Archive for October 21, 2017

Did a Muslim Brothers armed cell or ISIS massacre 55 Egyptian policemen?

October 21, 2017

Did a Muslim Brothers armed cell or ISIS massacre 55 Egyptian policemen? DEBKAfile, October 21, 2017

If the oasis ambush was also the work of ISIS, it would indicate that these jihadists were not only terrorizing Sinai, but had also penetrated deep into the Egyptian mainland.

************************

An armed group of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood was reported to have waylaid an Egyptian convoy heading for its oasis hideout on Friday and murdered 55 policemen. The only survivors were 14 injured men.

But some of the evidence also points to the Islamic State as the perpetrators.

The police convoy was attacked while driving on the El-Wahat Highway from Cairo to Giza on its way to raid a secret hideout of the banned Muslim Brotherhood’s armed underground (Hasm) at the El-Bahariya Oasis in the Western Desert, 135 southwest of the capital.

The disaster, together with a string of deadly Islamist attacks in Sinai in recent weeks, raised tough questions about Egypt’s capacity to deal with the extremist terrorism plaguing the country. President Abdul-Fatteh El-Sisi immediately set up a commission of inquiry to find out how the casualty of Egyptian servicemen came to be so high – a well-tried device used by governments for keeping the details of a mishap dark until the immediate hue and cry dies down.

DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources have gleaned information that points to a merciless massacre, most likely at the hands of the Brotherhood’s armed activists. According to first reports, the policemen were killed in a shootout with the extremists during a raid of their hideout in the oasis.

The wild beauty of this vast oasis – over 2,000sq.km – makes it an attraction for visitors to Cairo especially since it is just a short drive from the capital. Its sparse inhabitants are mostly Bedouin tribes with kinship ties across the border in eastern Libya, a region where the Islamic State and Al Qaeda maintain strong footholds. Because it is only visited occasionally by foreign visitors on night-time jaunts, the Brotherhood felt the oasis was far from the long arm of Egypt’s anti-terrorist forces.

After intelligence agents discovered their location, the Brotherhood cell was ready for the raid. They set up an ambush and before the police convoy of four SUVs reached the hideout, dozens of wanted terrorists opened up with heavy machine guns, recoilless grenades and mortars, and detonated roadside bombs. The carnage was devastating.

Their tactics, involving ruthless massacre, strongly resembled the most recent Islamic State strikes against Egyptian forces in northern Sinai. On Sept. 11, 18 Egyptian troops were killed near Sheikh Zuweid.

In both these outrages, the Egyptian air force was not brought in.

If the oasis ambush was also the work of ISIS, it would indicate that these jihadists were not only terrorizing Sinai, but had also penetrated deep into the Egyptian mainland.

92-Year-Old World War I Monument Declared Unconstitutional ‘Breach’ of Church and State Separation

October 21, 2017

92-Year-Old World War I Monument Declared Unconstitutional ‘Breach’ of Church and State Separation, PJ MediaTyler O’Neil, October 20, 2017

Photo Credit: First Liberty Institute

Klukowski argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision “jeopardizes many longstanding memorials and monuments across the nation, including even Arlington National Cemetery.”

***************************

On Wednesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declared a World War I monument in the shape of a celtic cross unconstitutional, saying it “breached” the separation of church and state. The Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial has stood since 1925, honoring the 49 Bladensburg-area men who gave their lives during World War I. The American Humanist Association sued to have it removed in 2014.

“The decision ignored the fact that the monument was modeled off of World War I grave markers, thousands of which are in the shape of a cross like this one,” Ken Klukowski, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, told PJ Media. First Liberty, along with Jones Day, represents the American Legion, which first erected the monument.

Despite the historical meaning and resonance of the cross-shaped marker, which harkens back to World War I gravestones, the American Humanist Association argued that the cross violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bars Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Klukowski argued that this is a misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause. “Current Supreme Court precedent holds that the Establishment Clause is violated only by government actions that officially adopt a religion as that concept was understood by the Constitution’s framers, or when the government coerces someone to engage in a religious activity,” he said.

“A passive display like this was historically accepted, and coerces no one,” the lawyer explained. “Moreover, in the Supreme Court case most similar to this case, the Court allowed a longstanding Ten Commandments display on public land to remain in place.”

In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol in Austin did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Klukowski argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision “jeopardizes many longstanding memorials and monuments across the nation, including even Arlington National Cemetery.”

Perhaps because it is so important, eight Republican and Democratic members of Congress filed a joint amicus brief in support of the memorial. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined Representatives Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Vicki Hartzler (R-Mo.), Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), and Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.).

Even so, Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, who wrote the majority opinion for the panel, asked what a “reasonable objective observer” would think about the memorial. In a vacuum, she argued the observer would perceive the cross as an enormous endorsement of the Christian faith.

Both Thacker and Judge James A. Wynn Jr., who joined her in ruling against the monument, were appointed by President Barack Obama.

“It’s a cross much more clearly and obviously than a memorial, David Niose, a lawyer for the humanist association, told The Wall Street Journal.

Judge Roger L. Gregory, the chief judge of the circuit appointed by President Bill Clinton, dissented, arguing that a reasonable observer would view the cross as less a promotion of Christianity than a historical monument.

“The American Legion’s commitment to preserving the Bladensburg Memorial has been unwavering,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty, said in a statement. “Their determination is appropriately illustrated by President Woodrow Wilson’s words engraved at the memorial’s base: ‘The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest to our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.'”

Reinterpreting this memorial as an endorsement of Christianity, rather than a tribute to the men who gave their last full measure of devotion in World War I, is an insult to their sacrifice and a gross twisting of history.

“This memorial has stood in honor of local veterans for almost 100 years and is lawful under the First Amendment,” said Michael Carvin, lead counsel for The American Legion and partner at Jones Day. “To remove it would be a tremendous dishonor to the local men who gave their lives during The Great War.”

Perhaps if the American Humanist Association took a moment to reflect humbly on the meaning of the monument and its historical context, they would not be so quick to disrespect the soldiers who fought for their freedom.

FBI Arrested Russian Spies Getting Close to Hillary Clinton in Lead-Up to Uranium One Deal

October 21, 2017

FBI Arrested Russian Spies Getting Close to Hillary Clinton in Lead-Up to Uranium One Deal, PJ MediaTyler O’Neil, October 20, 2017

(Please see also, Hillary Clinton, Uranium and a Russian Spy Ring. — DM)

Bill Clinton’s speech, and the Renaissance Capital report, came while the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was considering the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom, a Russian company which had been under FBI investigation at the time.

The FBI kept the investigation secret, even when it would have stopped the disastrous Uranium One approval. There is still no explanation as to why it was kept secret at this vital point. Robert Mueller, the current head of the investigation into Russian connections to President Donald Trump, led the FBI at the time, and some have started calling for his recusal from the Trump-Russia investigation, because he kept the Rosatom investigation quiet.

Despite the FBI investigation, CFIUS fast-tracked the Uranium One approval, finishing it in 52 days, rather than the mandatory 75-day review process.

To make matters worse, Uranium One’s chairman directed $2.35 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

********************

In 2010, the FBI arrested ten Russian spies as part of “Operation Ghost Stories.” According to a top FBI official, the agency had to act quickly because the “deep cover” agents had come very close to “a sitting US cabinet member.” They had already infiltrated then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, befriending a Democratic fundraiser close to Clinton.

Clinton’s Russian connections have attracted more scrutiny following recent revelations of an FBI investigation into Russian company Rosatom, which gained control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium in the 2010 Uranium One deal. The fact that the Russian spies attempted to infiltrate Clinton’s network just before the Uranium One deal has been previously reported by PJ Media’s Pat Poole, and the connection to the recent revelations of the FBI investigation into Rosatom was reported by Center for Security Policy analyst J. Michael Waller in The Daily Caller Friday.

“We were becoming very concerned,” Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI’s assistant director of counterintelligence, told the BBC in 2012. “They were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue.”

There are many reasons to suggest Clinton was this “sitting US cabinet member.” In June 2010, Barbara Morea, president of Morea Financial Services in Manhattan, confirmed that “Cynthia Murphy,” Russian External Intelligence Service (SVR) spy Lidiya Guryeva, was a longtime employee and vice president at the company. The company managed the finances of Alan Patricof, one of New York’s top Democratic donors, who fundraised for Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns.

Federal court documents reported that Guryeva had “several work-related personal meetings” with “a prominent New York-based financier.” The complaint added that Guryeva and her husband reported back to Moscow that the financier was “prominent in politics,” “an active fundraiser for” a major political party, and a “personal friend” of a current Cabinet official. Patricof fit every one of these descriptions.

Orders from Moscow suggested Patricof might “provide [Guryeva] with remarks re US foreign policy, ‘roumors’ [sic] about White house internal ‘kitchen…'” Worse, the court document also noted that Guryeva “explained to [her husband] that he would not be able to work at the top echelons of certain parts of the United States Government — the State Department, for example.”

While the documents never mention Hillary Clinton by name, the evidence all points in her direction. Guryeva was focused on Patricof, a close friend of Clinton’s, sought to gain information about the White House from a source close to Clinton, and expressed a familiarity with the State Department, the agency Hillary Clinton ran.

Patricof confirmed that he appeared to have been the target, and said he had never talked politics with Guryeva.

Clinton spokesmen at the time insisted that the secretary of State was not the Russian spy ring’s target, but Figliuzzi’s comment suggests a fear that the SVR agents would get too close to a certain cabinet member.

The FBI arrested the Russian spies on June 28, 2010, one day before Bill Clinton gave a speech in Moscow to a Kremlin-connected investment bank, Renaissance Capital. Clinton received $500,000 for this speech.

At the time, Renaissance Capital analysts suggested investors place their money on Uranium One, a Canadian company with control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium. In a July 2010 research report, Renaissance analysts called the company “the best play” in uranium markets.

Bill Clinton’s speech, and the Renaissance Capital report, came while the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was considering the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom, a Russian company which had been under FBI investigation at the time.

The FBI kept the investigation secret, even when it would have stopped the disastrous Uranium One approval. There is still no explanation as to why it was kept secret at this vital point. Robert Mueller, the current head of the investigation into Russian connections to President Donald Trump, led the FBI at the time, and some have started calling for his recusal from the Trump-Russia investigation, because he kept the Rosatom investigation quiet.

Despite the FBI investigation, CFIUS fast-tracked the Uranium One approval, finishing it in 52 days, rather than the mandatory 75-day review process.

To make matters worse, Uranium One’s chairman directed $2.35 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

As Center for Security Policy analyst J. Michael Waller pointed out at The Daily Caller, Clinton had even more questionable ties to Russia. As secretary of State, she pledged to “reset” relations with Russia. She opposed what would become the Magnitsky Act to sanction Russian oligarchs. She also told Russian television that “our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

At the very beginning of her tenure at State, Clinton arranged for 28 American tech CEOs and venture capitalists (17 of them Clinton Foundation donors) to visit a Russian high-tech hub called Skolkovo. The U.S. military calls this hub “an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” This visit happened in May 2010, a month before the Ghost Stories arrests.

The Obama administration wasted no time in sending the ten spies back to Russia. The U.S. exchanged them for four Russian nationals on July 10, less than two weeks after their arrest.

Waller charged that Clinton “folded America’s strong hand of cards. The US had ten relatively young, highly trained Russian spies in custody with immense, fresh knowledge of SVR statecraft.”

In exchange, the U.S. got Igor Sutyagin (an arms control researcher whom Amnesty International classified as a political prisoner), Sergei Skripal (a Russian military intelligence official convicted of spying for Britain), Aleksandr Zaporozhsky (a Russian intelligence operative imprisoned for cooperating with the U.S.), and Gennady Vasilenko (a KGB officer suspected of being a double agent).

“Clinton didn’t want leverage,” Waller argued. “She wanted the issue to go away. She toiled feverishly to get the 10 Ghost Stories spies back to Moscow as quickly as possible. She accepted whatever Putin would give her to pass off as a face-saving swap.”

This quick swap raises questions, especially when compared to the last spy exchange with Moscow. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan exchanged four Soviet bloc spies for five Polish prisoners and 20 alleged American spies in the Soviet bloc. This spy exchange was carefully orchestrated over a period of years, not days.

Normally, the FBI would want to keep its prize captures to either prevent them from reentering the spy business, to turn them and get information, or to use them for bargaining. It is notable that the U.S. got rid of these spies in less than two weeks.

Given Russian (and Uranium One) contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the “reset” Clinton spearheaded, it stands to reason the secretary of State wanted to suppress the fact that Russian spies tried to infiltrate her network. The story of Clinton’s ties to Russia could not be allowed to see daylight.

Now, not only has it been revealed that Rosatom executives were under FBI investigation while CFIUS was approving the Uranium One deal and that Mueller — hilariously the man investigating Trump‘s connections with Russia — and others kept that investigation secret, but also federal documents show Russian spies attempted to infiltrate Clinton’s inner circle, just as she took money from Kremlin-linked banks.

As the true story of Russia’s U.S. infiltration unravels, every thread traces back to one extremely disliked former presidential candidate, and it isn’t Donald Trump.

‘Czech Donald Trump’ set to win parliamentary elections

October 21, 2017

Euroskeptic party led by billionaire businessman likened to Donald Trump set to win Czech parliamentary elections, civic democrats second.

Published time: 21 Oct, 2017 16:17

Source: ‘Czech Donald Trump’ set to win parliamentary elections – polls — RT News

The leader of ANO party Andrej Babis © David W Cerny / Reuters

The populist Czech ANO movement led by billionaire Andrej Babis, dubbed ‘the Czech Donald Trump,’ is poised to win the eastern European country’s elections by a wide margin, according to the exit polls. The center-right, euroskeptic ODS came in second.
Read more

Top candidate of Peoples Party (OeVP) and Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz talks with journalist after leaving a polling station in Vienna, Austria October 15, 2017. © Leonhard Foeger

ANO, which means ‘Yes’ in Czech and also stands as an acronym for the ‘Action of Dissatisfied Citizens’, has taken a clear lead in the election with more than 30 percent of the vote, beating its closest rivals by around 20 percentage points, according to exit polls cited by the Czech media.

The center-right, euroskeptic Civic Democratic Party (ODS) has come in second, securing about 11 percent backing. The anti-immigrant and anti-Islam far-right populist Freedom and Direct Democracy Party (SPD), led by the Czech-Japanese entrepreneur Tomio Okamura, moved into third place with about 10.8 percent support.

The polls also show that five more parties have managed to clear the five percent hurdle and get into parliament, including the Czech Pirate Party, the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democratic Union as well as the movement of Czech mayors and independents.

The exit polls’ results demonstrate a significant shift to euroskepticism in the Czech Republic as all the three leading parties represent anti-establishment forces in one way or another. Babis, who leads the ANO movement, is particularly known for his skepticism about the euro and severe criticism of the EU’s immigration policies, including the refugee quota system.

The SPD also actively opposes immigration and calls Islam an ideology rather than a religion while the Civic Democrats are critical towards the EU and advocate permanent exception from euro adoption for the Czech Republic.

Read more

Supporters of far-right Freedom Party (FPOe) react after first exit polls in the general election during a party meeting in Vienna, Austria, October 15, 2017. © Michael Dalder

The pro-EU Social Democrats (CSSD) received only 7.7 percent of the votes, according to the exit polls, while the liberal TOP 09 movement, which is considered to be the strongest supporter of the further European integration and euro adoption, even failed to clear the election hurdle as it gained only slightly more than four percent of the vote.

Babis, who is poised to become the new Czech prime minister as his party’s electoral victory is almost certain, is, however, a controversial figure. The Czech Republic’s second richest man and a billionaire, who owns one of the Czech biggest private employers – the agricultural giant Agrofert – as well as a media empire, he has already served as finance minister and deputy prime minister, but was dismissed due to allegations of financial misconduct.

Babis was sacked from the government in May after a months-long coalition crisis that started with allegations that he dodged taxes as Agrofert CEO back in 2012. He was separately charged over allegedly misusing EU subsidies. Babis dismissed all the allegations, calling them “politically motivated.”

Despite his issues with the law, Babis remains one of the most popular Czech politicians. In September, the Czech President Milos Zeman told the local media that he would name Babis the new prime minister in the event of his party’s victory, even if he were in police custody.

Read more

Alice Weidel (R), top candidate of the anti-immigration party Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) in Berlin, Germany, September 24, 2017 © Wolfgang Rattay

The two-day vote was held on October 20 and 21 to fill 200 seats in the Czech parliament’s lower house – the Chamber of Deputies. The voting ended at 14:00 local time (12:00 GMT) on Saturday with most ballots being expected to have been counted by the end of the day. However, the official results are scheduled to be announced no sooner than next week.

The results of the Czech elections have become just the latest episode of what seems to be the onward march of the right across Europe. Just a week ago, two anti-migrant parties gained the lead in the Austrian parliamentary elections and are now expected to form the ruling coalition.

Earlier, the right-wing anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party enjoyed what was called a historic success while Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and perforce the Social Democrats suffered their worst results in more than half a century at the September parliamentary elections in Germany.

In the French presidential elections in spring 2017, Marine le Pen, the head of the right-wing National Front party made it into the run-off, beating candidates from such major establishment parties as the Republicans and the Socialists.

And in the Netherlands, Geert Wilder’s ultra-nationalist Party of Freedom came second in this year’s parliamentary elections.

Why is Jeff Sessions hiding the Uranium One informant?

October 21, 2017

Why is Jeff Sessions hiding the Uranium One informant? American ThinkerDaniel John Sobieski, October 21, 2017

(Please see also, How Corrupt Are American Institutions? — DM)

Perhaps as startling as the revelation that the FBI was investigating the Hillary Clinton/Russia/Uranium One collusion  and that key figures like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe knew about it and said nothing, is the refusal by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remove the non-disclosure agreement gag order on the FBI informant who arguably could put Bill and Hillary Clinton and a few others in federal prison.

It was said the Jeff Sessions recused himself from all things Russian because of election campaign conflicts but is it really because he thought it would insulate him from having to divulge what he knew about Uranium One and the people who at the very least knew about the deal, some who approved the deal, including past and present members of the FBI, the DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Miller’s team? Is Jeff Sessions part of the Uranium One cover-up? If not, then he needs to explain why he is thus far refusing Sen. Chuck Grassley’s request to lift the gag order imposed by the Obama administration as part of the Uranium One cover-up:

A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent “gag order” on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was “threatened” by the Obama administration to stay quiet….

“Witnesses who want to talk to Congress should not be gagged and threatened with prosecution for talking. If that has happened, senior DOJ leadership needs to fix it and release the witness from the gag order,” Grassley said in a statement.

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” that her client has “specific information about contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States.”

She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was “threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department” when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Grassley said such an NDA would “appear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing.”…

The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. Grassley on Wednesday released a series of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, raising the question of whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which approved the uranium transaction was aware of that FBI probe — and pointing to potential “conflicts” involving the Clintons. The committee included then-Secretary of State Clinton.

So why not just lift the gag order, vacate the non-disclosure agreement, which Sessions has the power to do, and let the informant come forward with information on how and why the Clintons conspired to put 20 percent of our uranium assets under Russian control while lining the pockets of the Clintons and their pay-for-play foundation? As Toensing notes, Sessions could do it, and thereby bring to light the details of this criminal enterprise:

The lead investigators on the case included Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general, and Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director. Rosenstein is the DOJ official who appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the collusion/campaign investigation.  He could waive the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by the informant, said Toensing. “Yes, Jeff could do it,” she said. “He is not recused from this matter and should not be.”

However, Rod Rosenstein “is conflicted,” said Toensing, “because he was the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case involving my client.”  Toensing added that she has “asked an oversight committee to pursue the release” of the NDA so her client may testify before Congress about what he knows.

By lifting the gag order, Sessions might have to explain the real reasons behind his recusal and why people who knew of actual collusion between Russia and the Clintons were silent, only to reappear to investigate and pursue prosecution of nonexistent collusion between Russia and Team Trump. He might have to explain why Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein and others were allowed to hide the truth from the American people and why they should not be summarily fired. As Grassley notes, neither Sessions or anyone in the Justice Department has the authority to block the informant from testifying before Congress or issue non-disclosure agreements to thwart Congressional oversight:

“The Executive Branch does not have the authority to use non-disclosure agreements to avoid Congressional scrutiny,” Grassley wrote. “If the FBI is allowed to contract itself out of Congressional oversight, it would seriously undermine our Constitutional system of checks and balances. The Justice Department needs to work with the Committee to ensure that witnesses are free to speak without fear, intimidation or retaliation from law enforcement.”

Again, perhaps the reluctance of Jeff Sessions stems from the web of deceit and complicity that ensnares many in the FBI and the Justice Department. As Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett notes on the Uranium One scandal:

It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”…

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.  Who are they?

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

Boom. The question is now whether Jeff Sessions wants to help President Trump to drain the swamp be vacating the gag order and letting evidence come forth proving the Clintons orchestrated the greatest criminal conspiracy in U.S. history at the expense of American national security or whether he is just another swamp thing committed to clogging up the drainage pipes. Justice may be blind, but it should never be gagged.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared inInvestor’s Business DailyHuman EventsReason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.         

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official

October 21, 2017

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, October 21, 2017

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU.

When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state’s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?

Perhaps fighting “Islamophobia” is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online “criminal offenses” such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint — regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state’s private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?

Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently sentenced a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam” by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of “disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations”. While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.

A German court recently sentenced journalist Michael Stürzenberger (pictured) to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a Nazi official in Berlin, in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam” by publishing the photograph. (Image Source: PI News video screenshot)

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working “relatively” well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was “hateful” between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.

While purportedly concerned about online “hate speech,” one EU organization, the EU Parliament, had no qualms about letting its premises be used to host a convicted Arab terrorist, Leila Khaled, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at a conference about “The Role of Women in the Palestinian Popular Struggle” in September. (The EU, the US, Canada, and Australia, have all designated the PFLP a terrorist organization). The conference was organized by, among others, the Spanish delegation of Izquierda Unida (United Left) as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left bloc in the European Parliament.

In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May also said that she will tell internet firms to tackle extremist content:

“Industry needs to go further and faster in automating the detection and removal of terrorist content online… ultimately it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat. It is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, sow division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them — across all parts of our societies.”

Prime Minister May keeps insisting that “these ideologies” are spread “across all parts of our societies” when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban’s head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the “Palestine Expo” a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are “agents of Satan“. Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports — accurately — is “Islamophobic”.

The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also recently stated that online “hate crimes” will be prosecuted “with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending”. The decision to treat online offenses in the same way as offline offenses is expected to increase hate crime prosecutions, already at the highest recorded level ever. Prosecutors completed 15,442 hate crime cases in 2015-16.

Jews in Britain, who have experienced a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism over the past three years, are frequently on the receiving end of hate crimes. Nevertheless, their cases constitute less than a fraction of the statistics. In 2016/17, the CPS prosecuted 14,480 hate crimes. According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism:

“we have yet to see a single year in which more than a couple of dozen anti-Semitic hate crimes were prosecuted. So far in 2017, we are aware of… 21 prosecutions, in 2016 there were 20, and in 2015 there were just 12. So serious are the failures by the CPS to take action that we have had to privately prosecute alleged anti-Semites ourselves and challenge the CPS through judicial review, the first of which we won in March. Last year only 1.9% of hate crime against Jews was prosecuted, signaling to police forces that their effort in investigating hate crimes against Jews might be wasted, and sending the strong message to anti-Semites that they need not fear the law… Each year since 2014 has been a record-breaking year for anti-Semitic crime: between 2014 and 2016, anti-Semitic crime surged by 45%”.

Almost one in three British Jews have apparently considered leaving Britain due to anti-Semitism in the past two years.

British authorities seem far more concerned with “Islamophobia” than with the increase in hate crimes against Jews. In fact, the police has teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during “National Hate Crime Awareness Week”, which runs from October 14-21. Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police will hold more than 200 community events to “reassure communities that London’s public transport system is safe for everyone”. The events are specifically targeted at Muslims; officers have visited the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes.

Last year, London mayor Sadiq Khan’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayer money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office. Meanwhile, Khan said that he does not have the funds to monitor the 200 jihadists estimated to be in London, out of the 400 jihadists who have so far returned to the capital from Syria and Iraq. (He also implicitly admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the jihadists who have returned). When asked by the journalist Piers Morgan why the mayor could not have them monitored, Khan answered:

“Because the Met Police budget, roughly speaking, 15 percent, 20 percent is funded by me, the mayor. The rest comes from central government. If the Met Police is being shrunk and reduced, they’ve got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way.”

When Morgan asked what could possibly be a bigger priority than, “people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens”, Khan did not answer. Perhaps because it is hard to admit in public that fighting “Islamophobia” is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.