Obama State Dept Secretly Distributed Its Own “Dossier” To Undermine Trump, FOIA Docs Reveal

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Watchdog group Judicial Watch released 42 pages of heavily redacted State Department documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which reveal that the Obama State Department provided Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) a “dossier of classified information on Russia” in order to undermine President Trump, according to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“These documents show the Obama State Department under John Kerry gathered and sent its own dossier of classified information on Russia to Senator Ben Cardin, a political ally in the U.S. Senate, to undermine President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch will pursue information on who pulled this classified information, who authorized its release, and why was it evidently dumped just days before President Trump’s inauguration.”

The documents show Russian political interference in elections and politics in countries across Europe.

According to a March 2017 report in the Baltimore Sun: “Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin received classified information about Russia’s involvement in elections when the Obama administration was attempting to disseminate that material widely across the government in order to aid in future investigations, according to a report Wednesday … Obama officials were concerned, according to the report [in The New York Times], that the Trump administration would cover up intelligence once power changed hands.” –Judicial Watch

In March 2017, Former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, made some stunning admissions during an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski.

While discussing the mad scramble by the Obama administration to collect and preserve intelligence on alleged Russian election hacking before Obama left office, it appears that Farkas accidentally implicated the Obama White House in the surveillance of Trump’s campaign staff:

The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. –Evelyn Farkas

Furthermore, Farkas effectively corroborated the March New York Times article which cited “Former American officials” as their anonymous source regarding efforts to leak this surveillance on the Trump team to Democrats across Washington DC.

I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew they were trying to also get information to the hill.

That’s why you have the leaking. –Evelyn Farkas

Farkas resigned from the Obama administration in September of 2015 – begging the question as to how she knew so much about what the previous administration and intelligence community was up to.

Trump Tower

A section of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch is titled “Pro-Kremlin NGOs and Think Tanks,” refers to “the Russian government funded Caucasus Research Network, which helped to spread anti-EU and NATO reports throughout the region. Also discussed is the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative, which was founded by Natalia Veselnitskaya. The Initiative was reportedly “working to erode support for the Magnitsky Act (which imposes sanctions on … gross human rights violations). The organization screened an anti-Magnitsky film at Washington’s Newseum in June.”

Veselnitskaya infamously obtained a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. through associates of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, wherein she attempted to discuss the Magnitsky act before Trump Jr. shut down the meeting.

The Magnitsky Act attracted public attention earlier this year when it was reported Veselnitskaya obtained a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. with the purpose of seeking to undermine the act. It was reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to repeal the act at least in part because it targeted top Russian officials who had committed human rights violations and were the beneficiaries of a $230-million tax fraud that Magnitsky exposed. –Judicial Watch

View the Judicial Watch release below:

JW v State Cardin Documents 00852 7 by DanB on Scribd

Federal Court Order for FBI to Turn Over Comey Memos

Judicial Watch Statement on Federal Court Order for FBI to Turn Over Comey Memos for Court Review by Next Week

JANUARY 12, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding last night’s ruling by United States District Judge James E. Boasberg that the FBI must turn over to the court for in camera, non-public review former FBI Director James Comey’s memos allegedly detailing conversations he had with President Donald Trump:

The court, in seeking to review the documents, shows it doesn’t trust the FBI or Justice Department’s representations about the infamous Comey memos. We hope now that Americans are one step closer to knowing the facts about these memos, which were written and leaked for pernicious purposes to target a sitting president with a criminal investigation. It’s high time they begin to see the light of day. We’re glad the court followed up on our specific suggestion that it review the documents directly.

The court order tells the government to turn over the Comey memos for review by January 18. In doing so, the court rejects arguments by the Sessions Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuits seeking the Comey information.

Read more at Judicial Watch

 

 

The post Federal Court Order for FBI to Turn Over Comey Memos appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Judicial Watch Sues To Force Clean Up Of Rolls With More Voters Than Citizens

By  Rick Wells

Judicial Watch is suing to have a federal law requiring the maintenance of clean voter rolls and reporting of their status followed in California.

Judicial Watch revealed on Wednesday that they have filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California due to their failure to maintain clean voter rolls and to produce election-related documents which are required under the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The lawsuit was filed jointly by Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project, Inc, and 4 individuals lawfully registered to vote in Los Angeles County in US District Court.

The suit alleges that the State of California and eleven of its 58 counties, including Los Angeles, have more registered voters than they do age-eligible citizens. Los Angeles has a voter registration rate of 112%, clearly there is a problem with their voter rolls. Statewide the percentage is 101%.

Judicial Watch notes that a major contributing factor to the over-registration are inactive registrations, with California having the largest percentage of inactive registrations in the nation and Los Angeles County the highest in the state at over 20% of all registrations.

While one might think that inactive registrations, which are generally purged from rolls after two general federal elections, are no problem due to their inactive nature, the reality is that they can still be used to vote. California, in keeping with their policy of enabling voter fraud, such as with illegal alien driver’s licenses being part of “motor voter,” is refusing to clean up its rolls.

Judicial Watch notes that inactive registrations are “inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”

[snip]

Judicial Watch is asking that the court prohibit LA County and California from further violations of the law and order them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” Judicial Watch has also asked to inspect and copy the requested voter roll documents.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.”

Judicial Watch is also threatening similar actions in 11 other states with more voters than voting-age citizens, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Democrats have to have a way to win elections. Cheating,  lying, wealth redistribution and fraud are the only things that work for them.

Read more here.

 

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

The post Judicial Watch Sues To Force Clean Up Of Rolls With More Voters Than Citizens appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Judicial Watch President: "Forget Mueller," The Real Question Is "Do We Need To Shut Down The FBI?"

Echoing the thoughts that are undoubtedly running through the minds of many Americans following startling revelations of an "insurance policy" crafted by FBI agents Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok to prevent a Trump presidency at all costs (something we covered here: FBI Texts Reveal "Insurance Policy" To Prevent Trump Presidency), Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton appeared on Fox News last night to say it"s time to move beyond discussing whether or not it"s appropriate to shut down Special Counsel Mueller"s investigation and move on to consider whether it"s now time to consider shutting down the entire FBI after "it was turned into a KGB-type operation by the Obama administration?"

"Fusion GPS was a Hillary Clinton campaign vendor and the DOJ was working hand and glove with it...perhaps paying them money...the suspicion is they were paying them money...top DOJ official"s wife was working with them.  There was no distinction between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Department of Justice and the FBI."

 

"Forget about the FBI investigation into Clinton and Trump being compromised by these conflicts.  I think the FBI"s been compromised.  Forget about shutting down Mr. Mueller...do we need to shut down the FBI because it was turned into a KGB-type operation by the Obama administration?"

.@TomFitton: "I think the FBI"s been compromised. Forget about shutting down Mr. Mueller. Do we need to shut down the @FBI because it was turned into a KGB-type operation by the Obama administration?" pic.twitter.com/zBParrU9QJ

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 14, 2017

For those who missed it, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) did a masterful job during Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein"s hearing yesterday of summarizing all the DOJ/FBI conflicts which prove that Special Counsel Mueller"s probe is nothing but a farcical, politically-motivated witch hunt led by Obama/Clinton loyalists.  If you missed this exchange, it"s definitely worth a listen...

"We Need To Find That Guy": New Docs Reveal FBI Focus On Leaker In Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting

Back on June 29, 2016, Obama"s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, tried to convince us that the following "impromptu" meeting between herself and Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport, a private meeting which lasted 30 minutes on Lynch"s private plane, was mostly a "social meeting" in which Bill talked about his grandchildren and golf game.  It was not, under any circumstances, related to the statement that former FBI Director James Comey made just 6 days later clearing Hillary Clinton of any alleged crimes related to his agency"s investigation.

Now, newly released FBI emails obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, reveals that, in the days following Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton"s brazen display of government corruption, the FBI seemingly made no attempt to ascertain whether that meeting might have been conducted in an effort to undermine an ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton but rather focused on tracking down the whistleblower, allegedly a member of the Phoenix Police Department, for leaking details of the outrageous meeting. 

Per the following email chain sent on July 3, 2016, a pair of FBI agents discuss who might be responsible for alerting reporters of the now-infamous tarmac meeting with one of the agents saying "we need to find that guy and bring him [in]."

Meanwhile, another email chain goes so far as to label the leaker as a "security threat"...guess there is a fine line between "security threat" and "whistleblower"...and determining on which side of that line you fall just may depend on your political affiliation.

And here is an even larger blast, which appears to go to every FBI field office, that chastises agents for "violating the trust" of the Attorney General "in our team"...what if the Attorney General violates the trust of the entire American public by undermining an ongoing criminal investigation solely for political purposes?  Is that not an issue for the FBI?

And here is more targeting...

Of course, in light of all the leaks that have occurred since President Trump moved into the White House, we do wonder whether the FBI is pursuing each of them with the same vigor as they apparently pursued this Phoenix police officer...

Here is the full FOIA dump from Judicial Watch for your reading pleasure:

"The Cover-Up Begins To End": Judicial Watch Hints At Explosive New Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Docs

Back on June 29, 2016, Obama"s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, tried to convince us that the following "impromptu" meeting between herself and Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport, a private meeting which lasted 30 minutes on Lynch"s private plane, was mostly a "social meeting" in which Bill talked about his grandchildren and golf game.  It was not, under any circumstances, related to the statement that former FBI Director James Comey made just 6 days later clearing Hillary Clinton of any alleged crimes related to his agency"s investigation.

Not surprisingly, following the above media clip several concerned watchdog groups filed FOIA requests seeking any and all DOJ and/or FBI documents related to what was either (i) a really poorly timed meeting, in the best case, or (ii) a clear attempt by a former President of the United States to apply leverage over the current Attorney General to obstruct justice and get his wife elected President, in the worst case. 

After originally being told by the FBI there were no documents to produce in response to their July 2016 FOIA request, Judicial Watch"s Tom Fitton was subsequently told in October 2017 that the FBI had simply overlooked 30 pages worth of relevant docs...30 pages which Fitton now says will mark the "beginning of the end" of the DOJ"s "cover-up" when they"re released this Thursday.

FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow. @RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ.

FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow. @RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ. https://t.co/tytBp28sYL

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) November 28, 2017

Of course, Fitton expressed his frustration with the botched FOIA response back in October after describing the FBI as "out of control" and saying it"s "stunning that the FBI ‘found’ these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit."  Per Judicial Watch:

“The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI ‘found’ these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI’s document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately.”

 

This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI’s Clinton investigative file, although more than half of the records remain withheld.  The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by July 2018.

 

There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses and potential targets preferential treatment.

So what say you?  Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President, the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents that tell us precisely nothing.  We"ll let you know on Thursday.

A top investigator at Judicial Watch is warning…

By Dan Lyman    10-19-2017

A top investigator at Judicial Watch is warning that the United States is teetering on the verge of becoming a failed state, due to a virtually unaccountable federal government and profoundly corrupt deep state entity at its heart.

Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations and Research at the watchdog group, addressed the explosive developments and revelations pouring forth regarding the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice and their deep collaboration with the Russian government and business entities.

“We’ve gone so far beyond the pale – as a country, we have slid off the edge,” Farrell said. “It’s [the deep state] really a giant socialist organ operating, that protects itself – you see offense after offense, and you find out that laws are for the little people, the Clinton gang walks away.”

“People said, ‘Hey, where’s the Department of Justice investigation? Where’s the FBI?’ Half of the time, they’re complicit.”

Farrell addressed the dangerous nature of the on-going ‘Russian collusion’ witch hunt targeting the Trump administration, as it is essentially an inversion of justice that should have been exacted upon Obama administration officials, who have been embroiled in a scandal of epic proportions via the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia in a deal involving mass-scale bribery and money laundering – and likely more serious crimes such as espionage and treason, which the Sessions DOJ is now reportedly investigating.

“This is evidence that we are becoming a failed state, and I’m not exaggerating when I say that,” Farrell said. “We have a paralyzed Justice Department and FBI, we have key leaders either unwilling to do anything or they themselves are personally compromised – these are all symptoms or evidence of a failed state. That’s where we’re going, and we’re doing it fast.”

“This level of corruption… this is not an exaggeration – we are at the edge of becoming a failed state because there is no real accountability, there are no consequences, and the general public sees this. They know what’s going on.”

Sources are predicting a possible upcoming Wikileaks document dump that could put more nails in the Clinton coffin, revealing further evidence of Hillary’s deep ties to Russia and her involvement in election rigging – not President Trump.

Read more at NEWSWARS

Photo credit: Drew Angerer / Getty

 

The post A top investigator at Judicial Watch is warning… appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Expect Agenda-Advancing Activism from Anti-Gun Judge Reviewing Hillary Clinton Emails

Clinton-appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly thinks environmentalcase concerns trump your right to life. What are the odds she’ll give conservatives a legal boost against Hillary Clinton? (The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit)

“A federal judge in the nation’s capital will personally review redacted material from emails that discuss Hillary Clinton’s use of unsecure iPads and iPhones during her tenure as secretary of state,” WND.com reported. “Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will determine whether or not the Trump administration can withhold evidence that could shed light on accusations Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information.”

It’s part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch following the administration’s refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information Act Request. That means Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in protecting their fiefdoms, are also giving Clinton cover.

And in this case, be surprised if the judge doesn’t follow suit. It won’t be the first time a federal judge has done so.

Aside from being former Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which carries its own troubling Constitutional considerations), Kollar-Kotelly has shown herself to be a “progressive” activist when it comes to infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

She was the Bill Clinton-appointed judge (no conflict of interest there!) who – before Congress acted on a rider to a credit card bill to make it “legal” – ruled that a Bush administration rule to allow concealed carry in national parks could not be implemented until an environmental impact study had been conducted. She issued a preliminary injunction in a memorandum opinion siding with the Brady Campaign.

Put another way, she unilaterally decided your life and your rights were less important than the off-chance you might fire your gun in self-defense and accidentally threaten an endangered species animal, or perhaps cause other damage by adding a minuscule amount of lead to the environment. And that’s in spite of case after documented case of threats to life in national parks that were known at the time.

As an aside, the Obama administration enacted plenty of rules allowing for illegal aliens and “refugees” to come into the country and to spread their populations throughout. This causes very real additional environmental stresses and demands in terms of energy, water, food, resources, waste disposal, etc., and yet the influx has been added without a realistic assessment to let the American people know what their “leaders” are committing them to deal with.

The odds have to be greater than those of hitting a spotted owl during a defensive gun use.

It’s fair to wonder — if the Bradys had standing to sue over guns in parks — who would have standing to sue over the engineered invasion of foreign nationals? And to wonder if Kollar-Kotelly would find a contradictory rationale if “progressive” goals were at stake…?

Who wants to bet she’ll let Judicial Watch endanger Hillary?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

Retired FBI Agent Sues DOJ For Records On Contributions Made By A Clinton Ally To McCabe's Wife

Over the weekend, Judicial Watch announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the DOJ on behalf of retired special agent Jeffrey Danik seeking records related to roughly $700,000 in political contributions made by groups tied to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a long-time Clinton confidant, to the wife of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe...the same Andrew McCabe who was conveniently overseeing multiple Hillary Clinton investigations at the time and even oversaw components of her email investigation. Here"s more from Judicial Watch:

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28, 2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of interest” regarding his wife’s (Dr. Jill McCabe’s) political campaign, and McCabe’s reporting to the FBI of any job interviews or offers.  Specifically, the two FOIA requests seek:

Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,” “Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,” “Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,” “Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,” “Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or “New York Times.”

In 2015, a political action committee run by McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Jill McCabe, wife of McCabe, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate. Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI’s Washington, DC, field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit comes after Danik"s two previous FOIA requests went unanswered.  Meanwhile, Danik says he"s pursuing records on McCabe"s conflicts because he knows he"s "not the only retired (or serving) FBI special agent who is concerned about Mr. McCabe’s conflicts of interest on the Clinton email matter."

“I am saddened by how the FBI’s reputation has been tarnished by the poor judgement and ethics of its leadership,” stated Mr. Danik. “I know I’m not the only retired (or serving) FBI special agent who is concerned about Mr. McCabe’s conflicts of interest on the Clinton email matter.  The agency seems to be illegally hiding records about this scandal, which is why I’m heading to court with Judicial Watch.”

“We’re honored to help Mr. Danik hold accountable the FBI—the agency he served for decades,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We believe Mr. McCabe’s text messages and emails will be particularly enlightening to the public seeking answers about the Clinton email debacle.”

Of course, for those who haven"t followed Andrew McCabe so closely, this is the same former Acting FBI Director who is also being investigated for sexual harassment and violations of the Hatch Act (see:  "FBI Director McCabe Subject Of Three Separate Federal Inquiries Into Alleged Misconduct: Report").

A couple of days ago we noted that, according to a report from Circa, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe may have made a serious error by refusing to recuse himself from the Michael Flynn investigation.  As it turns out, per court documents reviewed by Circa, McCabe may have harbored a personal vendetta against Flynn after he intervening on behalf of an FBI Special Agent, Robyn Gritz, who had accused McCabe and other top FBI officials of sexual discrimination.  Apparently the lack of inter-agency camaraderie didn"t sit well with McCabe as other FBI agents subsequently confirmed that his complete disdain for Fylnn was readily apparent.

But, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), McCabe"s apparent conflict of interest in the Flynn investigation may not be his only issue these days as he"s also the subject of an ongoing investigation for an alleged violation of the Hatch Act for illegally campaigning in his wife"s Virginia Senate race.  Per Circa:

Gritz also filed a complaint against McCabe with the main federal whistleblower agency in April, alleging social media photos she found show he campaigned for his wife’s Virginia state senate race in violation of the Hatch Act.

FBI employees are held to a higher standard than other federal workers under the Hatch Act and may not “endorse or oppose a candidate for partisan political office or a candidate for political party office in a political advertisement, broadcast, campaign literature, or similar material if such endorsement or opposition is done in concert with a candidate, political party, or partisan political group.”

The OSC told Circa  that complaint is still being actively investigated.

For those who aren"t familiar, this is the same Senate race in which McCabe"s wife, Jill McCabe, took nearly $500,000 from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to fund her campaign.  Of course, Terry McAuliffe is a long-time confidant of the Clinton family and was rumored as a potential running mate for Hillary.  All of which was apparently overlooked when former FBI Director James Comey allowed McCabe to participate in the investigation of Hillary"s email scandal.

And just when you thought McCabe"s issues couldn"t get much worse, Circa notes that the Justice Department Inspector General is also investigating allegations from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley that McCabe may not have properly disclosed campaign payments to his wife on his ethics report.

You may be good but you"re no Clinton, Mr. McCabe.

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Release Names Of Specific Employees That Targeted Tea Party Groups

Remember Lois Lerner?  If not, she was basically the person that Obama put in charge of weaponizing the IRS so that it could be used by the Democratic party as a political weapon of mass destruction to suppress Tea Party groups back in 2012.  Ring any bells yet?

Well, as a testament to the efficiency of our legal system, it turns out that the case is still ongoing some 5 years later.  Of course, this has to be a simple bureaucracy issue because there is no way that the Obama administration, you know, the only scandal-free White House in modern history, played any role in delaying the completely transparent transmission of information about this shocking threat to our Democracy...just ask CNN...we"re sure they"ll confirm the same.

Be that as it may, after years of litigation over what conservatives have long called “chilling” behavior by one of the government’s “most feared” agencies, a federal judge has finally ordered the IRS to release the names of specific employees involved in targeting Tea Party groups in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election. Per Fox News:

Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also said the IRS must provide information about which groups were targeted and why, along with a strategy to make sure such targeting doesn"t happen again.

The IRS is involved in multiple lawsuits with conservative groups related to the Tea Party targeting scandal; this particular case involves True the Vote.

“We’re thrilled the judge has taken this step and it feels good to have it recognized that they need to be held to account,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht told Fox News on Monday. “What happened to me was very personal—my name was thrown around the IRS, and the names of the people involved need to be known. What they did was criminal.”

Of course, as Judicial Watch"s Chris Farrell notes, this single court decision managed to accomplish more in getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal than the Obama administration and Congress did in multiple years. 

But director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch Chris Farrell, whose organization is also involved in litigation with the IRS on this issue, told Fox News that the IRS owes litigants “real accountability.”

“This was creepy, chilling stuff,” Farrell told Fox News.  

“Judge Walton has accomplished more with one ruling than all of the rest of the federal government - all three branches - over the last six years.”

Farrell added: “The IRS is one of the most feared government agencies, and they’ve gotten a pass, in part. Walton is looking for real accountability and that’s so important.”

That said, we"re certain that if we failed to pay taxes for 6 years that the IRS would be equally understanding.

U.S. Has 3.5 Million More Registered Voters Than Live Adults - A Red Flag For Electoral Fraud

Via Investors.com,

American democracy has a problem - a voting problem.

According to a new study of U.S. Census data, America has more registered voters than actual live voters. It"s a troubling fact that puts our nation"s future in peril.

The data come from Judicial Watch"s Election Integrity Project. The group looked at data from 2011 to 2015 produced by the U.S. Census Bureau"s American Community Survey, along with data from the federal Election Assistance Commission.

As reported by the National Review"s Deroy Murdock, who did some numbers-crunching of his own, "some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America"s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud."

Murdock counted Judicial Watch"s state-by-state tally and found that 462 U.S. counties had a registration rate exceeding 100% of all eligible voters. That"s 3.552 million people, who Murdock calls "ghost voters." And how many people is that? There are 21 states that don"t have that many people.

Nor are these tiny, rural counties or places that don"t have the wherewithal to police their voter rolls.

California, for instance, has 11 counties with more registered voters than actual voters. Perhaps not surprisingly — it is deep-Blue State California, after all — 10 of those counties voted heavily for Hillary Clinton.

Los Angeles County, whose more than 10 million people make it the nation"s most populous county, had 12% more registered voters than live ones, some 707,475 votes. That"s a huge number of possible votes in an election.

But, Murdock notes, "California"s San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138% registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters."

State by state, this is an enormous problem that needs to be dealt with seriously. Having so many bogus voters out there is a temptation to voter fraud. In California, where Hillary Clinton racked up a massive majority over Trump, it would have made little difference.

But in other states, and in smaller elections, voter fraud could easily turn elections. A hundred votes here, a hundred votes there, and things could be very different. As a Wikipedia list of close elections shows, since just 2000 there have been literally dozens of elections at the state, local and federal level decided by 100 votes or fewer.

And, in at least two nationally important elections in recent memory, the outcome was decided by a paper-thin margin:

In 2000, President Bush beat environmental activist and former Vice President Al Gore by just 538 votes.

Sen. Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, won his seat by beating incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman in 2008. Coleman was initially declared the winner the day after the election, with a 726-vote lead over Franken. But after a controversial series of recounts and ballot disqualifications, Franken emerged weeks later with a 225-seat victory.

Franken"s win was enormous, since it gave Democrats filibuster-proof control of the Senate. So, yes, small vote totals matter.

We"re not saying here that Franken cheated, nor, for that matter, that Bush did. But small numbers can have an enormous impact on our nation"s governance. The 3.5 million possible fraudulent ballots that exist are a problem that deserves serious immediate attention. Nothing really hinges on it, of course, except the integrity and honesty of our democratic elections.

California Has 11 Counties With More Registered Voters Than Voting-Age Citizens

The Election Integrity Project California provides a list of 11 California counties that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

In addition, Los Angeles County officials informed the project that “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

Dear Secretary Padilla:

From public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey (“EAVS”), and through verbal accounts from various county agencies, eleven (11) counties in California have more total registered voters than citizen voting age population (CVAP) calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey. This is strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA.

This letter serves as statutory notice that Election Integrity Project California, Inc., a registered non-profit corporation in California, and Judicial Watch, Inc., will bring a lawsuit against you and, if appropriate, against the counties named in this letter, if you do not take specific actions to correct these violations of Section 8 within 90 days.

The following information explains how we determined that your state and the counties named are in violation of NVRA Section 8 and the remedial steps that must be taken to comply with the law.

1. Eleven California Counties Have More Total Registered Voters Than Citizen Voting Age Population

Based on our review of 2016 EAC EAVS report, the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California total active and total inactive voter registration records, California is failing to comply with the voter registration list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA. For example, a comparison of the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California active and inactive voter registration records shows there were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). Our own research shows that the situation in these counties is, if anything, worse than the foregoing data suggest. For example, we contacted Los Angeles County directly this past June. At that time, county officials informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.

2. The NVRA Requires You to Undertake Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Accurate Lists of Eligible Registered Voters

3. Failure to Comply with NVRA Subjects You to Lawsuits and Financial Costs

In passing the NVRA, Congress authorized a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the NVRA, including Section 8. Accordingly, private persons may bring a lawsuit under the NVRA if the violations identified herein are not corrected within 90 days of receipt of this letter.

4. Avoiding Litigation

We hope you will promptly initiate efforts to comply with Section 8 so that no lawsuit will be necessary. We ask you and, to the extent that they wish to respond separately, each county identified in this letter, to please respond to this letter in writing no later than 30 days from today informing us of the compliance steps you are taking. Specifically, we ask you to: (1) conduct or implement a systematic, uniform, nondiscriminatory program to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of a change in residence; and (2) conduct or implement additional routine measures to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.

5. Production of Records

Finally, pursuant to your obligations under the NVRA,15 your office and, to the extent that they keep records separately from your office, each county named in this letter, should make available to us all pertinent records concerning “the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency” of California’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years. Please include these records with your response to this letter.

I hope that the concerns identified in this letter can be resolved amicably. However, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against you may be necessary. We look forward to receiving your prompt response.

Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
s/ Robert D. Popper
Robert D. Popper
Attorney, Judicial Watch, Inc.

Judicial Watch Sends Legal Notice on Behalf of Election Integrity Project CA

Santa Clarita, CA. August 4, 2017

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla. You may see Judicial Watch’s letter to the Secretary of State here .

The letter is sent on behalf of the Election Integrity Project California, Inc., as well as 21 individual registered California voters. The letter noted that 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). The letter also noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

 

Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote. The letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said that there is “strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA.”

Judicial Watch is a nationally renowned government watchdog organization that has had prior success in litigating NVRA lawsuits in Ohio and Indiana. In 2014, they entered into a settlement agreement in Ohio forcing them to remove voters who were no longer eligible to vote. In April, Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens.

 
Now, Judicial Watch is taking their fight to California. We at Election Integrity Project California are thrilled that through this process with Judicial Watch we can begin to honor the efforts of thousands of volunteers who believe in the electoral system established by America’s founders and who have volunteered with us to restore the integrity of elections in California.

 
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton commented that “California’s voting rolls are an absolute mess that undermines the very idea of clean elections. It is urgent that California take reasonable steps to clean up its rolls. We will sue if state officials fail to act.”

The Secretary of State now has 90 days to ensure that they are maintaining voter rolls in accordance with section 8 of the NVRA. We at the Election Integrity Project California are proud to be part of this project to ensure that citizens of California can again be confident in the integrity of the voter rolls.

Please contact Judicial Watch with questions with questions about the letter.

Please contact the Election Integrity Project California if you would like to get involved.

Thank you to all the volunteers who have worked tirelessly for almost 7 years with the goal of restoring fair and honest elections!

 

.

FOIA Request On Susan Rice"s Unmaskings Rejected Because "Records Were Moved To Obama Library"

Back in April, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of “the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team” by Obama"s National Security Advisor Susan Rice.  Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years." 

Here is the full letter received from the National Secruity Council:

"Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library.  You may send your request to the Obama Library.  However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office."

 

Here was Judicial Watch"s full request:

1.) Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following:

 

• Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.


• The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.


• Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government.


• The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.

 

2.) Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response to any request described in part 1 of this request.

 

3.) Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.

Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that he gets booted from office in 2020.  Even better, as The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.

Obama Holdouts In Trump Administration Hiding Hillary Emails

Ginni Thomas  5-20-2017

Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton is astounded: The Trump officials he finds working on Freedom of Information cases he files are still, typically, Obama holdovers.

Those holdovers, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation, are telling Judicial Watch it will be years before it can get former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. “Frankly,” Fitton told TheDCNF, “we should be waiting just a few months for them to get their act together.”

Trump should take the point of view that the government belongs to Americans– and its agencies need to tell the people what they are up to, Fitton said. “If there is no good reason for withholding information, give it to them and give it to them quickly.”

Trump should embrace “extreme transparency,” for his administration — as well as for former President Barack Obama’s administration. Americans would benefit by knowing more about what Obama did and what he obstructed from the public while in government. Fitton is especially interested in Obama’s alleged spying on candidate Trump and other political opponents.

Fitton is losing patience with politicians. Citizens, he declared, “don’t have to take it from the politicians. They work for you. You don’t work for them.”

Read more, plus video interview, at The Daily Caller 

Trump Administration attempts to make Benghazi documents exempt from disclosure

Is Trump privy to the ruling or did the deep state gatekeep?

(INTELLIHUB) — Judicial watch President Tom Fitton says his organization filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to the Benghazi debacle, specifically in regards to emails that Hillary Clinton received from Fmr. President Barack Obama about what happen at Benghazi, before the Trump Administration asked the court to reconsider its ruling in an effort to keep the documents classified.

Fitton says that the emails came from Clinton’s system and were not classified, however, the Justice Department and the State Department do not want them out.

“Either way, we want to find out exactly what went on with this classification issue,” the Judicial Watch president said. “But I can tell you it’s disappointing to fight the Trump Administration on this issue.”

Fitton says that he “can’t imagine” that President Trump knows about this issue and feels that it’s likely the deep state acting as a gatekeeper to the info.

“We are getting the pushback from the Justice Department and the State Department being run by appointees of President Trump,” Fitton said. “We are going to fight this in court.”

H/T: Avalon

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Tom Fitton: Comey has repeatedly and improperly protected Clinton and her top people

Will a new investigation be opened?

(INTELLIHUB) — Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton appeared on a Breitbart News Daily broadcast recently to expose how Fmr. F.B.I. Director James Comey has helped to protect Hillary Clinton and her top people from an indictment.

“The scandal is that the F.B.I. investigation was half-baked,” Fitton said.

Fitton says that the investigation against Hillary Clinton needs to be reopened.

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

New York Towns, Cities Follow AG's Order To Ignore Sessions, Adopt Illegal Alien Sanctuary Laws

Via Judicial Watch,

Weeks after the chief law enforcement official in New York State issued “legal guidance” to help municipalities provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants, nearly a dozen have followed through with the attorney general’s order to skirt federal law. The goal, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is to provide local governments with a tool to “protect their immigrant communities, regardless of new federal enforcement practices.” Those that have followed Schneiderman’s directive range from sleepy towns like Newburgh to larger cities such as Rochester as well as Albany, the state capital.

Schneiderman issued the decree in response to the Trump administration’s proposed immigration enforcement policies. The document states that its purpose it to describe the legal landscape governing the participation of local authorities in immigration enforcement and to “assist local authorities that wish to become sanctuary jurisdictions by offering model language that can be used to enact local laws or policies that limit participation in immigration enforcement activities.” Utilizing so-called “model language” has become a key tool for sanctuary cities, counties and states that want to avoid losing federal funds under new Trump administration measures that punish local governments for not cooperating with federal authorities. Just last month Judicial Watch reported on a California town that found a creative way to implement a stealth sanctuary policy with “model language” that avoids using certain trigger words.

New York stands out because it’s the only state in which the top law enforcement authority, a veteran elected official, is actively encouraging and assisting local governments to violate the law. Some have faced resistance from citizens, though the majority have passed stealth sanctuary measures with little opposition since Schneiderman launched his campaign to protect illegal aliens in the Empire State. In the upscale town of Irvington, situated about 20 miles from Manhattan, the Board of Trustees issued a Statement of Tolerance days after the 2016 presidential election to guarantee that people of all races, religions, orientations and countries of origin are safe within its boundaries. “It seems there are many in our nation who are not currently feeling welcome nor safe,” the statement reads. “We want everyone to know that the Irvington Board of Trustees will never tolerate discrimination of any kind in our Village.” The city lists a phone number of the local police and encourage anyone who witnesses “any form of discrimination or intimidation” to call immediately.

Last month Irvington unanimously passed a resolution making it a sanctuary city and lawmakers credit the attorney general’s legal guidance. Now the mayor and several trustees are used as propaganda by the attorney general’s office to promote more illegal alien sanctuaries in the state. In a statement issued by the attorney general, Irvington Mayor Brian Smith says this: “We relied on the guidance of the AG’s office in crafting the wording of the resolution, which has the complete support of our police department. Irvington proudly stands as the first Westchester municipality to pass such a resolution and looks forward to having others step forward.” Under the new measure, which reportedly will soon be adapted by other communities in the county, Irvington will not honor detainer requests from federal immigration enforcement agencies.

One Irvington resident who continues challenging the sanctuary measure is an attorney who argues that the village is protecting criminals and endangering the lives of citizens. Her name is Lauri Regan and she reminds Irvington lawmakers in writing about a recent Maryland case in which two illegal immigrants raped a 14-year-old girl in a high school bathroom. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for one of the rapists but, because Montgomery County offers illegal immigrants sanctuary, it was ignored. Regan fears the same will occur in her hometown of Irvington. In one electronic mail Irvington Mayor Brian Smith tells Regan that he fails to see a link between the Maryland case and the new Irvington policy and in another he writes that “we do not want undocumented immigrants to fear interacting with our police department.”

Put Up Or Shut Up: Judicial Watch Sues FBI, NSA, CIA For Flynn Records

As we noted previously, given the FBI has already "cleared" Flynn, the only possible path for escalation from here by the deep state, is to leak the actual recorded calls to the press, thus "proving" Flynn lied, assuming of course, he did.

Furthermore, as Mike Krieger recently raged, the public should demand the Flynn transcripts

...How do we know what was really said without the transcript? The New York Times tells us...

"During the Christmas week conversation, he urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions — it was an open secret in Washington that they were in the works — by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material. Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions. Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser."

I have so many issues with the above reporting it’s hard to know where to start. Everything mentioned above is given to us secondhand via “anonymous American officials.” Nowhere do I see any specific quotes from the transcript, despite the fact that the paper admits it talked with federal officials who read it. Why not? Why must we hear about the content of the transcripts secondhand from anonymous officials? This is the most significant red flag with this whole story. If the leakers were truly interested in transparency, and wanted the public to know the truth, why not leak the transcript to Wikileaks and let the public decide?

I’ll tell you why. They didn’t do this because transparency was never the goal here. They wanted to illegally use intelligence information to take a scalp from a Trump administration they hate, and they knew they could do this via mainstream media journalists. I know what you’re thinking, Edward Snowden didn’t leak everything to Wikileaks either. He likewise picked a few journalists and trusted them to responsibly report the information. How is this any different?

It’s different in two important respects. First, we are talking about a single transcript, or a few transcripts, as opposed to the enormous intelligence data-dump that Snowden provided. Secondly, The Intercept and others who reported on the Snowden material provided a huge amount of primary source documentation for the public to see so that it could come to its own conclusion.

They didn’t simply tell everyone what to think about leaked documents while refusing to share any actual content. Where are the specific, comprehensive quotes from the Flynn transcript? Why doesn’t the public have a right to see the entire thing? Instead, we are being told what happened and what to think via secondhand anonymous sources. Sorry, but this doesn’t cut it for me.

I have yet to see any excerpts from the transcript. All I’ve seen is what anonymous officials say was discussed. This is absurd. We the people should demand the content of the relevant transcripts so we can decide for ourselves just how bad Flynn’s actions were. In the absence of this, we’re essentially being manipulated on a massive scale by rogue intelligence agents and told what to think through the major newspapers. This doesn’t cut it for me. I want to see the content of these conversations so I can make up my own mind. Perhaps it’s even worse than we know. So be it. We should be treated as adults and allowed to see the actual conversation if it’s going to be made into a story of such huge national importance.

Today, absent any adults in the room, we learn that conservative watchdog Judicial Watch is planning to sue several government agencies if they do not hand over records related to the wiretapping of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The group filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the records weeks ago but are planning to sue by next week for the records if they do not receive anything by then.

Judicial Watch filed the requests with the FBI, NSA, CIA, and Treasury Department, according to the group’s Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell. Below is a tweet from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on the National Security Advisor scandal.

The unprecedented FBI/DOJ investigation of Flynn and @realDonaldTrump transition reeks of corruption. @JudicialWatch investigating.

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 14, 2017

Additionally, Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations and Research, had the following to say about the wire tapping of Flynn.

READ THIS to cut thru the Flynn hysteria & smear campaign: The CIA really is out to get General Flynn https://t.co/WjlyUgmP0T

— Chris Farrell (@cjtfarrell) February 13, 2017

Furthermore, In an article titled “DOJ is also a target of President Trump’s probe into leaks” by the publication Circa, Chris Farrell was quoted saying,

"it would be a very narrow universe of persons who would have had access to that classified material. Even the number of persons who would have access should be definable. That sort of communication intelligence, or comment collection activity is very specific. The list of people is narrow."

Rest assured, Judicial Watch is committed to uncovering the truth and holding those individuals accountable who may have broken the law.

One way or another the "leaking" intelligent officials need to "put up or shut up" with their Flynn allegations - leak (or release to JW) the transcript or stop the fake news supposition.

New Government Audit Warns Of "Elevated" Terrorism Threat To US From Mexico

Via Judicial Watch,

A new government audit confirms what Judicial Watch has been reporting for years, that Islamic terrorists are operating in Mexican border towns and infiltrating the United States to carry out attacks.

In a report issued this month by the Texas Department of Public Safety, the agency notes that the state faces a full spectrum of threats and “due to the recent actions of lone offenders or small groups affiliated with or inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other foreign terrorist organizations, we assess that the current terrorism threat to Texas is elevated.”

Safety officials in the Lone Star State also write in the 86-page document that they are “especially concerned about the potential for terrorist infiltration across the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly as foreign terrorist fighters depart Syria and Iraq and enter global migration flows.” They also express worries about Syrian refugees that have been sent to Texas under President Obama’s settlement program because the government doesn’t have a system to properly vet them. Judicial Watch has also reported extensively on that national security crisis. Read the latest stories here and here. “We see a potential that these challenges may leave the state exposed to extremist actors who pose as authentic refugees, and who are determined to later commit violent acts,” the Texas report states.

In the same manner that ISIS deployed operatives to their targets in European capitals, the terrorist group could implement the same tactics to infiltrate operatives across the Texas-Mexico border, the new report points out. “Human smugglers, working along established Latin American routes, have long transported Syrians, Iraqis and other immigrations from countries where terrorist groups operate to our land border with Mexico,” Texas safety officials write in the report. The U.S. government calls them Special Interest Aliens (SIA) and in past few years they have come from Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt and many other “countries of interest” in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia where terrorist groups are active.

The southern border has become a hotbed of Islamic terrorism in recent years and Judicial Watch has exposed the national security disaster as part of an ongoing investigation into the dangerously porous region. In 2015 Judicial Watch reported that Mexican drug cartels are smuggling SIAs from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso. Sources on both sides of the border confirmed to Judicial Watch that the smugglers use remote farm roads—rather than interstates—to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers. Once they clear the border, the SIAs are transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road – Highway 20. Then the SIAs wait for pick-up in the area’s sand hills just across Highway 20.

Also in 2015 Judicial Watch broke a story about ISIS operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Judicial Watch’s sources include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector who also revealed that another ISIS cell is located to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas. A year earlier Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, implemented increased security measures following a Judicial Watch report about an Islamic terrorist plot in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juárez to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED).