Categories
Amy berman jackson DOJ Donald Trump Intelwars Justice Department Mueller investigation Robert Mueller William Barr

Federal judge orders release of critical DOJ memo used to clear Trump of criminal charges in Mueller probe

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release a critical legal memorandum prepared by Justice Department lawyers in 2019 that cleared then-President Donald Trump of criminal charges related to Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia collusion and Trump’s presidential campaign.

What is the background?

Then-Attorney General William Barr wrote Congress on March 24, 2019, explaining that Mueller’s investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.” Secondly, Barr explained that Mueller did not make a determination whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, but instead left that decision to Barr, who subsequently decided that Trump would not face criminal charges.

Barr told Congress he reached his conclusion “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government watchdog, subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the government documents provided to Barr prior to his decision. Obtaining the documents for purposes of accountability was especially important because Mueller disputed Barr’s characterization of his investigatory findings.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller said, in part, on March 27, 2019.

However, the DOJ refused to provide the documents, including the legal memo that Barr reviewed, arguing the memo was exempt from FOIA requests under exceptions for deliberative government decision making and attorney-client privilege.

What did the judge say?

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, released a scathing 41-page opinion Monday rejecting the DOJ’s arguments and ordered the critical memo to be released.

Jackson released her opinion after reviewing the memo for herself, and she said it contained “strategic, as opposed to legal advice.”

In part, Jackson took issue with the fact that not prosecuting Trump “was a given” for Barr’s DOJ.

“The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson went on to write:

Not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has
been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that
should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency’s redactions and incomplete
explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the
notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision
was on the table at any time.

In fact, Jackson discovered Barr’s letter to Congress and the legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel were being prepared at the “same time,” all the more reason the memo should not be protected from FOIA requests.

“Since the memorandum was being written at the same time and by the same people who were drafting the Attorney General’s letter to Congress setting forth his views on the basis for a prosecution, and the record reflects that the priority was to get the letter completed first…one simply cannot credit the declarant’s statement that the Attorney General made the ‘decision’ he announced based on the advice the memo contains,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson gave the DOJ until May 17 to file a motion to stay the release of the memo.

Share
Categories
Charges dismissed Intelwars Joe Biden Justice Department Left-wing violence portland Portland rioters watch William Barr

Feds throw out over a third of cases stemming from violent Portland protests in 2020 — with reportedly many more dismissals to come

A lot has been made of how easily violent Portland protesters have escaped prosecution in 2020, and progressive Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt gained quite a bit of notoriety when case after case was tossed.

Indeed, an October report indicated that of the nearly 1,000 protests and riot-related arrests in Portland since late May, almost 70% of the charges were dropped.

Schmidt said his office would not prosecute for the following crimes:

  • Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer
  • Disorderly conduct in the second degree
  • Criminal trespass in the first and second degree
  • Escape in the third degree
  • Harassment
  • Riot (unless accompanied by a charge outside of this list)

Schmidt insisted he was saving resources for the most serious crimes, KGW-TV reported — and so the feds stepped in. The station said that then-Attorney General William Barr reportedly instructed federal prosecutors to aggressively pursue violent or destructive protesters.

KGW said Billy Williams, then-U.S. Attorney for Oregon, warned in a Sept. 25 press release: “Make no mistake: those who commit violence in the name of protest, will be investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and face prison time.”

How did that work out?

Federal prosecutors have tossed out over a third of cases stemming from the violent protests, the station said — 31 of 90 cases, court records show.

KGW said among the most serious thrown-out cases involved four defendants charged with assaulting a federal officer — a felony. In addition, the station said over half of the dropped charges were “dismissed with prejudice,” which means the cases can’t be brought back to court — an extremely rare provision, according to former federal prosecutors.

Williams — who stepped down from his post Feb. 28 at the request of President Joe Biden’s administration — told KGW in a recent interview that the dismissals were due to prosecutors not believing they could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Each case was analyzed for the evidence that we had at the time,” Williams told KGW. “Careful decisions were made on whether or not someone should be charged based on the evidence.”

What’s more, several individuals closely involved with pending protest cases who asked for anonymity told the station they expect many more federal charges to be dismissed soon.

A Biden thing? Not so fast

One might be inclined to believe that the federal dismissals are a result of a Democratic administration taking power in Washington, D.C., but the numbers tell a different story. Of the 31 dismissed federal cases, KGW counted “at least 11” happening on or after the Biden’s inauguration — far from a majority.


Feds quietly dismiss dozens of Portland protest cases

youtu.be

(H/T: PJMedia)

Share
Categories
Biden administration Bill barr Intelwars Joe Biden Justice Department Lawsuit Transgender athletes watch Womens Rights

‘Biological males’ competing as females ‘are just taking it away from us’: HS athlete blasts Biden DOJ for turning back on transgender lawsuit

Alanna Smith took it right to biological males who compete as transgender females and then steal awards, accolades, and attention leading to life-changing things like college scholarships from biological female athletes.

“A lot of biological females have missed out on making it to meets that really matter,” Smith, a Connecticut track athlete, told Fox News Wednesday, adding that “the transgender athletes have taken spots on the podium that belong to biological females. We train for so many days a week, so many hours to be able to be the best in our state and the best in our region, and these biological males are just taking it away from us, and we really deserve it.”

What’s the background?

Smith — as readers of TheBlaze may recall — joined Selina Soule and Chelsea Mitchell in a federal lawsuit about a year ago challenging the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy of letting males compete in girls’ sports. At that point a pair of biological males who identify as females — Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood — had been crushing the competition in girls’ high school sprint events in Connecticut.

What’s more, then-Attorney General William Barr signed a “statement of interest” arguing against the CIAC’s policy.

But those days are long gone — and with Democratic President Joe Biden now sitting in the Oval Office, his Justice Department unsurprisingly withdrew support for the lawsuit. And it’s a decision Smith told Fox News she found “disappointing.”

What else did Smith say?

Smith — who said she missed out on coming in second place in a 200-meter sprint when a transgender female finished ahead of her — told the network that she and other female athletes “have worked really hard to get our stories out there to get people to realize that fairness needs to be restored in our sport and in all other women’s sports.”

What did Smith’s attorney have to say?

Smith’s attorney, Christiana Holcomb of Alliance Defending Freedom, told Fox News that the lawsuit will proceed despite the new DOJ’s “politically motivated” decision to back away from it.

“What is even more concerning is this effort to gut legal protection for women is not just isolated to what we see in Connecticut,” Holcomb added to the network. “Even now, the Biden administration is pushing the so-called Equality Act, which ignores the physical differences between men and women and threatens women’s privacy, women’s homeless shelters, and yes, even women’s sports on a national level for female athletes like Alanna.”

Share
Categories
Capitol protesters Capitol riots Capture and assassinate federal prosecutors Intelwars Jacob chansley Justice Department

DOJ says Capitol rioters intended to ‘capture and assassinate’ elected officials

A Justice Department court filing has revealed a plan that rioters purportedly designed to “capture and assassinate” elected officials during last week’s raid on the U.S. Capitol.

Federal prosecutors in the filing asked an Arizona judge to detain Jacob Chansley, an Arizona man who was pictured wearing face and body makeup and buffalo horns while standing at Vice President Mike Pence’s desk in the Senate.

Chansley is set to appear in a federal court on Friday.

What are the details?

The FBI, according to the DOJ, investigated Chansley, who reportedly left a note on the vice president’s desk staying that “it’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.”

A portion of the federal prosecutors’ Thursday filing states, “Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government.”

According to a Friday report from Reuters, prosecutors said the charges against Chansley “involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States government and that Chansley is a serious flight risk.

“Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality,” prosecutors added in the filing.

He also reportedly phoned the FBI after the riots and told them that he was “glad he sat in the vice president’s chair because Vice President Pence is a child-trafficking traitor.”

Seeking a pardon

A lawyer for Chansley is reportedly seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump for his client’s role in the U.S. Capitol raid.

Chansley has allegedly stated that he “accepted the president’s invitation” to march on the U.S. Capitol “with good intentions.”

Chansley’s attorney, Albert Watkins, issued a statement Thursday on his client, saying that he should be pardoned.

“My client had heard the oft-repeated words of President Trump,” Watkins said about the incident. “The words and invitation of a president are supposed to mean something. Given the peaceful and compliant fashion in which Mr. Chansley comported himself, it would be appropriate and honorable for the president to pardon Mr. Chansley and other like-minded, peaceful individuals who accepted the president’s invitation with honorable intentions.”

Watkins concluded, “Mr. Chansley is an American; he served honorably in the US military. He has zero criminal history. He is a lover of nature, routinely practices meditation, is an active practicer of yoga, and eats only organic food. He took seriously the countless messages of President Trump. He believed in President Trump. Like tens of millions of other Americans, Chansley felt — for the first time in his life — as though his voice was being heard.”

Share
Categories
Attorney General Barack Obama Biden administration DOJ Douglas kmiec Intelwars Joe Biden Justice Department

Lawyer for Reagan, Bush argues that Barack Obama should be attorney general in Biden administration

Should President-elect Joe Biden appoint former President Barack Obama to be his attorney general? That’s what a former attorney for two former Republican presidents is advocating.

Douglas Kmiec, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law who served in the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush, claimed in an essay for The Hill that appointing Obama as head of the Justice Department would “re-establish the rule of law.”

According to Kmiec, Biden, as president, “will need to be highly capable at reassuring estranged voters — Democrat, Republican or independent — that he is governing in the national interest” — and appointing Obama as attorney general accomplishes such a monumental task.

Kmiec explained:

Biden’s almost-plagiarized overuse of the red state/blue state metaphor from the 2008 election needs a definite boost of authenticity and actual demonstration of applied fairness. Instead of continuing to borrow Barack Obama’s trade line, he needs Obama himself. The fastest way to re-establish the rule of law is for Biden to nominate Obama as attorney general. If Biden simultaneously kept Christopher Wray as head of the FBI and made Justice’s current inspector general, Michael Horowitz, head of its Office of Legal Counsel, he would remove much division, doubt and uncertainty.

Still, Kmiec, who served as ambassador to Malta in the Obama administration, admitted such an appointment would be “unprecedented” — but called it “necessary.”

Surprisingly, Kmiec suggested that Obama serving as attorney general would serve as the perfect springboard for Obama to later serve on the Supreme Court.

“We have never had a former president take on the leadership of an executive department for a successor president, but nothing precludes it, save, possibly, Michelle Obama. We must leave those domestic relations to the former president — but [Obama] has the intelligence, youth and character to do the job,” Kmiec wrote.

“Besides, it’s perfect preparation for subsequent additional public service on the Supreme Court,” he added.

Who is Biden considering for AG?

According to CNN, the top contenders for the job are outgoing-Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is reportedly also under consideration for the job, although he has indicated that he is not interested in working for the Biden administration.

Share
Categories
capital punishment Censorship despotism executed Federal executions firing squads gas chambers Government Headline News home of the slave Intelwars Justice Department land of the not free Lethal Injection mainstream media blackout Police State Protocols put to death state sponsored murder statism statist system tyranny United States William Barr

DOJ Quietly Amends Execution Protocols, Clearing the Way for Gas Chambers, Firing Squads

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project. 

As the massive human experiment in tyranny, censorship, and fear — otherwise known as 2020 — comes to a close, it just wouldn’t be complete without some government agency exhuming the ghost of despotism’s past. In the cherry on top of the dumpster fire that is 2020, the Justice Department has quietly amended its execution protocols, no longer requiring federal death sentences to be carried out by lethal injection and clearing the way to use other methods like firing squads and poisonous gas.

This news comes on the heels of the fact that Attorney General William Barr restarted federal executions this year after a 17-year hiatus. Despite bipartisan resistance to this measure, the DOJ has executed more Americans in 2020 than they have in the previous five decades. 

Apparently, the feds have put so many people to death this year that they are seemingly bored with their methodology and have moved to bring back gas chambers and death by firing squads.

Last month, with very little coverage in the media, the DOJ’s amended rule was published in the Federal Register that allows the U.S. government to conduct executions by lethal injection or use “any other manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence was imposed.”

But fret not, Land of the Free, the changes were done in an ostensible effort to support state’s rights — or something like that.

According to the Associated Press, a Justice Department official — who asked to remain anonymous — said the change was made to account for the fact the Federal Death Penalty Act requires sentences to be carried out in the “in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed,” and some of those states use methods other than lethal injection.

The feds promise not to send convicts to gas chambers or firing squads unless the states allow it.

The official told the AP the federal government “will never execute an inmate by firing squad or electrocution unless the relevant state has itself authorized that method of execution.”

One of those states is Utah, whose Republican-controlled House voted 39-34 in 2015 to resurrect the use of Utah’s firing squads. Proponents of this method of state-sponsored murder claim that being shot to death by a group of marksmen is more humane than lethal injection.

To the contrary, the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center says that a firing squad is not a foolproof method because the inmate could move or shooters could miss the heart, causing a slower, more painful death.

One such case happened in Utah’s territorial days back in 1879 when a firing squad missed Wallace Wilkerson’s heart and it took him 27 minutes to die, according to newspaper accounts.

The real issue at hand, however, capital punishment, seems to be taking a back seat to all of this. For the state to claim the responsibility of justly ending life, it means that the state must never be wrong. Even the most ardent of statists will have to concede that an infallible state is but a terribly written fiction.

John Adams once wrote:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. 

When the state is more concerned about how to go about punishing the guilty, than protecting innocence, we have achieved peak oligarchy.

The National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School reported that 2,696 falsely accused prisoners were exonerated since 1989. Some of these people were set to die at the hand of the state for their convictions.

It is no secret that prosecutors will seek the maximum punishment for the maximum charge, and their conviction percentages are in the upper 90’s.

Does that mean that these prosecutors are flawless machines hell-bent on distributing some mythical immaculate justice? Or, does it actually mean that the entire system wishes more to hand out punishments, instead of seeking truth?

It is important to note that this is not a call for crimes to go unpunished, that would be irresponsible. However, the slaughter of innocence is a far more grave thought.

In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation (also known as Blackstone’s ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

In a perfect system, irrefutable evidence would exist in every conviction. But as the constant flow of articles on this site about cops framing innocent people illustrates, this system is far from perfect.

Until we strive for a more perfect system, the manner in which death is dolled out by the hand of incompetence, is of no significance, other than tyrants pumping their chests about new ways to kill.

The post DOJ Quietly Amends Execution Protocols, Clearing the Way for Gas Chambers, Firing Squads first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Bill barr DOJ Fox News Good morning mug club Intelwars Justice Department Steven Crowder

Bill Barr approves Justice Department probe into voting irregularities

Steven covers the latest breaking news including Fox’s censoring of the press secretary and Bill Barr’s new DOJ investigation. He then examines Trump’s success in developing a COVID vaccine with Operation Warp Speed and outlines some of the latest voting irregularities in Michigan.

.

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
Cares act Coronavirus DOJ Intelwars Justice Department Nuke bizzle Unemployment fraud

DOJ: Rapper arrested for alleged $1.2M unemployment fraud, made whole song, music video about crime

The Department of Justice announced last week that federal authorities have arrested a rapper they claim defrauded the government of coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, then boasted about the fraud in an entire song and music video.

What are the details?

Rapper Nuke Bizzle, whose real name is Fontrell Antonio Baines, was arrested on Friday in Los Angeles for “fraudulently applying for more than $1.2 million in jobless benefits, including by using stolen identities,” according to the Justice Department.

Investigators claim Baines exploited the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provision of the CARES Act, which was intended to expand pandemic benefits to independent contractors, self-employed workers, and others.

More from the DOJ:

According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Baines possessed and used debit cards pre-loaded with unemployment benefits administered by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The debit cards were issued in the names of third-parties, including identity theft victims. The applications for these debit cards listed addresses to which Baines had access in Beverly Hills and Koreatown.

Evidence gathered during the investigation established that at least 92 debit cards that had been pre-loaded with more than $1.2 million in fraudulently obtained benefits were mailed to these addresses, according to the affidavit. Baines and his co-schemers allegedly accessed more than $704,000 of these benefits through cash withdrawals, including in Las Vegas, as well as purchases of merchandise and services.

Officially, Baines is charged with three felonies: access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and interstate transportation of stolen property.

Baines was initially taken into custody in Las Vegas on Sept. 23. At the time, he had eight debit cards in his possession, according to investigations, seven of which were allegedly not in his name.

What else happened?

According to investigators, evidence of the crime includes a song and music video in which they claim Baines boasts about his alleged crimes.

From the DOJ:

The affidavit further alleges that Baines bragged about his ability to defraud the EDD in a music video posted on YouTube and in postings to his Instagram account, under the handles “nukebizzle1” and “nukebizzle23.” For example, Baines appears in a music video called “EDD” in which he boasts about doing “my swagger for EDD” and, holding up a stack of envelopes from EDD, getting rich by “go[ing] to the bank with a stack of these” – presumably a reference to the debit cards that come in the mail. A second rapper in the video intones, “You gotta sell cocaine, I just file a claim….”


Nuke Bizzle Ft. Fat Wizza – EDD (Official Music Video)

www.youtube.com

A disclaimer on the video now reads, “THIS VIDEO WAS CREATED WITH PROPS AND WAS MADE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES.”

Baines faces a maximum of 22 years in prison if convicted of all three charges.

Share
Categories
Anarchist jurisdictions Antifa Intelwars Justice Department New York City portland Seattle William Barr

Justice Dept. labels NYC, Portland, and Seattle as ‘anarchist jurisdictions,’ will seek to withdraw federal funds

The Department of Justice has labeled New York City, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon, as “anarchist jurisdictions,” a designation that could lead to a withdrawal of federal funding from those cities, according to the New York Post.

The three cities earned the designation for efforts to reduce police funding, or for their response to the race riots that started in late May after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. White House budget director Russ Vought will reportedly issue guidance about cutting funding to the cities in the coming weeks.

“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance.

“It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens,” the statement continued.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued a memo expressing a desire for Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Washington, D.C., to have federal funding reviewed in light of their response to unrest.

“My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” Trump’s memo read. “To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.”

New York City has seen a spike in crime as Mayor Bill de Blasio sought to cut funding to the NYPD and disbanded a significant plainclothes crime unit.

Seattle surrendered a police precinct and nine blocks of the city to protesters who established a continuous protest area first referred to as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, later renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest. That area of Seattle was occupied for roughly a month, and for much of that time the protesters had the support of Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Portland has had more than 100 straight days of protests, some of which have devolved into riots, including vandalism and deadly violence. President Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to help protect property and quell the violence, but that effort was met with resistance from Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also Portland’s police commissioner.

Additionally, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced a policy in August that said many riot-related crimes would not be prosecuted.

Share
Categories
California churches Churches reopen Doj california Intelwars Justice Department Religious gatherings

DOJ sends warning to California Gov. Gavin Newsom: Stop discriminating against churches

In a letter Tuesday, the head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division warned California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom that his plan to reopen the state discriminates against churches.

The Justice Department argued that the governor’s current four-part plan to reopen places an “unfair burden” on religious institutions by delaying in-person gatherings until the third phase, which is after schools, restaurants, businesses, and shopping centers are permitted to reopen in the second phase.

This constitutes “unequal treatment of faith communities,” the letter, sent by Assistant Attorney General Eric S. Dreiband, along with four other U.S. attorneys in California, suggested.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights,” Dreiband wrote.

According to the Associated Press, the letter does not threaten immediate legal action but rather serves as a warning to the state that legal action could follow should the state not make any changes.

“The Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate for religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening plan,” the letter advised. “Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.”

The letter refers to a statement issued by Attorney General William P. Barr in April that warned state and local authorities to be careful not to violate the constitutional rights of Americans while enforcing emergency social distancing measures. The letter made specific reference to Americans’ right to worship.

“Even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers,” Barr stated.

Later in April, Barr instructed federal prosecutors to “be on the lookout” for instances where state and local ordinances violated constitutional rights.

“The Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis,” he added.

Gov. Newsom has had shaky relations with the state’s faithful since the start of the pandemic, as many have felt that their rights have been infringed upon by strict executive orders. In mid-April, a group of churches in the state even sued the governor over his social distancing ordinances.

Share
Categories
Background Checks Confiscation FBI government panics gun control Headline News human rights illegal guns Intelwars Justice Department no guns no rights panicked restrictions Self-Defense Trump administration

Trump’s Justice Department Wants More Money To Confiscate Guns

President Donald Trump’s justice department is asking for more money “to help confiscate guns from people who shouldn’t legally be able to own them.”  Because gun sales are surging due to the tyrannical rights-trampling of all governments, the Justice Department wants to be better protected from the public, so they can finish locking on the shackles.

The ruling class must know that gun sales have skyrocketed because people are sick of being slaves and ready to defend themselves. According to Politico, these requests to enforce more gun control are recent, and due to the increase in sales.

In recent outreach to Capitol Hill, DOJ made two requests related to the spike in gun purchases, according to two sources with knowledge of those asks. First, the department asked for funding to help the FBI hire more staff to keep up with the growing number of background checks and appeal requests going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bureau runs that system, which handles background checks on millions of gun buyers every year.

The department also asked for more resources and personnel for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to deal with firearm retrievals and other field work related to delayed denials, according to the two sources. The term “delayed denials” refers to situations in which people buy weapons and take them home before the NICS system can flag those buyers as ineligible to own guns.-Politico

The criminals that think they own us and can tell us we aren’t allowed to defend ourselves against them as they take every last human right we have are ramping up their control.  They don’t want any of us to have the ability to fight them.

Self-Defense Is A Basic Human Right: A Website That ENDS The Gun Control Debate For Good

This might be difficult for Trump’s supporters to hear, but you need this information. He’s not showing himself to be on the side of humanity right now.  He himself said he’s in control of “Operation Warp Speed,” which is speeding up the vaccine timeline.  Based on how awful his track record has been, I doubt we’ll ever see the swamp drained or anyone indicted.  He’s had almost four years, and people are being crushed by totalitarianism. If he was going to help us, he would have by now.  The truth is, we are on our own.

The numbers are startling. No wonder the government (which includes the Trump administration’s Justice Department) is beginning to panic:

The FBI ran more than 2.9 million background checks in April 2020, the most April background checks since 1999. And in March, it ran a whopping 3.7 million background checks — the most in any month since November 1998, when the FBI launched the NICS program, according to its website.  –Politico

It’s nice that they are this panicked.  This means they know people are figuring out that they don’t have to live like slaves. If Trump is still the savior many claim him to be, perhaps he should move up his timeline since the tyrants have moved up theirs. Personally, I’m not holding my breath.

Trump’s history on the basic human right to self-defense has not been all that stellar either:

More Gun Control: Trump Says He’s “Seriously” Considering Banning Silencers

“Take The Guns First” – Trump Breaks With Republicans Over Gun-Control Plan

 

 

 

 

Share
Categories
Case dropped Fbi interview Intelwars Justice Department Michael Flynn watch

Michael Flynn posts video of grandson reciting Pledge of Allegiance after Justice Dept. drops his criminal case — and leftists go nuts

Soon after the U.S. Justice Department dropped its criminal case against Michael Flynn on Thursday, the retired Army lieutenant general posted a video of his grandson reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

Flynn’s caption read, “My grandson Travis…’and JUSTICE for ALL'” — along with emojis for justice, love, prayer, and the American flag.

The reaction?

As you might expect, the clip of the adorable recitation — which has been liked nearly 140,000 times — got kudos far and wide from those pleased with the turn of events for Flynn. But left-wing commenters weren’t at all happy:

  • “Justice died today.”
  • “You are a f***ing traitor.”
  • “He admitted to his crimes.”
  • “Cute, teach him ‘I plead guilty’ and ‘I betrayed my country and my service to it’ before he learns ‘I am ashamed of my grandfather.'”

Another commenter tried to dunk on Flynn using “LOCK HIM UP!” — a play on the rally chant directed toward rivals of President Donald Trump — but another commenter thwarted it: “Yes! Lock Comey, McCabe, Strozk, and so many others up!!!”

Anything else?

The Justice Department dropping Flynn’s case came a week after the public release of case documents that were unsealed and that raised questions regarding the motives of investigators.

The DOJ found that the FBI’s 2017 interview of Flynn — who was Trump’s first national security adviser — was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The interview — which took place days after Trump’s inauguration — led to Flynn in December 2017 pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about contact with the then-Russian ambassador prior to Trump taking office.

In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it was dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.”

Share
Categories
Charges against mike flynn Department of Justice Fisa abuse Ilhan omar Intelwars Justice Department Michael Flynn Mike Flynn Mueller report Rep. ilhan omar Russian investigation Russian probe

Ilhan Omar blames ‘white privilege’ for charges being dropped against Mike Flynn

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) had a curt but controversial response to the news that the Department of Justice dropped their charges against Mike Flynn.

Omar tweeted on Thursday that the charges were dropped because of “white privilege.”

“White privilege at work,” she tweeted.

The phrase “white privilege” refers to a social justice contention that white people enjoy advantages because of systemic and institutionalized discrimination against minorities.

Flynn had pleaded guilty to charges including lying to the FBI in relation to the investigation into Russian election interference and alleged collusion. He had worked as the national security advisor for President Donald Trump before he was fired for lying to Vice President Mike Pence.

After the release of documents that corroborated claims of political motivation and bias by the FBI agents, his allies demanded a review of the case and some encouraged the president to pardon him.

On Thursday the Department of Justice announced that they would drop the prosecution of Flynn altogether.

Democrats strenuously objected to the decision and called for further investigations into the rationale for the unraveling of the charges against Flynn.

Here’s more about the charges dropped:


Justice Department drops Michael Flynn’s criminal charges

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
COVER UP Intelwars Justice Department legal action saudi arabia unconstitutional

Barr, Grenell block 9/11 families access to evidence with broad, ‘unprecedented’ claims of secrecy

US Attorney General William Barr U.S. Attorney General William Barr and acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell broadly invoked the state secrets privilege this week to block 9/11 survivors and family members from obtaining crucial evidence to support their multi-billion dollar damages lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. In sworn public declarations filed in federal court […]

The post Barr, Grenell block 9/11 families access to evidence with broad, ‘unprecedented’ claims of secrecy appeared first on 911Truth.Org.

Share
Categories
Christianity Christians Church DOJ First Amendment Intelwars Justice Department Religion William Barr

AG Barr taking ‘action’ against gov’t officials who are regulating religious gatherings

Attorney General William Barr will take action against local government officials who are regulating relgiious activities, even those that follow social distancing guidelines, during the coronavirus outbreak.

Barr’s spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, announced late Saturday that Barr will take action this week.

“During this sacred week for many Americans, AG Barr is monitoring govt regulation of religious services. While social distancing policies are appropriate during this emergency, they must be applied evenhandedly & not single out religious orgs,” Kupec announced. “Expect action from DOJ next week!”

The COVID-19 crisis has presented a unique challenge for Christians and other religious groups who regularly meet together in communal gatherings for corporate worship.

Many churches across the country have been holding “drive-in” services, where congregants meet together in a parking lot and remain in their cars, thereby following social distancing guidelines.

However, many Democratic officials have even cracked down on such affairs.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, for example, issued a decree last week banning drive-in services for Easter, the holiest holiday on the Christian calendar.

But on Saturday, U.S. District Judge Justin Walker granted a local Louisville church, On Fire Christian Center, a temporary restraining order against Fischer’s mandate, thoroughly rebuking the mayor over the order.

“The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, ‘beyond all reason,’ unconstitutional,” Walker said.

Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened last month to permanently shut down churches and synagogues that did not comply with his order to not gather.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus dianne feinstein DOJ Intelwars jim inhofe Justice Department Kelly loeffler Richard Burr SEC Stock Market

DOJ begins investigating lawmakers’ questionable stock transactions before market crash

The Department of Justice has begun investigating controversial stock transactions made by a small group of lawmakers before the American economy tumbled over coronavirus fears.

According to CNN, the investigation is still in its beginning stages and is being conducted in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The FBI has so far reached out to only one lawmaker, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), whose transactions stirred the most controversy.

Burr dumped between $628,000 and $1.72 million worth of stock on Feb. 13, ProPublica revealed this month.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Burr’s behalf. However, Burr made the transactions after attending a closed-door intelligence briefing about COVID-19 in late January. He later reassured the public they should not fear the virus, but was privately warning people in late February, two weeks after he dumped his stock portfolio, about a possible economic downturn.

Burr’s lawyer, Alice Fisher, denied that Burr used insider information to make his financial decisions.

“The law is clear that any American — including a Senator — may participate in the stock market based on public information, as Senator Burr did. When this issue arose, Senator Burr immediately asked the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct a complete review, and he will cooperate with that review as well as any other appropriate inquiry,” Fisher told CNN.

Burr is not the only senator who came under fire for questionable stock transactions.

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) sold more than two dozen stocks valued between $1.275 million and $3.1 million from the end of January through mid-February. She also purchased stock in a software company that has increased in value by approximately 15%, according to CNN.

Loeffler said her team of financial advisers made the transactions, and said she only learned about the transactions after they were made.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) also reported major stock transactions ahead of the economic downturn, but both lawmakers deny playing a role in the financial decisions.

The FBI has not contacted Loeffler, Feinstein, or Inhofe, according to CNN.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Chuck Schumer Constitution Constitutional rights DOJ Intelwars Justice Department Justin Amash mike lee National Emergency

‘OVER MY DEAD BODY’: DOJ’s request for new ’emergency powers’ over coronavirus met with swift condemnation

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for new “emergency powers” amid the coronavirus outbreak, including the power to ask chief judges to indefinitely detain people without trial.

The DOJ has proposed numerous emergency measures, according to Politico, which obtained and reviewed documents the DOJ sent to lawmakers.

From Politico:

In one of the documents, the department proposed that Congress grant the attorney general power to ask the chief judge of any district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

The proposal would also grant those top judges broad authority to pause court proceedings during emergencies. It would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings,” according to draft legislative language the department shared with Congress. In making the case for the change, the DOJ document wrote that individual judges can currently pause proceedings during emergencies, but that their proposal would make sure all judges in any particular district could handle emergencies “in a consistent manner.”

As Politico noted, the proposal — which would essentially permit indefinite detention — would likely violate a person’s right to appear before a judge and seek release after being arrested, a constitutional right known as habeas corpus.

Specifically, the Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

According to Politico, the DOJ is also asking to “pause the statute of limitations for criminal investigations and civil proceedings during national emergencies” as well as “expand the use of videoconference hearings, and to let some of those hearings happen without defendants’ consent.”

The reported proposals were met with swift bipartisan condemnation.

“OVER MY DEAD BODY,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded. “If this is a joke, it’s not funny. If it’s not a joke, we’ve got much bigger problems. @realDonaldTrump, please refute and disavow this immediately.”

“Two Words: Hell No,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded.

“Congress must loudly reply NO,” Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) responded.

Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the power grab “abhorrent.”

“There’s a long history in this country and in other countries of using emergencies as times to really start to encroach upon people’s civil rights. And in fact, this is a time when we need them the absolute most,” she said on CNN Sunday. “It does not matter how urgent times are. We have to make sure that we retain our civil rights. And there’s no reason for us to be waiving folks’ civil rights in an emergency.”

Share
Categories
Christopher Steele DOJ Fisa abuse Intelwars John durham Justice Department Trump Dossier

Dossier author Christopher Steele smugly refuses to cooperate with key DOJ investigation

Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the anti-Trump dossier, is refusing to cooperate with John Durham’s probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

Steele’s representatives recently told Durham’s team that the former MI6 agent would neither cooperate with the investigation nor speak to Durham, Reuters reported.

Sources told Reuters that Steele believes Durham’s investigation is “overly politicized” and that “he would not be treated fairly.”

While speaking to students at Oxford University in England on Friday, Steele reiterated his refusal to cooperate with the investigation, claiming that he and his private investigations company, Orbis Business Intelligence, had already “done our duty,” the Daily Beast reported.

“As far as I’m concerned, we’ve said everything we have to say on the matter,” Steele said.

The development is significant because Steele is presumably a key witness in the central matters of Durham’s investigation. That is because the FBI heavily relied on the dossier that Steele compiled — which was filled with unverified, salacious, and false claims about President Donald Trump — when securing FISA warrants against Carter Page.

In December, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed his investigators had found at least 17 “significant errors or omissions” in the FBI’s application for surveillance warrants against Page.

Meanwhile, Steele told the Oxford University students that he stands by the validity of his largely debunked dossier.

“We stand by the integrity of our work and the integrity of our sources,” he said. “Trump himself doesn’t like intelligence because its ground truth is inconvenient for him.”

Share
Categories
Andrew McCabe Andrew weissmann FBI Intelwars James Comey Justice Department Peter strzok

DOJ opens news investigation into James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, former top DOJ official says

Andrew Weissmann, a former top lawyer at the Justice Department who played a central role in Robert Mueller’s investigation, said Friday the Justice Department has begun a new investigation into several former top FBI officials.

Weissmann, speaking to MSNBC host Chuck Todd, said the Justice Department has swapped its “loser case” against Andrew McCabe — in which the DOJ declined to pursue charges against McCabe for lying to investigators — for a new case against former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe, and Peter Strzok.

“All they did was swapped out a loser case for starting an investigation that is going to be of Comey, McCabe, Pete Strzok,” Weissmann said, the Washington Examiner reported.

The investigation is related to the DOJ’s review of the Michael Flynn case, Weissmann explained.

Last week, Attorney General William Barr appointed Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to investigate the circumstances of the Flynn case, including his interview with FBI investigators.

NBC News reported that Jensen is “broadly” reviewing the case, suggesting latitude in the scope of his inquiry.

Share