USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Olin Winchester, LLC is recalling two (2) lots of 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Rimfire rifle ammunition.
Symbol: X17HMR1 ‘Lot Numbers (last four characters): NB51 and NB61
Winchester has determined the above lots of 17 HMR ammunition may contain no powder charges.
Ammunition with no powder charges may result in a bullet remaining in the barrel (i.e., a bullet-in-bore obstruction).
Firing a subsequent bullet into the bore obstruction could cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable and subjecting the shooter and bystanders to a risk of serious personal injury.
The video below is 8 years old.
DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® 17 HMR 20 GRAIN JHP SYMBOL X17HMR1 THAT HAS A LOT NUMBER ENDING IN NB51 or NB61.
The ammunition Lot Number is stamped on the top of the 1000-round case and the outside of the 50-round plastic box as indicated here.
To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Symbol and Lot Number. If it is Symbol X17HMR1 and the last four characters of the Lot Number are NB51 or NB61, immediately discontinue use and contact Winchester toll-free at 844-653-8358 for free UPS pick-up of the recalled ammunition
This notice applies only to Symbol X17HMR1 with Lot Numbers ending in NB51 and NB61. Other Symbols or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall.
If you have any questions concerning this 17 HMR rimfire rifle ammunition recall please call toll-free 844-653-8358, write to Winchester (600 Powder Mill Road, East Alton, IL 62024 Attn: X17HMR1 Recall), or visit our website at www.winchester.com.
We apologize for this inconvenience. Advertisements Rep
The U.S. will likely participate in some sort of a retaliatory action with the Saudis perhaps by launching missiles from its nuclear submarines.
The only statement that may be true in this piece of propaganda is that the Middle East is in too fragile a state to deal with war in its countries.
If war is declared upon them it will be quick, with multiple strikes hitting their nuclear facilities and oil production plants.
A direct hit on Tehran where the mullahs conduct their business would have a nice Reaganesque touch to it symbolic of when he put a missile into Gadaffi’s tent, killing his daughter.
FILE – In this Aug. 29, 2019 file photo, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif attends a forum titled “Common Security in the Islamic World” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
In an interview published by U.S. News and World Report, Thursday, Sept. 19, 2019, Zarif warned that any U.S. or Saudi military strike on Iran will result in “all-out war.”
It comes after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called an attack on Saudi oil installations an “act of war.” (AP Photo/Vincent Thian, File) The Associated Press
US News and World Report
By JON GAMBRELL,
September 19th, 2019
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Any attack on Iran by the U.S. or Saudi Arabia will spark an “all-out war,” Tehran’s top diplomat warned Thursday, raising the stakes as Washington and Riyadh weigh a response to a drone-and-missile strike on the kingdom’s oil industry that shook global energy markets.
A worker rides a bicycle in front of the reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southwestern Iran.
The comments by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif represented the starkest warning yet by Iran in a long summer of mysterious attacks and incidents following the collapse of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, more than a year after President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the accord.
Cracking towers and chimneys stand at the processing plant at the Persian Gulf Star Co. gas condensate refinery in Bandar Abbas, Iran.(Bloomberg)
They appeared to be aimed directly at U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who while on a trip to the region earlier referred to Saturday’s attack in Saudi Arabia as an “act of war.”
Along with the sharp language, however, there also were signals from both sides of wanting to avoid a confrontation.
In his comments, Zarif sought to expose current strains between the Americans and the Saudis under Trump, who long has criticized U.S. wars in the Middle East.
Trump’s close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been challenged by opponents following the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi last year in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and the kingdom’s long, bloody war in Yemen.
That country’s Houthi rebels claimed the oil field attack Saturday in Saudi Arabia, although the U.S. alleges Iran carried it out.
“I think it is important for the Saudi government to understand what they’re what they’re trying to achieve.
Do they want to fight Iran until the last American soldier? Is that their aim?” Zarif asked in a CNN interview.
“They can be assured that this won’t be the case … because Iran will defend itself.”
Asked by the broadcaster what would be the consequence of a U.S. or Saudi strike, Zarif bluntly said: “An all-out war.”
“I’m making a very serious statement that we don’t want war. We don’t want to engage in a military confrontation,” he said. “We believe that a military confrontation based on deception is awful.”
Zarif added: “We’ll have a lot of casualties, but we won’t blink to defend our territory.”
Pompeo, who was in the United Arab Emirates, dismissed Zarif’s remarks, saying: “I was here (doing) active diplomacy while the foreign minister of Iran is threatening all-out war to fight to the last American.”
Pompeo said he hoped Iran would choose a path toward peace, but he remained doubtful. He described “an enormous consensus in the region” that Iran carried out the attack.
“There are still those today who think, ‘Boy, if we just give Iran just a little bit more money they’ll become a peaceful nation,'” he said. “We can see that that does not work.”
Pompeo met Abu Dhabi’s powerful crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
The UAE is a close ally of Saudi Arabia and joined the kingdom in its war with the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The 4-year-old war has killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed much of the country, with millions more driven from their homes and thrown into near starvation.
On Wednesday, Pompeo met with the Saudi crown prince in Jiddah about the attack on the kingdom’s crucial oil processing facility and oil field, which cut its oil production in half.
While Pompeo struck a hard line, Trump has been noncommittal on whether he would order U.S. military retaliation.
He said separately Wednesday that he is moving to increase financial sanctions on Tehran over the attack, without elaborating.
Iran already is subject to a crushing American sanctions program targeting its crucial oil industry.
The UAE said it had joined a U.S.-led coalition to protect waterways across the Middle East after the attack in Saudi Arabia.
The state-run WAM news agency quoted Salem al-Zaabi of the Emirati Foreign Ministry as saying the UAE joined the coalition to “ensure global energy security and the continued flow of energy supplies to the global economy.”
Saudi Arabia joined the coalition on Wednesday. Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom also are taking part.
The U.S. formed the coalition after attacks on oil tankers that Washington blamed on Tehran, as well as Iran’s seizure of tankers in the region.
Iran denies being behind the tanker explosions, although the attacks came after Tehran threatened to stop oil exports from the Persian Gulf.
Iraq said it would not join the coalition.
The government in Baghdad, which is allied with both Iran and the U.S., has tried to keep a neutral stance amid the tensions.
At a news conference Wednesday, the Saudis displayed broken and burned drones and pieces of a cruise missile that military spokesman Col. Turki Al-Malki identified as Iranian weapons collected after the attack.
He also played surveillance video that he said showed a drone coming in from the north. Yemen is to the south of Saudi Arabia.
Eighteen drones and seven cruise missiles were launched in the assault, Al-Malki said, with three missiles failing to hit their targets.
He said the cruise missiles had a range of 700 kilometers (435 miles), meaning they could not have been fired from inside Yemen.
That opinion was shared by weapons experts who spoke to The Associated Press .
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian similarly was skeptical of the Houthi claim of responsibility.
“This is not very credible, relatively speaking,” he told CNews television.
“But we sent our experts to have our own vision of things.”
Separately, a U.N. panel of experts on Yemen arrived in Saudi Arabia to investigate the attack, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said.
Author, Daniel Greenfield does a masterful job of destroying the left’s position(s) on gun control.
As are the vast majority of their delusions, they cannot support their position(s) with fact, instead, they rely upon their feelings.
If deranged people want to kill, they will do so, using whatever means available.
A pipe bomb, a truck bomb, an automobile name it.
September 19, 2019
No government regulation can make society moral.
A social ill takes place on three levels: the object level, the individual level, and the social level.
There’s the object, alcohol.
There’s the choice that the individual makes to drink the alcohol.
And, finally, there’s the social problems that can be blamed for widespread alcoholism.
The gun-control movement operates in the same object-oriented space of the prohibitionist movement.
For prohibitionists, the problem was gin.
For the gun control movement, it’s all about the guns.
Get rid of the gin and the guns, and the underlying problem goes away without having to do anything else.
While the old prohibition of sin substances, liquor, drugs, and pornography has been ridiculed and its legal infrastructure dismantled, the obsessive certainty that guns are inherently corrupting holds sway.
Their only solution seems to provide
Yet the argument for blaming guns is much weaker than the one for blaming drugs or alcohol.
Alcohol and drugs are addictive compounds that shape how we think. Guns, unlike alcohol and drugs, aren’t addictive.
Nor do they influence behavior.
Their relationship to us remains an external one.
And object-oriented prohibition is the least meaningful way of looking at a social problem.
In the prohibitionist and anti-prohibitionist discourse over gun control, the familiar choice between civil rights and mass death dominates the debate.
It’s the same framework that the Left rejects when it comes to crime and national security, but embraces on the issues of environmentalism and guns.
Guns do kill people in the same purely mechanistic sense in which alcohol, drugs, or rat poison do.
But guns are a means, not a motive.
They don’t explain why gun violence happens, only how it happens.
Above the object level is the individual level. Guns don’t really kill people; killers do.
Tackling a social ill at the human level explores the moral and mental state of the individual.
Modern society is secular and scientific rather than moral, and reduces human evil to a medical condition.
Mental illness explains the behavior of some killers, but others have no explanation other than evil.
The gun control argument insists that we ignore the moral and mental nature of the killer by contending that without guns, he wouldn’t want to kill, wouldn’t be able to kill, or, in the most rational version of the argument, wouldn’t be able to kill large numbers of people. None of those claims are actually true.
Gun violence is how people kill.
It’s not why they kill.
Nor is it the only way to commit mass murder.
Most gun violence is still gang violence. Mental illness isn’t killing 5 or 6 people in Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore over the weekend.
The media overlooks regular mass shootings in major cities, while zooming in on unusual mass shootings in suburban communities.
That’s because the gun control movement really doesn’t want to talk about the social component of gun violence and organized crime.
Usually, the Left loves root causes.
It can trace any individual dysfunction to the problems at the heart of a society.
But when it comes to guns, it refuses to look past the physical object, while blaming everyone responsible for the existence of guns, from firearms manufacturers to the NRA.
But blaming everyone involved with the existence of an object is not an examination of the root causes of its misuse.
The prohibitionists weren’t dealing with the root cause of alcoholism by busting up gin mills.
The latest attacks on firearms manufacturers have just as little to do with the problems they claim to care about.
The social crises of alcohol and drug abuse had at their root cause social dislocation and a lack of purpose.
No amount of prohibition, a negative, will provide people with a meaningful life.
The white suburban shooter and the urban black gang member lack purpose and meaning.
Banning guns won’t stop them from killing.
Nor will it turn their lives around. It’s the act of a society that doesn’t want to address what is wrong on the inside and instead clings desperately to waging war on externalities.
Americans used to have access to firearms on a scale that would horrify any contemporary crusader.
Shootings weren’t treated as a problem caused by being able to buy a handgun in a hardware store, but as a sign that civilization, whether in an urban slum or a western town, had broken down.
In the age of government, uncivilized behavior is treated as a sign that regulation has broken down.
But regulations control what people do.
Not who they are.
Murder is not first and foremost a regulatory failure, and only occasionally a mental one, but it is universally a moral one.
When social problems are reduced to objects, then people are also objectified.
The killer pulls the trigger in the same mechanical way as the gun fires. He has no more of an inner life than his tool.
The only solution is equally mechanistic: get rid of all the guns, and no more people will be shot.
It’s a solution that ignores the realities of human ingenuity and depravity. It works for machines, not people.
But when we look at the individual and the social level, we can see both positive and negative options.
The false choice between civil rights and mass murder that the gun control movement offers us is replaced with seeing prevention not in terms of how to take away something, but how to add value.
The gun is the least relevant and the least interesting aspect of why a killing really takes place.
On the social level, many killers are part of a real or virtual social community which affirms their crimes.
It is no coincidence that mass shooters cite their predecessors as inspirations or that gang violence takes place within a territorial network of criminal communities and theological gang religions.
Killing in these contexts is not just a method; it’s a culture.
It has its own moral code. One that is antithetical to ours.
A moral and cultural conflict cannot be fought and will not be won with impersonal regulations.
On the individual level, the killer is driven by impulses. The gun is how he chooses to actualize those impulses.
But mass killers have driven cars and trucks into crowds. They’ve started fires and set off bombs.
How is not the most important question when it comes to a killer.
The question is why.
And yet we spend very little time talking about the social infrastructure and moral state of the killer.
Instead, the gun control movement, which dominates a political party, an ideology, and its associated institutions — including academia and the media — obsesses endlessly about the mechanics of the kill.
It compares America to other countries, as if nations and cultures were as interchangeable as mechanical moving parts, and asserts that the solution is making them interchangeable.
The killers are also assumed to be interchangeable.
What drives them to kill is not internal, but external.
Anyone, at any time, the gun control movement suggests, can turn into a killer when faced with a tempting gun.
If murder is a mechanical problem, then it’s hopeless.
Forget the guns.
Everyone has a car or can get their hands on one.
Accelerants are available in every store.
Knives are casually sold everywhere.
If we are truly savages, then no amount of regulation will restore civilization. The killings will continue.
A civilization’s fundamental laws are moral. Its true strictures are not external, but internal.
Their power lies in the moral and social order.
Crime and violence are a sign that our moral and social order have broken down.
No amount of regulations can civilize savages.
And few regulations are needed for civilized men.
What fundamentally separates the Left and the Right is the understanding that man is not an ape or a machine.
And that his ills cannot be solved with the mechanical tinkering of regulators.
Gun control and gun violence are both expressions of the amoral and inhuman worldview of the Left.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
We send our men and women off to war with the intention that the kill the enemy.
The days of winning hearts and minds are over.
It’s time for the JAG Corps to get with the program and understand the situation.
Perhaps the best way to do that would be to drag them out of their chairs in the courtroom and put them on the front line.
Then-Army Capt. Matthew L. Golsteyn in Afghanistan in 2010. (Office of Rep. Duncan Hunter/Released) September 16, 2019
A court-martial date has been set for Dec. 2, at which time Army Maj. Matthew Golsteyn will stand trial for the charge of the premeditated murder of a Taliban bomb maker in 2010.
The trial will take place Dec. 2 at Fort Bragg, according to an Army press release, and Golsteyn will face the charge he was cleared of in the past after the Army determined there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges.
Golsteyn pleaded not guilty in July to the Army’s allegations that he murdered the Taliban bomb maker on Feb. 22, 2010.
Golsteyn has admitted to killing a Taliban bomb maker, whom he identified as the terrorist responsible for the deaths of two U.S. Marines he was commanding in Afghanistan, and that the act was justified during wartime.
In 2010, he admitted to the CIA during a job interview to killing a terrorist whom he said was responsible for making the bombs that killed two other U.S. service members.
There was an investigation at the time, and Golsteyn was cleared of wrongdoing after the Army determined there was insufficient evidence to charge him.
In 2016, Golsteyn appeared in a Fox News interview and admitted again to killing the terrorist bomb maker, and the Army opened a second investigation, charging Golsteyn with premeditated murder, which carries a potential life sentence in prison or the death penalty.
In March, Golsteyn waived his Article 32 hearing, which is meant to present evidence and determine whether or not a service member accused of a crime should be court-martialed. After evidence is presented, an officer is to make a recommendation to a commander on whether or not to prosecute.
In May, the Army decided that the case would move forward to a court-martial trial.
Golsteyn had been denied travel to meet with his civilian legal counsel until September ahead of the motions hearing. He has only been permitted to meet with his Army defense attorney thus far.
Golsteyn’s case previously caught the attention of President Donald Trump, who said in December 2018 that he would review the case.
“At the request of many. I will be reviewing the case of a ‘U.S. Military hero,’ Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder,” Trump had tweeted.
Trump was reportedly preparing to review pardons for Golsteyn and other service members accused of war crimes.
Trump had issued a pardon to former Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who was convicted in 2009 for killing an Iraqi prisoner.
Over the years, Donald Trump has allowed himself to become friends and or associates with quite a few characters.
It’s safe to say that some of these associations and relationships have brought dark clouds over his administration.
Judicial Watch just announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking all records of communications, including
FBI 302 interview reports and offers agreements between former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office and Felix Sater, a former Trump organization official who was recently confirmed to be an informant for the FBI and CIA.
Sater reportedly pushed a Russian real estate deal in 2016 while working at the Trump organization.
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after Mueller’s office, a component of the DOJ, failed to respond to a June 12, 2019, FOIA request for FBI “302” interview reports of Sater that are referred to in the Mueller report; any offer agreements between Sater and the U.S. government; and records of communications between Sater and government employees (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-02568).
If there is truly a Justice Department that applies to all in the United States, the Obama Administration and perhaps those who sill fear the malignancy of the fallen Clinton’s will be looking forward to those indited and found guilty receiving long prison sentences.
At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page says being a government informant doesn’t end well.
Days after former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne identified himself as an FBI informant who got roped into a “deep state” plot, Page said he also struggled with his role in helping the bureau under the Obama administration.
“It’s basically the government is taking control of people’s lives,” he told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.
Page, an American citizen, said he worked with the government for two decades after leaving the Navy active duty in 1998, and claimed he was an informant for the government in a case that led to three indictments in an alleged Russian spy ring in New York in 2015.
Page said there were “a lot of problems in that indictment and they really kind of put me out on a limb” and he was only “lightly masked” as “Male 1.”
Page alluded to a government effort to get him to lie in court to help make their case.
“It was a long back and forth with them but I told them, I am a man of my word and I’m not going to, you know, provide false testimony like they’ve done,” he said.
The “false testimony” Page said the Justice Department and FBI provided was “very similar” to that given against him in 2016, soon after he parted with the Trump campaign, as they sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant and three renewals to wiretap him.
Page became a focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russian government, but he was never charged with any wrongdoing.(Source)
Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.
In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.
Finally! But now we have to wait a little longer for AG William Barr to review it and redact any classified data before releasing it to the public; but President Trump has already said that he wants EVERYTHING released pertaining to the Russia Hoax.
Last year Horowitz testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his previous report saying former FBI Director James Comey was “insubordinate” in his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the 2016 presidential election, but found no evidence the outcome of the investigation was motivated by political bias.
Horowitz said no “rule, policy or practice is perfect” and at the same time, “neither is any individual’s ability to make judgments under pressure or what may seem like unique circumstances.”
At the same hearing, FBI Director Christopher Wray says mistakes made by employees and cited in the report “do not define” the agency as a whole.
James Comey (the liar and leaker) has YET to be charged for anything, but Mike Flynn has been waiting for months to be sentenced for doing nothing nefarious!
Anyone who has taken the time to read the Qur’an understands that it is not a religion but an all pervasive political system which becomes a cult of death to those who finally see the light and leave it.
What religion in the world kills those who want to leave it?
Subsequent surahs and hadiths provide for sex with animals and “So-called Good-bye sex for Muslim men with their dead wives.
they tried to push through a resolution supporting the anti-Israel BDS
movement. Now the three radical Congressmuslims – lhan Omar (D-MN),
Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Andre Carson (D-IN), and one Muslim sympathizer
(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-MY)) – are co-sponsoring a resolution which
would recognize “Islam as one of the great ‘religions’ of the world.”
I think the following materials about Islam should be included:
Of course, they wasted their time and taxpayer money as this nonsense never made it by the United States Senate and if it had it would have been vetoed by President Trump.
A sure sign that a boat won’t float is when “Squinty and the Meatpuppet, two very confused leftist television commentators start taking shots at a story.’
Perhaps they have been told that their contracts at MSLSD will not be renewed and they are trying to position themselves for work at a credible network.
The duo’s lives revolve around three simple things.
(1) Barely producing cognitive thoughts.
They do nothing, they learn squat, they know diddly, they hate the conservatives – and, amazingly, they manage to avoid being thrown out of MSNBC.
(2) Trying to score with celebrities – something they’ll never achieve.
(3) Watching TV. Lots of TV.
If something in the real world doesn’t relate to what they know from TV, it sucks.
They especially enjoy “reviewing” the actions of Trump – or just commenting inanely on him.
If the news contains Trump, conservative thought, or mentions an improving economy, it sucks to them.
Thus, their mission in life.
‘I’m just so surprised that candidates are making conclusions here that are impossible to make’
By By Kyle Drennen
September 18, 2019
Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough ripped the Times‘s decision to run a story about new allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh without including vital context about the story. and report the truth.”
That’s not a joke, they actually honored The Morning Joe co-hosts during the organization’s annual First Amendment Awards dinner on March 8 in Washington, D.C.
The couple specifically received the Leonard Zeidenberg First Amendment Award for “a radio or television journalist or news executive who has made a major contribution to the protection of First Amendment freedoms.” (Source)
Over the course of the past year, the pair have routinely offered similarly unhinged commentary against the President.
Apparently hurling outrageous accusations that violate every principle of journalistic ethics makes them eligible for an award.
The Times published an essay adapted from a forthcoming book about the Kavanaugh confirmation battle in which two Times reporters claimed to have “uncovered a previously unreported story” about alleged sexual misconduct during Kavanaugh’s college years.
“A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student,” the Times reporters wrote.
They added that this allegation “echoes” the allegation made by Deborah Ramirez, who alleged Kavanaugh “thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent” during a party in college.
On Sunday night, the Times added a note to the story correcting a factual omission.
The reporters excluded that the victim of Stier’s alleged incident “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
“Wait a second, a woman who Stier claims was abused by Kavanaugh, has she denied this?
Has she claimed this happened? Why is there this glaring omission in the New York Times story?
There were Mollie Hemingway and others on Twitter were saying that, in fact, she had no recollection of this happening and her friends were saying the same thing,” Scarborough said.
“And I could not believe the New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it. Are you surprised 24 hours—is it 24 hours went by before they clarified that fact?” he said, adding the article also did not note that Stier was the opposing counsel to Kavanaugh during their work on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
“I don’t understand why they didn’t put this information in the article. Did that strike you as strange?”
“Yeah, that’s certainly good context being provided here about Stier.
We were talking about this yesterday and were puzzled and remain so that if the woman involved is saying that she didn’t remember, that raises questions about the piece,” Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire responded.
“Certainly, the New York Times has made their own editorial judgments about what should be included.
Scarborough pointed out each of the major three allegations against Kavanaugh had issues with corroborating witnesses.
“Here we have, again, a New York Times piece where Brett Kavanaugh is accused of something and, again, the very woman who was the alleged victim in this alleged incident is saying she doesn’t recall it happening,” he said.
Brzezinski addressed the political implications of the new allegations.
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called on Kavanaugh to resign, along with fellow 2020 candidates Beto O’Rourke (D.), Julian Castro (D.), and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D.).
Both former vice president Joe Biden (D.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) called for further investigation into the allegations.
“There has not been any new statements from any of the candidates since the Times updated the story overnight, that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode,” Brzezinski said, pointing out there are still many unanswered questions.
“I’m just so surprised that candidates are making conclusions here that are impossible to make, again.”
The left and their partners at the New York Times and the Washington Post would have us believe that former fired FBI agent Andrew McCabe will not be prosecuted.
There is no evidence to back their delusions.
This article casts doubt on the previous articles which have appeared here on the topic of Andrew McCabe.
McCarthy has impeccable credentials.
For 18 years, Mr. McCarthy was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
From 1993 through 1995, he led the prosecution against the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman and his jihadist cell for waging a terrorist war against the U.S. – a war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks.
During the last five years of his tenure, he was the chief assistant U.S. attorney in charge of the Southern District’s satellite in White Plains.
During that time, he was also heavily involved in the investigation of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s Command Post near Ground Zero in New York City.
In 2004, he served at the Pentagon as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Mr. McCarthy began his law-enforcement career in 1979, serving as a Deputy United States Marshal in the federal Witness Protection Program while he attended Columbia College.
He later graduated with honors from New York Law School, which he attended in the evenings while working days as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
He has been an Adjunct Professor at both New York Law School and Fordham University’s School of Law, teaching trial advocacy and a constitutional law course focused on criminal justice issues.
This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich — a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser.
Bromwich says he is hearing “rumors from reporters” about the filing of a “no true bill” — i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.
While conceding that he “do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,” Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story.
Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted.
Nevertheless, McCabe’s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.
This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling — the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat.
But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.
I’ll add more detail presently.
To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.
Now, let’s back up.
As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz.
That inquest centered on McCabe’s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information — specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation.
McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents.
It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.
As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed.
Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.
There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies.
Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu’s decision to the Justice Department — specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general.
According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu’s office.
It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department’s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent.
It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.
That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.
Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.
This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided.
Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills.
Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case.
The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former.
Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment.
The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.
Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle — probable cause — has been met.
Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved.
The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures.
And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.
Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict.
Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn’t mean to lie (multiple times).
When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.
Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury’s investigation.
It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration — conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.
And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.
Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe’s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation.
On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed.
We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent.
Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.
There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.
Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury?
Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury.
That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury.
Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury’s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject — such as an IG report — is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment.
That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury’s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.
That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment.
The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury’s investigation is broader in scope than we’ve been led to believe.
It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.
It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz’s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges.
Note that in the email to McCabe’s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her.
For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she’ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe’s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she’ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.
Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn’t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe’s case bungled their way into a no true bill.
If I had to bet, I think it’s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment.
If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.
“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.