How sick is this? CBS Reporter ordered by court to reveal her source.
Catherine Herridge, now a reporter for CBS News, was ordered in August to disclose the identity and motive of the source, who provided information about an FBI investigation into a Chinese scientist.
Judge Cooper, an Obama appointee, disagreed and tried to force Herridge to unmask her source.
“The Court recognizes both the vital importance of a free press and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge,” Cooper wrote in the ruling in August. “But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”
Herridge refused to disclose her source during the deposition and now she faces contempt charges and potential jail time.
What happens when you bring a hammer to a gunfight.
Views: 20
What happens when you bring a hammer to a gunfight? Store owner fatally shoots suspect during attempted robbery. Last Sunday a person wearing a mask, gloves, and a hooded sweatshirt pulled over his head, entered a store acting suspiciously. What happened next?
Witnesses reported that the suspect, armed with a hammer, attempted to take a firearm. In response, the gun store owner fired two rounds, killing the man. Good Shoot.
7 out of the top 10 states with mass shootings as of August are Blue States. Is anyone surprised?
California leads the pack.
And most of the states that lead in mass shootings have strict gun laws. California having the strictest.
Governor Newsom signed new gun safety measures into law — strengthening the state’s public carry regulations, requiring microstamping on handgun cartridges to help trace guns used in crimes, keeping guns away from potentially dangerous individuals, enacting a first-in-the-nation effort to generate funds on the sale of bullets to improve school safety and gun violence intervention programs, and more.
Good shoot? Robber Shot Dead While Stuffing Pockets Full of Money. You be the judge and jury. This was reported on Breitbart. In a section of Philadelphia. An alleged robber, a 28-year-old male with a firearm, entered the Happy Day Food Market around 10:30 p.m., walked behind the counter, and began taking cash from the register. The alleged robber was wearing gloves and a mask that covered part of his face.
The store clerk pulled out a gun and shot the person. Based on that information, was the clerk in the right?
Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small said, “You can clearly see that there’s money on the scene and you can clearly see that at least one of the [alleged robber’s] pockets is stuffed with money.”
The Nashville police chief’s son, who was wanted in the shooting of two officers, was found dead Tuesday night after leading police on a car chase, authorities said.
Judge Aileen Cannon denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to create a secure facility in DC. This is the third time she has caught Smith trying to pull a fast one.
Cannon has already expressed her displeasure that DOJ then Smith conducted 99% of classified docs case in regime friendly DC venue before switching to FLA at last minute for indictment. Now Smith claimed the “owners” of a few docs wanted them back in DC. Cannon said pound sand.
NEW: Judge Aileen Cannon just denied Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to create a secure facility in DC which would have forced Trump and defendants to travel to DC to view some "classified documents" in Smith's other case against Trump.
Smith’s latest fiasco was trying to say what lawyers can and cannot represent a defendant.
“After a full coloquy, the Court found that Defendant Nauta made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of any potential or actual conflict of interest arising from Stanley E. Woodward’s former and current representation of the two remaining potential witnesses identified in the Special Counsel’s Motion[s],” said the order.
Like Christians, Muslims pick and choose which verses they like. Sometimes even picking only half a verse because the rest of it invalidates what they want it to say. (See a refutation of current propaganda: Response to Apologists) Thanks to thereligionofpeace.com for both articles.
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time when Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)” The Arabic for the word “fight” is from qital, meaning physical combat.
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward “ This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).
Quran (4:101) – “And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily,the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.“ Mere disbelief makes one an “open” enemy of Muslims.
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as those who “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – but not as an armed group since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, “Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability.”
Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers “wherever you find them“. Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those “unbelievers” who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the ‘fighting’ of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]
Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “heals” the hearts of Muslims.
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the “cause of Allah” (or “way of Allah”).
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light or heavy (some translations read “armed”) and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and – in this case – on Christian soil, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today’s devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of “hypocrites” (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist’s defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad’s time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can’t Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam’s perpetual internal conflicts).
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]
Expanding Islam
Quran (21:44) – “…See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it.” – The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse – although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The “it” at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the ‘unbelievers.’ Obviously, this changed with the hijra. ‘Jihad’ after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.” This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators – those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today’s terrorists do.
Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context)
Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.”Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “rows” or “battle array,” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the “cause”: “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of’Adn- Eternity [‘Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is ‘sedition,’ meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Original editor’s note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that ‘fighting’ is sanctioned even if the fitna ‘ceases’. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]
There you have it. The “logic” of terrorist attacks and why other Muslims remain quiet — because they would be killed, too. That is a valid fear, as is amply demonstrated in the internecine warfare of Muslim factions and the horrendous practice of “Honor” killing. — TPR
YEAH! More free stuff! Illegal climbing fence into the US.
Views: 19
This order can soooo easily be misused.
By Tom Ozimek for The Epoch Times
Government overreach.
The Biden administration has warned U.S. banks and other financial institutions that they can’t reject illegal immigrants’ credit applications based solely or predominantly on their immigration status.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in a recent statement that rejecting illegal immigrants for credit cards and various types of loans just because they are noncitizens is unlawful.
The two agencies stated that they were issuing the warning “because consumers have reported being rejected for credit cards as well as for auto, student, personal and equipment loans because of their immigration status, even when they have strong credit histories and ties to the United States and are otherwise qualified to receive the loans.”
(How can an illegal have a “strong credit history?” Be the very nature of their entry into this country, they can HAVE no credit history. — TPR)
Specifically, the agencies cited the provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which protects credit applicants from discrimination based on such characteristics as race, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin.
The agencies argue that protections afforded by ECOA and other laws extend to alienage, so banks that have blanket policies to deny loans to illegal immigrants may be breaking the law.
“Lenders should not deny people the opportunity to take out a loan to buy a home, build their businesses or otherwise pursue their financial goals because of unlawful bias and without regard to their actual ability to repay,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.
Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney, objected to the agencies’ warning to banks and other financial institutions.
“DOJ and CFPB tell banks it might be illegal to refuse to loan money to people [who] broke federal law to reach the bank. You gotta be kidding me. The invasion of illegal immigrants is intentional and must be stopped,” he wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, roughly 11.35 million illegal immigrants were residing in the United States as of January 2022.
More Details
The agencies said that ECOA protections extend to alienage, although in a joint statement, they acknowledged some gray area, namely that the act “does not expressly prohibit consideration of immigration status.”
Some financial institutions have maintained blanket policies denying people credit based on their immigration status, without regard for their ability to repay, interpreting ECOA in a way that they believe shields them from liability, according to the agencies, which added that this is incorrect.
“A creditor may consider an applicant’s immigration status when necessary to ascertain the creditor’s rights regarding repayment,” the agencies said, explaining that Regulation B, a rule that implements ECOA, expressly states that the only conditions under which immigration status may be considered is only to determine creditors’ “rights and remedies regarding repayment” of a loan.
If financial institutions consider immigration status for any other reason, the agencies said they’re probably breaking the law.
“Creditors should be aware that unnecessary or overbroad reliance on immigration status in the credit decisioning process, including when that reliance is based on bias, may run afoul of ECOA’s antidiscrimination provisions and could also violate other laws,” the agencies said.
The “other laws” mentioned could refer to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also known as Section 1981, which the agencies said in their joint statement “has long been construed to prohibit discrimination based on alienage.”
They said that courts have found that “ECOA’s prohibition of national origin discrimination and Section 1981’s prohibitions complement one another and that discrimination that arises from overbroad restrictions on lending to noncitizens may violate either or both statutes.”
It’s unclear whether any banks or financial institutions intend to challenge the DOJ and CFPB’s interpretation of the law regarding the provision of loans to illegal immigrants.
Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center.
AP
Views: 22
Comer probing White House’s ‘incomplete and misleading’ Biden classified docs timeline.
This article first appeared in the NY Post on October 11th.
James Comer is demanding that the White House explain why it put out an “incomplete and misleading” timeline related to the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center.
Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the panel obtained evidence that President Biden’s aides began inspecting the material at his private office nearly 20 months before the sensitive papers were said to be found.
Annie Tomasini, the 80-year-old president’s senior adviser, was the first of five White House staffers and a Department of Defense employee, to rummage through the documents and materials at Biden’s Washington, DC, think tank office, Comer claims.
This incident occurred just two months after the president’s inauguration, on March 18, 2021.
The House Oversight Committee says it has evidence that a White House employee inspected President Biden’s Penn Biden Center office in March 2021, earlier than previously known.ZUMAPRESS.com
The Kentucky Republican details four other expeditions to retrieve material from the Penn Biden Center that was previously unknown.
On May 24, 2022, Comer claimed that former White House counsel and Assistant to the President Dana Remus contacted former Biden aide and Department of Defense employee Kathy Chung – via her personal email address – to retrieve the commander in chief’s papers at the Penn Biden Center.
A month later, on June 28, 2022, Chung packed up Biden’s things at the think tank office, according to Comer.
A dozen classified documents were discovered at the Penn Biden Center on Nov. 2, 2022.AFP via Getty Images
Then, on June 30, 2022, Remus, White House staffer Anthony Bernal and another unknown White House employee went to Penn Biden Center to “take possession of the boxes of documents and materials but could not fit all of the boxes into their vehicle.”
“The next wave of assessing of files and looking at boxes,” according to the oversight chairman, began on Oct. 12, 2022, when White House staffer Ashley Williams and Biden’s personal attorney Pat Moore visited the president’s former office.
The following day, Williams returned to Penn Biden Center and left with “a few” of Biden’s boxes, and Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, texted Chung that Moore had begun sorting through the boxes.
“Each of the encounters above was omitted from the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s public statements,” Comer argues, noting that a January statement from Bauer included a timeline of event that “inexplicably” begins on Nov. 2, 2022 – when the lawyer claims he first stumbled upon classified material that was stored at the Penn Biden Center.
Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center.AP
“President Biden’s timeline was incomplete and misleading,” Comer writes. “It omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, Ms. Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials.”
The oversight chairman adds that “there is no reasonable explanation as to why this many White House employees and lawyers were so concerned with retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials.”
Comer requests transcribed interviews with the White House staffers involved in the previously unknown activity at the Penn Biden Center, and access to all White House communications regarding the movement of material from the think tank and the drafting of public statements related to the discovery of sensitive documents.
The letter comes days after special counsel Robert Hur, who is overseeing the Justice Department’s probe into Biden’s mishandling of White House documents, conducted two “voluntary” interviews with the president at the executive mansion.
“As we have said from the beginning, the President and the White House are cooperating with this investigation, and as it has been appropriate, we have provided relevant updates publicly, being as transparent as we can consistent with protecting and preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, said Monday.
The Nov. 2, 2022, discovery of at least a dozen classified documents – some related to the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Iran – at his old office near the US Capitol was kept under wraps by the White House through the 2022 midterm elections and for weeks after.
More sensitive documents were discovered in Biden’s Wimington home in January after an FBI search. The bureau also searched the president’s Rehoboth Beach, Del., home as part of the probe but did not turn up any additional documents.
Biden has dismissed the shocking findings as simply “stray papers” that ended up on his property and private office because of careless aides who packed up his White House office over a decade ago.
Epstein Victim Found Dead after Testifying against Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell.
No obituary or funeral service after she died…
From multiple sources.
The world lost a brave woman recently, Carolyn Andriano, who had been a crucial witness in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the accomplice of notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.Andriano’s sudden death, ruled as an accidental overdose, has raised eyebrows and stirred suspicions due to its timing and the circumstances surrounding it.
Carolyn Andriano, a victim of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein whose testimony was crucial to putting away his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has died.
Her death went unreported in the media until now.
There was no obituary or funeral service after she died earlier this year, and police in West Palm Beach, Florida, opened an investigation into her death. After The Daily Beast reached out for comment, police spokesman Mike Jachles told us that the investigation was concluding and that Carolyn died of an accidental overdose.
The 36-year-old mother-of-five had planned to start a new chapter in North Carolina, at a new house with a fireplace and half-acre lot with a chicken coop. Carolyn and her husband, John Pitts, had purchased the property just weeks before she was found unresponsive in a West Palm Beach hotel room on May 23.
Before her death, “she was ecstatic,” Carolyn’s mother, Dorothy Groenert, told The Daily Beast. “She was all set up for a whole new lifestyle.”
Groenert says Carolyn’s death was a shock because she was working on building a new life and recently texted her about being free of drugs and alcohol.
The way Groenert sees it, some things about her daughter’s overdose don’t make sense, and she wants cops to investigate further.
Jachles, however, said that Carolyn’s case would officially be closed this week. Officers on the scene took a statement from Pitts, who told them that Carolyn had been using drugs, and Carolyn’s brother, who rushed to the hotel after Pitts texted Groenert that Carolyn had died. Pitts tried to administer CPR and “was given directions over the phone with 911,” Jachles said.
“It shouldn’t be closed,” Groenert said of the police investigation. “I begged them, I sent them numerous messages. I’ve asked for them to make meetings, contact me, and to no avail.”
Now Groenert is in a legal battle with Pitts over Carolyn’s will, which was filed in 2010 before she married him and which left her estate to her mother and two oldest children. Because the will hadn’t been updated, Pitts and his three kids with Carolyn were left out of her estate. Carolyn had received millions from Epstein-related settlements, though probate court documents indicate she had $183,000 in a bank account. The filings also listed unknown assets as the JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank class action settlements—which, as The Daily Beast reported, amount to $290 million and $75 million, respectively, and will result in big payouts to victims.
Since Carolyn’s death, he’s posted tributes to her on Facebook and mourned his family’s loss.
“You showed me what love really is and I will never forget how big your heart is,” Pitts wrote in June, adding, “I know our souls will always be attached together.”
“I will do right by you because I know what u really wanted in life to give our kids the life we never had… I miss u so much no words can say just know I will give our kids the best life that I can…”
While Pitts could not be reached, his sister Serena told The Daily Beast that Groenert’s and her family’s suggestion that Carolyn’s death was suspicious is “ridiculous.”
“Right now our family is grieving the loss of Carolyn and prioritizing the care of her children. At this time we kindly appreciate space and privacy,” she added in a text.
The Daily Beast has submitted requests for information to both the medical examiner and police department. While a cause or manner of death hasn’t been released, a toxicology report indicates Carolyn had methadone, fentanyl, and alprazolam (the generic name for Xanax) in her system when she died.
Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School’s Department of Emergency Medicine and Director of the Division of Medical Toxicology, said alprazolam and fentanyl can be a dangerous combination, as both drugs suppress breathing.
“Her fentanyl use was very recent,” said Nelson, who is not involved in Carolyn’s case but independently reviewed her toxicology report. “My postulation is she is on methadone, takes a high dose, she took fentanyl, and she died quickly.” The low levels of a metabolite of fentanyl, Nelson added, suggest that Carolyn died before her body had time to metabolize the drug. Bloodwork, however, doesn’t usually paint a picture of how often someone uses a substance.
Carolyn was one of four victims to testify at the Maxwell trial in December 2021, telling the jury that the British socialite had groped her and routinely scheduled her “massages” with Epstein, who molested her up to three times until she was “too old” for him at age 18.
At the start, a Manhattan federal prosecutor asked Carolyn if she’d ever been addicted to drugs, and she replied, “Pain pills and cocaine.” Carolyn also testified about her home life when she was 14 and had first visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion in 2001. “I was allowed to do whatever I wanted,” she said, adding, “Because my mom was an alcoholic and a drug addict.” (Asked about Carolyn’s testimony, Groenert denied this. “No, I was working. I was working to pay for my children. I didn’t get any supplements. I had to work,” she said. “That’s inaccurate.”)
Carolyn, who said she dropped out in seventh grade and never returned to school, later testified that she became addicted to drugs while visiting Epstein’s lair: “Marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, anything that could block out for me to go to the appointment.”
She had confided in Maxwell and Epstein about her history of being sexually abused as a young child (by a relative at age 4) and of her family’s struggles with addiction. This emboldened the sick high-society couple to groom her and even attempt to bring her to Epstein’s U.S. Virgin Islands compound. “I told him I was only 15 and I couldn’t leave,” Carolyn said of Epstein.
The prosecutor also asked Carolyn about her medications, and she answered that she took methadone, an antidepressant, Xanax, and a drug for schizophrenia because “I am scared that my kids are going to get kidnapped.”
When Maxwell’s lawyer cross-examined Carolyn, he noted the Epstein victim compensation fund awarded her $3.25 million but had subtracted $446,000 because she’d received that amount in 2009 from a lawsuit against Epstein and his assistant Sarah Kellen.
“Yes, but no money will ever fix what’s happened to me,” Carolyn responded.
Carolyn testified using only her first name but came forward to the Daily Mail after Maxwell’s conviction. During this interview, she spoke of Pitts’ support.
“I had rosary beads in my hands for the entire time and my husband was in the courtroom and every time I felt like I was getting weak, he would give me a little thumbs up or I’d clench the beads,” Carolyn told the tabloid. “I was determined to have the strength to have this woman put away for what she did to me and other young women.”
“Sure, they accused me of lying, but I knew that was coming and I stood up to it because I was telling the God’s honest truth.”
At another point in the interview, Carolyn suggested that Virginia Giuffre, a victim who allegedly recruited her into Epstein’s sex ring, deserved to face similar consequences as Maxwell because, she claimed, Giuffre “trafficked me into a world of spiraling downward slopes and it has taken my husband John 12 long years to get me to love myself again.”
“I’m very happy being a wife and a mother and I want to show people how the tragedies in my life did not stop me,” she added. “I’m overcoming them. I’m not going to let Maxwell and Epstein ruin my life anymore. I’m grateful every day when I wake up.”
Questions: Why was there no funeral and no obituary? Why is her sister-in-law so sure there is nothing suspicious about this death?
These two facts make it VERY suspicious to me. — TPR
219
:extract_focal()/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thereligionofpeace.com%2Fpages%2Fquran%2Fimg%2Fviolence-290.jpg?w=580&ssl=1)
