Facebook Censorship

From the YouTube website:

MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN = ILLEGAL CENSORSHIP!!!

THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR MY LAST 30 DAY BAN ON HATEBOOK WAS AFTER A VIDEO WAS SHOWN ABOUT MUSLIM KIDS SINGING THEY WOULD CUT OFF THE HEADS OF AMERICANS AND I TOLD MY FRIENDS THEY HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT..

...I REALLY DO MEAN IT... YOU ALL HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.. THATS NOT A KNIFE!!!
======================================
Above before i received the 30 day FB BAN, I was sending another old warning to my Fb friends about a 420 ride that was a bust.. Police were stalking the users Fb page and his daily posts to track him and arrest them in the illegal ride and pot smoke out in Nyc that is a yearly celebration.. I didn't get to send the warning which was sent to me by someone I work for in an E mail after it turned up in a news story....i was illegally censored 5-9-2019 After I was banned a few days later I received another message that something I posted later in addition to what I said about fanatical muslims with knives was also banned.. FB HOW DO YOU BAN SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ON A 30 DAY BAN MORONS??? again I am asking because I am special I get banned while I am banned already..
===============================
MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN May 2019
IT HAPPENED TO ME AGAIN!!!! This is around my 3oth bullshit illegal censorship ban on Facebook and this time it is for 30 days..All for saying something that was deemed hateful or against Fb's new rules..Now anything you say can be deemed offensive or hateful and you can be blocked or outright banned for life from using the website..
========================================
Recently about a month ago I was banned for asking WHAT SHITHOLE PLANET DIO ALEXANDRIA OCASIO CORTEZ COME FROM??? Which if you think about it in legal terms I was not saying it I was asking it so I have extra protections..
Then a week later I was banned for saying that democrat states are evil for making 5 million each day on over 900 daily abortions.. I was sticking up for life but my comments were against Facebooks liberal agenda
===================================
Then I get banned for WARNING my close friends about threats coming from muslim children who sang about cutting American heads off!! There again I get extra legal protections under the whistleblower act.. if I am warning people close to me, I just don't have 1st amendment protections, i also have whistleblower protection.. That all gets taken away when you get banned on Fb you can't send messages, you can't even like anything, post anything, no posting notes, you cant post video or even change your profile picture to tell everyone you are in Fb jail.. Nothing.. You can't even use Fb messenger when on a 30 day ban.. Total illegal censorship and I NEVER AGREED TO THAT OR TO BE TREATED THAT WAY
============================
I am in talks with a 1st Amendment lawyer and may pursue a class action billion dollar lawsuit if something isn't done to correct this LIBERAL AGENDA. on Facebook.. it went from Facebook to Fakebook to Hatebook.. They want to silence anyone who does not go along with heir evil Democrat agenda.. Those examples right there could be deemed hate speech but it is all true, and these 4 videos right here back up every word I am saying
============================
Most people would just walk away and not use the site anymore, but I am not like most people and refuse to back down from a fight especially a biased one against me and what I am saying.. I publish notes on all hot topics, a citizen journalist of sorts, exposing the truth from an unbiased view and nobody likes that..i have also published videos and posted informative articles.. I do that all the time to help, to solve problems in the world and make it a better place.. The Democrat Liberal agenda is evil and does not want any part of that, so they will try to silence me.. There is only one way to do that , just make sure the safety catches are in the off position when you come calling evil ones.. That is your only chance
==================
Good will defeat evil as it is written, so it is written so it shall be done!!!

Also:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Source

The FBI is spying on Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty

From Ron Paul for Campaign For Liberty:

Have you seen the news? The FBI is spying on Campaign for Liberty!

Now, I’m wondering if my own personal phone lines are tapped and emails being read by Peter Strzok-like agents who want to see our Liberty Movement DESTROYED.

That’s why I’m counting on your EMERGENCY action today.

With a showdown looming over PERMANENT reauthorization of the NSA’s domestic spying powers in March, I don’t think it’s an accident we’re being targeted by the Deep State.

They know Campaign for Liberty and the patriots like you who support us are their biggest remaining obstacle to their dream of turning America into a full-blown surveillance state.

They tell us it’s to “keep us safe,” and their power would never, ever be abused.

The Deep State coup they’ve led against President Trump has exposed to many Americans what a blatant LIE this is.

As I’ve pointed out time and again if they’ll go after a sitting president, what’s to stop them from coming after you or me?

The answer is nothing.

That’s why I’m counting on you to please sign your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition to Congress, DEMANDING they investigate FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other domestic organization they’re targeting.

You see, not long ago, Cato Institute Scholar Patrick Eddington submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA) to the FBI asking whether the bureau had ever conducted warrantless surveillance of organizations like Campaign for Liberty.

When the responses started pouring back in, the FBI effectively responded, “No, nope, nope, never, not them, nope. . .”

That is UNTIL they were asked about Campaign for Liberty.

Then the FBI issued a “Glomar” response, effectively saying, “No comment.”

These “Glomar” responses are extremely rare, used only when the FBI wants to refuse to confirm or deny whether it was collecting national security or intelligence records on the subjects of the FOIA request.

In other words, if they WEREN’T spying on me, they’d say so!

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. . .

To the Deep State, I’m “dangerous” because I support liberty.

That’s been the message time and again, going all the way back to 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about people with my presidential campaign stickers on their cars!

Then, a few years later, we were targeted by the IRS seeking personal records and information on some of our largest donors (an attack we fought and ultimately WON with your help).

Deep State mouthpieces in the media have accused me of being a Russian stooge for simply standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now, this.

With a battle looming over PERMANENT reauthorization over Section 215 of the so-called “USA Freedom Act” in just weeks, I don’t think this is an accident.

This is the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL!) section of federal law pointed to by the Deep State authorizing them to spy on Americans’ phone calls, emails, Internet searches, chats, social media posts, and all the rest. . .

It’s the crown jewel of the domestic surveillance state.

And Campaign for Liberty is daring to threaten its survival!

So Deep State allies in the FBI want to intimidate me into shutting up -- something I will NEVER EVER do, so long as I have you standing beside me.

The only good news is this entire scheme can backfire -- IF I can count on your help today.

Deep State apologists in BOTH parties, from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), are growing squeamish about reauthorization.

They know there’s abuse. And they know -- despite the Deep State’s promises -- domestic government spying has never done anything to catch a terrorist.

For you and me, that’s no surprise. That’s never what these schemes have been about.

From the beginning, they’ve ALWAYS been about shutting up voices like mine who support American freedom.

The good news is, if you and I can FORCE Congress to investigate the FBI’s surveillance of Campaign for Liberty, it will expose the Deep State’s true colors for all of America to see -- right as the battle over reauthorization of Section 215 of the so-called “USA Freedom Act” comes to a head.

That’s why I’m counting on your EMERGENCY action today.

So please sign your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition right away.
But I hope you won’t stop there. If possible, please agree to your most generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty:

1) Deploy targeted online Internet ads calling on Congress to investigate the FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other similar organization they’re targeting. This may be THE most cost-effective way for you and me to turn up the heat!

2) Use mail and email to contact up to 12 million Americans from coast-to-coast to generate petitions just like the one I’ve linked for you to Congress;

3) Work the talk-radio lines to explain exactly why our effort to expose the Deep State’s true colors is absolutely critical to stop the reauthorization of their UNCONSTITUTIONAL spying powers; and

4) Launch an all-out email and phone mobilization campaign to explain to the American people exactly why the Deep State MUST be exposed.

With the fight over the USA Freedom Act just weeks away, we’re running out of time to raise the resources we need to fight back.

So after you’ve signed your Directive, won’t you please make your most generous contribution of $15?

I know I’ve asked a lot of you lately. But considering everything that’s at stake, I’m asking each and every Campaign for Liberty supporters to dig deep.

Of course, if that’s just too much please agree to $10 or at least $5.

The FBI and their Deep State allies have run rough-shod over Americans’ civil liberties long enough.

It’s time to take the power back -- and that begins by us demanding Congress investigate FBI spying on Campaign for Liberty and any other pro-freedom organization they’re targeting.

Please take action by signing your EXPOSE THE DEEP STATE petition and making your most generous contribution of $15, $10, or at least $5 right away.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul
Chairman

The Benghazi Attack Is Finally Being Properly Prosecuted

On the night of June 15, 2014, eight Americans—six Delta Force operators, an F.B.I. agent, and an Arabic translator—travelled in rubber boats across the Mediterranean and arrived on a beach in Benghazi, Libya. They hustled across the sand and snuck into a nearby safe house. Their plan was to lure and capture Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the alleged ringleader of the most politicized terrorist attack since 9/11.

Twenty-one months earlier, on September 11, 2012, Khatallah had, according to federal prosecutors, coördinated the assault on the American Consulate in Benghazi. Two State Department officials, including the U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, died in that attack, and two C.I.A. contractors were killed in a subsequent firefight at a nearby C.I.A. facility.

A day after the eight-man team beached on the coast, one of Khatallah’s associates unwittingly led Khatallah to the safe house. As soon as Khatallah stepped into the dark villa, several soldiers pounced on him. He tried to kick, punch, and bite his way free, without success. The F.B.I. agent present—who has been identified in court by only a surname, “Johnson”—brought Khatallah into a bathroom, where he covered the suspect’s eyes, plugged his ears, and stuffed a bit into his mouth. The team then hustled Khatallah across the beach, boarded its boats, and raced toward the U.S.S. New York, a twenty-five-thousand-ton* amphibious transport dock made, in part, with steel recovered from the World Trade Center towers, and waiting offshore.

The Benghazi attack has been thoroughly scrutinized. The Republican-led House of Representatives spent millions of dollars and held hearing after hearing on the matter during President Barack Obama’s second term. But the lawmakers leading the hearings seemed more focussed on Hillary Clinton and her colleagues—trying to find any missteps they made before, during, or after the attack that could be used for political purposes—than on the alleged perpetrators of the violence itself.

Meanwhile, the hunt for Khatallah was being pursued by operators and analysts from the C.I.A., Joint Special Operations Command, and the F.B.I. One of the biggest questions for them was what to do with Khatallah once they found him. Counterterrorism officials considered a drone strike or a lethal raid, a former military official told me, but President Obama and the Justice Department wanted to capture him alive and bring him to the United States to stand trial.

This was not a straightforward task. American officials did not have sufficient confidence in the Libyan police to coördinate with them for Khatallah’s arrest. And the F.B.I. wasn’t in a position to pursue Khatallah on its own. Moreover, the intelligence on Khatallah suggested that he could prove difficult to capture—he supposedly carried around a grenade like an explosive cyanide pill.

Officials hatched a hybrid plan: F.B.I. agents would accompany one of the military’s élite manhunting units on the mission for Khatallah. The agents would be present throughout the operation to preserve evidence, so that they, as law-enforcement officials, could later testify in civilian court.

This was a fairly radical concept. Plenty of terrorists had been indicted and tried in American civilian courts, but Khatallah would be the first known case of someone captured through a military mission, Mirandized by law-enforcement officials, and then tried in open court, before a jury. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was captured by military and intelligence officers in Afghanistan and charged in civilian court, but he pleaded guilty before going to trial. More typically, terrorists targeted during military raids have been either killed; detained in U.S.-run military prisons, such as Abu Ghraib; handed over, in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan, to local police or intelligence agencies; or, in the years immediately after 9/11, sent to Guantánamo Bay. Osama bin Laden was indicted by a federal court in 1998, three years before the September 11th attacks. But when American Navy seals finally confronted him in Pakistan, in 2011, they shot and killed him.

Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have been vocal critics of trying terrorists in civilian courtrooms. Trump described Obama’s stated desire to close Guantánamo as a “terrible decision,” and Sessions has called the military tribunals at Guantánamo the “perfect place” for terrorism trials.

After his capture, Khatallah was interrogated first by military and intelligence officials. Then, after five days, a “clean team” of law-enforcement officials took over. Michael Clarke, an F.B.I. agent, read Khatallah his Miranda rights and told him that he was entitled to an attorney. Khatallah asked if there was a lawyer on board. There was not.

Speaking through a translator, Khatallah gave Clarke a lengthy statement over the course of the thirteen-day trip across the Atlantic Ocean. In D.C. district court, Khatallah’s current attorney, Eric L. Lewis, has argued that his client’s “slow boat” extradition was unnecessarily drawn out. “The capture of Mr. Abu Khatallah was a spectacular logistical operation . . . [but] a legal failure,” Lewis said at a June hearing. He wanted Khatallah’s statement thrown out. The judge, Christopher Cooper, ruled against him.

Yet Cooper has set some limits to the proceedings. In the run-up to Khatallah’s trial, which is scheduled to begin on Monday, the judge decided that prosecutors would be unable to admit evidence purporting that Khatallah once told an associate that he was intending to kill Stevens’s replacement, too. Allowing such evidence, Cooper said, would heighten “prejudicial risk” and “do little to illuminate the formation and contours” of the actual 2012 attack. It seems, at long last, that someone is intent on paying attention to what actually occurred in Benghazi.

Source

I may disagree with Sessions on marijuana but we are on the same page here. The terrorists need to be held at Gitmo not in American jails.

Trump is getting tired of Sessions

After President Donald Trump was informed in May that special counsel Robert Mueller had been appointed to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation, Trump unleashed a torrent of insults upon Attorney General Jeff Sessions and told him he should resign, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

Trump reportedly said he believed Mueller's appointment was Sessions' fault for recusing himself in March from the Russia investigation.

Current and former administration officials told the Times that Trump accused Sessions of "disloyalty," called him an "idiot," and said his appointment as attorney general was the worst decision Trump had ever made, leaving Sessions, in the words of the Times, "ashen and emotional."

Sessions later told associates that Trump's demeaning tone during the conversation was the most humiliating experience he's undergone in decades of public life, the Times reported.

The Oval Office conversation reportedly took place on May 17, after White House counsel Don McGahn was told in a phone call with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Rosenstein had decided to appoint Mueller. McGahn then delivered the news to Trump, who immediately began raging at Sessions.

Yet after Sessions complied with Trump's demand and submitted a resignation letter, Trump eventually rejected it. Top advisers -- including Vice President Mike Pence, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon, and then-chief of staff Reince Priebus -- had reportedly convinced Trump that dismissing Sessions would only exacerbate the public scrutiny around Trump, who at that point had also fired the FBI Director James Comey and the national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump has made little secret of his disdain for Sessions in recent months, publicly berating the attorney general throughout the summer after telling the Times he would not have chosen Sessions for the job had he known Sessions would recuse himself. Trump also criticised Sessions' decisions at the Justice Department and referred to him on Twitter as "weak" and "beleaguered."

Sessions later described Trump's public tirade against him as "hurtful," but added that he intended to remain Attorney General unless Trump "wants to make a change." Sessions allies told the Times he wants to remain in the position because he believes he has a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to crack down on illegal immigration.

Source

The government wants to spy on you

From Freedom Press Action Fund:

The Trump administration may get even more power to spy on your personal communications — unless we speak out.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Arkansas) has introduced a bill that would permanently reauthorize an invasive surveillance program that violates your online privacy. Given this administration's hostility toward communities of color and activists, the reauthorization of this program would pose a particular threat to marginalized people in the United States.

Tell Congress that this is unacceptable: Do not reauthorize Section 702 spying.

Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act authorizes intelligence agencies (like the FBI and NSA) to scan in bulk phone calls, text messages and emails traveling across the internet. These agencies are supposed to target only people outside the United States, but they also sweep up massive amounts of Americans’ communications — without a warrant or any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

Section 702 is one of the surveillance programs Edward Snowden exposed. Now it's up to us to protect our online privacy from an administration that's notorious for abusing its power.

It’s common for the Section 702 dragnet to sweep up “family photographs, love letters, personal financial matters, discussions of physical and mental health, and political and religious exchanges” between Americans. While this sweeping authority was meant to protect us from the most serious threats to our national security, the FBI regularly uses it to sidestep Fourth Amendment protections and search Americans' personal information for matters entirely unrelated to foreign intelligence. Instead of letting this horrible surveillance dragnet expire, Cotton's bill would make it a permanent fixture of life in the United States.

Urge Congress to protect your online privacy and rein in mass government surveillance.

To sign petition

FBI wants less transparency

From Free Press:

The FBI is planning to take a big step backward for government transparency.

As of March 1, the agency will no longer accept Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests via email. Anyone seeking public records from the bureau will have to use a new online portal — or send requests via fax or snail mail.

Online FOIA portals may seem like a good idea in theory, but in reality, government agencies make them difficult and cumbersome to use and they include unnecessary hurdles.

Tell the FBI to keep accepting FOIA requests via email and cut out arbitrary restrictions.

The Freedom of Information Act gives us a legal right to request public records, which allow journalists and watchdogs to hold the government accountable. FOIA requests uncovered harmful covert operations like COINTELPRO — an FBI program with the goal of dismantling civil rights groups, among others — and also exposed government surveillance of Black Lives Matter activists. Given the Trump administration's hostile attitude toward the press and activists, we need our government to be more transparent, not less.

Our friends at MuckRock, who help journalists and others access public records, raised the alarm when the terms of service of the new FBI portal came to light. These include arbitrary restrictions that aren’t consistent with the law:

• Requests can’t be longer than 3,000 characters.
• Individuals aren’t eligible for the reduced fees available to media outlets, meaning that freelance journalists, and others, will have to pay extra when filing requests.
• Memos, emails, and other internal communications appear to be off-limits to requesters — a restriction that undermines government transparency.

While these terms of service might be improved going forward, the FBI has shown that it can and will arbitrarily change them without public comment.

Tell the FBI to keep its FOIA email up and running and to drop the arbitrary restrictions.

Freedom of information advocates have been fighting with the federal government over FOIA for a long time. And this isn’t the first time a government agency has spent taxpayer money to make public records less accessible.

Our federal government is harming so many communities — we need government transparency now more than ever.

Thanks for all that you do—

Fiona, Mike, Lucia and the rest of the Free Press team
freepress.net

P.S. Urge the FBI to make our government more transparent, not less.

Thank you!

We as a democratic republic cannot tolerate this. The government has to be transparent or the government will become tyrannical. That is why I am suggesting we also contact our Congressional Representative and our Senators and let them know about the FBI's conduct. The more of us they hear from the better.

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clinton’s Crimes

Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence—with the support of the president himself
By Sidney Powell • 10/11/16 8:30am

Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”

Comey’s “investigation” was a farce. Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn’t happen for others targeted by the feds.

Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of “Justice.” In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. It becomes more relevant every day.

How did we get here?

Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don’t apply to Clinton.

Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill’s remarkable “speaking fees” at hundreds of events around the world—each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department—as if there were no conflict of interest. Simultaneously, foreign entities made “donations” of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state—and it worked.

The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It’s the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron—a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank. The Clintons boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain, creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama’s longest-serving White House counsel. A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.

The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and required government channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act—both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.

That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply “didn’t know how to use a computer,” apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry—which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: ‘My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.’

Clinton’s insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security—and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both—repeatedly.

The unsecure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play—substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.

We wrote more than a year ago—as soon as we heard one Clinton server was “wiped”—about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton. We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.

Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton’s private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait—just this week, we get more emails, and there’s now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.

Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

And let’s not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal’s destruction of evidence. It reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren’t the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute—but it doesn’t apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.

These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.

How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons’ hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just pick three or four—that don’t even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by “reasonable” prosecutors.

First, Clinton testified to Congress that she “turned over all of her work-related emails.” Second, she “only wanted to use one device.” Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming “nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received.” That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it’s Clintonese and not the law.

She “turned over all her work emails”?

First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn’t produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers “wiped” professionally with BleachBit. We’ll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.

As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information “relating to the national defense” is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn’t have to be “classified”—marked or unmarked—even though much of it was.

Sure, let’s give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret—ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won’t have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.

In any event, according to the FBI’s perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.

Clinton may have only wanted “one device,” but the truth is that she had 13 “personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed.” Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI’s file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.

Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that “[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn’t review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server ‘PRN’ with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.”

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: “My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.”

I guess that’s why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put the selected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define “cooperation.”

Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this “investigation.” As Congressman Trey Gowdy said, and I concur, “This isn’t the FBI I used to work with.”

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clinton declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell? Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.

It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.

Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that’s why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46th world-wide.

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton’s crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence. They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice—spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict—such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the “investigation” and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.

Stay tuned. Clinton’s answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he’s the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration’s corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica—combined with what was then the great Washington Post—who exposed the Nixon corruption.

With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons? Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.

Source

Congress grills James Comey

FBI Director James Comey is passionately defending the integrity of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email setup, arguing that critics are unfair to suggest that agents were biased or succumbed to political pressure.

“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,” Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “We are honest people and … whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done.”

The normally stoic FBI chief grew emotional and emphatic as he rejected claims from Republican lawmakers that the FBI was essentially in the tank for Clinton when it recommended that neither she nor any of her aides be prosecuted in connection with the presence of classified information on Clinton’s private email server. He acknowledged he has “no patience” for such allegations.

“I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other. That’s hard for people to see because so much of our country, we see things through sides,” Comey said. “We are not on anybody’s side.”

It was at least Comey’s third appearance on Capitol Hill since the Clinton email probe was closed, but the FBI director’s assurances did not seem to satisfy House Republicans, who said the decision not to prosecute Clinton or her aides smacked of favoritism.

“I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). “There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there’s a heavy hand coming from someplace else.”

Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences — short of criminal prosecution — if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.

“Mary or Joe, if they did this in the FBI, would not be prosecuted,” the FBI director said. “They’d be in big trouble, but they would not be prosecuted. That wouldn’t be fair.”
Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors’ decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.

“You cleaned the slate before you even knew. … You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department’s decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

“Laptops don’t go to the Bureau of Prisons,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills.”

The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.

“Anytime you know you’re subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer’s practice of law, you know you’re getting into a big megillah,” Comey said.
Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton’s July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.

“I don’t think there’s any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.
“If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this,” Comey said. “The decision was made after that because I didn’t know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove.”

Comey also said it wasn’t the FBI’s role to dictate who could or couldn’t act as Clinton’s lawyers. “I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer,” the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he’d never encountered such a situation before.
Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.

Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.

“We had already concluded we did not have a prosecutable case against Cheryl Mills or Heather Samuelson at that point. If we they were targets of our investigation, maybe we would have canceled the interview,” the FBI director said. ‘Frankly, our focus was on the subject. The subject at that point was Hillary Clinton.”

Despite the second-guessing from Republicans, Comey said he remained convinced that prosecution wasn’t even remotely appropriate given the facts.
“As painful as this is for people, this was not a close call,” he said. “This was done by pros in the right way.”

Source

Has James Comey ever heard of Peter Comey? He should be familiar to him as they are brothers. Peter Comey is tied to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. That is why James Comey didn't do squat. Everyone was out there saying that James Comey is a straight shooter. If this is what they mean by "straight shooter" then I would hate to see their interpretation of corrupt.

Here is what really happened.

Major IRS scandal

From Judicial Watch:

New Revelations in Obama IRS Scandal

This week we revealed to the public more about the IRS’ historic abuse of power. We released 294 pages of FBI documents showing that top IRS officials in Washington, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.

Lerner was director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit and Paz was the IRS Acting Director of Rulings and Agreements.

These so-called “302” documents – detailed narratives of FBI investigative interviews – fully confirm a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) in 2013 that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Unsurprisingly, the Obama Justice Department and FBI “investigation” into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013 in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The new documents show that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response that falsely blamed the scandal on IRS low-level employees in Cincinnati: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”

The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups in the summer of 2011 because of their ideology and political affiliation. According to one senior tax law specialist, “The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant’s political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way … [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations.” And IRS senior official Nancy Marks, appointed by Miller to conduct an internal investigation stated, “Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity.”

We obtained these documents through a federal court order in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01239)).

According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using “BOLO” (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be “looking at cases using the Tea Party term.” The IRS failed to reveal such targeting until the ABA conference in May 2013:

•The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Senior Tax Law Specialist:

She read how the case was screened and it was not because of the organization’s activity. The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant’s political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way. She wanted to alert the managers about the way the cases were being pulled … [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations. [Redacted] then went to tell [Redacted] said he would follow up on the issue and would let HOLLY PAZ know this was possibly occurring. This occurred in the mid to late March or April 2011 timeframe.

The cases were labeled as Tea Party cases. The screening sheets said the two cases were pulled because of the names and political affiliations.

•The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Technical Advisor who reported directly to Lerner:

[Redacted] attended a meeting in the summer of 2011. She was not invited, but she was talking to LERNER about something else in the office when LERNER mentioned that it would be interesting for her to attend … Only people from Washington, D.C. were in the room, to include HOLLY PAZ … At the meeting, it was disclosed that one of the ways Cincinnati was looking for cases was using the “Tea Party” term. They were calling the body of cases involving political activity “Tea Party” cases. The concern was that the IRS had put a label on the cases that would be problematic.

•The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Acting Manager of Exempt Organizations Technical(EOT):

In his meeting concerning the briefing in mid-June [2011] [Redacted] met with EOT and EOG [Exempt Organizations Group] staffs and PAZ…. They showed PAZ the briefing paper and the use of the Tea Party term. PAZ was the highest-ranking person at the meeting. Somebody said they may not want to use Tea Party as a labeling term. [Redacted] had recognized they may not want to use the term Tea Party when they were doing the briefing paper, but his plan was to raise the issue with PAZ at the briefing. He does not recall PAZ’s reaction.

According to a ten-page section of the documents containing FBI interviews with IRS Senior Technical Advisor Nancy Marks, in the spring of 2012, Miller asked Marks to “look into how these 501 (c)(4) cases were being handled and find out what the problems were.” After investigations in Washington and Cincinnati, Marks reported the following to Miller in May 2012, according to the FBI:

It was not until much later that MARKS saw information that [Redacted] was only looking for Tea Party cases…. The BOLO showed that at various points the criteria called for “Tea Party” name, and then later the ideology…. She told him [Miller, on May 3, 2012] that Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity. When MARKS told MILLER this, he threw his pencil across the room and said, “Oh shit.”

The FBI documents also reveal that the FBI investigated why Holly Paz sat in on numerous Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) interviews with lower level IRS employees and if her presence improperly influenced the employees’ responses to investigators’ questions. The documents repeatedly state, “Other than the auditors, the only person present during the [Redacted] interview was HOLLY PAZ.”

The documents contain two separate lengthy FBI interviews with Lois Lerner, the first in June 2013 and the second in October 2013. Both interviews came after Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination before the House Oversight Committee in May 2013. By answering questions under oath in her FBI interviews, Lerner seemed to undermine her earlier Fifth Amendment-based refusal to testify to Congress, since witnesses generally cannot invoke the right in one instance and not another. The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusal to testify.

And the FBI 302 documents also contain an interview in which Miller reveals that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman very likely misled Congress in his March 22, 2012, testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee when he said, “There is absolutely no targeting.” According to the FBI report on the Miller interview, “In February or March, MILLER talked to SHULMAN about the development letters.” The “development letters” were letters sent by the IRS primarily to targeted conservative groups seeking what the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) later termed “inappropriate” information about websites and donors.

These documents show that the Obama FBI and Justice Department had plenty of evidence suggesting illegal targeting, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Both the FBI and Justice Department collaborated with the Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to prosecute and jail Barack Obama’s political opponents. These documents show the resulting compromised investigation looked the other way when it came to Obama’s IRS criminality.

Stay tuned, as we will receive more IRS scandal documents next week.

Fire the FBI Director

From Fight For The Future:

Comey’s recent crusade against Apple is just the latest of many attempts to curtail our civil rights and invade our privacy in the name of national security - he has been endangering communities and security technology for decades.

He was instrumental in creating the vast domestic spy program that exists today. After 9/11, he authorized Bush’s massive, illegal domestic surveillance program and approved torture techniques like waterboarding. [1]

The FBI should protect the people: sign our open letter and tell Comey he’s out of control.

The government has access to more information and people now than ever. And yet, Comey insists he needs more. After lying to Congress about the need to sue Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone, the FBI paid hackers over $1.3 million to access the San Bernadino iPhone. He’s since admitted that the lawsuit would have set a legal precedent that we know is dangerous, and we’re not alone.

Even the NSA thinks Comey is spying too hard.

Current and former NSA directors have spoken out against him. NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers has called the FBI’s campaign against encryption a “waste of time.”[2] Rogers believes that end-to-end encryption is foundational to national security.

FBI Director Comey’s obsession with other people’s secrets could seriously harm our national security. Sign our petition telling him to resign.

1. Source
2. Source

Demand Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for the email scandal

From Stop Hillary PAC:

It's been over a year since Hillary was caught red handed compromising American security with her private email server, and yet no charges have been filed!

The FBI claims the investigation is still 'ongoing', but we both know what that means. Unless American citizens demand Hillary be held accountable, the Clintons are going to get away with burying yet another scandal.

Guccifer, the hacker responsible for exposing Hillary's secret server laughed at Clinton's claims that the server was secure. Cyber terrorists are laughing at us.

Federal officials found over 2,000 emails containing classified information, and two dozen emails deemed 'Top Secret.' Hillary's blatant disregard for the law has left America vulnerable.

We must demand accountability. Sign the pledge to join hundreds of thousands of Americans who demand Hillary's prosecution.

Even Obama's former Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, believes Hillary's grievances have left America exposed. Secretary Gates believes Guccifer was not the only one who hacked Hillary's emails. In fact, Gates believes it's more than likely that China, Russia, and Iran also hacked the classified emails Hillary stowed away on her secret server.

We must demand an immediate grand jury indictment for Hillary. In order to do so, we must collect 100,000 signatures as soon as possible. Hillary is well on her way to capturing the White House. If we do not stop her now, Hillary will undoubtedly use the Oval Office to shield herself from accountability.

We cannot allow Hillary to these abuses of power. These unfettered abuses of power have already resulted in too many American deaths at the hands of Hillary. Can you imagine what will happen if she overtakes the White House?

Neither can we. Stop her NOW.

To sign the petition

Tell the Grand Jury to indict Hillary Clinton

Stop Hillary PAC:

Every day Hillary Clinton makes another campaign appearance or stump speech, she is one step closer to the White House...

Yet she continues to deny her culpability for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi -- and the illegal private email server she used to cover it up.

Now, the FBI just extradited a known hacker to the US to see how far Hillary's top-secret emails were hacked.

Friend, overwhelming evidence has been collected to justify legal proceedings against the former Secretary of State and would-be President -- but Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch still hasn't announced a start.

Enough is enough. It's time to call Hillary Clinton to account -- and time to end the Obama Democrats' stalling tactics and cover.

It's time for Hillary Clinton to be indicted -- and appear before a Grand Jury.

Friend, that's why Stop Hillary PAC needs your immediate participation in our "Hillary for Indictment" Grand Jury Demand today!

We must make Attorney General Lynch and her boss -- Barack Obama -- understand that we won't wait for justice any longer.

This effort must have the strongest possible support -- we need to add at least 50,000 signatures to our Demand -- so there is no question about the public determination behind it.

According to our sources, with no charges yet filed against her, Hillary and her allies in the media -- not to mention the fat cat leftist billionaires who bankroll her campaign -- are increasingly confident she'll skate away scot free and go on to win the White House.

We must show Hillary and her enablers they are wrong.

Will you add your name to the "Hillary for Indictment" Grand Jury Demand now?

And if you're able, please also make a generous contribution of at least $25 to help us distribute this Demand as widely as possible and ensure Hillary is held accountable.

New York wants to ban full disk encryption

From Fight For The Future:

This is ridiculous — New York wants to ban iPhones and the latest Androids because they're too hard to break into.

Take action now to protect privacy everywhere and tell New York to keep their hands off our phones.

Phones get stolen all the time. Buying a new one is expensive enough. But your data falling into the wrong hands can cost much, much more.

Think about it. Whoever stole your phone has a copy of your digital life. They could empty your savings, ruin your credit, or steal workplace files and cost you your job. Just one risque photo could become a life-altering nightmare... especially for teachers, young people or public figures. This happens, and it’s awful.

Thankfully, engineers have a solution to this problem: “full disk encryption". It gives strong protection and it’s easy. You pick a good password, and your phone uses some epic math to protect your data every day. That’s it.

Full disk encryption is so great, we even ran a campaign for it: Reset the Net. And it's winning! The iPhone–and the latest version of Android–make full phone encryption standard for everyone. Data will be safe, even when phones get stolen.

But the same encryption that keeps you safe makes the FBI furious. When they seize a phone, encryption makes it much harder for them to break in. In some rare cases, it’s impossible, but most of the time it’s just more work.

The FBI is pushing states to make “full disk encryption” illegal because they want to make it easier to break into someone's phone.

The problem is that making it easier for the FBI to access the data on a phone means it's WAY easier for anyone with malicious intent to access your data, too. Their "solution" to keeping you safe and cracking down on crime actually puts you at risk.

Take action now to protect encryption and make sure hundreds of millions of innocent people are never exposed to thieves and stalkers, just to speed up a miniscule number of FBI investigations.

The FBI is losing this battle at the federal level, because experts agree that banning encryption would be terrible for public safety, since it would make phones easier for anyone to hack into. So the FBI is being sneaky. They know that just one big state could possibly tip the scales.

If New York bans encryption, Apple, Google, and other companies will have to decide to either make a special phone to sell just in New York and swallow that logistical nightmare, or they'll lower their encryption standards on the devices they sell everywhere to match New York's standard. We can't let that happen — especially because if the FBI wins this case, there's no reason they won't come for our computers next.

We need to stop this now, before it goes any further.

Tell New York State that encryption keeps our data safe, and that banning full disk encryption is a threat to public safety.

Full disk encryption is one of the security steps we use at Fight for the Future to keep our data safe–and yours too. I’m using it right now. We see it as our responsibility to you, and really it’s common sense. Many companies and organizations have this policy, and if they don’t yet, they should!

This New York bill would make us, and millions of other organizations much more vulnerable to attacks.

We have some great follow-up planned for this petition, and will be working to stop similar legislation that's already being proposed in California. So please, let’s kick this off right, and bury the politicians behind this law in petition signatures, from people who understand just how important encryption is to privacy and public safety.

If you want to do more, share the page (or this email) with as many people as possible, or support our work by becoming a member. We can win this, but only if we really try.

Sincerely,

Holmes Wilson

P.S. We’re also planning on-the-ground protests against these laws in New York, San Francisco, and possibly London as well. If you’d like to help with those in any way, or if you have any special skills to contribute, email holmes@fightforthefuture.org and let us know a bit about your skills and experience. (And thanks!)

To sign petition

Hillary Clinton tells the DOJ to eat her shit

Hillary Rodham Clinton complied with Justice Department requests for her server — by turning over a hunk of junk.

The much-sought-after home server “was blank,” said Barbara Wells, a lawyer representing the Denver-based computer firm Platte River Networks, which managed the server for Clinton.

“The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition,” Wells told The Washington Post. “To my knowledge, the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Networks’ control.”

Computer experts told The Post that by deleting content, Clinton has made it difficult, but not impossible, to recover her messages.

“If you delete a large file and then write over it with a smaller file, then you may be able to ­retrieve the data that was not written over,” a federal law-enforcement source told The Post.

“If somebody uses a software program to scrub the hard drive clean, that’s problematic.”

But another expert said the FBI has been able to capture data even in cases where “subjects” thought it was irre­trievable.

Clinton said she turned over all her official e-mails to the State Department in December and then wiped clean her server.

Clinton deleted some 30,000 personal e-mails but backed up work ones on thumb drives that were also turned over to federal authorities.

In compliance with a federal court order, lawyers for two top Clinton aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, assured a judge Wednesday the aides won’t delete any of their official e-mails.

The Clinton campaign said Thursday there is nothing on her server left to retrieve. “As David Kendall [Clinton’s lawyer] said in March, we do not believe any e-mails from her time as secretary exist on the server,” the campaign said in a statement.

Platte River says it began work for Clinton in June 2013, after she left office, to upgrade, secure and manage her e-mail server.

The company retrieved the server from her New York home and housed it at a data center in New Jersey, said company spokesman Andy Boian.

Wells did not return phones for comment on whether the content can still be retrieved.

It’s unclear when the server was wiped clean when “migrated” to a different server, as Wells said, and where that information was transferred.

Clinton’s campaign did not say.

One security expert said many questions remain. “They are saying they migrated that data somewhere. Where is the somewhere?” asked the security expert, who asked not be identified for fear of legal ramifications from his employer. “What happened to the data that was transferred, and is the new server following any of the regulations it’s supposed to?”

Source

This little bitch and her husband are pissing me off. If I were running things I would park her ass in the pokey and see if that sobers her up. She and her husband think they are above the law and they have a lot of accomplices that will help them and it is those accomplices that shield the Clintons from the law. The same law we are accountable to they get a free ride. Just more Clinton bullshit. Watch she'll be the Democratic nominee.

On Hillary and Iran

This is a sad time for America. The White House,FBI,NSA,IRS and State Department are controlled by the Democratic National Committee. The White House is politicalized,that is to be expected but the others are supposed to be neutral. These are the governmental organizations that Obama controls. The government bodies that he can't control,The House Of Representatives and The Senate,he does an end run around. Obama said he got the United Nations to ratify his bullshit deal with Iran. The United Nations?!! THE UNITED NATIONS !!! I fucking hate the United Nations. All the United Nations wants to do is take your dick or your gun away. Those are there only agendas they have: outlaw men and outlaw guns. Why the fuck would I want to help the UN? Congress is bullshit too,approving the Corker bill that severely handicaps their ability to add libertarian amendments to otherwise draconian bills so instead it's a up and down,approve all or none vote that the People don't want. The Iran deal is bullshit. Tell the Senate not to ratify this bullshit. The only ones celebrating this deal are the mullahs. Everyone else hates it. If you hate it too let your Senator know too. As far as Hillary is concerned,two inspector generals have submitted forms to Department Of Justice Criminal Investigations Department calling for them to investigate Hillary and her emails. Will the DOJ pick this up and run with it? Who knows. The only thing I can say is stay tuned.

The IRS scandal just got worse

So the Obama IRS wasn’t just persecuting right-leaning nonprofits — it was out to prosecute them, too. And with the help of the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.

Via Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, the watchdog group Judicial Watch just got evidence of the plot. A “DOJ Recap” on an Oct. 8, 2010 meeting tells how officials from the three agencies discussed “several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law” against groups “posing” as tax-exempt nonprofits.

As part of the project, the IRS handed the FBI 21 computer disks with 1.23 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit 501(c)(4) groups — nearly every 501(c)(4). This, though federal law generally bans the IRS from sharing such data.

The evidence shows “that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” noted Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his re-election. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information.”

The IRS scandal surfaced years ago — and for all the administration talk of a full investigation, this huge news is only surfacing now, and only thanks to Judicial Watch.

The news of FBI and Justice involvement in the IRS scandal makes the need for some special prosecutor to probe this mess even more obvious.

After all, as Judicial Watch’s Fitton asks: “How can the Justice Department and the FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

Source

Tell congress not to spy on its citizens

From Demand Progress:

G-Men: If you want to read my email, come back with a warrant.

There's a key vote next week: If you don't want the government to be able to read your emails without a warrant, please add your name at right.

The current dynamic is all over the place -- sometimes the government can read your emails without warrants, sometimes it can't (details on that at bottom).

Next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be taking up amendments that could vastly improve the situation. But some members of the committee are doing law enforcement's bidding and might try to give the spooks even easier access to our emails.

It's a good moment for this push, as General Petraeus email scandal has revealed the astonishing degree of access the government has to our emails and personal information.

Plainly put: The FBI gained warrantless access to a series of email accounts, and took down one of the figures most respected by the political establishment and the mainstream media. They can absolutely do the same thing to any last one of us.

Join us as we urge the Senate to protect us from undue government access to our emails: Tell them to come back with a warrant.

Source:click here to sign the petition.

If you find the idea of the government spying on you appalling then by all means sign the petition. If you find that warrantless searches to be unacceptable then please sign the petition. If you value the 4th Amendment then sign the petition.