Thursday, July 25, 2019

ILLEGAL ALIEN KIDNAPPED IOWA TEENAGER, TRIED TO RAPE HER

CEDAR FALLS, IA (KCRG) – A man is facing charges after he allegedly kidnapped a 16-year-old off a front porch and tried to sexually assault her.

According to Cedar Falls police, the 16-year-old girl was babysitting and sitting outside with the child Tuesday afternoon. That’s when Saul Santos Vasquez-Martinez, 43, grabbed her and forced her into his home at 708 West 18th Street.

Police said Vasquez-Martinez then forced her into a bedroom and tried to pull down her shirt and put his hands down her pants. She resisted and escaped, running back to the home where she was babysitting.

The teen locked the doors and called for help.

She had minor injuries, police said. The child who was being babysat was not hurt.

Vasquez-Martinez was booked on...

There Is This Mysterious Report That Has His Name On It!!!!

This Is Straight Out Of Area 51 Kind Of Shit!!!

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored reportreleased in May to the public.

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”

“True,” Mueller said.

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.

1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.

“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.

“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

Mueller responded: “No.”

Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”

Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”

Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.

Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”

When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”

Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.

“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.

2. Indicting a President

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee, it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.

That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.

Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.

During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”

Mueller: “That is correct.”

It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

3. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”

“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”

Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”

During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.

Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.

“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.

4. Allusions to Impeachment

The White House • July 24, 2019

A bad day for the Swamp

It’s hard to understate just how badly today went for Congressional Democrats. It took a pressure campaign from the left to get former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to agree to testify before Congress in the first place. Now that he has, the reactions to today’s hearing from across the political spectrum were as ruthless as they are revealing.

Here are a few of those reflections:

“Impeachment is over. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is going to stand for her members bringing forth something that is going to obviously lose.” – ABC News’ Terry Moran
“I think the Democrats have to be disappointed that [Mueller] didn’t more vigorously defend his process and the team.” – former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
“Aside from difficult to watch testimony, there has been no new information and no elaboration on the 448-page report.” – CNN Commentator Alice Stewart
“There were also times when it seemed like [Mueller] was unfamiliar with parts of the investigation.” – CNN’s Jake Tapper
“One has to wonder, too, where Democrats go from here.” – Politico’s Blake Hounshell

If Democrats were looking to make headlines with today’s political theater, they got them. “This is Painful,” Mediaite reports in a pundit round-up. “A Sometimes Halting Mueller Parries Questions,” The Washington Post writes. “Democrats And Media Admit: Mueller's Testimony Was A Total Disaster,” Townhall reports.

They’re right. After taking 22 months, calling more than 500 witnesses, issuing more than 2,800 subpoenas, and spending more than $30 million in taxpayer money, Congressional Democrats didn’t get the result they were hoping for from the Special Counsel’s report. In response, they spent more than 6 hours today pressuring Mueller to say something different than what his team concluded in their 448-page analysis.

They came up empty.

While Democrats looked foolish, that isn’t what made today a bad day for the Swamp. It’s a bad day because, once again, Washington put itself first. Americans are sick of partisan theatrics and desperate for our leaders to keep their promises to the voters who sent them here. Instead, Congress spent yet another day arguing about the results of an election that happened more than two and a half years ago.

In that time, President Donald J. Trump’s attention has been on the working-class Americans who put their trust in him. There is plenty of work left to be done, but the results so far are encouraging:

More than 6 million new jobs have been created since Election Day 2016.
The 3.7 percent unemployment rate remains near its lowest mark in 49 years.
Unemployment has hit record or near-record low rates for historically marginalized groups including African-Americans, Hispanics, and women.
U.S. stock markets continue to break record highs.
Manufacturing job growth soared to a more than two-decade high last year.

And that’s just the economy. From criminal justice reform that will make America’s streets safer while giving former inmates a second chance at life, to veterans choice programs that are holding the VA accountable to our nation’s heroes, President Trump is working each day to keep his promises to voters.

Imagine how incredible America could be doing if Congressional Democrats joined us?

“Not buying it: Voter skepticism about Mueller investigation grows, says Politico poll”

Rep. Kelly Armstrong to Mueller: “Federal recusal law exists for a reason.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz: What Mueller’s probe left out

Photo of the Day

Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

President Donald J. Trump talks to members of the press on the South Lawn of the White House | July 24, 2019

Morning Mistress

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

14-Year-Old Alleged Victim Releases Text Messages, Voice Messages From Trans Activist Jessica Yaniv, Files ‘Child Exploitation’ Report

Male-to-female transgender LGBT activist Jessica Yaniv, who has filed a total of 16 complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against female estheticians who do not wish to wax his male genitalia, has now been accused of sexually exploiting 20-year-old Jessica Rumpel when she was a teenager.

Yaniv allegedly began sending Rumpel inappropriate messages when the girl was just 14 years old (Yaniv would have been 27); in one message, for example, Yaniv whines that Rumpel is not yet 16 and that they therefore cannot "do anything with uuuu [sic]." In other disturbing messages, Yaniv asks to see the girl's used menstrual pad and sends a voice message in an Elmo voice, singing, “Jessica Rumpel’s” breasts bounce "up and down.” Yaniv also suggested to Rumple that he was “horny,” following it up by telling the girl, “Why are u always so beautiful LOL.” He also sent her a video of a sex toy.

related: Trans Activist With Penis Organizes Topless Swimming Session For Girls as Young as 12, Parents Not Allowed to be Present

Rumpel came forward with screenshots of the messages and video of voice messages allegedly sent by Yaniv earlier this week, as first reported by The Post Millennial’s Anna Slatz.

“Rumpel states that Yaniv sent her a series of disturbing questions while anonymous, before adding her to the private messenger application Kik. Kik is known to law enforcement for its notoriously poor protection of children, and its routine usage by pedophiles to message each other and their victims. According to Rumpel, Yaniv allegedly presented himself as a young male in his 'late twenties,' and claims that he used pictures of himself when he was younger in their initial conversation,” Slatz reported.

“He liked to make himself be the victim. He actually told me he had folliculitis and depression,” said Rumple, adding, “I always wanted to be there for anyone who was suffering. Anyone who needed someone to listen to them.”

According to Slatz, Rumpel filed a report of child exploitation against Yaniv on Tuesday...