Police have identified the suspect who killed eight people and injured 11 more in New York City on Tuesday when he barreled into a bike path and then rammed a pickup truck into a crowd.
The suspected driver, 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, shouted “Allahu Akbar” after the crash, law enforcement officials tell Fox News. Saipov, who was shot by police, was taken into custody and remains hospitalized.
The suspect was from Uzbekistan and had a green card, a source told Fox News. According to The Associated Press, Saipov has a Florida license but may have been living in New Jersey, and came to the U.S. in 2010.
New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin writes:
Forgive yourself if you are confused about developments in the Russia, Russia, Russia storyline. In fact, there are so many moving parts that you shouldn’t trust anybody who isn’t confused.
Consider this, then, a guide to the perplexed, where we start with two things that are certain. First, special counsel Robert Mueller will never be able to untangle the tangled webs with any credibility and needs to step aside.
Mueller, whose office is apparently leaking the “secret” news that a grand jury has approved charges against an unidentified defendant, assumed his role with one big conflict, his relationship with his successor at the FBI, James Comey. That conflict has morphed into several more that are fixable only by resignation.
That became obvious last week when events showed that any honest probe must examine the Obama White House and Justice Department. Mueller served as head of the FBI for more than four years under President Obama and cannot be expected to investigate his former colleagues and bosses.
But without that necessary step, his work would be incomplete at best. So it’s time for him to say bye-bye.
Goodwin further opines, basically, that as bad as the week has been for Mueller, it’s been even worse for Hillary Clinton.
A federal grand jury in D.C. has reportedly approved the first round of charges “in special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.” But what the charges are — and the identities of those charged — is being kept under wraps at this stage.
Arrests are expected to be carried out on Monday.
The Democratic adversaries of Donald Trump were confident that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election would, sooner or later, get done the job it was set up from the beginning to do — that is, remove Donald Trump from the White House.
It’s not quite working out that way. Mr. Mueller is apparently not finding what he thought he would find and is looking into matters that don’t seem to be much about Russians, elections or even Donald Trump. He has moved into the high weeds in search of something credible to hang his very expensive investigation on. He has hired a lot of highly paid Washington lawyers, some of whom were donors to Hillary’s campaign, and Washington is suddenly rife with speculation and gossip that they haven’t found much that sounds very jail-y.
Now something from the recent past may be gaining on Hillary and nervous Democrats. The hunters have become the hunted. Republicans in Congress announced two new investigations Wednesday, one to revisit Hillary’s email scheme and the other, a cozy uranium deal by the Obama administration with Hillary, as secretary of State, pushing it along, to give the Russians effective control of 20 percent of the American supply of uranium, which is used in the manufacture of, among other things, nuclear weapons.
That’s a nasty turn of events for Hillary Clinton and the Dems, just when they thought they were almost home and dry.
From a report by Dave Boyer, White House correspondent for The Washington Times:
Vice President Mike Pence announced Wednesday night that President Trump has ordered the State Department to shut off funding for “ineffective” United Nations programs to help persecuted Christians in the Middle East, saying the administration will take over those efforts directly.
Saying Christians have been victims of a genocide at the hands of the Islamic State across the Middle East, Mr. Pence said the “sad reality” is that the U.N. spends about $1 billion per year on humanitarian aid in the region that doesn’t help Christians enough.
“While faith-based groups with proven track records and deep roots in these communities are more than willing to assist, the United Nations too often denies their funding requests,” Mr. Pence said. “My friends, those days are over. This is the moment. Now is the time. And America will support these people in their hour of need.”
New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin writes:
And so the worm turns. Make that worms.
Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.
Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.
In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.
Anybody surprised? Me neither.
And here’s another thing that spells trouble ahead for Clinton and the DNC:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign finance law by failing to disclose payments for a dossier on Donald Trump, according to a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.
The complaint from the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center said the Democrats effectively hid the payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient.
“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and strategy at CLC and a former FEC official. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”
The situation developing here is a classic case of what goes around comes around.
From the DailyMail.com:
A Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump ‘dirty dossier’ denied involvement in the project for a year as reporters pressed him for information.
Marc Elias brokered a deal between the Clinton camp, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the president while he was running for office.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
‘Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,’ Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Post linked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
The deal began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for an unnamed client during the Republican primary.
But the dossier itself was funded entirely by Democrats, using Elias as a middle-man.
After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.
Among other things, “the dossier claims that the Russian FSB spy agency had a video of Trump asking prostitutes to urinate on a bed which was filmed during his 2013 visit to a luxury Moscow hotel for the Miss Universe contest” — hence the ‘golden showers’ label.
In April 2015, the story broke that the Obama administration, in concert with Hillary Clinton’s State Department, allowed Russia “to gain control of 20 percent of America’s uranium” reserves. The news sent shock waves reverberating “through the halls of power in Washington.” It was unfathomable, why the United States would approve a deal giving Russia and Vladimir Putin one-fifth of its strategic uranium reserves.
Then, during the 2016 presidential campaign, fresh light was cast on the matter when questions arose about “money flowing to the Clinton Foundation, accusations of pay for play with financial benefits for the Clintons winning out over national security concerns,” and the Obama Justice Department seeming “to do nothing about it.”
There was more than enough smoke for the FBI to investigate official government favors in exchange for big donations to the Clinton Foundation, but agents ran into a hyper-politicized Attorney General in Loretta Lynch, whose public integrity section said it “did not have enough evidence to move forward,” according to Washington Post in October 2016.
Last week, blockbuster allegations surfaced in The Hill shedding light on what was happening inside the Obama administration and FBI while Russia was seeking control of massive amounts of our uranium supply. It turns out that the Obama administration inexplicably approved the uranium deal with Russia even though the FBI was investigating a massive corruption scheme that included bribery, extortion and other felonies involving Russia’s nuclear energy industry in the United States.
And “a key FBI informant in the Russian corruption case,” who was — and still is — eager to provide vital evidence, “was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from testifying before Congress. This individual must now be cleared to tell his story to congressional investigators without delay.”
Moreover, “with the new allegations surrounding Russian corruption and the Uranium One deal, Attorney General Jeff Sessions must finally appoint an impartial special counsel to thoroughly investigate these matters.”
Former Mayor of Cincinnati Ken Blackwell writes:
Texans have a saying for people who talk big but act small: All hat, no cattle. It’s hard to think of someone better fitting that description than Rep. Frederica Wilson, the Florida Democrat with a multitude of colorful hats but no decency.
Sgt. La David T. Johnson died fighting for his country and our freedoms. Sadly, there is nothing anyone can say to his widow, Myeshia Johnson, to take away her pain. Even a president who could movingly express the American people’s sense of loss — think President Ronald Reagan’s speech after the Challenger space shuttle disaster — couldn’t restore family members’ personal loss.
President Donald Trump tried and didn’t succeed with Ms. Johnson. Neither is to blame. She had just received the worst news imaginable. He wasn’t trained for such a difficult task.
But why is Big Hat Wilson involved? She said she was “horrified” by what the president said. Of course, she’s a liberal activist. Anything he said would have horrified her. It’s hardly news when she trashes the president.
In fact, she is an experienced practitioner in the politics of demagoguery. The Rhinestone Cowgirl took advantage of an earlier tragedy — the shooting of Trayvon Martin — to score political points. No one benefited from her attempt to exploit his unfortunate death.
Now, she’s using the same tactic again, only this time taking advantage of the death of American soldiers confronting terrorists in the nation of Niger.
“The Sackler dynasty’s ruthless marketing of painkillers has generated billions of dollars — and millions of addicts. An addiction specialist said that the Sacklers’ firm, Purdue Pharma, bears the “lion’s share” of the blame for the opioid crisis.”
From New Yorker Magazine:
According to Forbes, the Sacklers are now one of America’s richest families, with a collective net worth of thirteen billion dollars — more than the Rockefellers or the Mellons. The bulk of the Sacklers’ fortune has been accumulated only in recent decades, yet the source of their wealth is to most people as obscure as that of the robber barons. While the Sacklers are interviewed regularly on the subject of their generosity, they almost never speak publicly about the family business, Purdue Pharma — a privately held company, based in Stamford, Connecticut, that developed the prescription painkiller OxyContin. Upon its release, in 1995, OxyContin was hailed as a medical breakthrough, a long-lasting narcotic that could help patients suffering from moderate to severe pain. The drug became a blockbuster, and has reportedly generated some thirty-five billion dollars in revenue for Purdue.
But OxyContin is a controversial drug. Its sole active ingredient is oxycodone, a chemical cousin of heroin which is up to twice as powerful as morphine. In the past, doctors had been reluctant to prescribe strong opioids — as synthetic drugs derived from opium are known — except for acute cancer pain and end-of-life palliative care, because of a long-standing, and well-founded, fear about the addictive properties of these drugs. “Few drugs are as dangerous as the opioids,” David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, told me.
Purdue launched OxyContin with a marketing campaign that attempted to counter this attitude and change the prescribing habits of doctors. The company funded research and paid doctors to make the case that concerns about opioid addiction were overblown, and that OxyContin could safely treat an ever-wider range of maladies. Sales representatives marketed OxyContin as a product “to start with and to stay with.” Millions of patients found the drug to be a vital salve for excruciating pain. But many others grew so hooked on it that, between doses, they experienced debilitating withdrawal.
Since 1999, two hundred thousand Americans have died from overdoses related to OxyContin and other prescription opioids. Many addicts, finding prescription painkillers too expensive or too difficult to obtain, have turned to heroin. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, four out of five people who try heroin today started with prescription painkillers. The most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that a hundred and forty-five Americans now die every day from opioid overdoses.
Andrew Kolodny, the co-director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative, at Brandeis University, has worked with hundreds of patients addicted to opioids. He told me that, though many fatal overdoses have resulted from opioids other than OxyContin, the crisis was initially precipitated by a shift in the culture of prescribing — a shift carefully engineered by Purdue. “If you look at the prescribing trends for all the different opioids, it’s in 1996 that prescribing really takes off,” Kolodny said. “It’s not a coincidence. That was the year Purdue launched a multifaceted campaign that misinformed the medical community about the risks.” When I asked Kolodny how much of the blame Purdue bears for the current public-health crisis, he responded, “The lion’s share.”
“I don’t know how many rooms in different parts of the world I’ve given talks in that were named after the Sacklers,” Allen Frances, the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, told me. “Their name has been pushed forward as the epitome of good works and of the fruits of the capitalist system. But, when it comes down to it, they’ve earned this fortune at the expense of millions of people who are addicted. It’s shocking how they have gotten away with it.”