View Post

UPDATE: Murdered Whistleblower Philip Haney Spoke Out Against Muslim Brotherhood’s Infiltration of US Government in October – Spoke Out Against CAIR (VIDEO)

In Standard by Gateway PunditLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead on Friday.
The whistleblower against the Obama administration was shot dead near his vehicle in California.

Haney told Sean Hannity in 2016 that he was ordered during the Obama administration to scrub the record of Muslims in the US with terrorist ties.

The story of his death has still not hit the mainstream media.
The Gateway Pundit was notified of his death last night.

Haney had been missing since Wednesday.

Phil Haney spoke out against CAIR in an interview in October with Barry Nussbaum on American Truth Project.

Philip Haney spoke out against the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the US government back in October.
Haney was also an outspoken critic of CAIR (the Council for American-Islamic Relations).

Philip Haney: CAIR is the acronym for the Council on American Islamic Relations. It’s probably the best known Muslim organization in the country, but unfortunately, it’s also connected, irrefutably proven to be connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood has been already designated in several countries around the world, including Middle Eastern countries, and they should know as a terrorist organization, as a front group up to and including Hamas, which we know as a designated terrorist group itself. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 as an Islamic revival organization, and its goal is to implement a caliphate, a Sharia-based form of government around the whole world. They’re not shy about saying so, and we’re not immune to it, which brings us to where we are today. We’ve been continuing to track this group and other ones that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. And I have to say with great distress that if anything, they’re more woven into the fabric of different branches of our government today, 2019 October than they were when I was still active duty within DHS. And yeah, that does seem like a bold statement. It seems like it ought to be impossible, but I think that’s what we’re going to go over today.

Barry Nussbaum: So I get it. And let’s talk specifics. So why in the world Phil with the FBI, the premier law enforcement agency in the world, and certainly our number one national police force whose mission it is to protect us internally within the boundaries of the United States what the heck is the FBI doing in bed with CAIR?

Philip Haney: Well, first of all, let’s make sure to make the point that they are. This isn’t something that started years ago and was taken care of. I’m talking just in the last week or two. CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups have been meeting by invitation from the Department of Homeland Security and/or branches within the U.S. State Department to help implement and develop policy here in the United States. And before I forget it, I should mention that the new focus of the Department of Homeland Security has just released in their new twenty nineteen strategic documents, about 20 to 40 pages, is a focus on white supremacy, not so much Islamic terrorism. Now a new shift into a new arena, white supremacy. And that brings us to the relationship with CAIR. They have now asked groups like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations all part of the Muslim Brotherhood to come and help them implement this new policy of focus on white supremacy.

View Post

Roger Stone Files Motion for Judge Amy Berman Jackson to Recuse Herself After She Praised ‘Integrity’ of Jurors

In Standard by Gateway PunditLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

Roger Stone Files Motion for Judge Amy Berman Jackson to Recuse Herself After She Praised ‘Integrity’ of Jurors

Roger Stone filed a motion Friday night asking Judge Amy Berman Jackson to recuse herself from his case after she praised the “integrity” of the jury that convicted him when she pronounced his sentence of 40 months in prison on Thursday even though she had Stone’s motion for a new trial based on juror bias pending in front of her. Stone was convicted in the Mueller probe last year on seven charges of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering.

In the motion for recusal, Stone calls out Jackson for saying during the sentencing hearing, “Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares? But, I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care.”

Stone’s motion for a new trial was filed under seal, however the recusal motion indicates it is about juror bias, a likely reference to recent reports about jury forewoman Tomeka Hart.

An expert analysis by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley of the voir dire of Hart can be read at this link at The Hill. Turley’s conclusion:

…It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

The burden now is on Judge Jackson to hold a hearing on this matter and address the possible need for a mistrial. And one thing will be clear: Judge Jackson, in the words of Juror No. 1261, does not “gotta love” any of this.

Stone’s Friday night motion:

Defendant, Roger J. Stone, Jr., files this Motion for Judicial Disqualification, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), in advance of oral arguments related to Defendant Stone’s Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. # 309-2).

The issue at hand arises from the Defendant’s pending Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. # 309-2) and statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Defendant’s Sentencing Hearing on February 20, 2020. Stone’s argument for a new trial rests on newly discovered information indicating that there was juror misconduct during Mr. Stone’s trial, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury. Defendant’s Motion has not been ruled on, and in fact, the Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Opposition is not yet due, nor has a hearing been set. The Court must still consider whether any juror interviews are appropriate in light of the allegations. However, given the statements made by Judge BermanJackson during the Sentencing Hearing, recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a) is warranted in order to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) states, “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” “[A] showing or appearance of bias or prejudice sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge’s impartiality is all that must be demonstrated to compel recusal.” United States. v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

The goal of section 445 is to “avoid even the appearance of partiality.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp. 468 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). “In addressing the mere appearance of partiality, section 455 addresses not only fairness to the litigants but also the public’s confidence in the judiciary, which may be irreparably harmed if a case is allowed to proceed before a judge who appears to be tainted.” In re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764, 776 (3d. Cir. 1992). “It has been argued that any ‘public comment by a judge concerning the facts, applicable law, or merits of a case that is sub judice in his court or any comment concerning the parties or their attorneys would raise grave doubts about the judge’s objectivity and his willingness to reserve judgment until the close of the proceeding.’” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting William G. Ross, Extrajudicial Speech: Charting the Boundaries of Propriety, 2 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 589, 598 (1989)). Disqualification under section 455(a) is appropriate even after a final judgment is entered in certain situations. See Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d at 116.

Stone’s Motion for New Trial is directly related to the integrity of a juror. It is alleged that a juror misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality.

Nevertheless, at Mr. Stone’s sentencing, the Court emphatically stated its views regarding both of the defendant and the jurors in his trial:

“Everyone depends on our elected representatives to protect our
elections from foreign interference based on the facts. No one
knows where the threat is going to come from next time or whose
side they’re going to be on, and for that reason the dismay and
disgust at the defendant’s belligerence should transcend party. The
dismay and the disgust at the attempts by others to defend his
actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should
transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to
interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the
judiciary to fulfil their duty should transcend party. Sure, the
defense is free to say: So what? Who cares?” T. 87.

“But, I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of
Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case
cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult
circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care.”

Recusal is required based on the entirety of the above and this statement in particular: “The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared.” 2/20/20 Tr. 88:7-8 (emphasis added). Whether the subject juror (and perhaps others) served with “integrity” is one of the paramount questions presented in the pending Motion. The Court’s ardent conclusion of “integrity” indicates an inability to reserve judgment on an issue which has yet been heard. Moreover, the categorical finding of integrity made before hearing the facts is likely to “lead a reasonably informed observer to question the District Judge’s impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and Impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges…share their thoughts about the merits of pending…cases.” Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d at 114-115 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The premature statement blessing the “integrity of the jury” undermines the appearance of impartiality and presents a strong bias for recusal.

The Court should grant this Motion for Judicial Recusal based on the arguments presented above.

View Post

Justice Sotomayor Accuses Conservative Supreme Court Majority of Favoring Trump Administration

In Standard by Gateway PunditLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

GREAT VOCAL MAJORITY EDITOR’S NOTE
This is why many believed Sotomayor was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She is tempermentally unfit. She sees partisanship on the court in favor of President Trump, but is blind to suspicions of partisanship on decisions regarding Obama policy. In the past, other justices who suspected such politicization had enough sense to handle it internally or not mention it at all because going public with such disputes damages the credibility of the Supreme Court. It actually has the effect of politicizing the court, as Sotomayor complains about that very thing. It’s unintelligent and lacking in proper judicial temperment which calls on all the Justices to remain above the fray of politics, but Sotomayor appears have no such inclination. Inasmuch as she was placed on the court by Barack Hussein Obama, a President who was guilty of politicizing everything, even public restrooms, is it really any surprise at all?
—AJC editor, greatvocalmajority.com

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blustering dissent in an ideologically split 5-4 Supreme Court ruling released Friday night in which she accused the five conservative justices who voted in the majority of repeatedly favoring the Trump administration.

The Roberts Court, November 30, 2018. Seated, from left to right: Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito. Standing, from left to right: Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Supreme Court Curator’s Office.

The case involved an appeal by the Department of Homeland Security for an injunction in a ruling against the imposition by the administration of a “public charge rule” regarding immigrants in an Illinois case that the Court has already allowed for the other 49 states. (DHS fact sheet on public charge rule.)

Sotomayor’s dissent is in the context of the growing pushback in recent years by President Trump and his administration that has found support from the Court’s conservative majority against the imposition of nationwide injunctions by individual District Court judges against Trump administration actions. The increased imposition of nationwide injunctions has fueled a belief the lower courts are acting politically as part of the anti-Trump resistance.

Sotomayor wrote in her conclusion:

Perhaps most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others. This Court often permits executions—where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life—to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner.” Murphy v. Collier, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (second statement of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 4); see also id., at ___ (ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 6) (“When courts do not have adequate time to consider a claim, the decisionmaking process may be compromised”); cf. Dunn v. Ray, 586 U. S. ___ (2019) (overturning the grant of a stay of execution). Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances—where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect.

I respectfully dissent.

The complete seven page dissent can be read at here at the Supreme Court.

Slate provided the Resistance translation of Sotomayor’s dissent:

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket.

Text of the DHS final rule on public charge that was the subject of the Supreme Court case:

On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final rule that codifies regulations governing the application of the public charge inadmissibility ground under INA section 212(a)(4). On Oct. 2, DHS issued a corresponding correction. On Oct. 10, 2018, DHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which was published in the Federal Register for a 60-day comment period. DHS received and considered over 266,000 public comments before issuing this final rule. The final rule provides summaries and responses to all significant public comments.

The final rule enables the federal government to better carry out provisions of U.S. immigration law related to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final rule clarifies the factors considered when determining whether someone is likely at any time in the future to become a public charge, is inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, and therefore, ineligible for admission or adjustment of status.

The rule applies to applicants for admission, aliens seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents from within the United States, and aliens within the United States who hold a nonimmigrant visa and seek to extend their stay in the same nonimmigrant classification or to change their status to a different nonimmigrant classification.

The final rule does not create any penalty or disincentive for past, current, or future receipt of public benefits by U.S. citizens or aliens whom Congress has exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, even if the U.S. citizen is related to a noncitizen who is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The rule also does not apply to aliens whom Congress exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as refugees, asylees, Afghans and Iraqis with special immigrant visas, and certain nonimmigrant trafficking and crime victims, individuals applying under the Violence Against Women Act, special immigrant juveniles, or to those who DHS has granted a waiver of public charge inadmissibility.

In addition, this rule also clarifies that DHS will not consider the receipt of designated public benefits received by an alien who, at the time of receipt, or at the time of filing the application for admission, adjustment of status, extension of stay, or change of status, is enlisted in the U.S. armed forces, or is serving in active duty or in any of the Ready Reserve components of the U.S. armed forces, and will not consider the receipt of public benefits by the spouse and children of such service members. The rule further provides that DHS will not consider public benefits received by children, including adopted children, who will acquire U.S. citizenship under INA section 320, 8 U.S.C. 1431.

Similarly, DHS will not consider the Medicaid benefits received: (1) for the treatment of an “emergency medical condition,” (2) as services or benefits provided in connection with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (3) as school-based services or benefits provided to individuals who are at or below the oldest age eligible for secondary education as determined under State or local law, (4) by aliens under the age of 21, and (5) by pregnant women and by women within the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy.

DHS will only consider public benefits received directly by the applicant for the applicant’s own benefit, or where the applicant is a listed beneficiary of the public benefit. DHS will not consider public benefits received on behalf of another as a legal guardian or pursuant to a power of attorney for such a person. DHS will also not attribute receipt of a public benefit by one or more members of the applicant’s household to the applicant unless the applicant is also a listed beneficiary of the public benefit.

View Post

Nevada caucus volunteers asked to sign NDAs protecting the Democratic Party

In Standard by AxiosLeave a Comment

This post was originally published on this site

https://images.axios.com/IVlTXvmr0XygiaIYzTWvsNJoWCA=/0x0:4884x2747/1280x720/2020/02/22/1582330411527.jpg

Election volunteers in charge of tallying results in Saturday’s Democratic caucus are being asked to sign legal agreements to keep them from hurting the reputation of the Nevada Democratic Party, the Washington Post reports.

Why it matters: These nondisparagement agreements come after Democrats used an app created by Shadow Inc. that threw Iowa’s caucuses into disarray, leading to delayed results amid evidence of an error-riddled process.

The impact: At least three caucus volunteers interviewed by the Post have quit in protest of the agreements.

What they’re saying: Seth Morrison, a former volunteer caucus site leader, told the Post that he could not sign the agreement given to him by the party because it was “so broad, I could be sued for anything I say about the Democratic Party of Nevada while I’m serving as a volunteer” — which would bind him for life, he said.

  • Molly Forgey, a spokesperson for the Nevada Democrats, said the NDAs are voluntary and it is “standard practice to request staff and volunteers to sign an NDA because they are privy to strategic information.” Forgey did not comment as to why the agreements include a nondisparagement clause.

What to watch: Nevada’s Democratic Party is currently distributing iPads with software from Cisco Systems for Saturday’s caucus, the Post reports, and volunteers will use Google Forms to calculate how many delegates are awarded to each candidate.

Go deeper: Finger pointing continues over Iowa app fiasco

View Post

BLOOMBERG WOULD LET ELDERLY CANCER PATIENTS DIE

In Standard by spike55Leave a Comment

This video speaks for itself. It is reminiscent of the video of a woman asking Barack Obama about medical care for her mother well into her 90’s and Obama suggested treatment for her condition (a heart pacemaker) would be denied and instead, she would be made comfortable until she died.

This is a utilitarian view that reduces human beings down to a score of how they contribute to the state. It devalues human life, subordinating it to the state. In practice, these systems become corrupted by the powerful, for whom no life preserving effort will be spared, regardless of the utility.

View Post

CORONAVIRUS: COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOON

In Standard by spike55Leave a Comment

The upshot of this interview is that coronavirus will become a pandemic. Not mentioned in this video is the outlook of the World Health Organization (WHO) which is forecasting potential infection of 60% of the world’s population of 7.8 billion. That works out to 4.7 billion people infected potentially and with a fatality rate of 15%, a potential death toll of an astounding 700 million. That would be more than 10 times the death toll from the Spanish Flu of a century ago. Of course, this is a worst case scenario and is by no means a certainty.

What is of greater concern is how this virus got started to begin with. The rest of the world is getting a taste of what the future will be like as long as the Chinese Communists are in power and China remains an authoritarian dictatorship more concerned about maintaining its stranglehold on power rather than the health and welfare of its own people or even the rest of the world’s population. China is not ready to be a first world country.