Strzok-Page Emails Show FBI Investigated President Trump’s Tweets Critical of Obama and FBI

WEEKLY UPDATE

Strzok-Page Emails Show FBI Investigated President Trump’s Tweets Critical of Obama and FBI

Judicial Watch today released emails received from the Department of Justice sent by former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN. The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). The FBI is only processing the records at a rate of 500 pages per month and has refused to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these emails will not be completed until late 2021 at the earliest.On March 18, 2017, Strzok emails his boss, then-Asst. Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, along with colleagues Jon Moffa and Page, about his research into President Trump’s tweets concerning his being wiretapped:Sending the tweets in question along with posting times. Doing some research, time stamping in Twitter can be glitchy … [T]he tweet times below were all -3 hours from east coast time, which I adjusted (ie, the first listed as 3:35am). I think I recall reporting at the time described the tweets as occurring around 630, not 330.Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:35 AMIs it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AMI’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AMHow low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 7:02 AMOn March 29, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey’s chief of staff, Jim Rybicki, emails then-Executive Assistant Director, National Security Branch Carl Ghattas, former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker about a “Sensitive Matter Briefing:”Rybicki writes, “The Director would like a briefing tomorrow (Thursday) on the sensitive application. [Emphasis added] I just spoke to Pete and gave him the scope. Will probably be at 5pm after the unmasking briefing.”McCabe replies to Strzok and Ghattas, saying, “Any idea what’s driving this?”Strzok replies, “Jim R said OAG told him the AG wanted a brief in advance of signing and would want a little bit of time to think about it.”The second renewal application and order of the original FISA warrant on Carter Page was filed one week later, on April 7, 2017. Both the April 7 and June 29, 2017, applications were withdrawn due to fraud.These astonishing emails, which have been hidden for years, show the Comey FBI was investigating President Trump over his critical tweets of the agency and Obama’s spying abuse and misconduct. These emails also show that Comey was intimately involved with the illegal and dishonest FISA spy operation against President Trump. Where is Durham?On March 20, 2017, Strzok emails Page, Moffa and a redacted General Counsel official a “Secret” amendment submitted to the FISA court by the DOJ on September 29, 2006, which changed the FBI’s “Standard Minimization Procedures for Electronic Surveillance and Physical Search.” Strzok notes that the document “contains the changes to who/how indexing is done.” The amendment, which was co-authored in 2006 by then-Counsel for Intelligence Policy James Baker was meant to comply with the FISA court’s order of December 2005 “to broaden the category of FBI personnel who can enter U.S. person information into ‘general FBI indices’ from the current limitation that only the ‘supervising case agent’ may authorize such indexing and that the Attorney General would also authorize the indexing of U.S. person information that is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance.”On March 22, 2017, Strzok emails Moffa and a redacted official saying that, in response to a question from “Wolf” [presumably Wolf Blitzer of CNN] “about what you do if you’re in the FBI,” former CIA officer and frequent CNN guest Phil Mudd responded: “first thing I tell my counterintelligence guys is, slow down, make sure you do everything right. When this eventually becomes public, it will be more picked over than even the Clinton investigation was.” Strzok then tells Moffa: “He’s right. And that worries me.”On March 24, 2017, reporter Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post emails two unidentified FBI officials, noting that, in his review of government records relating to Hillary Clinton, he discovered a page in which “a box is checked to indicate the material is ‘Grand Jury Material.’ Is that right? I don’t think anyone had ever been aware of a sitting grand jury in the Clinton case.”The Zapotosky email then gets forwarded to other FBI officials, including Page, and a lengthy, redacted email exchange follows. Eventually, Page adds Strzok to the exchange, saying, “Adding Pete, just to double check my work.” Strzok’s response is also redacted. One of the redacted officials replies to Strzok, saying, “AD Kortan asked if this could just be about legal process to get access.” Strzok responds, “It might be [redacted].”On March 6, 2017, Page forwards to Strzok a Washington Examiner article sent to her from the General Counsel’s Office discussing how the GAO determined many sensitive US government offices and officials were being housed in property owned by companies connected to foreign governments like China, posing a security threat.Page asked Strzok, “Did you hear about this?”Strzok replies, “I hadn’t, thank you.”Strzok forwarded the article to Dina Corsi, of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, “FYI.” A redacted official in the Counterintelligence Division responds, “Thank you for highlighting this to us!” Strzok forwards that response to Page, and says, “Our property ci. folks hadn’t heard either.”On March 23, 2017, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt emails FBI Asst. Dir. Michael Kortan saying:Mike: Wanted to flag you on something. Three of my colleagues are working on a story about the Russia investigation. They’re told that Jared Kusher [sic] is among the individuals who the F.B.I. is scrutinizing for their meetings with Russians. My colleagues were told that Ambassador Kislyak, after meeting with Kushner and General Flynn in early December at Trump Tower, set up a meeting with Kushner and a Russian banker. Kushner ultimately met with the Russian banker. The banker worked for Alpha Bank. Thanks, Mike.Schmidt’s email is forwarded by Kortan to Lisa Page. Page forwards it to Strzok and Moffa, saying “Just wanted you both to have this.”On April 3, 2017, a redacted official in the FBI Washington Field Office emails Strzok a link to a Guardian article titled “Michael Flynn: New Evidence Spy Chiefs Had Concerns about Russia Ties,” saying, “Im [sic] sure you are tracking, but this has gotten too deep.” Strzok replies, “I wasn’t. WTF is this…” Strzok then forwards the exchange to Page, saying “Not great.”On April 4, 2017, former FBI Asst. Dir. John Giacalone emails Priestap and Strzok to advise them that the New York Times‘ reporters Adam Goldman and Mike Appuzzo were doing a story on the Hillary server investigation. Giacalone stated, “[R]eceived referral obligated to open a case; knew at some point both political parties would have issues during and at conclusion of investigation; and case agents did outstanding investigative work leaving no stone un-turned.”On March 19, 2017, Strzok forwards a Washington Post article to Jon Moffa and other redacted persons discussing disclosures that FBI official Bill Evanina made in a public speech about private contractors stealing national security information. Strzok says, “Any idea what he’s talking about?” A redacted Unit Chief of CD-40 replies, “No idea. I queried the other UCs [Unit Chiefs] and they didn’t know either.” Moffa responds, “Who is Evanina’s boss at the bureau? It really seems like a weird dynamic where there is no requirement for him to coordinate with the AD of CD [Asst. Director of the Counterintelligence Division].” Strzok forwards Moffa’s response to Lisa Page, saying, “A fine question…”On February 10, 2017, a Senate staffer sent a letter to the FBI which a FBI congressional liaison official forwards on to others in the FBI, indicating that Sen. Claire McCaskill was “seeking a closed briefing on any investigation the FBI is conducting on General Flynn and his communications with the Russian government.” The redacted FBI forwarder adds, “Obviously we would never provide a briefing on any pending investigation, let alone acknowledge one, so this is just for awareness on your end.” The email exchange is then forwarded on to Strzok, Jennifer Boone, and other FBI officials. Strzok forwards it to Page “FYSA.”On February 14, 2017, Strzok forwards Priestap a New York Times article titled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” In his cover note, Strzok states, “This is the article Mike K [presumably Kortan] gave a heads up on earlier. Contains flat out inaccuracies. I will sit down with [redacted] early and draft some comments in advance of D meeting with Burr.”Priestap replies, “Thank you and, yes, please get info to [redacted] Lisa and Rybicki (and cc me), as soon as you have finished.” Strzok then forwards the exchange to Page, Rybicki, Jon Moffa and an unidentified person, saying, “See thread below. There are several significant errors/inaccuracies in the NYT article this evening. We’ll get you a red-lined copy with comments first thing tomorrow in advance of D meeting with Burr.”On February 15, 2017, Michael Kortan emails Strzok about the same piece, saying, “Pete, Can you send me you [sic] latest analysis on the NYT story from last night?” Strzok replies, “Just sent on red side.”In a February 15, 2017, email to Page, Strzok mocks a New York Times correction that, “at least three, not at least four” people were examined by the FBI. Strzok says, “Ha! ‘Three’!”On March 20, 2017, Strzok forwards to Page and an unidentified official a Washington Post article titled “President Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Twitter Day” and Strzok says, “This does a good job of parsing through the various tweets.On March 2, 2017, a redacted official in Comey’s office emails Strzok and Page, saying,”I believe Mike already discussed with Lisa the need to bring the NYTs back in today for a short meeting…. Can we squeeze something in perhaps at 4p?” Strzok replies, “Works for me.”On March 2, 2017, Strzok forwards to Page, Moffa and Priestap a Politico article titled “Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is Washington’s Most Dangerous Diplomat.” Strzok states, “Politico has the Mayflower speech, but ‘it is not clear whether either Sessions or Trump spoke at any length to Kislyak at Trump’s foreign speech in April’, citing the article. Strzok adds, “Also interesting if true, the only opportunity to meet would be at the reception in advance of the speech.”On March 6, 2017, Strzok emails Page “Can you call my desk [redacted]?” Pages replies, “Do we really need to talk tonight?” Strzok responds, “No, but this re-write needs to go out tonight. So any thoughts welcome [redacted]. And I hope Andy is good with the re-scoping.”On March 6, 2017, Strzok sends an email with the subject “AG letter to Judiciary,” along with an attachment called “Sessions, 03-06-17, letter, testimony.pdf.” Strzok pastes a paragraph of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony into the cover email, in which Sessions describes the occasion and content of the time he met with Russian Amb. Sergey Kislyak.On March 10, 2019, Page emails Strzok saying, “NPR had a very informative story on the Emoluments Clause this morning. You should totally listen.” Strzok replied, “I will. You spell that all by yourself? I’d have ended up with immollomints. <smiley emoji>”On March 13, 2017, then-Dep. Asst. Attorney General George Toscas emails Strzok, copying Dep. Asst AG David Laufman, stating,”As mentioned last week, the Acting DAG [Dana Boente] has requested a weekly update on the sensitive matter.”On March 23, 2017, Lisa Page sends an email to Moffa, Strzok and several other FBI unidentified officials with the subject line “Meeting with the DI” [probably Directorate of Intelligence] and says, “Hi friends [redacted]. Thanks guys. Lisa” Someone in the General Counsel’s office responds, “Not a problem. I’ll begin to lay the groundwork.” Moffa then replies, “It sounds like you have pretty routine interaction up there, but if I can help at all in reaching out to them, just say the word and I’ll do it… J”On March 29, 2017, Strzok emails Page, “It makes me angry” that Sen. Chuck Grassley had published a letter to Director Comey calling for answers from the FBI as to how Deputy Director Andrew McCabe could have overseen the FBI investigation into Trump-Russian “collusion.” Grassley pointed out that McCabe’s wife had accepted $700,000 from associates of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, during his wife’s run for the Virginia state Senate.On March 30, 2017, a redacted official emails Moffa and Strzok, advising them to read Gizmodo about the “D’s [Director’s] private Twitter acct.” Moffa replies, “I did not already know but I just read the whole thing. I have to say I didn’t expect that …” The unidentified official replies, “[I]f true, my respect for the D only solidifies when I see that he named himself after America’s preeminent 20th century political theologian.” (Gizmodo revealed that day that Comey used the Twitter handle “Reinhold Niebuhr,” who was a prominent American Marxist and Protestant theologian.)On March 31, 2017, the Democratic Staff Director on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sends an email to the FBI congressional liaison office saying “RM [Adam] Schiff will be viewing the documents at the White House this afternoon and he requests your agencies in-person assistance in verifying the authenticity of the documents and your technical assistance in reviewing them.”Judicial Watch has been doing the heavy lifting in this case for quite a while. In July 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered emails showing Strzok, Page and other top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for “the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use a non-state.gov email account “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the “electronic communication” (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.Still Fighting or Our First Amendment Rights in Washington, DCIn our fight for our First Amendment rights, Judicial Watch filed an opposition to a request to dismiss our civil rights lawsuit against Bowser and other responsible DC officials who failed to grant us permission to paint “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.We told the court that Mayor Bowser and the other DC officials acted arbitrarily and engaged in prohibited viewpoint discrimination in failing to grant our request.The lawsuit (Judicial Watch. v. Muriel Bowser, et al. (No. 1:20-cv-01789)) arose after two political messages – “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” – were painted on 16th Street NW, across from the White House.Here’s the history.On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington DC led by the Black Lives Matter movement, a team of artists, residents, District employees, and demonstrators painted “Black Lives Matter” and the District’s crest, which resembles three stars above an “equals” sign, on 16th Street NW. The following day, demonstrators painted “Defund the Police,” a key demand of the Black Lives Matter movement, alongside the “Black Lives Matter” message. The District government admits that the demonstrators lacked permission to paint “Defund the Police” on the street. To a reasonable viewer, the entire message can be read “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the Police.”On June 10, 2020, we asked the Mayor Bowser for permission to paint our motto, “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.  Mayor Bowser and other District officials largely ignored our request. Deputy Mayor John Falcicchio eventually told us to pursue a permit through the District Department of Transportation’s online permit application process, but the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Transportation Director Jeffrey Martoonian now admit there is no permit for street painting.At least two other organizations also formally requested permission to paint their own expressive messages on the District’s streets after “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” were painted on 16th Street. Each organization was treated very differently from the painters of “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police.”When in late June 2020 a veterans’ advocacy group requested permission to paint “Veterans Lives Matter” on the street in front of the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a block from the “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the Police” message, the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel told the group they could not do so unless the street was closed. The Mayor’s attorney also told the group that they could apply for a block party or special-event permit to have the street closed on a temporary basis.When a student organization sought to paint “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a District street in early August 2020, police reportedly told them they could do so, then told them they could not do so. When they tried to write their message in chalk on a nearby sidewalk, they were arrested.As we demonstrated in our opposition (Plf’s Opposition to Defs’ Motion to Dismiss (Combined & File Stamped) p. 7):Whether the District’s streets are considered traditional public fora, designated or limited public fora, or nonpublic fora, the First Amendment forbids arbitrary treatment of requests to engage in expressive conduct and viewpoint discrimination.We argue that the Mayor and other DC officials did the opposite of what the First Amendment requires: They acted arbitrarily and discriminated against us because of our message.Mayor Bowser gave us the runaround rather than equal access to the District’s streets to paint our ‘Because No One is Above the Law!’ message. Our First Amendment rights shouldn’t take a back seat to the Mayor’s political promotion of ‘BLM/Defund the Police’. Professor Sued by Muslim Student, Punished by College Wins in CourtEvery now and then we get good news from the political correctness tsunami engulfing our colleges and universities. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has such a story about a professor in Arizona under attack by the terrorist front group CAIR.A federal court has ruled in favor of a professor thrown under the bus by his public college after a Muslim student claimed the Islamic terrorism portion of a world politics class violated his Constitutional rights. The course is offered at Scottsdale Community College (SCC) in Arizona, which is part of the Maricopa County Community College District. It is taught by Nicholas Damask, a veteran professor who organizes the course into six modules that cover world politics. One is dedicated to defining and analyzing Islamic terrorism. Students are required to read excerpts from a book called “Future Jihad” written by a Lebanese-born Middle East expert who has worked with the U.S. departments of Justice, Defense and State.A Muslim student, Mohamed Sabra, sued Professor Damask and the Maricopa County Community College District in June for violating his First Amendment right by supposedly condemning his religion. In the complaint, filed by the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Sabra demands that Damask stop teaching the materials in question until they “do not have the primary effect of disapproving of Islam.” Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, CAIR was named as a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. In a statement announcing the lawsuit against the Arizona college district, CAIR alleges that Sabra “was punished for refusing to agree with an anti-Muslim professor’s unconstitutional condemnations of Islam during a Political Science class” and that he was forced to disavow his religion.Like many taxpayer-funded academic institutions nationwide, SCC caved into the left’s demands and administrators quickly apologized and tried to pressure the professor into signing an apology letter written by the college’s marketing team. The Maricopa County Community College District also caved in, launching an investigation and warning that the content of Damask’s course would be reviewed for “insensitivities.” Damask, who has taught world politics for more than two decades, stood up to his employer and refused to apologize. He eventually contacted a group dedicated to defending rights such as freedom of speech and religion, due process and legal equality at America’s colleges and universities. The nonprofit, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), sent a letter to SCC’s president pointing out that the school’s actions—as well as the district’s—were flatly inconsistent with the college’s First Amendment obligations and the basic tenets of academic freedom. “Further, the implication that Damask is being investigated by the college’s governing board will have an impermissible chilling effect on faculty expression and teaching,” the letter states. Publicly committing Damask to apologizing and a mandate that the content in question will be removed from his course is alarming and inconsistent with his rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom under both the First Amendment and Arizona law, according to FIRE.This month a federal court settled the issue, dismissing the lawsuit against the professor and the community college district, which has 10 campuses. In the ruling Judge Susan Brnovich writes that a curriculum that “merely conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.” She also writes that the Muslim student was not required to adopt the views expressed by the professor or the course’s required reading, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. “Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to attitudes and outlooks at odds with his own religious perspective,” the ruling states. Appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2018, Judge Brnovich also writes this in her order: “Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.”Standing up to these circumstances is not easy.The Left Threatens Violence Over a Potential Election LossThis will be no ordinary count the vote, declare a winner election. The Left is already planning and implementing the chaos it hopes will counter the potential reelection of President Trump. And all the while it is projecting this treachery onto Trump – witness Al Gore’s hysterical suggestion that the military may have to remove him.Now comes more evidence of this dangerous plan. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, describes it in his Investigative Bulletin.American history is no stranger to heated election disputes. In 1824, Adams beat Jackson in a race thrown to the House of Representatives. In 1876, Hayes beat Tilden in a race that ended Reconstruction. In 1888, Harrison lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, beating Grover Cleveland. In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon, allegedly benefiting from vote fraud in Texas and Illinois. In 2000, Bush beat Gore in an election fought through Florida and up the Supreme Court.In none of these cases, did the Republic fall. But today is different, if you believe the dire warnings from what’s being billed as a “bipartisan group” of government officials and election experts.Today, the end is near. The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) warns of an “alarming” election season marked by “illegal actions,” defiance of the popular vote, “chaos and violence in the streets,” federal seizure of mail-in ballots, “violent action,” and attempts to “bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents,” and pillage the Treasury.These paranoid polemics are featured in an ostensibly non-partisan report, “Preventing a Disputed Presidential Election and Transition,” circulating widely among the Left as Election Day nears. The villain of this set piece of course is Donald Trump.The report can be read simply as an occasionally hilarious guide to the Left’s id. After spending many pages trashing the president as a violent racist democracy-stealing criminal and worst-person-ever, TIP states that it “takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes.”But the document also provides some interesting clues about how the Left would handle a close contest.TIP said it engaged over 100 participants in a series of electoral war games: four “2020 election crisis scenarios.” The four scenarios: a race too tight to call on election night; a Biden popular vote and Electoral College win by a big margin; a Trump win in the Electoral College but a loss of the popular vote; and a Biden popular and electoral win by a narrow margin.The results of all four exercises were “alarming,” the report says. President Trump is likely to “contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.”Forget about the courts. Never mind that the legal system is the bulwark of our democratic process. TIP “intentionally did not game legal strategies in any detail,” the reports says. That’s telling.The TIP conclusions are dire. “A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power,” the report says. Trump might call for recounts; launch investigations into disputed results; halt mail-in ballots; “take to the streets;” and “rely on Fox News and right-wing social media” to “facilitate the harassment and bullying of election officials to cause chaos and delay.” Election officials might be intimidated “into taking actions that benefited Team Trump.” Republican-controlled state legislatures might be coerced into installing Trump-friendly Electoral College electors.To counter these evil plans—of which by the way there is not a shred of evidence outside the blusters of a famously blustery president—Team Biden and its supporters should “take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance about elites observing norms are not the answer here.”Biden-friendly congressional leaders should “seek advance assurances from the military and agency heads about plans and conduct,” the report says. “Military and law enforcement leaders need to be particularly attuned to the possibility that partisan actors will seek to manipulate or misuse their coercive powers for inappropriate political ends.” Civil servants “should be educated about their legal obligations to uphold the Constitution,” comrade. The media should start preparing their Trump-steals-the-election stories in advance. “Journalists and independent watchdogs can begin to cultivate sources and research stories now so they are positioned to sound the alarm.”In summary—Trump bad, Biden good. Close election—stolen. Fight it in the streets, not in the courts. Military, media, law enforcement, civil servants—get on the right side, you have been warned.The rest of us have been warned, too.As always, we will be closely monitoring such antics as election day approaches.Until next week …


 ### 

A CONVERSATION WITH KAREN’S SISTER LESLIE THE LIAR

Or, Kauaileslie @texasartist attempts a character assassination on Twitter, misses by a mile, shoots herself in the foot, and gets sued back to the stone age by a publisher.

You didn’t really think it was going to be that easy to assassinate my character did you, Leslie?

Surprise! It’s not. Guess why not? Because I have the entire record saved on screenshots. So, if your attorney wants to view them before he tells you to settle because you committed an act of libel against me on Twitter and got busted here’s your very own copy.

This is the entire body of the conversation in which she claims I insulted her. Copied and pasted in its entirety onto this page.

https://www.qmap.pub/

Message failed to send Delete for you· Try again

You’ll have to put this link back together because Twitter won’t allow it to be posted here.

5:31 AMh t t p s : / / w w w . q m a p . p u b /


kauaileslie@texasartist365
– I looked… confused still as to what they actually DO besides just say wait, you will see. Never liked the crying wolf game….

I honestly don’t know. I’ve met Q twice and I trust him more than anyone in DC besides Trump because it was they that put him there just for this purpose. We’ll just have to wait and see.


kauaileslie@texasartist365
-Who the hell is Q? That is the point… suppose to be JFJ Jr

Nope

A company man I think 6:11 AM

He just apeared on my feed aat the same time I was calling out the fake Jesus Christ in Africa. A person I had spoken with before and who had failed to mention that he was Christ back then, and Q suddenly appeared and it was surreal believe me.

Twice he pooped in like that and then poof he was gone.

popped*

Without a trace. I know this much, I saw him profess the salvation and love of Jesus Christ and of God more in that short time than every Dim I’ve had to listen to before then and since, combined and I believe his sincerity 100%

Q never said it was a secret and I’ve mentioned it a few times in Tweets that Q says the Ark of the Covenant is in DC. I have no doubt he’s right.It brings a clearer perspective to the whole thing.

(1) Freak Lightning Strikes Washington Monument on 4 June 2020. - YouTube
I‘ll give you 3 guesses where it’s buried.



kauaileslie@texasartist365
– So Q is Jesus? 8:35 AM

NO

When Jesus shows up you won’t have to ask.


kauaileslie@texasartist365
-You can’t find info on who or what Q is anywhere. I am a facts person… all the JFK jr. is Q and he is alive – look, here he is at a convention… riiiiiiight. Our country is quickly dying and your supposed Q savior is nowhere to be seen. I am tired of the games. Nah it’s not Jr.8:51 AM

I didn’t sign up to debate you. You asked for information and I gave it. Don’t put words in my mouth or foist assumptions on me. I serve God and nobody else and Q is not God is that clear enough? If you don’t like it do something about it yourself.


kauaileslie@texasartist365
– I just asked who Q was and as everyone else does, you dance around and then act insulted? Come on dude

Don’t wait for someone else to do the right thing do it yourself.


kauaileslie@texasartist365
-you didn’t give me any information…typical. You sound like a liberal 8:54 AM

How would I know who he is ask him youeslef.8:54

AM


kauaileslie@texasartist365
– again.. liberal gibberish8:55 AM

Whatever dude you can show yourself out too

kauaileslie@texasartist365– I figured you for a troll.8:55 AM


kauaileslie@texasartist365
– I am not a troll – I have a photo up on my info.. you don’t. YOU are the troll8:56 AM

You’re mkaking all the recriminations troll8:56 AM


kauaileslie@texasartist365
– fuck you8:57 AM

hahahahaha8:57 AM

you wish

Message failed to sendDelete for you·Try againYou can no longer send messages to this person. 

Anything else you’d like to say Leslie? So, if any civil attorneys are reading this that have nothing better to do than take all of Leslie’s toys away from her and drain her bank account please feel free to contact me through this website. I’ll split the settlement 60/40 and take the 40%.

In the future, Leslie I would be a lot more careful whom you try to accuse falsely. Tell Karen I said, what’s up? ;c)

Smooches,

Charles RAmos Jr.

aka @CharlesRamos63

Comey FBI Leadership Sent Frantic Emails on Eve of Trump’s Inauguration

WEEKLY UPDATE

As we continue uncovering details of the coup against President Trump by top Obama/Deep State officials, we’ve also noted the FBI and DOJ are still slow-rolling the release of information about the scandal.

So, frustratingly slowly – but surely – we’re getting piece after piece of the Obamagate puzzle.

We received another batch of emails, 136 pages, between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. They include heavily redacted emails showing Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”

On January 19, 2017, the night before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, a series of emails were exchanged among top officials in the FBI’s General Counsel’s office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field Office, and included then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap.

The thread was initiated at 3:29 p.m. on January 19 by an assistant general counsel in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch in an email to Strzok with an almost entirely redacted email in which the person said, “I’ll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too.” Strzok’s reply is redacted, as is the response to Strzok. Strzok then says at 7:04 p.m., “I briefed Bill this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What’s your recommendation?” The Counterintelligence Division official’s reply to Strzok is mostly redacted, except for “Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am missing something.” An unidentified official replies, “[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him.” At 8 p.m., Strzok responds (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division, Washington Field Office and General Counsel’s office), “Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck.” Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, “Bill spoke with Andy. [Redacted.] Here we go again …”

On January 21, 2017, the day after Trump’s inauguration, Strzok forwarded to Lisa Page and a redacted person an email he’d sent that day to Priestap, asking them to “not forward/share.” In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, “I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”

Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message he’d sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone.

We received the records in our January 2018 FOIA lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).

The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around 8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.

In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary Clinton’s paid operative Christopher Steele.

In a January 2017 email, Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report that claimed Steele had suspected there was a “cabal” within the FBI that put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.

In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.

The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, andDeputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa, a New York Times report that refers to the dossier as containing “unsubstantiated accounts” and “unproven claims.” In the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it “Pretty good reporting.”

On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK Independent article entitled “Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele’s Frustration as FBI Sat On Donald Trump Russia File for Months”.

The article, citing security sources, notes that, “Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton’s emails.”

Strzok responds: “Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that question gaining traction anywhere else?”

The records also include a February 10, 2017, email from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.

On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject “RE: EO on Economic Espionage,” emailed Lisa Page, saying, “Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached Flynn’s office and got no information.” Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: “OPS has not received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I’ll follow up with our detailees about this EO.” Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017.

On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Inspection Division emailed Strzok and Priestap with the subject line “Leak,” saying, “Tried calling you but the phones are forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call if I have it wrong.” Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified person in the General Counsel’s office, saying, “Need to talk to you about how to respond to this.”

On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed Kortan, saying he’d learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau’s Eurasian organized crime section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian “collusion” to the bureau in Rome. Kortan forwards Isikoff’s email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok “just for visibility”. Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, “FYI, [redacted], you or I should probably inform [redacted]. How’s your relationship with him? Bill unless you object, I’ll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know.” Strzok forwards the whole exchange on to Lisa Page.

On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working on. Kortan replied, “Okay, I will start organizing things.” Further along in the thread, an FBI Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews, saying Steinbach had agreed to a “background discussion” with Elkind, who was “writing the ‘definitive’ account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey’s handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what he did and why he did it.” In May 2017, Elkind wrote an article titled “The Problems With the FBI’s Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,” which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the publication.

Strzok ended up being scheduled to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey’s chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind’s reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed at length in previous emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office. And now we see how the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton email investigation.

And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray’s FBI and Barr’s DOJ continue slow walking the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won’t be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!

Here’s a brief history of our investigation of the FBI’s anti-Trump campaign.

In February 2020, we uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for “the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use it “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.

Also in February, we made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.

In January 2020, we uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.

In November 2019, we revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.

Also in November, we uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”

In a related case, in May 2020, we received the “electronic communication” (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.

As you can see, your Judicial Watch is compiling the history, over the grievous obstruction by the Deep State, of the gravest political scandal in our nation’s history.

The Pentagon Is Indoctrinating Our Troops With Racist, Anti-American Propaganda

President Obama had little regard for our military, except when he could force it to undergo brainwashing with leftist dogma, as we reported in 2016. At that time, 400 soldiers in the 67thSignal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, were subjected to a “white privilege” briefing.

This kind of thing hasn’t stopped. In fact, it’s gotten worse. We have obtained 1,483 pages of teaching materials and 26 pages of budget records from the Defense Department produced by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) that are used by DOD’s “equal opportunity advisors” to train service members on diversity topics. We received these documents in response to our FOIA request.

You may have a hard time believing this.

The teaching materials include “Student Study Guides” written for “Equal Opportunity Advisor Courses,” that are critical of persons who “believe that human similarities are more important than differences;” advise people to acknowledge their privilege when “it is pointed out to them;” claim that heterosexuals have “sexual orientation privilege;” and that “religious privilege” exists.

According to DEOMI’s website, the organization was “Propelled by the civil rights movement of the 1960s.” The DEOMI operating budget between 2012-2017 totaled $19.66 million dollars.

According the Defense Department Comptroller’s office, DEOMI and WRP (Workforce Recruitment Program) now jointly make up an entity called the Defense Management Operations Center (DMOC) and that entity was budgeted $13,366,000 for FY2020.

  • The newly released records include a chapter entitled “Power and Privilege,” in which students are taught that, “Privilege can also be linked to various forms of identity such as … sexual orientation privilege” and “religious privilege.”
  • Students are also taught that there is “sexual orientation privilege” associated with the “marginalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation.”
  • The guide advises that “some dominant group members” may claim “personal achievement mostly depends on personal ability.”
  • The study guide also teaches that people who raise religious objections to homosexual marriage are engaged in a form of discrimination called “principium,” which is “avoiding exploration based on a religious or personal principle:”
  • In order to “become personally aware of privilege,” the study guide advises people to “decode your social identity.”
  • In a chapter on diversity, the guide is critical of those who engage in “minimization,” which it defines as those who believe that “human similarities are more important than differences.”
  • The guide notes that, “Statistics show Whites are the majority in senior leadership positions (i.e., flag officers, general officers, and Senior Executive Service) and lend itself [sic] to the perpetuation of racism.”
  • An example of “modern racism” is saying things like “Discrimination is a thing of the past … tactics and demands of activists are unfair … racism is bad.”
  • The document also states that another form of racism is “aversive racism.” Aversive racists, say the authors, “put high value on egalitarian beliefs.”
  • In a chart labeled “Racist Behavior” the authors break racism into “traditional,” “symbolic,” “modern” and “aversive” categories, in which modern racists believe minorities are “undeserving of special efforts to redress past inequities.” The chart also indicates that people who oppose “policies designed to address racial equality” or feel that those policies are violations of “norms and fairness” are modern racists.
  • After cautioning against using stereotypes in previous study sections, the study section on Asian Americans says, “Self-control, discipline, competitiveness, and education are important elements in Japanese-American culture.”
  • A warning footer at the bottom of the trainer’s guides, repeated throughout the document advises “FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY – DO NOT USE ON THE JOB.” [Emphasis in original]
  • Students are encouraged to: “Talk to others about your recognized inferior socialized behavior.”
  • In a learning bloc on “Perceptions” equal opportunity advisors are told that, “stereotypes are bad if they lead to discrimination of protected categories.”
  • A section addressing “Cross-Cultural Communication” states: “Gender includes the social construction of masculinity and femininity within a culture and incorporates his or her biological, psychological, and sociological characteristics. Sex refers to a person’s biological or physical self. Although sex determines who will bear children, gender accounts for our roles in life and how these life roles affect our communication.”
  • The section also claims that in childhood gender communication: “Girls are told to use their manners, play quietly, and be ladylike,” it is “okay for boys to use rough language, play loudly, and be rambunctious. Girls are allowed to show feelings.”
  • After warning readers about the dangers of stereotypes, the manual then says women communicate “stereotypically … using a passive/assertive style,” whereas men communicate “stereotypically” by “using an assertive/aggressive style in efforts to accomplish tasks, achieve status, and dominate the conversation.”
  • The guide breaks Americans down into four generational types: “Traditionalists,” “Baby Boomers,” “Generation X” and “Millennials” and characterizes their personalities by group. It says “Xers” born between 1960-1980 “need positive feedback to let them know they’re on the right track,” and Millennials born between 1980-2000 “are used to praise and may mistake silence for disapproval. They need to know what they’re doing right and what they’re doing wrong. Feedback whenever I want it at the push of a button.”
  • A section on “Sexual orientation privilege” includes the view that this group believes “heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation,” and that “sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes.”
  • The guide notes that transsexual, transgender and sometimes homosexual populations are denied “freedom enjoyed by heterosexual couples.”
  • The guide advises Equal Opportunity Advisors to: “Acknowledge your privilege when it is pointed out to you.” They are also told that, “Privilege will never go away until the systems in our society that cause discrimination go away,” and suggests that the equal opportunity advisors “work to make those inequitable systems visible.”
  • In a 15-page study guide on “Extremism,” the guide mentions Nazis, white supremacism, criminal gangs, skinhead groups, the Confederate flag, national anarchists, eco-terrorism, environmental activists, and right-wing extremists. Three pages discuss “skinhead culture.”
  • According to a study guide on sexism, killing one’s spouse is an example of sexist behavior (falling under the “extermination” category).
  • In a discussion of the history of sexism in the military, the guide claims that, “many women masqueraded as men in order to serve their country” (presumably referring to the United States).
  • In a study guide on “Diversity Management,” the authors advise that affirmative action “focuses on prevention and/or correcting discriminatory practices concerned with numbers of minorities and women. It is an attempt to rectify past discrimination against certain groups of people.” In the next paragraph, the authors write: “Service members shall be evaluated only on merit, fitness, and capability. Unlawful discrimination against individuals or groups based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is contrary to good order and discipline and … shall not be condoned.”
  • The study guides contain some negative lines against Americans such as, “Many U.S. Americans have widely divergent views on whether a problem even exists.”
  • In a study section on “stereotyping,” the authors say that, “Stereotypes may or may not originate in a kennel [sic] of truth …”
  • In a study guide section on “White Americans,” the authors say that, “The majority, 35.7 percent, of White Americans are located in the South (U.S Census Bureau, 2010).”
  • In a study guide section on Hispanic Americans, the authors describe illegal aliens from Mexico as “undocumented Mexican immigrants.”

These documents show that the Department of Defense has been indoctrinating our troops with anti-American and racially inflammatory “training.” We must protect our military service members from being brainwashed by the divisive, anti-American propaganda fueling the leftist insurrectionists who are right now trying to destroy our country.

Fraud in New Jersey Mail-In Ballots Signals National Trouble

Voter fraud is real and it is more of a risk this election because of crazed efforts by the Left to flood the mails with millions of ballots and ballot appplications. Micah Morrison, chief investigative reporter, reports in his Investigative Bulletinon the ballot fraud uncovered in New Jersey.

Concern over mail-in balloting is rising as the presidential election approaches. Last month, we highlighted California Governor Gavin Newsom’s brazen mail-in ballot scam: an executive order mandating mail-in ballots “to preserve public health in the face of the threat of Covid-19.” Judicial Watch challenged the executive order in federal court, prompting the state legislature to pass a law ensuring that mail-in balloting would take place.

Problems with mail-in, or absentee, balloting are not new. In 2005, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission noted that, “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud…. Absentee balloting is vulnerable to abuse in several ways: blank ballots mailed to the wrong address or to a large residential building might get intercepted. Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

Now comes news from New Jersey that has election observers worried. In a well-documented case of ballot fraud, the state attorney general charged four men with casting fraudulent mail-in votes, tampering with public records, and falsifying documents. It’s a template for crooked electioneering and perhaps a sign of things to come.

The charges surround city council elections in Paterson—Democratic Party turf and New Jersey’s third largest city, with a $287 million municipal budget. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, like his counterpart in California, issued an executive order authorizing a vote entirely by mail-in ballots. Mark Hemingway of Real Clear Politics reports that problems quickly surfaced after election day. Bundles of ballots appeared in neighborhood mailboxes, raising the suspicions of U.S. Postal Service inspectors. Over 2,300 ballots were disqualified when the signatures appeared to not match voting records. Piles of mail-in ballots were left on the lobby floors of apartment buildings. Reporters tracked down citizens who were listed as having voted but insisted they never even received a ballot. Nearly 20% of the 16,000 ballots were disqualified.

Investigators for the attorney general quickly traced the bogus ballots to two local politicians and their hired hands. City Councilman Michael Jackson and councilman-elect Alex Mendez were charged with election fraud for illegally collecting ballots and tampering with the certification paperwork. Shelim Kalique and Abu Razyen were charged with fraud for improperly collecting ballots. The scheme appears to have been simple: the men collected blank ballots, forged the paperwork and signatures, and submitted fake votes. Read more on the charges here.

The fairy tale among Democrats and the Left is that conservative concerns about election fraud are nothing but attempts to deny voters access to the ballot box. But election fraud should be a bipartisan concern. As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Congresslast month, “if you’re a Leftist Democrat trying to take on an incumbent in a corrupt jurisdiction, voter fraud can keep you from gaining traction.”

Paterson underscores Tom’s argument. It’s a historically corrupt city dominated by Democratic Party politics. The defendants in the ballot fraud case are not criminal masterminds—a closer approximation would be Curly, Moe and Larry—but in a way that’s the point. Ballot fraud is easy.

RCP’s Hemingway reminds us that while Paterson’s municipal balloting has little in common with a national election, the 2016 presidential race was decided “by fewer than 80,000 votes in a handful of swing states.” Paterson demonstrates that the national rush to mail-in balloting has left plenty of room for fraud and error. And that’s a signal of trouble for November.

As you know, Judicial Watch is a leader in efforts to keep elections clean, and you can help us win.

Trump Task Force Dismantling MS-13 Takes Down Gang’s Key Leaders

Given the widespread violence in our streets it is a relief to see President Trump doing what he is famous for: solving a problem. This one had to do with the barbarian gang known as MS-13. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the story.

Some good news for a change. A special task force launched by President Donald Trump to gut the nation’s deadliest street gang has taken down key leaders in less than a year and for the first time charged a gang banger with terrorism-related offenses. The feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), has spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs.

Thanks to Barack Obama’s open border policies, MS-13 was energized with new recruits provided by a steady flow of illegal immigrant minors. When the Obama administration started welcoming a barrage of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in 2014, Homeland Security sources told Judicial Watch that the nation’s most violent street gangs—including MS-13 and the 18th Street gang—were actively recruiting new members at U.S. shelters housing the minors. The Texas Department of Public Safety subsequently confirmed that the MS-13 is a top tier gang thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that crossed into the state under Obama’s disastrous program, which saw over 60,000 illegal immigrants—many with criminal histories—storm into the U.S. in a matter of months. Tens of thousands more have entered since then.

President Trump vowed to crush the famously savage MS-13 and shortly after taking office issued an Executive Order directing several agencies, including the departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security, to coordinate an effort to restore safety for the American people by extinguishing transitional criminal organizations such as MS-13. The order states that the criminal groups have spread throughout the nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens. “These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life,” the order says. “They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts. These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.” The president gives federal agencies 120 days to report progress in combating the criminal organizations as well as recommended actions for dismantling them.

In August 2019 Attorney General William Barr launched an initiative known as Joint Task Force Vulcan (JTFV) to address MS-13 with a coordinated force of federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice (DOJ). JTFV has increased collaboration with foreign law enforcement partners, including in El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala; designated priority MS-13 programs, cliques and leaders, who have the most impact on the U.S., for targeted prosecutions, and; coordinated significant MS-13 indictments in U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country, such as New York, Virginia and Nevada. Less than a year after its formation, the task force has recorded big successes. This week the DOJ announced a number of significant JTFV cases, including for the first time an MS-13 member being charged with terrorism-related offenses, the take down of the MS-13 Hollywood leadership and the Attorney General’s decision to seek the death penalty against an MS-13 operative. JTFV Director John Durham calls it the result of tremendous teamwork between prosecutors and law enforcement officers across the United States and Central America.

The cases announced this week include an indictment against a high-ranking MS-13 operative, Melgar Diaz, in Virginia. Diaz is charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, conspiring to kill or maim persons overseas, conspiring to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiring to finance terrorism, and; conspiring to engage in narco-terrorism, in addition to racketeering conspiracy and drug trafficking. In another case eight MS-13 members were indicted in New York for committing six murders, two attempted murders, kidnapping, narcotics felonies and related firearms offenses. In Nevada 13 MS-13 gang bangers, including leaders of the “Hollywood Locos” clique and “Los Angeles Program” were charged with multiple counts of narcotics distribution and weapons crimes. The task force is also responsible for the indictment in New York of Alexi Saenz, an MS-13 leader accused of committing seven murders, including two high school students with a machete and baseball bat. “MS-13 is a violent transnational criminal organization, whose criminal activities respect no boundaries,” said Durham, the JTFV director. “The only way to defeat MS-13 is by targeting the organization as a whole, focusing on the leadership structure, and deploying a whole-of-government approach against a common enemy.”

Does it really take the President of the United States to clean up street crime?

Yet Another Top FBI Official Embroiled in Sexual Misconduct Scandal

The “sick man” of federal law enforcement, the FBI, too often seems like Peyton Place, as our Corruption Chroniclesblog informs us:

Besides its infamy for failing to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is gaining quite a reputation as a hotbed of sexual misconduct among its upper ranks. Perhaps that is why the “intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization”with a staff of 30,000 agents, analysts and other professionals has been derelict in its duties for decades. Remember that the FBI’s well-documented transgressions culminated in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 2001. Since then, the agency, which is also charged with protecting the nation from espionage, cyber attacks and other major criminal threats, has struggled to do its job and it has cost dozens of American lives. The critical lapses have allowed homegrown violent extremists to carry out more than 20 attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, some of them after the agency closed counterterrorism investigations of the attackers.

In the meantime, the FBI has been singled out repeatedly for sexual misconduct among high-level officials, including a unit chief, special agent in charge and supervisory intelligence analyst. Just a few days ago, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG) issued an investigative summary of misconduct by an FBI Unit Chief (UC) for engaging in an improper, intimate relationship with a subordinate and failing to disclose it as per agency policy. The unit chief, who is not identified, was directly involved in the lover’s promotion while the secret relationship was ongoing and helped the lover get certain work assignments and travel opportunities, also in violation of FBI policy. “The FBI UC’s conduct violated federal ethics regulations regarding impartiality,” according to the DOJ IG, which further reveals that the unit chief has since retired. The document does not mention if there were any consequences for the high-ranking FBI official, but it seems to indicate that the serious violations are water under the bridge because the official is no longer at the beleaguered agency.

Three other cases were also made public by the agency watchdog in recent months, though the offenders are never identified. In May, a former FBI section chief and Special Agent in Charge (SAC) was exposed for sexually harassing multiple employees, failure to report an intimate relationship with a subordinate and lack of candor. Investigators found that the “SAC sexually harassed six subordinate employees while serving as the SAC and two subordinate employees while serving in a previous position as a Section Chief at FBI Headquarters, failed to report an intimate relationship with a subordinate, engaged in actions following the end of that relationship that created a hostile work environment for the subordinate, and lacked candor during the SAC’s interview with the OIG, all in violation of FBI policy,” according to a report made public in late May. The investigation also determined that the SAC violated the DOJ’s zero tolerance policy involving sexual harassment.

Two other cases were made public in April, one involving an FBI assistant director and the other a supervisory intelligence analyst. The assistant director got busted for seeking an improper intimate relationship with a subordinate, sexual harassment and related misconduct, according to a DOJ IG bulletin issued on April 21. Investigators found that the assistant director violated FBI policy by pursuing an “improper intimate relationship” with a subordinate after inappropriately touching the subordinate following an after-work happy hour event. The probe also determined that the high-ranking official “violated FBI policies related to sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct off-duty, as well as DOJ’s zero tolerance policy with respect to harassment, in making unwelcomed and unwanted sexual advances on the subordinate.” The report further reveals that the assistant director violated FBI policy by failing to properly secure a firearm inside his or her vehicle. As in several other cases of wrongdoing the assistant director has conveniently retired. About a week earlier, an FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) was dismissed for knowingly possessing child pornography.In late 2019, the DOJ OIG blasted an “FBI senior official”for failing to report an intimate relationship with a subordinate and violating the FBI’s ethics policy by participating in decisions regarding the subordinate’s promotion.

The cases mark a lot of activity at the Bureau in less than a year. To be fair, sexual misconduct appears to be a broad problem at various DOJ agencies, not just the FBI. Earlier this year the agency’s watchdog issued a management advisory identifying concerns in the handling of supervisor-subordinate relationships across DOJ components. “In the recent past, the OIG has noted an increase in the number of allegations it has received and subsequently investigated regarding allegedly inappropriate relationships between high-level supervisors and subordinates in several different components,” the document states. In the advisory the FBI’s policy is described as prohibiting supervisors from engaging in romantic or intimate relationships with subordinates “if the relationship negatively affects a professional and appropriate superior-subordinate relationship or otherwise adversely affects the FBI mission.”

Does anyone in FBI have time to fight crime or terrorism or spies?

Until next week,

Contribute

NUFF SAID

Antifa “doesn’t exist” “they’re not an organization” the liberals have told me and they have been trying desperately to tell anyone who will listen on all social media platforms.

If that is true, then why do they have a flag, a handbook, and a literary agent/publicist in the Attorney General’s office as seen here? Minnesota, America, and the entire world has been played like Nero’s fiddle and they danced in the streets while Rome burned.

All lives matter.

Charles Ramos, Jr. – Publisher.

Protect Clean Elections!

WEEKLY UPDATE

Judicial Watch Testifies to Congress: Secure the Vote!

I was pleased to represent you in providing testimony to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties during a hearing titled “Protecting the Right to Vote During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

I reminded the committee that Judicial Watch has “been involved for almost a decade in ensuring the honesty and integrity of our electoral processes” and “is now the nation’s premier enforcer, public or private, of the election integrity provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).”

“The American people see what they conclude are disingenuous fights over electoral procedures and lose faith in the honesty of our elections,” I said. “With this background in mind I turn to measures proposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the more common suggestions now is to require greater reliance on mail-in ballots. For example, last month Governor Newsom issued an executive order requiring that county elections officials transmit mail ballots to every registered voter in the State. I view this as a real threat to the integrity of American elections.

“It is now about five months until election day, and the pandemic’s infection curve has flattened. Insisting now on all-mail ballot elections seems less like a response to a health crisis and more like a partisan application of the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: ‘Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.'”

For more than 25 years, Judicial Watch has been known for its aggressive, leading edge use of public records laws and lawsuits, as well as taxpayer, civil rights, and whistleblower protection litigation to fight government corruption. In 2012, we launched a nationwide effort to promote voting integrity and protect voting rights. As part of this effort, we assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who have fought gerrymandering in Maryland, stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

In 2018, California settled a federal lawsuit with Judicial Watch and began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. In April, Judicial Watch sued North Carolina and Pennsylvania to force them to clean up their voter rolls. We also just filed a lawsuit to stop the special, statewide vote-by-mail mandate issued by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Other participants in the hearing included:Stacey Abrams, Chair, Fair Fight ActionJ. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal FoundationBarbara Arnwine, President, Transformational Justice CoalitionJocelyn Benson, Secretary of State, State of MichiganMichelle Bishop, Disability Advocacy Specialist for Voting Rights, National Disability Rights NetworkDale Ho, Director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil Liberties UnionMyrna Pérez, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program, Brennan Center for JusticeI suspect the Left wasn’t terribly happy with my testimony, as I called them out for using coronavirus to scare Americans from voting in person. This is the real voter suppression.

Thank you to Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Ranking Member Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) for running the hearing and allowing Judicial Watch the opportunity to make our case for more secure elections.
 
My written testimony is available here. Video from the hearing is available here.


Court Rules Cash Payments to Illegal Aliens Likely Violate Federal Law

A federal court just ruled that a Montgomery County, MD, program that provides $10 million in cash payments to illegal aliens likely violates federal law and irreparably harms county taxpayers.

The court ordered the county to hold back 25% of any unspent funds until the court can fully consider the merits of our taxpayer lawsuit (Bauer, et al, v. Elrich, et al. (No. 20-cv-01212)). However, the court denied our request for a temporary restraining order.
 
This action comes in our lawsuit on behalf of Montgomery County taxpayers Sharon Bauer and Richard Jurgena, originally filed on May 13 in Montgomery County Circuit Court, which Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich and Raymond Crowel, director of the county’s Department of Health and Human Services, subsequently removed to federal court. The lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin Elrich and Crowel from expending taxpayer money on the cash-benefits program known as the “Emergency Assistance Relief Payment Program” (EARP). Payments under EARP would amount to $500 per single adult, $1,000 per family with one child and $150 per additional child, up to a maximum of $1,450 per family.
 
Under federal law, certain categories of aliens, including unlawfully present aliens, are ineligible for state or local public benefits. Such benefits include direct, cash payments. If a state chooses to provide such benefits to unlawfully present aliens, it must enact a state law affirmatively providing for such eligibility.
 
We argue that EARP violates federal law because the Maryland State Legislature has not authorized Montgomery County to provide these benefits to unlawfully present aliens. Therefore, Elrich and the County Council overstepped their authority when they created the program. The Montgomery County DHHS has stated that “unlawfully present aliens are eligible to apply for and receive cash payments.”
 
The court agreed with us, ruling that:
 Based on an analysis of the federal statute alone, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. 
Although the court denied a request for a temporary restraining order, it did order that county retain at least 25% of any unspent funds until the court could fully consider the merits of the case.
 
This ruling pushes back on the abuse by county officials who want to send taxpayer coronavirus money to illegal aliens in violation of federal law. The coronavirus challenge doesn’t give politicians a pass to violate the law. If politicians want to use tax money from law-abiding taxpayers and send cash payments to illegal aliens, they must be accountable and transparent, and, as federal law requires, pass a state law to do so.
 

Appeals Court Weighs Whether We Can Depose Hillary Clinton

We participated in an appeals court hearing this week by teleconference regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify. 

Hillary Clinton is essentially saying: “What difference does it make!” She argues that she shouldn’t have to testify because she is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State.

Our position is that neither Clinton nor Mills has demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court’s order and that the case is not moot. We argue that the FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.

This hearing came in our FOIA lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, we uncovered “talking points” created by the Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice were misleading, if not false. This FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. 

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted us discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. In April, we and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ request to overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found that Clinton’s testimony was necessary and that it was time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered discovery into whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to avoid FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. It ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Judicial Watch senior attorney Ramona Cotca did a fantastic job this week against Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer and some tough questioning by the court.

The issue is now fully submitted and we await the panel’s ruling. You can listen to the hearing here.


Facebook Censorship Board Has Ties to Leftwing Billionaire George Soros

Social media has assumed a primary role in how Americans talk to eachother and learn what is going on. And so, the censorship that is choking the major platforms is a serious threat to online conservative voices including, as we saw with Twitter’s recent censorship, the President of the United States.

Consider the hard Left make-up of Facebook’s censorship board — our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details.
The recently appointed Facebook oversight board that will decide which posts get blocked from the world’s most popular social networking website is stacked with leftists, including a close friend of leftwing billionaire George Soros who served on the board of directors of his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Judicial Watch conducted a deep dive into the new panel that will make content rulings for the technology company that was slammed last year with a $5 billion fine for privacy violations. The information uncovered by Judicial Watch shows that the group of 20 is overwhelmingly leftist and likely to restrict conservative views. More than half of the members have ties to Soros, the philanthropist who dedicates huge sums to spreading a radical left agenda that includes targeting conservative politicians. Other Facebook oversight board members have publicly expressed their disdain for President Donald Trump or made political contributions to top Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. As one New York newspaper editorial determined this month, the new Facebook board is a “recipe for left-wing censorship.”
Among the standouts is András Sajó, the founding Dean of Legal Studies at Soros’ Central European University. Sajó was a judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for nearly a decade. He also served on the board of directors of OSF’s Justice Initiative. Sajó was one of the ECHR judges in an Italian case (Latusi v. Italy) that ruled unanimously that the display of a crucifix in public schools in Italy violates the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision was subsequently overturned. Sajó’s deep ties to Soros are also concerning. Through his OSF Soros funds a multitude of projects worldwide aimed at spreading a leftist agenda by, among other things, destabilizing legitimate governments, erasing national borders and identities, financing civil unrest and orchestrating refugee crises for political gain.  Incredibly, there is a financial and staffing nexus between the U.S. government and Soros’ OSF. Read about it in a Judicial Watch special report documenting how Soros advances his leftist agenda at U.S. taxpayer expense.
At least 10 other members of the Facebook oversight board are connected to leftist groups tied to Soros that have benefitted from his generous donations, according to Judicial Watch’s research. Alan Rusbridger, a former British newspaper editor and principal at Oxford University, serves on the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which received $750,000 from OSF in 2018. Rusbridger also served as a governor at a global thinktank, Ditchley Foundation, that co-hosted a conference with OSF on change in the Middle East and North Africa as well as understanding political Islam. Afia Asantewaa Sariyev, a human rights attorney, is the program manager at Soros’ Open Society Initiative for West Africa. Her research includes critical race feminism and socio-economic rights of the poor. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, an Indian lawyer and civil society activist, runs a progressive nonprofit called Centre for Law and Policy Research that focuses on transgender rights, gender equality and public health. The group is a grantee of a justice foundation that received $1.4 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Krishnaswamy’s Centre also received money from a radical pro-abortion group, Center for Reproductive Rights, generously funded by the OSF.
The list of Facebook judges connected to Soros and the organized left continues. Julie Owono is the executive director of a Paris-based nonprofit, Internet Sans Frontieres, that advocates for privacy and freedom of expression online. In 2018, Internet Sans Frontieres became a member of the Global Network Initiative, an internet oversight and policy consortium handsomely funded by Soros. Nighat Dad is a Pakistani attorney and the founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Pakistan that has received $114,000 in grants from OSF. Dad’s group also gets funding from Facebook Ireland. Ronaldo Lemos, a Brazilian law professor, served on the board of directors of the Mozilla Foundation, which collected $350,000 from OSF in 2016 and was also a board member at another group, Access Now, that also got thousands of dollars from Soros. Tawakkol Karman, a journalist and civil rights activist, sits on the advisory board of Transparency International, which gets significant funding from Soros’ OSF.
Rounding out the Soros-affiliated field on the new Facebook censorship board are Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Catalina Botero-Marino and Maina Kiai. Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark’s former prime minister, sits on the board of the European Council of Foreign Relations, which took in more $3.6 million from OSF in 2016 and 2017. She is also a trustee at the International Crisis Group which has collected over $8.2 million from OSF and includes George and Alexander Soros on its board. The former Danish prime minister is also a member of the Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board, which received approximately $325,000 from OSF in the last few years and the European Advisory Board of the Center for Global Development, which got north of half a million dollars from OSF in 2018. Botero-Marino is the dean of a Colombian law school called Universidad de Los Andes that obtained more than $1.3 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018, the records obtained by Judicial Watch show. Botero-Marino also sits on the panel of experts at Columbia University’s Global Freedom Expression Project, which gets funding from OSF, and she was a board member at Article 19, a group that got about $1.7 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Kiai is the director of the Global Alliances and Partnerships at Human Rights Watch, which accepted $275,000 from OSF in 2018. He is also a member of OSF’s Human Rights Initiative advisory board and was the founding executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, which got $615,000 from Soros in the last two years.
Others on the Facebook board have slandered President Trump in social media posts and donated money to high-profile Democrats. Taiwanese communications professor Katherine Chen’s Twitter account includes retweets of numerous anti-Trump and pro-Obama posts and articles. Nicolas Suzor, a law professor in Australia, retweeted a column implicitly comparing Trump to Hitler and Columbia University law professor Jamal Greene has made campaign contributions to Obama, Hillary Clinton and Warren. Pro-Trump impeachment Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who took a cheap shot at President Trump’s teenage son during the Brett Kavanaugh impeachment hearings, has also contributed money to Obama, Hillary Clinton and Warren. The new board has only a few token conservatives such as Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The overwhelming majority of those making Facebook’s “final and binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or removed,” are leftists. They represent a new model of content moderation that will uphold “freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights.” Facebook’s economic, political or reputational interests will not interfere in the process, the company writes in its introduction to the new board. Eventually the board, which will begin hearing cases later this year, will double in size. “The cases we choose to hear may be contentious, and we will not please everyone with our decisions,” Facebook warns.

Virus Update: Data Wars Rage Over Trump-Boosted Drug

It’s a sign of the times: medical advice has now been politicized. How can ordinary people get to the truth when seemingly trusted sources of information so blatantly spout untruths?

Our senior investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, continues to follow the best-known example in his Investigative Bulletin. The latest:
Scientific fisticuffs are flying over hydroxychloroquine (HC), the anti-malaria drug enthusiastically promoted by President Trump in the war against the coronavirus. The president—backed by an array of global reports, anecdotal evidence, and outside advisers—thinks HC could be an effective preventative, a weapon for frontline medical personnel, and helpful when administered in the early stage of the virus. On May 18, Trump doubled down and made it personal, announcing that he himself had been taking HC. Trump’s critics are aghast at this exercise of the presidential bully pulpit, warning that HC has serious side effects and possibly zero effectiveness in fighting the virus.
But the president has had an impact. Medical studies are moving at warp speed. Yesterday, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a University of Minnesota study that concluded HC did not work as a preventative for the disease. The study, with more than 800 participants, “had an unusual design,” noted NPR in a report on the findings.
“It was all web-based,” a leader of the project told NPR. “People would go to our website if they were interested in enrolling.”
To qualify for the study, NPR reported, “people had to be within a few days of their encounter with a Covid-19 patient and not have any symptoms of the disease themselves. ‘Encounters’ meant being within six feet of a sick person for more than ten minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield, or while wearing a face mask but no face shield. The volunteers received either a five-day supply of hydroxychloroquine, or a placebo.” The study concluded that HC was not effective in preventing healthy people from getting the disease. Read more about it here.
Meanwhile, an influential study published May 22 in another high-profile medical journal, The Lancet, has come under fire. The study, based on a more than 90,000 patient records from a little-known hospital data company, concluded that patients taking HC were more likely to develop abnormal heart rhythms and more likely to die.
The reaction to the Lancet report was swift. Trump was denounced. France, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the World Health Organization put holds on clinical trials investigating HC.
But questions soon emerged about the Lancet report. How much was known about Surgisphere, the hospital database company behind the study?
Within a week, more than 100 scientists published an open letter to the Lancet raising questions about Surgisphere’s methods and the integrity of its data. Yesterday, the WHO reversed course on HC and resumed clinical studies.
Judicial Watch readers have questions of their own about the Lancet study.
“I really hate to go down this path,” writes one emergency responder, requesting anonymity due to concerns about career repercussions, “but we know damn well this whole thing has been sucked into the blender of U.S. politics. This study almost seems written by design to play into that.”
This reader notes that the Lancet report indicates that patients in the study already were “very, very sick,” because only the very sick in the past months have been admitted to U.S. hospitals. “So… the patient is already fragile” and has “classically negative co-morbidities and contra-indications for use.” The patient is then given a heavy dose of drugs, which “by design, are toxic. Fragile + over-dosed toxin = bad outcome.” And what do the authors of the study do? “Blame the drug.”
Epidemiologist Andrew Bostom writes us to say that there are two “truly enormous” HC-related studies getting underway, but won’t be completed until year’s end. Meanwhile, Dr. Bostom suggests, the Trump approach to HC is appropriate and compassionate.
“Above all, do no harm,” Dr. Bostom writes. “Both chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), given short-term, are safe and effective for malaria prophylaxis and treatment (ongoing, barring areas of parasite resistance). HCQ, in particular, is also remarkably safe for chronic treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (‘Lupus’) and other rheumatic (‘inflammatory’) diseases.  Accordingly, it was completely appropriate to try them as compassionate-use drugs to treat even late-stage Covid-19…. The fact that such patients might begin to experience ‘toxicities’ when they are severely ill with Covid-19, often with multi-organ system failure grossly impairing the ability to metabolize HCQ or CQ normally—or many other drugs for that matter—is hardly a revelation!”
Hastily published studies, Dr. Bostom suggests, leave us groping in the dark. It’s a situation, he says, “made uniquely worse by the anti-Trump Left, including the ‘academic’ Left, with their vicious politicization of what should have been a purely investigative clinical-science issue.”
Read more about the Lancet controversy here.
Is something rotten at Surgisphere? Read about it here.
 Since this piece was published, the researchers behind the Lancet study used to attack President Trump on hydroxychloroquine was officially retracted!

Until next week,