Tag Archives: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

What Was He Hiding?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that they have received a response to their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to Biden Vice Presidential records pertaining to the creation of Vice President Biden’s alias/pseudonym email accounts.

The article reports:

“We have performed a search of our collection for Vice Presidential records related to your request and have identified approximately 731 electronic files of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request. Please keep in mind that these totals are an estimate and that all material processed may not be applicable to your specific topic,” the letter continues.

NARA confirmed to the Daily Caller it has identified 731 files of “potentially responsive records” for the Heritage Foundation’s FOIA request. The records will be reviewed by NARA in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the agency will determine if the records are responsive.

NARA discovered 82,000 pages of potential records related to Joe Biden’s suspected email accounts, according to a status report NARA filed in October alongside the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) for an unrelated FOIA lawsuit. As part of the SLF lawsuit, NARA previously disclosed its possession of up to 5,400 potential email records tied to Joe Biden’s apparent aliases.

So I guess it’s okay to use aliases and secret servers if you are a Democrat. Hopefully the documents discovered will eventually make their way into the public square so that people can draw their own conclusions about how the Biden family created their immense wealth with no visible product or service.

 

 

 

Is The FBI Part Of The Problem Or Part Of The Solution?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Just the News reported that the FBI has denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Just the News regarding voter registration fraud in Michigan.

The article reports:

According to the dozens of pages of police reports from the Muskegon Police Department and Michigan State Police, a firm called GBI Strategies was under scrutiny as an organization central to alleged voter registration fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The matter was initially investigated by city and state authorities before the FBI took over. 

Contacts between local law enforcement and the FBI continued into 2022 but there is no evidence of what happened after that in the memos obtained by Just the News through requests made under Michigan’s own Freedom of Information Act.

Last week, the FBI denied a Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts request from Just the News regarding records from the investigation into GBI Strategies.

If there is ‘nothing to see here,’ why are they hiding it?

The article continues:

The request sought “copies of all reports, documents, and records about GBI Strategies, including all communication and correspondence regarding investigations of GBI Strategies with Michigan government officials, city and state law enforcement agencies in Michigan, and all other state government officials and law enforcement agencies involved in investigations of GBI Strategies.”

The FBI’s response partially reads: “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure.”

The FBI cited 5 U.S. Code § 552(b)(7)(A) for exempting disclosure of the records, specifically, “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information … could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The agency’s response continued: “The records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records, and release of the information could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Police from Michigan interviewed GBI Strategies employees in 2020 and cited specific instances of registrations that appeared suspicious or fraudulent, the previously obtained memos show. A Michigan State Police memo described the possible crime being investigated as “Election Fraud by Forgery.”

Distract, delay, and deny until the statute of limitations runs out. We have seen this play before.

Is Anyone Surprised?

Posted on by

During the Congressional hearings regarding the Biden family corruption, Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that he gave U.S. Attorney David Weiss ultimate authority over the Hunter Biden investigation. However, there are currently questions as to the accuracy of that statement.

On Thursday, The Federalist reported:

Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, and shared exclusively with The Federalist, reveal a glaring gap in the documentation maintained by the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office: There is nothing memorializing the authority Attorney General Merrick Garland claims he gave U.S. Attorney David Weiss for the Hunter Biden investigation. 

For more than a year, Garland represented to Congress that Weiss held ultimate authority over the Hunter Biden investigation — which the eventual appointment of Weiss as special counsel contradicted. But now there is more evidence — or rather a lack of evidence — indicating the claimed authority was always a charade. 

The Friday before the long holiday weekend, the DOJ provided the Heritage Foundation with the second batch of documents it was ordered by a federal court to produce in response to Heritage’s FOIA lawsuit. This installment concluded the DOJ’s production of the non-exempt documents in Weiss’s custody which concerned his authority for investigating Hunter Biden. But none of the documents produced addressed Weiss’s authority or any authority promised by Garland.

Mike Howell, the director of the Heritage Oversight Project and a co-plaintiff in the FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ, stressed the significance of this omission to The Federalist.

“The DOJ lives on paper.” Anything as important as granting Weiss ultimate authority over an investigation or promising to give him authority to bring charges in another venue, if necessary, “would have been written down,” Howell explained. To Howell, this last batch of documents constitutes an admission by Garland that “there was nothing written down at the DOJ and sent to Weiss, indicating Weiss had any of the authority that Garland claimed he did.”

The thing to remember when evaluating all of the information that is currently coming out about the Biden family business is that the media, the Department of Justice and the Democrat party are all in control of what you hear and when you hear it. There are some serious questions as to whether or not the Democrats want President Biden to run for a second term. Releasing a lot of information about some of his questionable business dealings may be the way to prevent him from running. Indictments against the Biden family will not have the same impact as indictments against President Trump. There is a strong possibility that the Biden family actually did things that were illegal.

I suspect that the Democrats are desperate to take over the House of Representatives to stop the current investigations.

This Evidence May Become Useful In The Near Future

Posted on by

On Monday, The Epoch Times posted an article about documents recently obtained from the National Institutes of Health. It seems that masks were not really going to help limit the spread of the Covid virus.

The article reports:

In a recently obtained letter (pdf) sent in November 2021 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), top epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, and seven colleagues informed the agency it was promoting flawed data and excluding data that did not reinforce their narrative.

The letter warned the agency that misrepresenting data on trusted websites such as the CDC and the COVID-19 Real-Time Learning Network—jointly created by the CDC and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)—would “damage the credibility of science,” endanger public trust by “misrepresenting the evidence,” and give the public “false expectations” masking would protect them from the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

“We believe the information and recommendations as provided may actually put an individual at increased risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and for them to experience a serious or even life-threatening infection,” Mr. Osterhom wrote.

The authors urged the IDSA to remove the suggestion that masking prevents severe disease from its website and asked the CDC to reconsider its statements about the “efficacy of masks and face coverings for preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”

Osterholm also noted a pattern of selectively choosing data that supported the desired narrative that masks prevent severe COVID-19 disease and transmission—claims he said are unsupported by the scientific evidence provided by the CDC and IDSA on their websites.

The IDSA “Masks and Face Coverings for the Public” webpage appears to “focus on the strengths of studies that support its conclusions while ignoring their shortcomings of study design,” Mr. Osterholm wrote. “Studies that do not support its perspective are similarly downplayed.”

Maybe we need to find out who owns stock in the mask companies.

The article concludes:

The letter was part of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by The Functional Government Initiative (FGI), an organization dedicated to “improving the American public’s awareness about the officials, decisions, and priorities of their government.”

“The story of official masking guidance should trouble the American public. Recall that Dr. Fauci at first said there was no need for masks. The cloth masks were all that stood between you and COVID. But as evidence against cloth masks appeared, the premiere scientific health organizations dug in their heels and refused to follow the science or listen to their trusted outside advisors,” FGI said in a statement (pdf).

“That Dr. Osterholm and his colleagues felt compelled to raise concerns about cherry-picked data and the danger it presented to the credibility of public health officials and the health of the public says that something was deeply dysfunctional in these agencies,” FGI stated.

The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment but did not receive a response.

At one point my husband and I were told by a pulmonary specialists that wearing a mask interferes with your body’s natural immunity building. He stated that after the masks come off, we could expect an increase in pneumonia cases because the masks had interfered with people’s natural immunity. Let’s not make this mistake again (I believe mask mandates are coming before the end of this year). This time, let’s just say “NO.”

As Expected

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Just the News reported that the Secret Service has refused to honor a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records regarding the cocaine found in the White House.

The article reports:

The U.S. Secret Service on Tuesday declined to honor a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for communications related to its investigation of the cocaine found at the White House, saying that to release those materials would compromise the investigation.

Bloomberg investigative reporter Jason Leopold posted the response from the Secret Service to his request, in which the agency stated that “disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The rest of the letter outlined Leopold’s options to challenge that determination but offered no other explanation for the agency’s refusal.

…The White House has largely declined to address the matter in public, prompting further scrutiny and indeed speculation that the culprit may have been someone of importance. The Secret Service has not publicly identified any suspects as of press time.

There are security cameras all through the White House. There is Secret Service personnel in various locations. The investigation should have been completed in a matter of hours. If you honestly believe at this point that no one has any idea who the cocaine belongs to, you are incredibly naive. Someone is being protected. I have no idea who is being protected, but someone is. The administration that claimed it would be ‘the most transparent administration’ in history is covering something up.

Misusing The Office Of The Presidency

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Signal posted an article detailing how the Obama administration used secret information to undermine the incoming Trump administration.

The article reports:

Heavily redacted documents from the National Security Agency tell at least part of the story of a final-month rush by the outgoing Obama administration to torpedo the incoming presidency of Donald Trump. 

The Daily Signal obtained 217 pages of documents from the NSA through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents reveal that Obama administration officials, from Vice President Joe Biden down to several ambassadors and many officials in the Treasury and Energy departments, gained access to secret information about Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump’s choice for national security adviser.

The article includes screen captures of many of the documents.

The article continues:

In May 2020, then-acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell declassified information and provided Congress with a list of names involved in the Obama administration’s “unmasking” of Flynn, Trump’s original pick for national security adviser, who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency for two years under Obama.

Senate Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin released the list of Obama admnistration officials. 

“Unmasking” is the practice of disclosing to political appointees the identities of U.S. citizens referenced or recorded in intelligence surveillance of foreign nationals. Names of citizens typically are redacted, or obscured, from such reports, unless a specific request is made to “unmask” those citizens. 

NSA emails about most such requests from Obama officials regarding Flynn bear this message: “The identities of the named U.S. persons and organizations is required for full understanding of the intelligence in the report.” 

Several of the NSA documents note Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, including the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The amendment to the Constitution also requires warrants “upon probable cause.”

The Obama administration and the Biden administration have consistently ignored the Constitution. Rarely have the other two branches of government pushed back. Some recent decisions by the Supreme Court have undone some unconstitutional laws, but we need the Republicans in Congress to stand up for our Constitution.

The Lawsuit To Release The Records

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller reported that the Delaware Supreme Court will hear arguments on June 14th regarding the release of President Joe Biden’s Senate records.

The article reports:

The Delaware Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by the Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch against the University of Delaware for the release of President Joe Biden’s Senate records.

The university claimed public funds were not used to support the papers, arguing the documents requested in the April 30, 2020 Freedom of Information Act requests filed by both organizations were not subject to release. The DCNF and Judicial Watch filed an appeal brief with the Delaware Supreme Court in January 2023 after the Superior Court issued an opinion siding with the university.

“No more obfuscation. No more excuses. It’s time for the University of Delaware to answer for its refusal to release Biden’s Senate records,” said Michael Bastasch, editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The DCNF requested agreements relating to the storage of 1,850 boxes and 415 gigabytes of records from 1973 to 2009, communications between university staff and Biden’s staff, log sheets of individuals who have visited the collection along with the records themselves.

The article notes:

The FBI searched the University of Delaware collection in connection with its investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified documents in February.

The DCNF and Judicial Watch initially filed the lawsuit in July 2020.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) really doesn’t do anyone any good if the people holding the information can refuse to give up that information. I do wonder exactly what is in the records that the Bidens do not want the public to see. I also wonder if anything has been removed from those records since the initial lawsuit almost three years ago.

 

 

Protecting The Guilty While Pursuing The Innocent

Posted on by

On Thursday, American Greatness reported the following:

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) refuses to hand over requested communications between Hunter Biden and then-Vice President Joe Biden’s staff.

Just The News reports that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by America First Legal (AFL) has been rejected by NARA, which is claiming an exemption that allegedly includes communications between the president and his advisors, as well as communications between advisors.

On Wednesday, AFL released the emails that it had received from NARA, which were heavily-redacted. Despite handing over some emails, NARA confirmed the existence of additional communications that it refused to release.

One of the points of interest in AFL’s request is an email from Hunter Biden’s business partner at the time, Eric Schwerin, sent to the Office of the Vice President (OVP), concerning an alleged “China Lunch” that took place ahead of an official visit from Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2011. NARA claimed that releasing this particular email “would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or between such advisors.”

We all remember the following YouTube video (which is currently difficult to find). The current spin is that President Biden wanted the prosecutor fired because the prosecutor wasn’t moving fast enough. Sorry, I just don’t believe that.

At any rate, would we have the requested correspondence if the situation involved President Trump?

Hiding The Truth To Protect The Guilty

Posted on by

On Friday, The Epoch Times posted an article about a court case involving Seth Rich’s computer. As you remember, Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016. If his death was the result of a robbery attempt, the robbers were not successful–he still had his watch, he still has his money—he still has his credit cards, and still had his phone. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

The article reports:

The FBI is asking a U.S. court to reverse its order that it produce information from Seth Rich’s laptop computer.

If the court does not, the bureau wants 66 years to produce the information.

Rich was a Democratic National Committee staffer when he was killed on a street in Washington in mid-2016. No person has ever been arrested in connection to the murder.

U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, an Obama appointee, ruled in September that the bureau must hand over information from the computer to Brian Huddleston, a Texas man who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the info.

The FBI’s assertion that the privacy interest Rich’s family members hold outweighed the public interest was rejected by Mazzant, who noted the bureau cited no relevant case law supporting the argument.

But the ruling was erroneous, U.S. lawyers said in a new filing.

The bureau shouldn’t have to produce the information because of FOIA exemptions for information that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source,” the lawyers said in a motion for reconsideration. Another exemption, which enables agencies to withhold information that would disclose law enforcement techniques also applies, they said.

If this were a run-of-the-mill murder, why would the FBI want to keep the contents of the laptop hidden for 66 years?

The article concludes:

“If the court overrules the FBI’s motion, the FBI wants to produce records at a rate of 500 pages per month. At that rate, it will take almost 67 years just to produce the documents, never mind the images and other files,” Ty Clevenger, a lawyer representing Huddleston, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“After dealing with the FBI for five years, I now assume that the FBI is lying to me unless and until it proves otherwise. The FBI is desperately trying to hide records about Seth Rich, and that begs the question of why.”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has suggested Rich leaked Democratic National Committee (DNC) files to WikiLeaks, but special counsel Robert Mueller said the real source was Russian hackers. Still, Mueller’s finding conflicts with statements from CrowdStrike, the firm hired to investigate how the DNC files were released.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. There are a lot of very strange things about this case and the way it was investigated.

A Very Good Question

Posted on by

As our politicized justice department and New York’s political hack of an attorney general continue their microscopic search of anything President Trump has ever done and demand that every aspect of his life be made public, the University of Delaware has still not complied with Freedom of Information Requests by the Daily Caller and Judicial Watch to make President Biden’s Senate records public.

On September 14th, The Daily Caller posted the headline, “‘What Is Biden Hiding?’: Court Orders University Of Delaware To Explain Why It’s Still Hiding Biden’s Senate Records”

The article reports:

A Delaware court ordered the University of Delaware Aug. 23 to provide clarity on its move to keep President Joe Biden’s Senate records hidden. It’s the latest development in the Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to make the records public.

The DCNF and Judicial Watch objected on July 27 to the university’s reasoning to not release the records. Now, the Delaware Superior Court is demanding the university provide further information justifying its move to keep the records out of the public eye.

“After all the lectures from the Biden administration on democracy and the rule of law it’s amazing that the President has a secret deal in place to hide his records from the public,” said DCNF Chairman Neil Patel. “We are happy that the court is pushing the University of Delaware to stop playing games and come clean.”

The DCNF and Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in July 2020 to obtain the records — which are housed in the University of Delaware’s library. The lawsuit came after the university denied both groups’ earlier attempts to FOIA the Biden records.

The article concludes:

The records sought by both the DCNF and Judicial Watch may contain information related to Tara Reade — who in 1993, while working in Biden’s senate office, accused him of sexually assaulting her. A copy of the complaint she filed on the matter and related documents to the alleged incident may also be included in the records, Reade has said.

In addition, the records could contain critical information related to Hunter Biden — the president’s son who is under federal investigation for his alleged tax and foreign lobbying violations and alleged involvement in a 2018 gun incident.

The University of Delaware declined the DCNF’s request for comment. The university was given a 30-day deadline to respond to the court.

The Superior Court of Delaware did not respond to a request for comment.

Why do I think that if the records are ever released they will either be incomplete or heavily redacted. We have lost the concept of equal justice under the law.

Is This Even Legal?

Posted on by

Yesterday Trending Politics reported that the U.S. government paid media outlets to convince Americans to be pro-vaccine. I suppose this is no different than other public health campaigns, but the fact that this campaign was being waged while any information on negative effects of vaccines was being censored seems a little unfair. Why was the government pushing a vaccine that had not been in existence long enough to go through a rigorous testing protocol?

The article notes:

The government documents describing the media relations program were reported by The Blaze in an “exclusive.”

“In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations,” The Blaze’s story notes. “These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.”

“Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a ‘comprehensive media campaign,’” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. “The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from ‘communities hit hard by COVID-19’ and ‘experts’ like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.”

When you know that our media can be bought, does it change your opinion about what to believe?

The Facts Are Slowing Coming Out

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Patriot Daily Wire reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released more information about the possible side effects of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.

The article reports:

As the FDA prepares to approve Pfizer’s new pill for treating high-risk patients infected with COVID, more information about dangerous side effects tied to its vaccine are coming to light.

Just yesterday, we reported another death tied to the vaccine in New Zealand. Now, documents released by the FDA reveal that drugmaker Pfizer recorded nearly 160K adverse reactions to its COVID vaccine in the initial months of its rollout.

The data were obtained by a group of doctors, professors, and journalists calling themselves Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. They filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDA asking for their release. And the first tranche of documents revealed that, as of February 2021, when Pfizer’s shot was being rolled out worldwide on an emergency basis, the drugmaker had compiled more than 42K case reports detailing nearly 160K individual adverse reactions to the vaccine.

The data show the bulk of the adverse event cases, both serious and non-serious, were classified as “general disorders”.

You shouldn’t have to file a Freedom of Information request to get this data–it should be given to everyone who is considering getting the vaccine.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes the complete breakdown of data from Public Health and Medical Professionals For Transparency. There has to be a risk/benefit analysis when considering getting the vaccine. There also needs to be a discussion about how effective the vaccine actually is.

Following The Science?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to the Health and Human Services Department.

The article includes the response from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

So the letter states that the CDC has no information on whether people who have recovered from Covid have become infected again or have transmitted the disease to other people. It seems to me that in the world of looming vaccine mandates, that might be important information.

The article links to a substack article which states the following:

You would assume that if the CDC was going to crush the civil and individual rights of those with natural immunity by having them expelled from school, fired from their jobs, separated from the military, and worse, the CDC would have proof of at least one instance of an unvaccinated, naturally immune individual transmitting the COVID-19 virus to another individual.  If you thought this, you would be wrong.

My firm, on behalf of ICAN, asked the CDC for precisely this proof (see below).  ICAN wanted to see proof of any instance in which someone who previously had COVID-19 became reinfected with and transmitted the virus to someone else.  The CDC’s incredible response is that it does not have a single document reflecting that this has ever occurred.  Not one.  (See below.)

In contrast, there are endless documents reflecting cases of vaccinated individuals becoming infected with and transmitting the virus to others.  Such as this study.  And this study.  And this study.  And this study.  It goes on and on…

But it gets worse.  The CDC’s excuse for not having a shred of evidence of the naturally immune transmitting the virus is that “this information is not collected.”  What?!  No proof!  But yet the CDC is actively crushing the rights of millions of naturally immune individuals in this country if they do not get the vaccine on the assumption they can transmit the virus.   But despite clear proof the vaccinated spread the virus, the CDC lifts restrictions on the vaccinated?!  That is dystopian.   

At some point, Americans are going to have to realize that this is not about the vaccine or the virus and begin to reclaim their freedom.

The Problems With The Lack Of Border Enforcement

Posted on by

Just the News recently reported (updated yesterday) that the Biden administration has lost track of 40% of the more than 114,000 unaccompanied children who entered the U.S. illegally. Great. Yesterday Breitbart reported that more than 16,000 migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody were released into the United States.

Just the News reports:

So far this year, unaccompanied minors arriving at the border have hit record numbers.  In June, there were 15,234 encounters with unaccompanied children, in July, 18,958 encounters, and in August, there were 18,847 encounters, according to Customs and Border Patrol data.

Once processed by Border Patrol, unaccompanied minors fall under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The agency reportedly works with a network of 200 shelters in roughly 24 states, according to a report by the Associated Press. Shelters are often set up inside military bases, stadiums and convention centers, referred to as “emergency intake sites.”

At its peak, HHS had 20,339 children in its care in April, with an average shelter occupancy rate of 76%.

…”The Biden administration wasn’t prepared,” Judd (Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd) wrote in a Fox News op-ed, and agents were “forced to hold a good number of these children long past what the law allowed. Instead of creating a long-term solution, the Biden administration merely cut back on the vetting process of the sponsors to whom children were being released.”

The decision to weaken the vetting process contributed, in part, to the Biden administration’s loss of contact with 40% of the more than 114,000 unaccompanied children who entered the U.S. illegally, according to a report by Axios. The report is based on data received through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The article at Just the News concludes:

According to Bloomberg Law, illegal alien teens were allegedly trafficked to agricultural or poultry processing facilities in Alabama and Oregon. DOJ’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit said it was aware of labor exploitation and/or potential labor trafficking of unaccompanied minors in several jurisdictions and was investigating with others in law enforcement.

But even before then, by April, reports of sexual abuse and violence against children were reported at two facilities in El Paso and San Antonio, Texas, prompting Gov. Greg Abbott to call on the Biden administration to close the facilities.

Abbott sent a letter to Biden demanding answers about the treatment of the children, and directed Texas state troopers and rangers to intervene where possible. “The Biden administration  is presiding over the abuse of children,” he said.

Abbott never received a response from Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. 

Breitbart reports:

More than 16,000 migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody were released into the United States, according to an agency law enforcement source. The Biden administration did not mandate any of the migrants to be vaccinated before their release. The source informs Breitbart Texas that the figures only include those migrants who were tested by ICE.

I think we need a President who will protect the American people both from human trafficking and from people entering the country carrying the coronavirus.

 

This Is Not Civilized

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart reported the following:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted $3.2 million in federal funds to the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to achieve its goal of becoming a fetal tissue collection site that could quickly harvest the organs of full-term aborted babies, according to documents obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

That is gross.

The article continues:

National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted $3.2 million in federal funds to the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to achieve its goal of becoming a fetal tissue collection site that could quickly harvest the organs of full-term aborted babies, according to documents obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

Daleiden (CMP project lead David Daleiden), who conducted undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood’s alleged fetal tissue trafficking with biomedical procurement companies, elaborated:

Infants in the womb, some old enough to be viable, are being aborted alive and killed for organ harvesting, in order to bring in millions of dollars in taxpayer funding for Pitt and the Planned Parenthood abortion business it supports. People are outraged by such disregard for the lives of the vulnerable. Law enforcement and public officials should act immediately to bring the next Kermit Gosnell to justice under the law.

In May, CMP (Center for Medical Progress) released a video that alleged NIH uses taxpayer funds to sponsor experimentation at Pitt on aborted babies obtained from a local Planned Parenthood facility.

The article concludes:

“Pitt’s statement suggests the time between the abortion and collection is minimal,” Judicial Watch explained, adding the university also included a “racial target for harvesting of human fetal parts.”

“Of its planned aborted ‘subjects’ Pitt desired 50% to be minority fetuses,” the legal watchdog group said. “The proposal suggests that the ‘subjects’ be diverse because Pittsburgh is diverse, the U.S. Census Bureau shows the city of Pittsburgh is close to 70% white.”

In its grant application proposal, Pitt also gave a target goal of having “available a minimum of 5 cases (tissues and if possible other biologicals) per week of gestational age for ages 6-42 weeks.”

According to Judicial Watch, the documents show NIH had already granted Pitt at least $2.7 million for its human fetal tissue harvesting activities.

“These documents show taxpayer money is being used to turn the University of Pittsburgh [into] a one-stop human fetal tissue shop – from procuring the tissue from elective abortions, ‘subdividing’ the human remains, to distributing and shipping the harvested tissue,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

These are not the actions of a civilized society.

Information Americans Need To Know

Posted on by

Breitbart reported yesterday that Judicial Watch is suing the Biden administration for refusing to disclose information related to the Chinese coronavirus transmission, testing, and treatment of illegal aliens who are then released into the United States interior.

The article reports:

The government watchdog organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after they failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which sought coronavirus data records on illegal aliens the administration has continued releasing into the U.S. interior.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks:

Any and all technical guidance provided to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement and/or any official or employee thereof regarding, concerning, or related to the transmission, testing, mitigation, and/or treatment of COVID-19 for undocumented immigrants who are in or are released from Department of Homeland Security and/or Customs and Border Patrol custody. [Emphasis added]

The article concludes:

For five months, the Biden administration has released tens of thousands of border crossers and illegal aliens into the U.S. interior often without confirming that they are negative for coronavirus. In a number of cases, border crossers are put on buses and commercial domestic flights where they can bypass proof of a negative coronavirus test and have photo identity requirements waived.

In April, the New York Times reported that even as the Biden administration has put border crossers up in migrant hotels to quarantine, those border crossers regularly skip out on the quarantine and instead leave the hotels to continue traveling into the U.S. interior.

Most recently, former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Chief Mark Morgan revealed that “few to none” of the border crossers arriving at the southern border who are subsequently released into the U.S. interior have received the coronavirus vaccine.

The case is Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, No. 1:21-cv-01514 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Where is the concern for the safety of Americans? How does it make sense to require Americans to social distance, avoid crowds, wear masks, etc., while not enforcing the same restrictions on people who are here illegally?

Unfortunately Justice In America Is Not Blind

Posted on by

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article (updated today) about a appeal by the Biden administration’s justice department to prevent a memo about the Russian collusion charges against President Trump from being released.

The article reports:

The Biden administration said Monday that it would appeal a judge’s order directing it to release a memo explaining why Attorney General Bill Barr didn’t choose to prosecute President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice by allegedly thwarting Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. 

But it also agreed to make a brief portion of the document public, which shows that two senior Justice Department leaders advised Barr that, in their view, Mueller’s evidence could not support an obstruction conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. 

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson earlier this month ordered Biden’s DOJ to release the entire March 2019 memo as part of a public records lawsuit from a Washington-based advocacy organization. 

She said the department, under Attorney General William Barr, had misstated the purpose of the document in arguing that it was legally entitled to withhold it from the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In a motion filed late Monday, the deadline for deciding whether it would comply with the judge’s decision or appeal it, the Justice Department said that it continued to believe even that the full document should be exempt from disclosure.

It appears Biden’s DOJ took the decision to avoid setting a new precedent where more sensitive internal documents would have to be released, Politico reported. 

Presidents and administrations of both parties have constantly fought to keep these documents secret. 

The article concludes:

The department said the decision before the attorney general was not whether to prosecute Trump since the indictment of a sitting president is precluded by longstanding Justice Department policy. Rather, the question that the memo set out to address was whether the facts gathered by Mueller could warrant a criminal case. That question, the government says, was a genuine decision that had to be made.

‘The Attorney General´s determination on that point – and on what, if anything, to say to the public about that question – undoubtedly qualifies as a decision, even if it could not have resulted in an actual prosecution of the sitting President,’ Justice Department lawyers wrote.

‘There was no legal bar to determining that the evidence did or did not establish commission of a crime, a determination the Attorney General made and announced,’ they added.

In a letter to AG Merrick Garland on May 14, Senate Democrats urged him not to appeal the court’s order to ‘help rebuild the nation’s trust in independence after four years of turmoil’.

The group of Senators lead by Majority Whip Dick Durbin wrote: ‘DOJ’s actions in this case, and in another recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking information about President Trump’s activities, have raised doubts about DOJ’s candor when characterizing potential evidence of President Trump’s misconduct to courts. 

‘To be clear, these misrepresentations preceded your confirmation as Attorney General, but the Department you now lead bears responsibility for redressing them.

‘In that light, and in order to help rebuild the nation’s trust in DOJ’s independence after four years of turmoil, we urge DOJ not to appeal D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s May 3 decision to order the release of this OLC memo.’

One of the true successes of the Trump administration was to expose the corruption that runs rampant in Washington. It is not surprising that the cadre of people who fought so hard to keep President Trump from exposing that corruption are still fighting to keep their actions hidden. I agree with a friend who posted on Facebook that Washington is not a swamp–it’s a sewer–a swamp has some ecological value!

Information We Need NOW!

Posted on by

On Saturday The Federalist posted an article explaining why U.S. Attorney John Durham, the lead prosecutor looking into the origins of the Russia probe and the spying on the Trump campaign, should release the results of his investigation before November. I will admit that I am more interested in seeing those in the intelligence community who broke the law held accountable than I am in seeing a report.

The article reports:

As reported by the Washington Examiner, several sources have indicated that “Durham may end up waiting until after November to reveal what he has found or to hand down indictments” because Durham does not want his investigation or any decisions to be viewed as “political.” This would be a mistake. There is no question that he should release his findings and issue any necessary indictments before the November elections.

The voters need to know if the investigations that went on in 2015 and 2016 of the Trump campaign and people associated with it were warranted. If those investigations were not warranted, those responsible need to be held accountable before the election. Anyone who has been following the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) releases by Judicial Watch has a pretty good idea of what went on. Unfortunately, Americans who depend on the mainstream media for their information have no idea of the information in the documents so far declassified and made public. It is totally unfair to ask voters to make a decision in November without giving them the information they need to make an informed decision.

The article notes:

Historically, the Department of Justice has refrained from taking any action for partisan purposes. As reported in Just Security:

Department of Justice employees are entrusted with the authority to enforce the laws of the United States and with the responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. This is particularly important in an election year.

The Memorandum further states (emphasis added):

As Department employees … we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality and nonpartisanship.

Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

The article argues that that policy does not apply in this case:

While this policy makes sense overall, it does not make sense in this case for several compelling reasons. First, there is no evidence that Durham’s investigation is partisan in nature or that it is being conducted for partisan political purposes like the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone investigations. Durham’s investigation began long ago and well before Americans were seriously thinking about the 2020 elections.

Second, the purpose of Durham’s investigation appears to align with the department’s mission. Specifically, through his investigation, Durham is seeking to protect the integrity of the election process in the United States. More particularly, Durham is investigating whether one or more people were involved in a plot to sabotage a presidential candidate or to overthrow a duly elected president.

This is not a political issue that “benefits” one party or another. Rather, it is an investigation, the results of which will help Americans of all political leanings. Durham’s findings are vital for all Americans who care about democracy and the integrity of the election process. Americans deserve to know what happened leading up to the 2016 elections.

It’s time for Americans to learn the truth about what the Justice Department and the intelligence community did to undermine the campaign and presidency of President Trump.

This Could Get Interesting

Posted on by

The following Press Release was posted by Judicial Watch yesterday:

Judicial Watch: Appellate Court Hearing on Clinton Email Testimony Tuesday – Hillary Clinton Seeks to Block Court Order Requiring Her to Testify

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, by teleconference, in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.

The appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify. 

Clinton argues she shouldn’t have to testify because she is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State. Judicial Watch argues neither Clinton nor Mills have demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court’s order and that the case is not moot. Judicial Watch argues that the FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.

The hearing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit: 

Date:               Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Time:               9:30 am ET

Location:        Telephonic, oral argument can be heard on the court’s website 

This hearing comes in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, Judicial Watch uncovered “talking points” created by the Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice were misleading, if not false. This FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. 

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted Judicial Watch discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. In April, Judicial Watch and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ request to overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found that Clinton’s testimony was necessary:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered discovery into whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to avoid FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. It ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Very Interesting

Posted on by

On Monday, Judicial Watch posted the following Press Release:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for communications and other records of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci and Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane with and about the World Health Organization (WHO) concerning the novel coronavirus (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

The suit was filed after HHS failed to respond to an April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

The time period for the request is January 1, 2020 to April 1, 2020.

Additionally, the DCNF requested and was granted expedited processing of its request.

In March 2020, Fauci praised the work of the WHO and their chairman, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saying: “Tedros is really an outstanding person … I mean, obviously, over the years anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think under his leadership they’ve done very well.”

In April, President Trump announced a halt to funding the World Health Organization. According to the president, the WHO put “political correctness over lifesaving measures.” Additionally, President Trump said: “The WHO failed in this duty, and must be held accountable,” adding that the WHO ignored “credible information” in December 2019 that the virus could be transmitted from human to human.

Daily Caller News Foundation Co-Founder and President Neil Patel said: “This virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people and turned the whole world upside down. We know that China and WHO could have done a lot more to prevent or reduce this catastrophe. We therefore have a legitimate and urgent news purpose for seeking these documents regarding U.S. officials’ communications with WHO and demand that the agencies in question stop stalling and start following the law that entitles us to this vital information.”

“It is urgent that the NIH follow transparency law during the coronavirus crisis,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is of significant public interest to learn what WHO was telling our top medical officials about the coronavirus that originated in China.”

This Case Is Still Relevant

Posted on by

On Tuesday The Epoch Times posted an article about the Awan scandal. In case you have forgotten, various members and friends of the Awan family were IT aides to more than 40 Democratic members of key national security and foreign policy committees in the House of Representatives. Their positions gave the aides access to all of the members’ digital communications and documents.

The article reminds us:

With the exception of Imran Awan, all of the Awan network members lost their access to the House IT network in February 2017, as a result of a report by the top House administrative officials that said the aides “are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.”

Imran Awan was kept on the House payroll by then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) until he was arrested by federal agents while trying to leave the United States.

Awan was subsequently charged with bank fraud in connection with a loan from the Congressional Federal Credit Union.

The article reports the current activities on the case:

An apparently frustrated federal judge ordered attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appear Jan. 15 for a “snap” hearing to explain why the government isn’t producing documents sought by Judicial Watch concerning former Democratic information technology aide Imran Awan.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta’s unusual order followed a sealed submission by DOJ attorneys Jan. 10 in the case prompted by the nonprofit government watchdog’s November 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

Such hastily convened hearings are extremely unusual in a federal judicial system so jammed that months can pass before cases are litigated in courtrooms.

“In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay,” Judicial Watch said in a statement Jan. 14 about the snap hearing.

“Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court,” Judicial Watch said.

Federal attorneys previously said in December 2019 that they were unable to provide the documents sought in the Judicial Watch FOIA requests because they include materials from a “related sealed criminal matter.”

Thank God for Judicial Watch.

The article concludes:

The Awan scandal was first exposed by Daily Caller investigative journalist Luke Rosiak, who subsequently published a book on his findings, titled “Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats.”

None of the Awan network members were reportedly required to undergo security background checks prior to being employed on congressional staffs.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in the nonprofit’s statement that “the DOJ’s handling of the Awan brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are expected to believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth about this scandal. We are skeptical.”

Just another example of inexplicable actions by the Justice Department.

Things That Make You Wonder

Posted on by

A website called Truth and Action posted an article (there is no date on the article) about Hillary Clinton’s actions on election night 2016. Obviously she was distressed–she had reason to be–everyone had predicted she would win and she lost. She made a statement that night that is recorded in the article at Truth and Action and a number of other places.

The statement as quoted in the article (and other places) is below (with a few editorial changes because this blog is G-rated) with more of the story:

Journalist Matt Stiller shared in a recent report that during the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton was unhinged, and that various NBC insiders can substantiate his account.

According to Still, during last year’s presidential campaign at the Commander-In-Chief Forum on September 7, 2016, moderator Matt Lauer went “off script” and asked Hillary about her using an illegal, private email-server when she was secretary of state.

According to Bill Still’s source — an unnamed “NBC associate producer of the forum” — Hillary was so enraged that, after the forum, she went into a ballistic melt-down, screaming at her staff, including a racist rant at Donna Brazile, calling Brazile a “buffalo” and “janitor”. Brazile recently turned against Hillary — now we know why.

…She screamed she’d get that f**king Lauer fired for this. Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said, ‘If that f**king b***ard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished, and if I lose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.’

Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably as she screamed to get an executive at Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, on the phone. Then two rather large aides grabbed her and helped her walk to her car.”

Please consider the essence of the statement that if Donald Trump wins, we all hang from nooses. We live in a representative republic. People who lose elections do not normally hang from nooses. Why did she see that as a threat? Is it possible that she was fully aware of what had gone on during the campaign and understood that it would eventually be revealed?

Fast forward to today. We know that the Inspector General’s Report will probably come out in the next month or so. I have no doubt that the Republicans will push to make as much of that report public as possible. Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, we already have a pretty good idea of what is in the report. I believe that impending report is behind the move by Democrats in the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump as quickly as possible, discredit Attorney General Barr, discredit Vice-President Pence, and simply impugn the credibility of anyone who might expose the events of the 2016 election. The one thing we do know is that a group of government workers at the highest level worked behind the scenes to spy on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, and the Trump presidency. They also worked hard to destroy anyone associated with the campaign or administration. I believe this is the first time in our history that we have had a Congresswoman call for members of an administration to be harassed in public places. The fact that she was not severely censored for that statement is cause for alarm.

“The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.”

Posted on by

Judicial Watch released the following Press Release yesterday:

DOJ Docs Show Rosenstein Advising Mueller ‘the Boss’ Doesn’t Know About Their Communications — Judicial Watch

Rosenstein docs also show ‘off the record’ leaks to 60 Minutes, The New York Times and The Washington Post around and on the date of Mueller’s appointment.

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch released 145 pages of Rod Rosenstein’s communications that include a one-line email from Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller stating, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions” and “off the record” emails with major media outlets around the date of Mueller’s appointment.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 21, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in this suit is critical. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. Just three days later, on May 12, Rosenstein sent an email assuring Robert Mueller that “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.”

In a May 16, 2017 email, sent the day before Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein emailed former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General and current Kirkland & Ellis Partner, Mark Filip stating, “I am with Mueller. He shares my views. Duty Calls.  Sometimes the moment chooses us.”

And on May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Also, during the same time period, between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials to discuss wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump.

The documents also show that, again during the same time period, Rod Rosenstein was in direct communication with reporters from 60 Minutes, The New York Times and The Washington Post. In an email exchange dated May 2017, Rosenstein communicated with New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz to provide background for this article about himself. Ruiz emailed Rosenstein a draft of the article, and he responded with off-the-record comments and clarifications.

  • In an email exchange on May 17, 2017, the day of Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein exchanged emails with 60 Minutes producer Katherine Davis in which he answered off-the-record questions about Mueller’s scope of authority and chain of command:

Rosenstein: “Off the record: This special counsel is a DOJ employee. His status is similar to a US Attorney.”

Davis: “Good call on Mueller. Although I obviously thought you’d be great at leading the investigation too.”

  • On May 17, 2017, in an email exchange with Washington Post journalist Sari Horwitz and the subject line “Special Counsel” Rosenstein and Horwitz exchanged:

 Rosenstein: “At some point, I owe you a long story. But this is not the right time for me to talk to anybody.”

Horwitz: “Now, I see why you couldn’t talk today! Obviously, we’re writing a big story about this. Is there any chance I could talk to you on background about your decision?”

“These astonishing emails further confirm the corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The emails also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.”

On September 11, Judicial Watch released 14 pages of records from the Department of Justice showing officials’ efforts in responding to media inquiries about DOJ/FBI talks allegedly invoking the 25th Amendment to “remove” President Donald Trump from office and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a “wire” to record his conversations with the president.

On September 23, Judicial Watch released a two-page memo, dated May 16, 2017, by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe detailing how then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire into the Oval Office “to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions.” McCabe writes that Rosenstein said he thought it was possible because “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

In case you had any doubt that this has been a planned sabotage of President Trump.

Who Is Felix Satar?

Posted on by

On September 16th Judicial Watch posted the following:

Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking all records of communications, including FBI 302 interview reports and offer agreements between former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office and Felix Sater, a former Trump organization official who was recently confirmed to be an informant for the FBI and CIA. Sater reportedly pushed a Russian real estate deal in 2016 while working at the Trump organization.

Sater reportedly “began working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1998, after he was caught in a stock-fraud scheme.” It was Andrew Weissmann who, as supervising assistant U.S. attorney, signed the agreement that brought Sater on as a government informant. Federal prosecutors wrote a letter to Sater’s sentencing judge on August 27, 2009, in an effort to get him a lighter sentence: “Sater’s cooperation was of a depth and breadth rarely seen.”

Sater also was reportedly a CIA informant in the mid-2000s for the CIA during his undercover work with Russian military and intelligence officers.

The Mueller report mentions Sater more than 100 times but fails to mention that he was an active undercover informant for the FBI/CIA for more than two decades. In 2017, Sater was the subject of two interviews conducted under a proffer agreement with Mueller’s office according to page 69, footnote 304 of Mueller’s report on his Russian collusion investigation.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after Mueller’s office, a component of the DOJ, failed to respond to a June 12, 2019, FOIA request for FBI “302” interview reports of Sater that are referred to in the Mueller report; any offer agreements between Sater and the U.S. government; and records of communications between Sater and government employees (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-02568)).

In a June 25, 2019 report, Judicial Watch chief investigative reporter Micah Morrison highlighted that:

Beginning in late 2015, Sater repeatedly tried to arrange for [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen and candidate Trump, as representatives of the Trump Organization, to travel to Russia to meet with Russian government officials and possible financing partners.

Though his proposal appears to have been rejected by the Trump campaign, Sater persisted. “Into the spring of 2016,” the Mueller Report notes, “Sater and Cohen continued to discuss a trip to Moscow.” Sater emails Cohen that he is trying to arrange a meeting between “the 2 big guys,” Putin and Trump.

Sater’s re-emergence “suggests the possibility of a more sinister counter-narrative: that someone may have been trying to lure Trump into a trap—a politically damaging entanglement with Moscow money,” Morrison wrote.

Sater reportedly testified for eight hours in a closed-door session before the Schiff-led intelligence committee on July 9, 2019. Sater previously said he believes the Trump Tower Moscow project was no different from other Trump real estate projects that were also in the works. “I have worked on probably five or six Trump Tower projects in the United States and at least that many internationally….”

“Was a Russian real estate deal being pushed on the Trump Organization part of a set-up by a FBI/CIA informant?” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The new Judicial Watch lawsuit attempts to shed light on what could be another aspect of Deep State abusive Spygate operation targeting President Trump.”

This is just ugly. As more of this information comes out, I hope there is a huge outcry from the public to put the people responsible for misusing government agencies in jail. If that does not happen, we no longer have a justice system in America.

The Truth Continues To Seep Out

Posted on by

Yesterday The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) posted the following on its website:

The ACLJ has just obtained previously unreleased documents related to the Clinton investigation and immunity agreements given to top Clinton aids. These agreements reveal that James Comey’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice (DOJ) granted immunity to Hillary Clinton’s aids and lawyers, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, from prosecution for anything found on their laptops violating multiple felony criminal statutes governing the mishandling of classified information and/or the removal or destruction of records, including Espionage Act provisions. Further, the DOJ and FBI also agreed to evade the statutory requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by purporting to deem the contents of the laptops as not under DOJ or FBI “custody or control.”

These laptops were critical to any meaningful investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails and records. According to the DOJ Inspector General, who identified these as the “culling laptops,” “[a]ll 62,320 emails pulled from the Clinton servers were stored at one time on these laptops.” Having taken control of these laptops, agreeing to severely limit its searches, agreeing to unlawfully shield the laptops from FOIA, then agreeing to dispose of the laptops, it appears the Comey FBI and Lynch DOJ did everything in their power to protect Clinton’s senior aids and lawyers from both criminal liability and public scrutiny.

While these immunity agreements and related news have been publicly discussed to some extent, the ACLJ has now obtained the actual documents so the public may see and judge them accordingly.

The article also states:

According to the DOJ’s immunity agreement with Mills:

As we have advised you, we consider Cheryl Mills to be a witness based on the information gathered to date in this investigation. We understand that Cheryl Mills is willing to voluntarily provide the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if the United States agrees not to use any information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop in any prosecution of Cheryl Mills for the mishandling of classified information and/or the removal or destruction of records as described below.

And, according to the immunity agreement:

To that end, it is hereby agreed as follows:

    1. That, subject to the terms of consent set forth in a separate letter to the Department of Justice dated June 10, 2016, Cheryl Mills will voluntarily produce the Mills Laptop to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its review and analysis.
    2. That no information directly obtained from the Mills Laptop will be used against your client in any prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and/or (f); 18 U.S.C. § 1924; and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
    1. That no other promises, agreements, or understandings exist between the parties except as set forth in this agreement, and no modification of this agreement shall have effect unless executed in writing by the parties.

The agreement was then executed by Cheryl Mills. The immunity agreement with Samuelson reads the same.

Mills and Samuelson Were Granted Immunity From Prosecution Under Multiple Felony Statutes for Anything Found on Their Laptops.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Unfortunately this is a glaring example of unequal justice under the law.