TRUMP: ‘STAY TUNED’ FOR REVELATIONS ON ‘WITCH HUNT’


I just read an Art Moore/WND article with the central theme being President Trump is about to use his authority to declassify documents utilized by the DOJ/FBI to entice a FISC Judge (or Judges) to issue a FISA warrant (i.e. a secret warrant) to spy, err I mean, investigate the Donald Trump campaign for working with the Russians to rig the 2016 election cycle.

 

I suspect, along with many Conservatives, declassified documents will expose real criminal conspiracy of Democrats loyal to Obama and Crooked Hillary to rig an election victory or fabricate Trump crimes to impeach President Trump.

 

That sounds like Dem treason that should lead a direct line to Obama and Hillary Clinton. When the documents are declassified we will discover how powerful the Deep State is by whether or not indictments follow.

 

JRH 8/10/11

Please Support NCCR

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

TRUMP: ‘STAY TUNED’ FOR REVELATIONS ON ‘WITCH HUNT’

Follows Giuliani’s warning Mueller probe about to ‘blow up’

 

By ART MOORE

August 9, 2018

WND

[Support an independent Press by sending cash to WND]

 

Following personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s warning that the special counsel investigation of alleged Russia-Trump campaign collusion is about to “blow up,” President Trump tweeted Thursday to “Stay tuned.”

 

“This is an illegally brought Rigged Witch Hunt run by people who are totally corrupt and/or conflicted,” the president wrote on Twitter.

 

“It was started and paid for by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats. Phony Dossier, FISA disgrace and so many lying and dishonest people already fired. 17 Angry Dems? Stay tuned!”

 

The Gateway Pundit blog cited investigative reporter Paul Sperry’s tweet pointing out that Trump is about to declassify the renewal application the Justice Department and the FBI submitted to a FISA court – signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

 

Trump also is declassifying the communications of twice-demoted Justice Department official Bruce Ohr with the author of the Democrat-funded, anti-Trump dossier of still unverified Russian propaganda that became the primary evidence submitted to the FISA court to spy on Page.

 

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who has been investigating Justice Department handling of the Hillary Clinton and Russia probes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a Fox News interview Monday that Ohr “is going to become more and more important in this investigation and I think people should pay close attention to it.”

 

Sperry said in a tweet to look for Trump this month to declassify 20 redacted pages of the June 2017 FISA renewal and possibly 63 pages of emails and notes between Ohr and dossier author Christopher Steele. In addition, the official summaries of 12 FBI interviews with Ohr regarding Steele are expected to be declassified.

 

Giuliani asserted in an interview Wednesday night with the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that Mueller’s effort to go after President Trump will backfire.

 

“The reality is, the real story is not that this case isn’t going to fizzle,” he said. “It’s going to blow up on them. The real question is, what we talked about before, there’s a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet.”

 

Giuliani indicated the evidence is pointing to a conspiracy by the Democrats to defeat Trump.

 

There’s “a lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier,” Giuliani said.

 

Hannity commented, “I know some of it.”

 

The only collusion in the case, the former New York City mayor said, is the intelligence community using the Steele dossier to obtain “several fraudulent FISA wires.”

 

“Can it get any worse?” Giuliani asked. “I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats – probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far. Completely made up.”

 

Giuliani said he believes “that when this plays out over the next year or two, it’s not going to be about President Trump.”

 

Citing his sources, Hannity said the truth, when it’s finally revealed, will “shock the heart, the soul, and the mind of any fair-minded American.”

______________________

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

About WND

 

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

 

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

 

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

 

WND has broken some of the biggest, most significant and READ THE REST

 

SUPPORT WND DONATION

 

The Finicum Family’s Fight Is America’s Fight


On January 26, 2016 – LaVoy Perished in a hail of unprovoked bullets from the FBI and Oregon State Police. The shooting was so egregious that FBI Agent Joseph Astarita is on trial for trying to cover-up his part for shooting LaVoy. LaVoy’s wife Jeanette Finicum has filed a wrongful death lawsuit which so far seems to be moving forward.

 

Justin Smith effectively memorializes the unjust murder as a warning that there are crooked FBI personnel willing to circumvent the Constitution for their own version of law enforcement. Be wary President Trump.

 

JRH 7/27/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Finicum Family’s Fight Is America’s Fight

In Pursuit of Justice

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/26/2018 8:57 PM

Updated: 7/27/2018 3:21 PM

 

Nothing in the  pursuit of justice will ever restore the Finicum Family’s joy and happiness, that they experienced, with LaVoy Finicum home and alive with them, but Jeanette Finicum has pursued justice from the day her husband was so unnecessarily shot down on a lonely stretch of Highway 395, due to his role as one of the leaders of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve.

 

VIDEO: Jeanette Finicum: Why we will fight this wrongful death case with EVERYTHING we have!

 

Posted by  LaVoy Finicum

Published on Feb 9, 2018

 

Her perseverance has resulted in the trial of Joseph Astarita, the FBI agent who fired the shots and ignited the hailstorm of bullets that ended LaVoy’s life, an ignoble act by the FBI and law enforcement who took part in the ambush, reminiscent of their action against Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge.

 

His trial underway as of this July 24th, Astarita stands accused of falsely denying that he fired two shots at LaVoy, and he is charged with three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice. However, through scientific methods and aerial video of the ambush, it has been determined that it was Astarita who fired the first shots, as LaVoy exited his truck, something Astarita’s lawyers still refute. They state a belief that it was one of the Oregon Highway Patrol, who fired those first shots.

 

Robert LaVoy Finicum led a small band of protesters, including Cliven Bundy’s sons, Ryan and Ammon, American Patriots, who understood that the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management were consistently and constantly acquiring or simply taking land unconstitutionally, from farmers and ranchers across America. These men and women were standing firm for property rights under Our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, when they occupied Malheur, near Burns, Oregon, on January 2,  2016 and began a stand-off with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, that lasted forty-one days, detailed by Les Zaitz in The Oregonian, that lasted forty-one days.

 

 

Since they had left the refuge before without incident, they expected this day, on January 26, 2016, to be no different. Imagine their shock, when the ambush and shooting occurred soon after LaVoy, Ryan and Ammon Bundy and Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp, along with several others, started on their way to meet peacefully with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer in John Day County. They had viewed their act of civil disobedience as a simple demonstration, much less severe and dangerous than other protests generated by Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street, who were destroying entire cities without any real consequence from law enforcement.

 

After successfully evading the first road block, LaVoy told his friends, “Better understand how this thing is going to end. I’m going to be laying down on the ground with my blood on the street, or I’m going to see the sheriff. We got people en route.”

 

VIDEO: GRAPHIC: Investigators Release Synced Video Of LaVoy Finicum Traffic Stop And Shooting

 

Posted by OPB

Published on Mar 8, 2016

 

 

According to Robert Cary, Astarita’s lawyer, it was at this point that one Oregon State Patrolman radioed ahead to “Officer 1” and stated, “We’re going to have to shoot LaVoy Finicum.”

 

At the second roadblock, shots rained down on LaVoy’s truck before he ever stopped, forcing him to plow into a snow bank, allegedly just narrowly missing an FBI agent. And, as he jumped from the truck, to draw fire from his friends, with his hands raised above his head, two shots rang out, one shattering the driver’s side passenger window and striking Ryan Bundy in the shoulder.

 

In Shawna Cox’s video of the ambush, one hears the police telling him to “Get down” and LaVoy yelling, “You’re gonna have to shoot me”. Cox is heard asking, “Damn it, are they shooting him? … You assholes.”

Jeanette Finicum

The April 24th 2018 amendment (see page 51, number 269) to Jeanette Finicum’s current lawsuit for the wrongful death of her husband speaks volumes:

 

“The FBI, OSP and other defendants have publicly defended the deliberate ambush and murder of LaVoy on January 26, 2016, by alleging that after he exited the vehicle, and after he had been shot with at least five lethal rounds (as well as unknown number of non-lethal rounds), and after he repeatedly placed his hands on top of his head in a surrender position; that he appeared to be reaching into his jacket.”

 

One of the most damning points within Mrs. Finicum’s complaint, found on page 33, highlights the fact that at the time of the so-called “traffic stop”, there was still no sworn affidavit or probable cause statement or indictment against LaVoy or any of his friends accompanying him. Neither was there any arrest warrant for anyone involved.

 

Witnesses are on record noting that Astarita’s face was contorted after the shooting, and he was loud and “so amped up” that a supervisor had to calm him down. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Sussman also noted: “Only one guy (Astarita) stood in just the right spot. … Only one guy aimed right at Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum’s pickup [and] fired two shots in rapid succession.”

 

Astarita’s trial follows a growing resentment among American patriots for a federal bureaucracy that is out of control, even to the point of committing sedition, possibly treason, against a sitting U.S. president. It also doesn’t help that the FBI has a long history of arbitrary, tyrannical actions, detailed by Leah Sottile, such as witnessed in 1992, when an FBI team descended on Ruby Ridge and the home of Randy Weaver, a U.S. Army Special Forces Veteran, and a sniper murdered Vicki Weaver, as she stood in the cabin doorway holding the couple’s baby.

 

Just before stepping from LaVoy’s truck, hands raised, Ryan Payne looked out and saw LaVoy lying in the snow. He turned towards Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp and said, “LaVoy is dead.”

 

It doesn’t really matter, in the end, whose bullets killed LaVoy, because it shouldn’t have ended like this anyway. LaVoy had time and again stated a desire to make sure that the stand-off ended peacefully, and up until the day of the ambush, there wasn’t any reason to believe that it wouldn’t, since LaVoy had been in constant contact with Sheriff Glenn Palmer, who was quite sympathetic to the cowboy’s cause. These men weren’t “anti-government”; they were anti-tyranny.

 

During the 2016 trial that acquitted Ammon Bundy and six other defendants, the FBI and Oregon Highway Patrol both testified they could not have identified specific legal reasons for the stop. This can only mean that had law enforcement not escalated the situation, LaVoy Finicum would have also been acquitted and alive and well at home with his family.

 

Robert Lavoy Finicum was willing to die for his ideas, the Constitution and freedom, and as we rise to a new sun each day, we must work in this America, the home of the brave and the land of the free, to ensure that not any future Democrat led administration, or any administration, can ever target conservative protests in such an egregious manner, impeding liberty each step of the way and executing us at will. The Finicum’s fight to hold the federal government accountable for its arrogant lawlessness, dishonesty and violence is America’s fight.

 

LaVoy was a good man, gunned down in cold blood. And whether or not any degree of justice comes out of this trial, God’s accounting awaits each of us one day. I pray to God justice be served and the Finicum Family finds peace of mind and heart.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Tony Podesta offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort


Tony Podesta

 

In this article you will see Dem/Clinton/Obama justice in all its corrupt operation.

 

JRH 7/21/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Tony Podesta offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort

 

By  Amy Lieu

July 20, 2018

Fox News

 

Sources: Tony Podesta offered immunity in Manafort case

Exclusive: Two sources tell ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has offered lobbyist Tony Podesta immunity to testify against Paul Manafort. #Tucker

 

Youtube VIDEO: Sources: Podesta offered immunity in Manafort case

 

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Jul 19, 2018

 

Exclusive: Two sources tell ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has offered lobbyist Tony Podesta immunity to testify against Paul Manafort. Fox News [#Tucker FOX] Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.]

 

Tony Podesta has been offered immunity by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify against Paul Manafort, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported, citing two unnamed sources.

 

Podesta is the founder of the Podesta Group and brother of John Podesta, who was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

 

The Podesta Group reportedly worked with Manafort — a former chairman of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign — to lobby on behalf of Ukrainian interests in the United States, without properly registering at the time under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), Carlson said.

 

Manafort and the group worked on a campaign called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, the Washington Times reported.

 

“In other words, for a near identical crime, Bill and Hillary’s friend could escape and emerge completely unscathed while Paul Manafort may rot in jail,” Carlson said.

 

Podesta did not register as a foreign agent under FARA, Carlson said in a segment last October.

 

Youtube VIDEO: Podesta stepping down from lobbying firm amid Mueller probe

 

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Oct 31, 2017

 

Tony Podesta reportedly tells his staff he will fight the allegations; reaction from Rep. Doug Collins, vice chair of the House Republican Conference and a member of the Judiciary Committee.]

 

Mueller is also offering immunity to five potential witnesses in the upcoming trial of Manafort, the Washington Examiner reported.

 

Mueller’s team is requesting “use immunity,” which is a limited type of immunity, the publication reported, citing court documents filed Tuesday.

 

The five people have not been charged or identified publicly with the case, prosecutors for Mueller’s team said, according to the Examiner.

 

Tony Podesta resigned from his lobbying group in October in response to Mueller’s investigation of the firm, the report said.

The firm was reportedly closed by the end of last year.

 

The special counsel’s office did not immediately respond for comment.

 

Manafort is accused of multiple financial crimes in connection with lobbying work he performed in Ukraine. The first of his two upcoming trials, in Virginia, is scheduled to begin next week.

 

Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this story.

_______________________

Amy Lieu is a news editor and reporter for Fox News.

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

The Hammond Ranchers Pardoned by Trump


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2018

 

Members of the Hammond family pose outside a ranch building on their property in Harney County in this undated photo. Steven Hammond, second from left, and his father, Dwight Hammond Jr., center, were pardoned Tuesday, July 10, 2018, by President Donald Trump. (Hammond family) [Photo from OregonLive]

 

President Trump gave pardons to Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. Many, including myself, consider their convictions a huge blight on the Justice system. The Hammond family had a long dispute with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing and land management. They were actually convicted on terrorism charges because protecting their land from BLM started brush fires, they started their own fire on their own land. The Hammond fire slipped onto BLM managed Federal land. The BLM decided to make an example of the Hammonds undoubtedly to scare other ranchers in the Western States who also have long disputed BLM authority and practices.

 

The Hammonds actually pleaded guilty to the arson charges, but the original Judge saw how frivolous the Hammond fire was to Federal land, the gave very light sentencing. The light sentence ticked someone off in the Obama DOJ. Western Prosecutors appealed the short sentence which resulted in stiffer punishment that extended to years.

 

The incident of re-sentencing sparked a rancher rebellion in Oregon centered around the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

 

I found out about the pardons from the Freedom Outpost which I am cross posting. However, the local Oregon media under Oregon Live has greater detail.

 

JRH 7/11/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Trump Pardons Hammonds!

 

By TIM BROWN 

JULY 10, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Now, this is good news!  On Tuesday, President Trump Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been serving sentences for arson.

 

Statement from the White House read as follows:

 

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond.  The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land.  The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.

 

At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct.  As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences.  The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison.  This was unjust.

 

Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison.  Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison.  They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit.  The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West.  Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.

 

Well, it took long enough, but thank you President Trump.  You did the right thing in this matter.

 

And for all those who took the time to keep this story alive and urge people to petition the White House on behalf of the Hammonds, thank you!

 

It should be noted that the protests that took place in Oregon a couple of years ago were a response to the injustice the Hammonds faced.  As a result, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum was killed by Oregon State Police.

 

Those who led the protest were all acquitted of all charges and reporter Pete Santilli had all of his charges dismissed.   No doubt, Finicum would have been found not guilty as well, but that’s not how tyrants work, is it?

 

Today is a day to celebrate a wrong that has not been fully made right, but has definitely turned in the right direction!

 

Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard.

++++++++++++++++

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose case sparked Bundy takeover of refuge

 

By Maxine Bernstein

July 10, 2018 9:33 AM – UPDATED July 11, 2018 7:55 AM

The Oregonian/OregonLive

 

President Donald Trump on Tuesday pardoned two eastern Oregon ranchers serving time in federal prison for setting fire to public land in a case that inflamed their supporters and gave rise to the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

 

Dwight Hammond Jr., 76, and son Steven Hammond, 49, walked out of a federal prison in California about 6 1/2 hours later. They were convicted in 2012 of arson on Harney County land where they had grazing rights for their cattle. They were ordered back to prison in early 2016 to serve out five-year sentences.

 

“The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement and farmers and ranchers across the West,” the White House said in a statement. “Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.”

 

Susie Hammond, Dwight’s wife and Steven’s mother, said she was sound asleep when a call from U.S. Rep. Greg Walden awakened her Tuesday morning. “He said it’s a done deal, the papers were signed,” she said. “We’ve been waiting a long time. I think it’s wonderful.”

 

Though Susie Hammond believed her husband and son had a strong case for clemency, she was reluctant to get her hopes up.

 

“I’ve just been sitting here, on the phone since,” she said. “I still can’t believe it. I won’t believe it until I see them.”

 

Walden said he looks forward to welcoming the Hammonds back to Oregon.

 

“Today is a win for justice and an acknowledgement of our unique way of life in the high desert, rural West,” he said. “I applaud President Trump for thoroughly reviewing the facts of this case, rightly determining the Hammonds were treated unfairly and taking action to correct this injustice.”

 

Trump’s move marks yet another big victory for backers of the Hammonds, including Ammon Bundy and his followers who repeatedly cited the case as the trigger for the 41-day occupation of the wildlife refuge that abuts the Hammond family ranch. A jury acquitted him and other key takeover figures of all federal charges.

 

“The true reason the Hammonds have suffered has not been corrected. It must be corrected,” Bundy said. He pledged to continue to fight against the federal government’s “control over land and resources inside our states.”

 

Both Hammonds were convicted of setting a fire in 2001, and the son was convicted of setting a second fire in 2006. A federal judge initially sentenced the father to three months in prison and the son to one year after they successfully argued that the five-year mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

 

They served the time and were out of prison when prosecutors challenged the shorter terms before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won. Another federal judge in 2015 sent the ranchers back to complete the full sentences.

 

According to the Trump administration, federal prosecutors who challenged the Hammonds’ original sentences filed “an overzealous appeal.”

 

“This was unjust,” the White House said.

 

The Hammond family also said in a statement that they hoped the pardon will “help signal the need for a more measured and just approach by federal agents, federal officers and federal prosecutors – in all that they do.”

 

Amanda Marshall, who was Oregon’s U.S. attorney when the appeal occurred, defended it and said she was disturbed by Trump’s pardons.

 

“It means their conviction doesn’t exist. I find that incredibly troubling,” Marshall said. “I think it’s a slap in the face to the people in Pendleton who served on that jury and a slap in the face to the Constitution.”

 

Marshall said the Hammonds’ first sentences veered from the mandatory minimum set by Congress. The trial judge’s decision to issue shorter sentences violated the law, she said.

 

Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, also criticized Trump’s decision, saying it sends a “dangerous message” to America’s park rangers, wildland firefighters and public land managers.

 

“President Trump, at the urging of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, has once again sided with lawless extremists who believe that public land does not belong to all Americans,” Rokala said.

 

As of this month, Dwight Hammond has served two years and nine months in prison and 31 months of supervised release. His son has served three years and four months in prison and two years of supervised release.

 

“I am very happy for the entire Hammond family, who I have known and respected for 25 years,” said attorney Larry Matasar, who represents Steven Hammond. “I hope that Dwight and Steven will soon be able to continue their work on the Hammond Ranch.”

 

Attorney Kendra Matthews, who represents Dwight Hammond Jr., said the pardon is “a just and proper resolution of the Hammonds’ criminal prosecution and we are thrilled that the Hammond family will soon be reunited.”

 

Susie Hammond had heard several weeks earlier that Trump was considering a pardon. At the time, she said she had a “sense that things are moving forward and I have faith in our president. If anyone is going to help them, he’d be the one.”

 

Ryan Bundy, who joined his brother Ammon as a leader of the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, said the pardons were “long overdue. It’s time. It’s overtime.”

 

Bundy said he and others would like to return to Burns to give the Hammonds a “hero’s welcome” when they get out of Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in San Pedro, Calif.

 

In clemency petitions, lawyers for the Hammonds cited the ranchers’ longtime service to their community, the severity of their punishment, the trial judge’s support and their family situation.

 

“Unlike some cases where clemency may outrage the community, clemency for the Hammonds would be embraced by the Oregon community, both rural and urban,” Matasar wrote.

 

The lengthy sentences, plus the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s refusal in 2014 to renew a grazing permit for the Hammond ranch, have crippled the operation, the family has said. The Hammonds have appealed the federal agency’s denial.

 

“If the Hammonds are unable to return to the ranch in the near future, the legacy and livelihood Dwight and Steven Hammond have been building for their family could truly be lost,” Matasar wrote in his petition. “A clemency would not only serve as a balm to the community’s angst about these sentences, but very practically, give the Hammonds a real chance to keep their ranch afloat.”

 

Dwight Hammond set a prescribed burn on about 300 acres of his own land that then traveled onto Bureau of Land Management property and burned an additional 139 acres, his lawyer wrote. The elder Hammond said he was trying to fend off invasive species.

 

Prosecutors argued the fire also was to cover up illegal deer poaching and got out of control, placing firefighters who had to be airlifted out of the area in grave danger.

 

The federal pursuit of the Hammonds followed years of permit violations and unauthorized fires, and they never accepted responsibility, Marshall said.  The Hammonds could have faced less than a year in prison under a plea offer they declined, she said.

 

The Hammonds’ lawyers pointed out in their clemency petitions that the father and son faced other sanctions. They paid $400,000 in 2015 to settle a civil suit brought by the government and are having a hard time sustaining the cattle operation because of the grazing permit denial.

 

They cited the opinion of the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who found the five-year sentences “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here” and noted that the fires didn’t endanger any people or property.

 

Prosecutors argued the fires did endanger others. When the government won the appeal of the Hammonds’ lower sentences, Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams issued a release, saying that the fires illegally set on public lands, even in remote areas, endanger firefighters called to respond. Marshall said “firefighters were in grave danger and had to be dramatically evacuated” after the fires set by the Hammonds.

 

Williams was asked by the Office of the Pardon Attorney to submit a written brief summarizing the Hammond litigation and his office’s position on the Hammonds’ clemency requests. He prepared a brief and submitted it, but his office declined to release it or summarize what Williams’ position was, calling the document privileged.

 

Williams also declined any comment Tuesday about Trump’s pardons.

 

Steven Grasty, a former Harney County commissioner, said he’s glad the Hammond saga has come to an end. He said he disagreed with first sentence, but didn’t see the value of sending the Hammonds back to prison after they had served their initial term.

 

“I’m really proud of the efforts of our community, Greg Walden, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association,” Grasty said.

 

But he said the pardons shouldn’t be considered a win for the Bundys. “The Bundys complicated this. They made it worse. The Bundys didn’t know the Hammonds. They used them.”

 

Among those who wrote letters of support for the Hammonds’ clemency petitions were Walden, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe as well as leaders of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Oregon Farm Bureau.

 

Ward, who was the face of law enforcement during the 2016 occupation of the wildlife refuge in his county, wrote to the White House that he personally felt the initial sentences and the financial penalties “covered the debt owed to society.”

 

“This case was thrust into the national spotlight when, for lack of a better term, anti-government extremists exploited the Hammond family and began attempting to use their unfortunate circumstance to gain support for their own agendas,” Ward wrote.

 

He noted that Dwight and Steven Hammond rejected pressure they faced from Ammon Bundy and others to defy federal orders and instead turned themselves in to prison.

 

“It is my humble opinion that justice would be better served if these gentlemen were afforded the opportunity to return home,” Ward wrote. “For Dwight to spend his remaining years with his wife. For Steven to return to his family … and to set an example that along with being a nation of laws, we are a nation of compassion and forgiveness.”

 

On Tuesday, Ward said he was “happy for their families and I respect the decision, as it is a responsible and lawful use of our governmental system. … Now please allow this community to move on.”

 

Other letters of support described good deeds done for their neighbors, children and grandchildren’s schools, the county’s 4H and FFA clubs and many others in need. They spoke of Dwight Hammond’s sincerity, decency, his humility and the respect for him in Harney County — a man who dressed up as Santa Claus for schoolkids and what one friend described as “a real life John Wayne.”

 

Dwight Hammond’s wife, who is ailing, lives alone in Burns. Steven Hammond is married with three children.

 

“I am seeking commutation of my sentence so that I can return home to take care of my wife,” Dwight Hammond wrote. “I live in fear that one of us will pass before we are reunited.”

 

Trump’s action follows a flurry of pardons, including for Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative author convicted of illegal campaign contributions; I. Lewis Libby Jr., a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio; and Alice Johnson, 63, serving life for her role in a cocaine distribution ring.

___________________

The Hammond Ranchers Pardoned by Trump

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2018

__________________

Trump Pardons Hammonds!

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

___________________

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose case sparked Bundy takeover of refuge

 

The Oregonian/OregonLive Homepage

 

© 2018 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask for permission from Advance Local. If requested, I’ll remove the post.]

 

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement


Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

JRH 7/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM

 

Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody’s right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called “good”, as the nation witnessed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers to no one and places itself above all.

 

In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the so-called “right” to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and they manufactured it out of thin air.

 

President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn’t be “appropriate” to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over 60 million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?

 

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of “precedents” must somehow be viewed as “set law” as she parroted Democrat talking points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?

 

Any person who views overturning the activist decision of Roe v Wade as a “big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn child’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

 

If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn’t Plessy v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would still have segregation under the “law”. These were overturned by a later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.

 

However, ever since Marbury v Madison (1803) and the Court’s assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which is contrary to the Founders’ Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind other parts of government.

 

Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted, “All power exercised over a nation … must be either delegated, or assumed … All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”

 

The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However, activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography on demand, abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

 

Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a “moderate” because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at some major cases. Kennedy voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4 percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas’s sodomy laws, the upheld Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual “marriage”, aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of marriage — the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before God. This is not a “conservative” or a “moderate”.

 

By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,  who is a pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student award from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

 

President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America’s founding ideas, those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending. As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders’ Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment, during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.

 

As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a “right”.

 

And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution’s ratification debate, has become our present-day reality: “The Supreme Court under this Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul … There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.” [Italic bold by Editor]

 

America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…


John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

Cliff Kincaid has been using his political pulpit to warn Conservatives that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a bad choice for a nomination to SCOTUS. On a personal level I say further investigation is warranted before I join Kincaid’s warning.

 

Kincaid’s warning centers around Kavanaugh’s association in the death of Vince Foster. Officially Foster death was ruled a suicide. Detractors of the suicide label believe Foster was murdered to look like a suicide to protect the Crooked Clintons.

 

Here is an excerpt on Vince Foster’s death written by Cliff Kincaid for AIM in 2016:

 

Donald J. Trump has brought up the case of the mysterious death of former Clinton aide Vincent Foster, calling it “fishy.” Trump is right. Foster is the man who knew too much. He had knowledge of various Clinton scandals, including Travelgate, the Waco tragedy, and possibly some illegal activities involving national security. His body was found in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993, and the media accepted the verdict of suicide.

 

But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding. These anomalies included:

 

  • No bullet was ever found in Fort Marcy Park, even though Foster supposedly shot himself there.

 

  • The gun that was found in his hand has never been positively identified as his.

 

  • Foster’s fingerprints were not found on the gun.

 

Many people in the media claim that numerous investigations confirmed it was a suicide. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post says there were “five official investigations into Foster’s death, conducted by professional investigators, forensic experts, psychologists, doctors and independent prosecutors with unlimited resources.” CNN’s Jake Tapper says it is “shameful” for Trump to question these findings.

 

But the official government investigations, including the one run by ardent “Republican” Kenneth Starr, were flawed. Nobody knew this better than Miguel Rodriguez, the lead investigator of Foster’s death for Independent Counsel Starr. He uncovered evidence that Foster had not committed suicide. However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of Foster’s death, resigned because of interference with his investigation. As Irvine noted, “If he had been permitted to complete the grand jury investigation, he would have exposed the many lies that were told to cover up Foster’s murder.” Irvine exposed many of these lies in a 2001 edition of the AIM Report.

 

 

Some other critical facts:

 

  • Foster’s car, a 1989 gray Honda, was not at Ft. Marcy Park when he died.

 

  • The .38 revolver found in his hand was not the gun that killed him. It was not his gun. The caliber of the gun was too large to be consistent with the small hole in the side of Foster’s neck. A memo by Rodriguez found at the National Archives stated that “the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by” investigators.

 

  • Foster’s so-called suicide note was a forgery. It said nothing about suicide. Handwriting experts say the note, which had no fingerprints on it, wasn’t even written by Foster. The note was found in a briefcase that had previously been searched.

 

Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. READ ENTIRETY (Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/26/16)

 

Kavanaugh was on a SCOTUS list in 2017 that eventually went to Justice Gorsuch. Joseph Farah wrote a report then about Kavanaugh’s link to a cover-up in the Foster death:

 

 

… the White House noted the following credentials: “Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.”

 

Conspicuously not mentioned in that biography is Kavanaugh’s role in leading the badly flawed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster in July 1993.

 

In fact, Kavanaugh took over that investigation when his predecessor, attorney Miguel Rodriguez, resigned, saying in a letter to Kenneth Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation, WND reported last year.

 

The smoking-gun information was reported by WND exclusively early in the 2016 presidential campaign in the form of two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Rodriguez, Starr’s original lead prosecutor.

 

 

Rodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.

 

The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?

 

 

The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

 

Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

 

Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

 

Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

 

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

READ ENTIRETY (IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING ‘VERY FISHY’ IN FOSTER DEATH? By JOSEPH FARAH; WND; 11/20/17 7:42 PM)

 

Kavanaugh took over the Vince Foster death investigation after Rodriguez’s resignation:

 

 

The press publicized the search of Fort Marcy Park for the fatal bullet to give the public the impression Starr was doing a thorough investigation.  The bullet was never found because it remained in Foster’s head.  Rodriguez discovered that the FBI, with the assistance of Doctor James Beyer, had destroyed the evidence that showed the bullet remained in Foster’s brain.  People asked Rodriguez if exhuming Foster’s body for an X-ray could reveal the bullet trajectory.

 

THE GREY HONDA

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Supreme court candidate Brett Kavanaugh previously of the Independent Counsel discussed the problem with the brown car with Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media.

 

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh admitted that “all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described [the car] as brown.”  Vincent Foster’s car was NOT BROWN.

Foster did not drive to the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park, contrary to press reports. On October 10, 1997, when the 137-page official report, vol 1vol 2, was released to the public, the American press concealed the evidence of the cover-up, and only reported on the existence of the first 114 pages of the report.

 

Narrator

 

Kavanaugh’s statement that people clearly saw Foster’s car is not true.  Descriptions of a brown car are not descriptions of Foster’s gray car.  How does Kavanaugh resolve the problem?

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

So, people were screwed up on the colors, period.

 

Narrator

 

Brett Kavanaugh called eyewitnesses “screwed up” because what they saw did not agree with the desired result.

 

But Kavanaugh slipped up.  He admitted that all of the police and medical personnel saw a brown car.

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Well it all comes down to that brown car issue, right?   Ah, all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described it as brown.

 

Narrator

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Reed Irvine asks Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh what evidence he has that Vince Foster’s car was at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup; By Bunkerville; BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! 7/3/18)

 

Now for the Cliff Kincaid email where I place the video he refers to at the bottom.

 

JRH 7/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Sent July 5, 2018, 2:06 PM

Sent via America’s Survival

 

To ASI Supporters:

 

Watch the media closely. If you see no coverage of the Foster case, then you can safely assume who is calling the shots. Pardon the pun.

 

Kavanaugh Still Favored For Supreme Court

 

Time is running out. My old friend, John Gizzi, one of the best political journalists in the country, says President Trump is on the verge of naming Foster cover-up artist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 

Brett Kavanaugh & Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Here’s what John is reporting:

 

With barely four days to go before President Trump makes official his choice to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the favorite remains D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has an advantage because he has the most consistent conservative judicial track record of the known candidates — one that mirrors Trump’s views on several key issues, including immigration, trade deals, abortion and gun rights, according to two sources familiar with the current White House selection.

 

This would be a major catastrophe. What my old friend leaves out of his piece is Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Foster cover-up.

 

If Kavanaugh is nominated, the Deep State wins. Our video explains how Kavanaugh went along with the cover-up because he wanted to play ball and be a member of the team, so he could move “up the ladder.” This is how the Swamp operates.

 

Remember that President Reagan was tricked into nominating Anthony Kennedy. And Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy!

 

Everywhere you turn in the “conservative media,” you are getting endorsements of Kavanaugh – without any mention whatsoever of the Foster case.

 

We have also learned that Kavanaugh is the preferred choice of White House counsel Don McGahn. He is pushing Trump to nominate him for the Supreme Court. “McGahn’s backing helped Kavanaugh secure a spot on Trump’s existing Supreme Court list last November, when the president added five names,” Politico said.

 

Watch our video. Decide for yourselves. Everything we have is documented.

 

Official FBI photograph of the black gun placed in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park to stage the crime scene.

 

Thanks to those of you who have responded with donations. But we need your help more than ever.  If you haven’t helped, please consider a donation.

 

Rather than nominate Kavanaugh, Trump should order a new investigation of the “fishy” Foster death. That’s the way to get to the bottom of the way the Deep State operates.

 

If Trump wants to save his presidency, he must investigate the Deep State, not capitulate to it.

 

Give me your thoughts at: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

For America’s Survival,

Cliff Kincaid, President

 

Donate to America’s Survival

 

VIDEO: Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Posted USA Survival

Published on Jul 4, 2018

 

Possible Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “is part of the ongoing cover-up of the murder of the [Clinton] White House deputy counsel” Vincent Foster. So charges researcher and journalist Hugh Turley. In this explosive video, learn how the Swamp operates in bipartisan fashion to cover up crimes, including murder, and how Deep State agents are deployed to intimidate witnesses and alter evidence. Turley worked with AIM’s Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid on this case for years, only to face a cover-up from the liberal AND conservative media.

__________________

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…

John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

_________________

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

© America’s Survival, Inc

 

About America’s Survival

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.leninandsharia.com  and www.religiousleftexposed.com ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events. We have an app for smart phones and operate a TV channel on Roku called “America’s Survival TV.”

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

Mailing Address:
America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736

 

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

 

Well-Well. It looks like five Justices of the Supreme Court still adhere to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time it is evident there are four Justices that take to the fallacy of a Living Constitution, meaning activist Judges can interpret the Constitution according Leftist ideology rather than the Original Intent of the letter of the law.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules Pro-Life facilities cannot be forced to share information of State options to kill unborn babies.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules that the Office of President has the Constitutional ability to limit travel from nations that a National Security issue is apparent.

 

Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote.

 

Below are two Fox News stories with the details.

 

JRH 6/26/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

By Adam Shaw

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment. The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

 

The state regulations, targeting centers that provide counseling-related services with the goal of helping women make choices other than abortion, demanded such centers prominently post information on how to obtain abortion and contraception.

 

The law also required unlicensed, non-medical facilities to inform clients that they are not licensed medical providers. If pregnancy centers fail to comply with the law, they’re fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the law.

 

Pro-life groups had challenged the regulations, arguing that they violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Supporters of the law said that it was necessary since many women were unaware of the options available to them.

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and upheld the law — arguing that the state could regulate professional free speech and the law protects public health interests. The Supreme Court reversed that judgement.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” He also called the regulations for unlicensed facilities “unjustified and unduly burdensome.”

 

Thomas was joined by fellow conservative justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer, in his dissent, said among the reasons the law should be upheld is that the high court has previously upheld state laws requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services. “After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the ruling “unfortunate.”

 

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said in a statement.

 

“Today’s Court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their healthcare options will continue.”

 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Madeline Farber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News. He can be reached here.

 

++++++++++

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

By Bill Mears

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

 

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

 

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

 

 

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

 

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

 

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

 

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

 

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

 

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

 

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential authority, especially within the immigration context.

 

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

 

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

 

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

 

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

 

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

 

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

 

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

 

It reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

 

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

 

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

 

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

 

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

 

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

 

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

 

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

 

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

______________________

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

____________________

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

And

 

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask permission to share the Fox News posts. If requested I will remove them.]