This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Special Counsel John Durham, in a report that is devastatingly critical of the FBI, the Department of Justice and others who conspired to create a "Russia collusion" investigation into President Trump when he was a candidate in 2016, says there was no evidence to support that collusion.
In fact, the nation now knows from the evidence that members of the Deep State in Washington worked with Democrats in the Hillary Clinton campaign to create claims of collusion against Trump.
Durham was assigned to review how those claims came to be, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller spent years of time, millions of dollars, and a good share of Trump's first term, finding no evidence of that collusion.
Durham's report said the agenda before there were claims regarding comments by George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, "the government possessed no verified intelligence reflecting that Trump or the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government. Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the intant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
That investigation by the FBI was slated for termination when FBI agents, including one who boasted they would make sure that Trump never was elected president, demanded that it be continued, even without evidence.
That agent, Peter Strzok, "had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interview of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence."
The report announced no further charges, the apparent punishment being the massive shaming by being named in the blast at the incompetencies of the FBI and DOJ.
Shortly after the report appeared, Trump released a statement calling for former FBI Director James Comey and Democrats to be held to account for their collusion and conspiracies that resulted in the years-long investigations.
"I, and much more importantly, then American public have been victims of this long-running and treasonous charade started by the Democrats — started by Comey," he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "There must be a heavy price to pay for putting our country through this."
He said Durham's report took a long time because he is "thorough." But he said the result is "unequivocal and an absolute disaster in terms of justice. … The national security implications of what they did are very grave."
Had ordinary procedures been followed, instead of a "get-Trump" agenda, the FBI would have found immediately that "their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved…"
Durham found that instead of providing a "defensive briefing" to Trump, as would have been normal, the FBI launched immediately into its pursuit of special court permission to spy on the campaign. To obtain that permission, the FBI made up stories and presented them to the courts as facts.
Additionally, the FBI was unable to corroborate "any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The Washington Examiner said Durham concluded the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law."
Durham also said "Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."
"This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation," the report said. "In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."
"The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence," the report said.
Durham indicted three people as part of his investigation: former Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann in September 2021, "source" Igor Danchenko in November 2021 and FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.
In trials in the highly politicized Washington atmosphere, where members generally oppose Trump by massive numbers, Sussmann and Danchenko were found to be not guilty. Clinesmith pleaded guilty and served community service time.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kansas lawmakers have voted 84-40 in the House and 28-12 in the Senate to override a veto by Gov. Laura Kelly and adopt the "Women's Bill of Rights," which gives women significant new protections.
"This is common sense legislation by Kansas lawmakers that dispenses with the false, unscientific idea that people can change their gender," explained Mat Staver, the founder, and chief of Liberty Counsel.
"This ‘Women’s Bill of Rights' protects the privacy and safety of men and women. Biology is fixed at birth and enacting laws based on fact not fiction is what every state should be doing," he said.
The plan legally defines "male" and "female" based on a person's anatomy at birth, and requires that Kansans "must use public restrooms that correspond to their biological sex," the report said.
"The Kansas law differs from other states' bathroom protections by actually defining 'man' and 'woman.' The bill biologically defines the word 'woman' as a 'human female,' and goes further stating 'female means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova [a female egg]," Liberty Counsel said.
It applies protections for women in the state's "restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, domestic violence shelters, and rape crisis centers" and "other areas."
Further, it forbids government officials from calling biological men women, or vice versa.
The Liberty Counsel report said, "Supporters of the bill say its enactment is a direct response to people’s concerns about people uncomfortably sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, and other spaces with people who are clearly the opposite biological sex."
"We want to have safety," said Kansas House Health Committee chief Brenda Landwehr. "This will protect women’s spaces currently reserved for women and men’s spaces [also]."
Essentially, the new requirements forbid officials and executives, even judges, "from unilaterally redefining the word 'woman' to mean anyone who 'identifies as a woman.'"
"Today is a huge win for Kansas women! I applaud the legislature for their leadership and commitment to protecting the sex-based rights of women," explained Riley Gaines, a 12-time All-American swimmer who was forced to compete again Lia Thomas, a man who identifies as a woman and was allowed to compete on a women's swim team.
"As a woman and a female athlete, I can attest firsthand to the importance of women having private spaces when safety and fairness are at risk. Now that the ‘Women’s Bill of Rights’ will be Kansas law, women have clarity that when they enter a space labeled for ‘women’, biological men will not be inside," she said.
The report said legal precedent is on the side of the state, as virtually anything that limits the LGBT agenda today gets sued.
In a related fight, out of Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said policies based on biology do not violate the Constitution.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who assembled a 34-count case against President Trump that top legal experts have described as nothing but a political attack, now wants to make sure no one interferes with his claims.
Bragg's case essentially is based on claims of misdemeanor bookkeeping problems for which the statute of limitations has expired. But he claims they're felonies, and still can be prosecuted because they somehow contributed to the furtherance of other crimes, which he has not specified.
Now he's responding to members of Congress who have promised to investigate the political maneuver, and already have subpoenaed a former member of Bragg's staff who quit in a spat because charges against Trump weren't filed quickly enough.
That deputy, Mark Pomerantz, did what analysts have concluded was highly unethical – he published a book about his claims against Trump, outlining what he thought should happen.
The Washington Examiner said Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claiming that Jordan's promise of a congressional investigation is "interference" in Bragg's case that got its start in claims of hush money being paid to Stormy Daniels over an affair that both Trump and Daniels deny happened.
Bragg claimed in his state court action that Jordan was committing an "unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress."
"First, they indict a president for no crime. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it."
Specifically, Bragg is trying to block the subpoena for Pomerantz.
He was investigating Trump in Bragg's office but quit in a disagreement with Bragg.
Bragg claims, "Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the office of the district attorney and the people of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it."
Jordan, and others in Congress, have been reviewing Bragg's office's action following the indictment that many experts, both conservative and liberal, say is a political stunt that is the latest in a long line of Democrat attacks on Trump.
Bragg, in fact, campaigned for office on his agenda of trying to get Trump.
The House Judiciary said, "Why’s Alvin Bragg scared of congressional oversight? Really makes you wonder."
Jordan already has explained his committee has jurisdiction to review actions because of the federal funds being used, and the allegations made in the indictment during a federal election.
Trump has said Bragg's scheme is nothing more than election interference.
Fox News reports Bragg, a Democrat and longtime critic of Trump, wants the judge to cancel the subpoenas that Jordan has – or might – issue.
For Bragg's part, he has refused to answer any questions from Congress.
WND reported that Pomerantz repeatedly had urged Bragg to charge Trump with something.
But Bragg's determination at the time was there was no case, and so Pomerantz left the office and, in a move that critics say violated a major ethics boundary for prosecutors, wrote a book about how Trump needed to be charged.
Bragg ultimately caved, assembling a grand jury indictment. Pomerantz was subpoenaed when he refused to cooperate with Congress.
At the time, Jordan wrote, "We received a reply letter dated March 27, 2023, stating that, at the instruction of the New York County District Attorney's Office, you would not cooperate with our oversight. The New York County District Attorney's unprecedented prosecutorial conduct requires oversight to inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions."
Trump has called Bragg's work a "witch hunt," following a long list of Democrat "witch hunts" launched against him, starting with the now-debunked "Russiagate" claims made against him during the 2016 campaign.
Federal prosecutors and lawyers with the Federal Election Commission already have reviewed the claims made by Bragg and found no case against Trump.