Judicial Watch: Justice Department Refuses to Release Mueller’s Budget Proposal for Special Counsel Office

JANUARY 23, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that Justice Department refuses to release the proposed budget of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Office. Judicial Watch is seeking the information through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

Judicial Watch sought “the copy of the budget prepared or submitted” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But, on Friday, January 19, the Justice Department notified Judicial Watch that it refuses to turn over documents, stating: “seven pages were located that contain records responsive to your … request. We have determined that this material should be withheld in full because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA.” The Justice Department asserts the Mueller budget information cannot be released because its release could interfere with “law enforcement proceedings” and the material is protected from disclosure by the “deliberative process privilege.”

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ on October 5, 2017, after it failed to respond to a July 10, 2017, request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-02079)). Judicial Watch is seeking:
A copy of the budget prepared and submitted by Robert S. Mueller III or his staff….
A copy of all guidance memoranda and communications by which the Justice Management Division will review the Special Counsel’s Office’s “Statement of Expenditures”…
A copy of each document scoping, regulating, or governing the Special Counsel’s Office appointed under the leadership of Mueller III…

The Justice Department has thus far ignored Judicial Watch’s requests for documents about its management of the Mueller operation.

The Justice Department also sent Judicial Watch a copy of a previously published document showing expenditures by the Special Counsel’s Office from May 17, 2017, to September 30, 2017. The total was $3,213,695, nearly a million dollars per month.

On July 7, 2017, The Washington Post reported that Special counsel Mueller submitted a proposed budget to the Justice Department, “but officials declined to make the document public and committed only to releasing reports of the team’s expenditures every six months.”

Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“Special Counsel Mueller’s operation is not above the law. The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is planned for his massive investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No one else in DC seems to be providing oversight of the Mueller operation, so once again it is up to the citizen’s group Judicial Watch to fight for accountability.”
###

COINCIDENCE? Months Of Texts Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents Staffed On Collusion Case Lost In ‘Technical Glitch’

Ben Shapiro
The Dailywire
January 22, 2018

The coincidences just keep piling up.

Back in December, we learned that the Robert Mueller special investigation into supposed Russian election collusion with the Trump campaign had relied on the tender ministrations of FBI agent Peter Strzok. Then we learned that Strzok was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, had been involved in launching the Trump investigation, and was staffed on it. Then he was fired after text messages emerged between himself and mistress and co-worker Lisa Page, who was also part of the Trump-Russia probe.

Next, we learned that Strozk texted Page on August 15, 2016 regarding Trump: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

That message clearly made it sound like the Trump collusion investigation could be a way of stopping Trump’s candidacy.

Now, we’ve learned that Strzok and Page sent each other messages suggesting they knew before the FBI had even reported to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch about Clinton that Clinton would be exonerated. On July 1, 2016, Lynch announced that she would do whatever then-FBI Director James Comey wanted her to do; that announcement followed a tarmac meeting in Arizona between Lynch and Bill Clinton. Strzok texted Page, “Timing looks like hell.”

Page responded, “It’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

That sounds an awful lot like the DOJ and the FBI working hand-in-glove to protect Clinton.

And the coincidences don’t stop there. In the most insane coincidence of all, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) announced on Monday that the FBI had somehow failed to deliver months of texts between Strzok and Page — texts beginning December 14, 2016 and ending May 17, 2017, the exact date Mueller was appointed to head the investigation. The DOJ says the texts were lost due to a “technical glitch.” How odd.

This led Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to call again for a second special counsel to investigate the first special counsel investigation:

The coincidences here are too significant to be ignored. Jordan’s call for a second special counsel is looking better and better.

Happy Anniversary To Washington’s “Least Untruthful” Witness: Clapper To Avoid Perjury Prosecution In March

Jonathan Turley
January 21, 2018

Below is an expanded version of my column that ran in USA Today on the approaching expiration of the statute of limitations for prosecuting former National Intelligence Director James Clapper for perjury. This is a city that protects its own and Clapper is the Beltway equivalent of a made man. People like Clapper do not get prosecuted. We do not call them criminal; just complicated.

Here is the column:

Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper is about celebrate one of the most important anniversaries of his life. March 13th will be the fifth anniversary of his commission of open perjury before the Senate Intelligence Committee. More importantly, it also happens to be when the statute of limitationsruns out — closing any possibility of prosecution for Clapper. As the clock runs out on the Clapper prosecution, Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have charged that Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen committed perjury when she insisted that she could not recall if President Donald Trump called Haiti and African countries a vulgar term. The fact is that perjury is not simply tolerated, it is rewarded, in Washington. In a city of made men and women, nothing says loyalty quite as much as lying under oath.

Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth, Clapper’s false testimony was a standout. Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it.

Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie of course but Clapper is a made guy. While feigned shock and disgust, most Democratic leaders notably did not call for his prosecution. Soon Clapper was back testifying and former president Obama even put Clapper on a federal panel to review the very programs that he lied about in Congress. Clapper is now regularly appearing on cable shows which, for example, used Clapper’s word as proof that Trump was lying in saying that there was surveillance of Trump Tower carried out by President Barack Obama. CNN and other networks used Clapper’s assurance without ever mentioning that he previously lied about surveillance programs.

The expiration of the statute of limitations for Clapper will have the benefit of conclusively establishing that some people in this city are above the law. In a 2007 study, author P.J. Meitl found that “[a]lmost no one is prosecuted for lying to Congress.” Indeed, he found only six people convicted of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress, going back to the 1940s.

The problem is not that the perjury statute is never enforced. Rather it is enforced against people without allies in government. Thus, Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress. He was not given the option of giving the “least untruthful” answer.

Another reason for the lack of prosecutions is that the perjury process is effectively rigged to protect officials accused of perjury or contempt before Congress. When an official like Clapper or Nielsen is accused of lying to Congress, Congress first has to refer a case to federal prosecutors and then the administration makes the decision whether to prosecute its own officials for contempt or perjury. The result has almost uniformly been “declinations” to even submit such cases to a grand jury. Thus, when both Republicans and Democrats accused CIA officials of lying to Congress about the torture program implemented under former president George W. Bush, not a single indictment was issued.

For Clapper, the attempt to justify his immunity from prosecution has tied officials into knots. After Clapper lied before Congress and there was a public outcry, Clapper gave his “least untruthful answer” justification. When many continued to demand a prosecution, National Intelligence general counsel Robert Litt insisted that Clapper misunderstood the question. Still later, Litt offered a third rationalization: that Clapper merely forgot about the massive surveillance system. That’s right. Clapper forgot one of the largest surveillance (and unconstitutional) programs in the history of this country. Litt did not explain why Clapper himself said that he knowingly chose the “least untruthful answer.” Litt added, “It was perfectly clear that he had absolutely forgotten the existence of the … program … We all make mistakes.”

Indeed, this is a “mistake” that is viewed as something of a mission in Washington. While most people view saying the “least untruthful” thing as the definition of a lie, Clapper was actually staking out a moral high ground in Washington. He actually tried to lie a little when he could have lied a lot. In a city where the moral high ground is measured in centimeters, this passes for honesty.

The Clapper standard will now set the bar for perjury at an almost unreachable height. Here you had an official about a massive surveillance program that was widely viewed as grossly unconstitutional. He then admitted that he made an “untruthful” statement. That however is not sufficient for even submitting a case to a grand jury. In Washington, the determinative question is not the perjury but the perjurer.

So, for all of the other criminal defense attorneys in the Beltway, let me be the first to say “Happy Anniversary, James.” That may sound disingenuous but it is the least untruthful thing I can come up with.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right

By Karin McQuillan
Ex American Thinker
January 17, 2018

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral. The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see.
I have seen. I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts.

The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can’t understand anything in Senegal using American terms.

Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. All the men in one generation were called “father.” Senegalese are Muslim, with up to four wives. Girls had their clitorises cut off at puberty. (I witnessed this, at what I thought was going to be a nice coming-of-age ceremony, like a bat mitzvah or confirmation.) Sex, I was told, did not include kissing. Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas. Fidelity was not a thing. Married women would have sex for a few cents to have cash for the market.

What I did witness every day was that women were worked half to death. Wives raised the food and fed their own children, did the heavy labor of walking miles to gather wood for the fire, drew water from the well or public faucet, pounded grain with heavy hand-held pestles, lived in their own huts, and had conjugal visits from their husbands on a rotating basis with their co-wives. Their husbands lazed in the shade of the trees.
Yet family was crucial to people there in a way Americans cannot comprehend.

The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown. The value system was the exact opposite. You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives. There are some Westernized Africans who try to rebel against the system. They fail.

We hear a lot about the kleptocratic elites of Africa. The kleptocracy extends through the whole society. My town had a medical clinic donated by international agencies. The medicine was stolen by the medical workers and sold to the local store. If you were sick and didn’t have money, drop dead. That was normal.

So here in the States, when we discovered that my 98-year-old father’s Muslim health aide from Nigeria had stolen his clothes and wasn’t bathing him, I wasn’t surprised. It was familiar.

In Senegal, corruption ruled, from top to bottom. Go to the post office, and the clerk would name an outrageous price for a stamp. After paying the bribe, you still didn’t know it if it would be mailed or thrown out. That was normal.

One of my most vivid memories was from the clinic. One day, as the wait grew hotter in the 110-degree heat, an old woman two feet from the medical aides – who were chatting in the shade of a mango tree instead of working – collapsed to the ground. They turned their heads so as not to see her and kept talking. She lay there in the dirt. Callousness to the sick was normal.

Americans think it is a universal human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s not. It seems natural to us because we live in a Bible-based Judeo-Christian culture.

We think the Protestant work ethic is universal. It’s not. My town was full of young men doing nothing. They were waiting for a government job. There was no private enterprise. Private business was not illegal, just impossible, given the nightmare of a third-world bureaucratic kleptocracy. It is also incompatible with Senegalese insistence on taking care of relatives.

All the little stores in Senegal were owned by Mauritanians. If a Senegalese wanted to run a little store, he’d go to another country. The reason? Your friends and relatives would ask you for stuff for free, and you would have to say yes. End of your business. You are not allowed to be a selfish individual and say no to relatives. The result: Everyone has nothing.

The more I worked there and visited government officials doing absolutely nothing, the more I realized that no one in Senegal had the idea that a job means work. A job is something given to you by a relative. It provides the place where you steal everything to give back to your family.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

We are lectured by Democrats that we must privilege third-world immigration by the hundred million with chain migration. They tell us we must end America as a white, Western, Judeo-Christian, capitalist nation – to prove we are not racist. I don’t need to prove a thing. Leftists want open borders because they resent whites, resent Western achievements, and hate America. They want to destroy America as we know it.

As President Trump asked, why would we do that?

We have the right to choose what kind of country to live in. I was happy to donate a year of my life as a young woman to help the poor Senegalese. I am not willing to donate my country.

Civil Rights History – The Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party Inbox

When you think of the Republican Party, what comes to mind? Abolishing slavery? Ending segregation and other Jim Crow laws? Giving women the franchise? If you’re like many Americans, none of these landmark accomplishments came to mind. Instead, you may associate the GOP with racism, sexism, and general inequality. It’s an easy narrative for left-leaning media and academia to push, but the reality isn’t quite so convenient. Former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science Carol Swain explains that the Republican Party was actually the party responsible for nearly every advancement for minorities and women in the history of the United States – and remains the champion of their equality to this day.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/inconvenient-truth-about-republican-party

REPORT: Dick Durbin Has A History Of Lying About Private White House Meetings

Several years ago Dick Durbin compared American troops to the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, and Pol Pot. He is not to be trusted. Such a convenient way to destroy Trump’s earlier successes.

“I looked into this and spoke with somebody who was in that meeting and it did not happen.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) accused President Donald Trump on Friday of referring to African countries as “s***holes” during a meeting that they both attended on Thursday.

Durbin told reporters that what Trump said was “hate-filled, vile and racist,” adding that “the most disheartening thing to me is my belief that that was the first time words that hateful had been spoken in the Oval Office of the White House.”

There’s just one problem with Durbin’s claims: He has a history of making up statements from private White House meetings.

In 2013, Politico reported:

“In a ‘negotiation’ meeting with the president, one GOP House Leader told [President Barack Obama]: ‘I cannot even stand to look at you,’” Durbin wrote in a post on his Facebook page over the weekend.

However, both the White House and the House speaker’s office denied Durbin’s account of events.

Asked about the post in the White House daily briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said he checked with a participant of the meeting in question.

“I looked into this and spoke with somebody who was in that meeting and it did not happen,” Carney said.

Politico added that Durbin’s office “had no comment on the post and offered no further details.”

“Sen. Durbin’s accusation is a serious one, and it appears to have been invented out of thin air,” said Brendan Buck, spokesman for then-House Speaker John Boehner. “The senator should disclose who told him this account of events, retract his reckless allegation immediately, and apologize.”

Trump denied the claims on Friday, tweeting: “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!”

“Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!” Trump said.

Reported by “The Daily Wire”.