JUST IN! Federals Arrest Democrat Texas State Judge Near Border

Is there no end to the Democrats’ corruption?

Via Breitbart: “Federal authorities arrested a Democrat Texas state judge after a series of raids on his courtroom and his home. Information on the charges and other details of the investigation remain sealed. The judge is expected to be presented in federal court on Monday.

This week, agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigations conducted “law enforcement activity” at the 93rd State District Court, FBI Spokeswoman Michelle Lee revealed to Breitbart Texas. While she could not disclose the details of the operation or its purpose, Lee confirmed the FBI made one arrest. The identity of the person arrested and the charges could not be released until Monday, Lee said.

Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra confirmed the raids to local media shortly after they began. The sheriff posted a message on social media about the presence of FBI agents at the Hidalgo County Courthouse in the 93rd State District Court. Federal agents, as well as state and local authorities, were reportedly present at the judge’s home in Edinburg.”

FBI spokeswoman Michelle Lee confirmed agents were conducting law enforcement activity at the courthouse and said one person had been arrested.

“We are only confirming that an arrest has been made and not releasing additional details,” Lee said. However, Alvarez, who said he will be representing Delgado, insinuated the judge had been arrested.

“Well, I think that’s pretty obvious,” Alvarez said when asked if the judge had been taken into custody.

Delgado has had a problematic career since he was elected in 2001. In 2002, he nearly lost his job following a DWI arrest in Edinburg. In 2005, the charges were dropped, but Delgado was re-indicted on evading arrest and misuse of information charges later that year.

Another corrupt Democrat. No surprise, Democrats are all corrupt law breaking swine. This judge must think that he could take the law into his own hands!! But… luckily one by one they are falling for corruption.

I hope this is a good start on holding judges who violate their oath, and ignore laws or think they can legislate from the bench accountable… We must be patient people, it’s only just begun…God’s got this!!

What do you think? Scroll down to leave a comment below!

Natalie D.

Natalie D. is an American conservative writer who writes for Supreme Insider, Conservative US, and Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot," and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do," drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a "constitutional conservative".

3 thoughts on “JUST IN! Federals Arrest Democrat Texas State Judge Near Border

  • February 3, 2018 at 9:11 pm
    Permalink

    Well let me take a stab at it. The Fed’s pulled the plug with back up from local. Gee, I wonder if I saw Jeff’s finger in there? I sure do hope so. After that smiling face he had Tuesday night, Which I jut loved gawd know’s what the Bantam Rooster is up to.

    Reply
    • February 3, 2018 at 9:34 pm
      Permalink

      It’s about time all these people got what is coming to them if the American public did what politicians and judges did we would be in jail yet they get away with everything,that includes some law enforcement people also

      Reply
  • February 3, 2018 at 11:30 pm
    Permalink

    Facebook Friends: please read all and feel free to repost. This is a rebuttal to the Nunes memo.

    Devin Nunes and other GOP defenders of a President who may have a rendezvous with impeachment want you to believe that the FBI and the Department of Justice are filled with Democrat-loving, biased Trump haters, who will stop at nothing to derail this presidency. In specific, they argue that an application for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance of a Trump staffer named Carter Page betrayed the Bureau’s negative Trump bias because it may not have disclosed that a dossier written by Christopher Steele supplied part of their evidence—and that this dossier was being paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign as a form of opposition research. They also claim, out of context, that Steele was biased against Trump and that this influenced his report writing. A rich claim, if you ask me, coming from Republican staffers and a Chairman in Devin Nunes who also had bias in misusing classified intelligence, taken out of context, to produce a biased document. Those who wrote the memo making this assertion—GOP staffers working for the Committee Nunes has chaired, stepped away from, and then chaired again—argue that a FISC judge would have denied the warrant had he/she known who was paying for it.

    This is not only an irresponsible act which may betray sources and methods of intelligence/counter intelligence for the FBI and other intelligence agencies, it is also a partisan argument that stumbles and fails because of a key point in the timeline leading to the application for the FISA warrant. Consider:

    • In May of 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton; three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
    • Steele dossier written between June and October of 2016
    • Steele first reached out to FBI contact to report his concerns after writing initial part of the dossier in early July, 2016 (he had only authored one memo at this point)
    • In July of 2016, Australian officials—alarmed to see leaked DNC emails appearing online, make the connection back to what Papadopoulos had boasted about—contact officials at the FBI to share information about Russian intervention in the election and attempts by them to help Trump campaign win.
    • Later in summer, based upon information supplied by by Australian officials, FBI applies for FISA warrant to continue to surveil Carter Page.
    • In October of 2016, Steele meets f2f with FBI officials to report more broadly on his concerns. Steele is asked if knows about Papadopoulos—but reports saying he does not know of him. By this point, the FBI already had the same information about Russian efforts to intervene in the presidential election, as well allegations about an intention to share information with the Trump campaign to discredit HRC.

    Significance of timeline: It is irrelevant if FBI failed to disclose that Steele’s report was being paid for by DNC or Clinton at this point. The Steele report corroborated information passed on to the FBI by Australian officials—and very likely others (probably Russian sources, just like the ones who had identified Carter Page as someone Russian spies tried to cultivate in New York four years earlier in 2013) before the FBI sought a FISA warrant. If two disparate sources (Steele in his dossier and the Australians based on comments made by Papadopoulos) were reporting the same main point about election interference and attempts to collaborate with the Trump campaign (Steele’s report quotes Russian sources naming Page in specific detail at page 9 of his dossier)—that would be MORE than enough to meet the standard for receiving a warrant, by demonstrating Page might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

    More to the point: the FISA warrant application process after the Steele meeting in October was for a reissuance of the same warrant requested and granted in the summer. Steele’s evidence was the newest evidence. To get a warrant reissued, it is critical to offer the newest evidence. That’s all this was. Republican inferences that somehow FBI officials like Andrew McCabe were waiting for biased evidence to introduce to get the warrant reissued misses the point. Steele’s dossier also contained reports on Carter Page and his activities in Russia, on behalf of the Trump campaign. It corroborated earlier concerns and evidence about Page. It was the newest evidence available to reissue the original warrant to surveil Page.

    The standard of proof necessary for FISA warrants—original or reissued—is actually quite high.

    In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence investigations wrote:

    (Begin former Agent Rangappa article)

    “… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.
    There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.
    The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
    But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.
    What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
    The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.
    The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
    …In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.”
    (Article by former Agent Rangappa concludes)

    But for the sake of argument, let’s just suppose you don’t buy this—and you want to reject the Steele dossier because you feel its claims are unsubstantiated and possibly false. If you believe that—what part of the dossier rings false to you?

    The two big complaints about the accuracy of the Steele Dossier focus on the claims that Trump allegedly had a sex party of sorts with sex workers in the same Russian hotel room the Obamas had once stayed in. The other complaint concerns the dossiers claim about the travel schedule for Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Let’s consider each of these in turn.

    After hearing Trump’s voice brag about “grabbing” women “by the P***Y”—do you have any doubts about his interactions with women, generally? After learning that his lawyer (whom we will get to in a moment) arranged a payment of $130,000 for a non-disclosure agreement with a former adult film actress whose stage name is “Stormy Daniels”—with whom Mr. Trump is alleged to have had a sexual affair, and who, according to a news story in 2011, invited another adult film actress to join Trump and Daniels for… —do you think it impossible for him to have had relations with sex workers in a Russian hotel? Is it so far-fetched? I am not saying it is true, but are you so sure that this is all a lie?

    The other main bone of contention is about Trump’s lawyer—Michael Cohen—mentioned in the dossier to have traveled to Prague, to meet with Russian officials and worked out some details for the Russian/Trump campaign arrangement. Cohen vehemently denies this meeting took place—and offered as evidence a photo of his passport that, he claimed, had no stamps showing entry to the Czech Republic in 2016. The stamps that were in the passport, however, showed Cohen had traveled to Italy once in 2016. This is significant because entrance to the Czech Republic from Italy would not require a stamp on a U.S. passport. Me thinks the lawyer doth protest too much…and not too well.

    These two points (sex workers/ hotel in Russia and Cohen’s supposed meeting in Prague) are really only a small part of the 35 page dossier. All of which leaves us with the rest of the dossier, which focuses in detail on the different ways the Russians sought to intervene in and affect the outcome of the 2016 election. The consensus of opinion in our intelligence and counter-intelligence community is that the Russians did exactly that. So again I ask the question: why are some of you still so certain the dossier was/is false?
    Perhaps more important: why believe a denial of this by a President who consistently, persistently and unashamedly lies about virtually any issue?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *