Tag Archives: Robert Mueller

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

Advertisements

House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!

They’re finally going after Hillary Clinton, via former FBI Director James Comey.

And what’s brilliant about this is that House Republicans are doing this by hoisting the Democrats on their own petard (explanation below).

On July 14, 2017, Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA) introduced House Resolution 446, yet another Demonrat witch-hunt.

The resolution demands that President Trump and U.S. Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) turn over to the House all documents relating to President Trump’s firing of Comey. Please note that President Trump, as the head of the executive branch of the U.S. government, has every constitutional right to fire Comey, the FBI being a part of the Department of Justice, which is a bureaucracy within the executive branch.

HRes. 446 has 42 co-sponsors, all Democrats, which means that it has no hope of being passed by the Republican-majority House.

On the same day that Jayapal introduced HRes. 446, it was referred to the House Judicial Committee.

Yesterday, July 26, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee turned HRes. 446 inside out into a resolution 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.

From True Pundit, July 26, 2017:

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to request documents about former FBI director James Comey’s conversations with the Obama administration and journalists, amending and replacing a Democratic resolution that was designed to obtain documents about Comey’s firing by President Trump.

“In my district, my constituents say, hey, what’s going on with investigation of the crimes of the previous administration?” asked Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “When I hear talk that this contains right-wing conspiracies — well, I’ll tell you, my constituents think what’s going on in the other bill are left-wing conspiracy theories.”

The amendment was a surprise to Rep. Primala Jayapal (D-Wash.), the freshman who had proposed the Democratic resolution of inquiry, which had been expected to fail.

The Republicans’ amendment and substitution of HRes. 446 is co-sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Here’s the amended HRes. 446:

Substitute For the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 446

Offered by Mr. Gaetz of Florida

Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following:

That the President is requested, and the Attorney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of Representative, not later than 60 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communications in their possessions, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the firing of James B. Comey in the following respects:

(1) Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing James B. Comey to mislead the American people by stating that he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a “matter”, rather than a criminal “investigation”.

(2) Leaks by James B. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations had between President Donald Trump and then-FBI Director James B. Comey, and how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of special counsel, Robert Mueller, a longtime friend of James B. Comey.

(3) The propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during the criminal investigation James B. Comey led into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct.

(4) The decision of James B. Comey to usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.

(5) James B. Comey’s knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte [one-sided] conversation between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on January 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport in a private jet.

(6) James B. Comey’s knowledge of the company “Fusion GPS,” including —

(A) Its creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Donald Trump;

(B) That dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 Presidential Election; and

(C) The intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS or its affiliates.

[Note: 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.]

(7) Any and all potential leaks originated by James B. Comey and provided to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

(8) James B. Comey’s knowledge of

(A) the purchase of majority stake in the company Uranium One by the company Rosatom;

(B) whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation;

(C) what role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in the approval of that sale; and

(D) whether the sale could have affected the national security of the United States of America.

[Note: 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.]

(9) James B. Comey’s refusal to investigate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding

(A) selling access to the U.S. State Department through Clinton Foundation donations;

(B) Huma Abedin’s dual employment at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously; or

(C) utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband.

(10) Any collusion between former FBI Director James B. Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller; including —

(A) the information James B. Comey admitted to leaking to the Columbia University law professor, being intentional such that a special counsel, his longtime friend, Robert Mueller, would be appointed to lead the investigation against the Trump administration; and

(B) any communication between Robert Mueller and James B. Comey in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

(10) Whether James B. Comey had any advance knowledge of

(A) efforts made by any federal agency

(i) to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump;

(ii) to assess any knowledge by James B. Comey about the “unmasking” of individuals on Donald Trump’s campaign team, transition team or both;

(iii) to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of these individuals; or

(iv) to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individual or individuals serving on the staff of then-candidate Donald Trump; or

(B) the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies, and any attempts to use surveillance of then-candidate Donald Trump for the purposes of damaging the credibility of his campaign, his presidency, or both.

Here’s Rep. Matt Gaetz’s press release on the amended HRes. 446:

“On Wednesday, July 26, Congressman Matt Gaetz brought an amendment before the House Judiciary Committee, seeking answers to questions that have weighed heavily on the minds of American voters. In his amendment, which passed the House Judiciary Committee and has been reported favorably to the House, Rep. Gaetz requested documents and information from President Trump and Attorney General Sessions surrounding the firing of former FBI Director James B. Comey, and Mr. Comey’s knowledge of, and connection to, the many worrisome scandals of the previous administration.”

Read the rest of the press release here.

Congressmen Matt Gaetz, 35, and Andy Biggs, 58, you are my heroes!

Please thank Rep. Gaetz and Biggs. Here’s their contact info.:

  • Rep. Matt Gaetz: (202) 225-4136 (phone); email.
  • Rep. Andy Biggs: (202) 225-2635 (phone); email.

H/t Voat

~Eowyn

Patrick Buchanan: Civil war and the deep-state coup of President Trump

Are We Nearing Civil War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan – June 13, 2017

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. … (T)hese are people that … look to me like they’re … setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. …

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Note: Tom Malinowski, 51, was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2014 to January 20, 2017.


Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

See also “The Left are trying to start a civil war“.

Pray for President Trump.

Pray for America.

~Eowyn

Al Qaeda leader was invited guest at Dept of Defense luncheon

Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, 2008Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2008

Anwar al-Awlaki (April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a U.S.-born Islamic  imam and a leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist group, whom the Saudi news station Al Arabiya called the “bin Laden of the Internet.”

Described by U.S. government officials as al-Qaeda’s senior talent recruiter and motivator, al-Awlaki was intimately involved in a number of major terrorist activities, including:

  • As imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki had spoken with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.
  • In 2001, al-Awlaki presided at the funeral of the mother of convicted Fort Hood shooter and U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, with whom al-Awlaki exchanged extensive email in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings.
  • After al-Awlaki went into hiding in 2006, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning that attack.
  • In 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of “regional commander” within al-Qaeda. He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.

In April 2010, the Obama regime placed al-Awlaki — a U.S. citizen — on a list of terrorists whom the C.I.A. was authorized to kill. On September 30, 2011, al-Awlaki was killed by an American drone in Yemen. Two weeks later, al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.

Given al-Awlaki’s sordid history, it is curious — to say the least — that in 2002, none other than the same al-Awlaki was an invited speaker at a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) luncheon.

This astonishing discovery is the result of the tireless efforts of the nonpartisan citizen watchdog group, Judicial Watch.

On September 11, 2013, Judicial Watch announced that it has obtained surveillance reports and logs from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealing that, on Feb. 5, 2002, FBI agents had trailed U.S.-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi to the front doors of the Pentagon where he spoke as an invited guest at a private Department of Defense luncheon for high-level Pentagon officials. The luncheon — less than five months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks — was part of DOD’s outreach to moderate Muslims.

But just a day before the luncheon, al-Aulaqi had been identified as a “terrorist organization member,” and an FBI alert had been issued reading, “Warning – approach with caution . . . Do not alert the individual to the FBI’s interest and contact your local FBI field office at the earliest opportunity.”

According to the FBI surveillance log for February 5, 2002, at 11:30 am, “Aulaqi boarded the Metro train, blue line north for the Pentagon.” At 11:32 am, “Aulaqi exited the Metro train, walked through the turnstyle [sic] and greeted two unidentified white females.” At 11:40 am, “Aulaqi and the two unidentified females walked through the train station, onto the escalator, walked southwest and west adjacent to the Pentagon, up the steps and walked northeast towards the entrance to the Pentagon.” And at 12:00 pm, “Surveillance discontinued at the Pentagon.”

The 262 pages of documents were obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI and the Department of State seeking records related to the al-Qaeda leader killed in a CIA-led U.S. drone attack.

According to Fox News, the invitation list for the Pentagon luncheon where al-Awlaki was a featured speaker included up to 70 top DOD staffers, including Deputy General Counsel Charles Allen, former Deputy General Counsel Whit Cobb, former principal Deputy General Counsel Dan Dell’Orto, former General Counsel William Haynes, Deputy General Counsel Paul Koffsky and former deputy General Counsel Douglas Larsen. The London Daily Mail reported that “the Defense Department lawyer who vetted al-Awlaki wrote that she ‘had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki’s presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience’.”

According to FOIA documents previously obtained from the FBI by Judicial Watch, the FBI was aware as far back as September 27, 2001, that al-Aulaqi may have purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. On October 10, 2002, al-Aulaqi was detained at New York’s JFK airport under a warrant for passport fraud, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the FBI ordered al-Aulaqi’s release, even though the arrest warrant was still active at the time of his detention.

To date, Judicial Watch’s litigation has resulted in the release of more than 1,800 pages of responsive records, many of which were previously classified.  The documents also raise serious questions as to the nature of the relationship between al-Aulaqi and the U.S. government. As Fox News reported on August 23, 2013, “A four year investigation by Fox News, and newly declassified documents obtained separately by Judicial Watch, are raising questions over the U.S. government’s handling of Anwar al-Awlaki, and whether it tried to recruit the radical American cleric as an intelligence source in 2002.” Outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller did not dismiss the possibility, telling Fox News, “I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset – that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: “These FBI logs document Keystone-cop incompetence by our national security establishment.  For the FBI to follow a known terrorist to the Pentagon where the terrorist has a high-level meeting is beyond comprehension. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there’s more than meets the eye in Obama’s assassination of al-Aulaqi.  We were told that he was a terrorist, when in fact he was also probably a U.S. government informant.  Did Obama know about this?  Congress and the media need to get on the ball.”

One last tidbit from the FBI files on al-Awlaki:

The supposedly devout Muslim imam was a frequent patronizer of prostitutes. In fact, in 1997 in San Diego, al-Awlaki was booked for soliciting prostitution. Here’s his mugshot:

Al-Alwaki mug shot(photo: San Diego PD, via KPBS)

~Eowyn

FBI director admits drones used for surveillance of Americans

A quadrocopter drone equipped with a camera stands on display at the Zeiss stand on the first day of the CeBIT 2012 technology trade fair on March 6, 2012 in Hanover, Germany. (credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

More than a year ago, FOTM first posted on the Obama regime’s admission (only because of a Freedom of Information Act request) that unmanned spy drones are deployed not just over war zones like Afghanistan, but also over the United States, and that the government was “considering” arming those drones. In fact, there are 63 active drone sites in 20 states scattered across America.

.

We were told at the time that those drones in the sky over our heads are really for border patrol and to combat terrorism.

Lies.

All lies.

Jordy Yager reports for The Hill that yesterday, June 19, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI uses drones for surveillance within the United States.

But never fear!

Mueller says the drones are used “infrequently” and only to watch “specific targets” “in isolated instances” in regards to “specific investigations” of “particularized cases,” which “is the principle of privacy limitations we have.”

Mueller said, “Our footprint is very small. We have very few and have limited use,” and that the FBI is in “the initial stages” of developing privacy guidelines for how the agency balances civil liberty concerns with security threats.

Mueller made the revelation amid a debate over National Security Agency programs used to collect U.S. phone records and overseas Internet data.

While Mueller told lawmakers that the FBI uses drones domestically only for surveillance purposes, members of Congress have had growing concerns over the use of armed drones.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made headlines in the lead-up to CIA Director John Brennan’s confirmation earlier this year when he delivered a 13-hour talking filibuster aimed at delaying the vote until the administration told him that it could not legally kill U.S. citizens on American soil using a drone strike, which Attorney General Eric Holder ultimately did.

The use of drones by the American military and the CIA to attack terrorists began under former President George W. Bush, but President Obama has increased the use of the armed, unmanned aerial vehicles dramatically — largely in the Middle East — to target individuals his administration suspects are carrying out acts of terrorism.

Obama laid out the administration’s policy and rationale for the increased use of drone strikes abroad in a speech last month, saying that the U.S. “does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists.”

In a letter to Congress the day before Obama’s speech, Holder said that four Americans suspected of terrorism had been killed abroad in “counterterrorism” operations since 2009. In all four instances, drones have been reported as being used. The most widely known case, which initially prompted congressional concern, came in 2011 when U.S. officials targeted and killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike. Al-Awlaki was known for inciting attacks against the United States, such as the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting, the thwarted “underwear” bombing of a U.S.-bound plane the same year and the failed Times Square bombing in 2010.

It was last year in a speech at Northwestern University that Holder first laid out the Obama regime’s justification for targeting U.S. citizens abroad  last year. He said that the regime’s definition of a person who posed an “imminent threat” consisted of three criteria:

  1. There was a limited open window for attacking the person;
  2. A grave possible harm that not attacking the target could have on U.S. civilians; and
  3. A strong likelihood that targeting the person would head off a future attack against the United States.

So when we wake up some morning to the news that someone in the United States had been killed by a drone strike, you’ll know that Pres. Lucifer’s “reasons” for the murder assassination.

Just my humble Public Service Announcement heads-up!

See also “FBI director not sure if Americans can be assassinated on U.S. soil,” March 13, 2012.

~Eowyn

US Army targets Tea Party movement as extremists in 2016 civil war scenario

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), established on July 1, 1973, is the official command component that is responsible for training and developing the United States Army.

TRADOC’s sleeve patch or insignia

Headquartered at Fort Eustis, Virginia. TRADOC is charged with overseeing training of Army forces, the development of operational doctrine, and the development and procurement of new weapons systems. TRADOC operates 33 schools and centers at 16 Army installations for our soldiers, other-service personnel, international soldiers and civilians.

The official mission statement for TRADOC states:

“TRADOC develops the Army’s Soldiers and Civilian leaders and designs, develops and integrates capabilities, concepts and doctrine in order to build a campaign-capable, expeditionary Army in support of joint warfighting capability through Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN).”

Those “concepts and doctrines” include the envisioning of likely future scenarios in which the United States may find ourselves and how the US Army will conduct its operations. That is why TRADOC’s Pamphlet 525-3-1, Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028, issued on August 19, 2010, is of importance and concern. Why? Because the document envisions a civil war breaking out in America in 2016 — a war instigated by “political reactionaries” — “an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement.”

I tried to access the PDF of Operating Concept 2016-2028 (henceforth referred to as OC), but was told “Access Denied.” Therefore, we must depend on Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber’s account of OC in Small Wars Journal. (Kevin Benson, Ph.D., is a retired Army colonel; Weber is an associate professor of history with a specialty in the American civil war, at the University of Kansas.)

UPDATE (Aug. 17): Thanks to reader Kevin McDonald, you can read OC (Army Operating Concept 2016-2028) for yourself by going here, or if that link is scrubbed, I’ve saved the document to FOTM’s media library: TRADOC Op Con 2016-2028!

No authorship is given for the 65-page OC, but the document bears the imprimatur and official approval of the United States Army. It begins with a “Foreword” by Martin E. Dempsey, General, U.S. Army, Commanding; followed by a brief explanation of the meaning of the Army’s “operating concept” by John E. Sterling, Jr., Lieutenant General, U. S. Army, Commanding General/Chief of Staff.

OC first lays out the rationale for the deployment of the U.S. military inside America’s borders. Benson and Weber write:

“If we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil […] to defend the republic at home.  In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor.  Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.  In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city.  This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act–for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act–and the roles of the local, national, and international media. […]

The Insurrection Act does not need to be changed for the 21st century.  Because it is broadly written, the law allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic. 

What we must consider in the design of homeland defense or security exercises is translating the Act into action. The Army Operating Concept describes Homeland Defense as the protection of ‘U.S. sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the president’ (OC, p. 27).”

And now, read OC’s “Scenario 2016” envisioned by the U.S. Army:

The Scenario (2016) 

The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated.  After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.  The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade.  By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises.  Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high.  A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.  After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.  Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering.  In truth, this is hardly necessary.  Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover.  The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines.  Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.”  Citizens who complain are immediately detained.  Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition.  They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted. 

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.”  Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.  At the press conference the masked militia members’ uniforms sport a unit seal with a man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a musket over the motto “Today’s Minutemen.”  When a reporter asked the leaders who are the “red coats” the spokesman answered, “I don’t know who the redcoats are…it could be federal troops.” Experts warn that while these groups heretofore have been considered weak and marginal, the rapid coalescence among them poses a genuine national threat.

The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman.  He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard.  The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly.  He refuses to call out the National Guard.  He has the State Police monitor the roadblocks and checkpoints on the interstate and state roads but does not order the authorities to take further action.  In public the governor calls for calm and proposes talks with the local tea party to resolve issues.  Privately, he sends word through aides asking the federal government to act to restore order.  Due to his previous stance and the appearance of being “pro” tea party goals the governor has little political room to maneuver.

The Department of Homeland Security responds to the governor’s request by asking for defense support to civil law enforcement.  After the Department of Justice states that the conditions in Darlington and surrounding areas meet the conditions necessary to invoke the Insurrection Act, the President invokes it.

(From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:

§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.

§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

By proclamation he calls on the insurrectionists to disperse peacefully within 15 days.  There is no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.  The President appoints the Attorney General and the Department of Justice as the lead federal agency to deal with the crisis.  The President calls the South Carolina National Guard to federal service.  The Joint Staff in Washington, D.C., alerts U.S. Northern Command, the headquarters responsible for the defense of North America, to begin crisis action planning.  Northern Command in turn alerts U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army for operations as a Joint Task Force headquarters.  Army units at Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Marines at Camp Lejuene, N.C. go on alert.  The full range of media, national and international, is on scene.

Read the rest of this most disturbing article, “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future,” by clicking here.

Now, the pieces finally are coming together as to why:

  • There are persistent rumors that the Obama administration is preparing for civil war (see here and here).
  • Supposedly civilian federal agencies (from DHS to the Dept. of Education to, good grief, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency) have been buying ammunition.
  • The Department of Homeland Security, in a recent report and a 2008 secret memo, identifies Americans who love liberty, are “fiercely nationalistic” and “anti-global,” pro-life, pro-Second Amendment gun rights, Christian, and military veterans, to be “domestic terrorists.”
  • FBI Director Robert Mueller told a Congressional committee hearing that he’s unsure whether the U.S. government has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  • Both parties in both houses of Congress passed a bill, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the President and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.
  • There really are FEMA camps in every state of continental United States, ranging in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days of detention.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be deemed “domestic terrorists” by our government. I weep….

H/t FOTM’s Anon & Hardnox.

~Eowyn

FBI director not sure if Americans can be assassinated on US soil

Did you miss this astonishing news from last week?

The director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, is unsure whether the U.S. government has the right to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.

Fox News reports, March 7, 2012, that Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga) asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

Graves’ question was in reference to the killing, via a drone attack on Yemen, of Anwar al-Awlaki last September 2011. Al-Awlaki was a senior al-Qaeda operative who had been described as “the bin Laden of the Internet.” Al-Awlaki was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen.

Mueller’s response to Congressman Graves’ question was that he would have to “go back” and check with Obama’s Department of Justice. Referring to the distinction between domestic and foreign targeting, Mueller said, “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not. I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.”

In fact, for more than a year and a half, the Obama administration has said it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. He even had written a memo on this — a memo that Obama steadfastly refuses to reveal.

And last December, both parties in both houses of Congress obligingly gave him legal cover with the passage of the abominable National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), better known as the Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Trial Act.

Writing for ZeroHedge, March 9, 2012, blogger George Washington quotes top constitutional and military law expert Jonathan Turley [on C-Span]:

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion.

I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …

Clearly, the Founding Fathers were wrong in their appraisal of the American people.

When news came of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki last September, some of us hooted and rejoiced. (See the comments on Steve’s post, “Ron Paul Says U.S. “Assassinated” US-Born al-Qaeda Terrorist“.) Now it’s coming back to bite us on the patootie.

Under the Obama administration, virtually any American can be considered a suspected terrorist, especially veterans, pro-2nd Amendment-ites, pro-lifers, conservatives, and Christians — according to a 2009 memo by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

No one is safe from being assassinated, abroad or at home.

~Eowyn