Dylann Roof Found Guilty on All Counts in the Emanuel AME Church Massacre Trial in Charleston, South Carolina

GUILTY AS SIN!!!

Dylann Roof has been found guilty on all 33 counts in his trial in connection with the Mother Emanuel church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina that left 9 black parishioners dead. It took a 12-person panel a little over two hours to convict Roof on all 33 counts, including two dozen that fall under federal hate crime statutes. The jury will break for Christmas and return after the holidays on January 3, 2017 to begin debating whether the 22-year-old mass killer spends the rest of his life in prison, or is given the death penalty.

After nearly a week of painful testimony that vividly re-created the massacre at this city’s famed Mother Emanuel church, it took jurors about two hours Thursday to convict Dylann Roof in his federal hate crimes trial.

Roof was charged with 33 counts in his federal indictment. He was found guilty on every single one. Family members of the nine parishioners gunned down last year nodded silently as each charge was read aloud. Some held hands, their eyes shut tightly, as each guilty verdict was announced in the courtroom just a mile from the church.

With Roof’s guilt effectively unquestioned, this verdict was seen as likely, and the trial largely hinged on what happens next. Mirroring what happened during the Boston Marathon bombing trial last year — the last case that saw the Justice Department obtain a rare federal death sentence — there was no real question about guilt. Prosecutors played video footage of Roof admitting his guilt to FBI agents, and Roof’s attorneys did not argue that he was innocent.

Instead, the larger question surrounding the trial has focused on the next portion of the case, which will deal with whether Roof is sentenced to death or life in prison.

Two Teen Juveniles Charged with Arson in Tennessee Wildfires that Left 14 People Dead … Might Be Charged as Adults

Two teen juveniles have been charged with aggravated arson in connection with the wildfires that tore through Eastern Tennessee, including Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, that killed 14 people and damaging or destroying hundreds of buildings and properties. It is not known yet whether the two teens will be charged as adults. According to 4th District Attorney General James Dunn, additional charges are being considered, including the possibility of seeking a transfer to adult criminal court. The youths were from Tennessee, but not from Sevier County, where the fires started. At this time, there is no additional information about the youths was made available, including their age and gender.

The question is … should these two juveniles be charged as adults for the crimes, deaths and wide spread damage they caused?

Two juveniles have been charged with aggravated arson in connection with the wildfires that ravaged two East Tennessee resort towns last week, killing 14 people and leaving nearly 150 others injured and damaging or destroying hundreds of properties, authorities said Wednesday.

During an investigation involving local, state and federal agents, “information was developed that two juveniles allegedly started the fire” that roared through Great Smoky Mountains National Park before spreading into Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said in a news release.

Both were taken into custody Wednesday and are being held at the Sevier County Juvenile Detention Center.

The suspects are Tennessee residents, District Attorney General Jimmy B. Dunn said at a news conference in Sevierville. No additional information about the youths was made available, including their age and gender.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman General James E. Cartwright Pleaded Guilty to Felony Charge of Lying to the FBI During Investigation Into the Leaking of Classified Information and Could Face Jail Time

UNBELIEVABLE … GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT PLEADS GUILTY OF LYING TO FBI AND FACES JAIL TIME, YET HILLARY CLINTON WALKED FREE FOR DOING FAR MORE …

To borrow a phrase from Obama and Hillary Clinton … how come Hillary didn’t have to pay her fair share for the crimes she committed?

Its a sick, corrupt world we live in under the Obama Administration as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman General James E. Cartwright pleased guilty to the felony charge of lying to the FBI during its investigation into the leaking of classified information about covert operations against Iran to two journalists. Under his plea deal, Cartwright could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. UNREAL. Hillary Clinton committed far worse crimes, including lying to the FBI during the investigation of the use of her private email server, let alone the use of the server containing classified US documents and the cover up and deletion of 33,000 emails after having been subpoenaed. And the FBI did nothing even though there was an obvious mountain of evidence against her. But that is what happens when we have a corrupt FBI playing politics and covering for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Now they and the Justice Department felt they needed a scalp to make themselves look good. Sorry, you both look even more corrupt and pathetic.

He used to be Obama’s favorite general … look where that got him. I guess he should have run for president

The Obama administration Justice Department has investigated three senior officials for mishandling classified information over the past two years but only one faces a felony conviction, possible jail time and a humiliation that will ruin his career: former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman General James E. Cartwright. The FBI’s handling of the case stands in stark contrast to its treatment of Hillary Clinton and retired General David Petraeus — and it reeks of political considerations.

Monday marked a stunning fall from grace for Cartwright, the man once known as “Obama’s favorite general,” who pleaded guilty to the felony charge of lying to the FBI during its investigation into the leaking of classified information about covert operations against Iran to two journalists. His lawyer Greg Craig said in a statement that Cartwright spoke with David Sanger of the New York Times and Dan Klaidman of Newsweek as a confirming source for stories they had already reported, in an effort to prevent the publication of harmful national security secrets.

Under his plea deal, Cartwright could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Last year, Petraeus cut a deal with the Justice Department after admitting he had lied to the FBI and passed hundreds of highly classified documents to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. He pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor of mishandling classified information and was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine.

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath and She Can’t Recall Anything

UNBELIEVABLE … HILLARY CLINTON’S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES IS SHE CAN’T RECALL ANYTHING.

Judicial Watch has released Hillary Clinton’s written responses under oath to their court ordered interrogatories by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan and the answers are typical Clintonian nonsense and a disgrace. The former Secretary of State and current Democrat nominee for president seems to have forgot everything. I am beginning to wonder if she could recall her name. So what seems to be the problem with Hillary Clinton, does she have no short term memory, no long term memory, or is she just a lying and deceptive sack of sh*t? America, do you want to wake up one day to Hillary saying, I don’t recall that I took away the Second Amendment and America’s liberties?

AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON! WE ARE ALL BEING PLAYED BY THE CLINTON’S, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE MSM. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. DO NOT REWARD THIS LIAR WITH THE PRESIDENCY.

What difference does it make that I can’t recall, the MSM will never report on it, they are in my pocket

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

1) Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as outside the scope of permitted discovery. The clintonemail.com system, as that term is defined in the Instructions and subject to Secretary Clinton’s objection to that definition, consisted of equipment set up to host e-mail for President Clinton’s staff. Information regarding the creation of that system, including the reasons for its creation, is irrelevant to this lawsuit and outside the scope of permitted discovery. The Court permitted discovery in this case on the question of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.” Dkt. #124, at 17 (emphasis added). That question is the subject of Interrogatory No. 2, which is answered below.

2) Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

Response: In the Senate, when Secretary Clinton began using e-mail, she used a personal e-mail account for both work-related and personal e-mail. Secretary Clinton decided to transition from the account she used in her tenure at the Senate to the clintonemail.com account. She recalls that it was created in early 2009. Secretary Clinton did not set up the account. Although Secretary Clinton does not have specific knowledge of the details of the account’s creation, her best understanding is that one of President Clinton’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the account. She decided to use a clintonemail.com account for the purpose of convenience.

3) When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

Response: Secretary Clinton recalls deciding to use a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business in early 2009. She does not recall any specific consultations regarding the decision to use the clintonemail.com account for official State Department business.

4) Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 4 insofar as it purports to request information about communications after her tenure as Secretary of State, which communications would be irrelevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of her clintonemail.com account while she was Secretary of State. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall participating in any communications before or during her tenure as Secretary of State concerning or relating to her decision to use a clintonemail.com account to conduct official State Department business.

5) In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 5 insofar as it misstates her comments in the 60 Minutes interview that aired on July 24, 2016. In that interview, she stated that “it was recommended that [using personal e-mail] would be convenient.” Subject to that objection, Secretary Clinton states that former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised her in 2009 about his use of a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business.

6) Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it requests information about communications made to other persons that were not conveyed to Secretary Clinton. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws.

7) Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving that objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering factors other than convenience in deciding to use a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business.

Read more

18 Year Old Austrian Girl Sues Parents for Sharing Embarrassing Childhood Photos on Facebook

ARE YOU KIDDING … TEEN SUES PARENTS FOR POSTING EMBARRASSING PICS ON FACEBOOK WITHOUT HER CONSENT …

In an age of social media narcissism where teens do nothing but post embarrassing pics of themselves, an 18 year old Austrian teen is suing her parents for posting photos of her without her consent. The teen claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood. It is the first of it’s kind case in Austria. No kidding? Why  does this sound more like the whining nature of today’s immature millennials who can’t seem to cope with anything and think they can sue for being uncomfortable? Believe it or not, if it can be proven that the images have violated the teen’s rights to a personal life, her parents could lose the case and they could have to pay some financial compensation for her pain and suffering, and will also be liable for her legal costs. UNREAL. According to accounts, when the teen girl asked her parents to take them down, they refused. She stated, “I’m tired of not being taken seriously by my parents.” BINGO!!! There lies the issue. A frivolous lawsuit because a teen feels slighted by her parents.

A 18-year-old woman from Carinthia is suing her parents for posting photos of her on Facebook without her consent.

She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood.

Her lawyer Michael Rami says that to date, her parents have posted 500 images of her on the social media site without her consent, and he believes she has a good chance of winning in court.

The shared images include baby pictures of her having her nappy changed and later potty training pictures.

“They knew no shame and no limit – and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot – every stage was photographed and then made public,” the 18-year-old said. The photos were shared on Facebook with her parents’ 700 friend.

Despite her requests, they have refused to delete the photos – prompting her to sue them. “I’m tired of not being taken seriously by my parents”, she said. Her father believes that since he took the photos he has the right to publish the images.