Bill Barr’s ‘Unmasking’ Probe Into Obama Officials Concludes without Charges

The US Attorney tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate “unmasking” done by Obama’s criminal officials around the 2016 has concluded the probe without bringing any charges, according to the Washington Post.

US Attorney John Bash reportedly found no evidence of wrongdoing and concluded the probe without charges and without a public report.

The probe into unmasking was launched in May of this year after then-acting DNI Richard Grenell declassified the list of Obama officials involved in the unmasking of General Mike Flynn in his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Names included former CIA Director John Brennan, Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and former DNI chief James Clapper.

Joe Biden was also on the list!

US Attorney John Bash was also investigating whether Obama officials leaked information to reporters, but found no wrongdoing.

The Washington Post reported:

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

Bash’s team was focused not just on unmasking, but also on whether Obama-era officials provided information to reporters, according to people familiar with the probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation. But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said.

US Attorney from Connecticut John Durham is currently investigating the origins of Spygate and according to Barr, there won’t be any indictments and or report until after the election.

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/report-bill-barrs-unmasking-probe-obama-officials-concludes-without-charges/

Report: Muslim Rape Gang Allowed to Operate by UK Police

A disturbing report out of the UK claims police and social workers allowed a large Muslim “grooming” (rape) gang to operate in Manchester, England.

“At least 57 young girls are thought to have been exploited by a paedophile network based in south Manchester. They were hooked on drugs, groomed, raped and emotionally broken – one youngster, aged fifteen, died,” the Manchester Evening News reports.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham commissioned a report, which contained the following conclusions:

  • Social workers knew that one 15-year-old girl, Victoria Agoglia, was being forcibly injected with heroin, but failed to act. She died two months later.
  • Abusers were allowed to freely pick up and have sex with Victoria and other children from city care homes, ‘in plain sight’ of officials.
  • Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of the men went on to later assault or rape girls.
  • As recently as August 2018, the Chief Constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.

Agoglia allegedly told social workers multiple times that she was being drugged and raped, but they failed to take action.

Following her death, Operation Augusta was launched and nearly 100 Muslim men were said to be involved in abusing young girls, but hardly any charges were filed.

In fact, eight of the men accused of being involved were eventually convicted of separate high-level sexual crimes.

The mayor’s report concluded, “Most of the children we have considered were failed by police and children’s services. The authorities knew that many were being subjected to the most profound abuse and exploitation but did not protect them from the perpetrators.”

To learn more details about this story, CLICK HERE.

UN Peacekeepers Fathered Hundreds of Babies With Girls in Haiti as Young as 11

Marie* was 14 years old and enrolled in a Christian school when she met and became involved with Miguel, a Brazilian soldier working in Haiti as a UN peacekeeper. When she told him that she was pregnant with his baby, Miguel said he would help her with the child. But instead, he returned to Brazil. Marie wrote to him on Facebook but he never responded.

After learning that she was pregnant, Marie’s father forced her to leave the family home and she went to live with her sister. Her child is now four and Marie has yet to receive any support from the Brazilian military, an NGO, the UN or the Haitian state. Marie provides what she can for her son but she cannot afford to send him to school. She works for an hourly wage of 25 gourde (around 26 US cents or 20 UK pence) so that she and her son can eat. But she needs help with housing and paying for school fees.

Sadly, Marie’s experience is far from unique. In the summer of 2017, our research team interviewed approximately 2,500 Haitians about the experiences of local women and girls living in communities that host peace support operations. Of those, 265 told stories that featured children fathered by UN personnel. That 10% of those interviewed mentioned such children highlights just how common such stories really are.

The narratives reveal how girls as young as 11 were sexually abused and impregnated by peacekeepers and then, as one man put it, “left in misery” to raise their children alone, often because the fathers are repatriated once the pregnancy becomes known. Mothers such as Marie are then left to raise the children in settings of extreme poverty and disadvantage, with most receiving no assistance.

The UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) – the longest running mission by the organisation in the country (2004-2017) – was originally mandated to assist local Haitian institutions in a context of political instability and organised crime. Its mandate was then extended due to natural disasters, most notably an earthquake in 2010 and Hurricane Matthew in 2016, both of which added to the volatility of the political situation in the country. After 13 years of operation, MINUSTAH closed in October 2017, transitioning to the smaller UN Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH).

MINUSTAH is one of the most controversial UN missions ever. It has been the focus of extensive allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. A shocking number of uniformed and non-uniformed peacekeeping personnel have been linked to human rights abuses including sexual exploitation, rape, and even unlawful deaths. (For the purposes of this article, we use MINUSTAH personnel, agents, and peacekeepers interchangeably to refer to uniformed and non-uniformed foreign staff associated with MINUSTAH.)

With regard to public health, it is undisputed, and now officially recognised by the UN, that peacekeepers also inadvertently introduced cholera to Haiti. More than 800,000 Haitians are known to have sought medical attention for cholera and at least 10,000 died from the disease.

Various media organisations have reported that minors were offered food and small amounts of cash to have sex with UN personnel, and MINUSTAH was linked to a sex ring that operated in Haiti with seeming impunity: allegedly, at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007. As a result of this story, reported by the Associated Press in 2017, MINUSTAH became a classic example of lack of appropriate response to allegations of sexual abuse. In the wake of this report, 114 peacekeepers were returned to Sri Lanka, but none were ever prosecuted or charged after repatriation.

Extensive research has demonstrated that children born of war are often raised in single-parent families in precarious economic post-conflict settings. The association with the (absent) foreign father, along with birth out of wedlock, often result in stigma and discrimination for the children.

Yet little is known about the impact of being a mixed-race child fathered by peacekeepers. Even less is known about the experiences of the so-called “Petit MINUSTAH”, or Haitian-born children of foreign UN peacekeepers. This is one of the reasons we set out to bring to light the stories of those affected by the UN mission.

Our study

We collected stories by asking participants to tell us what it’s like to be a woman or girl living in a community that hosts a peacekeeping mission. We audio-recorded the resulting stories, and then participants interpreted their experiences by responding to a series of pre-defined questions. This allowed us to better understand the circumstances and consequences of their interactions with peacekeepers.

Participants could share any story they chose, about anyone, and were not prompted in any way to talk about sexual abuse or exploitation. Narratives were captured by trained Haitian research assistants in the communities surrounding ten UN bases in Haiti in the summer of 2017. About 2,500 Haitians were asked about the experiences of local women and girls living in communities that host peace support operations. A variety of positive and negative experiences were captured, but 265 (10%) of all stories were about peacekeeper-fathered children. This is particularly noteworthy since the survey did not ask about sexual relations with peacekeepers or about children conceived through such relations.

This would suggest not only that sexual abuse and exploitation by UN peacekeeping personnel is not rare, but also, as one Port-Salut research participant said in her own words: “There are many young women who have children with the MINUSTAH.” This was echoed by a man in Saint Marc who told us: “MINUSTAH gave us many children without fathers.”

Continue Reading…

Harvey Weinstein Reaches $47 Million Settlement, Wiping The Civil Slate Clean

Money talks and sexual predators walk.

That appears to be the anticlimatic end of the #MeToo story arc, which started with Harvey Weinstein, and is set to conclude with a multi-million cash settlement ending effectively all civil cases against the former Hollywood mogul.

According to the WSJ, Harvey Weinstein, his former associates, insurers and accusers have all reached a nearly $47 million tentative settlement of virtually all the civil cases pending against him, about $25 million of which will compensate women who have accused the Hollywood producer of sexual misconduct.

Under the terms of the agreement, Weinstein and his former associates won’t admit wrongdoing; the deal still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge and a judge overseeing a proposed class-action lawsuit.  Even better for the “not guilty” Weinstein, the bulk of the settlement money will be paid not by him but by his insurance policies, including those held by his former studio.

While the deal will resolve all but two of the civil sexual-misconduct lawsuits and other legal claims filed against Weinstein, the settlement won’t impact the criminal case brought by Manhattan prosecutors against the former producer, which is set to go to trial on January 6. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex.

The WSJ reports that the settlement is the culmination of more than a year of negotiations, which involved countless parties, including Weinstein’s lawyers, his former film studio, the New York attorney general’s office, insurers and alleged victims. The negotiations also included the former associates of Mr. Weinstein who some women claimed had enabled Mr. Weinstein’s alleged abuse. It also resolves a suit filed by the New York attorney general that accused his former studio’s executives and board of failing to protect women from his alleged misconduct.

Here is how the money will be divided up according to the proposed deal:

  • $6 million will go to women who have filed lawsuits and legal claims and their attorneys.
  • $18.6 million will be set aside to create a settlement fund for additional alleged victims, including those covered by the attorney general’s suit.
  • $7 million will go to some creditors of the film studio
  • $12 million will cover the costs of lawyers who defended Weinstein’s former associates against the suits.
  • $1 million will fund Weinstein’s defense costs to fight lawsuits against two victims who aren’t participating in the settlement.

In other words, for every dollar Weinstein’s alleged victims receive now, his lawyers will get two.

Lawyers for those women who refused to take part in the deal portrayed the settlement as unfair. Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer for one of those women, said in a statement that he didn’t believe the deal was the best possible settlement. “It is shameful that $12 million of the settlement is going to the lawyers for the directors who we alleged enabled Harvey Weinstein.”

Surely he would prefer that $12 million was going to the plaintiff’s lawyers, and speaking of, perhaps it’s now time to change the name of #metoo to #paymetoo.

Source: ZeroHedge

House Democrats Introduce ‘H.R.5383 – New Way Forward Act’, an Act that Threatens America Safety And Destroys Sovereignty

On February 6th of 2020, Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue was about this bill in the Congress that would award a raft of rights to illegal aliens, including violent criminals. It’s called the New Way Forward Act, aka HB-5383 and is posted on the Congressional website where you can read it for yourself.

The bill is a horror show of protecting foreign criminals while endangering citizens and is sponsored by 44 House Democrats. If the Mexican drug cartels could write a bill, this would be the one. It makes you wonder about some of the lobbyists in Washington, as well as the Dem lawmakers.

Fox News edited part of the segment into text, starting at around 4:30 in the video above where the bill is described:

Tucker Carlson: Criminals would be protected from deportation under bill AOC and other House Democrats back, Fox News, February 6, 2020

At this moment there is a bill pending in Congress called the New Way Forward Act. It’s received almost no publicity, which is unfortunate as well as revealing.

The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. At roughly 4,400 words, it’s almost exactly as long as the U.S. Constitution.

Like the Constitution, this legislation is designed to create a whole new country. The bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.

You may think we’re exaggerating for effect. We’re not – not even a little.

The New Way Forward act is the most radical single piece of legislation we’ve seen proposed in this country. It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.

A document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says: “Convictions … should not lead to deportation.”

Keep in mind, we’re not talking about convictions for double parking. The bill targets felony convictions – serious crimes that send you to prison for years. A press release from Rep. Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., is explicit about this.

Garcia brags that the bill will break the “prison-to-deportation pipeline.” How does the bill do that? Under current U.S. law, legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit an “aggravated felony” or a “crime of moral turpitude” – that is, a vile, depraved act, like molesting a child.

Under the New Way Forward Act, “crimes of moral turpitude” are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation. And the category of “aggravated felony” gets circumscribed too.

What does that mean?

Consider this: Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery, fraud, or child sexual abuse – must be deported, regardless of the sentence they receive. Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence.

But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation. None.

And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation, no matter what. Because apparently 9/11 never happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents.

If you just renewed your driver’s license to comply with the Real ID Act, you must feel like an idiot. Under the proposed legislation, the minimum prison sentence for crimes that still require deportation would rise from one year to five.

We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud, and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that’s just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse and even manslaughter and receive sentences of fewer than five years. Lots of them.

If the New Way Forward Act becomes law, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in the country. They’ll all be eligible for citizenship one day, too.

But even that is understating the law’s effect. Even a five-year prison sentence won’t necessarily be enough to secure deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges, allowing them to nullify a deportation order.

The only requirement is that “the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In other words, anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders. No vote required.

Sound shocking to you? We’re just getting started. Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation, because why wouldn’t it? This bill would eliminate that statute.

Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad, or any “crimes involving moral turpitude,” are ineligible to immigrate here. The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute.

A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime – because, and you were waiting for this, the bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America, even by those previously deported.

According to a document promoting the bill, criminalizing illegal entry into America is “white supremacist.”

By this point, you’re beginning to wonder if we’re making this up. We’re not. In fact, we’re barely halfway through the bill.

The legislation doesn’t just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn’t just make it easier for criminals to legally move here. The bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration.

To detain illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have to prove in court that the illegal immigrants are dangerous or a flight risk. But of course, ICE wouldn’t be allowed to use a detainee’s prior criminal behavior as proof he or she is dangerous. That’s banned.

ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgender, under 21, or can’t speak English and an interpreter isn’t immediately available.

In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien than it is to arrest you. They’re the protected class here. You’re just some loser who’s paying for it all.

But believe it or not, we saved the nuttiest part for last. What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law, specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this: Using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America.

That’s right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your own country, but it invents a new right in return: the “right to come home.”

The bill orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States,” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law.

The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States. Who will be eligible for these free flights? Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes. Sexual abuse. Robbery. Assault. Drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking.

From 2002 to 2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back. The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals’ free health care, too. Which they plan to.

The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about America. Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.

This is a big deal. It’s hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less pass them into law. Yet, remarkably, the press has ignored it. Scores of Democrats have backed it, but the bill hasn’t been mentioned in The New York Times, or on CNN, or even in self-described conservative outlets like National Review.

If a lone Republican state legislator from Minot, N.D., had proposed a bill this extreme, that would remake America this completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it.

CNN would demand the president “disavow,” even if he knew nothing about it. But when one-fifth of the Democratic caucus backs a bill demanding that you pay to import illegal alien felons, it’s a non-event in American media. They don’t think you should know about it. That’s dangerous.

Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the 2020 election. A growing wing of the Democratic Party views America as essentially illegitimate – a rogue state, in which everything must be destroyed and remade: our laws, our institutions, our freedoms, our history and our values. That’s the point of all this, of course. An entirely new country, in which resistance is crushed, and they’re in charge forever.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Feb. 6, 2020.

Source: VDare