A Voice of Reason Amidst a Tidal Wave of MSM Propoganda

FINALLY!

From the National Review comes a terrific article by Jim Geraghty that takes a honest look at the state of the "free press" in the United States today. 

Please read...

(My response to National Review is afterward)

The Rising Tide of Anti-Journalism

"We at National Review are asking for your support again, and we mean it when we say our mission has never been more important.

We’re witnessing an odd transformation in the media world. Increasingly, the debate within mainstream media institutions is what must not be written about, reported, or discussed.

Apparently the staff of the New York Times cannot abide the presence of a heterodox voice such as Bari Weiss. New York magazine no longer has room for Andrew Sullivan. A staff walkout led to Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, departing the paper, days after the paper ran an article with the headline “Buildings Matter, Too.” None of those figures would meet many definitions of “right-wing” or “conservative.” But they dared dissent from the hard Left in one way or another and thus became targets of the “cancel culture,” a phenomenon that its most ardent adherents insist doesn’t exist, a prototypical example of gaslighting if there ever was one.

Major institutions of American journalism have decided that certain viewpoints must not be expressed within their pages, and certain factions and narratives must not be questioned, challenged, or opposed. Certain arguments must not be heard, certain supporting evidence must not be examined; certain ideas are simply too dangerous or malevolent to be brought to a wider audience. We are instructed that the very expression of them in any form makes certain staffers “feel unsafe” and thus must be treated as akin to a physical assault.

This is not the pursuit of knowledge; this is the avoidance of knowledge. This is not curiosity; this is an ironclad certainty that everything that is needed to be known about any given subject is already known. This is not informing the audience about what is going on in the world; this is making sure they don’t hear what is going on in the world, because it might run counter to a preferred narrative.

Whatever you want to call what these institutions are doing now, this is not journalism. This is anti-journalism.

Apparently, the new purpose of an opinions and editorial section is to reassure and soothe, not challenge or provoke. Shortly after internal outrage about Tom Cotton’s op-ed led to the ousting of James Bennet as the acting editorial-page editor of the New York Times, Katie Kingsbury, a deputy editorial-page editor, told the staff of the opinion section, “any piece of Opinion journalism — including headlines or social posts or photos or you name it — that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”

The editors of these institutions would probably insist that the internal hostility toward certain viewpoints within their own walls never influences how they cover stories or how they see Americans and the world — an utterly implausible claim that is another textbook example of gaslighting. But the attitudes and consequences of cancel culture have far-reaching ramifications for how we discuss what matters in America — or whether it gets discussed at all. A new survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62 percent of them say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.

National Review today represents what the mainstream media wants to believe it is. We have vehement dissent within our pages. You’ve probably noticed that Conrad Black and Jay Nordlinger don’t agree in their assessment of the president. John Fund is convinced Sweden has the right approach to the coronavirus, John McCormack isn’t. We have atheists and the religiously devout, libertarians and populists, free-traders and protectionists. You see a wider range of opinions and more vigorous debate of issues within the ranks of a self-identified conservative magazine than in most “mainstream” institutions — reflecting that they are nowhere near “mainstream” anymore.

Maybe you love everything you read here. Maybe you’ve objected to or strongly disliked something you’ve read here. But if you’re reading this, you probably appreciate something that many “mainstream” journalism institutions have chosen to abandon. Right now, powerful forces want this kind of institution to wither away and die and the future of public debate in the United States to be limited by the ever-growing censorious veto of the perpetually outraged.

We always need help, but we particularly need it now. Your support is always appreciated and is what keeps National Review running."

Thank you for publishing “The Rising Tide of Anti-Journalism” article by Jim Geraghty! Aside from non-MSM outlets such as The Epoch Times and One America News Network, Mr. Geraghty did a terrific job illuminating the sad state of todays’ “Free Press” here in the United States.  

It is refreshing to read a truthful article about a subject that has become a lightning rod of anger and frustration amongst everyday Americans in which the MSM has increasingly become more of a puppet of the Socialist Left that the Democratic Party has become, rather than the objective news outlets that should be expected. The MSM has literally devolved into nothing more than a U.S. version of  the Soviet Pravda newspaper as it spreads lies, misinformation, disinformation, selective truths, etc.

The MSM is no longer holding the government accountable; instead allowing Democrat corruption, misdeeds, Destructive agendas, anti-Semitism and anti-American rhetoric and the like to be openly displayed with awful hostility and then be splashed about in publications and on TV as if these things are good for our Country.  

You have personalities such as Don Lemon speaking “his truth” rather than THE truth; Rachel Maddow brazenly promoting lies and anti-Trump rhetoric as fact; MSNBC, CNN and all the rest openly supporting a coup against the President of the United States with gleeful abandon! The MSM is encouraging acceptance of the BLM movement despite the known fact that its leaders are Marxists, and they want nothing less than the complete destruction of our great Republic…which is completely mind-boggling, by the way. They call the recent riots “peaceful protests,” and have yet to tell the full story of George Floyds’ death; instead giving only what feeds their racist, hateful narrative.  

If the MSM actually held ALL politicians accountable, then the sad state of politics that is now within the United States would likely not exist. The President would not be relentlessly attacked about, well, everything under the sun—even when  he has done nothing wrong. The American people would actually see the good things President Trump has accomplished (despite the horrific opposition he faces every day), and they would likely see the sovereignty of the United States as paramount to maintaining our freedoms.  

Anyhow, Thank you for that article! I appreciate those words immensely, as well and Mr. Geraghtys’ opinions!

SERIOUSLY?! Tucker: Team Biden releases its plan for America

The Joe Biden Campaign team (NOT Joe Biden!) released ITS vision for the United States if Hapless Joe actually get elected President.

What it contains is downright frightening!

This list was put together by a team of radical liberals who seemingly want nothing more than to destroy the United States.

From an Independent voters' standpoint, if you, either Democratic, Independent or Republican voters cast your ballot for Joe Biden in the upcoming Presidential election, then you are quite literally voting for the Country that you know and enjoy; the Country that has given you every opportunity; the Country that most of you have proudly called your home; you would be voting for its destruction, and for the eventual implementation of a socialist caste system that would sooner see you in poverty than thrive. And why do I say that last part about a caste system? Because THAT is the end goal of these socialist liberals.

If you see this video and still like Biden, then you are agreeing with such a future.

You may not care for our President, but despite all of the Mainstream Media hatred of Donald Trump, he is actually getting a lot accomplished...you just never read about it, or see it on CNN, MSNBC, etc because of their blatant bias against the President.

For example, his speech at Mt Rushmore. The MSM labeled the speech "divisive, racist, hateful" and other such words. 

However, if you actually read the speech, it is nothing but unifying, inclusive and patriotic. He touches only briefly on the leftist mobs rampaging around the Country, and those comments are spot on. Other than that, the speech was only positive and forward-looking for the United States.

In my opinion, it was perhaps his best speech of his tenure, and should be read by every American...it is THAT good!

So Democrats, Independents and Republicans...remember this video when you go to the polls to cast your vote for our future! 

(If you want fair and unbiased reporting on the President, look to One America News Network and The Epoch Times. They have no political agenda; just fair, balanced and truthful reporting.)

FBI's use of the False and Discredted Steele Dossier Against then-Candidate Trump

As predicted, the farther away we get from King Barry, James Comey, Hillary Clinton and the false and entirely fabricated Steel Dossier  against then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump--which was subsequently used to pursue an also false political witch-hunt against nor-President Trump--the more truth we would learn. You know, truth...the polar opposite of what the mainstream media was indoctrinating viewers with regarding the President from the moment he was elected.

Today, a story from the Washington Times discusses the FBI's blatant effort to investigate a political candidate on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign. The basis for the article is a newly declassified Intelligence Community Assessment from 2016.

Please read...

(My commentary at the end)

FBI Picked the Most Outlandish Anti-Trump Dossier Claims 

for Official US-Russia Report

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, June 14, 2020

"A newly declassified intelligence document underscores the FBI’s absolute commitment to the discredited Christopher Steele dossier even to the point of providing the CIA its most damaging allegations against then-President-elect Trump.

The document is Annex A to the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The FBI had obtained Mr. Steele’s dossier in September. Its top officials, including Director James B. Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, began to press the CIA and other agencies to include the paper in the ICA. As a compromise, CIA officials agreed to accept a synopsis — Annex A.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified the document last week. The dossier was funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Government investigations have discredited its dozen or so anti-Trump claims.

However, in the fall 2016 the FBI was able to get the unfounded allegations inside the ICA, a historic intelligence report meant to meet the test of time in retelling Russian election meddling.

The FBI had the ICA report repeat allegations that Mr. Trump, as a hotel and golf course developer, maintained a secret relationship with the Kremlin.

Annex A says: “The most politically sensitive claims by the FBI source [Mr. Steele] alleged a close relationship between the President-elect and the Kremlin. The Source claimed the president-elect and his top campaign advisers knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, were fully knowledgeable of Russia direction of leaked Democratic emails and were offered financial compensation from Moscow.”

Annex A also says: “The FBI source claimed that secret meetings between the Kremlin and the president-elect team were handled by some of president-elect advisers, at least one of whom was allegedly offered remuneration for a policy change lifting sanctions on Russia.”

All of these claims were thoroughly disproven by special counsel Robert Mueller in his report. He found no election conspiracy. In fact, Mr. Trump appeared to have no history of Kremlin contacts.

Annex A described Mr. Steele as “an executive of a private business intelligence firm.” That would be Orbis Business Intelligence in London. Annex A said Mr. Steele assembled the dossier “on behalf of private clients.” It does not divulge their identities — the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — even though Mr. Steele later told investigations he told the FBI he was working for their law firm.

The FBI leadership’s persistence in persuading intelligence officials to fold-in dossier claims is one of several times the bureau showed complete loyalty to Mr. Steele.

χ At the time same officials were writing the ICA, the FBI used the dossier as the main piece of evidence to obtain the first of four wiretaps on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Mr. Page was cleared by Mr. Mueller.

χ FBI headquarters repeatedly took in more dossier information during the fall from a Steele intermediary.

χ Mr. Comey took dossier material to the White House to brief President Obama’s inner circle.

χ Mr. Comey also brought the material to New York on Jan. 6 to brief the salacious parts about Moscow prostitutes directly to President-elect Trump. Afterwards, Mr. Comey traveled to the New York field office to fill in by tele-video conference the FBI team investigating the Trump campaign.

χ A gaggle of FBI agents met with Mr. Steele in October 2016 in Rome and offered him $50,000 to continue investigating Mr. Trump. The deal fell through when Mr. Steele broke protocol and sourced a story in Mother Jones magazine right before the election.

The FBI’s dossier back-and-forth with the intelligence community was documented in an April report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“FBI officials told the Committee that they ‘would have had a major problem’ if Annex A had not been included, and that FBI believed they ‘had to put everything in,’” the Senate report said.

A bureau assistant director urged its inclusion even though agents did not “stand behind” the material.

“A summary of this material was included in Annex A as a compromise to the FBI’s insistence that the information was responsive to the presidential tasking,” the report states."

This new information should be eye-opening to many brainwashed Americans who still believe the President committed a crime, despite the mountain of evidence that proves otherwise.

President Obama was in on this; as was proven by records obtained from his Executive Office. James Comey led this political hit-job on the part of the FBI. John Brennan led the effort to discredit Trump at the CIA, and numerous DOJ officials (including Peter Strzok) aided in the effort by altering information on forms, and omitting information on FISA applications. 

The subsequent efforts by Congressional Democratic Leadership to implicate and impeach President Trump on numerous false charges --an effort that displayed nothing less than a religious-type fervor--further prove that they, too, were in on the fix.

No matter your political affiliation, this entire sham investigation and numerous Congressional investigations should enrage every American! 

Why? Because for the first time in the history of our great Republic, a sitting President (Obama) and his Administration, weaponized the FBI, the US Intelligence Agencies and the Dept. of Justice against a political opponent! 

This is unfathomably dangerous to the future stability of the United States of America. If it was tried once, it will be attempted again, because some politicians and bureaucrats just won't be able to stop themselves simply because they think that only they know what is best for the entire Country; and that thought should scare the hell out of you!

Obama's "Crossfire Hurricane" Which Targeted President Trump Had No Legal Basis

Finally...An article that breaks down the illegality of the basis for "Crossfire Hurricane," the FBI report that set off the witch hunt of Candidate, then President Trump. Please read this eye-opening article from Kevin Brock of, The Hill:

New FBI Document Confirms the Trump Campaign 

Was Investigated Without Justification

Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn't received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation.

Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.

Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That's FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.

To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):

First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a "To" and a "From" line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a "From" line; it is from a part of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.

On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.

In addition, several names are listed in a "cc" or copy line; all are redacted, save Strzok's, who, for some reason, felt it necessary to copy himself on a document he sent from himself to himself.

Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as "case participants."

Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law - in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf - that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.

In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government's goals.

This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.

The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos "suggested" to him that the Trump team had received "some kind of suggestion" of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.

Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia's behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was "unclear" how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.

Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified "individual(s)" associated with the Trump campaign are "witting of and/or coordinating activities" - also unspecified - "with the Government of Russia." He doesn't even mention Papadopoulos.

Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn't, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.

What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.

To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.

Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration's national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication. No pattern-recognition software needed here.

Hopefully, Exhibit A will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon. The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics. Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let's pray we see some.

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions, which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

Sleazebag Obama Claims that Charges Being Dropped Against Gen. Flynn is Wrong

Once again, former US President Barak "I had a scandal-free Administration" Obama, and sleazebag-in-Chief, opens his mouth and allows lies and hypocrisy to come out.

From the National Review:

"Yes, The Flynn Dismissal Upholds the Rule of Law"

‘There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” former president Barack Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association. “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

We now know that the Obama administration engaged in unprecedented abuses of power, not merely in its persistent attempts to circumvent the other branches of the United States government, but in its weaponizing of government institutions for partisan ends, including our intelligence agencies.

Flynn, notwithstanding Obama’s contention, was never charged with “perjury” — a crime which entails lying under oath. Flynn faced trumped-up charges related to a conversation in which he allegedly misleading FBI agents. Flynn, who didn’t even know he was under investigation, was entrapped while agents were conducting a then-secret inquiry devoid of any credible evidence.

The Obama administration already had recordings of Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and knew that the incoming national-security adviser, who spoke to numerous heads of state, did not undermine American interests — which often change, and are a matter of interpretation — nor had he agreed to drop Russian sanctions on Donald Trump’s behalf.

Not even the agents who conducted the interview believed that Flynn had willfully intended to deceive them. Flynn was only charged ten months after the conversation, and only to keep the bogus Russia collusion investigation going.

Even then, the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his lawyers, as Obama’s allies in the Trump administration and Mueller’s deputies continued to pretend that the former general was a lynchpin.

Flynn initially pleaded guilty because he was facing bankruptcy and threats that his son would be prosecuted for unrelated crimes. Of course, even if Flynn had lied about an innocuous and complete legal conversation with the Russian ambassador in the midst of hysterical partisan-fueled media firestorm over “collusion,” it would have been irrelevant.

Considering these facts, it’s unsurprising that the Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn “with prejudice.” U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen found that investigation was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”

Jensen could have added that the Flynn prosecution was a transparent attack on the rule of law.

he Obama administration and its allies had attempted to smear a decorated former general as a seditious operative by ensnaring him in a preposterous violation of the Logan Act — a 1799 law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized citizens with foreign governments, and has never been used successfully against any citizen.

This effort seems especially outlandish when one considers that even as Flynn was being prosecuted, Obama administration officials such as John Kerry were meeting with geopolitical foes from Iran and brazenly negotiating American foreign policy.

There is, regrettably, much precedent for law enforcement engaging in strong-arm tactics to intimidate Americans into accepting plea deals for various reasons. Most of those victims don’t have the legal or financial wherewithal to fight back.

There is no recent precedent, however, of an administration opening a criminal investigation into its political rivals during a presidential election. There is no precedent of basing that flimsy investigation on “misleading and inaccurate” information derived from a fabulist document like the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Democratic Party and itself larded with Russian disinformation. There is no precedent of an administration — and later its allies — spying on its political enemies in a presidential campaign, utilizing “fraudulent” proof, and purposely withholding “contradicting” evidence.

And Obama claims he’s worried about institutional norms?

Last week, Representative Adam Schiff, who has been flagrantly lying about possessing Russia collusion evidence for years, has finally forced to release transcripts of House Intelligence Committee–led investigation into Russian interference. The transcripts show that Obama-era officials — when under oath, rather than on TV — possessed no evidence of any criminal conspiracy. This includes former director of national intelligence James Clapper, who, let’s not forget, spied on the American people through a domestic-surveillance program and then lied about it under oath to Congress. Obama let him get off “scot-free.”

It’s no surprise that the Mueller investigation, despite its best efforts, couldn’t come back with a single indictment against anyone in the Trump administration for criminal conspiracy with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Then again, Obama allies succeeded in overwhelming our news coverage with conspiracy theories, and persuaded millions of gullible voters that the Russians had stolen the election. Those who work to undermine the peaceful transition of government power are the ones undermining the rule of law.

Obama, incidentally, is also wrong that Americans can’t point to any precedent of someone perjuring themselves and getting away with it. We’ll always have Bill Clinton. The revisionist tale we hear these days is that Clinton “lied about sex.” Sex might have been the immediate topic of the question. Yet Clinton lied not only to avoid the embarrassment and political ramification of his actions, but also to obstruct a grand jury investigation into Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit.

Clinton got off scot-free for his abuse of power. The question now is: Will those who conceived and executed the Russia-collusion swindle escape scot-free as well?

An Update on Several Judicial Watch Cases

From Judicial Watch:

Victory! 

Court Orders Hillary Clinton Deposition on 

Emails and Benghazi Attack Documents

We’ve been in court for years over Hillary Clinton’s emails — as you know, we are persistent for justice.

The great news is that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has granted our request to depose the former secretary of state about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered the deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other State Department officials.

Additionally, the court granted our request to subpoena Google for relevant documents and records associated with Clinton’s emails during her tenure at the State Department.

The ruling comes in our lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

Remember, it was Judicial Watch that discovered in 2014 that the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House. This FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery into whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie 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 our request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

Judge Lamberth has now overruled Clinton’s and the State and Justice Department’s objections to limited additional discovery by first noting:

Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers.

Additionally, Judge Lamberth said that he is troubled by the fact that both the State Department and Department of Justice want to close discovery in this case:

[T]here is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery

With respect to Clinton, the court found that her prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

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.

We uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA. The deposition must take place by May 16, so stay tuned.

Government’s Record-Keeping Failures Risks Lives, Costs Billions

The Clinton email fiasco is but one instance of federal records mismanagement – that costs billions and could risk lives. Here’s a key whistleblower report from our Corruption Chronicles blog.

The U.S. government’s failure to properly keep records not only compromises accountability and transparency, it has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and in some cases their lives. A whistleblower and former federal contractor with firsthand knowledge of the matter told Judicial Watch that the epidemic of poor records management across all federal agencies constitutes the biggest government accountability and transparency scandal of our lifetime. His name is Don Lueders, a computer software engineer who spent 20 years at several top software companies developing costly applications to help the government properly manage records.

However, billions of dollars in records management applications that could help solve the problem have never been used and the crisis continues. Government agencies purchase the programs, Lueders says, but never actually utilizes them. “The government buys software because it gives the impression that they’re doing records management,” Lueders told Judicial Watch during a recent interview. “But they don’t use it.” He refers to the government’s longtime record-keeping system as “information chaos” that requires a congressional investigation.

Many of the government’s record management failures have been exposed by Judicial Watch in cases that involve key federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), among others. In fact, a recent news article on Uncle Sam’s widespread records management deficiencies mentions two cases that Judicial Watch litigated. One involves a scandal in which the Obama IRS selectively audited conservative groups that opposed the administration’s policies. The other involves Hillary Clinton’s now famous illegal use of a private email server while she was Obama’s Secretary of State.

For years Judicial Watch’s work has helped uncover the underlying problems associated with the government’s dreadful record-keeping system, which is incredibly handy in coverups. Many of the cases required a dragged-out litigious process to obtain records that should be readily available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A recent example involves the unsecure server Clinton used to transmit classified information as the president’s chief foreign affairs adviser. Judicial Watch has been embroiled in a years-long legal battle with the government for the records and just a few weeks ago, more than a dozen new Clinton emails not previously produced as per a federal court order magically appeared. A DOJ attorney could not explain to a federal judge how the FBI suddenly found the new stash of Clinton emails, which were originally to be provided by the State Department.

Some record-keeping failures have more serious consequences as the story mentioned earlier points out. For instance, the man who shot and killed more than two dozen people at a Texas church a few years ago used guns he would not have been able to buy if the Air Force had managed its records efficiently. “On six occasions, military officials failed to send Devin Kelley’s records to the FBI while the Air Force investigated, court-martialed, and imprisoned him for abusing his wife and stepson,” the article states. “Had the FBI received the records, the killer would have been barred from buying the weapons used in the massacre.” Similar records management failures have also received widespread media attention. Remember that in 2015 an astounding 21.5 million records were stolen from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government’s chief human resources agency and personnel policy manager.

This is not a partisan issue, but rather a pervasive government wide emergency that Lueders says has been going on for almost a quarter century regardless of who occupies the White House. “We’re wasting billions and people are dying,” he said, stressing that democracy can’t exist without accountability and transparency.

Chicago Leaders Defend Freeing Illegal Alien to Sexually Assault Toddler

Judicial Watch has done much to expose and combat the physical dangers Americans experience at the hands of aliens in this country illegally and protected by lawless sanctuary city policies. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports:

Police and elected officials in Chicago have the audacity to vigorously defend their dangerous sanctuary policy after a previously deported illegal immigrant felon that they released from jail sexually assaulted a 3-year-old girl. The Mexican man, 34-year-old Christopher Puente, has a lengthy criminal history that includes two felony convictions, yet Chicago Police freed him into the community after his latest arrest for theft. It didn’t matter to those in charge of serving and protecting Windy City residents that the violent illegal alien had served time for forced-entry burglary and forgery or that he was recently charged with battery against a woman.

To honor Chicago’s outrageous sanctuary measure, authorities ignored an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer and instead released the aggravated felon. A few weeks ago, Puente sexually assaulted a toddler at a Cook County fast-food restaurant. He lured the girl into a bathroom stall of the River North eatery and sexually assaulted her, according to a local newspaper report that attributes the information to Cook County prosecutors. The girl’s father was in an adjacent stall helping her brother use the toilet. When he heard his daughter cry and saw her legs dangling, the father tried to open the locked stall where Puente held her and eventually pulled her out under the door. The illegal immigrant remained locked in the stall, according to prosecutors, but eventually escaped. The next day he was arrested for trespassing nearby and was singled out as the girl’s attacker. Puente confessed and provided authorities with disturbing details of the crime. A judge has ordered him held without bail for predatory sexual criminal assault.

Outraged federal authorities have reissued an immigration detainer with Cook County Jail. Had the first detainer been honored by Chicago authorities Puente would have been deported after his last arrest in mid-2019. “How many more victims must there be before lawmakers realize that sanctuary policies do not protect the innocent?” asked Robert Guadian, field office director of ICE’s Chicago Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). “Puente should have been in ICE custody last year and removed to his home country. Instead, irresponsible lawmaking allowed him to walk free and prey on our most vulnerable.” The agency is perpetually frustrated because detainers are continually rejected by Chicago-area law enforcement agencies. In Fiscal Year 2019, Cook County declined more than 1,000 detainers, according to figures provided by ICE.

Officials have no intention of changing their sanctuary policy. In fact, they made it a point to publicly defend it after Puente’s latest horrific crime. In the aftermath of the toddler’s sexual assault, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Chicago Police issued media statements reiterating that they will not cooperate with the feds. Lightfoot trashed ICE, saying “they’re critical because we have said very clearly we are a welcoming city, a sanctuary city. Chicago Police Department will not cooperate with ICE on any immigration-related business. And that’s affected their ability to conduct immigration raids across the city. But that’s exactly our intention. We have to make sure our police department is seen as a legitimate force in all our communities.” In its statement, which was published in various local media outlets, the city’s law enforcement agency wrote this: “The Chicago Police Department remains committed to protecting all Chicago residents regardless of their immigration status. Our pledge to restrict ICE access to our information systems and our refusal to cooperate with ICE immigration enforcement measures has not changed.”

Chicago has long protected even the most violent of illegal immigrants. A few years ago, the city even launched a $1.3 million legal defense fund to help illegal aliens facing deportation. When the public fund was created, a Chicago alderman admitted he probably has illegal aliens working in his city office. The lawmaker, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, said this in a local news report: “Donald Trump, we are sending you a message, you will not tear apart our families, we will stay together. We will defend and protect our communities.” The money to defend illegal immigrants for violating the nation’s federal statutes comes from Chicago property tax rebate funds. At the time, an African-American alderman who represents Chicago’s South Side went along with the measure to help the city’s illegal immigrants, but made it clear that the struggling communities she represents should have priority

. “I’d like to see the administration put the same amount of effort into creating a legal representation fund for all of those young black boys and black girls that are racially profiled in this city or are shot by the police unnecessarily or to support programs like CeaseFire to quell some of the violence in our community,” said Alderman Pat Dowell. “When the mayor talks about wanting to keep the immigrant communities safe, secure and supported, those are the same needs that other communities have…”

Progressive Policy Drives Rising Crime in New York

In one of his rulings, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed that local jurisdictions can be “laboratories of democracy” by engaging in social experiments to discover what works best.

We’re seeing this at play in a perverse way in certain parts of the country, particularly New York City, which has become a petri dish for every Leftist nostrum. Our chief investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, has the details in his Investigative Bulletin.

Judicial Watch has been documenting rising social disorder in New York City at the hands of Mayor Bill de Blasio and radical activists in Albany and Washington. Last year, Democrats rammed through the state legislature a reform package that eliminated cash bail for a wide range of offenses—from assault, arson and child abuse to manslaughter, robbery and riot—and removed judicial discretion in holding suspects. Advocates for the measure correctly note that bail often discriminates against the poor—if you can’t afford bail, you sit in jail. But bail also offered a way to hold repeat offenders, including violent ones, behind bars until trial.

The reform legislation took effect January 1 and crime rates jumped. Numbers just in for the first two months of 2020 show a 35 percent increase in robberies and a 64 percent increase in stolen cars compared to the same period in 2019, the New York Post reports. Shootings, up 19 percent. Burglaries, up 21 percent.

Subway robberies are up sharply, with an increase of more than 100 percent in 2020 compared to 2019. NYPD insiders say subway robberies are largely driven by repeat juvenile offenders targeting other kids. A subway security official tells Judicial Watch that crime underground is widespread. In the city’s school system—the biggest in the country—parents speak with anguish about assaults on their children. And anti-Semitic hate crimes are significantly up in the city with America’s largest Jewish population.

All this has contributed to a growing sense of unease in New York. The politics of bail reform pit New York’s rising progressive forces against a cadre of Democrats who recognize a looming disaster when they see it. At a contentious town hall meeting last month in Forest Hills, Queens, de Blasio rejected complaints about links between rising crime and bail reform as “right-wing propaganda,” but he supports fixes to the law being pushed in Albany. Progressive firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is on the other side of the Democrat debate, calling on Albany to “slow down” on any legislative changes. By “slow down,” of course she means do nothing. If Ocasio-Cortez and her allies had their way, prisons would be entirely abolished. The outcome of the bail reform fight will say a lot about progressive power in Albany.

Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost seven to one in New York City, so don’t hold your breath waiting for conservative reform. But there are straws in the wind that suggest change might be stirring. One is the surprisingly vigorous campaign of veteran prosecutor Jim Quinn for Queens borough president. Quinn beat his five rivals for the post in the latest fundraising reports and has been making waves with his criticism of liberal excesses such as the bail reform law and the closing of the Rikers Island jail complex. On Twitter, Quinn called out Ocasio-Cortez and her allies for their “dangerous, radical agenda” and for “ignoring double-digit crime spikes & the victims impacted.”

Them’s fightin’ words in New York. The election is March 24 in a field crowded with liberal contenders surfing the progressive wave. But Quinn’s conservative message may resonate with a different sort of voter—like the one who told Bill de Blasio at the Forest Hills town hall meeting, “Mr. Mayor, I do not feel safe.