American public about the nature of the investigation. Following Ms. Lynch’s directive to downplay the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” Director Comey infamously terminated the Clinton investigation, stating, “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Mr. Comey’s testimony has provided new evidence that Ms. Lynch may have used her position of authority to undermine the Clinton investigation. At any other point in history this accusation would entail a shock to the conscience of law abiding Americans who expect a DOJ free of political influence. We only have, however, an investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, including any ties to the Trump campaign. To limit our nation’s insight into just this this single component of the 2016 election will only cause the special counsel’s work to be derided as one-sided and incomplete. The special counsel’s work must begin and end unimpeded by political motivations on either side of the aisle. For these reasons, the following points must also be fully investigated – ideally, via a second special counsel. This is imperative to regain the cherished trust and confidence in our undoubtedly distressed law enforcement and political institutions.

We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:

  1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
  2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information;
  3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
  4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
  5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
  6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;
  7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;
  8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One¹ by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
  9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
  10. Post-election accusations by the President [Trump] that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;
  11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
  12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;
  13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS”² in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and
  14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

You have the ability now to right the ship for the American people so these investigations may proceed independently and impartially. The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath. We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte, Chair
Jim Jordan
Lamar Smith
Matt Gaetz
Tom Marino
Steve Chabot
Blake Farenthold
Steve King
Louis Gohmert
Ted Poe
Doug Collins
Raul Labrador
Ron DeSantis
Andy Biggs
Mike Johnson
John Rutherford
Martha Roby
John Ratcliffe
Trent Franks
Karen Handel

###

Note¹: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.

Note²: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.

Send a “thank you” to Congressman Bob Goodlatte!:

~Eowyn

President Trump goes after universities’ racially-discriminatory ‘Affirmative Action’ admissions policy

Reason No. __ why I love President Trump.

Although Affirmative Action is supposed to right historical wrongs of racial discrimination, the policy in action has devolved into one of racial quotas that benefit often-unqualified “minority” applicants, to the disadvantage of qualified “whites”.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court last year, in Fisher v. University of Texas, ruled 4-3 that race-based admissions are constitutional.

Now, President Trump means to do something about this injustice.

According to Charlie Savage of the New York Times, August 1, 2017:

The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on ‘investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.’

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, ‘intentional race-based discrimination,’ cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.

Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.

It is not just qualified whites who are discriminated against by U.S. universities’ Affirmative Action racial quota policies, nor are blacks and Latinos the only applicants who are unjustly favored.

According to a well-sourced and -researched article by Ron Unz, “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” in The American Conservative:

  • Jews are disproportionately admitted to elite Ivy League universities, far above their percentage in U.S. population and despite a a sharp decline in U.S. Jewish achievement in the last 10 years. In fact, Unz asserts the oft-cited claim that Jews’ average IQ is 10-15 points higher than the overall population is a myth.
  • In contrast, although there has been a sharp rise in Asian American achievement in merit-based indicators, such as National Merit Scholars, that achievement is not reflected in their admission to East coast Ivy League universities like Harvard/Yale, which point to an anti-Asian admissions quota.
  • But there’s a group who are even more discriminated against than Asians: non-Jewish whites are the most under-represented group of all.

A quote from Unz’s article:

“based on factors of objective academic performance and population size, we would expect Asians to outnumber Jews by perhaps five to one at our top national universities; instead, the total Jewish numbers across the Ivy League are actually 40 percent higher. This implies that Jewish enrollment is roughly 600 percent greater relative to Asians than should be expected under a strictly meritocratic admissions system…. The key factor is that although Jewish academic achievement has apparently plummeted in recent decades, non-Jewish whites seem to have remained relatively unchanged in their performance, which might be expected in such a large and diverse population….

Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores…. Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students….

In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

Given university admissions policies’ systematic discrimination against qualified Asians, it’s a mystery why so many American Asians are Democrats. Asians, like whites, have the lowest crime rates, and should be natural conservatives.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

Please pray for President Trump!

~Eowyn

President Trump forms special strike force against Chicago’s homicide epidemic

Throughout the Obama years, nearly every week FOTM‘s DCG has been chronicling the city of Chicago’s doleful shooting homicide statistics, the most recent being today’s post, “This is Chiraq: More than 100 shot over Fourth of July Weekend“.

Those statistics clearly demonstrate that the gun-control city’s epidemic of murder and shooting is beyond the control of both the city government, headed by useless mayor Rahm Emanuel, as well as the Illinois state government.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had indicated that if elected, he would do something to help America’s black inner cities. Singling out Chicago, Trump promised he would send in “the Feds” to help reduce the city’s murder rate.

Now, the federal government finally is doing something to help Chicago, no thanks to Barack Obama, who began his political career and rise in Chicago — the birthplace of his wife, Michelle.

Fox News reports that on June 30, 2017, decrying the crime epidemic on Chicago streets, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the federal government is sending about 20 additional U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents the city.

Trump tweeted that “Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in Federal help. 1714 shootings in Chicago this year!”

For his part, AG Sessions told “Fox & Friends” that Chicago police are “demoralized” and city politics are not working, and that the Department of Justice is assisting: “We’ll have an impact in reducing shootings in Chicago. Murders are way, way too high.”

Sessions subsequently released a written statement saying “The Trump Administration will not let the bloodshed go on; we cannot accept these levels of violence,” and that the Trump administration has created the Chicago Gun Strike Force and is sending “20 more permanent ATF agents to Chicago, reallocating federal prosecutors and prioritizing prosecutions to reduce gun violence” and working with law enforcement partners.

The new set of ATF agents will work with counterparts from the Chicago Police Department and Illinois State Police on the new Chicago Gun Strike Force to solve shootings and arrest gun traffickers, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Included in the strike force are prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office and Cook County state’s attorney’s office, who will decided whether suspects in gun crime should be charged in state or federal court. Anthony Riccio, head of the Chicago Police Department’s organized crime unit, said: “The goal is the prosecute as many of these guys as possible federally where they will serve longer prison terms.

~Eowyn

Senate opens probe into Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch’s interference in FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton

In his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James B. Comey said Obama’s attorney general Loretta Lynch had tried to shape the way Comey described the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, to “align with” and “mirror” the way Hillary’s campaign was describing the investigation.

Stephen Dinan reports for The Washington Times, June 23, 2017, that Comey told the committee:

“At one point, [Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

Despite his discomfort, Comey said he agreed to the language prescribed by Lynch. Comey also hinted at Lynch’s other behaviors “which I cannot talk about yet” which led to his concerns about Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions. That was one reason why Comey, last year, bucked Justice Department tradition in making public the FBI’s findings on Hillary.

Now, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into exactly Loretta Lynch’s interference in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) announced yesterday.

The probe is a bi-partisan undertaking.

Sen. Grassley said in his press release:

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse sought information about alleged political interference by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The bipartisan inquiry comes as the Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of James Comey as FBI Director.

In April, The New York Times reported that the FBI came into possession of a batch of hacked documents, one of which was said to be authored by a “Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.”  Chairman Grassley then requested a copy of the document from the Justice Department, which has failed to respond. A month later, The Washington Post reported similar facts and provided further details about individuals involved in these communications. The Post reported that the email in question, sent by then-chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations, indicated that Lynch had privately assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that the FBI’s investigation wouldn’t ‘go too far.’

(Note: The Open Society Foundations, formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by George Soros.)

Comey was reportedly concerned that the communication would raise doubts about the investigation’s independence and began discussing plans to announce the end of the Clinton email investigation rather than simply referring it to the Department for a prosecutorial decision. Comey’s extraordinary action to announce the end of the investigation was a break from Justice Department protocol, and was later cited as justification for his removal from the FBI.

In their letters to Benardo, Open Society Foundations’ General Counsel Gail Scovell, Renteria and former Attorney General Lynch, the Senators seek details about the reported communication, copies of any related documents and whether the FBI contacted them to investigate the alleged communication.

The reports come amidst numerous allegations of political inference in controversial and high-profile investigations spanning the current and previous administrations. The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the FBI and Justice Department and is obliged to oversee any potential misconduct or inappropriate political influence at these agencies.

Full text of the letters can be found at the following links:

~Eowyn

No ‘gotcha Trump’ bombshells in former FBI director Comey’s statement to Senate Committee

This afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey released his prepared statement ahead of his much-anticipated appearance tomorrow before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

His 7-page “Statement for the Record – Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – June 8, 2017” can be read here.

Comey’s statement is sure to disappoint those on the Left who have been salivating, having convinced themselves that the statement would be a “gotcha” on President Trump.

As summarized by ZeroHedge, the key highlights of Comey’s statement include:

(1) As President Trump has said, Comey had assured him he is not personally under investigation by the FBI:

“…prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

In fact, Comey cautioned Trump not to request the FBI to investigate the totally untrue “Russian hooker dossier” that former British spy Chris Steele had concocted on Trump, for the express reason that such an investigation would “create a narrative” that the FBI was investigating Trump personally:

“The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House…. During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.”

(2) Comey documented his conversations with Trump in memos, which he did not do with Obama:

“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past…. As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI….

I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.”

(3) On Mike Flynn:

“On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter- terrorism briefing of the President.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, ”He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

The President then returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with senior FBI leadership.”

(4) On loyalty:

“The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House…. I added that I was not ‘reliable’ in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.’ I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have
decided that because ‘problems’ come from [Department of] Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.
Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’  differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.”

(5) The “cloud” and the last conversation:

“On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud.’ I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him….

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I ‘get out’ that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that ‘the cloud’ was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, ‘Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.’ I did not reply or ask him what he meant by ‘that thing.’ I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.”

From the above, President Trump clearly was disturbed that Comey and the FBI had not made clear to the media that Trump is not being personally investigated for Russia or hookers or anything — which he isn’t. That might have impressed Trump as Comey’s lack of “loyalty”.

In the last analysis, it is the President who appoints and nominates the FBI Director, and it is the President who has the prerogative to fire his FBI Director.

~Eowyn

%d bloggers like this: