Tag Archives: Rep. Bob Goodlatte

Lawyer of Steinle killer blames racism, and other reactions to Kate Steinle verdict

Her name is Kate Steinle

On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle died in hospital two hours after being shot in the back by a bullet which had ricocheted off the concrete floor of Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district of San Francisco while she was walking with her father and a friend.

The bullet was fired from a 40 caliber handgun held by Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, a Mexican national who was illegally in the United States, had been deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009. He was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting, and had seven felony convictions of drug (heroin possession and manufacturing.

On March 26, 2015, U.S. Bureau of Prisons turned Garcia Zarate over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant. He was transported to San Francisco County Jail to face a 20-year-old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuana after he had completed his prison term in San Bernardino in Southern California for illegally entering the U.S.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a detainer for Garcia Zarate, requesting S. F. authorities to keep him in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. But, San Francisco, being a sanctuary city, disregarded the detainer and released him on April 15, 2015.

2½ months later, on July 1, Garcia Zarate fired the bullet that killed Kate Steinle. If San Francisco had not released the illegal repeat-offender, Steinle would still be alive today.

Garcia Zarate claimed he had fired the shot accidentally while picking up the gun which he had found, moments before, wrapped in cloth beneath the bench on which he was sitting. (The gun belonged to a BLM ranger, who lost the gun when his car was broken into.)

The bullet struck Steinle in the back and pierced her aorta. Her father and others performed CPR on Kate before paramedics arrived and took her by ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital where she died two hours later.

Garcia Zarate fled the scene and threw the gun into the bay. He was arrested about an hour after the shooting about one mile south of Pier 14. San Francisco Police divers found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14 the next day.

During the trial of Garcia Zarate, which began on October 23, 2017, police revealed how they tricked him into confessing to the shooting. The prosecution claimed he brought the stolen gun to the crime scene while the defense contended the weapon was found under a Pier 14 seat.

On November 30, 2017, after 9 days of deliberation, the jury found Garcia Zarate not guilty of murder and manslaughter, but convicted him on illegal possession of a firearm. (Source: Wikipedia)

Here are some reactions to the Steinle murder verdict:

(1) President Trump:

(2) Secret Service agent Dan Bongino:

(3) Steinle killer’s defense attorney, Francisco Ugarte, calls those who are outraged by the jury verdict “racists” (h/t Gateway Pundit):

“I believe today is a vindication of the rights of immigrants. That today we have to reflect all of us on how we talked about this case in the beginning. And how this swarm of reflection and reaction on the basis of what I believe to be the racial dynamics of this case. Nothing about Garcia Zarate’s ethnicity, nothing about his immigration status, nothing about the fact that he was born in Mexico had any relevance on what happened on July 1, 2015.”

In other words, Ugarte wants it both ways — While insisting that Zarate’s illegal “immigration status” has no relevance to his killing of Steinle, Ugarte at the same time calls the jury verdict “a vindication of the rights of immigrants”.

(4) Trump administration will deport Zarate:

(5) Republicans react to Steinle verdict by rioting . . . .

H/t Reddit

What you can do:

Support Kate’s Law!

After Steinle’s killing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Arizona) introduced HR 3011, the Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015, also known as Kate’s Law. No vote was ever held. (Salmon has since retired from Congress.)

On June 23, 2017, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) reintroduced Kate’s Law (HR 3004) and an anti-sanctuary city bill into the House. HR 3004 protects public safety by enhancing penalties for deported felons who return to the United States.

On June 29, the House passed HR 3004 or Kate’s Law by a vote of 257-167. The bill is now in the Senate.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

NY truck terrorist came to US via Chuck Schumer’s Diversity Visa lottery

Yesterday afternoon in New York city, shouting “Allahu Akbar!,” a man drove a truck down 17 blocks of the West Side Highway bike path near Ground Zero, killing 8 people and injuring another 15.

Only when he crashed into a school bus, injuring two kids, one critically, did the terrorist stop. The man brandished two fake guns before being shot in the stomach by an NYPD officer. He survived the gun shot and is out of surgery. ISIS flags and notes pledging his allegiance were found in the truck. (Daily Mail)

The man is Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, 29, an Uzbek who immigrated to the U.S. in 2010.

Thanks to a tweet from President Trump early this morning at 4:24 AM (!), we now know that this Muslim terrorist was admitted into the United States under a little-known program called Diversity Immigrant Visa or lottery, the architect of which is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

In other words, Saipov was not admitted into the U.S. on merit, but simply because he fit Democrats’ PC notion of “diversity,” as if the United States, with 66.2% of the population being non-Hispanic whites, 15.1% Hispanic, 12.6% Black and 5.1% Asian in 2015 isn’t already diverse.

One can argue that the Diversity Visa Program is the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan for America.

From Wikipedia:

The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, also known as the green card lottery, is a United States congressionally mandated lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program.

The lottery is administered by the Department of State and . . . makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually and aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants from countries with low rates of immigration in the five years prior.

Just minutes ago, the Wikipedia entry on “Diversity Immigrant Visa” said that the  Diversity Visa Program “is also known as the Schumer program, after its sponsor” Sen. Chuck Schumer. But now that sentence is deleted from the entry.

Attempts had been made by Congress to abolish the program:

  • In December 2005, concerned that the Diversity Visa was susceptible to fraud and is a way for terrorists to enter the U.S., the House of Representatives tried to abolish the Diversity Visa by voting 273–148 to add an amendment to the border enforcement bill H.R. 4437. But the Senate never passed the bill.
  • In March 2007, there was another attempt to abolish the Diversity Visa program. Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 1430, which would eliminate the program. The bill was passed by both the House and the Senate to eliminate funding for the program, but the final version of the bill with amendments, signed into law on December 26, 2007, did not include the removal of funds for the program. Meanwhile, a 2007 GAO report actually admitted that nearly 9,800 persons from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism have obtained permanent residency in the United States through the Diversity Visa program.
  • In May 2009, Rep. Goodlatte tried again to eliminate the Diversity Visa program via H.R. 2305, but the bill did not pass.

And so, in 2010, a fanatic Muslim named Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov won the “lottery” and was given permanent residence in the U.S. Seven years later, this lucky visa lottery winner would ram his truck down a bike path, killing 8 and injuring 15, in the name of ISIS.

Together with Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chuck Schumer also fought to bring into the U.S. a snowshoe athlete named Tanveer Hussain, who was denied a visa by the American Embassy in New Delhi.

In March 2017, Hussain was arrested in upper state New York for sexually abusing a 12 year old girl.

~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

Gun Control! Obama to ban bullets by executive action

The Piece of Sh*t occupying the White House is running amuck.

Already, he has issued more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history, the recent two amnesty executive memos being especially egregious examples. See:

Now that the Sandy Hook hoax failed to achieve its purpose of nation-wide gun control, Obama is switching his tactics by employing his executive power to ban 5.56 mm bullets used in AR-15 rifles — the most popular rifle in America.

guns-make-us-less-safe

Paul Bedard reports for The Washington Examiner, Feb. 26, 2015:

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof.

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

not for hunting

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, go here.

~Éowyn