Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.
Most saw the announcement that there would be no Russia collusion related indictments as vindication of President Trump.
See the full results below:
“With no more indictments, the Mueller report...”
Vindicates Trump: 92%
Is just one step - Keep investigating: 4%
I don’t know/care: 4%
]]>According to the website FOIAproject.org, Judicial Watch comes in first place for number of times it has taken the federal government to court for failing to turn over information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Judicial Watch filed 391 lawsuits against the government from Jan. 21, 2001 to through July 2018.
The American Civil Liberties Union comes in second place at 130 lawsuits, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibilities rounds out the top three with 94 lawsuits.
The government agency with the most lawsuits against it is the Department of Justice – over 2,300 suits since 2001. Judicial Watch can take credit for 40 of those lawsuits.
Judicial Watch, a conservative group, is the top filer of FOIA lawsuits under President Trump. It was also the most persistent filer under Presidents Obama and Bush.
Read more about these results by clicking this link:
As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.
At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.
“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” Maxwell says.
He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks.
You can continue reading the story by clicking this link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/
]]>A federal court ruled 2-1 last week against allowing Sharyl Attkisson to revive her suit over the Obama administration’s alleged efforts to hack her personal devices. The ruling spells doom for all Americans victimized by government hackers in the future.
The ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of her case against President’s Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, “six unknown agents” and others. Forensic investigators working for Attkisson — a former reporter for CBS — found that proprietary government software was used to hack her home and business computers, but the court denied her any right to pursue further evidence.
The case represents a serious blow to the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees our right to be secure in our “papers and effects.”
The dissenting judge employed the colorful analogy of legendary North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith’s “four-corners” clock-killing strategy, and said the government now has a “play book” for hiding evidence when it uses clandestine methods to hack the computers of Americans. The dissent even called the government’s self-serving actions creating the obstruction “Kafkaesque.”
In her book “Stonewalled,” Attkisson chronicled her harrowing experience of trying to get to the bottom of what clearly appeared to be the federal government’s intrusion into her computers after she reported on the Obama administration’s scandals — such as the 2012 attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Holder allegedly attempted to intimidate CBS into silencing her. A major, plausible issue in the case is whether he — already known as an allegedly dirty player once held in contempt of Congress — directed others to hack her computers.
We’d like to think that the Department of Justice and our judicial system are in the business of fighting lawbreaking, not protecting it. But in a sophisticated, taxpayer-financed legal game of “monkey in the middle,” DOJ lawyers used legal maneuvering to dismiss Attkisson’s case, move it from one court to another, and delay her lawyers’ attempts to expedite discovery.
Unfortunately, as I’ve previously written, the rules are rigged to protect government lawbreaking. The Fourth Circuit’s latest ruling is the old “nothing to see, here, people” type of decision. It relies on arcane judicial doctrines, and it uses assumptions about congressional intent in assessing Fourth Amendment damages “in the areas of electronic surveillance and intrusions into electronic devices.”
The dissenting judge noted such deference is not typically given to private citizens when they face the same charges for electronic intrusions, and “effectively reward[s] the government for its intransigence.” Government lawbreaking is thus unfairly protected.
Read the rest of the article at The Daily Caller by clicking the link below:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/fitzgibbons-obama-attkisson/
]]>With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.
However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.
In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.
Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.
Yet, each time President Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.
We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.
We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”
As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.
And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.
So, a round of apologies seem in order.
Apologies to President Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign.
(Continue reading at The Hill by clicking the link below.)
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435552-apologies-to-president-trump
]]>
We asked:
"Which past or present candidate would you most like to see as our next President?"
More than half of those who answered picked Ronald Reagan.
In second place was "None of the Above."
Ross Perot made a surprise showing.
All other choices were relative asterisks.
Here are all the results:
"Which past or present candidate would you most like to see as our next President?"
B. Clinton 0 %
H. Clinton 0 %
Reagan 59%
Bush 1 >1%
Bush 2 >1%
Bush 3 >1%
Obama >1%
Perot 5%
None of the above 34%
There was a flurry of changes in 2015 around the time the FBI opened its probe into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified emails.
Employees and officials appointed by FBI Director James Comey are highlighted in yellow.
Officials who signed one or more wiretaps against Trump associate Carter Page, who was never charged with anything, are marked with an asterisk.
