Old Dominion University shooter ID'd as likely jihadist

I posted about a reported shooter at Old Dominion University, here, that wounded two people and ended the shooter's life. We now know the identity of the shooter and yes, his first name begins with the letter "M."

The shooter, Mahamed Jalloh, was previously convicted of supporting ISIL [who the kids often refer to as ISIS].

Mohamed Bailor Jalloh was arrested back in 2016, per the Department of Justice press release, for "attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)." 

According to the complaint, Jalloh is alleged to have attempted to provide services by assisting in the procurement of weapons to be used in what he believed was going to be an attack on U.S. soil committed in the name of ISIL. In addition, the complaint alleges that Jalloh attempted to provide material support to ISIL by providing money to assist in the facilitation of individuals seeking to join ISIL.

This guy, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone, reportedly made multiple trips overseas trying to link up with ISIL directly. He ended up pleading guilty and getting slapped with an 11-year sentence in 2017.

Fast-forward, and under the Biden administration, he walks free in 2024.These are all excellent questions. Why wasn't he deported after serving time for trying to arm up for a domestic terror attack in the name of a foreign terrorist group? Why was this would-be jihadist released back into American society?

We do not have to live like this.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down in a push to defund the agency and abolish ICE, because apparently, securing the homeland and deporting threats like this is just too mean-spirited for the progressive playbook.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings, guys. Please consider subscribing, and if you would like to support my work, visit the sponsors on this page, or you can Buy Me A Coffee. 

Tweet

CIA employee who leaked classified docs re: Israel's plans to strike Iran will plead guilty

Well, here we have another fine example of how the internal workings of the intelligence community can become as leaky as a sieve. As if William Rahman, a CIA employee since 2016, decided it was his personal mission to become the unofficial town crier of classified information. On Friday, he pleaded guilty to charges that he not only retained but also merrily transmitted national defense secrets, according to the US Department of Justice.

In his own words, or rather, in the legal confession that he made, Rahman admitted to having downloaded, printed, and distributed classified documents. Not once, but several times throughout 2024. In the spring, he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar of secrets, printing five documents labeled 'secret' and 'top secret', taking them home like they were his personal reading material. He then engaged in a bit of home-based espionage, altering these documents before distributing them to those who had no legal right to see them.

To cover his tracks, he deleted his digital footprints, returned the documents to the CIA for shredding, and presumably patted himself on the back for his cleverness. But, as autumn turned the leaves, he repeated this performance, this time with ten more top-secret documents.

The plot thickens—or rather, the leak widens—on October 17, 2024, when he printed two documents detailing Israel's plans to strike Iran. These plans, which were supposed to stay within the confines of secure briefings, found themselves on the internet, courtesy of a pro-Iranian Telegram channel named "Middle East Spectator".

Rahman, aged 34, from Vienna, Virginia, now faces the consequences of his actions in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. One wonders if the irony of leaking secrets to protect one's own secrets is lost on him.

This case is not just about one man's indiscretions; it's a stark reminder of the fragility of our security apparatus when individuals decide to play fast and loose with national secrets. It's a narrative that could be straight out of a spy novel, if only it weren't so disturbingly real.

Tweet

Senate report warns of national security fallout from leaks

A Senate report released Thursday warns that the Trump administration is experiencing an "alarming" and "unprecedented" scads of media leaks that pose a real danger to national security.

The Republican-generated report estimates the administration has dealt with about one leak per day. It was sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and urges law enforcement officials to press harder in their investigation of these leaks exposing potentially sensitive information.

"To ensure the security of our country's most sensitive information, federal law enforcement officials ought to thoroughly investigate leaks of potentially sensitive information flowing at an alarming rate," the report's executive summary read.

The 24-page report, titled "State Secrets: How an Avalanche of Media Leaks is Harming National Security," was compiled by Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), along with the committee's majority staff.

The report authors analyzed media leaks that began on Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration to May 25, his 126th day in office. In that time period, the Trump administration faced one leak per day involving potentially destructive information to national security under the standards laid out in an executive order by then-failed-President Barack Obama in 2009.

The leaked information is "potential violations of federal law, punishable by jail time."

The report notes that the leaks flowed "seven times faster" under Trump's administration than the first 126 days of both Obama and George W. Bush's presidency.

"It is also apparent that the arguments often used to justify leaks are at odds with the Trump administration--that leakers are bringing to light potentially illegality, unwise policies, or concerns about the President's temperament--have no legal basis," the report found.

A total of 78 leaks were about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign, revealing intelligence community intercepts, FBI interviews and intelligence, grand jury subpoenas, and "the workings of a secret surveillance court."

Some of the violations may fall under the Espionage Act, which are punishable by up to 10 years in prison--something that Hillary Clinton is apparently immune to.

A letter by Johnson to Sessions with the report said it's the "responsibility of the Justice Department" to decide if the leaks justify criminal prosecution.

Of course they do.



Tweet

Did POTUS Put Us On?

In a betrayal of a campaign promise over refugee admissions, the Trump State Department has apparently put that big, beautiful door in the wall before the wall had even gone up.

In the coming weeks, at the very least, there will be an inundation of refugees entering the United States. It went from about 830 refugees for the first few weeks this month, to 1500 as tens of thousands more are waiting to get here.

And there is no reason to believe that it will slow down anytime soon. 

If refugee admissions continues at the projected rate, the Trump administration will have an Obama-esque rate of refugees coming here and the rate will be one of the sixth highest since 9-11.

The New York Times (May 27th) reported how the State Department quietly lifted the department's restriction on the number of refugees allowed U.S. entry. Their decision was conveyed in an email Thursday by Jennifer L. Smith, a department official to the private global agencies that assist refugees  manage the nearly two-year application process.

Smith wrote that refugee groups could start bringing people to the United States "unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place."

The way it looks by the numbers, the total number of refugees admitted by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, could be around 73,000.

"This is long overdue, but we're very happy," said Mark Hetfield, president and chief executive of HIAS, an immigrant aid society.

The Republican Congress has been keeping big business donors smiling by sending them a steady supply of cheap labor and handing over tons of money for refugee resettlement. 

Remember, President Trump campaigned on the platform of a moratorium on refugee resettlement, but seems to be backsliding on this issue. The one thing that isn't clear is wether the State Department made this upward adjustment with the president's approval, but the Department of Justice had been contacted.

The question is, now that Trump definitely knows, what's he going to do about it?


To follow Brain Flushings, click the Follow tab in the margin.

Tweet

Obama transfers 10 terrorists from Gitmo to Oman

Dubai, UAE -- Oman (not "Obama man") said on Monday that it will joyfully accept 10 of the worst terrorists still at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center right before Obama is ready to leave the White House as part of his threat to shrink the facility he promised, but failed to close.

The U.S. Department of Defense had nothing to say on the matter.

Oman's Foreign Ministry did not name the scumcrumpets but assured the public that most of them are named Mohammad or a derivative of that name, and said in a statement carried on state-run Oman News Agency that they have accepted Obama's plea.

When the Associated Press pressed for more input about the matter, Omani and U.S. military officials were too embarrassed to respond.

The sultanate of Oman previously took in a bunch of Gitmo's 'worstest': 10 from Yemen in January 2016; and 6 in June 2015. Saudi Arabia gladly repatriated 4 scum on January 5th, and the United Arab Emirates took 15 in the largest single transfer of dangerous cargo during Barack's administration on August 15th. 

Allahu Akbar, everybody.

Sultan Qaboos bin Said (his friends call him "Caboose") ruled Oman since 1970. He has been the "go-between" with the West and Iran and has also negotiated a boatload of prisoner releases in recent years for Western countries too stupid to know a dangerous dude unless he exploded in front of them.

Since he wasn't able to close Gitmo altogether, Obama is doing his level best to free as many Islamic terrorists as possible because he can, and because he will be provided with armed security for the rest of his life so, as they often say, "no worries."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said that he not only wants to keep Gitmo open, but wants to "load it up with some bad dudes."

Mr. Trump is known for his openness, not his eloquence.

When Barack Hussein Obama came into power, there were 242 terrorists in Gitmo. Being the good Muslim sympathizer that he is, Barack pledged to close it over serious international criticism over the mistreatment of detainees. 

The idea that we would stoop so low as a nation to pour water on a person's head who may have merely immolated an infidel to death was just too much for liberals to tolerate.

Fortunately, Obama wasn't able to close down Gitmo because Congress was against suicidal behavior.

The majority of scumcrumpets were sent to lovely Afghanistan, Pakistan (pronounced "Pahkeestahn" by Barack Obama) and Saudi Arabia.

In all, only about 30 percent that we know of, have returned to the battlefield to kill us. The remaining 70 percent have sent their kids to do the job.


Tweet

AG prospect Rudy Giuliani may go for Clinton prosecution

President elect Donald Trump may have praised his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton after he won the election, but that was his mouth talking--his ego has yet to phone in.

Rudy Giuliani, a top prospect to be Trump's Attorney General left the door wide open that, if he gets the nod, his Justice Department would go after Hillary Clinton regarding her private and illegal email server and the "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation and her time as Secretary of State.

Giuliani was a former New York City mayor during the 9/11 attack on the city, and a federal prosecutor before that. He put away some serious 'bad guys' in the mob. He said Wednesday on "The O'Reilly Factor" that Hillary was a legitimate target to be investigated and that it had nothing to do with political "payback."

"There's one tradition in America, right? Election is over. We forget about it. There is another tradition in America which is 'equal justice under the law,'" he said. "And it would depend on how bad the violations are."

I don't know if Rudy checked into it lately, but violation of the Espionage Act is a bad violation of the law.

FBI Director [for now] James Comey said that recent findings in the investigation into Clinton's private, illegal, homebrew server, did not cause him to change his recommendation to the Justic Department to not pursue charges against Clinton.

But there are reports indicating some FBI agents are also looking into the Clinton Foundation regarding the "pay to play" scheme, and while it seems quite obvious she gave special favorable treatment to donors to the foundation, there remains no proof that she stood on the torch of the Statue of Liberty and screamed it out. That's what it appears the FBI is looking for to make their case, as it was with the server.

When Trump was the presidential nominee in October and first raised the idea of going after Clinton, nobody on the left worried that much because they knew she had the election in the bag.

"If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception," Trump told Clinton.

When he made his victory speech early Wednesday morning, Trump praised the former Worst Lady for running a tough campaign--he never mentioned her myriad scandals. "Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country. I mean that very sincerely."

Note: he did not say "very very sincerely" so he may not have actually meant it.

But the plot sickens because it's possible that President Obama could preemptively pardon Clinton for any federal crimes (but he cannot pardon state and civil offenses that we haven't yet learned about).

If Obama pardons Hillary, it implies that she is guilty of the crimes.

"So, the president can offer the pardon but the pardon carries an implication of guilt; if she accepts the pardon, her acceptance carries a confession of guilty," Chapman University Law Professor Ronald Rotunda said in an email to FoxNews.com. 

He noted, however, that a pardon of Clinton alone would leave any co-conspirators--potentially including Bill Clinton and top aides and foundation officials--open to prosecution. And if she hypothetically confessed her guilt in the U.S., the Clinton Foundation trustees around the world would also be at risk, explains a charity fraud expert, Charles Ortel.

Another battle could be over the legality of a non-specific presidential pardon and this might be challenged by Trump or Giuliani. 

"I think President Obama should leave it to the system we all believe in to determine 'is she innocent or is she guilty?'"


Tweet

Corruption? No problem if you're a Clinton

Doug Band, a top aide to former President Bill Clinton wrote in 2012 that Chelsea "Howdy Doody" Clinton used the money laundering front known as the Clinton Foundation (aka the Clinton Global Initiative) to finance "her wedding and her life for a decade." And a top Foundation donor was responsible for "killing" unfavorable press coverage. This came as an internal audit of the Foundation found many conflicts of interest and "quid pro quo benefits," according to WikiLeaks emails uncovered Sunday.

Band, the founder of global strategies company Teneo, wrote the Jan. 4, 2012 email to John Podesta and two other Clinton aides when he learned that Chelsea told "one of the [President] bush 43 kids" and others about an "internal investigation of money within the foundation." He added that such chatter was "not smart."

"The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents . . . " Band wrote. "I hope that you will speak to her and end this[.] Once we go down this road . . ."

This just in:

Now after going through the Weiner computer's 650,000 emails, just two days before the election, FBI speed readers have determined that Comey's original [ass]essment still stands and the matter over Clinton's illegal server, her illegal use of Foundation money, the million dollar birthday gift to Bill while Hill was Sec. of State, the Clinton maid being given access to classified documents and emails, Hillary's destroying of the supoenaed emails by Congress, isn't enough to indict a Clinton. 

That would take an act of God.

This is the epitome of corruption and Trump is right--the "system is corrupt." I don't know how James Comey can look at his reflection in the mirror now that he's gone over to the dark side.

This has been the most disturbing and most disgusting election I have ever seen. Obama split us apart in horrible, racist ways and Clinton is following his lead and doing the same thing and adding the "gender card."


I can't wait for this election to be over, although I suspect Clinton will win and the country will go far left--that would be horrible.

But we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.



Tweet

Will Donald call her "Dodging Lynch"?

Capitol Hill -- Loretta Lynch was called before congress to discuss her decision not to indict Hillary Clinton on charges that she used a private email server. What happened at the committee hearing was appalling.

Lynch said she would accept the decision made by James Comey, basically because she apparently didn't want to take responsibility to squash Clinton's run for the presidency and also has her own secret agenda. 

During the hearing, Lynch dodged and deflected straight forward questions like a Clinton in a sexual misconduct impeachment hearing. Rather than voice an opinion, she referred them back to James Comey, the politically savvy FBI Director.

Democrats didn't really ask questions as much as they made speeches now that they knew they'd be on national TV. And of course, the speeches had absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing. They spoke about gun control and violence, but left the issue of espionage alone--it wasn't important to them.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that Lynch's "lack of clarity is bad for the republic." 

But it's really just another example of how the Clintons are made of Teflon and all charges seem to roll off.

House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked about the legality of sharing classified information outside the proper channels. Lynch said it would be unfair to give a blanket answer. 

In other words, sometimes sharing classified information outside proper channels isn't such a terrible thing--you just need to know who did it. If it's Hillary Clinton, it isn't an issue.

Chaffetz responded to that sentiment by saying: "I think you're sending a terrible message to the world. The lack of clarity that you give to this body . . . is pretty stunning."

One thing that I got out of the hearing is how transparent Lynch's politics is--she's in the bag for the Clintons. Anyone who isn't surprised if she gets to keep her AG position if Hillary wins the election is as naive as a lamb to the slaughter.

Every answer that Lynch gave was calculated not to get her in trouble with the law. That's what crooked lawyers do.

Suddenly, it all makes sense when Donald Trump dubs a sobriquet on people like "Crooked" Hillary. I wonder what he's going to call Loretta Lynch.



Tweet

Rep. Corrine Brown indicted for fraud over charity 'slush fund'

Even her hair is a deception

Jacksonville, Fla. -- Fortunately for Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) the media is too focused on the horrific police shootings in Dallas, to discuss her indictment over a charity "slush fund' with the coverage it deserves.

Brown, 69, and her chief of staff have been charged with multiple fraud and federal offenses in a grand jury indictment unsealed Friday after a federal investigation into a fraudulent charity with ties to the congresswoman.

Brown, a Democrat, has been in office since 1993 and is seeking re-election. If Hillary Clinton is an example of the type of character liberals tend to vote for, Brown should be a shoo-in, except perhaps she will have to work from prison.

The indictment was generated by the investigation of One Door for Education Foundation Inc., which prosecutors say was purported to give scholarships to poor students. As it turns out, the money has been going to line the pockets of Brown and her associates.

Brown and Elias "Scumcrumpet" Simmons, 50, of Laurel, Maryland, and Brown's chief of staff, were charged with a 24-count indictment. 

One Door President Carla Wiley pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud earlier this year, when it was found that she deposited $800,000 into the foundation's account over 4 years, but the foundation only gave one scholarship for $1,000 while wily Wiley transferred tens of thousands of dollars to herself.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, chief of the Department of Justice's criminal division said in a statement: "Congresswoman Brown and her chief of staff are alleged to have used the congresswoman's official position to solicit over $800,000 in donations to a supposed charitable organization, only to use that organization as a personal slush fund.

"Corruption erodes the public's trust in our entire system of representative government," Caldwell added, but left out the notion that this kind of corruption also makes the public wary of donating to actual worthwhile organizations in the future.

The indictment states that Brown, Simmons and Wiley "used the vast majority" of the donations for their personal benefit, including tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits Simmons made to Brown's personal bank accounts.

The indictment says that over $200,000 in funds were used to pay for events hosted by the dirty congresswoman or held in her honor (which, when you think about it, is ironic as all get out). This included a golf tournament, expensive receptions during an annual Washington conference and luxury boxes for a concert and NFL game in which the Redskins probably lost again.

I hope she and her co-defendants get what they deserve: 3 hots and a cot.

Tweet

Former U.S. Attorney sees a "red flag" with Hillary's email scandal

Eh, what's up, doc?

Beth Wilkinson is an attorney representing four main figures in the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email malpractice. This is what Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney and now running a government watchdog group calls a "red flag."

Wilkinson is representing former chief of staff Cheryl Mills; media gatekeeper Philippe Reines; Jake Sullivan policy adviser, and former aide Heather Samuelson, the person who helped Hillary decide which Clinton emails were the most damaging and therefore had to be destroyed before turning over to the State Department the 30,000 that remained.

"I think it would be a real red flag," Whitaker said, referring to the legal defense tactic. He is the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). He believes that having a single lawyer helps the four get their stories straight for the FBI interviews.

That would imply that something untoward was perpetrated by these four in service of the Clinton dynasty. Otherwise, what's the big deal? 

"The benefit is to have one lawyer's brain have all the knowledge of the various pieces and parts, and so each of those potential targets or subjects of the investigation get to share information across that same attorney--and quite frankly get their story to sync up and understand what other people know of the situation," Whitaker said.

Wilkinson is a Washington D.C. lawyer who's married to former NBC "Meet the Press" host David Gregory. When asked for comment, her office gave no immediate response as it has been their practice not to respond to the press on this case.

Whitaker explained that "All you're trying to do is seek the truth, and when someone is sharing a lawyer, you worry that the interview that you just did an hour ago with that attorney has been shared with the next witness and they can fix or reconcile their story to be the same."

Why that isn't illegal is anybody's guess--it ought to be. And while it isn't the norm, the legal representation hasn't been challenged by Justice Department officials, perhaps because, hey,  it's Hillary Clinton, after all.

In April, Cheryl Mills and Wilkinson blocked questions about Bryan Pagliano, Clinton's IT specialist and a key figure in the probe. Although Pagliano struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department last year, now he is seeking to invoke the Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions in the same Judicial Watch proceedings. That's what is known as wanting to have it both ways.

FACT is seeking the emails of Dennis Cheng, Clinton's former deputy chief of protocol at the State Department. His records may reveal a connection between the slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. 

Cheng was the main person dealing with senior foreign government officials, and there were only a few emails of his among the 30,000 she turned over when she apparently felt comfortable to do so. Cheng was also a consultant to the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The plot sickens.


Tweet