THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Facebook placed a massive “Black Lives Matter” sign on its Menlo Park headquarters Friday just hours after five Dallas officers were gunned down by a member of a Black Power Political Organization.
The sign’s letters were made up of the names of different highly publicized and deceased black individuals including Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner and Michael Brown.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has long expressed support for Black Lives Matter, even going as far as reprimanding employees for saying “all lives matter.”
The social media site, which has been repeatedly accused – even by former employees – of suppressing conservative content, seemingly had no issue this week with Black Lives Matter supporters celebrating the death of the Dallas officers.
This is not the first time Black Lives Matter supporters have called for and carried out violence against law enforcement officers.
Whether it be chanting for “dead cops,” attempting to bomb police stations or actually executing officers, Black Lives Matter has continually been given credibility by the media despite its dangerous actions and rhetoric.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Karen Schoen and Neil Rice
July 9, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
What do Orlando, San Bernardino, Charlotte, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood - all have in common? If you said, “ The cry for gun control.” You would be correct. If you said, “They are all in Gun-Free Zones.” You would be correct. Will any of the gun control measures in Congress stop future terrorist attacks? Hell NO!!! But the measures WILL increase the danger for average Americans. Why are legislators doing this? In order for the victors to steal the spoils (your stuff) - you must be disarmed. In order for the government to control YOU, you must be disarmed. In order for YOU and your family to be forced into slavery, YOU must be disarmed!
The History Channel did a great series on Barbarians and Ancient Rome. What is the first thing a victor does?
They disarm the losers, plunder their stuff and make them slaves.Could this be why history is no longer taught in school? Could it be we would discover their strategy as they continue the same procedure over an over: Just as in Ancient times FEAR is used to create the crisis so people will scream for controls, The government then can use massive regulations to suppress opposition and control the people. Patriot Act anyone?
This is the playbook followed by all gun control advocates. You must learn history. If we allow gun control, WE ALL LOSE. Remember, gun control advocates like Hillary are willing to have Americans killed...if it means you will lose your gun rights! Life has little or no meaning to them. Just listen to them scream for gun control, then ask, “would this Bill have made a difference in the Attack?” The answer is always the same, “NO”. Gun control advocates want our silence and will go after Free Speech. They want our stuff and will go after our guns. They are already doing it. We need Amendment 2 to protect Amendment 1.
On September 25, 2013, John Kerry signed the UN Small Arms Treaty, which was NOT RATIFIED by the SENATE as per the Constitution. This administration follows its own laws, POTUS has his PEN and PHONE while political correctness silences dissent. America has a Congress that takes aim at Americans, not terrorists. Make no mistake, Ryan and Congress can stop any unconstitutional Executive Order, but they will not. Instead, they take aim at Trump and Americans. Time to vote ALL of the traitors in congress aka legislators - OUT.
The UN Treaty and the media propaganda always claim, “In the interest of national security…, In the interest of public safety…, For the common good.” BS, it is for their OWN good. They cannot control America unless we SURRENDER our guns and SUBMIT. According to this UN Treaty, only the government can have guns.
In Executive Order 13603, by declaring an emergency, Obama’s “civilian army as strong as the US Military” can come on your property and take whatever he wants: YOUR food, YOUR guns, YOUR property. FEMA is being used and trained to become Obama’s civilian military. Where is Congress? Bohener, Ryan and Congress think: this is great! WE will keep our jobs. No wonder they hate Trump. They are fearful of their jobs. Will you be a boss and say, “You’re Fired?” Or do you think when all you have left for protection are pots and pans, (read about the Warsaw Ghetto in WWII) – the government will save you? Will your sheriff or police protect you? How does that work when law enforcement shows up AFTER the crime was committed? or perhaps in the future will they say, “just following orders m'am,” as UN troops plunder your stuff and terrorize your family?
This is an election year, ask the right questions and remember every elected official IS SILENT against this administration, as our rights and freedom quickly erode. Time to say YOU’RE FIRED!
Remember this Congress insinuated to Obama: “You’re Black so we will not impeach you because we will be called Racists.” “You can use your Pen and Phone and go out on a spending spree. We will fund all of your social programs otherwise we will be called out for shutting down the government.” Where are the leaders? Oh I see them now, they are running to those pesty Town Halls. Must be an election year, I guess they need votes.
“Not to worry folks”, FEMA will say, “We just want to flag the people on the No-fly list.” Really, who decides whom is on that list? How many of us are on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) terror list? I am proudly #1 on the Florida list but now will FEMA determine that I can not protect myself? How many were targeted by the IRS? Are we to give up our guns, “For the PUBLIC Good.” while waiting to be shot by a terrorist? What comes after guns?”
We are seeing the Federal nationalization of our National Guard, municipal, local and state police, and the distribution of military equipment throughout America by FEMA and DHS. All the while distribution of firearms and assault weapons flow freely to terrorists in Libya, Mexico, Syria, etc. Compliments of the Iran Deal, many countries like Cuba are getting arms from Iran.
As America's kindergartners are suspended for toy guns, poptart guns, or mentioning guns, ISIS kindergartners are being trained how to use AK's and assault weapons. Who wins that war?
As the world arms-up or is armed by American tax dollars and our borders are open, Americans are supposed to lie down and give up their guns? I DON’T THINK SO. Why am I to give up my gun when this administration lets criminals out of jail, releases terrorists from Gitmo and allows cartels to take root in America. Someone please ask Hillary. All you Trump haters, are you giving up your guns to Hillary? She can't wait.
Just months after Department of Homeland Security advisers claimed “the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is now suggesting his department should be in charge of implementing gun control. What is wrong with that picture? Will Loretta Lynch now suggest everyone "LOVE right-wing extremists?" Will my name be removed from SPLC terror watch list?
Remember the UN Globalist Goal: Money, Power, Control
Gun Control Advocates NEED a CRISIS to create a problem only they can solve. Then they get to restrict your rights. The border is open. They don’t care. Squashing another attack will enable more restrictions. No security system will work if the doors and windows are left open.
It is CRITICAL for terrorists to be on American Soil to fit the Agenda. It is important for terrorism to thrive on American soil - to implement the Agenda, which is full gun elimination. We all know Hillary is a liar. Can’t you see her congress. They will say, “sure Hillary whatever you want after all we can’t impeach you or we will be accused of being chauvinists. We can’t have a war with women. What will the media say?” As a result:
1. POTUS can write gun restricting EO's, Hear Democrats scream - so their constituents think they are working. Dems had the full House and Senate from 2008-2010 and did nothing about guns. Now they “sit in.” for window dressing.
2. Americans must be divided and marginalized so they are easier to control.
3. Bad America is the dialogue while propaganda and political correctness are used to suppress the truth. Instead we hear that the shooter is a crazy, a mental case with a host of syndromes to follow, a lone wolf (no such thing and they should be call lone cowards. Wolf gives them honor a coward does not.) We must feel sympathy for the poor confused shooter. All terrorists need is love!!!! Using that theory Loretta, you must LOVE the right wingers.
4. Creation of more gun- free zones giving terrorists better targets.
5. Promoting victimhood, hatred, Evil America and Islam (as the one true religion) are taught in American Schools resulting in citizens becoming victims hating America.
6. "Legitimize SPLC" by this rogue administration and a Department of (In) Justice. who cites terror is, "organization via the internet," one can bet this new "alliance" will have tremendous influence over the FCC to "curb" and "control" more internet content by censorship and infringing on freedom of speech. This "collusion" against conservative America, Christians, patriots, veterans and other groups is blatant, unapologetic, intentional, and set to "force" subjugation.
In fact, Obama and his stooge administration are so confident in their designation of these groups as terrorists, they are joining hands with the United Nations to "allow international police agencies to help program how American cities respond to terrorism." Despite its unconstitutional nature, Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch are all but cheering to enforce tyranny, despotism and eradication of individual God-given constitutionally guaranteed rights of groups and individuals designated as "domestic terrorists." They will use any means necessary to justify the end -- the destruction of America. All the while, Congress continues in its complicity of these travesties sucking on their thumb as they wait for their "bottle" from Obama.
Will you go to town and county meeting to demand your rights be protected by the people you elect? Will you help educate your legislators? Do you recognize that love him or hate him Donald Trump is the only one who will protect American’s rights? Hillary is part of the administration that create ISIS. Do you think she will change anything? Today there is more of us than them. But that is only today.
If not you, WHO? If not now, WHEN? We will not comply, will you?
Hillary finally speaks on her national security violations as the world is watching Dallas. Would Hillary have been fired if she were a State Department employee? Will some scapegoats at State be fired? Will Congress take away Hillary’s security clearance? Will she be prosecuted for committing perjury when she testified to Congress? When it comes to covering for the Clinton crime family, this isn’t the first rodeo for FBI Director Comey.
Drug Money Laundering FBI Director Grilled Over Hillary's Emails
Published on Jul 8, 2016
The fireworks kept popping all week long when it came to the FBI Clinton email pardoning debacle. FBI Director James Comey testified before a heavily divided House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Democrats pointlessly cried out that the Republicans were yet again pulling political stunts. While the Republicans, to their credit, dug in on the lunacy that is the separate standard Hillary Clinton is being held to. Among other revelations, Comey readily admitted there was no transcript of the Interview with Hillary and that she wasn’t even under oath for the questioning.
Well who is James Comey anyway? A career FBI agent that rose to the top?Think again. Larouchepac.com writes "Not only is the Attorney General of the United States, Lorretta Lynch, the US Attorney who gave drug money laundering bank, HSBC, a free pass with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, but the head of the FBI, James Comey, was plucked by Obama from a plum job at HSBC, which Comey took in January, 2013, just after HSBC got the deferred prosecution deal. Comey's job for HSBC was as a leading member of the bank's “Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee,” formed immediately after HSBC settled with the federal government for laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for the deadly Mexican drug cartels.
Get it? The Attorney General of the US and the head of the US FBI are both part of the deal that let HSBC off the hook."
Is there any justice in Washington D.C.? Or will the Clinton Foundation mafia maintain its network as the corruption floats to the top unchecked?
Jason Chaffetz Digs in on Comey at Start of Capitol Hearing: ‘We Are Mystified and Confused’:
Published on Jul 8, 2016
Jason Chaffetz opened up Thursday morning’s hearing with a scathing takedown of FBI Director James Comey‘s recent announcement that he would not be recommending charges to the Justice Department in the probe into Hillary Clinton‘s private server. “I’m here because we are mystified and confused,” opened Chaffetz, who is serving as the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, “by the fact pattern that you laid out and the conclusions that you reached.” “It seems there are two standards,” he said, repeating the often-spoken line that the same charges against Clinton would result in punishment for other people. “This classified information is entrusted to a very few. But there is such a duty and an obligation to protect that — to fall on your sword to protect that.” Comey said this week that while the former Secretary of State and her staff were “extremely careless” the the handling of sensitive materials, it did not fit the bill for “gross negligence,” the legal standard meaning a person consciously and voluntarily disregarded the need to use reasonable care http://www.mediaite.com/online/we-are... Watch the above opening address from Jason Chaffetz via MSNBC.Jason Chaffetz GRILLS James Comey On Why No Charges For Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state, as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. When quizzed by Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz during his Congressional testimony Thursday, FBI Director James Comey declined to answer whether or not he would grant Hillary Clinton a security clearance given what he now knows about how she handled classified information. “The FBI does background checks. If Hillary Clinton applied for the job at the FBI, would the FBI give Hillary Clinton a security clearance?” asked the Utah Republican. “I don’t want to answer a hypothetical,” Comey responded, “The FBI has a robust process in which we adjudicate the suitability of people for employment in the bureau.” Chaffetz tried rewording his question, asking instead about a generic person who did what Clinton did. “It would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination,” Comey admitted. “You’re kind of making my point, Director,” Chaffetz said to intermittent laughter in the gallery. “The point being, because I injected the word ‘Hillary Clinton,’ you gave me a different answer.” He then proceeded to list off Clinton’s security failings: “If I came up to you and said this person was extremely careless with classified information, the exposure to hostile actors, had used, despite warnings, created unnecessary burdens and exposure, if they said they had one device and you found out they had multiple devices, if there had been e-mail chains with somebody like Jake Sullivan asking for classification changes, you’re telling me the FBI would grant a security clearance to that person?” “I’m not answering — I hope I’m giving a consistent answer,” Comey responded. “I’m not saying what the answer would be, I’m saying that would be a important consideration in a suitability determination for anybody.” “Personally I just think that sounds a bit like a political answer because I can’t imagine that the FBI would grant security clearance to somebody with that fact pattern,” Chaffetz said to Comey. I say what I said before, it’s very hard to answer a hypothetical,” he replied.
Hillary Clinton gave people without a security clearance access to her private server that contained classified information, FBI director James Comey told a congressional panel on Thursday.
The FBI director said between two and 10 individuals without clearances had access to the server, including Clinton’s attorneys who sorted her emails before they were turned over to the State Department.
Comey was testifying before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee regarding his announcement on Tuesday that he would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton or her aides related to the mishandling of classified information on the private email server.
Although Comey said Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified materials, he said no “reasonable prosecutor” would proceed with the case because there was not evidence of criminal intent.
At one point during the hearing, the FBI director acknowledged that Clinton’s attorneys did not hold security clearances when the former secretary of state asked them to sort through her emails to determine which messages to turn over to the State Department and which ones to delete.
Comey also said he was unsure whether Clinton’s IT aide Bryan Pagliano had a security clearance, but believed between two and 10 individuals without clearances had access to Clinton’s server.
The revelation came during a tense exchange between Comey and Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah). The FBI director hedged when Chaffetz asked whether Clinton’s non-cleared attorneys ever read her classified emails.
“I don’t know the answer to that,” said Comey. “I don’t know whether they read them at the time.”
Chaffetz pressed the FBI director on the question of access.
“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” asked Chaffetz.
“Yes,” said Comey, before adding that he did not see evidence of criminal intent.
“Her intent was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,” added Comey. “I don’t see the evidence there to make the case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.”
Chaffetz appeared confounded by Comey’s response, arguing that the act of giving an unsecured person access to classified information was a crime on its own.
“I read criminal intent as the idea that you allow someone without a security clearance access to classified information,” said Chaffetz. “Everybody knows that, director. Everybody knows that.”
During the hearing, which lasted more than four hours, Republicans criticized the FBI’s decision not to recommend criminal charges in the case, while Democrats defended it as a fair resolution to the year-long investigation.
Although Comey is often described as a Republican, he said during the hearing that he is currently registered as an independent.
The FBI director declined to confirm whether the bureau is currently investigating Hillary Clinton’s actions on behalf of the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state. News reports had previously said the FBI launched a second public corruption probe related to the foundation, but this has not been publicly confirmed by the bureau.
“I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations,” said Comey.
FBI Director James Comey said at the House Oversight Committee Thursday that his investigation showed that Hillary Clinton was not “particularly sophisticated” with classified information.
Reps. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) and Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) did not take this revelation lightly.
DeSantis said he was having trouble understanding that if someone knew that there was classified information, then how it was appropriate to pass it on through a private and non-secure email server.
“This is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified,” he said. “But, I’m having a little bit of trouble to see how you would not then know that that was something that was inappropriate to do?”
“Well, I just want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication,” Comey said. “I don’t think that our investigation established that she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information, and the levels, and the treatment.”
DeSantis was stunned and asked if she was an original classification authority. Comey nodded.
Later in the hearing, Comey explained to Meadows there were three documents that had confidential classified markings.
“There were three documents that bore portion markings where you’re obligated when something is classified, you put a marking on that paragraph,” he said.“And there were three that bore C in parentheses, which means that’s confidential classified information.”
Meadows jumped in to ask if it was reasonable to assume Clinton would be able to understand the marking.
“So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a First Lady– wouldn’t a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking?” he asked. “As a Secretary of State.”
Comey said yes.
Meadows continued to make his point.
“A reasonable person,” he said. “That’s all I’m asking you.”
Comey gave a shocking response.
“Yeah, before this investigation I probably would have said yes, I’m not so sure,” he said. “I don’t find it—”
“Director Comey, come on,” Meadows said. “I mean, I’ve only been here a few years and I understand the importance of those markings. So, you’re suggesting that a long length of time she had no idea what a classified marking would be. That’s your sworn testimony today?”
Comey immediately said no.
“No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but, it’s an interesting question as to whether she—this question about sophistication came up earlier—whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in parenthesis means,” he said.
“So, you’re saying this former Secretary of State is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?” Meadows asked. “That’s a huge statement.”
Comey said no. He said before this investigation, he would have assumed that someone would know what that meant but wasn’t sure any longer.
Is it worth impairing the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games?
What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it?
How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging “extreme carelessness” while denying “gross negligence” about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?
These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.
The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based without the need of the government to prove intent.
Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.
And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.
Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey — knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton’s failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI’s work — told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton’s repeated recklessness was not.
It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey’s boss — Attorney General Loretta Lynch — unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.
Why do we stand for this?
The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming. The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out “secret” markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations of drone strikes in Pakistan and names of American intelligence agents operating in the Middle East under cover.
Why do we stand for this?
Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.
Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.
By Dick Morris Thursday, 07 Jul 2016 01:04 PM More Posts by Dick Morris FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress Thursday that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she neither sent nor received classified material. And that nothing was marked classified on the emails on her server. And that she lied when she said her server was not hacked. And that she lied when she said that she turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department.
All these lies where spoken in media interviews on virtually every news show in the country.
They were also repeated before Congress in her sworn testimony during the Benghazi hearings. Asked why he did not recommend prosecution for perjury, Comey answered that he did not have a referral and that he needed one to investigate further. Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said he would send a referral over in a matter of “hours.” Now, maybe we’ve finally got her.
The Justice Department has decided not to indict her for mishandling of classified material. But how about lying under oath to Congress?
The FBI will find it hard not to recommend prosecution. The facts are evident and clear.
If the Justice Department won’t prosecute this clear instance of perjury, their partisanship will be on display. And the decision will have been made following an FBI recommendation, but most likely opposing it.
Lying under oath seems to run in the Clinton family. Maybe it is contagious.
"What was just laid out is what we would call a no-brainer in the attorney's office that Jim Comey worked at. And [Comey] was one of my assistants." - Rudy Giuliani
A former U.S. federal judge filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information surrounding the recent private meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton that occurred on June 27, 2015 at the Phoenix airport.
The meeting took place just days before the FBI announced it would not recommend charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently attempted to keep the meeting secret, as reporters on the ground were told: “no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.”
CoA Institute President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.: “A private meeting between President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch raises serious concerns about impartiality at the Department of Justice. Today’s announcement that the FBI will not recommend pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton does not remove the public interest in knowing what was discussed.”
To understand the purpose of this meeting, Cause of Action Institute has requested all records, transcripts, or recordings of the meeting as well as the Attorney General’s schedule for June 26 – 28, 2016, including but not limited to pre- and post-meeting email which concern the meeting in any way.
"The [Clinton-Lynch] meeting raises serious concerns about the Attorney General’s impartiality in two pending DOJ investigations, one into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server to house official government records and the other into the Clinton Foundation. On July 1, 2015, there were conflicting reports about whether Attorney General Lynch will effectively," CoA states in its legal filing.
Meanwhile, former New York City Mayor and U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani blasted FBI Director James Comey for his decision to not indict Hillary Clinton in the email scandal, saying "this is the special exemption for the Clintons."
"It would be unreasonable for a prosecutor not to go forward with it and almost an abdication of duty," Giuliani told Gretchen Carlson on Fox News. "What was just laid out is what we would call a no-brainer in the attorney's office that Jim Comey worked at. {By the way] he [Comey] was one of my assistants," Giuliani noted.
"A reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case no doubt," he added. "I don't know how he ever, ever is going to be able to charge anybody in the CIA or the FBI who is extremely careless with top secret information, if he isn't charging Hillary Clinton."
Born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Lechner was a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, and received a J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1972. He was a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court from 1984 to 1986.
On April 8, 1986, Lechner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 6, 1986, and received his commission on June 9, 1986. Lechner served in that capacity until October 1, 2001, when he resigned.
The CoA filing includes the following information requests:
1. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s schedule for June 26, 27, and 28, 2016, including but not limited to pre- and post-meeting email which concern the Meeting in any way.
2. All records, transcripts, or recordings of the Meeting.
3. All records including notes and/or memoranda by or to the Attorney General in either the Office of the Secretary or the Office of Legal Counsel discussing the Meeting either before or after it occurred. This item includes any advice given or memoranda created in response to the Meeting or news of the Meeting.
4. All records including notes and/or memoranda by or to the Attorney General in either the Office of the Secretary of the Office of Legal Counsel relating to the Attorney General’s decision whether to effectively recuse herself and accept the recommendation of career prosecutors and the FBI in the ongoing investigations relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
5. Any records reflecting the FBI decision or authority to restrict reporters and others on the ground from using cell phones or taking pictures. [Link]
WHAT OBAMA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE CONCERNING THE BORDER
Published on Jul 7, 2016
Spread this video around, do not let Obama get away with destroying our country. If we do not have a border we are not a nation. Watch as drugs and illegals flood across our southern border. Hear the Border Patrol talk about the criminals and disease and amounts of drugs that pour over our border. Listen to government agents talk about completing the smuggling process which is the wish of Obama.
Police Harass Reporter, Ignore Illegals
Published on Jul 6, 2016
Infowars Reporter Joe Biggs recounts how the state police continue to harass
the Infowars crew as they document how unprotected the border really is.
Feds Arrest & Fine Reporters For Reporting on Open Border
Published on Jul 6, 2016
Joe Biggs, Michael Zimmerman and Alejandra Gutierrez were all detained at the Texas Mexico Border and their guns were confiscated for trying to report the news on Illegal Immigrants.
US Citizens Arrested For Trespassing In USA
Published on Jul 7, 2016
Alex Jones and Rob Dew discuss the insanity at the border as the border patrol are forced to ship in illegals and state police harass and arrest US citizens.
Journalists Arrested, Disarmed, and Extorted By Federal Agents
Published on Jul 7, 2016
On Wednesday Infowars reporters were detained and disarmed by goons from the US Fish and Wildlife Service while practicing the First Amendment on the Texas-Mexico border.
