Deep State FBI Given Hard Evidence of Hillary Clinton-Linked $66 Billion Libya Scheme — Launched Junk Investigation Against Trump-Russia Hoax Instead


In February 2018 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) joined “Fox and Friends,” and revealed shadowy Clinton figure, Sidney Blumenthal, who was involved in the Benghazi scandal, appears to have been a key source for dossier author Christopher Steele 

Partial transcript via The Daily Caller:

“The names we keep hearing are Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer — people who have been around the Clintons as being a part of this. But I also think it’s kind of interesting because what it looks like is, they paid Steele to put together the dossier and told him what to put in,” Jordan said. “Talk about rigging the game and putting together a document that will serve your purposes as an opposition research document.”

“That is what the Clinton team did and then when you see names like Sidney Blumenthal coming up. We deposed this guy during the Benghazi hearings,” Jordan continued. “

He has been with the Clintons forever. He was knee deep in the whole Libya, Benghazi story, particularly the story where they weren’t square with the American people about what was the actual catalyst of the attack, and they tried to blame it on video.”

But now there is more to the story.

According to Zero Hedge recently made public FBI records reveal that the agency virtually ignored evidence from private GOP-backed sources about a scheme in which Hillary Clinton associates tried to exploit her position as Secretary of State in order to profit from the 2011 turmoil in Libya she helped to create, according to RealClearInvestigations.

The documents, provided to the FBI in June 2016 as the agency was kicking its Trump-Russia investigation into high gear, allege that Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal sent her “a series of detailed memos and reports about Libya,” which were intended as a “quid pro quo” which might help a post-Gaddafi Libya recover as much as $66 billion in offshore funds hidden by the slain strongman.

According to the private investigators funded by Judicial Watch: “Our evidence shows that Mr. Blumenthal was involved with a group of intelligence professionals seeking to repatriate asset[s] which were plundered and then exfiltrated by the [Gaddafi] family and hidden in various offshore localities.”

According to the private investigators funded by Judicial Watch: “Our evidence shows that Mr. Blumenthal was involved with a group of intelligence professionals seeking to repatriate asset[s] which were plundered and then exfiltrated by the [Gaddafi] family and hidden in various offshore localities.”

If successful, Blumenthal and associates “stood to gain a brokers’ cut of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The private Libya inquiry leaves important issues unsettled. The documents do not include emails or other original source material to support the allegations within. While claiming to possess evidence that Blumenthal and his associates had contracts and offshore accounts to repatriate the money, the documents say “no concrete evidence” was found suggesting Clinton acted to support the effort.  

Yet if verified, the files might shed light on why Clinton kept her emails, tens of thousands of which have gone missing, out of normal government communication channels. RealClearInvestigations

The documents are labeled by the FBI as having been received on June 6, 2016 – a month before the first of Comey’s two exonerations of Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election.

This was roughly seven weeks before the FBI opened its counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign based on nothing.

Read the rest of the report here.

Hillary Clinton shows signature style as she chuckles over Assange’s arrest

Screen Shot 2019-04-12 at 4.05.20 PM

Hillary Clinton didn’t hold back her glee at the arrest of Julian Assange, mocking both the publisher who she blames for her failed presidential run and the man she lost to in a single “we came, we saw, he died”-level one-liner.

“I do think it’s a little ironic that he may be the only foreigner that this administration would welcome to the United States,” Clinton quipped onstage at a speaking event in New York, chuckling at her own wit and basking in the audience’s mirth.

The former First Lady and failed presidential candidate was asked about the Wikileaks founder’s arrest during the talk – which also included her husband – by moderator (and former Clinton staffer) Paul Begala, who set the stage by quipping that it “couldn’t happen to a nicer guy” after reminding Clinton that she “had some familiarity with the work of Mr. Assange” to audience guffaws.

While Clinton had promised her audience before the talk not to mention President Donald Trump by name – a trick she stole from former president Barack Obama – she had no problem making excuses for his government’s actions.

“It is clear from the indictment that came out that it’s not about punishing journalism, it’s about assisting the hacking of the military computer to steal information from the US government,” she admonished. “The bottom line is that he has to answer for what he has done, at least as it’s been charged.”

Clinton infamously delivered the line “We came, we saw, he died” in reference to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was brutally murdered during the NATO invasion of Libya that was one of the highlights of her tenure as Obama’s secretary of state.

WikiLeaks published thousands of incriminating and embarrassing private email messages stolen from former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee in the run-up to the 2016 election, exposing extensive corruption and malfeasance on the part of the Clinton campaign. Many – including Clinton herself – believe the leak cost her the election.

While Assange faces extradition to the US on charges he conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer in 2010 – charges totally unrelated to the 2016 DNC and Podesta leaks – Clinton clearly believes the later leaks are a more serious crime. The DNC – which the leaked emails revealed she controls financially – filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks last year, accusing the publisher of colluding with Russia and the Trump campaign to “undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency” – but never denying the emails’ contents were genuine.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Obama Declared 13 National Emergencies — 11 Are Still Active

By Patrick Howley

There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act.

Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

Conservative Tribune reports: “Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.”

Trending: Change.Org Petition To Impeach Rashida Tlaib Is Gaining Momentum

All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela and Burundi.

Conservative Tribune passage ends

The American people stand with President Trump following his amazing Oval Office address explaining the human cost of illegal immigration.

Here’s why President Trump should not have to fear legal fights over his expected upcoming national emergency declaration. Jonathon Moseley reports:

If President Donald Trump uses the U.S. military to build the border wall along the United States’ international with Mexico by declaring a national emergency, won’t liberals simply run to a Federal judge whom they believe to be left-wing within the Ninth Circuit and block Trump? Can Congress vote to overturn Trump’s declaration of an emergency?

No. If the federal courts actually follow the law, President Trump cannot be prevented from “reprogramming” funds appropriated for the U.S. Department of Defense and actually using the military (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to build the border wall.

See the source image

As noted in the first installment on this topic, Congress has given a president the power to declare a national emergency by 50 U.S.C. 1621 and  50 U.S.C. 1622.  A declaration of an emergency allows the President to reprogram funds in the military budget.  See 33 U.S. Code § 2293 “Reprogramming during national emergencies.”

Trump could reprogram funds from other parts of the Department of Defense budget — including from other DoD construction projects such as on bases, military housing, etc. — and engage in construction in areas of need for the national defense.  The statute says that explicitly (although statutes are never easy reading).

But Democrats are threatening and commentators are warning that such an action would be challenged in court and in Congress immediately.  Can such a plan be blocked?

First, 50 U.S.C. §1622 allows the Congress to over-turn a president’s declaration of an emergency.  If both the Senate and the House each pass s resolution terminating the President’s declaration of an emergency, than the emergency status terminates under 50 U.S.C. §1622.  But clearly the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would not join the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.  Unless a significant number of Republican Senators vote against a border wall built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or contractors with military funds, Congress could not block Trump’s efforts.

(Note, although I argue in the next section that this power has been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, if a court disagrees on that, a legislative veto power should block a lawsuit.  Where Congress has provided a specific method for challenging a declaration of an emergency, the federal courts would normally hold that that method becomes the exclusive remedy.  A lawsuit would be blocked by the fact that Congress provided a non-litigation remedy.)

Second, however, the Congressional veto process described above has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), finding a legislative veto of Executive Branch action unconstitutional.  Congress passed many laws which specifically enabled Congress to veto regulations or actions under that law.  The U.S. Supreme Court found a legislative veto violates the structure or architecture of the Constitutional system.

Laws go to the President for signature or veto.  Congress cannot reach over and pull a law back.  Congress must pass a new law and present it to the President for signature if dissatisfied with how the law is working out.  The U.S. Supreme Court had no hesitation finding that the Congress had over-reached, based only on the implied architecture of the Constitution.

In Chadha50 U.S.C. 1622 was one of the laws explicitly discussed.  The dissenting opinion specifically warned that the Chadha decision invalidated Congress’s ability to overturn a presidential declaration of a national emergency.

Therefore, Congress cannot overturn a declaration by President Trump that the open border is a national emergency.  Even if the U.S. Senate were to side with the Democrats, Chadha explicitly ruled the Congressional veto (termination) of a presidential declaration to be an unconstitutional distortion of the familiar “Schoolhouse Rock” means by which laws are passed and signed by presidents.  Once a law is signed, there is no “claw back” right by Congress.

Third, of course, critics are discussing whether Trump’s actions would be constitutional.  Here, however, Congress passed a specific statute, in fact a series of statutes.  So there is no question about the President’s power to do what the Congressional statute has explicitly empowered him to do.

Some even point to a rather famous Constitutional landmark case — Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) — in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have the power to temporarily nationalize the U.S. steel industry to avert a strike for national defense.  However, Youngstown was not that simple.  Youngstown analyzed the inherent powers of Commander in Chief as modified by Congressional agreement by statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly analyzed that the President’s powers are at their greatest (zenith) when he acts not only by his inherent powers as President but also by the agreement of a statute passed by Congress.  In Youngstown, Eisenhower did not have any statute supporting his action and the Court reasoned that he was actually acting in conflict with relevant statutes.

Here, the Congress has already enacted and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.  It is already the law of the land that a border wall shall be built along the United States’ Southern border.  Neither Congress nor any private plaintiff can challenge the official determination that a border wall or barrier shall built.  That is the law.  That is the official determination of both the U.S. Congress and the Commander in Chief.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was never implemented (other than a few miles) because Congress did not appropriate the funds to pay for it.  There are two steps:  Authorization and Appropriation of funds.  The decision to build a border wall is final.  The only question is applying funds to make it happen.

Building of a border wall under the 2006 Act was also not completed because the Swamp and Deep State sabotaged it.  Using classic bureaucratic games, the bureaucracy and open borders legislators followed “designed to fail” steps that ground the construction to a halt.

Note that in spite of the word “fence” in the title, the law does not actually mandate a “fence” in particular.  The wording of the Act is not about a “fence” but about any kind of barrier customized to the particular terrain in each location to the extent necessary to “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”   That is “all.”  As in “all.”

So the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires building “whatever it takes” — not a “fence” per se.  The Act does require specific enhanced barriers and lights, cameras, and sensors, in some named locations.

Fourth, could liberals run to the courts to block Trump from using the military to build a border wall?  No.  Only those with “standing” can bring a lawsuit.  How is anyone harmed?

The federal courts have been waging Jihad against citizens bringing lawsuits for decades.  The federal courts have been raising the bar higher and higher to make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge the actions of government agencies or public officials.  Specifically a complaint that is shared generally by much of the population cannot establish standing.

Contrary to strongly-held popular belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending, revenue, or action merely because they are taxpayers.  See, Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589, 547 U.S. 332 (2006).  So the Left cannot block Trump’s plans by suing as taxpayers.  (The only exceptions involve use of funds to establish a religion or local government taxpayers.)

Similarly, Members of Congress do not have standing either.  Certainly individual Members of Congress do not.  See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

To bring a lawsuit, one must show that they are tangibly harmed, personally, not just in disagreement with a policy.  If Trump uses some of the $700 billion in the omnibus bill to build a border wall, everyone will be more safe.  How is anyone harmed?

Fifth, can private landowners, some of whom will be liberals, go to court and stop the use of private land as an easement taken by eminent domain?  No.

There is absolutely no defense available to taking land by eminent domain.  How much compensation is owed for taking an easement as a strip of land could take years to fight out in court.  But the actual right to use the land cannot be contested.  The government can take an easement immediately and then fight later over how much money should be paid to the landowner.  Remember that this was the legal holding of the over-the-top, controversial U.S. Supreme Court precedent Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005).  (Kelo ruled that it is not even necessary to show a “public purpose” for eminent domain, which goes too far.)

Legal challenges will not stop construction, even it takes years to reach agreement on the compensation payable to landowners.   To finance payment of compensation, Trump should consider offering a land swap of federally-owned tracts of land or selling such public lands.

Sixth, opponents of Trump’s agenda will try to find individual landowners along the border, who might be liberal, to object in general to the reprogramming of military funds to build the border wall.  But those landowners should not be considered to have standing, for several reasons:

(A)  It would be speculation as to whether the government will take any action at their particular section of the border.  How would a landowner know that his or her part of the border is a stretch where the planners believe an actual wall is truly needed, as opposed to other natural or physical barriers?  It would be — under standard doctrines of standing — insufficient to speculate that that particular landowner’s land is going to be affected at all.

(B)  There is a concept called “exhaustion of administrative remedies.”  If an individual landowner doesn’t want a border fence along their particular stretch of the border, they would first have to tell the government that they object.  The courts would traditionally wait until the government can try to find agreement with the landowner before allowing a lawsuit.  A lawsuit would be invalid as not yet being “ripe.”  Traditionally the courts would require a plaintiff to actually talk to the government agency first to see if their stretch of land is actually going to be affected or not, whether a compromise can be worked out, etc.  Those are the currently-existing standard rules that always govern. (In fact, on policy, one could argue if a landowner doesn’t want a wall along their property, fine. Let all the trespassers funnel through that person’s land, trampling the ground, leaving trash everywhere, and frightening their family in their home at all hours.  If they don’t want a border wall on their property, fine.  Check back with us later and tell us how that worked out for you.)

Seventh, open border advocates of course will also find some would-be gate-crashers from another country to say that they want to break the law and cross the border in the unmanned frontier and the border wall will stop them from breaking the law.  That should be laughed out of court, because one does not have a “right” to break the law.  Similarly, they will try to find immigrants in the U.S. who want to bring family members into the U.S.A.  But they have legal avenues for doing that, by sponsoring their family members to come in legally.  Those ideas may impress an individual federal trial judge for a short time, but it should not survive on appeal.

(Note:  Trump does need to get changes in the law through Congress or perhaps just issue clarifying regulations from DHS that a foreigner can apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate without entering the United States.)

As an attorney in Virginia for 21 years, who has worked for both Judicial Watch and more recently Freedom Watch created by Larry Klayman, I often have to explain the concept of “standing” to clients who want to bring “good government” lawsuits or hold the government accountable to its rules.

When Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued to challenge Barack Obama’s amnesty by executive order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Arpaio did not have standing, even though illegal immigration cost him actual money in (then) running the jails of Maricopa County.  I worked on that legal case, from helping write the original complaint (with an eye toward establishing standing from word one) to legal memoranda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed by Larry Klayman, to the appeal by Larry Klayman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  Arpaio’s legal pleadings established standing as strong as one could imagine, an iron lock on showing standing.

Didn’t matter.  The courts completely contradicted other precedents, as powerfully demonstrated by the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American appeals judge with more intellect and intellectual integrity in her little finger than the U.S. Congress combined.

In deadly seriousness and a straight face, I honestly have to explain the law of standing in federal courts as follows:  If you want to encourage the expansion of government and government intervention in the economy or society or prevent the streamlining of government, you have standing.  If you want to hold government accountable to staying within its rules or you want to block left-wing policies, you don’t have standing.  it’s pretty much that simple.  Are you a liberal?  You have standing.  Are you a conservative?  You don’t have standing.  Having studied hundreds of precedents on standing, I must say that with absolutely no humor, exaggeration or hyperbole.  I could not truthfully say anything different.

However, the federal courts have established some very strong precedents ruling that almost no one has standing to challenge anything that the government wants to do — unless the government action directly  harms the plaintiff personally and individually.

Therefore, it will be extremely awkward for the federal courts to ignore and contradict their past precedents and claim that anyone has standing to object to the building of a border wall by the U.S military.

Finally, President Trump’s Administration under incoming Attorney General William Barr has got to stop this foolishness with lawsuits brought before a cherry-picked judge in the Ninth Circuit whom the plaintiffs believe will be unusually sympathetic to them and hostile to Trump’s policies.

The Department of Justice under Bill Barr must always   file a motion for a change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  Readers will be familiar with changes of venue requests in famous criminal cases.  But this is different.   This is not about whether a criminal defendant can get a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity.

A change of venue in a civil dispute is based upon other considerations:  Where are all the witnesses?  Where are the records and evidence kept?  Where was the decision made?  Where are the decision-makers to be affected by the lawsuit located?  Those venue rules strongly if not conclusively favor moving any such lawsuit to the District of Columbia, where the decisions were made, where the officials and witnesses reside, and where all the evidence is located.

Again, those are the standard, currently-existing, non-controversial rules.  None of these lawsuits should be tolerated out in the Ninth Circuit on the Left Coast.  There is no valid reason to have such lawsuits spread around the country instead of being held in Washington, D.C., where the action is — and where the action took place.

NORTHERN EUROPE Adult migrant violently rapes 9-year-old Swedish child ‘because he was looking for someone to rape’

See the source image


The African who raped a Swedish child says he was looking for someone to rape that day, and he didn’t care if it was a child, news outlet Fria Tider reports. 

The 30-year-old Libyan who was charged with a brutal rape of a 9-year-old girl in Malmö earlier this year was sentenced by the District Court for aggravated rape of a child on Friday.

The penalty will be six years imprisonment and expulsion, but not for life – after 15 years, the pedophile rapist is welcome back.

See the source image

This is what the prosecutor wrote in the document instituting proceedings:

“He lured the plaintiff into a [rubbish]bin room and locked the door. He wrestled her to the ground, hit her in the face, pulled off her clothes on the lower body and held her legs.

“He strangled her and inflicted a bruise on her neck so that she felt pain and had difficulty breathing. He further threatened to beat her if she did not stop screaming.

The man, who in media has been called “the father of young children” has admitted to the crime.

According to the judgment, he was in the area “to look for a girl to rape, and he did not care if the girl was a child”. He wanted to have vaginal intercourse with her and therefore told her to “open” her legs during the assault.

The man is a citizen of Libya, but has a permanent residency in Sweden since November 2010.

He has three underage children in Sweden and has been convicted several times before of violent and predatory crimes without being expelled.

The penalty will be imprisonment for six years and expulsion from the country for 15 years. He must also pay €17,000 in damages to the girl.

He is also sentenced for minor assault, two cases of sexual harassment, theft, minor drug offences and a knife violation.

SOUTHERN EUROPE Italian Minister tells NGO Italy doesn’t want migrants: “Our ports are closed!”


Italy’s populist Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini announces that Italian ports are CLOSED.

The migrants were picked up from Libya intending to go to Malta but were turned away from Malta so the NGO Proactiva Open Arms requested to be allowed entry to Italy.

Salvini replied: “My answer is clear: Italian ports are closed!” Mr Salvini tweeted. “For the traffickers of human beings and for those who help them, the fun is over.”

This sparked anger in the human trafficking NGO who replied on twitter: “We continue with 311 people on board, without port and in need of supplies,” saying that they had rescued more than 300 migrants from three vessels in difficulty, including men, women, children and babies.

Committing the logical fallacy of appealing to emotions, they went on to say:

“If you could feel the cold in the images, it would be easier to understand the emergency. No port to disembark and Malta’s refusal to give us food. This isn’t Christmas.” An odd thing to say given the majority of the migrants are of the Islamic faith, thereby not celebrating Christmas anyway.

Tweeting further to Matteo, Open Arms’ founder Oscar Camps went onto say that “your rhetoric and your message will, like everything in this life, end. But you should know that in a few decades your descendants will be ashamed of what you do and say.”

Many countries are showing opposition to the economic migrants paying a high financial cost to be brought by human traffickers when real refugees can’t afford to and are left behind in their countries.

Rescued Migrants Demand to be Dropped Off in Italy

See the source image

By Deutsche Welle

The 94 passengers were rescued by a passing container ship last week as they were en route to Italy.

After being returned to Libya they have refused to get off the ship.

The Libyan coast guard reported Wednesday that migrant passengers aboard a container ship docked at the port of Misrata are refusing to disembark.

The migrants, who are from Eritrea, Somalia, Bangladesh and Sudan, were rescued last week when their vessel began sinking en route to Italy. The vessel was too far from Libya for the coast guard to rescue, so authorities asked a container ship sailing in the opposite direction to pick them up.

That ship has now docked at its intended destination but officials say: “When we asked the migrants to get off the ship, they refused and demanded it take them to Italy.”

‘It’s a prison’

A 19-year-old Sudanese migrant from Darfur said: “I was stopped by this ship and thought I would be sent to Malta or Italy. I prefer to die but not to be returned to Libya … it’s a prison.”

Some of those on board were willing to get off the ship, but had been prevented from doing so by others. Coast guard officials say that they are currently in the process of getting those who want to leave off the ship. So far, 14 people have disembarked. There are a number of women and children among the passengers.

Passengers are currently being attended to by human rights and medical experts. Julien Raikman of Doctors Without Borders (MSF), an NGO, says that Libyan authorities have allowed the group to treat those in need of urgent medical care as well as deliver food.

He urged a peaceful solution to the situation and suggested offering alternatives to the migrants: “We talked to people who have suffered torture on the migration route and it seems abnormal that the United Nations cannot propose an alternative for them.”

Take them back to Libya

A number of Europe-bound vessels carrying hundreds of passengers have been intercepted by Libya’s EU-backed coast guard of late. Migrants are taken back to Libya where they are screened by UN agencies and then taken to government-affiliated detention centers. The notoriously poor conditions at those camps have been harshly criticized by human rights groups.

European countries have been seeking a solution to keep migrants from coming to the continent via Libya — which has become a launching point for such journeys — but have failed to come to an agreement as to how to achieve that goal. Italy, which is often the destination of vessels sailing from Libya, has been especially vocal about the need to stop migration.

Thousands of people have drowned in the Mediterranean since the European migrant crisis began in 2015; more than 1,000 have drowned in its waters in the first six months of 2018 alone.

You can read this article as it originally appeared at Deutsche Welle here.

Libyan Migrant Arrested In Rape of 10-Year-Old In Malmö, Sweden

See the source image

By Dan Lyman

A 30-year-old Libyan migrant has been arrested following the rape of a 10-year-old girl in Malmö, Sweden, according to local media.

The attack reportedly took place last Thursday near a bicycle shop in Malmö, where the suspect, identified as “Mohammed,” allegedly subjected the young girl to a “serious violent crime,” Fria Tider reports.

Mohammed is a citizen of Libya, and has been arrested or charged in connection with multiple sexual assaults since arriving in Sweden in 2009, including one involving a 14-year-old girl and another in which he was armed with a knife, according to Kvälls Posten.

He also has prior convictions for robbery and assault.

Swedish outlet Sydsvenskan reports that the man has confessed to the crime and is now being psychologically evaluated.

As Fria Tider notes, multiple aforementioned Swedish outlets fail to cite the suspect’s nationality or name.

Malmö is Sweden’s third-largest city and generally considered its most “multicultural.”

“In 2017, approximately over half of Malmö’s population had at least one parent born abroad,” Sputnik reports. “The Danish diaspora has historically been the largest, but has in recent years been overtaken by Iraqis, people from the former Yugoslavia and the Horn of Africa.”

Malmö has also seen a surge in crime in recent years, ranging from grenade and firebombing attacks, to rape and gang violence — a reality even mainstream media has been forced to acknowledge.

As Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars reported last year, Malmö is statistically one of the most dangerous cities in Western Europe.

Blog at

Up ↑