Friday, March 23, 2018
Bochum / Germany: Mob of 20-25 people injured 15-year-old schoolboy with a knife life-threatening -- The prime suspect is a refugee from the Middle East
A 15-year-old student was so badly injured in a knife attack in the city of Bochum on Friday that he had to be hospitalized.
20 to 25 suspected migrants today injured a 15-year-old boy with a knife. The knife wound just missed his lung (Photo above). Until the afternoon, police detained eleven people to find out who was involved and who was only a witness. Six were allowed to walk again in the afternoon. According to the daily WAZ information, the main suspect is a refugee from the Middle East.The news of the knife attack worried parents the most. "Many parents have phoned each other to ask if you know who the victim is out of concern that it is your own child," said the father of a student. As far as the safety of his child at school is concerned, he no longer has a "good feeling". He adds: "In my view, the risk for our children of being drawn into a violent conflict in connection with immigration has increased".
Up to two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africa’s 1.1 billion population want to migrate to Europe or to the United States, with millions planning to make the move in the next five years.
The number of sex attacks in Austria has increased for the second straight year following the 2015 migrant crisis with 2017 seeing close to 5,000 sexual assault and rape cases.
Strong Majority of Brits Want to ‘Get on with’ Brexit, Support Across All Regions, Classes, and Parties
Almost 60 per cent of Brits think the government should respect the referendum result and “get on” with delivering Brexit.
By Rick Moran
A donor to the campaigns of New York city Mayor Bill De Blasio testified under oath that he paid bribes to the mayor and others to receive favorable treatment from the city.
Harendra Singh, the owner of the restaurant Water’s Edge, said he steered money to de Blasio’s campaign to deal with property matters including better terms of his lease, the New York Times reports. Singh said that on many occasions they discussed his restaurant lease and donations to de Blasio in the same conversation and that they mayor was actively worked on the illegal activity.
"He made many phone calls," Singh said about de Blasio. "His office was working very hard, from his deputy mayor to his assistant to his intergovernmental affairs person. Everyone was working."
Singh's testimony came during the corruption trial of former Nassau County executive Edward Mangano and former Town of Oyster Bay supervisor John Venditto. The restauranteur has pleaded guilty to bribing both of them. Mangano and Venditto are on trial for charges that include extortion, honest services fraud, and conspiracy. They may face decades in prison.
Do you hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of De Blasio's chances going down the toilet to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
According to Singh, de Blasio requested contributions from him and, when Singh mentioned the contribution limit, the mayor told him to find a way around it. De Blasio simply said, "Listen, I don’t want to know. Just do what you have to do," according to Singh.
Records show Singh, his family, and other associates donated tens of thousands of dollars to de Blasio, but Singh said he funneled much more to the mayor through "straw donors."
Singh was able to skirt the contribution limit, he said, by having others donate to de Blasio and receive reimbursement from Singh. De Blasio and Singh discussed these straw donors twice, the witness testified.
The mayor has said Singh is just trying to avoid jail time by accusing him.
"It was thoroughly looked at, and there’s a reason there were no charges brought, because there was nothing there," de Blasio said in January.
True, Singh is a convicted felon and there should be some doubt attached to his testimony for that reason. But in big city politics, this sort of thing happens. The problem is, Singh does not seem to be politically savvy, as he apparently didn't cover his tracks very well. But De Blasio would almost certainly have taken greater care with who he was doing business with. Would an experienced pol have spoken as portrayed by Singh?
In a "he said, he said" controversy involving the mayor and a convicted felon, who do you think comes out on top?
By Thomas Lifson
We are on the verge of a huge political explosion. While there have been calls for a special counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI scandals, and many conservatives have been outraged at the seeming passivity of “Gentleman Jeff” Sessions (aka, Sessionzzz in some quarters), it now is clear (as I have already figured) that a grand jury far outside the Beltway already is hearing evidence dug up by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose report is now believed to be coming in April. Following release of that report, expect heads to explode all over the media, Deep State, and NeverTrumps.
The first hint that the wheels of justice already are turning came on March 7, when AG Sessions revealed to Shannon Bream:
I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation.
When a federal prosecutor digs into an investigation, a grand jury is empaneled to issue subpoenas and hear testimony. And yesterday, in a response to a subpoena from House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte, the DOJ confirmed that a grand jury indeed exists to investigate the issues uncovered by IG Horowitz, who has been referring criminal matters to the DOJ for some time.
As so often in this labyrinth Sundance of Conservative Tree House is way ahead of the rest of the media in untangling the threads to reveal what is really going on. The first indication came less than a week ago:
Within the response letter from Michael Bromwich, the attorney representing fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, you might note the following (emphasis mine):
[…] The investigation described in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report was cleaved off from the larger investigation of which it was a part, its completion expedited, and the disciplinary process completed in a little over a week. Mr. McCabe and his counsel were given limited access to a draft of the OIG report late last month, did not see the final report and the evidence on which it is based until a week ago, and were receiving relevant exculpatory evidence as recently as two days ago. (pdf link)Within the Office of Professional Responsibility guidelines for Attorney Representation you might also note the following (again, emphasis mine):
The majority of OPR investigations are administrative in nature, and employees are not entitled to counsel as a matter of law. However, counsel may be permitted if counsel does not interfere with or delay the interview. Counsel must be actually retained by the employee as his legal representative, not as an observer. Counsel are not permitted access to certain confidential criminal investigative information and may not be permitted access to grand jury information.. (link)
That makes it pretty clear that information is being withheld, but technically, only says that it can be withheld in order to protect the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. But yesterday, came further confirmation. Sundance exults: Giddy up:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is one of the top three people throughout the entirety of congress with a comprehensive knowledge of the events surrounding the investigations of the FBI and DOJ. Chairman Goodlatte is one of only four people outside the DOJ who have read the full DOJ FISA application used for a Title-1 Surveillance warrant of Carter Page.
The House Judiciary Committee holds the primary statutory oversight over the U.S. Department of Justice. Additionally, Chairman Goodlatte is the congressional office working closest with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. In short, Goodlatte is the center of all ‘oversight’ information circling the investigations into the DOJ and FBI.
However, all of that said, even Chairman Bob Goodlatte doesn’t, and shouldn’t, know what criminal investigations are underway. We’ve explained this dynamic of disconnect numerous times. We really began emphasizing this when AG Jeff Sessions admitted he brought in a prosecutor from outside Washington DC to work with Inspector General Horowitz.
You can read the Goodlatte Subpoenas – HERE – along with the letter that accompanies his demand. However, more important is the response from the DOJ as communicated by Fox News journalist Chad Pergram (emphasis mine):
Oh, what’s that? Yes, the DOJ has to review the demand for evidence because release of those documents might conflict with ongoing Grand Jury information (evidence). Yes, that means a Grand Jury is impaneled, exactly as we expected.
Yes, that also means there are “law enforcement actions” currently ongoing as a result of the prosecutor assigned to reviewing the evidence discovered by Inspector General Horowitz.
Our patience will be rewarded after the IG’s report is published. The federal prosecutor already has that evidence, thanks to the criminal referrals from Horowitz
As soon as the IG publishes his report, the prosecutor can begin subpoenaing witnesses. And now we know there’s already a Grand Jury seated somewhere hearing the criminal evidence he/she has carved out from the overwhelming IG evidence as collected.
My own suspicion is that the grand jury already has quietly heard testimony from cooperating witnesses who have struck deals with the prosecutor because the evidence against them is so strong that their best strategy is to minimize their criminal liability and prison time. That list of possible witnesses would include Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and Bruce Ohr, which would explain why they continue to draw salaries.
Lay in a supply of popcorn. This is going to make Watergate look like the petty burglary it was.