It’s 2022 but it feels a lot like 1984, doesn’t it? According to Project Veritas on Truth Social, an FBI whistleblower has leaked a document that suggests “Misinformation” and “Disinformation” are “Election Crimes”.
This colorful document titled “2022 Midterm Elections Social Media Analysis Cheat Sheet” that was leaked to Project Veritas is reminiscent of an exposé The Gateway Pundit published back in August. The basis of the exposé article was the discovery of contracts from the Department of Homeland Security with an organization called the EI-ISAC not only to secure elections at the county level at the behest of the DHS. That same non-profit was also subject to a report titled “The Long Fuse” that talks about a portal to allow government officials access to social media conglomerates to censor anything they deem “misinformation” or “disinformation”.
The pamphlet defines “misinformation” as “false or misleading information spread mistakenly or unintentionally” and “disinformation” as “false or inaccurate information intended to mislead others. Disinformation campaigns on social media are used to deliberately confuse, trick, or upset the public.“
The leaked document from Project Veritas does state “For the following to fall under federal jurisdiction, the following must involve one or more federal candidates on the ballot…” It is unclear if that means the candidate must be involved, or it could be “mis” or “dis” information involving an election with a federal candidate.
School board members reported a police detective to her employer and the U.S. Department of Justice for showing “disrespect,” making “over dramatic” comments about COVID-19 school policies and threatening to sue the district if it kept interrupting her at board meetings.
According to the lawyer for Michigan’s Chippewa Valley Schools, the elected school board members were just exercising their First Amendment rights as private citizens, and the board had no involvement.
Sandra Hernden filed a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit against the school board and members Frank Bednard and Elizabeth Pyden, seeking to remove qualified immunity from the individual public officials for violating “a clearly defined constitutional right.”
Even if Bednard and Pyden lose legal protection and face personal liability, Hernden won’t seek more than $1 in nominal damages, according to Holly Wetzel, director of public relations for Hernden’s lawyers at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Bednard’s Oct. 5 2021 report to DOJ came a day after Attorney General Merrick Garland promised to prosecute “harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school boards, which itself followed a National School Boards Association letter implying that harsh criticism of COVID policies was “domestic terrorism.”
The board president told fellow members and Superintendent Ronald Roberts that he had forwarded to DOJ Hernden’s email, which informed the board of an appeals court ruling prohibiting restrictions on “abusive” and “antagonistic” language at public meetings.
The Department of Justice has opposed the release of the underlying FBI affidavit used to justify last week’s raid on Mar-a-Lago because they claim “it would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps,” according to Politico‘s Kyle Cheney.
“The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation,” the DOJ said in a Monday court filing.
Trump and other Republicans stepped up calls on Sunday for the release of the affidavit after a search warrant released last week indicated that Trump had 11 sets of classified documents at his home – which he told journalist John Solomon were declassified before they were taken out of the White House. The DOJ convinced a judge that they had probable cause to conduct the search due to potential violations of the Espionage Act – which have nothing to do with classification issues.
That said, the DOJ says it intends to unseal additional documents related to the raid.
The ideal of justice is a blindfolded woman poised and still and holding slowly balancing scales. At the Department of Justice over the last several years, the practice of justice is more like an inflatable flailing tube man.
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, everyone thought that federal prosecutors would decide whether to charge Hillary Clinton based on whether she knowingly violated a law that bars mishandling of classified material. It turned out that then-FBI Director James Comey would decide on the basis of what he thought was “reasonable.” After initially letting Clinton off, the tube man flailed right and Comey, breaking procedure against commenting on a pending investigation, announced that the Clinton probe was on again.
The Justice Department only got worse from there. Comey told the country that one reason not to charge Clinton was that the government had never before charged someone for conduct similar to hers. Yet after Comey, the Department went on to spend years investigating Donald Trump, not only for conduct never before charged, but for crimes no one even knew were crimes—including rude tweets. A dusty old law chiefly prohibiting cheating the federal government out of money would be stapled to Trump’s tweets and taped to an obstruction-of-justice charge and then the president was going to be marched off to prison for conspiracy to steal an election—or so the Department led the country’s credulous Left to believe for years.
Gone are the days of Comey’s somewhat evenhanded blundering. The flailing man’s hands are now in an unmistakable search for the necks of its political opponents. Consider the unruly Capitol protest following the 2020 election. For the protesters, the Department has dusted off the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”
The last time the department pursued seditious conspiracy charges, in 2010, it went after a group of Christian nationalists. The charges were thrown out of court. The last time the department made the charge stick was about 30 years ago—against Islamic terrorists who plotted to blow up the FBI and United Nations headquarters. In that case, seditious conspiracy was icing atop an already well-baked cake of indisputable crime.
But for the Capitol protesters, the charge is the essential means by which the government hopes to turn a protest into Pearl Harbor. Without seditious conspiracy, all the department can serve its political masters for dessert are uncoordinated offenses against the public peace, mostly misdemeanors like trespass, in a protest otherwise well within the guarantee of the First Amendment.
In the final hours of the Trump presidency, the U.S. Justice Department raised privacy concerns to thwart the release of hundreds of pages of documents that Donald Trump had declassified to expose FBI abuses during the Russia collusion probe, and the agency then defied a subsequent order to release the materials after redactions were made, according to interviews and documents.
The previously untold story of how highly anticipated declassified material never became public is contained in a memo obtained by Just the News from the National Archives that was written by then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows just hours before Trump left office on noon of Jan. 20, 2021.
Meadows’ memo confirmed prior reporting by Just the News that Trump on Jan. 19, 2021 declassified a binder of hundreds of pages of sensitive FBI documents that show how the bureau used informants and FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and misled both a federal court and Congress about flaws in the evidence they offered to get approval for the investigation.
The declassified documents included transcripts of intercepts made by the FBI of Trump aides, a declassified copy of the final FISA warrant approved by an intelligence court, and the tasking orders and debriefings of the two main confidential human sources, Christopher Steele and Stefan Halper, the bureau used to investigate whether Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
A strange constellation has emerged through public records requests of coordination between progressive funders, federal authorities, corporations, state election officials, and leftist organizations.
Freedom of information requests have uncovered oddball and opaque relationships between some state election officials, federal officials, corporations, progressive activists, and those trying to influence the conduct of those same election officials. These relationships extend to junkets that include baseball games, travel, and even data exchanges between state officials and outside progressive groups.
The story begins with a series of freedom of information act requests aimed at a number of states to see if any election officials are tempted to apply for now-illegal money from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Technology and Civic Life. Such grants and the wild expenditures of these funds altered the course of the 2020 election. (Read The Real Kraken, What Really Happened to Donald Trump in the 2020 Election at PJ Media.)
The FOIAs were submitted by the Public Interest Legal Foundation—with which I am associated—and were aimed broadly at election officials across the United States.
While no election official in a state that now prohibits private funding of elections has applied for new funding, something stranger, and more dangerous has emerged from the public information requests.
In one email, we find that the Democracy Fund—a hyper-funded progressive money source—is organizing state officials and third parties to discuss election administration.
Republican senators appear to have been blocked by the Department of Justice from getting answers about the Hunter Biden investigation from the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware.
After repeatedly being stonewalled by DOJ headquarters in Washington D.C., Sens. Chuck Grassley (IA) and Ron Johnson (WI) sent a May letter to U.S. attorney David Weiss, who is handling the Biden criminal case.
The senators asked about possible conflicts of interest and the existence of recusals within the Justice Department, raised concerns about the president’s son’s claims of judicial influence in Delaware, pressed the federal prosecutor on whether he was being properly supported by Main Justice, and inquired about what steps he had taken during his investigation.
DOJ headquarters was clearly alerted to the letter, because it was it, not Weiss, that responded to Grassley and Johnson, denying their requests for information.
“This responds to your letter to the Department of Justice, dated May 9, 2022, regarding the employment of certain Department employees and regarding certain actions that may or may not have been taken by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware,” acting Assistant Attorney General Peter Hyun said in a letter last week to Grassley and Johnson, with the official saying DOJ had responded in February 2021, March 2021, July 2021, and February 2022 to similar letters.
Hyun told the senators: “Department attorneys receive ethics and professional responsibility training as appropriate, sign a pledge to maintain public trust in government, and are subject to the Department’s scrupulous ethics and recusal protocols” and that “it will not be able to provide you with any further information regarding Department officials’ employment or specific recusal decisions.”
Do you want Merrick Garland to decide if you’re eligible to own a gun every time you acquire a new firearm?
Senate Democrats are pushing gun control in the run-up to the midterms, in the form of a bill introduced on Thursday.
They’re using the Buffalo mass shooting as a political tool, even though the gunman easily bypassed New York’s gun control laws to attack unarmed grocery shoppers.
Democratic Sens. Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal and Bob Menendez are introducing the Federal Firearms Licensing Act, according to Politico.
The law would fundamentally revise gun ownership from a right enjoyed by American citizens to a privilege bestowed by the government at its own discretion.
Acquiring or buying a new gun would require a lengthy licensing process through the Department of Justice — every time you purchase a new firearm.
Buying a gun from a licensed firearms dealer already requires a NICS background check. Existing law prevents felons from buying or owning guns.
Booker’s bill would give the Attorney General discretion to approve or deny a federal firearms license, even if you’ve never been convicted of a crime.
The Attorney General would be able to deny a firearms license if they determined that the prospective gun owner “poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others” by owning a firearm.