fox files

THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA JUST SAVED AMERICA FROM A BLOODY RACE WAR THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WAS TRYING TO START

In reviewing the Jussie Smollett fiasco, it’s important to note that Smollett staged his hate crime hoax in a location where he believed it would be caught and recorded on a surveillance camera. The purpose of this was to have video footage that the media would play up nationwide, fomenting an outbreak of racially-charged violence that would ultimately lead to a full-blown race war across America, which the media, of course, would blame on Trump.

This is the goal of the left-wing media, which now functions as a cabal of enemy combatants in a civil war they started. And I have no doubt that Barack Obama and his “community organizers” are behind the whole thing. Smollett is well known to be a cohort of Obama, and this is exactly the kind of thing Obama continues to direct from his “bunker” command center near the White House.

The independent media blew the hoax wide open and the Chicago police did a damn fine job too.

Yet the hoax was revealed thanks to the efforts of the independent media and old school police work by the Chicago PD, not the ‘mainstream’ media news cartels which pushed endless lies and propaganda to prop up the hoax for as long as possible.

It was the indy media that asked the first questions about the flimsy story that Smollett pushed on the world. Too many things didn’t add up, and while the left-wing media swallowed the hoax without asking a single critical question, the independent media pointed out the many holes in Smollett’s story, such as the fact that he refused to hand over his full phone records to the police… or his claim that he was attacked by two men but somehow managed to hold on to his Subway sandwich the entire time, even walking home with it. Other facts highlighted by the independent media also blew holes in the Smollett story, such as the observation that Smollett was spotted on camera walking home with the fake noose still around his neck. Why would a victim of an attempted lynching continue to wear the noose? And why would he wait 40 minutes to call the police? Why didn’t he desperately shout to the doorman of his apartment to call the police, explaining he had just been attacked?

None of it added up. But the left-wing media didn’t care. The fake hate crime hoax fit their narrative of America as a racist nation filled with homophobic Trump supporters, and the delicious ingredients in that recipe made such an enticing narrative that the media couldn’t resist. So they risked a race war breaking out across America to try to once again demonize Trump supporters and ‘keeping the hate alive’, which is a key job of the left-wing media these days.

America was just saved by the same independent media that the tech giants are trying to wipe out

All this underscores the importance of speech diversity in a free society. Dissenting voices are sometimes the most important voices of all since they question the official narrative of lies and deception. This is exactly why systematic censorship of the independent media by the dishonest, fascist tech giants is so dangerous to Democracy.

In this case, it was the dissenting voices — the independent media — that exposed the hoax and very likely stopped the outbreak of racial violence from taking place. In other words, while the mainstream media was actively pushing for a race war in America, the independent media threw water on the embers before it become a firestorm. In response, numerous “journalists” in the media are publicly admitting they are disappointed and saddened that the hate crime wasn’t real. They actually wish for hate crime violence in America, and they don’t even try to hide their dark desires anymore.

Yes, we’ve actually reached the point of insanity in America where “mainstream” media journalists actively wish for hate crimes and race wars. And they are willing to lie and deceive the public to try to make that happen.

If anyone should be censored and de-platformed today, it’s CNN, the NYT and the Washington Post. Those are the organizations spreading dangerous lies in a deliberate effort to spark a nationwide race war. They are complicit in the plot to destroy America, and they are acting with extreme malice in trying to carry out their intended agendas to see America rip itself apart.

So why do the tech giants selectively censor the independent media while granting the lying left-wing media near-total control over the public narrative? Because the tech giants want to destroy America, too. They’re all in on it. It’s a plot to bring down this nation, blame white people, depose Trump, silence all dissent and sweep in an authoritarian regime run by deranged, fraudulent Leftists.

The time to be aware and awaken is right now!

Remember this.

The people you’re trying to step on, we’re everyone you depend on. We’re the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. We make your bed. We guard you while you’re asleep. We drive the ambulances. We direct your call. We are cooks and taxi drivers and we know everything about you. We process your insurance claims and credit card charges. We control every part of your life.

We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday we’ll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won’t. And we’re just learning this fact. So don’t fuck with us.”

Too often, it seems — especially when it comes to mass shootings — anti-gunners are quick to use only the end results of such tragic events to justify the need for (you guessed it!) MORE gun control.

Case in point: the latest mass shooting at the Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, Illinois, last Friday.

According to the Washington Post, the suspect, who “fatally shot five people and wounded five officers at an Illinois warehouse Friday, severely beat a woman years ago in a domestic violence incident that turned him into a felon — and should have kept him from buying a gun.”

Dr. John R. Lott, (I’ve read every book he has penned) author of More Guns, Less Crime, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center and staunch gun-rights advocate, recently penned an article on the incident over at Town-hall. He wrote: “Twice, background checks failed to catch the criminal background of killer Gary Martin. Even worse, the errors that occurred in Illinois were a result of dramatic cuts in funding for background checks.”

“But, as usual, gun-control advocates called for more background checks before the facts of the case were even known,” he added.

Indeed, it at least appears that those individuals who seek to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens only look at the end results of such a tragedy … and not what led up to it.

Don’t misconstrue my point here.

At the end of the day, Martin, who began shooting at fellow employees “after he was told he was being fired,” per the Washington Post, is SOLELY responsible for his heinous actions. But I think it’s a mistake to look only at the aftermath of a critical incident when it comes to calling for sweeping change.

After all, as Dr. Lott so aptly noted, “The proposed gun control laws aren’t addressing the problems we face.”

So why aren’t we looking at what other factors are at play?

Dr. Lott noted that, “undoubtedly, the first two mistaken [background] checks were due to human error. But the fault lies with Illinois. The media has made much of the fact that, after the third check, police didn’t follow through and make sure that Martin’s illegally obtained gun was taken away from him. But this isn’t due to any loophole in the law. Rather, it was a politically created problem. The automatic push for the universal background checks makes little sense, as it uses the same federal NICS system. If the problem is human error, why not concentrate on fixing that issue?”

Why aren’t we looking at the fact that Martin shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place?

Why aren’t we looking at the fact that this terrible event transpired in yet another “gun-free” zone?

And let’s not end there:

In situations where an armed citizen helped prevent casualties, what factors helped to drive that outcome? (Anti-gunners are notorious for overlooking these particular stories, but we can certainly learn something from them too.)

Let me reiterate: The perpetrators of violent crimes are the ones responsible for those violent crimes. But until we start looking at the whole picture, I fear we’re at a standstill in making any real progress toward preventing such terrible tragedies in the future.

IF YOU’RE AFRAID TO SPEAK UP AGAINST TYRANNY, THEN YOU’RE ALREADY A SLAVE!

As courts again rule that police have no duty to protect individual Americans, anti-gun activists continue to push schemes to make armed self-defense more difficult.

Fault for the terrible tragedy last year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has been placed on various entities by different observers. Some on the left—defying all logic—have even blamed you, me and other NRA members for that vicious attack.

A number of failures led to that murderer being able to enter the school unchallenged, spend many minutes shooting defenseless students and staff, and then simply walk away.

Make no mistake, though: True blame lies with the crazed former student who attacked and killed 17 students and staff members last February in Parkland, Fla. However, plenty of information is now available showing that a number of failures led to that murderer being able to enter the school unchallenged, spend many minutes shooting defenseless students and staff, and then simply walk away.

In fact, a recent report by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission confirmed that one of the more egregious errors was one we have all known about since shortly after the shooting. Broward County Deputy Scot Peterson, the school resource officer (SRO), refused to enter the building during the massacre. Instead, he huddled outside while the perpetrator walked up and down the unguarded halls, killing student after student.

To many, Peterson’s actions reeked of cowardice. After all, since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, law enforcement agencies of all kinds have been taught that the old method of locking down the scene and waiting for more help to come doesn’t apply anymore. That tactic simply costs too many lives, as proven again in Parkland.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that sheriff’s deputies were not constitutionally obligated to protect the students, so were not liable for their trauma.

Who Will Protect Students? Because of Peterson’s inaction, more than a dozen survivors of the attack filed a lawsuit in district court, claiming that county officials should have protected them.

The lawsuit claimed that Peterson’s “arbitrary and conscience-shocking actions and inactions directly and predictably caused children to die, get injured, and get traumatized.” It further claimed that the sheriff’s office and school officials “either have a policy that allows killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped” or “have such inadequate training that the individuals tasked with carrying out the policies … lack the basic fundamental understandings of what those policies are such that they are incapable of carrying them out.”

The lawsuit also focused on something else we all learned shortly after the shooting—the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was well aware of the potential danger the shooter posed, but for whatever reason failed to address that danger.

In mid-December, a federal judge in South Florida threw out the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that sheriff’s deputies were not constitutionally obligated to protect the students, so were not liable for their trauma.

“The claim arises from the actions of [the shooter], a third party, and not a state actor,” Bloom, a Barack Obama appointee, stated in her ruling on the case. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of [the shooter].”

So Who Then Will Protect You?

Lest you think this post is anti-law enforcement, be rest assured that it is NOT. It’s important to understand that police officers have signed up to protect and serve American citizens, and many do so every day throughout this country.

In fact, vast numbers of police officers are willing to be the first on the line and the first to charge into dangerous situations when the need arises to protect innocent lives.

Sure, the job can be complicated and confusing—especially in volatile situations involving active shooters—but police regularly do their best to protect everyone they can. Most cops were just as outraged with Peterson’s actions as were the survivors of the shooting and their families.

Yet it’s important to note that this isn’t the first time a court has ruled police have no duty to protect us.

Most notable is the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia.

On a March night in 1975, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their Washington, D.C., rooming house, where Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house, and Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her 4-year-old daughter. Early that morning, two men kicked in the door, entered Douglas’ room and began to sexually assault her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard her screams and telephoned the police, reporting that the house was being burglarized and requesting assistance. After the call, Warren and Taliaferro crawled through their window onto an adjoining roof and awaited help. According to court documents, the department dispatched cars, but officers left after knocking on the door and receiving no answer.

After crawling back into their room, Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ continued screams. They again called police at 6:42 and told them the intruders had entered the home. This time, no officers were dispatched. Believing the police might have entered the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, which alerted the attackers that they were there. The intruders then sexually assaulted all three women for several more hours before finally ending the attack.

Ultimately, the court ruled against the plaintiffs based on, “the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

In truth, the ruling of “no duty” to protect makes sense. If such a duty did exist, all law enforcement agencies would be constantly bombarded with lawsuits, leaving little time to perform their everyday duties. Moreover, many states have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against state or local officials for failure to protect.

Gun-Banners Could Not Care Less About You

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of police officers will go that extra to protect their constituents. But as we all know, police can’t be everywhere at the same time.

And when seconds count, it will be minutes before they arrive. NEVER forget that!

Those facts, plus court rulings that police have “no duty to protect:’ make the constant push by anti-gun advocates for laws that would make armed self-defense more difficult and still even more perplexing. And make no mistake: They do so with regularity.

Do anti-gun zealots simply not care about your life or mine? That would certainly seem to be the case.

► When Moms Demand Action lobbies against national concealed-carry reciprocity, they are working to ensure you are defenseless outside your home state against armed attackers, who illegally carry their guns wherever they want.

■ When Everytown for Gun Safety members push for a federal ban on “high-capacity” magazines (standard capacity for many, many models of self-defense handguns), they show a disdain for your life and that of your loved ones.

■ When the Brady Campaign fights against implementation of Stand Your Ground laws in your state, they are indicating that they don’t care if you are brutally murdered.

► When the gun-ban group Giffords pushes for firearm registration schemes that would eventually lead to confiscation, they show their contempt for you and your natural right of self-defense.

► When billionaire Michael Bloomberg spends millions of dollars to air television ads against pro-gun politicians, he takes the side of violent criminals, who prefer their victims to be unarmed and helpless.

► When u.s. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, introduces legislation that would ban hundreds of firearms and magazines for law-abiding Americans, she shows that she would rather violent criminals be better armed than you.

► When Virginia’s new governor, Ralph Northam, introduces a sweeping anti-gun package ranging from outright gun bans, to magazine bans, to one-gun-a-month purchase laws, he tells gun owners in the Old Dominion that his political ambitions mean more than their safety.

■ When the so-called “mainstream” media parrot lies about the number of school shootings to help push their anti-gun agenda, they show their agenda is more important than your safety and security.

► And when all of those groups and individuals actively fight against the Second Amendment while basking in the safety of their very own armed security forces, they form a call to action that law-abiding American gun owners simply cannot ignore.

So What To Do?

The plain fact is, the ABSOLUTE ONLY person truly responsible for protecting you and your family is YOU. And the best way to even the odds between you and armed criminals is having a firearm and adequate training to use it safely and effectively.

With the Democrats recently taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives, anti-gunners have quickly ratcheted up their agenda, pushing all manners of restrictive proposals. And mid-term election victories by gun-ban proponents in a handful of states have emboldened lawmakers there to further push -AND- to push further their anti-gun legislation to the state level.

Of course, ignoring these blatantly unconstitutional proposals is simply not an option. There are many actions we all can take to get involved in this fight, and we should do so ABSOLUTELY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

First, visit the Institute for Legislative Action’s (NRA-ILA) web page and sign up for updates that will keep you apprised of pending legislations, both in your state and at the federal levels, AS WELL AS FOR OTHER STATES, BECAUSE, REMEMBER, IF IT HAPPENS IN ‘THEIR’ BACK YARD, IT’S JUST SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE IT HAPPENS IN YOUR BACK YARD.

Each time you learn of pending legislation, whether federal or state level, call or email your representative or senator and let your voice be heard. INDIVIDUAL calls and emails MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Next, THINK about becoming an NRA member, or even better still, a GOA member. And if you already are, then consider signing up for upgraded or Life memberships. THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS!

Finally, TRY to sign up OTHERS, EVEN if only ONE, to further boost our ability to continue winning this battle for freedom’s future. It’s not hard to do or expensive, and it will pay dividends in spades moving forward.

If we don’t all work together now to protect our right to arms—and our right to self-defense—those rights will continue to be whittled away a little at a time. By way of the Frog In The Water Syndrome.
Look it up.

For the sake of our children, grandchildren and future generations to come, we MUST NOT let that happen on our watch.

REMEMBER. FREEDOM IS ONLY ONE OR TWO GENERATIONS AWAY FROM LOSING IT, AND IT IS A ABSOLUTELY CONTINUOUS PROCESS!

THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN ZOMBIES ARE LOOKING FOR BRAINS AND THEN WALK RIGHT PAST YOU!

SMALL MEN SERVE THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

GREAT MEN SERVE JUSTICE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

Anti-Gunners Come for Remington. AGAIN!
BY TIM SCHMIDT – USCCA FOUNDER

Does any good firearms-related news come out of Connecticut? If what happened this week is any indication, I’d say that’s a resounding no.

According to the Washington Post, “Gun-maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.”

If this story sounds familiar, you’re probably recalling how, back in April 2016, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled to allow the same wrongful death suit to move forward, rejecting the “argument that a 2005 federal law can protect gun businesses from civil lawsuits.”

That federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), “protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and other actions for which they are directly responsible,” GovTrack.us explains.

Families of several children killed in the Newtown attack and one surviving teacher brought the original lawsuit against Remington Arms, parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, who manufactured the weapon — a Bushmaster AR-15 — used by Adam Lanza in the school shooting. According to The Washington Examiner, the basis of the families’ suit was that “the military-style gun should have never been available for civilians to purchase.”

Although lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit back in 2016, Bellis ruled that Remington’s argument “that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products … would be best made in a motion later in the process and [was] not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.”

But it was later dismissed — by the same judge, no less:

According to PBS News Hour, in October 2016, Bellis “granted a motion by the North Carolina-based Remington Arms to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of nine Sandy Hook victims.”

But in a stunning 4-3 decision this past Thursday, as reported in the Washington Post, “justices reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington filed by a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the school massacre. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit, citing a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes. The majority said that while most of the lawsuit’s claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law.”

Nicole Hockley, mother of a 6-year-old boy who died in the shooting, said Thursday that “a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men,” the Washington Post reported. “We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth,” Hockley said. “We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.”

I’m not sure how it can be argued that Remington “marketed” its product to Lanza. He wasn’t even the one who purchased it.

I stand by previous comments that Sandy Hook was a terrible, terrible tragedy perpetrated by the evil intentions and actions of ONE man. Remington couldn’t have known that he would murder his mother and steal her Bushmaster. Insinuating that the company is somehow responsible for the 2012 event is entirely off-base and is COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE!. It sets VERY dangerous precedents.

Regardless of the outcome, this is a devastating blow to the firearms industry and — quite frankly — a blatant attempt by anti-gunners to put firearms manufacturers out of business, thus denying millions of responsible Americans their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

I will forever mourn the loss of innocent life at Sandy Hook, but I can’t sit back and say nothing when, once again, the fingers are pointed in the wrong directions.

Judge Declares FBI’s Search for Peter Strzok Records Inadequate

A petulant child or employee will perform a task halfway and wait to see if he can get away with it. Such seems to be the strategy of the entire Deep State bureaucracy.

The FBI is particularly good at this, and we are particularly good at calling them on it. Luckily for the American people we have judges who respect the Freedom of Information Act.

A case in point: U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper for the District of Columbia has agreed with that the FBI did not adequately search for records related to the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team. He was a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI.

In granting our request, Judge Cooper ordered the FBI to further search their records. (The original, deficient search had only returned 14 pages.)

The order comes in the December 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed after the DOJ failed to respond to and August 17, 2017, request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-02682)). Judicial Watch seeks:

All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.

On July 31, 2018, we released the first 14 pages of FBI documents produced in this FOIA lawsuit, showing that Strzok insisted on retaining his FBI security clearance before moving to the Mueller team and confirmed that Strzok played a pivotal role in the flawed Hillary Clinton email investigation.

In his decision, Judge Cooper called the FBI’s search “overly cramped:”

Notwithstanding that Judicial Watch’s request referred to Mueller by name … the Bureau searched only for the term “special counsel.” But surely one would expect that Agent Strzok and other FBI personnel might use the Special Counsel’s name — “Mueller” — rather than his title when discussing Strzok’s assignment to the Russia investigation, especially in informal emails. Another logical variation on “special counsel” is its commonly used acronym “SCO,” which appears to be used within the Special Counsel’s Office itself, as reflected by documents that the FBI uncovered and produced to Judicial Watch.

The ruling also stated that the FBI did not adequately respond to our FOIA lawsuit because it limited its search to only Strzok’s email account.

Judge Cooper ordered that the FBI must conduct a new search that includes “the email accounts of any of Agent Strzok’s superiors or other Bureau officials who were involved in the decision to assign him to the Special Counsel’s Office or the decision to reassign him to the FBI’s Human Resources Division after his removal from the Mueller investigation.”

The FBI must also expand its search to other forms of communication in addition to email. Given Strzok’s well-known use of text messaging, “it strikes the Court as reasonably likely that he discussed his assignment to the Special Counsel’s Office in text messages—which again is the standard for assessing an agency’s selection of search locations.”

Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August 2017 and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and 2016 election season that raised serious questions about his anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bias. They were also engaged in an extramarital affair. Strzok infamously texted “there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.”

Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

The Court rightly slammed the FBI for its gamesmanship in searching for records about one of the most notorious FBI agents of all time – Peter Strzok. The FBI leadership is in cover-up mode on its abuses targeting President Trump, and we’re pleased a federal court pushed back on this stonewall.
Judicial Watch Sues for Key Anti-Trump Coup Doc

Perhaps you remember the 1964 film “Seven Days in May,” in which a Deep State cabal plotted a takeover of the government. Burt Lancaster starred, and Rod Serling, appropriately, wrote script.

Now we’re living through a real life “Eight Days in May” featuring Rod Rosenstein, the disgraced former FBI official Andrew McCabe and a slew of characters conniving to bring down a real life President.

In the latest scene we are suing the Department of Justice for the communications of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017.

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

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

This time period is critical. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. On May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump and whether Rosenstein and others should wear a wire to secretly record conversations with the President.

We previously filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking the communications of former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, that lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President.

These critical days in May, a scant three months into President Trump’s term, included extraordinary targeting of President Trump by Rod Rosenstein and other Deep State officials at the DOJ and FBI. Our focused FOIA lawsuit aims to uncover exactly what Mr. Rosenstein’s role was in any discussions to overthrow President Trump.

I don’t have much use for Hollywood, but sometimes it ominously foreshadows reality.

Judicial Watch Files Ethics Complaint Against Congressman Adam Schiff

The plot deep within the Justice Department to bring down President Trump is but one of three legs: The DOJ/FBI maneuver has been given covering fire all along by the media, and it has been buttressed by members of the Congress, whose unhinged behavior has seriously eroded that institution’s credibility.

No one has been more eager to get in front of the cameras and spout knowingly false conspiratorcy theories than Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is, remarkably, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

We have now filed an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics about Rep. Schiff’s controversial communications and contacts with two congressional witnesses: Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer.

We are asking that Rep. Schiff be investigated in connection with recent revelations that he met with Simpson in Aspen, Colorado, in July 2018 and that he and his staff coordinated with Michael Cohen on Cohen’s recent testimony to congressional committees. Cohen’s testimony is alleged to be false in several important respects.

You will recall that we filed an ethics complaint on April 13, 2018, against Rep. Schiff and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) for improperly confirming classified information in violation of House rules but the Committee has yet to take any public action on the complaint.

Rep. Schiff has an ethics problem. His and his staff’s irregular communications with anti-Trump witnesses reflect poorly on the credibility of the House and its committees’ investigations. It has long been apparent that Rep. Schiff can’t be trusted to lead the Intelligence Committee, so we hope that Democrats on the Ethics Committee stop protecting Mr. Schiff and take action.

In our complaint we elaborate on our concerns:

Dear Chairman Skaggs,

Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. We regularly monitor congressional ethics issues as part of our anti-corruption mission.

This letter serves as our official complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) concerning the activities of Rep. Adam Schiff. Rep. Schiff appears to have violated House Code of Official Conduct, Rule 23, clauses 1 and 2, by inappropriately communicating with witnesses. Clauses 1 and 2 provide:

1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.

Rep. Adam Schiff attended the Aspen Security Forum conference in July 2018, which was also attended by Glenn Simpson, the founder of the firm Fusion GPS. Press reports have detailed evidence of a meeting and discussion between Rep. Schiff and Glenn Simpson at the July 2018 Aspen Security Forum. As noted in The Hill newspaper:

At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Fusion GPS is the political opposition research firm involved in procuring “unverified” information claiming the Trump presidential campaign had “colluded” with Russia, among other things. That Fusion GPS-supplied information was the basis upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

Mr. Simpson’s leadership of Fusion GPS and his centrality to events resulted in his having to testify before congressional committees or their staffs. Specifically, Mr. Simpson testified before the House Intelligence Committee, of which Rep. Schiff was the ranking Democratic member, on October 16, 2018 – approximately three (3) months after the Aspen Security Forum.

We note that following revelations in 2017 that Rep. Devin Nunes had informed President Trump that U.S. intelligence agencies had been engaging in “incidental collection” of his campaign’s communications, Rep. Schiff demanded that Rep. Nunes, then Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recuse himself from any investigations involving alleged Trump collusion with Russia. Indeed, Rep. Schiff wrote the following on twitter:

This is not a recommendation I make lightly … But in much the same way that the attorney general [Jeff Sessions] was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after failing to inform the Senate of his meetings with Russian officials, I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman.

Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi concurred with Rep. Schiff’s call for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself.

The July 2018 contacts between Rep. Schiff and Mr. Simpson create, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. As a result of Rep. Schiff’s previously undisclosed, private discussions with Mr. Simpson, the public’s confidence in Mr. Schiff’s ability to objectively and impartially carry out his duties as Committee Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been gravely damaged.

Further, Rep. Schiff’s contacts with Mr. Michael Cohen should also be scrutinized in the same light as the Simpson contacts. Journalists have reported:

President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen told House investigators this week that staff for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., traveled to New York at least four times to meet with him for over 10 hours immediately before last month’s high-profile public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the matter – as Republicans question whether the meetings amounted to coaching a witness.

The sources said the sessions covered a slew of topics addressed during the public hearing before the oversight committee – including the National Enquirer ‘s “Catch and Kill” policy, American Media CEO David Pecker and the alleged undervaluing of President Trump’s assets.

Again, Rep. Schiff’ s conduct creates the appearance of unethical collusion and synchronization of efforts that calls into question whether Cohen’s testimony was a legitimate congressional hearing or well-rehearsed political theatre.

During Mr. Cohen’s congressional testimony, he was questioned by Rep. Mike Turner concerning the number, nature and subject of his [Cohen’s] contacts with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rep Jim Jordan pressed Cohen on the subject in subsequent questioning. Cohen hesitantly acknowledged that he had spoken with Schiff “about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing.”

A pattern of conduct on the part of Rep. Schiff in these matters would exponentially increase the gravity of the prejudice and harm to the public’s confidence in the institution of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Schiff’s conduct and contacts with witnesses must be treated with the same gravity that Reps. Schiff and Pelosi accorded Rep. Nunes’s actions. Rep. Nunes recused himself for a time from certain oversight responsibilities with respect to the Russia-Trump investigations.

In the least, Rep. Schiff and his staff communications with Glenn Simpson and Michael Cohen, undermine the “credibility of the House” and its committee proceedings, especially given Mr. Cohen’s subsequent alleged false testimony.

We call upon the OCE to investigate Rep. Schiff and his previously undisclosed, inappropriate contact with key witnesses in congressional investigation over which that Member holds significant sway.

Thank you for your attention.

The ethics process in the House is a mess so I don’t expect something quickly to happen, but it is important that we put the House on official notice so no politician there has an excuse to let Adam Schiff ‘suntoward behavior slide.

Clinton Email Scandal Witness Testimony Begins

In January U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered senior Obama Administration officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – to respond under oath to our questions regarding Benghazi and the Clinton email scandal.

We now have a schedule for the depositions.

This court-ordered discovery comes in our July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

Remember that this lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

Our discovery will seek answers to:
Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.
The confirmed discovery schedule now includes:

March 12: State Department’s responses to interrogatories and document requests were due.

March 14: Deposition of Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton who reportedly had no security clearance and is believed to have played a key role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s non-government email system.

April 5: Deposition of John Hackett, a State Department records official “immediately responsible for responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.”

April 16: Deposition of Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff.

April 23: Deposition of Sheryl Walter, former State Department Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services.

April 26: Deposition of Gene Smilansky, a State Department lawyer.

April 30. Deposition of Monica Tillery, a State Department official.

May 7: Deposition of Jonathon Wasser, who was a management analyst on the Executive Secretariat staff. Wasser worked for Deputy Director Clarence Finney and was the State Department employee who actually conducted the searches for records in response to FOIA requests to the Office of the Secretary.

May 14: Deposition of Clarence Finney, the deputy director of the Executive Secretariat staff who was the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials.

June 11: 30(b)(6) Deposition, which will be designated by the State Department.

June 13: Deposition of Heather Samuelson, the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate the State Department’s receipt and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

As yet to be determined is the deposition date for Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell, who wrote a March 2, 2009, internal memorandum titled “Use of Blackberries on Mahogany Row,” in which he strongly advised that the devices not be allowed.

Written questions under oath are to be answered by:

Monica Hanley, Hillary Clinton’s former confidential assistant at the State Department.

Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

E.W. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

Susan Rice, President Obama’s former UN ambassador who appeared on Sunday television news shows following the Benghazi attacks, blaming a “hateful video.” Rice was also Obama’s national security advisor involved in the “unmasking” the identities of senior Trump officials caught up in the surveillance of foreign targets.

Ben Rhodes, an Obama-era White House deputy strategic communications adviser who attempted to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

We’re doing the heavy lifting in the Clinton email scandal, even as Congress dropped the ball and DOJ and State continued to obstruct our quest for the truth. The Court in our case wants real answers on the Clinton email scandal, which is why our request for basic discovery was granted.

Judicial Watch is #1 on FOIA!
Since 2001 we have led all nonprofit organizations in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, according to figures released late last year by The FOIA Project of Syracuse University.

We are announcing this in honor of “Sunshine Week,” March 10-16, which is an “annual nationwide celebration of access to public information.”

According to the FOIAproject.org’s most recent study, we were again No. 1 on the top ten list of most frequent Nonprofit/Advocacy Groups (Jan 21, 2001-July 2018) challenging federal government withholding in court and for the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

Overall Top 10 FOIA Filers (Jan 21, 2001 – July 2018)

Rank Plaintiff in FOIA Suit Number Filed
1. Judicial Watch 391
2. American Civil Liberties Union 130
3. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 94
4. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 88
5. Electronic Privacy Information Center 74
6. Natural Resources Defense Council 59
7. Center for Biological Diversity 47
8. Cause of Action Institute 44
9. American Oversight 43
10. Electronic Frontier Foundation 43

The FOIA Project “aims to: (1) create a shaming mechanism by which agencies and officials who ignore the law are held accountable, and (2) arm the public with the full record of FOIA efforts that have and haven’t worked, so anyone can more effectively surmount frequently used roadblocks to public access.”

We use the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to uncover misconduct by government officials and hold to account those who engage in corrupt activities. When agencies balk at releasing information that is of value to the public, we sue.

The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966 to improve public access to government records. The FOIA Project says there is wide agreement that the FOIA’s administrative process has many flaws, with federal agencies frequently resisting its mandates by either refusing to provide properly requested records or ignoring the requirements that the documents be made available within specified time periods.

The most-sued agency is the Department of Justice, which has been the defendant in 2,312 FOIA suits since 2001. Within the DOJ, the FBI has been the most sued division with 712 suits. We frequently clash with the DOJ and FBI in court, often in cases involving IRS malfeasance, the Clinton email scandal, and the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. Judicial Watch currently is pursuing 40 lawsuits against the DOJ.

We are the most important transparency watchdog organization in the country. For 25 years, we’ve led the way in holding the government to account as both the media and Congress have gone AWOL. Most of what we know about government corruption – from Clinton emails to Deep State abuses – are as a result of our historic FOIA lawsuits.

BAM! AND BAM AGAIN!

A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT, IS ALSO BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE AWAY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE

Thomas Jefferson