Michael Schumacher showed a slight improvement in his condition and
underwent a second procedure to remove a hematoma from his brain Monday
evening but doctors in Grenoble, France, continue to say the former
Formula One driver faces an uncertain prognosis. Schumacher has been hospitalized in critical condition since Sunday,
when he fell and struck his head against a rock while skiing in the
French Alps. The auto-racing legend, who turns 45 on Friday, has been in
a medically induced coma since undergoing surgery to relieve
intercranial pressure shortly after the fall. A brain scan Monday showed
that pressure had unexpectedly eased in his brain and doctors at
Grenoble University Hospital decided to remove one of the larger and
more accessible hematomas on the left side of his brain. “We cannot say it’s over. We can say there are highs and lows,”
Emmanuel Gay, the hospital’s chief of neurology told reporters Tuesday, ”
… but it’s a bit better than it was [Monday].” Gay indicated that a number of hematomas (bruises or blood pools) on
Schumacher’s brain remain and are being monitored. “Compared to
yesterday, the situation has improved, but it remains fragile and
critical,” Jean-Francois Payen, an anesthesiologist and head of the
intensive care unit, added (via the Guardian), “We cannot say that he is out of danger. The surgery bought us more time. The situation can improve as well as worsen.”
A
general view of the “Biche” and “Chamois” ski runs at Saulire mountain
near Meribel in the French Alps. This believed to be the area in which
Schumacher fell. (David Ebener / EPA)
Doctors said they have not determined how long to maintain
Schumacher’s coma, which is medical protocol for preventing further
brain damage in cases of severe trauma. “We cannot tell you any more about the future,” Gerard Saillant, a
family friend who is in Grenoble and is a surgeon, told the Associated
Press. Schumacher, the most successful driver in Formula One history with
seven world titles and 91 victories, was skiing with his 14-year-old
son, Mick, when he fell during an off-piste (off course) run at Meribel.
He was wearing a helmet, which doctors credited with saving his life.
His manager, Sabine Kehm, said that the helmet had cracked on impact.
“It looks like probably that initiating a corner, he was hitting a stone
which he had not seen and was catapulted down on a rock,” Kehm said
(via the AP). “That is extremely and very unfortunate … really very,
very bad luck. Michael was not at high speed.”
Michael Schumacher’s helmet cam footage shows Formula One great skiing off trail, investigators say
Schumacher,
45, the most successful Formula One driver in history, is still in
critical condition in a medically induced coma at a hospital in
Grenoble. The impact of the crash split his helmet in two and doctors
say the protective gear saved his life.
Albertville prosecutor Patrick Quincy, surrounded by investigators,
gives a statement during a media conference revealing the findings of
two minutes of footage from Michael Schumacher's helmet cam.
ALBERTVILLE, France (AP) — Two minutes of footage from a camera on Michael Schumacher’s
ski helmet showed the Formula One great was clearly skiing off a
groomed trail when he lost his balance and crashed, leaving him with
critical head injuries, investigators said Wednesday.
The investigators said they have ruled out problems with his skis,
trail conditions or signage. Although they would not estimate
Schumacher’s speed, they said it was not considered a significant factor
in the Dec. 29 crash at Meribel in the French Alps. RELATED: FORMULA ONE DRIVER SLAMMED FOR SKIING PICS
“His pace was completely normal for a skilled skier,” said Lt. Col. Benoit Vinneman.
TORU TAKAHASHI/AP
The Formula One great remains in critical condition following a skiing accident in France.
Schumacher, 45, the most successful Formula One driver in history, is
still in critical condition in a medically induced coma at a hospital in
Grenoble. The impact of the crash split his helmet in two and doctors
say the protective gear saved his life. RELATED: SCHUMACHER REACHES 45TH BIRTHDAY COMATOSE
Prosecutor Patrick Quincy said experts still need to go through the
footage image by image, but he said Schumacher landed 9 meters (30 feet)
outside the marked trail after falling face down and striking his head
on a rock.
Schumacher had been on a family vacation in Meribel, where he owns a chalet.
EMMANUEL FOUDROT/REUTERS
A general view shows an
off-piste area with rocks between the slopes 'Chamois' (l.) and 'Biche'
(r.) where seven-time Formula One champion Michael Schumacher is
supposed to have been injured in a skiing accident in the ski resort of
Meribel.
Corinna Schumacher (c.), the
wife of the German champion, has asked for the media and fans to back
away to allow doctors to focus on her husband's recovery.
British tourist Steve Bovill said he always wears a helmet. Speaking
from the sunny mountainside, he said, “It was an accident that could
have happened to anyone.”
Quincy said the investigation, which is standard after any major skiing
accident, had no deadline and was intended to discover what happened,
not necessarily fix blame. Without specifying, he said authorities plan
to interview more witnesses.
And so it finally came on October 22, 2015, the statement that everyone knew was “out-there” but nobody (in the Clinton camp) wanted to admit. “The attack had nothing to do with a video, it was Al-Qaeda”
so said, Hillary Clinton in an email to the Egyptian Foreign Minister
on the morning after 4 Americans had died in a burned out embassy in
Benghazi, Libya. That one statement was what the Republicans have spent two years,
millions of dollars and boat loads of political capital trying to get
the former Secretary of State and Democrat Presidential candidate to
admit and say to the American people. After that revelation came some 10
hours into what was clearly a “Hillary grilling session” by the
Benghazi Select Committee (led by Congressman Trey Gowdy), then came a
series of questions (that most viewers had been waiting for).
Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) began peppering Clinton with a series of
questions about ‘arms sales to Libyan rebels to overthrow former dictator Ghadafi‘.
What did she know, when did she know it, did it happen and if so, who
was behind them? This line of questioning lasted about 5 minutes and all
the answers were a resounding “NO”. Then it was over!
Some 11 hours after Hillary Clinton was sworn in, we hear (what will go down in history as probably one of the biggest Congressional “wild-goose” chasing sessions ever)
something we all knew, and a big fat “NO”. Now, what? Where do the
Republicans go from here? After two years, untold amounts of criticism
from both the left and the media and all we got was “the recitation of an email telling us what we already knew” and a very loud raspy-voiced “NO” from Hillary Clinton. Then Gowdy thanks the Secretary bangs his gavel and says, “this hearing stands in recess” and the room empties out. Had Gowdy and company actually found the magic bullet or smoking gun
yesterday, the GOP might actually have been able to live down what will
no doubt become a major hammer (of which Hillary will club Republicans over the head with) in the upcoming campaign.
In effect what happened yesterday was that Congressman Trey Gowdy
gave Hillary Clinton the pathway and platform to all but clear her name
for the upcoming presidential run. If Gowdy didn’t get the job done,
then Congressman Kevin McCarthy and John Boehner did. Remember it was
McCarthy who just two weeks ago stated on the air and in a speech that
Gowdy’s committee had been formed to hurt Hillary’s popularity for the
2016 Presidential contest. At this late date and with the funerals of Ambassador Stevens and the
others nothing but a distant memory, it makes you wonder just what
Gowdy and the RNC had hoped to gain from this very expensive dog and
pony show. For the next 13 months, all Hillary has to do is learn to smile more
when shaking hands and keep her mouth shut about Benghazi, which she no
doubt will do. Over the course of the next year plus, Hillary’s
apologist will go out whenever Fox News attacks her and clearly state
that “nothing was found to be a smoking gun” at Gowdy’s hearings. It doesn’t matter what we think we know on the right. It doesn’t
matter what might have happened (we do know what the results were) and
it doesn’t matter if something was nefarious. The facts are; there is no
smoking gun that ties Hillary to any criminal activity in this sordid
affair. While there might be, the sad truth is, it won’t come to the
surface and is forever buried by the White House and the Clinton
machine. Can the Republican’s nail Hillary on the email scandal? At this point
in time, if they try, it will literally look like the Republicans are
desperate because of their fear of Hillary and it will look like “piling on the dog“. The second sad truth is that, since nothing came of yesterday’s
hearings and the email scandal will be swept under the rug, it has
removed all the bullets that the GOP nominee had to shoot at Hillary on
the upcoming debate stage. Donald (or whoever the nominee is) cannot
stand on the stage and blast Hillary for Benghazi because “all the
questions have been answered” and there is nothing further to report.
Again, the optics of pulling such as stunt will make the GOP contender
look weak and grasping at straws. The truth is irrelevant at that point,
it is the optics and appearance. Had the GOP let this go for a while, with the amounts of questions
being asked about Benghazi, the GOP could have used those “unanswered
questions” as a means of hanging the Benghazi tragedy around Hillary’s
campaign neck. Not now! What the Republicans effectively did was allow
Hillary the platform to absolve herself. Even though we all knew the
reason initially given for the attack was a bald-faced lie, this
platform allowed her to infuse, “I still believe the video did incite
many to anger which allowed them more easily to garner support” for the
raid. While not overtly saying the video was the “principle reason” it
allowed her to escape with the full brunt of being called a total liar
to the American people. Nicely done Republicans, I am afraid you just made it much easier for
Hillary to win this election and we are out of ammo to win with. With
the amounts of registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans, we might
just have a problem in winning we cannot overcome. Join thousands of your patriot brothers and sisters at Crows Nest on Facebook today! Follow Ken on Twitter; @kwrcrow Email; ken@crowsnestpolitics.com
________________________________
Megyn Kelly: Fox News Isn’t Afraid to Stand Alone
Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly
is stating what many FNC viewers have known for a while: Fox News
reports what the rest of the mainstream media won’t. That’s gotten the
channel predictable criticism from liberal circles that keep repeating
the dishonest mantra that FNC is just a mouthpiece for the right. Kelly pointed out in an interview with Reuters that FNC has been
unafraid to touch stories that the liberal media has refused to cover.
There’s no doubt the other networks are actively carrying water for
Obama on his numerous scandals, as they always have. In fact, this
prevalent liberal bias has been confirmed by former CBS investigative
journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who left CBS over their liberal bias. Kelly cites Benghazi
as a great example of her network’s willingness to take on the stories
that speak truth to power, the ones that hardly any of the other
networks touched Get our daily email alert by entering your Email:
I don’t know if I would sign on to underdogs. I know what
he means. I guess I would say, ‘outliers.’ Oftentimes it feels like Fox
stands alone in the media on certain stories. Benghazi is a good
example where we’ve been covering that story because many of us believe
that it is a story and that we haven’t gotten the full truth on what
happened. And then, lo and behold, several months will pass something
will come out to prove that we were right. … So, I don’t mind being one of the outliers. Sometimes I think there’s
value in that and some of these stories get completely blown off by
many in the mainstream media … but that is like as (colleague) Brit Hume
used to say, ‘Like picking money up off the street,’ because it’s a
story that’s just waiting there for somebody to grab it and tell. And if
we don’t tell it at Fox News, in all likelihood some of these stories
won’t get told.
Megyn Kelly is exactly right about Fox News – the network is willing
to challenge the Obama administration’s version of the facts when so
many others continue to tow the White House’s line on everything. Why
else would Obama be so disturbed by the existence of Fox News? He knows they’re forcing him to be honest, something he desperately is trying to avoid.
Suzanne Sharer
Benghazi: Media Strategy Over Military Strategy
Posted Wednesday, May 7th 2014 @ 12pm
Do you still feel the attack on our Consulate in
Benghazi on September 11, 2012 is relevant to today? I certainly hope
so as there are a lot of Washington insiders banking on it becoming “old
news” telling us that it simply does not matter any longer and
anticipating that the next big news story will clear it off their
plates. But it does matter and in big ways. Here we are 20 months later
and still being lied to as if we are a Nation of fools while the Obama
administration with the media’s help continues to trivialize the attack
on our embassy that resulted in the deaths of four brave Americans and
continue to sweep it under their rug of deception.
“So at this point what difference does it make?”, asked
Bob Beckel on Fox News this morning, parroting the democrat sweetheart
Hillary Clinton’s infamous line as he urged democrats to make good on
their threat to boycott any new hearing regarding the emails that have
just been brought to light on the Benghazi attack. This new email
evidence is purported to show exactly how this administration, and sadly
our government in general, controls the media talking points thus
controlling the media and what information we the people are to receive
and told to believe even when it is patently false and meant to steer
the American people from the truth.
So what difference does it make now? First off it is proof
that we the people are being lied to by not only our government but by
the very people who used to act as our loyal guardians who were to
protect us against a tyrannical and runaway government. This is
important to understand. We are not “conspiracy” nuts when we see a
truth that the media discounts and covers up for almost two years!
Instead we know now that the main stream media is in the back pocket of a
corrupt and depraved government and their strategists who are using it
to spread their false information to manipulate the outcome of public
opinion, elections, policy and even world events while giving those in
the shadows shelter.
I am hoping…no, I am praying that we can get to the bottom
of all the lies shrouding this very dark day in American history but
the one thing we now know for certain is that our government is in
control of the main stream media, setting the talking points to spoon
feed the public via your friendly news anchor who is now a player in the
disgraceful game of wag the dog with the American people and we need it
to stop. We deserve better. We deserve accountability and we deserve
the truth. We deserve a watch dog as our media! Enter the New media.
What difference can we make? Become the watchdogs that our
media used to be and do some research for yourself. Never rely just on
what you hear on the news any longer. When our embassy was attacked I
wrote an article for Politichicks on the Middle East and the attack on
our Embassy that I want to share here on my own blog so you can see how
important speaking out can be. I was a little nervous calling out the
situation as I saw it but as it turned out this conspiracy chick was a
correct “Politichick”. Each of us can and should get out there and speak
the truth! It will be through new media sources like this and people
who read them and spread the truth that the truth will set us free.
“Democracy” In The Middle East; Up In Smoke or Smoke Screen
Eleven years to the day that our world stood still on
September 11, 2001 we were jolted from our reflective states of mind by
our worst nightmare. We were attacked once again with loss of American
life in the name of “Allah”.
This is an assault that I believe could have been
prevented by a different foreign policy, a policy that would vow to
defend America from all enemies and keep her strong and sovereign not
one that has our President
bowing down and serving the whims of Islamic leaders while at the same
time degrading America, leading the world to view us as intolerant and
weak.
Also critical to our security is having an honest
media who stands up for America as her watchdog and exposes any
injustice or danger to the American people! Unfortunately just as we
seem to be amiss on the good foreign policy, it appears we are lacking
the honest media component as well.
Meanwhile we have a sitting President with blood on
his hands and an equally complicit media for not calling out what is and
has been a dangerous courtship between America and the Muslim
Brotherhood.
But there is now a very disturbing and stark difference between where we are as Americans today as opposed to 9/11.
Those who were blaming America for the assaults upon
her saying we brought it all upon ourselves for our intolerance and
interference in the world back in 2001 (chickens coming home to roost)
are now the ones sitting in the White House dictating the very policies
that have put us into harms way yet again on this 9/11/12. It seems that
handing over a billion dollars of our hard earned taxes to help prop up
the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t enough to buy protection
these days.
No, these thugs want something more: They want Islam to rule the world. And quite frankly Obama
seems quite comfortable and in his element being around these type of
thugs and doesn’t seem to mind working with them on their goals of
domination.
Again our media says nothing, showing they have become
one of two things: spineless or a conspirator in the spread of Islam,
the igniting of the Middle East and the downsizing of America.
Where have they been as policy has been and is still
being created that is putting the American people at odds with our own
government?
As more of the details and truths are being uncovered
on these latest attacks and with more being reported overnight in Yemen,
the information spinners are working overtime to diminish what is
happening and shield Obama’s actions and reactions from the public eye.
The media first reported that it was just a small group of “extremists” affirming Clinton’s summary of the event that placed blame
on a “small and savage group,” not the government or people of Libya.
Oh and of course they had a very good reason for this behavior It seems
that we as Americans probably deserved it again since they were a bit
ticked off and offended (gasp the O word!) by an American made movie
that mocked their God Muhammad. What did Obama have to say about this as
our President? He apologized! This is what he said on our behalf, “We
condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the
religious feelings of Muslims”. Wow really? I guess free speech is only
free and safe if you don’t speak out against Islam in the New America we
see emerging.
So now the media is continuing the charade, continuing
to tell us the firestorm being set off across the Middle East is being
done by only small radical groups and that the movie was the
trigger–both of which I am not and cannot accept as the truth.
If they really believe this is only a small
representation of the Muslim people in the area, why are we sending in
the war ships?
The other question we need to ask and ask very seriously is why is Obama refusing to meet with the leader of Israel during his visit to New York, yet is planning to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader of Egypt?
Who are those war ships being sent to help?
The media should be having a field day with Obama on
his weak foreign policy and open support of Islam–but instead they are
working overtime to keep the spotlight off of him, and are instead going
after anybody who may point out the dangers our current administration
has put us in.
Mitt Romney, who has been one of the only voices of reason, gave a very strong press conference where, thanks to an open mic, we saw firsthand how the media will try to manipulate a story by attacking the voices of those that want to speak the truth!
We need to be calling them out on things like this
where they are caught—this time, conspiring to trip Romney up on his
answers and trying to discredit his speech
Bottom line, the deception of the Arab Spring is now
yielding its fruits and we are paying the price for allowing our country
to be steeped in ignorance and foolishness.
The Muslim Brotherhood was clearly behind the
overthrowing of Libya as well as the ally we once had in Egypt, and
Obama (and Clinton) might have just as well been the ones to pack Ole
Hosni Mubarak’s bags and push him out the door. At the same time, they
were holding that door wide open for the new Islamic/American union they
were creating in the name of “Democracy”.
Today, as the leaders of America condemn the
inflammatory anti-Islam video and instead of the attacks upon our
embassies, I view this as another desperate attempt to try to hide the
truth behind the Arab Spring and the monsters they placed into power.
And their accomplice? The American media– the same media that is no
longer the ‘watchdog to the American people’ but rather the lap dog to
the American governments.
Rep Trey Gowdy talks with Greta Van Susteren and details the
developments and potential benefits of a select committee to investigate
the Benghazi terror attacks. He describes the difficulties which have been encountered under the
multi-jurisdictional situation of various committees being able to call
only witnesses in the areas of government over which the have oversight. A special committee could compel a broad range of witnesses from all
branches of government. He gives the example of “If you want to have
Greg Hicks and the station chief from Tripoli and Hillary Clinton all
sitting at the same table, you need a committee that has the power to do
that and a select committee would have the power.
“It crosses all jurisdictional boundaries, you have subpoena power
and you can work in a really coordinated effort.” He said a select
committee can make those boundary lines disappear. In regards to a cover up and stonewalling of information and an
upcoming appearance by John Kerry, Gowdy says that he has evidence that
“not only are they hiding it, there’s an intent to hide it.” He
describes it as a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain
documents from Congress. They then comment on the remarks of B. Hussein Obama, as to the
similarity between his comments and the arguments made in reference to
the supposed response to an offensive video. Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the
U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.
JW Smoking Gun: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points To say this has been a busy week at Judicial Watch is a massive
understatement. In fact, this has been one of the most important and
eventful weeks in the history of Judicial Watch. On Tuesday, we released
explosive new Benghazi scandal documents which immediately precipitated
a Washington firestorm that placed the Obama White House on the
defensive and may even lead to criminal charges.News Report
Kiro 7 News #(206) 728-7777 # Q13 Fox News (206) 674-1313 Congress has the Go ahead for a Full Impeachment for the Obama regime
and Yes Throw The Liberal TV Press All In Jail As Well... And what’s the big discovery that had every news outlet in the country headlining Judicial Watch’s work? On April 18, 2014, JW obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email
showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben
Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials
attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and
to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in
an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show
that State Department officials initially described the incident as an
“attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
Now, am I shocked to find the Obama White House behind this egregious
lie? Not at all. The facts of the Benghazi attack, aftermath and
cover-up suggested as much. But owing largely to Obama secrecy and
stonewalling, evidence has been elusive – until Judicial Watch
investigators and attorneys worked their magic and got hold of these
records. This has been a long battle. We filed our first Freedom of
Information (FOIA) request on October 12, 2012, to gain access to
documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN
Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday
news programs on September 16, 2012. Ultimately, we had to sue to get them. But it was well worth the effort. As I say, JW’s discovery was of high interest to a press long
frustrated by the Obama administration’s misdirection and obfuscation
over Benghazi. Here are just a few of the headlines:
Now let’s get to the meat of this find. The Rhodes email
was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the
subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The
documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show
appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack. The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests
are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video
crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it.
We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and
reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for
responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure
that people around the globe hear that message.
Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes
memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary
Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe. The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to
portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” throughout the crisis.
Another of the “Goals” of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is “[T]o
reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in
dealing with difficult challenges.” He later includes as a PR “Top-line”
talking point:
I think that people have come to trust
that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and
statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge
around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet
them.
The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf
to Susan Rice noting that at a press briefing earlier that day State
Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the
attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf
to Rice at 5:42 pm said:
Responding to a question about whether it
was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to
the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.
In the days following the Knopf email,
Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the
assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On
Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”
But based on the best information we have
to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began
spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some
hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a
violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.
The Judicial Watch documents confirm
that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have
been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk
shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy
director Mike Morell. According to one email:
The first draft apparently seemed
unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer
incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our
embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and
he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be
happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake
Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails
sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The
contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack”:
As reported, the Benghazi compound came
under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and
Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was
killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi
this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…
At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice
and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO
phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching
Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well. Of
course, if the he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make
the call himself.” Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice
that he was “very, very worried. In particular that he [Stevens] is
either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.” Rice replied,
“God forbid.”
September 11, 2012, 4:49 PM – State Department press officer John Fogarty reporting on “Libya update from Beth Jones”:
Beth Jones [Acting Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs] just spoke with DCM Tripoli Greg Hicks,
who advised a Libyan militia (we now know this is the 17th Feb brigade, as requested by Emb office) is responding to the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”
Material is blacked out (or redacted) in many emails. And what was the Obama White House response to Judicial Watch? What
would you expect the Obama White House to do when caught – without a
shadow of a doubt – lying and misleading the American people – attack,
attack, attack! Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman
accused JW of “politicizing” the Benghazi scandal. Fox News Channel’s Charles Krauthammer had a different reaction:
“We now have the smoking document, which is the White House saying,
‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the
failure of our policies.’” That’s as spot-on as it gets. As Krauthammer notes, it was the Obama
gang who politicized Benghazi, lying and stonewalling and covering up in
order to protect the president in an election season. The Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good. These documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that
it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an
Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is
no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from
the Obama State Department. White House spokesman Jay Carney, who is implicated in this scandal
(he received the smoking gun email) went so far as to say that the email
was not about Benghazi!
This is a ludicrous lie, as this document was forced out of the State
Department by JW in a lawsuit about Benghazi! The media is slamming Carney for his spin but I see his lie as more of a criminal defense. The Rhodes email was responsive to a congressional subpoena on
Benghazi. Thwarting a subpoena and congressional investigation can put
you in jail. So that is why I would argue Carney is saying the document
is not about Benghazi – to admit otherwise could lead to criminal
charges for whoever covered this White House document up! Events are breaking fast. As I write this, John Kerry has been subpoenaedand Speaker John Boehner is set to announce a select committee to investigate Benghazi – all thanks to Judicial Watch! I will close with this. In addition to the massive amount public
attention, JW has been deluged with “kudos” coming from JW donors and
supporters. Here is just one example:
“That Judicial Watch could accomplish
this [discovery] and Congress could not is a mystery, but nevertheless
THE reason I continue to contribute monthly to Judicial Watch…they GET
results! Thanks to all who worked and are working on ‘cleaning up’ the
mess we are in.”
We appreciate the sentiments and, at the same time, want to remind
everyone that we cannot do what we do without support from our donors.
So our thanks go to them! And to you. If you feel inspired by this
latest JW victory to support our efforts, please click here to make a secure online donation. Judicial Watch Continues to Battle Los Angeles Over Regulation for Illegal Alien Drivers Want to get a sense of the ridiculous lengths to which leftist
lobbyists (led by the ACLU) want to go to coddle illegal alien
lawbreakers? Look no further than their support of an unlawful Los
Angeles Police Department regulation known as Special Order 7. Special Order 7 is an LAPD regulation requiring vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers – the vast majority of whom are illegal aliens
– to be released instead of impounded for 30-days. Because, well, why
shouldn’t an unlicensed illegal alien be granted permission by the
police to continue to break the law and threaten public safety? (That’s
the twisted reasoning of the Left on this issue.) Well, JW filed a taxpayer lawsuit
challenging this nonsensical and dangerous regulation and achieved a
major victory when the California Superior court ruled in August 2013
that Special Order 7 violated the California Constitution and the
California Vehicle Code. As you might expect, however, this ruling did not sit well with the
ACLU. After an intense lobbying campaign by the ACLU and its allies in
the illegal alien community, the City of Los Angeles appealed. This
week, we filed our answer. As we point out, under Section 14602.6 of the California Vehicle Code,
officers are given the discretion to arrest a driver and impound his or
her vehicle for 30 days if the driver has never been issued a license
or is driving on a suspended or revoked license. Under Section 14607.6, officers are required to impound a vehicle if a
driver is unlicensed or driving on a suspended or revoked license and
has a history of unlawful driving. Special Order 7 “has re-written laws
enacted by the Legislature,” according to Judicial Watch’s answer brief,
making the LAPD regulation “unlawful, ultra vires, and void.” Specifically, Judicial Watch’s “Combined Answer Brief,” filed on
behalf of Los Angeles resident and taxpayer Harold Sturgeon, makes the
following key arguments:
Special Order No. 7 Is Preempted by The Vehicle Code.
The California Constitution declares that
“[a] county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local,
police, sanitary, and other ordinances or regulations not in conflict
with general laws … If an otherwise valid local regulation conflicts
with state law, it is preempted by the state law and is void …
The City admitted that Special Order No. 7
regulates matters already covered by Sections 14602.6 and 14607.6 in
the very first sentence of its unsuccessful demurrer to Sturgeon’s
Complaint:
Both LAPD Special Order [N]o. 7 and
California Vehicle Code section[s] 14602.6 and 14607.6 regulate the
release of a vehicle to its registered owner when the vehicle has been
seized because it was driven by someone not in possession of a valid
driver’s license.
Special Order No. 7 Is Not Guidance.
The primary argument raised by the City
and Interveners in defense of Special Order No. 7 is that the City’s
regulation is only guidance and municipalities must be allowed to
provide guidance to their police officers … The lower court agreed that
Special Order No. 7 is not mere guidance, “But this Special Order 7 is
much more than just guidance. It’s much more than just training. It
actually changes. It changes the law. It changes the outcome” … In the
words of the lower court, Special Order No. 7 is a “game changer” … No. 7
does not guide officers in the exercise of their discretion; it
re-writes the law.
We are not alone in this battle. The City’s police union, the Los
Angeles Police Protection League, also filed a lawsuit challenging
Special Order 7. Again, advocates for illegal aliens represented by the ACLU
intervened on the side of the City to help defend the LAPD regulation.
In October 2013, a panel of three justices from the California Court of
Appeals granted the City of Los Angeles a temporary staythat allows the LAPD to continue to follow Special Order 7 while the case works its way through the appeals process. We’ve made our position clear. We believe the Appeals Court should
uphold the Superior Court’s decision and protect and defend California’s
Constitution against LAPD regulation. Special Order 7 is illegal and
dangerous. Unlicensed drivers – whether they are illegal aliens or not –
are a menace to public safety. Los Angeles should not put immigration
politics above the public safety. The LAPD has a history of supporting illegal alien sanctuary policies that put the city’s citizens at risk. Judicial Watch previously sued the LAPD over Special Order 40, a
regulation that prohibits police officers from initiating “police action
with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person.”
Despite an obvious conflict with federal law, California state courts
refused to let the challenge against Special Order 40 proceed to trial.
I will be sure to let you know how this new appellate court battle
turns out. Judicial Watch’s Robert Popper’s Editorial “Political Fraud about Voter Fraud,” Published in The Wall Street Journal One can’t be delicate about this: President Obama and his leftist
allies want to be able to steal elections. That’s why they vociferously
oppose common-sense election integrity measures such as requiring a
photo id (let alone any proof of identity) to vote. Judicial Watch, as you know, is a leader in countering this assault
on clean and fair elections, launching a national fight for election
integrity measures. We’ve achieved some major successes along the way.
(See our historic victory with True the Vote in Ohio as just one example.) We’ve also added some firepower to our election integrity team by
bringing Senior Attorney Robert D. Popper on board at JW. Robert
previously served as the Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Robert knows first-hand the schemes used by leftists to undermine
election integrity, including the effort to manipulate the American
people to believe that voter fraud is a product of partisan fantasy.
This week he penned an outstanding opinion editorial, entitled
“Political Fraud about Voter Fraud,” which was published in The Wall Street Journal,
which is one of the preeminent platforms in the nation. The
editorialpushes back against President Obama’s use of faulty data and
misleading arguments about election integrity measures:
In an April 11 speech to Al Sharpton‘s
National Action Network, President Obama recited statistics purporting
to show that voter fraud was extremely rare. The “real voter fraud,” he
said, “is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments
about voter fraud.”
These arguments themselves are bogus
Robert goes on to take apart the faulty statistics that President
Obama used to discount concerns about voter fraud, while also showing
that voter fraud in under-reported:
More generally, judging voter fraud by
counting criminal proceedings is misguided. For any crime, convictions
are a fraction of prosecutions, which are a fraction of investigations,
which are a fraction of known offenses, which are, in turn, a fraction
of committed crimes. This is even more likely to be true of voter fraud,
which is often a low enforcement priority… many states do not even
track it. Moreover, the fraud may be all but impossible to investigate
or prove if it is carried out successfully.
Robert’s opinion editorial can be read in its entirety here. And if you want to read more about Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Campaign, click here. Until next week…
Benghazi Probe Could Last Until 2016, Haunting Hillary
By: David Martosko (UK Daily Mail) House Rules Committee spent Wednesday debating how to constitute the
new Benghazi committee, with Republicans holding out for a 7-5
advantage. Chairman Trey Gowdy told MSNBC viewers that he won’t cut the
investigation short if the Obama administration ‘slow-walks’
cooperation. He also upbraided his own national party for launching a fundraising campaign based on conservative outrage. A long-ranging committee mandate could hobble Hillary Clinton, the
secretary of state when the attack occurred, if she makes a presidential
run. Many Democrats coalesced around a strategy to refuse participation if
the committee doesn’t include an equal number of members from both
parties. Republicans in the Senate are also chomping at the bit, asking for a joint committee that would span both houses of Congress. Republicans’ plan for a special ‘select committee’ charged with
investigating the 2012 Benghazi terror attack reached new levels of
controversy on Wednesday when the congressman who will chair the new
panel said he can foresee its work stretching well into the 2016
election season. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former South Carolina prosecutor, acknowledged on
MSNBC that the timetable would largely be dictated by how much – or how
little – the Obama administration cooperates with subpoenas. ‘It would be shame on us if we intentionally dragged this out for
political expediency,’ said Gowdy, ‘On the other hand, if an
administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial
simply because the defense won’t cooperate.’ Continuing the high-powered spectacle of a no-holds-barred
congressional probe into the presidential race could bring new levels of
public scrutiny to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the
Democrats’ current front-runner in the White House contest.
