The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has forced the FBI to divulge more documents pertaining to then Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with former President Clinton at an airport tarmac thanks to FOIA. Apparently, the FBI has been lying to the ACLJ claiming no such documentation existed.
Due to FBI lying, Jay Sekulow has called the stall/cover-up as a move by the FBI Deep State. This Court victory by the ACLJ may be significant because even a few members of the Leftist MSM are beginning to report IG Michael Horowitz’s impending report will implicate the FBI 7th Floor in criminal activities against the 2016 Trump campaign and perhaps even while Trump has been POTUS.
An attorney for Trump, Jay Sekulow celebrated another victory against the Deep State in federal court.
After twice-denying their existence, the Deep State admitted to Sekulow in court it has magically found more Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting docs and will be forced to turn them over to the ACLJ by the end of this month.
These Clinton-Lynch tarmac documents were located after a THIRD ‘search’.
After twice denying their existence – first lying to the ACLJ, and then once caught, claiming it had turned over all documents to the ACLJ – the FBI Deep State has just admitted in federal court that is has found new documents – 16 pages and 2 text messages – that it will be forced to turn over to the ACLJ by the end of the month.
In recently filed court documents, the FBI finally admitted – on its supposedly third search attempt – that it has located another batch of documents responsive to the ACLJ’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information relating to former Attorney General Lynch’s suspiciously timed and highly secretive meeting with former President Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona just days before it publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton.
Specifically, the FBI reported that it has located an additional 16 pages and 2 text messages. The FBI informed the court that it will produce these documents to the ACLJ on or by May 31, 2018.
Jay Sekulow tweeted: After twice denying their existence, the #DeepState just admitted in federal court is has found new documents on the #Clinton-Lynch meeting that it will be forced to turn over to the @ACLJ by the end of the month. The wins keep adding up – thanks to you.
After twice denying their existence, the #DeepState just admitted in federal court is has found new documents on the #Clinton-Lynch meeting that it will be forced to turn over to the @ACLJ by the end of the month. The wins keep adding up – thanks to you. https://t.co/IY13u4iO6O
Here are the two St[r]zok-Page text messages about the Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting recently uncovered by the ACLJ:
Now, the FBI has just produced the two text messagesto the ACLJ – texts between FBI agent Peter Strzok and now former FBI agent Lisa Page.
The texts dated June 30, 2016, three days after the tarmac meeting, state:
“All the airport tarmac articles finally burst out. Took a little bit. Not a big deal, just ASTOUNDINGLY bad optic.”
“Omg he is spinning about the tarmac meeting, viewed in conjunction with the {REDACTED} Wants to meet at 4, have us bring lists of what we would do in an ordinary circumstance (easy, refer to PC) and in this circumstance (easy, refer to 7th floor)….”
The “he” referenced in the second text, based on the context of already released text messages, is likely Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. The “7th floor” is a clear reference to the upper echelon of FBI management – then-Director Comey and his top advisors and lieutenants. The texts paint an even clearer picture of just how high up the FBI chain the Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting was. They knew it was bad and were in full crisis management mode. Yet, it also shows how the mainstream media buried the story waiting several days to really cover it at all. In the end, we know it was the 7th floor – and Director Comey himself – who decided what the FBI would do – publicly exonerating Clinton just days latter [sic] – something that was anything but “ordinary.”
In late 2004 I started The Gateway Pundit blog after the presidential election. At that time I had my twin brother Joe and my buddy Chris as regular readers. A lot has changed since then.
Today The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. The Gateway Pundit has 15 million visits each month (Stat Counter – Google Analytics). It is consistentlyrankedasone of the top political blogsin the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.
Jim Hoft was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013. Jim Hoft received the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2015.
If you listen to the Mainstream Media (MSM) you probably are little aware of Imran Awan, the Pakistani national who served as a House IT guy for a lot of Dems including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz the former DNC Chairman (Chairwoman, Chairperson or whatever politically correct terminology you feel comfortable about) who fixed the Dem nomination for Crooked Hillary.
Apart from all the criminal enterprises Awan used to self-aggrandize himself and his immediate family, it appears Awan snatched terabits of data from the House Dems which went or was used for whatever is not yet public. (For my fellow computer illiterates, I just learned there is a differencebetween a terabit and a terabyte.)
All this time the Dems and their legions in the MSM have trying to paint President Donald Trump as the nemesis to the America that elected him to Office. AND YET the Daily Caller and Circa have uncovered that the Dems are attempting to pass the fake news that Awan’s much usage of terabits of data from House servers is nothing to see here, just forget about it and move on.
Democratic congressional aides made unauthorized access to a House server 5,400 times and funneled “massive” amounts of data off of it. But there’s nothing to see here, Democrats told The Washington Post: They were just storing and then re-downloading homework assignments for Imran Awan’s elementary-school aged kids and family pictures.
A congressional source with direct knowledge of the incident contradicted the Post’s account, saying that now-indicted IT aide Imran Awan and his associates “were moving terabytes off-site so they could quote ‘work on the files’” and that they desperately tried to hide what was on the server when caught, providing police with what law enforcement immediately recognized as falsified evidence and an indication of criminal intent.
Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak investigates a story that further embroils embattled former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in an ever-growing scandal.
ThePost described the amount of data improperly flowing out of the congressional network as “massive.” One congressional source told Circa it was “terabits.”
A terabyte is a million megabytes; a terabit is about one-tenth of that. Awan’s three children are in elementary school or younger. A book report in Word document format could clock in at under a megabyte, even if it were 100 pages long. To fill a terabyte with family photos, a person would need 250,000 photos.
Rules aside, there would be little reason for a staffer to upload his children’s homework and family photos to a congressman’s server. For one, cloud services such as Google Drive and Google Photos readily provide that functionality, with a web interface. The congressional computer was a server with no monitor, so you couldn’t view the photos on it, and they had to have been uploaded onto it by another computer. It makes little sense that Awan would upload personal data from a home computer onto a House server only to re-download it.
Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, was the sole person that was supposed to be authorizing the Caucus server, and she could have uploaded pictures of her children without attracting attention.
Yet she accessed it only 300 times as part of her job, while other people — including Awan’s two brothers and his friend Rao Abbas — accessed it 5,400 times. It’s unclear why extended family and friends would be uploading Awan’s kids’ homework and pictures more than their own mother would.
The Post did not note the “massive” outgoing data and unauthorized access until the 40th and 42nd paragraphs of its story, after it had quoted multiple defense attorneys and ventured into a lengthy and seemingly irrelevant but humanizing backstory on Awan’s childhood.
Its print headline was “Evidence Far Exceeds Intrigue” in the probe, yet it quoted only a congressional staffer who, The DCNF’s congressional source said, would not have been able to make assurances that there was nothing to the criminal investigation, because Congress has been fire walled from the criminal probe since it was turned over.
The Post also did not specify that data was also being backed up online via unofficialDropbox accounts. Wasserman Schultz has acknowledged that the accounts were used for congressional data, and that she has used the service in violation of House rules “for years.”
The server was under the auspices of Xavier Becerra, who left Congress Jan. 24 to become California attorney general and asked for the server to be wiped at that time. Police first asked for a copy and received what they identified as an elaborately falsified image, leading police to ban them from the network immediately because they viewed it as an attempt to tamper with a criminal investigation and an indication of clear criminal intent, The DCNF reported before the Post story ran. The Awans were banned from the House network Feb. 2.
The Post reported:
By midsummer [2016], with the approval of the House Administration Committee, the Inspector General’s Office was tracking the five employees’ logins. In October, they found “massive” amounts of data flowing from the networks they were accessing, raising the possibility that an automated program was vacuuming up information, according to a senior House official familiar with the probe.
Initially, investigators could not see precisely what kind of data was moving off the server due to legal protections afforded by the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause, which shields lawmakers’ deliberations from investigators’ eyes.
Investigators found that the five IT employees had logged on at one server for the Democratic Caucus more than 5,700 times over a seven-month period, according to documents reviewed by The Post. Alvi, the only one of the five who was authorized to access that server, accounted for fewer than 300 of those logins, documents show.
The invocation of “speech and debate” suggests that Democrats barred law enforcement from looking at the apparent data breach. The Post — which has highlighted the importance of cybersecurity and the intolerability of hacks on government — suggested finding any of this odd would be “unfounded conspiracy theories and intrigue.”
Yet, according to a senior congressional official familiar with the probe, criminal investigators have found no evidence that the IT workers had any connection to a foreign government. Investigators looking for clues about espionage instead found that the workers were using one congressional server as if it were their home computer, storing personal information such as children’s homework and family photos, the official said.
There are indications that Awan is less than a doting family man, and that he would use his congressional position for ill. Three women have called police on him in the last three years. One is his stepmother, Samina Gilani, who said she was kept “in captivity.” In court documents, she alleged: “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police [he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in Baltimore … Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house to listen my all conversations … Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from U.S. Congress or someone from federal agencies.”
A second told police she felt “like a slave,” and a third said she “just wanted to leave.” The latter two were apparently in romantic relationships with Awan, who lived in small apartments in Alexandria, Va. that he paid for while he lived with his wife.
Awan began selling off many of the multiple houses that his family owns around the time he learned he was subject of the cybersecurity probe, and wired money to Pakistan, resulting in Awan and his wife being indicted for bank fraud.
The Post confirmed that Democratic IT aides had no experience, such as Rao Abbas, who worked at McDonald’s. But it did not mention that an Iraqi politician tied toHezbollah sent $100,000 to a company the family set up while working for Congress, and that Awan had a secret account unknown to authorities, 123@mail.house.gov, that was tied to the name of an intelligence specialist working for Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana. The intelligence specialist denies knowing anything about the account.
Imran Awan: A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series
The Awans and their associates collected more than $5 million in pay from congressional offices, often drawing chief-of-staff level pay though there is reason to believe many didn’t even show up. They are suspected of cybersecurity violations.
The money is broken down by year, congressional office and family member paid:
Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan and Hina Alvi, Natalia Sova and Rao Abbas.
Show current members only
Click a year to sort by payments that year
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
It’s time to play connect the dots with the real collusion story the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) will not do for you. The fear I have is that the GOP elitists are so into maintaining a swamp status quo, that they will not follow through in decriminalizing the U.S. Federal Government. So check out these dots and tell me where they lead.
A former adviser to President Bill Clinton says there is a secret war room, run by the staff of former President Obama, miles from the White House that is designed to bring down President Donald Trump.
In a YouTube video shared on Thursday, Dick Morris, who worked for former President Clinton, said, “there is indication that Obama has set up a secret operation in a war room just about 2 miles from the White House.” The staff consists of former Barack and Michelle Obama aides among others, and has two conference calls daily to create talking points against the president, held at 8:30 am and 9:45 am, according to Morris.
Rogue Spooks: The Secret Intelligence Plot to Destroy Donald Trump http://amzn.to/2pQ13El
This is a mirror channel, the official channel of Dick Morris is here https://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports please subscribe to Dick Morris, click the bell, to receive notifications when he goes live
On the call are Andrew Slavitt, who served as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who also headed Health and Human Services, as saving Obamacare is of paramount concern.
“There operation is just a few blocks from the Capitol and it’s in a war room run by Leslie Dash, one of (former President) Obama’s top health care officials. Coordinating a nationwide anti-repeal campaign by liberal think tanks, local resistance groups — sympathetic governors, Medicaid insurance lobbyists, Democratic activists, pollsters and academics. It was conceived in the hours after (President) Trump was elected in November and the group called itself Protect Our Care,” Morris said.
“The covert part of the resistance in these moles who are buried in the Trump administration who are leaking to sabotage (President) Trump,” he added.
In Marchit was reported that former top aide to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, was moving in with the Obama family as part of an operation to resist President Trump.
According to the rumors, Jarrett and Michelle Obama were creating a “nerve center” to figure out ways to remove President Trump from office, either by forcing him to resign or having him impeached.
Morris expounded on that idea on Sunday when he appeared on New York AM 970’s “The Cats Roundtable,” with host John Catsimatidis, a former candidate for mayor of New York City.
“The main thing that is going on, though, in politics is really an attempt at a coup d’etat, which is essentially what this whole Russian stuff is,” Morris told Catsimatidis. “In fact, I call it the illusion of collusion. The whole Democratic party is so taken up with the idea that Hillary [Clinton] lost the election because of collusion between Trump and [Vladimir] Putin.”
“I think the whole thing has been cooked up in an effort to topple Trump from power,” he said. “It amounts really to a coup d’etat between the intelligence community on the one hand and the media on the other.”
Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seemingly planned to pay cyber-probe suspect and IT aide Imran Awan even while he was living in Pakistan, if the FBI hadn’t stopped him from leaving the U.S. Monday. Public statements and congressional payroll records suggest she also appears to have known that his wife, a fellow IT staffer, left the country for good months ago — while she was also a criminal suspect.
In all, six months of actions reveal a decision to continue paying a man who seemingly could not have been providing services to her, and who a mountain of evidence suggests was a liability. The man long had access to all of Wasserman Schultz’s computer files, work emails and personal emails, and he was recently accused by a relative in court documents of wiretapping and extortion.
Records also raise questions about whether the Florida Democrat permitted Awan to continue to access computers after House-wide authorities banned him from the network Feb. 2. Not only did she keep him on staff after the ban, but she also did not have any other IT person to perform necessary work that presumably would have arisen during a months-long period, according to payroll records.
Wasserman Schultz employed Pakistani-born Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, and refused to fire either of them even after U.S. Capitol Police said in February 2017 that they were targets of the criminal investigation. She said police wouldn’t show her evidence against the couple and, without it, she assumed they might be victims of anti-Muslim profiling.
Awan booked a round-trip ticket to Pakistan in July and planned to depart Monday, July 24 with a return ticket in six months. He was arrestedat Dulles Airport during his attempt to leave.
The Associated Pressreported that Awan’s lawyer, Chris Gowen, said Awan “had informed the House of his plans to visit his family.”
Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman cited Awan’s Monday arrest as the reason for ending his employment on Tuesday: “Upon learning of his arrest, he was terminated.”
The office’s insistence that his termination was prompted by the Monday arrest — and not the House Sergeant at Arms banning him and his wife from touching congressional computers or his six months in Pakistan — suggests that had he boarded the flight without incident he would still be on payroll.
“Does that mean if he had boarded the flight as planned the office would have been paying him for six months while he was abroad?” The DCNF investigative group asked Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman Thursday. “Why would it do that?” The spokesman did not respond.
Awan’s wife, Hina, left the country under similar circumstances March 5, after withdrawing the couple’s three kids from school without telling Virginia education officials, packing up all of her possessions, and hiding $12,000 in cash, according to an FBI affidavit. She allegedly had hundreds of thousands of dollars waiting in Pakistan for her — money the FBI says Awan had obtained partly through mortgage fraud and had wired overseas using a false explanation.
Two days later, on March 7, House records show Hina was cut from Wasserman Schultz’s payroll.
Though Hina bought a round trip ticket with a return in six months, the FBI said it “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”
Wasserman Schultz spokesman David Darmrom did not respond to a DCNF IG request to explain why Hina had been terminated two days into a trip she claimed was temporary, while her husband had not been terminated for a six-month move. Between the part-time nature of her work and the ban, her absence was unlikely to have been noticed in two days without someone telling the office her plans.
Wasserman Schultz’s office also didn’t answer if the office knew Hina’s “round trip” was a permanent move.
Hina and Awan were both IT aides whose jobs required access to the network, but the House Sergeant-At-Arms banned them from accessing it beginning Feb. 2. Awan and Hina were her only IT staffers, and payroll records through the latest available period, March 31, indicate that no other IT staffer or vendor was added to the payroll after their ban.
A House source said Awan was seen in the House office building multiple times after the network ban. “Imran Awan is working in an “advisory” role for Wasserman Schultz, her spokesman said, “providing advice on technology issues.”
The spokesman wouldn’t say who did the office’s computer work after the ban, if not Awan.
As IT administrators, the suspects could read all emails sent and received by the lawmaker and see all files on the staff members’ computers, numerous House IT aides said. WikiLeaks shows that Awan also had the password to Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.
In public court documents filed in Fairfax, Va., Awan’s stepmother accused him of wiretapping andextortion. “Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house” and “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan,” his stepmother, Samina Gilani, claimed in the documents (p. 21) filed April 14.
Despite her professed concern of stereotyping, all other colleagues who employed Awan, Hina or their other relatives on House payrolls fired them, including Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana, who is Muslim and has criticized Wasserman Schultz for blocking police from examining a laptop tied to Imran.
That laptop was found in an unused crevice of a House office building and seized as evidence by the Capitol Police, but Wasserman Schultz appeared determined to not let police see its contents, threatening “consequences” for the police chief if he didn’t release it. The exchange was captured on video.
Fox News reported that months later, she had blocked them from looking at it but had become open to “negotiating” with police, possibly turning over certain files, as Hillary Clinton was permitted to do in deciding which emails were “personal.”
Observers have decried Wasserman Schultz’s judgment and cybersecurity record, noting she was the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee when it was hacked. A group of Democratic donors filed a lawsuit saying she and the DNC “breached the duties they owed to… members of the DNC Donor Class by failing to exercise reasonablecare and implement adequate [cyber]security protocols..”
In Washington, it’s never about what they tell you it’s about. So take this to the bank: The case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s mysterious Pakistani IT guy, is not about bank fraud.
Yet bank fraud was the stated charge on which Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport this week, just as he was trying to flee the United States for Pakistan, via Qatar. That is the same route taken by Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, in March, when she suddenly fled the country, with three young daughters she yanked out of school, mega-luggage, and $12,400 in cash.
By then, the proceeds of the fraudulent $165,000 loan they’d gotten from the Congressional Federal Credit Union had been sent ahead. It was part of a $283,000 transfer that Awan managed to wire from Capitol Hill. He pulled it off — hilariously, if infuriatingly — by pretending to be his wife in a phone call with the credit union. Told that his proffered reason for the transfer (“funeral arrangements”) wouldn’t fly, “Mrs.” Awan promptly repurposed: Now “she” was “buying property.” Asking no more questions, the credit union wired the money . . . to Pakistan.
As you let all that sink in, consider this: Awan and his family cabal of fraudsters had access for years to the e-mails and other electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. It turns out they were accessing members’ computers without their knowledge, transferring files to remote servers, and stealing computer equipment — including hard drives that Awan & Co. smashed to bits of bytes before making tracks.
They were fired in February. All except Awan, that is. He continued in the employ of Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat, former DNC chairwoman, and Clinton crony. She kept him in place at the United States Congress right up until he was nabbed at the airport on Monday.
This is not about bank fraud. The Awan family swindles are plentiful, but they are just window-dressing. This appears to be a real conspiracy, aimed at undermining American national security.
At the time of his arrest, the 37-year-old Imran Awan had been working for Democrats as an information technologist for 13 years. He started out with Representative Gregory Meeks (D., N.Y.) in 2004. The next year, he landed on the staff of Wasserman Schultz, who had just been elected to the House.
Congressional-staff salaries are modest, in the $40,000 range. For some reason, Awan was paid about four times as much. He also managed to get his wife, Alvi, on the House payroll . . . then his brother, Abid Awan . . . then Abid’s wife, Natalia Sova. The youngest of the clan, Awan’s brother Jamal, came on board in 2014 — the then-20-year-old commanding an annual salary of $160,000.
A few of these arrangements appear to have been sinecures: While some Awans were rarely seen around the office, we now know they were engaged in extensive financial shenanigans away from the Capitol. Nevertheless, the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak, who has been all over this story, reports that, for their IT “work,” the Pakistani family has reeled in $4 million from U.S. taxpayers since 2009.
That’s just the “legit” dough. The family business evidently dabbles in procurement fraud, too. The Capitol Police and FBI are exploring widespread double-billing for computers, other communication devices, and related equipment.
Why were they paid so much for doing so little? Intriguing as it is, that’s a side issue. A more pressing question is: Why were they given access to highly sensitive government information? Ordinarily, that requires a security clearance, awarded only after a background check that peruses ties to foreign countries, associations with unsavory characters, and vulnerability to blackmail.
These characters could not possibly have qualified. Never mind access; it’s hard to fathom how they retained their jobs. The Daily Caller has also discovered that the family, which controlled several properties, was involved in various suspicious mortgage transfers. Abid Awan, while working “full-time” in Congress, ran a curious auto-retail business called “Cars International A” (yes, CIA), through which he was accused of stealing money and merchandise. In 2012, he discharged debts in bankruptcy (while scheming to keep his real-estate holdings). Congressional Democrats hired Abid despite his drunk-driving conviction a month before he started at the House, and they retained him despite his public-drunkenness arrest a month after. Beyond that, he and Imran both committed sundry vehicular offenses. In civil lawsuits, they are accused of life-insurance fraud.
Democrats now say that any access to sensitive information was “unauthorized.” But how hard could it have been to get “unauthorized” access when House Intelligence Committee Dems wanted their staffers to have unbounded access? In 2016, they wrotea letter to an appropriations subcommittee seeking funding so their staffers could obtain “Top Secret — Sensitive Compartmented Information” clearances. TS/SCI is the highest-level security classification. Awan family members were working for a number of the letter’s signatories.
Democratic members, of course, would not make such a request without coordination with leadership. Did I mention that the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee to whom the letter was addressed was Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Why has the investigation taken so long? Why so little enforcement action until this week? Why, most of all, were Wasserman Schultz and her fellow Democrats so indulgent of the Awans?
The probe began in late 2016. In short order, the Awans clearly knew they were hot numbers. They started arranging the fraudulent credit-union loan in December, and the $283,000 wire transfer occurred on January 18. In early February, House security services informed representatives that the Awans were suspects in a criminal investigation. At some point, investigators found stolen equipment stashedin the Rayburn House Office Building, including a laptop that appears to belong to Wasserman Schultz and that Imran was using. Although the Awans were banned from the Capitol computer network, not only did Wasserman Schultz keep Imran on staff for several additional months, but Meeks retained Alvi until February 28 — five days before she skedaddled to Lahore.
Strange thing about that: On March 5, the FBI (along with the Capitol Police) got to Dulles Airport in time to stop Alvi before she embarked. It was discovered that she was carrying $12,400 in cash. As I pointed out this week, it is a felony to export more than $10,000 in currency from the U.S. without filing a currency transportation report. It seems certain that Alvi did not file one: In connection with her husband’s arrest this week, the FBI submitted to the court a complaint affidavit that describes Alvi’s flight but makes no mention of a currency transportation report. Yet far from making an arrest, agents permitted her to board the plane and leave the country, notwithstanding their stated belief that she has no intention of returning.
Many congressional staffers are convinced that they’d long ago have been in handcuffs if they pulled what the Awans are suspected of. Nevertheless, no arrests were made when the scandal became public in February. For months, Imran has been strolling around the Capitol. In the interim, Wasserman Schultz has been battling investigators: demanding the return of her laptop, invoking a constitutional privilege (under the speech-and-debate clause) to impede agents from searching it, and threatening the Capitol Police with “consequences” if they don’t relent. Only last week, according to Fox News, did she finally signal willingness to drop objections to a scan of the laptop by federal investigators. Her stridency in obstructing the investigation has been jarring.
As evidence has mounted, the scores of Democrats for whom the Awans worked have expressed no alarm. Instead, we’ve heard slanderous suspicions that the investigation is a product of — all together now — “Islamophobia.” But Samina Gilani, the Awan brothers’ stepmother, begs to differ. Gilani complained to Virginia police that the Awans secretly bugged her home and then used the recordings to blackmail her. She averred in court documents that she was pressured to surrender cash she had stored in Pakistan. Imran claimed to be “very powerful” — so powerful he could order her family members kidnapped.
We don’t know if these allegations are true, but they are disturbing. The Awans have had the opportunity to acquire communications and other information that could prove embarrassing, or worse, especially for the pols who hired them. Did the swindling staffers compromise members of Congress? Does blackmail explain why were they able to go unscathed for so long?
And as for that sensitive information, did the Awans send American secrets, along with those hundreds of thousands of American dollars, to Pakistan?
This is no run-of-the-mill bank-fraud case.
+++
Imran Awan Becomes Suspect In Seth Rich Murder Inquiry
Imran Awan, the former DNC staffer who was arrested this week while trying to flee the United States, was with Seth Rich the night of his murder, according to new photographic evidence.
Police who originally investigated the murder suggested that Seth Rich might have been killed by someone he knew, due to the lack of struggle. The killer also took nothing from the victim, leaving behind his wallet containing $2000, watch and phone.
The photo, which directly links Imran Awan to Seth Rich, also links Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Awan’s former employer, to the former Seth Rich’s death.
Awan, who was kept on the DNC payroll for months and received several payments from Wasserman Schultz, was arrested earlier this week at Dulles airport. while trying to flee the United States and return to his native Pakistan.
Earlier this week WND reported that Seth Rich attended a party with Washington D.C. IT workers the night of his death, and that Rod Wheeler, the detective investigating the murder, was determined to learn more about who attended the party:
During the course of his investigation of Rich’s murder, Wheeler says learned something peculiar that he hadn’t heard before: Rich attended a party with numerous IT workers the night he was killed. After the party, Rich went to Lou’s City Bar, the last known location where he was seen before his murder.
Wheeler said he was determined to learn more about the IT party and who was in attendance, but all his questions have gone unanswered.
“Seth attended that party, and I wanted to know who else was at that party. But I could never find out,” Wheeler said. “When I went back to ask other people who should have known who was at that party – these were people who were close to Seth – they told me, ‘You don’t need to know who was at that party because it had nothing to do with his death.’”
Uncovering more details about the attendees of the party is essential in the Rich homicide investigation, Wheeler contends.
“He was at the party before he went to the bar. What you do in a murder investigation is you work backward. You want to trace the victim’s steps as far back as you can – who was that person around the day before? – as far back as you can,” he said.
“What was interesting is when I am told as an investigator that I don’t need to talk to people who were at the party. It makes you wonder why.”
Now that we know Imran Awan was at the party, Rod Wheeler’s statement has become even more interesting.
Federal agents arrested Awan, the IT aide of Wasserman Schultz and the top suspect in a major Democratic hacking scandal, at Dulles Airport in Virginia as he tried to flee the U.S. and fly to the Mideast.
WND report: Awan’s arrest came just one day after reports emerged that the FBI had seized numerous “smashed hard drives” and other computer equipment from Awan’s previous residence. The former House IT staffer is suspected of stealing sensitive information from the office computers of numerous Democratic Party lawmakers and sending that data to a secret server.
Awan and his family members, all of whom worked as IT professionals for members of Congress, were banned from the House network Feb. 2, 2017, by the House Sergeant at Arms.
Despite the rapidly escalating scandal that potentially involves multiple federal crimes, Awan had been kept on the payroll of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who circumvented the ban by having him “advise” her office.
In the wake of WikiLeaks posting damaging internal emails during the 2016 election, Wasserman Schultz resigned from her post as DNC chairwoman and blamed the scandal on an alleged hacking by Russians.
After the emails became public, Donna Brazile, who served as interim DNC chairwoman following Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, initially claimed the messages were fabricated. Then she alleged Russians stole the emails.
The FBI requested access to the DNC’s server to determine who was responsible for the breach. According to former FBI Director James Comey, the DNC refused to grant access to its server.
Awan reportedly possessed the password to the iPad Wasserman Schultz used when the DNC emails were provided to WikiLeaks.
Meanwhile, some have speculated that Rich – who worked in the voter analysis division of the DNC and was brutally murdered on July 10, 2016, on a street near his Washington home – was an inside source who leaked party insider emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential race.
“Well, now you have a possible suspect. Here’s the corrupt IT guy standing on the shoulders of Debbie Wasserman Schultz arrested at the airport trying to flee, charged with stealing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars,” said Rivera.
“What if he was the source to WikiLeaks? He has all the passwords. He has all the information. This is a huge story … Everyone assumed it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and then gave WikiLeaks the emails,” said Rivera.
For a long time people thought that Seth Rich was the person who leaked information to Wikileaks. Seth Rich was then murdered in a mysterious ‘botched robbery’ in which nothing was stolen.
“[Wikileaks’ Founder] Assange told me personally five times that it wasn’t a state or Russia,” said Hannity.
“If you can prove disgruntled Democrats were the leakers and not the Russians, as Julian Assange has said … doesn’t that blow the whole thing out of the water?” said Hannity.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor ofNational Review.
_______________
Imran Awan Becomes Suspect In Seth Rich Murder Inquiry
Baxter Dmitryis a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
You may or may not have heard of this horrific story of three Muslim refugee boys (way under 18) gang raped a mentally challenged five-year old girl in an apartment complex laundry mat. If you have heard, then your reading material is probably more than the Leftist MSM. (For those looking for the benefit of the doubt for MSM, usually the reason given for not reporting is the sex-crime and crime-victim are all underage.)
Many Counterjihad and anti-Muslim refugee writers have highlighted the rape vermin of the Islamic culture. The MSM and Leftist politicians have been silent to the point of cover-up and supportive refugee propaganda.
The person following the nefarious crimes of Muslim refugees the most is Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch. Thank God she has been following the cover-up protecting underage Muslim rapists to the disadvantage of the 5-year old rape victim and the family of the raped girl.
I am cross posting Corcoran’s latest article on the Twin Falls, ID rape. In that article are plenty of background links leading to the present. Nevertheless, here are some background links from other sources other than Refugee Resettlement Watch:
The powers that be (supporters of the refugee industry) in Twin Falls, Idaho and indeed throughout the state of Idaho are not looking forward to the trial advancing against three refugee boys charged with assaulting a little special needs girl in June of last year.
If you are a new reader, we posted many times on the controversy in Twin Falls where Chobani Yogurt, in addition to other food products giants, have ‘welcomed’ refugee labor to the community. See ourarchive here.
Tomorrow the case is scheduled for a pretrial hearing according to Leo Hohmann writing atWorld Net Dailylast Friday.
The case of an alleged sexual assault by Muslim refugee boys against a 5-year-old special-needs girl is making its way slowly through the Idaho court system, and the parents tell WND that justice is long overdue.
Lacy Peterson and her husband, Levi, have endured nearly 10 months of public shaming and lies told against their family. Even county prosecutor Grant Loebs has used local media to downplay the savagery of what happened to their little girl last June. That’s when two boys from Iraq stripped the girl naked and molested her while the third boy, from Sudan, filmed the incident.
If it had not been for an alert elderly resident of the low-income apartment complex, there is no telling how much worse the assault may have been.
What never could have been anticipated, however, is the way the family and its supporters have been held up to public ridicule by powerful refugee supporters in Idaho and nationwide. City councilmen, the county prosecutor, police chief and even a retired state Supreme Court justice have all taken turns trashing the conservative media that reported on the assault as well as those who have come to the aid of the family.
“We have been treated horribly,” Lacy Peterson said. “The way I feel, our case has been pushed under the rug and soon to be forgotten about. Since June we moved into a house that we can hardly even afford. We were totally fine in the apartments until now.
“I don’t think it’s fair that us Americans get to struggle and work hard and live paycheck-to-paycheck and pray to make bills,” she continued. “And the refugees get to have everything handed to them.”
Lacy suffers from a liver disorder and cannot work. Her husband is a cook at a local hotel. They are raising funds through aGoFundMe account to help with medical and legal bills. They’ve hired a local attorney to represent them in a possible civil suit, but that suit can’t be filed until the criminal case is resolved.
The incident, which happened June 2, 2016, at Fawnbrook Apartments, was witnessed by Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who told WND she saw a 14-year-old boy from Sudan filming the assault in progress inside the laundry room. Two other boys, ages 7 and 10 from Iraq, were inside the room with the little girl, all three with their clothes off, while the older boy shot video.
There is much more! Click herefor more details and to see the parade of local and state officials working to bury the little girl’s story!
If you would like to help this family, go here, and make whatever donation you can afford:
(As of this writing, you can see they are at $69,132)
A few months agoA year agoTwo Three years ago, Six years Seven Eight years ago it came to our attention in Washington County MD that a non-profit group (Virginia Council of Churches) had been bringing refugees into the city of Hagerstown (county seat) for a couple of years. Some problems arose and citizens started to take an interest and ask questions about how this federal program works. Our local paper had no interest in finding the facts, so we decided to find them ourselves.
One of the many startling things we found out about this very quiet effort is that these non-profit groups bring to the US on average each year 15,000 (FY90-FY03) Muslim refugees from the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc, almost completely funded by the US Government through grants and contracts to these non-government agencies. Of the 168 refugees brought to our county since 2004, 125 are Muslim. Although we all have sympathy for persecuted and suffering people there are real questions to be answered about the wisdom of this policy.
It turns out that there are hotbeds of this refugee resettlement controversy throughout the US. We have identified some of those. Because the issue is much more complicated than we initially realized, we have set up this online community organizing center athttps://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/.
If you have information or questions from your communities about Refugee Resettlement please get in touch with Ann Corcoran at RefugeeWatcher@gmail.com.
Here is a post (written on November 19, 2009) that explains in some detail what we are about, it is entitled “Answering Dust, and other new readers.”
A 12-person jury found occupation leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy not guilty Thursday of the government’s primary charge: conspiracy to impede federal officers by force, threat or intimidation. Their five co-defendants — Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach and Neil Wampler — have all been found not guilty as well.
Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on Ryan Bundy’s theft of government property charge.–READ ENTIRETY
Even after the leadership of the Malheur Occupation were found not guilty, the government prosecutors insist on going after seven more occupiers and to try to get something to stick added some misdemeanors to the felony charges:
Defense attorneys denounced the government’s decision to move forward with a second trial.
“In my view, it defies logic that they could profess respect for the jury’s verdict in the first trial, and yet still be pursuing charges, and indeed more charges, against the lesser players in the second trial,” said Jesse Merrithew, the attorney for defendant Jake Ryan.
The upcoming trial against Ryan, Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, and Darryl Thorn could also see the government charging several Class B misdemeanors, including trespassing, tampering with vehicles and equipment and destruction of property. –READ ENTIRETY (Prosecutors To Pursue 2nd Oregon Standoff Trial; By CONRAD WILSON; Northwest Public Radio; 12/12/16)
Now my lack of keeping up has been apparent. I discovered the Federal government (probably inspired by the Bureau of Land Management – BLM) is still going after the Bundy’s and their supporters over the standoff at the Bundy Ranch when the BLM tried to confiscate the Bundy cattle. AND the Bundy prosecutors are to nail the family under the radar of Malheur not guilty verdicts and adding some legal tricks to prevent public exposure of the truth. Below is the story.
It appears the government wants to hide the illegal actions it has taken, along with those of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch trial that is soon to begin.
On Tuesday, Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al. They are hopeful that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro will allow the US central government to “cover-up” any wrong doing by Bureau Of Land Management agents during the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege.
An attorney for one of the defendants told Guerilla Media Network, “It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”
The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.
…
The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.
Further the government which successfully used the idea that some of the defendants in the Oregon trial of the United States vs Ammon Bundy et al .. were also involved in the Bundy Ranch “armed” protest as a reason to deny them a pretrial release, now ask the Judge to not allow any reference to that case including the fact they were acquitted.
Here’s a copy of the relevant portion of the motion.
“It is what it is and we will fight it,” said Chris Rasmussen, attorney for reporter and radio show host Pete Santilli. “The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants’ state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.”
“Do we or do we not still live in America?” said former Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Tuesday in response to the motion. “One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.”
*** Please help support our mission in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal acoount: peter@petersantilli.com.
Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.
Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.
On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Mhyre contends.
We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.
This BLM fire reportedly killed more than 80 head of cattle. Put ranchers trying to save their cattle in extreme danger, injured other cattle, burnt homes and structures, burnt fences and power poles and threatened the town of Frenchglen.
Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, reacted in a similar manner, “So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth? Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.”
The central government has been at the center of coverups. Among them have been Waco and Ruby Ridge. They have sought and are seeking to do the same in the Bundy case just as they are attempting to do in the case involving the murder of LaVoy Finicum and as they have done concerning Daniel P. Love, the man in charge of the aggressive nature against the Bundys.
I met with Santilli on Saturday at the Southern Nevada Detention Center and he informed me that he believes with the evidence they have, that everyone should be acquitted of the charges against them.
Sure, they would love it if we all just went into this trial docile and defeated, not willing to fight them, but that just isn’t going to happen. The Bureau of Land Management went to Bundy Ranch with a clear disdain and lack of respect for the Bundy Family. Dan Loves Objective fell just short of scorched earth policy; We can prove it, they know it and they are very, very afraid of that. As I see it, we have them right where we want them, why would they file such a ludicrous Motion otherwise? This Motion has the “BLM is guilty” written all over it and I for one think that’s great news. If the Government gets it’s way and eliminates the fact that Daniel P Love gave agents the authority to beat up on Bundy Family members and was not acting in a rational way during the impoundment, if the Jury is not allowed to hear what elected officials told Love in response to his brutal actions, and if there was never any reason whatsoever for protestors to be in fear for their lives, then I believe any Jury worth it’s salt is going to be very suspect as to the validity of this case. I mean, if nobody did anything wrong, then why the hell are we having a trial?
Judge Navarro has demonstrated that she is just as corrupt as the BLM and the politicians surrounding what is going on in Nevada. Just look at what she has done to Santilli and Cliven Bundy. Does anyone really believe she is not going to accept this motion?
Thanks to the email of the American Patriot Daily, I came across a video that many of you may have seen or read about in one format or another. Nevertheless, it is the first time I have seen it. The video comprises of Martha MacCallum interviewing Rep. Trey Gowdy about the Comey’s news conference where there is an imbecilic explanation of the FBI investigation into Crooked Hillary’s email private server and the reasons that prosecution was not recommended.
Rep. Gowdy was in the law profession before he became a Congressmen. Due to this you have to believe he knows what he is talking about when he explains that James Comey’s FBI boys epically failed to ask questions that Hillary told the truth she would be prosecuted OR if she lied it would be discoverable thus AGAIN would be prosecuted.
The American Patriot Daily places the video in the middle of its article. I am placing at the top and then read the article to fully comprehend Rep. Trey Gowdy’s frustration with an inept investigation into Crooked Hillary and her email server.
These kinds of investigations are the very reason that Crooked Hillary and her hubby Slick Willie have never been successfully prosecuted to an end result of a conviction!
Many Americans believed the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a whitewash.
They contend the investigation was conducted just for the purpose of clearing Clinton of any wrongdoing.
And Trey Gowdy just proved how the investigation went off the rails.
Appearing on America’s Newsroom, Gowdy explained the investigators never asked about Hillary’s intent.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
Gowdy, a House Oversight Committee member, said he did not see questions about Clinton’s intent in the FBI report on the bureau’s interview with her. While FBI Director James Comey said Clinton was “extremely careless” with emails, he did not recommend prosecution largely because she did not seem to have intent to commit wrongdoing.
“I didn’t see any questions on that,” Gowdy said. “She said she did it for convenience, but I didn’t see the follow-up questions in the interview I read.”
Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Gowdy, a career prosecutor, what questions he would have asked during the FBI interview of Clinton.
“The direct evidence would be, Madam Secretary, why did you set up this email server this way? Why did you not take a state-dot-gov email address?” Gowdy asked. “And her response was, and it always has been, convenience. And then that’s when you press and say, well, what could be more convenient than just doing a state-dot-gov email address?”
The “labyrinthine” efforts she used to have a home-brewed server were actually inconvenient, Gowdy said.
“I would then ask, why did you delete emails that you kept for a year and a half? Keep in mind these personal emails, she didn’t bother to delete them for a year and a half,” Gowdy said. “It was the fall of 2014, a year and a half after she left the State Department, that she decided to start deleting emails. Why didn’t you delete them the month you left? Why didn’t you delete them six months after you left? And the other question they should have asked her is, Madam Secretary, why didn’t you turn your emails over the day you left service? Why did you hold onto them for almost two years?”
While some pundits thought FBI Director Comey put the email scandal to rest by not recommending charges and allowing Clinton to move on, the opposite has happened.
Questions about the email server continue to gnaw at the Clinton campaign.
The polls have tightened as Trump has focused his message and more details emerge about Clinton’s corrupt behavior.
A recent Monmouth University poll showed Hillary’s lead cut in half from their previous survey.
And the just released Fox News poll found Hillary and Trump in a statistical tie when third party candidates Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein were included.
Every day, revelations like the ones Gowdy discussed are brought to the forefront of the campaign and will continue to weigh down her support.
After the Democratic convention, the media breathed a sigh of relief as Hillary surged to a seven or eight point lead in the polls.
But that lead has narrowed in recent weeks.
If more scandal surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her email server comes to light, Hillary can expect to see a further drop in her numbers.
Do you think Donald Trump can continue to close the gap in the polls?
I came across a video interview of a lady protestor in Burbank California protesting the murder of LaVoy Finicum in late January 2016. The method of the interview was the Mark Connors Show. You hear the audio of Connors – I believe – communicating to the lady via an onsite correspondent who seemingly relays Connors’ questions from what is heard in the correspondent’s ear bud. It is quite emotional!
Sadly, on my part, I moved on after reading about the Bundys, other ranch protest leaders of the Mahleur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns and pro-protester Youtube investigator Pete Santili being arrested by Oregon State Police and the FBI. I knew the railroad of the Justice system was about to commence. Normal Conservative outlets that were covering the standoff in Oregon also moved on so it was a bit of out-of-sight/out-of-mind for me.
The emotion of the protestor brought back a flood of memories about this government injustice toward American citizens making a living from the land even after government appropriation of that land.
The lady interviewed in this video is absolutely correct. My fellow Americans, don’t believe everything the government tells you AND especially from an Obama Administration led government.
Before cross posting the emotional video of a California protestor I need to revisit Finicum’s murder by State and Federal authorities.
Officially Finicum’s shooting was ruled justified rather than homicide. And you got to know there are many Conservatives that have swallowed the justified shooting ruling hook, line and sinker. You may have even seen commentary and transcripts of police vs. Finicum verbal exchanges leading up to Finicum being shot to death.
The thing is someone inside the same truck Finicum was in wisely took a cell phone video of the police vs. Finicum verbal exchange. If you listen to the cell phone video and line it up with the FBI released video, you will get a vastly different perspective of the Official account given by authorities.
So this is what I’m going to do. I’m going to cross post an article posted at Fellowship of the Minds. The Fellowship of the Minds first places the case of the Official account and follows it with the cell phone video which is simultaneously lined up with the FBI released video. It is quite enlightening and I pray you are not too stubborn to understand the truth.
Following the Fellowship of the Minds post I’ll cross post the G+ Constitutionalist Group of the lady emotionally protesting the murder of LaVoy Finicum.
Last December, Ammon Bundy and armed militia members gathered in Burns, Oregon (about 280 miles southeast of Portland), to protest the jailing of local ranchers, father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond, for lighting fires on federal properties in 2001 and 2006 in order to scale back invasive plants and to protect their private lands from wildfires. (Ammon is the son of Nevada rancher Clive Bundy who had an armed standoff with federal authorities in 2014 over grazing rights. That matter was settled peacefully, after the Bureau of Land Management backed off and left the scene.)
After a peaceful rally in Burns, Ammon Bundy and the militia protesters took over a facility at the Mahleur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns.
On January 27, 2016, the feds put an end to the standoff by shooting dead Robert “LaVoy” Finicum multiple times at close range, and arresting other protesters, including:
Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Waylen Payne, who were arrested at a traffic stop on their way from Burns, Oregon, to a community meeting with ranchers in John Day, Oregon.
Joseph Donald O’Shaughnessy (Captain O.) and Peter Santilli, who were arrested in Burns.
Jon Ritzheimer reportedly turned himself into police in Peoria, Arizona.
Yesterday, March 9, 2016, county prosecutors ruled the killing of Finicum “justified and necessary” despite the fact he had been shot three times in the back.
Below is a tweet, by RT anchor/correspondent Simone del Rosario, of an autopsy report’s sketch showing three gun wounds on Finicum’s back:
Here are excerpts from Les Zeitz’s report for The Oregonian/Oregon Live of the dramatic events that led to Finicum’s death:
As Robert “Lavoy” Finicum powered his Dodge pickup over Devine Summit on the state highway north of Burns, he spotted the police van idling on a U.S. Forest Service road.
Finicum glanced over at the state trooper in the driver’s seat as he went past.
He pointed a finger at him, as if to say “I see you” and kept going.
That likely was the moment Finicum realized he and his group wouldn’t make the community meeting planned that evening in John Day.
Less than 30 minutes later, Finicum was dead and four other leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover were in handcuffs.
Police knew the leaders planned to travel to John Day in Grant County to the north on the only direct highway there – U.S. 395.
They devised a traffic stop by state troopers to allow FBI agents to arrest the group on federal conspiracy charges. By midday, some members of the arresting team positioned themselves on Forest Service Road 2820, which branches east off the state highway toward a snow park near the summit of Devine Ridge. Another team set up roughly two miles north on the highway, prepared to act as a roadblock.
“The sheriff is waiting for us,” Finicum yelled out the driver’s window to the officers and agents staged behind his truck.
He puts his hands out the window and invited police to shoot.
“Back down or you kill me now,” he said.
He repeated twice more that he was going to meet the sheriff.
Ryan Bundy, 43, of Mesquite, Nevada, seated behind Finicum with a .38-caliber pistol and two rifles within reach, yelled out the window: “Who are you?”
Finicum echoed him. “Yeah, who are you?”
“Oregon State Police” came the reply.
“I’m going over to meet the sheriff in Grant County,” Finicum said.
Police continued demanding Finicum turn off the truck and surrender, according to officer statements to investigators. But they didn’t move against those in the truck as they waited for a trooper posted at McConnell’s Jeep to bring a launcher with multiple pepper spray rounds.
Those in the truck talked about what to do next.
“If we duck and you drive, what are they going to do?” [Shannon] Cox asked Finicum. “Try to knock us out?”
He noted they still had “50 ass miles” to go to reach John Day. He turned up the volume on country music that had been playing on the radio
.
“Who can we call?” Bundy asked.
“Sheriff Palmer,” Finicum responded.
As Bundy and Cox tried to get a cell signal, Finicum continued yelling at police.
“You want a blood bath?” he asked. “I’m going to be laying down here on the ground with my blood on the street or I’m going to see the sheriff.
[…] Finicum instantly stepped out of the truck, his hands out to his sides at about shoulder height. Investigators concluded that an FBI agent on the highway clipped off two shots, one that went wild and one that pierced the truck roof and shattered the left rear passenger window. A shell fragment struck Bundy in the shoulder.
The trooper who had made it to the tree line had drawn his revolver and now commanded Finicum to get on the ground.
“Go ahead and shoot me,” Finicum said.
“Get on the ground,” the trooper yelled back.
Finicum continued yelling “Shoot me” and “You’re going to have to shoot me.”
He turned his attention from the trooper in the woods to two troopers coming up behind him, including the one who had fired at the truck. As Finicum shifted direction, the trooper in the woods holstered his gun and drew out his Taser X2, which can be effective from 25 feet but works best at about 15 feet.
Finicum at least twice reached with his right hand toward the inside of his left jacket, where he had a loaded Ruger SR9 semi-automatic pistol that had been a gift from his stepson.
He then turned back toward the trooper approaching with the Taser. He again reached for his jacket.
“It was consistent with drawing a handgun,” the trooper with the Taser told investigators. “He’s going for a gun and I can tell you right now, uh, I was very uncomfortable.”
He continued ordering Finicum to stop.
“He had the drop on me at this point,” the trooper said.
One of the troopers who had been coming up behind Finicum saw the same motion – “consistent with grabbing a firearm” is how he described it to investigators.
“I need to take action to stop him from being a threat” to the trooper with the Taser, he later told investigators.
He fired two rounds, both striking Finicum in the back. At the same instant, another trooper nearby fired a single round into Finicum’s back.
[…] Fifty seconds after Finicum left his truck, the shooting was over.”
You can hear and see Finicum yelling to the police in the video below of cell phone footage from inside Finicum’s truck (lower left corner) synced with aerial footage taken by the FBI. Finicum was in the driver’s seat, while Ryan Bundy, Victoria Sharp and Shauna Cox were in the back seat.
In a video shown at a Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office press conference today, the aerial FBI video of the LaVoy Finicum shooting has been synced with a cellphone video Shawna Cox recorded from within Finicum’s truck.
Do you think Finicum had goaded police to shoot him? Was shooting him in the back justified? How could the police have de-escalated the situation?
[Blog Editor: Below is the passionate interview with the Burbank California protestor I found on the G+ Constitutionalist Group. Please take note that even though the audio is similar to the previous post’s official version, the intonation gives an entirely different perspective. The government lied! The witness accounts are the truth!]
Police shot Oregon protester Lavoy Finicum 3 times in back
About Fellowship of the Minds
We are Conservatives in the undying tradition of America’s Founding Fathers, deeply concerned about the sorry state of our country and the ruinous path our government, political, and cultural elites have taken. That is why we have formed this fellowship, this blog.
Despite our very different backgrounds, we share a deep love for God and country. We work on this blog for no pay. We do this as a public service and a labor of love.
We closely follow political, cultural, and economic news and commentaries on a daily basis. We will sift through the daily news and post the important ones you need to know, together with our unapologetic nonPC editorial comments. We will also alert you to political action: Calling your representatives in Washington, D.C.; rallies, marches, and demonstrations.
We believe that bloggers can and are making a difference. The new technology of the Internet has made us extremely well-informed about politics and what politicians are doing. No longer must we depend on the intermediaries of professional media or the supposed “expert” opinions of professional pundits. In fact, a former CIA officer calls bloggers the Paul Reveres of the 21st century who … READ THE REST
I have been following the Oregon incident with the Bundy ranchers holed up on a nature reserve to protest Bureau of Land Management (BLM) abuse of land despotically managed and usurped by the Federal government. The standoff led to mass arrests mostly of people that were protesting the BLM legally and one person who was a reporter probably because his reporting placed the government in a bad light and favorable toward ranchers. The standoff culminated in what I believe to be the unjustifiable murder of LaVoy Finicum by State and Federal police. The last post was a submission by Justin Smith which I felt was a decent summary up to the date.
I have been a bit surprised by those who usually demonstrate a lack of trust of information disseminated by government sources who support the storyline that Finicum was justifiably killed by authorities because he reached for a gun inside his vest when cornered by multiple armed police. On a personal level I don’t buy that explanation at least not with more information being released for public viewing. I expect a coverup.
Below is a post from Timothy Baldwin which I believe is closer to the truth.
The FBI and Oregon police killed a rancher, Lavoy Finicum, last week. Savoy joined Ammon Bundy, among others, for three weeks in occupying a refuge on public lands in Burns. Like many Americans, the occupiers believed BLM had been long abusing power. Police released one video of the incident (but not other pertinent surveillance). Was this killing lawful?
Under the Fourth Amendment, police who use deadly force have a burden to prove their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them based on the totality of the circumstances.
Regardless of one’s view of the occupation, the video raises issues regarding police’ actions: (1) Why block the highway in nowhere-ville? (2) Why use snipers and a dozen-plus officers? (3) Why not use spike strips to stop him? (4) When exactly was Lavoy likely to harm police?—when shot, Lavoy was facing no police, could barely walk in deep snow and held no gun. (5) Lavoy had not just committed a dangerous felony and fleeing therefrom. (6) Police had prior opportunities to serve an arrest warrant in a safe manner. (7) Why immediately rush Lavoy and spark conflict rather than contain the area and determine his actions?
The occupiers did not convince the greater part of society to aid them, given their seeming “state of war” approach. Still, if our laws can condemn Lavoy, they can also condemn police.
In fairness, there are some who are not normally forgiving to government abuse but believe police were justified in killing Lavoy: one such notable viewpoint on this incident is my dad, Chuck Baldwin. I, on the other hand, believe the video suggests that police were not justified in killing Lavoy when they did–even assuming he had a pistol inside his jacket and was reaching for it.
After Lavoy’s death, his family was able to view his body. They released a press statement that they observed nine (9) bullet inserts in Lavoy’s body. Police have yet to release autopsy records or comment on that statement; however, reports record police admitting that Lavoy was shot several times.
For now, assuming Lavoy was shot multiple times, those shots had to occur before the last shot–the kill shot to Lavoy’s head, which dropped Lavoy to the snow-covered ground.
Since police did not release any audio or other videos–all of which they possess and could release–of the incident, the public does not know exactly when and how many times police shot Lavoy, with the exception of what appears to be the last shot to Lavoy’s head.
Regardless of whether Lavoy was shot 9 (as Lavoy’s family states) or a few times (as police state), the video shows that the last shot was the fatal head shot. Thus, the other shots were to his body before Lavoy was shot in the head. Of course, all of these shots had to happen within seconds after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up.
If Lavoy was shot more than once in his body before the last shot to his head, this supports the argument that quickly after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up (signaling his surrender) police shot him in his body. This would have caused Lavoy to drop his hands where he was shot.
Since Lavoy dropped his hands to his body and statements from both Lavoy’s family and police state that Lavoy was shot several times in his body, one must assume that Lavoy dropped his hands and placed them on his body where he was shot. Ironically, Lavoy’s dropping his hands in this manner was the alleged justification for killing Lavoy.
Did police create the “justification” of killing Lavoy by shooting him in his body, which caused him to drop his hands?
Still, assuming police did not shoot Lavoy in his body before they shot him in his head (which means they shot him while he was dead on the ground–why would they do that?) and assuming Lavoy was reaching for a pistol inside his jacket or pocket (which is it?), the video reveals that the police who rushed out of the woods and charged Lavoy killed him prematurely.
The video shows two police charging Lavoy (one from the bottom and one from the top of the video) immediately after Lavoy exited his truck. This rush approach was not only unnecessary, but also needlessly provocative under these circumstances.
In a real sense, police created the exigency needed to kill Lavoy for “officer safety”, similar to police creating the exigency of completely blocking the road in what appears to be a location that gave Lavoy very little time to slow down or stop his truck. (One would need to study Oregon’s and federal laws of when and how road blocks are to be conducted: there are limits by law. See e.g. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Ore. 131, 134, 743 P.2d 711, 712 (Or. 1987) (ruling road block was unconstitutional); see also Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Ore. 97, 125, 743 P.2d 692, 70 (Or. 1987) (discussion of constitutionality of road blocks).
This is clear from the video: police did not give Lavoy a reasonable opportunity to surrender and enough time to assess the danger level. Instead of the heavy force of police maintaining their positions behind cover until such time as Lavoy clearly demonstrated his intent, police–who appeared little concerned about containing the safety of everyone and use as little force as necessary–immediately charged Lavoy and quickly shot him.
But here are the factors that essentially demonstrate that police killed Lavoy unjustifiably.
During the short and quick period of time that the two aforementioned police rushed him, Lavoy (1) could hardly keep his footing in the deep snow, (2) had no gun in his hand, (3) had no meaningful opportunity to draw a pistol inside his clothing quickly enough to take accurate aim and shoot any nearby police, and (4) was not even facing the two nearest police (who charged him) when he was shot in the head and killed. The totality of these circumstances supports the conclusion that he was killed prematurely, or at a minimum, calls into question the police’ claim of justification.
Assuming Lavoy would have pulled a gun at any time and posed a legitimate threat to a police officer, there were dozens of police ready and able to kill or disable Lavoy. This reality is what makes the actions of the two police who charged Lavoy appear so unnecessary, excessive and provocative. One must wonder how much training and experience the police had (especially who shot Lavoy) for these situations; what kind of briefing took place before the incident; and whether the rush tactic at a road block was preplanned or orchestrated.
Admittedly, more facts are needed to form a solid opinion here.
The government has a heavy burden of proof of justifying their killing of Lavoy. The released video and summary statement by police that since Lavoy was “going for a gun” police were justified in killing him do not meet that heavy burden: the totality of the circumstances simply does not appear to justify their killing Lavoy.
Police should release (as they should in time with demands from the Finnicum family attorneys) all of the evidence relative to the question, including:
use of force reports
incident reports
police training manuals and certifications
applicable warrants or court orders and affidavits in support
written and recorded witness statements
photos of entire scene and Lavoy’s body
in-car video surveillance of all vehicles and drones
police body-cameras of all officers
police policy and procedures (state and federal) for use of deadly force
briefing memorandums
dispatch records
road block planning memorandums
officer duty and task assignments
autopsy report
ballistic reports
One interested in justice would hope that the government does not withhold, destroy, lose or fabricate the evidence. Whether you agree with Lavoy and the Oregon occupiers or not, the government must follow the law. Accepting any other standard places all political dissidents and protestors in the government’s absolute wrath and arbitrary use of deadly force. Liberty cannot survive in that environment.
Lastly, there are federal laws in effect to detain and prosecute “enemy combatants” and “domestic terrorists” who place themselves in a state of war with the United States. Notably, the federal and state governments did not treat Lavoy and the occupiers under such laws. Rather, they treated them as normal citizens of the United States who were simply breaking the law, such as criminal trespass, intimidation, and impeding an officer’s investigation/duty. Therefore, Lavoy and the occupiers deserved the same treatment and respect of the law as you and I.
Timothy Baldwin, born in 1979, is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and formerly Florida) and handles a variety of cases, including constitutional, criminal, and civil. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.
Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author ofFreedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns–all of which are available for purchase throughlibertydefenseleague.com.Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
More disconcerting lies are exposed on Hillary’s emails and Obama collusion in Benghazigate cover-up. AND yet the Mainstream Media Left leaners are still making excuses for Hillary and Obama.
Hillary Clinton’s reputation is taking repeated blows as the drip, drip, drip of email productions from her private email server draw attention to her many lies. The Obama administration has admitted that she did not, in fact, turn over all the necessary emails from her private mail server to the government. It also has released nearly 3,000 pages of emails implicating members of the Obama administration in their own lies.
As Vice President Joe Biden appears to be preparing to jump in the race for the Democratic nomination later this summer, questions are also emerging as to whether or not the Obama administration is throwing Hillary under the bus through these emails.
Each new batch of these emails expose additional lies made by the Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton, despite MSNBC, Newsweek, and other news organizations maintaining that there is little to be found. This is the same treatment that the Benghazi scandal has regularly received.
“…I hear it all the time from your previous guest and others, is that seven or eight previous congressional committees looked into Benghazi,” said chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on CBS’ Face the Nation on June 28. “Well, none of those other committees looked at a single one of her e-mails… So our committee has done things that none of those seven other committees were able to do.”
The Committee has also gained access to the documents from the Accountability Review Board investigation which failed to interview Secretary of State Clinton—documents which were not turned over to other members of Congress. It also recently received information related to Clinton aides Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, as well as former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
As Accuracy in Media (AIM) asked when the Clinton email scandal initially broke, the key question is what did President Obama and Secretary Clinton “know, and when did they know it?” A recent set of emails obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that the White House coordinated with the State Department on the night of the attack to make Mrs. Clinton’s statement blaming it on a YouTube video the official U.S. government line.
But for the media, it’s old news and hardly worth a mention. Their tactic is, whenever possible, to repeat assertions by various administration supporters that the Benghazi investigation is a partisan witch hunt.
When the first set of emails was produced, the media dismissed those emails as revealing no relationship between Mrs. Clinton and the security situation in Libya or an order to stand down. That’s not surprising, since reporters made similar claims before they actually saw the emails.
The excuses offered by the media are further attempts to throw sand in the eyes of the public. These emails were first stored on a private email server under Mrs. Clinton’s control, then vetted by her advisors, and then partially redacted by a State Department with a vested interest in ensuring that Mrs. Clinton’s reputation, and its own, are preserved.
In other words, the State Department emails were Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama administration’s attempt at self-exoneration.
The media now complain that the mission of the Select Committee on Benghazi has become overbroad, wasteful, and doesn’t focus on the attack. Yet many in the media focused on the cost of this investigation, and Democrat accusations that it is wasteful and duplicative, even when the Committee was narrowly focusing on the attack.
“She said that the public record was complete,” noted Rep. Gowdy on CBS. “You will remember in her single press conference she said that she had turned over everything related to work to the Department of State. We know that that is false.”
As for the emails from Sidney Blumenthal being unsolicited, “We know that that was false,” he said. “So, so far, she also said that she had a single device for convenience,” he continued.
“So every explanation she’s offered so far is demonstrably false.”
It’s even worse than that. As Kimberly Strassel reported for The Wall Street Journal, we now “know that the State Department has now upgraded at least 25 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to ‘classified’ status. State is suggesting this is no big deal, noting that it is ‘routine’ to upgrade material during the public-disclosure process. But that’s beside the point. This isn’t about after-the-fact disclosure. It’s about security at the time—whether Mrs. Clinton was sending and storing sensitive government information on a hackable private email system. Turns out, she was. For the record, it is a federal crime to ‘knowingly’ house classified information at an ‘unauthorized location.’”
In addition, Strassel stated that “The real bombshell news was the State Department’s admission that, in at least six instances, the Clinton team altered the emails before handing them over. Sentences or entire paragraphs—which, by the way, were work-related—were removed. State was able to confirm this because it could double-check against Mr. Blumenthal’s documents.” Strassel wonders, “But how many more of the 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided have also been edited?”
Apparently Blumenthal, long time hatchet man for the Clintons, was not prepared to withhold documents from the Select Committee, and risk a contempt citation. Instead he chose, in effect, to throw Mrs. Clinton under the bus.
The Obama administration has now asserted executive privilege to withhold a “small number” of documents from the Select Committee, reports Byron York. The plot thickens.
“He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and I see that that’s just part of the give-and-take,” Mrs. Clinton told the press in May.
“I’m going to Paris tomorrow night and will meet w TNC [Transitional National Council] leaders so this additional info useful,” wrote Clinton to Blumenthal on August 30, 2011. “Let me know if you receive this,” she writes.
“This strains credulity based on what I know,” writes Clinton in another email. “Any other info about it?”
That particular April 2012 email exchange, in which Blumenthal says he will “seek more intel,” does not appear in the State Department’s documents. But an exchange between close Clinton aide Jacob Sullivan and Christopher Stevens using that same Blumenthal information does. Sullivan forwarded Stevens’ response to Hillary Clinton within 15 minutes.
Stevens was appointed Ambassador to Libya in late May of 2012. On July 6, 2012 the State Department’s Charlene Lamb told Regional Security Officer at Embassy Tripoli Eric Nordstrom “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD [security] team to stay!”
That same day, Blumenthal sent Clinton another memo regarding the Libyan election. “Greetings from Kabul! And thanks for keeping this stuff coming!” she replied the next morning, on July 7. Within a couple of hours her aide, Sullivan, had again sent the memo to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens provided his impressions of Blumenthal’s information promptly. Sullivan again sent Stevens’ communication on to Mrs. Clinton in under 20 minutes.
If these lines of communication were open through her aides, how much did Mrs. Clinton actually know about the security situation in Libya, and when did she know it?
One of his 2011 emails released by the State Department warns that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb might be inspired by the death of Osama bin Laden to conduct attacks on American and western targets using weapons they had diverted from the Libyan rebels.
Clinton forwarded the May 2, 2011 email from Blumenthal regarding al Qaeda to Sullivan with the words, “disturbing, if true.”
AQIM participated in the Benghazi attacks, according to the Senate. A Defense Intelligence Agency message dated September 12, 2012 indicates that the Benghazi attacks were planned ten or more days in advance by al Qaeda elements partially in revenge for a U.S. killing in Pakistan. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton received that message, yet continued to blame the YouTube video, as did others in the Obama administration.
As we have repeatedly argued, America already knows enough to demonstrate that there is, and continues to be, a widespread cover-up of the many aspects of the Benghazi scandal.
“The public record has already established that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, AFRICOM’s Carter Ham, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey were all told that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately after they began,” we reported in May. “Yet the President and his administration still continued to blame a YouTube video titled ‘The Innocence of Muslims.’”
Also, we reported, “the former Secretary of State’s aides became aware that this was a terrorist attack about a half an hour after the initial attack began on the Special Mission Compound…”
Any additional information the Select Committee finds on Benghazi, Blumenthal, or Clinton’s role in the scandal can only confirm the breadth and depth of the dereliction of duty that took place. Yet the media argue that this has somehow become a political circus because the Committee is exploring the background of someone informing Clinton’s Libya policy.
AIM’s articles, along with the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, have exposed how the administration blindly pushed for an intervention in Libya, switched sides in the War on Terror, and passed over an opportunity for a truce with Muammar Qaddafi. It defies reason to continue to report that broader administration actions had little to no influence on creating the climate and circumstances which led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi.
In case you haven’t been keeping up with the news here’s real Benghazigate info on the dishonesty of the current Dem Party frontrunner for its POTUS nomination – Hillary Clinton – and the dishonesty of the Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama (Actually Benghazi is just one of many cover-ups by these two).
Americans voted Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 brainwashed by the Left oriented American media that his Marxist and Black Liberation Movement influences were either irrelevant or racist lies. Obama was the Liar. In 2012 Obama and his cadres fabricated a story Benghazi lie and American voters bought the lie again. NOW co-liar conspirator Hillary Clinton is denying Benghazi wrongs, her cadres are lying for her AGAIN and the Left oriented media is AGAIN soft pedaling Hillary lies.
Will a majority of Americans AGAIN put a liar in Office just to say they voted for a woman?
The first news report below is by veteran news journalist Sharyl Attkisson and the second news report is by a person who simply goes by “shawn”.
Newly reported emails indicate Hillary Clinton was personally made aware of security dangers in the months leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya. That’s according to the House Benghazi Committee, which has obtained 300 long-sought emails from the State Department among tens of thousands under subpoena.
The Benghazi Committee says there are a number of emails in which State Department personnel specifically passed along security issues to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 before the attacks. An August 2012 email to then-Secretary of State Clinton from one of her top aides, Jake Sullivan, referred to “some warning signs” regarding the deteriorating security situation.
Clinton has long denied being in the loop about mounting dangers in Benghazi and her agency’s rejection of security requests from U.S. personnel, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attacks. Though Clinton was sent multiple cables about security prior to the assaults, she explained that she got far too many to read.
“They are all addressed to me,” Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. “They do not all come to me. They are reported through the bureaucracy.”
The newly reported emails differ from the cables in that they were sent directly to Clinton’s personal email server and, in some cases, were from one of her top aides.
Another question raised by the newly provided emails is whether there was any improper handling of sensitive government information on her personal server. Experts say personal servers lack the strictest level of security and risk being compromised by U.S. enemies.
Last March, Clinton told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
But today, it was reported that a portion of at least one email provided to Congress is considered so sensitive that the FBI has since classified it to prohibit its public release.
Today, Clinton responded by saying, “I’m aware the FBI has asked that a portion of one email be held back … but that doesn’t change the fact that all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately.”
Clinton also told reporters today, “I’m glad the emails are starting to come out. … I’ve asked to be done for a long time. … I want people to be able to see all of them … it is the fact that we have released all of them that have any government relationship whatsoever.”
Gowdy says he is not confident the committee will get all relevant material, because Clinton has acknowledged deleting 30,000 emails that she said were personal in nature.
“To assume a self-selected public record is complete, when no one with a duty or responsibility to the public had the ability to take part in the selection, requires a leap in logic no impartial reviewer should be required to make and strains credibility,” said Gowdy in a statement today.
Gowdy added that there are “inexplicable gaps” in the secretary’s emails during key times of her involvement in Libya policy including:
·June 10-Aug. 8, 2011—Time period where Clinton was heavily involved in Libya policy.
·Sept. 14-Oct. 21, 2011—Dates of Clinton’s trip to Libya, when the now-famous picture of Clinton on her blackberry was taken
·Oct. 21, 2011-Jan. 5, 2012—Time period when the State Department was extending the Benghazi mission for another year
·April 27- July 4, 2012—Time period of increased security during which an IED was thrown at the compound blasting a hole through the wall and during which the British ambassador was attacked
Four Americans, including Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.
Allegations that the Obama administration lied to the American people about the Benghazi terrorist attack have been in the air for the last three years, but new information shows that these allegations have a lot more bite to them than Obama and Hillary Clinton would like the public to believe.
Two days after terrorists besieged the U.S. embassy in Libya, Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal sent her a memo that repudiated the idea that the attack was the result of a video critical of Islam. According to the memo, there was ample evidence that the attack had been planned by an Al Qaeda affiliate that was merely using the protests as a coverup.
“We should get this around ASAP,” Clinton reportedly told a close adviser after reading the memo. But there was apparently a change of heart, because U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows a few days later, still spreading the story that the Benghazi attack was an outgrowth of the protests.
Later, of course, the State Department and the president were forced to acknowledge that there had been no protests in Benghazi on the day of the attack. Officials and analysts continue to debate how much of a role – if any – the video played in the attack, but it is known to a certainty that it was not the whole catalyst. There is, in fact, much more evidence that the attack was planned as a retaliation for a drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist in Pakistan.
The American people deserve to know why the Obama administration tried to silence the truth about this attack. Were they trying to deflect blame? Avoid allegations of incompetence? Or was it something more sinister? Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and perhaps even Barack Obama himself need to answer for these discrepancies, and Congress should accept nothing less than their full cooperation with the investigation. The more we dig beneath the surface on this tragedy, the more it stinks.
It is most unfortunate that the word Benghazi has come to be associated with a right-wing witch hunt in the eyes of the public. Democrats have been successful in denying any culpability, insisting that this is nothing more than political gamesmanship. With the full compliance of the mainstream media, they have brainwashed the voters into believing a lie. And that lie deserves to be exposed.
We’re used to a certain amount of shadiness when it comes to Washington politics, but when American military men and women are dead, we must not stop until we get to the bottom of this coverup. This is about much more than emails, private servers, and multiple devices. This is about secrecy and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government. And until we know why it happened, no one should think for a moment about voting for Hillary Clinton.
The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.
Copyright 2014 [The TC webmaster needs to update his copyright info] – TotalConservative.com
About Total Conservative
A boy gets to go backstage at the circus. Amidst all the wonders, it is the circus’s elephant that surprises him the most. Out there, under the big top, the elephant had appeared mighty and glorious. To see him now, tied to a weak railroad stake in the ground by nothing more than a frayed length of rope, the boy is confused.
“Why does he stay?” the boy asks the handler.
“He doesn’t know his own strength,” the handler replies. “He’s been tied to that spike since he was just a little fella. He learned a long time ago…that’s just the way it is. He don’t try to escape now.”
Our government is like that railroad spike. We’ve grown so accustomed to the great might of the federal government that we hardly question it anymore. Some of us may not even understand that we are being held captive at all.
At its outset, the role of the government was to protect its people. Protect them from foreign and domestic harm, protect their (inalienable) rights from being encroached upon, and protect their ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The current federal government goes well beyond those basic tenets. The U.S. government in the 21st century is a provider. It provides …
…
Total Conservative is geared towards those elephants who understand that they have outgrown their restraints. That the circus never had the right to put them in those restraints to begin with. It is geared towards those people who want to see the federal government protect its citizen’s rights without encroaching on them in an oppressive and systematic way. It is geared towards people who understand that the very best thing you can say about government is that it’s a necessary evil.
Today’s liberal government goes well beyond … READ ENTIRETY
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
