Lynch clashes with Comey, says she never told him to call Clinton email probe a ‘matter’

The question is not who’s lying. They all are in one point way or another. The question is who decides to cut their losses first in the attempt to keep out of jail.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied that she instructed former FBI Director James Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation,” as Mr. Comey had claimed in 2017.

Mr. Comey had testified that Ms. Lynch instructed him to refer to the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server – a major issue in the 2016 presidential race – as a “matter,” rather than an investigation.

But Ms. Lynch told House investigators that’s not true.

“I did not,” she said in December 2018, according to a transcript from an interview with congressional investigators that was released on Monday. “I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will.”

Mr. Comey had testified to lawmakers in 2017 that Ms. Lynch directed him to call it a “matter” rather than an “investigation,” saying the request confused and concerned him.

“That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly,” he said, saying the language troubled him because it was similar to how the Clinton campaign was describing the case.

Trump Plans To Invoke Insurrection Act To Boot Illegal Immigrants.

Begin the countdown to proggie judges going ballistic!

President Donald Trump is planning on using the Insurrection Act to remove illegal immigrants from the United States, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to multiple senior administration officials, the president intends to invoke the “tremendous powers” of the act to remove illegal immigrants from the country.

“We’re doing the Insurrection Act,” one official said.

Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, the president has the authority to use the National Guard and military in order to combat “unlawful obstruction or rebellion” within U.S. borders. The act was last invoked in 1992 by George H.W. Bush to quell the Los Angeles riots, and was also used by Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in the south.

An official expressed concerns that Trump’s use of the act’s powers would face legal challenges, pointing to the lawsuits against the president’s travel ban from majority-Muslim countries. However, as the official noted, the travel ban ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court.

In addition to the Insurrection Act, the president is also considering declaring the country full and insisting that the U.S. can no longer handle the massive influx of illegal immigrants. 2019 is currently on pace to reach the highest levels of illegal immigration in a decade.

“If you take a ship and it holds 1,000 people maximum — one more person and the ship is going to collapse,” the official explained. “The country is full.”

“Our hospitals are full, our detention centers are full,” they added.

ICE facilities were forced to release 100,000 illegal immigrants in the first three months of 2019 because of overcrowding in detention centers.

Separately, the president unveiled a new immigration plan Thursday that focuses on border security and merit-based legal immigration. The plan, which was co-authored by top aides Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, would increase the proportion of visas granted to highly-skilled immigrants and also establish a self-sustaining border security fund.

Disturbing Bit Of Trivia: In 2003 Interview, Comey Admitted To Voting Communist In The 70s – Just Like Brennan

In a 2003 interview with New York Magazine, Comey said that before voting for Carter in 1980, he’d been a Communist. He admitted, “I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan’s ties to communism are well known. Although I’ve never heard about James Comey being connected to communism, the words do come straight out of the horse’s mouth.

Just asking, does anyone else find it unnerving that America entrusted the CIA and the FBI to individuals who were, at one point, self-declared communists?
This disturbing bit of trivia comes to us from journalist Paul Sperry.

The author, Chris Smith, wrote that, “Comey has been savaged by William Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, anyway?”

Comey apparently howled with laughter.

He explained, “In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

Perhaps his “gradual” move away from communism had something to do with his chosen career path. It may have dawned on him that communist leanings might be a serious disqualifier when one is hoping for a career in government law enforcement, especially during the Cold War.

It shouldn’t really surprise that Obama would nominate former communists to two of the most important offices in the U.S. government. Underneath it all, Obama really is a socialist – who surrounded himself with other socialists like Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

6 Things to Know About the Prosecutor Investigating Spying on Trump Campaign.

1. Career Prosecutor

Durham, 68, began his career as a Connecticut state prosecutor working from 1978 to 1982 in the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office.

A registered Republican, he next served in nonpolitical positions through 35 years in the U.S. District of Connecticut, based in New Haven.

From 1982 to 1989, Durham supervised the New Haven field office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. For the next five years, he was chief of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Haven.

From 1994 through 2008, he served as deputy U.S. attorney, and then, through 2017, as counsel to the U.S. attorney.  

Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, appointed Durham as acting U.S. attorney for Connecticut in October 2017, and Trump nominated him for the post the next month. He took office in February 2018.

2. Busting Mafia-FBI Connection

In 1999, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Durham to investigate corruption in federal law enforcement in Boston.

He examined whether two Boston mob figures, Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, had corrupted the FBI agents whom they served as informants.

Durham’s investigation led to a 10-year prison sentence for retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., found guilty of helping the two gangsters avoid prosecution.

As part of this investigation, Durham produced documents showing four men had been framed by FBI agents and convicted of murder in the 1960s. Two died in prison, but two others won a $100 million civil judgment against the Justice Department.

3. Special Probes of CIA and Terror Detainees

In 2008, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Durham as a special prosecutor to conduct what turned into a three-year probe of the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. He didn’t recommend any prosecutions.

In an overlapping probe, then-Attorney General Eric Holder named him as a special prosecutor to investigate alleged mistreatment of terror suspects by CIA interrogators and government contractors.

The second probe came after the Justice Department released a report noting possible past abuse by CIA interrogators. Durham concluded by closing most of the cases, but called for continued inquiries into the deaths of two prisoners.

4. Devoted Catholic, Red Sox Fan

Despite handling high-profile cases, Durham typically keeps a low profile.

Earlier this year, according to The Day newspaper in New London, Connecticut Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Leonard C. Boyle noted the only reason that Durham would make a public speech to a crowd at the University of St. Joseph, a Roman Catholic school in West Hartford, Connecticut.

“Other than an overwhelming commitment to the cause of justice, the two great devotions of John’s life are his Catholic faith and his family,” Boyle said of Durham.

Durham and his wife Susan have four sons and eight grandchildren. He reportedly is a big Boston Red Sox fan.

The New Republic, a liberal magazine, wrote of Durham in 2011 that he “earned a nonpartisan, camera-shy, ‘white knight’ reputation.”

5. Public Corruption

Durham led some of the biggest public corruption cases in Connecticut.

Among them was the case of Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican who resigned in 2004 after federal prosecutors found he illegally took gifts from state contractors. Rowland pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for offenses committed as governor.

Durham also led an investigation of Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, a Democrat, who was convicted on racketeering and bribery charges in 2003. Ganim spent six years in prison.

6. Lauded by Democrats

Democrats recently excoriated Barr for even using the word “spy” to talk about actions by the Obama administration’s FBI and Justice Department against the Trump campaign before the presidential election in November 2016.

However, Democrats could have a difficult time in attacking Durham.

Confirmed as U.S. attorney in February 2018 by a voice vote in the Senate, he had gained praise from Democrats when Trump nominated him.

Among these admirers were two of Trump’s biggest critics, Connecticut’s two Democratic senators—Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. The two men had recommended Durham to serve as U.S. attorney.

“John Durham has earned immense respect as a no-nonsense, fierce and fair prosecutor, and we are pleased that the White House has agreed with our recommendation that he serve as United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,” a joint statement by Blumenthal and Murphy said. “As an Assistant United States Attorney, John Durham has proven himself time and time again in some of the most challenging and sensitive cases.”

It looks like Barr has found just such another case for Durham.

FBI spies are toast
The man who nailed the FBI agents who helped mobster Whitey Bulger is heading the investigation of the origin of Obama’s unconstitutional spying on Donald John Trump.

The New York Times reported, “Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful. John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.”

Time magazine lauded him (and rightly so) on August 26, 2009.

It reported, “In 1999 he was selected by Attorney General Janet Reno to probe law-enforcement corruption in Boston. Last year he was named by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to head the ongoing investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes. Colleagues say Durham is thorough and cautious in deciding whether a case deserves to be prosecuted. But once he fixes on a target, the veteran lawyer usually catches his prey.”

Indeed, Durham in 2000 got the 1968 murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter J. Limone and Louis Greco vacated because they had been framed by the FBI.

Two years later, a judge gave retired FBI agent John J. Connolly Jr. 10 years in prison for helping Bulger by warning him in 1995 of a pending indictment.

Durham also helped secure a $101.7 million civil judgment against the government on behalf of the framed men and their families.

The New York Times also reported, “The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.”

Patience. Adults are in charge now. The exorcism has begun.

Boston PD’s First Muslim Captain, Highest Paid City Employee, Put On Administrative Leave

The Minneapolis police are still reeling from the fallout after Mohamed Noor, the first Muslim Somali police officer on the force, shot and killed a woman who had called the police to report a possible rape.

Now the Boston cops appear to be dealing with their own ‘first’ fallout.

The first Muslim promoted to the rank of captain in the Boston Police Department was placed on administrative leave Monday — and the department is not explaining why.
Captain Haseeb Hosein has been the commander of the Area B-3 station that covers Mattapan and parts of Dorchester since 2014. …
Hosein was promoted by former commissioner William B. Evans.

“This promotion speaks to the promise both Mayor Walsh and Commissioner Evans made to diversify the BPD’s Command Staff . . . We wish Haseeb . . . nothing but the best of success in his new position!”

It’s always about the diversity. Never about the competence.

Sergeant Detective John Boyle, the department’s chief spokesman, confirmed that Hosein was placed on administrative leave with pay Monday. He said Hosein is under investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Unit.

The Globe reported in February that Hosein was the city’s highest paid employee, earning $366,232 in 2018. That total included $106,980 in detail pay, $62,696 in overtime pay, and regular pay of $146,893.

It’s odd that someone who was promoted not all that long ago was the highest paid employee in Boston.

According to a more recent report, he made almost $400,000.

It might be curious if the two were connected. Boston cops and the union are stonewalling questions about the Hosein investigation. That can provide cover for political pressure to be applied behind the scenes on the investigators looking into the diversity hire.

Hossein’s profile appears on “Boston stands with immigrants” where he claims that, “As an immigrant I am a living example of the greatness of this country.”

On his Twitter account, he tweets a story about the, “First Muslim police Captain in Boston working to educate people about his religion and unite community”.

AG Barr: ‘We Have Multiple Criminal Leak Investigations Underway’ After Russia Probe

On Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr revealed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched many investigations into the constant leaks to the media during the Trump-Russia investigation. The DOJ is examining just exactly how mainstream media outlets had scoops on the investigation long before Congress had heard anything about the subject matter.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Barr about the leaks in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Last week it was reported that an “armed militia group” had detained a group of illegal migrants crossing the United States southern border. The story said the militia group held the illegal migrants and turned them over to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents.
Many supporters of illegal migration screamed foul that this group engaged in this behavior. First of all, no one should be surprised that this occurred.
I do not necessarily support this type of citizen involvement in detaining bands of migrants illegally crossing into the sovereign territory of the United States—not yet anyway. However, I am getting to that point.
The ACLU demanded the governor investigate this group, in part, because they were armed. So what? As long as they are lawfully armed, who cares? I don’t.
I think they would be stupid to be out in the middle of nowhere and unarmed. In a letter to the governor and the New Mexico attorney general, the ACLU, of course, not wanting to waste the opportunity to politicize this, blamed President Trump for encouraging this citizen group.
The ACLU, not surprisingly, labeled them as racists and referred to them as white nationalists and fascists with no credible connection.
This is straight off of the pro-illegal immigration talking points memo. The ACLU described these illegal aliens as having been kidnapped. They cited the citizen group as breaking the law but said nothing of the law violation of the illegal aliens.
My response to this inflammatory rhetoric is… shut up.


Baltimore has not had a Republican mayor since 1967

Baltimore residents may find the scene this morning reminiscent of a similar story from roughly ten years ago. That was when the FBI also busted in the doors of City Hall and then-Mayor Sheila Dixon. She was later convicted of embezzlement and forced to resign. History seems to be repeating itself in Baltimore.

PIJIJIAPAN, Mexico — Mexican police and immigration agents detained hundreds of Central American migrants Monday in the largest single raid on a migrant caravan since the groups started moving through the country last year. Police targeted isolated groups at the tail end of a caravan of about 3,000 migrants who were making their way through the southern state of Chiapas with hopes of reaching the U.S. border……..

Mexico welcomed the first caravans last year, but the reception has gotten colder since tens of thousands of migrants overwhelmed U.S. border crossings, causing delays at the border and anger among Mexican residents.

Last Friday, local media reported a series of detentions of migrants in nearby Mapastepec, where thousands were awaiting normalization of their migratory status.

President Trump on Monday directed his administration to find ways to limit the number of foreigners who overstay short-term visas amid a broad push to curb immigration. In a presidential memorandum, Trump ordered the State Department to work with governments of countries with total overstay rates of more than 10 percent in order to reduce the number.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in consultation with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is required to submit a report within three months that recommends policies that would slash the number of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire. DHS is expected to hand in its own recommendations a month after that.

Should All Thefts Be Prosecuted? Dallas County’s District Attorney Says No
An initiative by John Creuzot is stopping prosecutions for theft of personal items worth less than $750.

There is a basic pact between our justice system and the citizens it serves.

Citizens give up their right to seek justice on their own, sometimes called vigilantism, and turn that right over to the government.

The government then pledges to mete out justice on behalf of citizens who have suffered a wrong, and pledges to punish those who wronged them.

So when government declares that they are no longer going to mete out justice on behalf of wronged citizens, that clearly breaks the pact and abrogates their exclusive claim on justice. Of course government will not admit that, because government will never release a hold on power.

But citizens know. And will eventually realize the only way to get justice is to take it back into their own hands.

Which then brings about vigilantism, revenge, blood feuds, etc., either directly or by proxy. Innocents may be held responsible for misdeeds by family members. If things get really bad, “good” citizens may wind up supporting strongmen who promise extra-legal protection either for money, power or both.

The irony is the very same government that creates this lawlessness will then decry the law being taken into private hands.”

If a poor person steals food or diapers or other essential items that they need but can’t afford to pay for, should they be prosecuted? Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot says no.

It’s one of several new policy reforms that Creuzot calls a step toward ending mass incarceration, and possibly the most controversial.

Creuzot launched his bid to unseat District Attorney Faith Johnson last year, pledging to roll back policies that lead to incarceration and disparities in the justice system, but have dubious public safety value.

Last week, he announced the changes as a first step in fulfilling his campaign promises.

In an open letter, Creuzot discussed his commitment to not charge some lower-level drug crimes, which are enforced more often when offenders are people of color. He outlined policy changes related to bail and probation aimed at reducing the number of people in jail.

And he decried a justice system that criminalizes poverty. He said some prosecutions often punish people living in poverty, who are homeless, and who are mentally ill.

An initiative by Creuzot is stopping prosecutions for theft of personal items worth less than $750. It only applies to necessary items, Creuzot says. Theft for economic gain or resale will be charged.

“If they’re stealing $750 worth of diapers, let’s be honest: It’s going to take a lot of rear ends to put $750 worth of diapers on, so that probably doesn’t fit that category and so we would prosecute that case,” Creuzot said.

Prosecuting poor people for stealing essential items wastes taxpayer money because they won’t come out any more financially stable after they serve their sentence, Creuzot said, and prosecution doesn’t help the business that is stolen from either.

“The question is, if we put them in jail, are they going to pay restitution? You know what the answer is: No,” Creuzot said. “So we’ve burned up taxpayer money for a hungry person or a needy person under this fake premise that we’re going to get the money back. And it doesn’t happen.”

Representatives from local law enforcement groups offered a mixed review of Creuzot’s policy changes, but were unequivocal about the theft policy. Mike Mata, from the Dallas Police Association, said functionally legalizing some thefts could have collateral consequences, like making store owners feel they need to stop people from stealing themselves if they don’t think that the crimes will be prosecuted.

“Either that shop owner is going to have to take matters in his own hands, or he’s going to have to let $600 worth of merchandise walk out of his store,” Mata said. “And so that might force him to get engaged into an altercation that he shouldn’t.”

‘I knew the officers were lying’: Another drug case dismissed in fallout from botched raid.

I’m not anti-Cop. I’m anti-stupid and corrupt Cop.

A Harris County court on Monday tossed out yet another drug case over links to the officers at the center of the botched Pecan Park drug raid that left a couple dead and five officers injured earlier this year.

The dismissed felony charge against Xavier Womack hinged on claims that former narcotics officer Steven Bryant – who recently retired under investigation – spotted the Houston man going in and out of a supposed drug house.

But Womack’s defense attorney, Lisa Andrews, says she repeatedly told prosecutors that her client was never at the scene, and it wasn’t until after the outcome in Pecan Park sparked broader questions about police handling of drug cases that the Harris County District Attorney’s Office agreed to drop Womack’s drug charge.

“I knew the officers were lying,” Andrews told the Houston Chronicle on Monday. “But for the unfortunate circumstances” that led to the officers’ departure from the department, Andrews continued, “I would be hoping to convince a jury of these facts against the word of two police officers.”

The dismissal marks at least the fifth case dropped in the fallout from the Jan. 28 bust, which was unrelated to Womack’s arrest and prosecution. In addition to Bryant, former Officer Gerald Goines is also under investigation and recently retired from the Houston Police Department……………

The police involved in the arrest came under scrutiny earlier this year after investigators accused 54-year-old Goines of lying on the search warrant affidavit used to justify a no-knock raid at 7815 Harding Street. When officers burst in the home that evening in search of a heroin dealer, they kicked off a gun battle that left dead Dennis Tuttle, his wife Rhogena Nicholas, and a pit bull they’d been dog-sitting.

But the raid netted no heroin and only a small amount of cocaine and marijuana, and the slain couple’s friends and neighbors have repeatedly maintained that they weren’t drug dealers.

Days later, as Goines lay in the hospital recovering from a gunshot wound to the neck, investigators realized they couldn’t find the confidential informant behind the alleged heroin buy that started it all.

When asked for details, Goines first named one informant and then another – but, according to court filings, police couldn’t find anyone who admitted acting as the confidential informant before the raid. Instead, all of Goines’ informants said they’d never met the Tuttles.


Attorney General William Barr said in a new ruling issued Tuesday that asylum-seekers who are able to demonstrate a “credible fear” and are then sent to full deportation proceedings are not eligible to be released on bond.

The ruling, which will go into effect in 90 days, states that a previous decision allowing for asylum-seekers to be released on bond while their case is being heard by an immigration judge was incorrect. Only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to release the asylum-seekers, he wrote.

“I conclude that such aliens remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States,” Barr wrote.

Barr is overturning a 2005 ruling that determined that asylum-seekers are eligible for bond if they are able to exhibit they have credible fear of persecution or danger if they leave the U.S.

But the attorney general argues that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the administration is permitted to detain all undocumented immigrants who were initially placed in expedited removal proceedings but then passed the credible fear test and were transferred to a full hearing before an immigration judge.

He also pointed to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that found that the law did not place limits on how long an immigrant can be detained.

Some asylum-seekers are exempted from this rule, including families and unaccompanied migrant children.

Prosecutor’s Refusal To Charge Mayor Indictment Of Preemption Laws

Passing gun control laws against explicit state law is illegal. It’s illegal as hell. Preemption laws exist for a reason, and part of that reason is to create a universal code of gun laws throughout a state.

Yet the City of Pittsburgh did just that. Mayor Bill Peduto announced his intentions and proceeded, well aware that he was ignoring the law in the process. It was a blatantly illegal act, and what’s going to happen to him? Nothing.

Late last week, the Alleghany County District Attorney announced it was declining to charge Peduto or any of his cronies on the city council for willfully violating state law.

The Allegheny County district attorney declined to approve charges against the mayor of Pittsburgh and six city council members on Friday after the city passed gun control legislation that some gun rights supporters have said violates Pennsylvania law.

Seven Pittsburgh residents attempted to file criminal complaints against Mayor Bill Peduto (D) and the city councilors, according to The Associated Press. Citizens are allowed to file such charges with approval by the district attorney.

Democratic District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr.’s office said that prosecutors will not consider criminal charges until after the laws go into effect and someone is accused of violating them. The law will become effective in about two months.

“We will consider a private complaint if somebody is aggrieved by the law,” a spokesperson for Zappala told residents.

In other words, someone has to be arrested for violating the law before Zappala will do anything.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we can now see how much preemption laws mean. Not just in the state of Pennsylvania, but throughout the nation.

Nunes sends criminal-referral notification to Barr, alleges several ‘potential violations’ in Russia probe

EXCLUSIVE: Republican Rep. Devin Nunes sent a criminal-referral notification to Attorney General William Barr on Thursday alleging several “potential violations” of the law.

The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said he and Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe are prepared to brief Barr on alleged misconduct during the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling and contacts with Trump advisers during the 2016 campaign.

The referrals stem from the investigation conducted by the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans held the House majority.

“As part of that investigation, Committee Republicans identified several potential violations of law,” Nunes, R-Calif., wrote in a brief letter to Barr on Thursday.

The notification comes after Barr testified to Congress this week that he is reviewing the “conduct” of the original FBI investigation. During the second of two Capitol Hill appearances on Wednesday, Barr said he believes “spying did occur,” and the question is “whether it was adequately predicated.”


Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig charged by federal prosecutors over alleged Ukraine lies.

Yeah, what goes around, comes around. All it takes is LE without a political agenda. I’ll bet there will be more ‘interesting’ things happening in the near future.


Gregory Craig, who was White House counsel under President Barack Obama, was indicted Thursday on charges of lying and hiding information related to his work for Ukraine.

Craig, a 74-year-old lawyer based in Washington, D.C., was charged by the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, unit. Craig faces up to five years in prison for each of the two counts. The charges stem from the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election led by special counsel Robert Mueller, which came to a formal end last month.

LAPD To Scrap Controversial Program To ID Likely Criminals

Minority Report was science fiction.

LOS ANGELES, CA — A controversial Los Angeles Police Department program that uses data to identify persons who are most likely to commit violent crimes and was criticized in an audit and by privacy groups will be ended by Chief Michel Moore, according to a memo set to be presented to the Board of Police Commissioners Tuesday.

The five-page memo was made publicly available on Friday ahead of the meeting and came in response to a critical audit by Inspector General Mark Smith.

The audit found the department’s data analysis programs lacked oversight and officers used inconsistent criteria to deem people as “chronic offenders.” The overall effectiveness of a component to pinpoint the location of certain property crimes could not be determined, the audit found.


This is not some arcane, little known ruling but an affirmation that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must be followed.. When demoncraps keep demanding something that the DOJ and the Courts say they can’t have, well… they’re just being grandstanding demoncraps.

Congressional Democrats keep demanding that the entire Mueller report be made available. They aren’t doing this in the interest of transparency and the public’s right to know. Democrats are still complaining that the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal yielded more than a statement of no prosecution. If Dems had gotten their way, we would know nothing more about what the Justice Department discovered or believed.

The Democrats want full disclosure of the Mueller report not for any public-spirited reason. They want it so they can save a little bit of face by cherry picking statements from the report that paint President Trump in a bad light, or at least can be sold that way with the help of the mainstream media.

But this doesn’t mean the Mueller report shouldn’t be disclosed. Whatever the Democrats’ motive, they are right that the public should see the Mueller report.

There are some limits, though, on how much we can see. Clearly, we can’t see classified information contained in the report.

There’s also the question of whether we can see grand jury information. The answer that emerges from a recent D.C. Circuit decision is that we cannot.

The decision is McKeever v. Barr. Andy McCarthy discusses it here.

McCarthy writes:

At issue was this question: Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.

Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception that would permit disclosure of grand jury testimony contained in the Mueller report. As McCarthy points out, “the exceptions enumerated in the rule permit judges to authorize disclosure, to federal and certain non-federal officials, in order to aid in the enforcement of criminal laws.” Disclosure here would not be to officials in the aid of law enforcement.

It’s possible that the panel’s decision in McKeever will be reversed, either on consideration by the full court or by the Supreme Court. As things stand now, however, McKeever is controlling law in the District of Columbia where the Mueller investigation took place.

Thus, McCarthy concludes:

Attorney General Barr must redact grand-jury material from the Mueller report before disclosing it to Congress. Democrats will complain long and loud about this, but I don’t see how Barr can be reasonably faulted for following the law. Congress, after all, has the power to legislate an amendment to Rule 6(e) that would permit disclosure of grand-jury materials from a special counsel investigation to appropriate congressional committees.

Why aren’t we deporting illegal aliens who already have deportation orders?

We are told by the legal profession that nothing can be done to block bogus asylum-seekers from entering our country en masse, obtaining catch-and-release, and remaining here pending the outcome of a court decision that may be years in coming. But why is the DHS not at least deporting those who already went through this tedious process and have been ordered to be deported? Doing so would not only help eliminate public charge and potential gang members and drug runners for MS-13, it would deter the current and future wave waiting at the “conveyor belt” through Mexico from making the trip north.

According to new data obtained by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) via a FOIA request, there are 644,488 illegal aliens remaining in our country who have already been served final deportation orders. And those are just from the top four countries of origin – El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. The IRLI shared much more data with CR. The total number of illegal aliens who remain in the country despite final deportation orders is 1,009,550.

In addition, there are roughly 1.1 million others from those four counties who have “pending final orders” and are close to receiving deportation orders. Those with pending final orders are usually individuals who have already been ordered deported by immigration judges but are appealing their case to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the appellate body of the DOJ’s administrative immigration courts.

That is a total of 1.7 million illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America with final or near-final orders of deportation. Those numbers are as of June 2018, right before the largest surge in Central Americans began over that summer and intensified in the fall of 2018 and winter of 2019. The total number of those ordered deported or with pending deportation orders for nationals of all countries of origin is 2.55 million.

Putting aside the debate over admissions at our front door, shouldn’t there be a comprehensive effort to empower and direct ICE to begin deporting as many of these people as possible?

The entire reason why Central Americans are now coming in record numbers is because they know that, even though their flawed asylum claims will ultimately be rejected, so long as they obtain entry and are released pending the court dates, they will not be deported. But there is nothing reasonable keeping us from carrying out deportation orders that have already been issued.

The 9th Circus oveturned again, and the usual voting pattern.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of the Trump administration by deciding federal officials can detain immigrants at any time for possible deportation after they have served their time in the U.S. for other crimes. The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said officials have to detain these immigrants immediately or they are exempt from ever being detained. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion for the court, and he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.