[Judicial Watch] Logs Also Show DNC Contractor Who Allegedly Worked with Ukraine to Investigate Trump/Manafort Visited Obama White House 27 times
Judicial Watch announced today analysis of Obama-era White House visitor logs that detail meetings of controversial CIA employee Eric Ciaramella, who had been assigned to the White House. Ciaramella reportedly was detailed to the Obama White House in 2015 and returned to the CIA during the Trump administration in 2017. The logs also reveal Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:
Continued on Page 49
[Reason] The Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines and fees applies to states as well, SCOTUS rules, opening a new way to challenge outlandish forfeitures.
States are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and fees when they seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday.
It's a decision that hands a major victory to critics of civil asset forfeiture, and it opens another avenue to legal challenges against that widely used (and often abused) practice by which states and local governments can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime.
The case before the Supreme Court, Timbs v. Indiana, involved the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover SUV from Tyson Timbs, who was arrested in 2015 for selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. On top of that, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.
Timbs challenged that seizure, arguing that taking his vehicle amounted to an additional fine on top of the sentence he had already received. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected that argument, solely because the U.S. Supreme Court had never explicitly stated that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states.
On Wednesday, the high court did exactly that.
"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.
But what about asset forfeiture that does not involve a criminal charge and thus cannot be considered a fine?
"Civil asset forfeiture proceedings charge the property itself with involvement in a crime. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime." (Heritage Foundation)
[Breitbart] Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies. His name may be Anonymous, but we know what he is.
For example, on Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on on the fact that other respected news outlets have reported that the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following statement:
Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
Breitbart News is currently the 68th-most visited site in the United States according to Alexa, and the 13th most-engaged Facebook publisher in the world according to NewsWhip.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and the Western Journal. Saagar Enjeti, Chief Washington Correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, One America News host Jack Posobiec, and TownHall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
It isn’t only conservatives reporting on Ciaramella. New York Magazine and HuffPost contributor Yashar Ali identified Ciaramella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet. Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources. Facebook’s requirement to revise its policy on Ciaramella appears to already have been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.
[RedState] Outside of that issue though, there are other questions involving the original whistle-blower (reported to be Eric Ciaramella). We know he was not legally privy to anything on the telephone call between Trump and Zelensky, which has formed the genesis of this matter. That means that whoever gave him the contents was illegally leaking classified information. Perhaps the whistle-blower himself is protected by statute for simply passing that information along, but whoever gave it to him certainly isn’t it for their original crime.
That leads us to Alexander Vindman. He’s become a central figure in these discussions after he marched up to Capitol Hill, proclaiming himself a patriot, and shared all his deep concerns about Donald Trump. He accused the President of "subverting" U.S. foreign policy, which gives you a window into the perverted minds of some of these bureaucrats that assume it is they who actually run things.
It’s been suspected that Vindman was the one who leaked to the whistle-blower and now that his testimony has been released, it seems fairly certain. Check out these excerpts and see what you notice.
...In these transcripts, we see Jim Jordan pressing Vindman on who outside of the chain of command he talked to about the call. Then we see Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell jump in and stop him from answering. But it’s what they say when they stop Vindman that gives the entire thing away.
"Mr. Chairman, I want to object that the question calls to reveal the whistleblower, and if there’s no other ‐ (interruption)
Then Schiff says this to follow up.
"Mr. Jordan, the minority may not care about protecting the whistleblower, but we in the majority do."
The problem is that Jordan never asked about the whistle-blower. This means that both Schiff and Swalwell accidentally confirmed here that Vindman is indeed the source for the ICIG complaint. In short, if Vindman answering the question about who he talked to would give up the whistle-blower’s identity, that means Vindman was the source.
Last I checked, it’s a crime to share classified information with people not legally able to receive that information. We’ve been told from the beginning of this ordeal that the whistle-blower himself did not have the proper clearance to access the phone call. Something sufficient to lock him up & throw away the key?
“...pay a wealth tax to grow opportunities for others. “
We interpret that to mean that YOU give US money to spend on 40s of malt liquor and some righteous bud so we can hone our on-line gaming skills. Did we mention that high-speed internet access is a human right?
“More billionaires seeking more political power surely isn't the change America needs," campaign manager for Sen. Sanders tells @NBCNews when asked about news of Bloomberg consider a presidential run - @GaryGrumbach
[SPECTATOR.US] Everything about Liz Warren is phony ‐ not just her bogus claims that she’s authentically Native American. She posts crap videos of herself drinking beer at home like a regular girl. She tells voters she’s Wall Street’s worst nightmare, then tells bankers she’ll work with them. She’s a populist firebrand ...firebrands are noted more for audio volume and the quantity of spittle generated than for any actual logic in their arguments... only for rich people. The best hope for actual left-wingers is that she’s just pretending to be fake to get past the establishment machine.
The bad news for Trump’s enemies is that Warren may indeed be the most eligible Democrat. Sanders, a more authentic and likable radical, is 78 and recovering from a heart attack. His campaign is a shadow of his near-successful 2016 effort. Joe Foreign Policy Whiz Kid Biden
Continued on Page 49
[NeonNettle] Another former Snopes employee, Kim LaCapria, recently left the company over its partnership with Facebook, accusing it of focusing only on the “appearance of trying to prevent damage without actually doing anything,” and expressing distaste with the fact that Snopes was being paid by Facebook.
LaCapria said she was particularly upset to learn that Facebook was paying Snopes: “That felt really gross … Facebook has one mission and fact-checking websites should have a completely different mission.”
Aside from allegedly being paid by Facebook, Snopes also generates revenue by filling its website with advertisements from Google Adsense, asking for donations from readers via PayPal, and has an active GoFundMe campaign to "Save Snopes" which has so far generated over $850,000 of its $2 million goal.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.