Category Archives: Justice

Nothing New About Parkland School Massacre. FBI Has Been Criminally Negligent In Almost All Of America’s Major Terrorist Attacks.

Ethics, Government, GUNS, Homeland Security, Internet, Justice, Law

The FBI, now investigating POTUS, was criminally negligent or criminally culpable in almost all of America’s major terrorist attacks and, not surprisingly, in the Florida Parkland School massacre, too. Patrick Pool, national security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia, coined the phrase Known Wolf just for the FBI’s feats of incompetence.

However, as far as I can recall, this is the first time this rogue agency has admitted to some wrongdoing.

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida

On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Another Florida-based mass murderer, Omar Mateen, practically begged the FBI to put him on their terror watch list. FBI refused. Director James Comey thought Mateen was too wholesome looking. Blood on their hands. See “Let The Gun Market Close Government Loopholes“:

It transpires a friend of Orlando mass murderer Omar Saddiqui Mateen had done his duty and reported Mateen to the FBI. Mohammed A. Malik had also worshiped at the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce and had become alarmed when Mateen openly professed to an infatuation with the videos of Yemeni Jihadi Anwar al-Awlaki. Not only did the FBI discount Malik’s report, but when Malik softened his assessment of the danger his friend posed to others—a natural human tendency—the FBI acted post haste on that assessment.
In mitigation of the FBI’s decision to back-off Mateen, Director James Comey even cited Malik’s good reference. Better that FBI agents watch reruns of CBS’s Criminal Minds, than follow FBI Standard Operating Procedure, dictated by the Obama administration. Taxpayers would be safer.
The mad farrago got more maddening when Attorney General Loretta Lynch (confirmed by Republican lickspittles) stepped up to assure the public that federal authorities were scouring their contacts with Mateen, and those around him, to ferret out whether they’d missed anything. When grilled about Mateen’s wife, a key figure in the investigation and a possible co-conspirator, Lynch replied that Noor Salman was … missing.

What did the FBI do in response to Nikolas Cruz? Double down on Russia, of course. For which CNN’s Evan Pérez expressed his gratitude. Perez sure tapped into what Americans are thinking when he confessed to breathed a sigh of relief because … the best of the FBI just caught dem Russian bots, although the agents missed Florida shooter Nikolas Cruz (Perez added as an after thought).

“Unwitting Individuals”: Is This A Mueller Dimwitted Phrase For “Innocent, But I Want Trump To Look Guilty”?

Criminal Injustice, Donald Trump, Ethics, Justice, Propaganda, Russia

“Unwitting individuals”: Is this a Robert Mueller dimwitted phrase for innocent? Mueller doesn’t want to exonerate President Trump of all charges, or clear his campaign of wrongdoing in the Russia-collusion case, so he throws out a murky phrase.

Mueller Indicts 13 Russian Nationals Involved In Election Interference“:

A federal grand jury issued indictments Friday for 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies suspected of interfering in the 2016 election, the special counsel’s office announced.

According to the indictment, signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Russian nationals began conspiring as early as 2014 to interfere “with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

Part of the scheme involved defendants posing as Americans and communicating “with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.” …

MORE.

Russian Trolls Indicted.

The Malevolent Matriarchy Is Gunning For John Kelly

Celebrity, Culture, Donald Trump, Feminism, Gender, Justice, Law

NEW COLUMN, “The Malevolent Matriarchy Is Gunning For John Kelly,” is now on WND.COM. Yes, the “Kushner-Cohn Democrats” who ousted Bannon are now after the chief of staff. 

An excerpt:

What would Joan Rivers (allegedly) say about Rob Porter?

Until her untimely death, the iconic comedienne was a personality that had somehow lived on into our post-personality era.

Until his #MeToo ex-wives began baying for his blood, Mr. Porter, as good as dead politically, was President Trump’s White House staff secretary.

If the irreverent Rivers were alive today, she’d most certainly joke about Porter, the man upon whom America’s deranged matriarchy has descended:

“They should rehire Rob Porter. He is now the most vetted man in the world.”

“No wonder Porter didn’t punch his new paramour, Hope Hicks. Did you see what a knockout she is?”

In the true sense of the word, a personality is an individual with an originality and a distinctness of character and thought—a definition that precludes every member of the joyless matriarchy hammering away at the foundations of a civilized, Anglo-American society: the notion that a man defamed in the court of public opinion has the right to defend himself and confront his accusers; that there are often at least two sides to a story, and that relationships are complex and reciprocal, irreducible to the rigid, one-sided scripts enforced by certain vicious and vindictive womenfolk.

Or, “peoplefolk,” as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would say. Included among America’s malevolent matriarchy are legions of domesticated menfolk. But the liliths, especially, faces contorted, are those screeching at us from the television daily. They want White House Chief of Staff John Kelly gone. For he is alleged to have covered for Porter, calling him “a man of true integrity.” Now Porter’s wives swear he is a potential O. J. Simpson.

Kelly is a retired United States Marine Corps general. His son, First Lieutenant Robert Michael Kelly, was killed in Afghanistan, in 2010. While President Barack Obama had not called Gen. Kelly to offer condolences, President Trump did phone the parents of four young men lost under his leadership, in Niger, in October of 2017.

For his inarticulate but well-meaning effort, the president came under vicious attack from Frederica Wilson, congresswoman for life, it would seem, from South Florida. A Maxine Waters with a cowboy hat.

“All hat and no cattle,” quipped Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deliciously. The White House’s press secretary walked away unscathed. But a “good old white boy” like Kelly dare not assign a black matriarch like Wilson to “the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise.” …

… READ THE REST. “The Malevolent Matriarchy Is Gunning For John Kelly” is now on WND.COM.   

Donald Trump’s Judicial Appointments: His Most Enduring Legacy

Conservatism, Constitution, Donald Trump, Justice, Law

“Everything else could in theory be reversed. [Trump’s] effect on the law will be profound,” writes The Economist:

.. No president has confirmed more federal appellate judges (12) in his first year than Donald Trump. He has also seen six federal district-court judges confirmed, and one Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch. Another 47 nominees await confirmation; 102 more federal judgeships remain open for Mr Trump to fill. With two of the Supreme Court’s liberal justices, and its one unpredictable member (Anthony Kennedy) aged 79 or older, the president may get to name another justice, cementing the Court’s conservative bent.

Mr Trump’s tax reform, penchant for deregulation and foreign-policy direction could all be reversed by the next president. But because federal judges serve for life, the largely young conservatives whom Mr Trump has placed on the bench will have an impact on American life and law that long outlasts his administration.

The federal judiciary is organised into 12 regional circuits and the nine-member Supreme Court. Around 400,000 cases are filed yearly in the federal system, which has around 1,700 judges. Each of these circuits has several district courts (there are 94 in all), which hear civil and criminal federal cases, and one appellate court (there are 13: one for each circuit and the appellate court for the federal circuit), which hears appeals against decisions made by federal district courts and agencies. Because the Supreme Court hears so few cases, federal appellate courts define most contested matters of federal law.

Every president leaves his mark on the federal bench, but Mr Trump’s will be larger than most, for two reasons. First, Senate Republicans confirmed fewer judges in Barack Obama’s last two years (22) than in any two-year period since 1951-52. Mr Obama left office with 107 federal judgeships still vacant—including Mr Gorsuch’s seat, held open because Senate Republicans refused to give Merrick Garland, Mr Obama’s nominee, a hearing. This was more than twice the number George W. Bush had at his presidency’s end. Second, in 2013 Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for lower-court nominees, which means judges can be confirmed with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 required to break a filibuster. For many conservatives, this opportunity alone—rather than fear of letting Hillary Clinton exploit it—justified their support for Mr Trump.

He has not disappointed. …

… Mr Trump has nominated orthodox conservatives whom the Republican-controlled Senate has happily confirmed.

During his campaign, Mr Trump promised that the judges he nominated would be “all picked by the Federalist Society”, America’s leading organisation of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Many of his nominees have ties to the group, as do Mr Gorsuch and Don McGahn, the president’s counsel. Mr McGahn told a Federalist Society gathering in November that the administration wanted to nominate “strong and smart judges…committed originalists and textualists [who] possess the fortitude to enforce the rule of law”. Mr Trump’s nominees, he crowed, “all have paper trails…there is nothing unknown about them.”

That list of qualities contains subtle digs at the two types of judges conservatives want to avoid. The first, embodied by David Souter, whom George H.W. Bush appointed, is the nominee with a thin record on constitutional issues who turns liberal on the bench. John Roberts, the current chief justice, exemplifies the second type: many conservatives deride him as a squishy institutionalist who caved in to public pressure when he twice voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

The maturing of the conservative legal movement, which was in its infancy when Mr Bush picked Mr Souter in 1990, and the strength of its pipeline and networks, has made wild-card nominees less likely, particularly under Mr Trump, who appears happy to be guided by the “Federalist people”. That does not mean, of course, that presidents know how judges will vote on each issue for ever. But Republican judicial nominees share a legal philosophy that is sceptical of executive and federal power and inclined towards “originalism”, which interprets the constitution’s meaning narrowly, as it would have been understood when it was written.

The Economist: “Donald Trump’s judicial appointments may prove his most enduring legacy.”