Twin Falls Cover-Up

In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack and major Supreme Court decisions, a developing story in Twin Falls, Idaho, may have escaped your notice. The story hasn't made it to the national news, but it should.

Like many small, rural communities around the country, the Obama Administration has chosen this town, located near the Nevada/Utah border, to receive hundreds of refugees from Muslim nations. No one asked the citizens of Twin Falls if they approved of this.

Residents of Twin Falls have voiced their frustrations to local officials. Some have been threatened, others have been spat on by the new arrivals. Then a truly horrible assault occurred. Three young refugees reportedly raped a mentally challenged five year-old girl.

Initially, local officials would not admit that anything happened. They stonewalled questions from citizens. Finally, law enforcement and prosecutors admitted that something really bad did happen. Two of the boys involved in the attack are from Sudan and one is from Iraq. Because of their ages -- 14, 10 and 7 -- they are being treated as juveniles and the case is sealed.

This situation is bad enough. It is a smaller example of what we saw take place on a much larger scale in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve. Government officials at all levels covered up horrible crimes committed by Muslim refugees against German women.

But the Twin Falls story took a turn that should make national news. Friday, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson, the Obama-appointed federal prosecutor for Idaho, issued a chilling statement. After expressing her sympathy for the victim and her confidence in local prosecutors, Ms. Olson then issued a threat to the citizens of Twin Falls: "The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself . . . may violate federal law."

While clearly high on the left's wish list, there is no federal law under which someone can be prosecuted for "inflammatory statements." As one law professor explained in the Washington Post, Olson's statement "looks like an attempt to chill constitutionally protected speech through the threat of federal prosecution."

Whatever her motivation, Olson is, unfortunately, reflecting the views of her bosses at the Department of Justice and the White House. Remember when Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, threatened to prosecute anti-Muslim hate speech?

Our elected leaders need to pushback against this politically correct nonsense. Is Wendy Olson's threat against the citizens of Twin Falls a reflection of our values? When did it become a reflection of our values to make those attacking us a protected class? Is squelching free speech part of who we are?

To all those Washington insiders who just don't get where all the "anger" is coming from: Get out of town and go talk to the people of Twin Falls.

Political Prosecution Overturned

While we're on the topic of politically motivated prosecutions, the Supreme Court yesterday did get one thing right -- it overturned the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell was a rising star in Virginia. He was on Mitt Romney's vice presidential short list in 2012. Many saw him as a future senator.

Political hacks at the Department of Justice decided to neutralize McDonnell. Relying on a wildly broad interpretation of "official acts," he was indicted on federal corruption charges shortly after leaving office.

The case against McDonnell stunned even many Democrats. In fact, more than 40 former state attorneys general filed a brief supporting McDonnell and opposing his prosecution. They argued that the charges against him represented a "drastic, legislatively unsanctioned expansion of the federal police power."

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous 8-to-0 ruling, the justices blasted the administration's "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

Benghazi Report Released

The House select committee investigating the September 2012 attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, released its final report today. There are certainly some new details that offer a fuller picture of what took place on the ground there and the reaction here in Washington. Some details are quite compelling and should be topics of national debate.

For example, in an addendum to the committee's report, Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo tell us that the State Department needlessly delayed the deployment of a Marine response team. Why? The reason will shock you. According to Jordan and Pompeo:
 

"What has also emerged is a picture of the State Department eating up valuable time by insisting that certain elements of the U.S. military respond to Libya in civilian clothes and that it not use vehicles with United States markings. . . We will never know exactly how long these conditions delayed the military response but that they were even a part of the discussion is troubling."

One commander told congressional investigators that "during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times."

To paraphrase our former secretary of state, what difference does it make what clothes they are wearing?! If armed thugs are trying to break into your house, do you care if the police show up in uniforms or plain clothes?

Another portion of the report reveals that career officials within the State Department were deeply concerned that then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice went so far "off the reservation" in her public comments about the cause of the attacks.

As you may recall, Rice went on five Sunday talk shows -- several days after the attacks -- and repeated the myth that it was all a protest in response to a YouTube video. Other officials expressed an unwillingness to go "on the record" with the CIA's terrible talking points. One expressed his frustration with the Obama White House, which was "very worried about the politics."