Weekly Update: Deep State Assault on President Trump
This has been an extraordinary week. It began with an abusive raid on the home and law office of President Trump’s long-time attorney Michael Cohen. And it ended with disclosures from the disgraced former FBI Director’s anti-Trump book and the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report released today regarding the corrupt behavior of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The attached video lays out my concerns about the Mueller-inspired raid. And as I recently tweeted:
The Raid is just one more reason to shut the Mueller operation down–it’s constitutionally suspect, ethically compromised, & frankly has no reason for being – given the fact that there’s no evidence of @RealDonaldTrump-Russia collusion.
And Comey’s book is another act of misconduct. Again, another tweet sums up our concerns:
We already know Comey took FBI records and illegally leaked them to get a special counsel appointed as part of his vendetta against @realDonaldTrump. Now it looks like he doubled down and used them also to write a book. And the DOJ/FBI has yet to lift a finger.
Judicial Watch has numerous lawsuits on the Mueller-Comey-McCabe axis (see, for example, here, here and here). We are stepping into the oversight gap. And the today’s IG report is worth a read. Here’s my statement for JW on the late-breaking news:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions was wholly justified in firing former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The IG report released today portrays McCabe as a serial liar.
When regular people lie to the FBI, they get slapped with felony charges.
Judicial Watch uncovered documents months ago that should have triggered Mr. McCabe’s removal. Americans should expect a full investigation of the numerous anti-Trump and other outrageous FBI abuses under Obama and McCabe’s mentor, James Comey.
The IG report also presents additional evidence that the Obama DOJ sought to shut down the FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation. This is yet one more reason to either reopen or reinvigorate the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play probes.
And, once again, the IG report shows the FBI has been covering up Andrew McCabe text messages. The messages should have been turned over in Judicial Watch FOIA litigation, but we haven’t received one McCabe text message. FBI corruption and cover-up didn’t end, unfortunately, with James Comey’s well deserved firing.
Judicial Watch uncovered that McCabe, despite massive contributions from Clinton ally Terence McAuliffe to his wife’s 2015 political campaign, did not recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation until just a week before the 2016 presidential election. Judicial Watch also forced out documents that show that McCabe used FBI resources for his wife’s campaign.
Separately, the FBI failed to turn over any McCabe text messages in a final response to a September 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a 30-year veteran, retired FBI supervisory special agent, against the Department of Justice for records related to McCabe (Jeffrey A. Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01792)). The lawsuit seeks:
- Text messages and emails of McCabe containing: Dr. Jill McCabe, Jill, Common Good VA, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton, Virginia Democratic Party, Democrat, Conflict, Senate, Virginia Senate, Until I return, Paris, France, Campaign, Run, Political, Wife, Donation, OGC, Email, or New York Times.
The corruption here in DC may be disconcerting to you and, at times, seems overwhelming. Trust your Judicial Watch to try to address this mess as best we can with our lawsuits, investigations, and public education efforts. So be sure to support our efforts as we take on this Deep State attack on our constitutional system of government!
We’ve been reporting to you for a decade about the shady and criminal deal through which Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation got millions of dollars and Russia got control of 20 percent of our country’s uranium.
When – if, depending on Attorney General Sessions – we get to the bottom of the coup attempt against President Trump, I suspect we’ll learn that the plotters have been motivated at least in part by a desire to cover up this uranium deal. Far more scoundrels than the Clintons had a hand in it.
We’re trying to part the curtain. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of State for all records of communications relating to Uranium One (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00722)).
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 29 after the agencies failed to respond to two December 22, 2017, FOIA requests. We asked the Justice Department for:
All records regarding the company Uranium One (otherwise known as Uranium One, Inc. or SXR Uranium One, Inc.), including records of communication sent to and from officials in the offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, and the National Security Division from January 20, 2009 through December 31, 2013.
We asked the State Department to produce:
Any records relating to the company Uranium One (otherwise known as Uranium One, Inc. or SXR Uranium One, Inc.), including records of communication sent to and from officials in the Office of the Secretary of State, Office of the Legal Advisor, Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, Office of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, Office of International Security and Nonproliferation, and the Office of Political-Military Affairs from January 20, 2009 through December 31, 2013.
This lawsuit is part of our continuing investigation of the highly controversial 2010 Uranium One deal. At the time, a Russia state-owned nuclear firm, Rosatom, sought to buy Uranium One, a Canadian mining company. Because Uranium One held licenses for 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity, the sale had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who assented to the transaction. Uranium One interests contributed more than $140 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In January 2008, we revealed that Bill Clinton had helped Vancouver mining mogul Frank Giustra secure tens of millions of dollars’ worth of uranium. Guistra built a company that became part of Uranium One. The Clinton Foundation later received a $31.3 million donation, as well as a future pledge of $100 million.
In July 2014, we released more than 200 Clinton conflict-of interest documents, including a record of a speech in Moscow in June 2010 sponsored by the investment bank Renaissance Capital by Bill Clinton addressing the theme of “Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.” The document notes that, “Renaissance Capital is an investment bank focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and sub-Saharan Africa.” Renaissance Capital has also been linked to Russian efforts to gain control of Uranium One.
It is simply remarkable that we had to sue the State and Justice Departments in federal court for basic information about the shady Uranium One deal.
According to a 2013 New York Times report, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the Uranium One deal approved by CFIUS and Mrs. Clinton:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank [Renaissance Capital] with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, the FBI reportedly “had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rob Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe …”
It seems that we have done more to investigate the Clinton-Russia connections than the Justice Department, even as DOJ resources are spent on supporting Mueller’s massive investigation into the fanciful Clinton Dossier-inspired Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. We hope the Uranium One cover-up ends thanks to these lawsuits.
This is the story of two federal judges appointed by President Obama who have taken it upon themselves to declare breaking the law to be legal. They have fabricated out of thin air rights for illegal immigrants. Our Corruption Chronicles blog is on the case.
For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant.
Though years apart, both lawsuits were filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a leftist group that specializes in discrimination lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants and has Chicago ties to Obama. MALDEF pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new migrants. Its leadership refers to the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement effort as racist and xenophobic and says it’s racist to make English the country’s official national language and inhumane to protect the southern border with a fence. Both MALDEF victories involve plaintiffs who benefit from a special Obama amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that shields nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 31 from deportation.
In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEFF’s president reminds that, “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”
Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2011, agrees, citing MALDEF’s other lawsuit in her ruling. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams claims the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to those in MALDEF’s 2014 suit against insurance company Northwestern Mutual in New York. In that complaint, a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA alleged that Northwestern Mutual’s policy requiring him to have a green card because he’s not a U.S. citizen discriminated against him. Requiring the Mexican national, Ruben Juarez, to provide proof of legal residency imposed an additional burden that constitutes alienage discrimination, according to the complaint filed on his behalf by MALDEF. The federal judge hearing that case in New York agreed and, in a federal courtroom more than 1,000 miles south, Williams used the decision to justify hers.
“In Juarez, the plaintiff was a DACA recipient who was denied employment based on Northwestern Mutual’s policy to only hire U.S. citizens and green card holders,” Judge Williams writes in her ruling. “There, on strikingly similar facts, the court found that Northwestern Mutual’s policy impermissibly discriminated against a subclass of Iawfully present aliens.” The ruling continues to say that Procter & Gamble’s policy could be construed to discriminate against a subset of legal aliens, which are protected. It seems to agree with the illegal alien’s assertions that Procter & Gamble has a “facially discriminatory employment policy” for requiring candidates to furnish proof that they’re in the U.S. legally.
Until next week …