Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

Comey refused to answer questions on Russia meddling review

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

Comey says the Flynn leak was the only felony we know of, but I won't say whether we're investigating


Rush Limbaugh says a Democrat congresswoman asked James Comey to explain the process of an ongoing investigation.

He said, "Well, that's pretty much what it is, it's an ongoing investigation."

She said, "Well, can you tell us how long it will take?" "Well, no." "Well, can you give us the average time of an ongoing investigation?" "Well, there is no average time. Each investigation is its own investigation, and we never limit or prejudge. We follow the facts. We follow the evidence."

Well, they're following a lot of nothing right now. Because there isn't any evidence. None whatsoever.

And were you as impressed as I was about how serious James Comey was about how serious a crime it is to release classified information? Trey Gowdy really pumped him on this today. And these guys don't seem interested in finding who leaks this stuff. They're not interested. They don't want to discuss it. They don't want to go there. They're not interested in who unmasked, for example, Mike Flynn.

Now, the way Flynn was caught, Flynn was not being surveilled. I knew this was the case. The Russian ambassador is being surveilled and so what happens, the NSA is monitoring whatever the Russian ambassador does, and there's a phone call with Flynn, Mike Flynn, and they hear it. Now, when something like that happens, and Flynn's not the target, they're supposed to ignore it unless what they hear constitutes without question serious criminal offense. It's part of the protection built in.

If you're gonna be monitoring foreign actors and they have dealings with Americans who are not targets, not persons of interest, when you hear them, you're supposed to ignore 'em and nobody's supposed to tell anybody what was said. Well, we know everything Flynn — well, we don't know. That's the point.

They've got the transcript of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, but they leaked a bunch of it that made it look like he was discussing the lifting of sanctions and all that, when he wasn't. And so he was being asked, Comey was, "Well, well, well, who would be in charge of unmasking the technique or the term for hiding the identity of an American on a transcript of an intercepted call that is not the target is masking?"

You have to unmask that person if doing so is warranted by evidence and circumstance. And so Trey Gowdy was asking of the unmasking of Flynn, but Comey said, "I can't comment on individuals. I can't comment on what's in the news. I can't comment on the media reports, I can't comment." So Gowdy had to ask generic questions about theoretical circumstances to get Comey to even play ball.

It was clear that Comey didn't want to say anything about that, except how serious a crime it is to release classified information. He said it over and over again. He stressed it so much that I couldn't help but think this is a different James Comey from the FBI director who said that no prosecutor would prosecute Hillary Clinton for releasing classified information in her email. That's what she did, and Comey's the guy who said (paraphrasing), "I couldn't find an illicit motive, an absolute illicit motive, there's no reason to prosecute her." And yet look what we're doing here. It's the exact opposite of the way Comey said he had to deal with Hillary.

James Comey said that he couldn't confirm that there would ever be an investigation of the leakers, while admitting it's a felony. He didn't act interested in pursuing that investigation whatsoever.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #28 

GOP wants to eliminate shadowy DOJ slush fund bankrolling leftist groups


Melissa Jacobs (FoxNews) is reporting that the Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

"It's clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made," Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. "The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred."

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

"Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations," Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton told Fox News. "It's a shakedown. It's corrupt, pure and simple."

There is a recent effort by Republicans to eliminate the practice, which many believe was widely abused during the Obama administration.

When big banks are sued by the government for discrimination or mortgage abuse, they can settle the cases by donating to third-party non-victims. The settlements do not specify how these third-party groups could use the windfall.

So far, investigators have accounted for $3 billion paid to "non-victim entities."

Critics say banks are incentivized to donate the funds to non-profits rather than giving it to consumers.

"The underlying problem with the slush funds is we don't know exactly where the money is going," Ted Frank, director of The Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness, told Fox News. "Using enforcement authority to go after corporate defendants, DOJ bureaucrats are taking billions away from taxpayers to fund their pet projects overriding congressional preferences."

Frank said the money should go to the Treasury Department and the process subverts the legislative branch's essential spending power. The Justice Department has argued that money is allowed to bypass Treasury because the banks' donations to the groups are voluntary.

Both the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service have concluded that the settlement agreements do not violate Congress' power of the purse. But others disagree.

"This is real abuse of power," adds Franks.

For example, in the FY16 Enacted Congressional Appropriation, Congress allotted $47 million for the HUD Housing Counseling, but the Citi and Bank of America settlements shipped in an additional $30 million in funding. The Legal Services Corporation was allocated $385 million from Congress but is getting an additional $412 million in taxpayer dollars from the third-party settlement practice.

The recent Volkswagen settlement, which requires a $1.2 billion investment into zero emission technology, was not only twice denied by Congress but is now expected to receive four times the amount originally requested by the Obama administration.

A sample of the Left-leaning organizations benefiting from the largesse include the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Urban League.

The NCLR and NCR did not return phone calls seeking comment.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #29 

Why the Democrats are hysterical about Jeff Sessions -- and why they don't mean it

The real reason the Left is tarring Sessions as a racist

John Hinderaker (Powerline) says the Democrats say that they will oppose confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, and will smear him with discredited race allegations from 30 years ago. This is rather pathetic: if they can't come up with anything within the last 30 years, they don't have much of a case, to say the least. So why are they hysterical about Sessions?

Byron York supplies much of the answer:

Sessions is the Senate's highest-profile, most determined, and most knowledgeable opponent of comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats are particularly anxious about immigration because of the unusually tenuous nature of President Obama's policies on the issue. Those policies can be undone unilaterally, by the new president in some cases, and by the attorney general and head of homeland security in other cases. There's no need for congressional action — and no way for House or Senate Democrats to slow or stop it.

That is correct. As Byron points out, all President Trump and Attorney General Sessions need to do is start enforcing the law–discharging Trump's Constitutional duty, in other words.

The Democrats' fanatical commitment to preserving illegal immigration is a big part of the reason why they are demoralized at the thought of Jeff Sessions as AG. I think we can add this, too: Under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice became the epicenter of Obama administration corruption. Legions of left-wing ideologues were brought in as DoJ lawyers. The Civil Rights Division became a partisan tool of the Democrats. Holder adopted racist policies, with enforcement of the law depending on the skin color of the victims. Cover-ups abounded, and corruption in other branches of the Obama administration was never prosecuted. Loretta Lynch had her famous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.

There are a great many skeletons in Barack Obama's closet, and many of the bodies are buried–to mix a metaphor–at the Department of Justice. For eight years, Obama and his Justice Department shamelessly stiff-armed Congressional investigations, FOIA requests and court orders. So it is no wonder that Democrats blanch at the thought of the Department of Justice in the hands of a conservative as able and as incorruptible as Jeff Sessions.

So the Democrats have pulled out their old reliable, the race card. Which causes me to wonder: has the race card ever actually worked? The Democrats obviously think that false accusations of racism are political dynamite, but if that were true, why don't they win more elections?

In the case of Jeff Sessions, we know that the Democrats' racism charges are insincere. They don't believe what they are saying about Sessions, they are just trying to smear him in a desperate attempt to deny him confirmation, or else diminish his effectiveness as Attorney General. How do we know that? Because when Sessions ran for re-election to the Senate in 2014, the Democrats didn't run a candidate against him. They let him win, unopposed. Surely if the Democrats actually believed that Sessions was a racist, they would have tried to prevent his re-election to the Senate. Right? At a minimum, they would have run a candidate against him and tried to explain to the people of Alabama that Sessions is a racist and therefore unfit to be a senator. But they didn't do this, because they know their smears are baseless. And, of course, the people of Alabama, whom Sessions has served for so long, wouldn't have been easy to fool.

I don't think the American people will be fooled, either.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system was a sham

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that last evening Fox News host Bret Baier interviewed Congressman Trey Gowdy about the Friday document dump from the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email system.  The response from Chairman Gowdy is essentially the same reaction as everyone else who has a reasonable understanding of the events.

The most concerning aspect within all recent discussions is an acceptance we must all reach that the FBI Director James Comey specifically knew the DoJ (Loretta Lynch) was not going to prosecute anyone involved in the scandal from the outset.

With the knowledge in mind that his FBI investigation needed to structurally come to a conclusion, which would be conducive to dove-tailing the preconceived DoJ intent, the Comey investigation began handing out the DoJ's mutually beneficial immunity agreements.  This FBI action essentially guaranteed Secretary Clinton would be immune from DoJ prosecution.

The conclusion reached by Representative Gowdy is almost identical to the conclusions drawn by our own research, and by the Observer yesterday, and by the Thompson Timeline report last week.  The FBI investigation was a sham.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Why did Comey grant immunity to Hillary's "highly improper" aide?


Paul Sperry (NYPost) says if anyone would know Hillary consigliere Cheryl Mills' reputation for obstructing investigations, it's FBI Director James Comey. He complained about her lack of cooperation while probing Clinton scandals in the 1990s. Yet he agreed to give Mills immunity from prosecution in his probe of Hillary's illegal e-mails as secretary of state, where Mills was chief of staff.

As a Whitewater investigator for the Senate in the mid-1990s, Comey sought information from Mills, but wouldn't you know, the then-deputy White House counsel claimed a burglar stole her notes.

Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton ordered Mills to block investigators. The obstruction, the Senate committee found, included the "destruction of documents" and other "highly improper . . . misconduct."

Two years later, Mills was in the middle of another Hillary scandal, involving the then-first lady's integration of White House and Democratic National Committee computer databases.

This time the House subpoenaed information from Mills, who not only withheld the documents but, a government committee said, "lied under oath" -- prompting staff lawyers to send a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury.

In 2000, a Commerce Department official testified that Mills ordered her to "withhold" from investigators e-mails and other documents exposing yet another scandal involving the first lady -- the selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash.

At the same time, a federal judge suggested Mills helped orchestrate a cover-up that blamed a technical "glitch" in the White House archiving system that conveniently resulted in the loss of 1.8 million e-mails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky, Filegate and other scandal investigations.

Fast-forward to Hillary's tenure as secretary. In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which to withhold from a review board. She also leaned on witnesses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

The FBI chief was fully aware of Mills' M.O. when he launched his investigation. Yet even after discovering she was in the middle of everything improper, if not illegal, he treated her with kid gloves.

Comey knew it was Mills who had Hillary's e-mails moved off her private unsecured server and onto laptops, where she decided which ones were government-related and OK for public release and which were "personal." He knew it was Mills who shredded the e-mails that were printed out and who had the rest of the 31,000 e-mails deleted, and then had the laptops bleached clean.

And he knew it was Mills who told the Denver tech who maintained the server to stop retaining her e-mails and to delete Hillary's archived e-mails, all of which the tech dutifully performed after Congress subpoenaed them and ordered them preserved.

Even so, Comey agreed to grant Mills immunity in exchange for her cooperation in the investigation. He also agreed to ground rules that left some lines of inquiry off-limits. When agents in April tried to pin her down on the procedures she used to search for Hillary's e-mails under order, she and her lawyer stormed out of the room. So much for Comey's cooperative witness.

Mills claimed such information was protected under "attorney-client privilege," which is ridiculous. Mills was chief of staff for Hillary, not her lawyer, at the time Hillary was bypassing government security and squirreling away state secrets in her basement.

And even though Mills deleted the records after she left State and was supposedly acting as Hillary's attorney then, privilege does not apply when a client seeks advice on how to commit a crime and the crime is committed.

Yet Comey's agents abided by her claim and never pursued the line of questioning again. In effect, they gave her a pass on the whole question of the criminal obstruction behind which she looks to be the mastermind. And then, three months later, they let her sit in on Hillary's interview even though Hillary was represented by attorney David Kendall!

Mills should be dragged before Congress to publicly answer questions the FBI refused to ask her, but she would just lie with impunity like she did in her past testimony involving other Hillary scandals.

Rather, it would be more productive to grill Comey under the klieg lights. Why did he give a key suspect who orchestrated the destruction of government records immunity as a witness? Why didn't he demand prosecutors convene a grand jury to question Mills under oath? Was he pressured by the attorney general?

Sweating Mills could have cracked the case wide open. No one would have ever let H.R. Haldeman get away with editing the Nixon tapes. Why would the FBI director let Hillary's chief of staff get away with deleting her e-mails?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

Scandal management with the FBI


Scott Johnson (Powerline) says like everything else touched by the Clintons, the FBI has now been compromised and slimed. We saw it in FBI Director James Comey’s absurd statement announcing Hillary Clinton’s get-out-of-jail-free pass. We saw it in the FBI’s holiday weekend document dump of 302 interviews in the case. We saw it again again late yesterday afternoon with more of the same.

These Friday afternoon document dumps come straight from the scandal management playbook perfected under the (Bill) Clinton administration. They remind us, in case any reminder was necessary, of how much we have to look forward to in the event the Clintons return to the White House. I nevertheless find it shocking that the FBI itself has now adopted the routine, acting as a party with much to be ashamed of.

With some 190 pages of interview notes to digest, the work isn’t done yet. Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Nolan McCaskill take a peek here. PJ Media’s Debra Heine cuts to the chase here.

Yesterday also brought the news that Cheryl Mills and at least four other participants in the investigation received limited immunity for coughing up evidence of one kind or another. Politico’s Gerstein and Nick Gass cover that revelation here.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy is the man from whom I want to hear on the immunity. Andy served long and honorably as an Assistant United States Attorney in the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Indeed, in better days he served in that capacity alongside Comey. Prosecuting the blind sheikh for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Andy came away with the brilliant, still relevant memoir Willful Blindness.

Now Andy asks why Mills et al. were granted immunity. The first in a promised series of posts, it includes a long analysis that concludes with the damning if unsurprising observation: “It appears the Obama Justice Department’s goal was not to make a prosecutable case, but to make it appear that Hillary Clinton was ‘exonerated’ after a thorough FBI investigation.”

As I say, Clintons==>Corruption==>Slime. Comey and the FBI are just the latest and perhaps most enraging casualties.

Related:  Former US Attorney says FBI Director Comey should resign

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #33 

FBI's 302 Report proves complicity in Clinton email scandal

Jonathan F. Keiler (AmericanThinker) says the biggest and most damning takeaway from Hillary Clinton's July interview with the FBI, at least as it concerns the FBI itself and by extension the rectitude of our government, is, to borrow from Arthur Conan Doyle, the dog that didn't bark.  That is, there is no indication that in the course of the interview, FBI agents once asked the former secretary of state about emails to and from Clinton aides regarding Clinton Foundation business.

Clinton's lawyers deliberately withheld these emails from the public and forced the FBI to recover them.  They clearly demonstrate Clinton's motive in setting up the server, thereby intentionally endangering the classified material that she and her cohorts knew would inevitably be sent through it.  This motive and intent is further demonstrated by Clinton's obfuscations, lies, and destruction of evidence that followed in the course of over a year. 

FBI agents never inquired about any of it during the interview.  Since they are presumably well trained and experienced investigators (including a section chief), the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that they were deliberately tasked with not pursuing this obvious line of inquiry, as it would have undermined the narrative that Director James Comey intended to deliver to the nation a few days later – that Hillary should not be prosecuted due to insufficient evidence of intent. 

The FBI's investigatory reports covering Hillary Clinton's July interview (cynically released just before Labor Day) confirm suppositions of FBI critics that the interview was mostly a farce, and show Hillary mostly restating her standard defenses to complacent and compliant agents who never pushed her or her phalanx of attorneys for more.  Indeed, the documents show Hillary accompanied by a gaggle of lawyers that rival O.J.'s (David Kendall, Catherine Turner, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and evidently an attorney who shall not be named).  Even O.J. did not have a secret lawyer.  Getting much of anything done in such an environment would have been a challenge.  But then again, the lines of inquiry were almost certainly vetted with Clinton's lawyers in advance (let's not forget the "coincidental" meeting on an Arizona tarmac between Bill and Loretta Lynch the week previous), producing a kind of legal kabuki dance designed to get Hillary in and out unscathed. 

Although the FBI reports do not contain an actual transcript, a careful reading and a bit of experience clearly demonstrate what happened in that conference room.  The FBI agents dutifully presented Hillary with various problematic classified emails and asked her for comment.  Hillary's comments generally took the form of "I don't recall" or "I trusted State Department professionals."  She claimed ignorance of classification categories and procedures, denying at one point that she even received instruction about them, although she signed a document upon taking office certifying that she had.  Not to mention she was the head of an important government agency and ultimately responsible for its security.  She blamed her accidental fall in 2012 for some of the memory loss, otherwise just using the standard excuse of the white-collar criminal of ordinary forgetfulness of detail by a busy executive.

At no time is there any indication that the agents pressed her, nor did they seek at any time an admission from her of anything other than ignorance, inadvertence, or negligent conduct.  This Hillary supplied in droves, with the connivance of both her attorneys and the agents, as apparently all concerned knew at the time that Directory Comey had already decided that Hillary's violations of statutory provisions covering negligent conduct were not actionable.   

The closest the agents came to seeking an admission of any kind was a single follow-up question on p. 9, part 2 of the Form 302.  That occurred after Hillary explained rather incredibly that "she did not pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously."  An agent asked "whether Clinton believed information should be classified if its unauthorized release would cause damage to national security[,]" and "she responded, 'yes that is the understanding.'"

Note the classic Clintonian use of the third person.  The agent evidently did not seek to clarify or attempt to have Hillary say it was her own understanding, which ordinarily any competent professional investigator would do.

Otherwise, Hillary repeated her standard excuses for setting up the server, that she did it innocently for convenience, and implying that her predecessor Colin Powell gave her the idea (though it is well established by Clinton's own accounts that she decided to set up the server before she ever spoke with Powell about the matter, leaving aside differing recollections of what was said between them and when).  She also blamed State Department professionals for sending her classified information and seeking it in return, even though the communications went through her private server.

Having received these responses, the obvious course for any honest investigator would have been to show Hillary some of the emails that concerned the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI was forced to recover after her lawyers (some of whom were present in the room) wrongly withheld them from discovery as non-work-related emails.

A simple question – "Did your association with the Clinton Foundation have any role in your decision to establish the private server?" – might have followed.  Clinton could have denied it, exposing her to criminal liability for a plainly untrue statement, or more likely her attorneys would have prevented her from answering, citing the 5th Amendment.

The truly disturbing point is that the agents never asked.  Now, it could be that Clinton's attorneys, having clearly demanded from the FBI a proffer of the questions (and in the event having received the same), never would have agreed to allow Hillary's questioning if that proffer had included questions about the Clinton Foundation.  But any first-year law student can see that questions regarding the Foundation are clearly relevant and material to the case, as they go directly to Clinton's motive in setting up the server and thus could prove the element of intent in exposing classified documents on her unsecured email system, which Comey claimed was necessary for her successful prosecution. 

If Clinton had refused the interview, it would have looked bad politically for her and forced the FBI to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence at hand, which would have meant recommending prosecution, which Comey plainly did not want to do.  Whether this is because Comey is a political lackey or bought off, or both, we don't know.   

The fake interview thus suited both parties.  It allowed Hillary to appear forthcoming, even though she did nothing but provide the same talking points and evasions she had all along, without being confronted with effective questioning or truly compromising documents.  The FBI facilitated this not only by failing to question her aggressively, and refusing to confront her with the documents relating to the Clinton foundation, but finally by providing her with an official forum to repeat her outright denials of intent.

I presumed that the FBI did just this here, and the proof is contained on p. 10, part 2 of the Form 302 at the conclusion of the interview, where the agents, obviously having asked her a series of canned questions to elicit just such responses, list her denials of guilt as if they were fact. 


Quite simply, the FBI is complicit in the Clinton email scandal and is an active participant in the cover-up of obvious criminal wrongdoing.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

Loretta Lynch ducks at least 74 questions from Congress

The TEAParty is reporting that congressman David Trott came to the conclusion that Loretta Lynch's testimony was one big waste of time.

Trott's staff counted up the number of times the attorney general said she couldn't answer a question or refused to give an "appropriate" response, and they had added up at least 74 instances prior to Trott's questioning, during a hearing today of the House Judiciary Committee.

Trott concluded:

"I knew you weren't going to answer our questions today and I apologize for wasting so much time here because it's really not been very productive"

"It's one of two things -- either you're saying that to avoid the appearance of impropriety in which case you should have recused yourself, or you're trying to protect Hillary Clinton."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

The completely corruptible, cowardly Mr. Comey


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) says I've always had the highest regard for the FBI and those who serve in that organization. The G-Men and G-Women are straight arrows, America's clean cut, modern day super patriots who brush their teeth in the morning to the sound of Kate Smith belting out "God Bless America."

The FBI Director, James Comey was apparently incorruptible, beyond reproach, a virtual altar boy in a 300 dollar suit with a 700 dollar pistol.  Comey could never be bought. Comey could never be corrupted. Comey could never sell out his country.

Until now…

But, Comey had never dealt with the forces of darkness. Forces of darkness defined as the evil, delusional, Machiavellian Ma Barker Clinton and her husband, Elmer Gantry's evil doppelganger.

Comey appeared in front of the press two days ago, as white as a ghost. Perhaps he had seen Vince Foster's or Jim McDougal's? God knows what was said to him. God knows what was implied. God knows, but we never will…

Here are some excerpts from Comey's statement on Tuesday, July 5th:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

"The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014."

As Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R. UT) asked Mr. Comey during today's testimony to Congress, didn't Hillary Clinton break the law by directing up to TEN individuals without ANY security clearances to view Top Secret information? Comey had no answer to that question, but responded with the canned line that somehow the attorneys for Mrs. Clinton didn't actually read any of the classified information.


"It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice, Mr. Comey?.

Comey continued by reciting a litany of transgressions committed by the bottle blonde Maoist in Dr. No attire.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Carelessness as described as gross negligence.

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later 'up-classified' e-mails)."

To clarify this, Hillary Clinton sent and received the highest level of classified information in the US Government, concerning information from intelligence sources, on a non-secure server. What this means is that people's lives were put in danger because of her actions.

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government -- or even with a commercial service like Gmail."

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account."

Comey must certainly know that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans and perhaps, ISIS, have hacked into Mrs. Clinton's server and have obtained copies of highly sensitive information.

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

"What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."

This is where Mr. Comey refuses to follow the law, and indeed is mis-interpreting it to allow Mrs. Clinton to go free. Mr. Comey states that because he believed Mrs. Clinton did not intend to mishandle classified information, she therefore should not be indicted. Even though she was extremely careless and negligent, she did not INTEND to mishandle information all the way up to Top Secret/SCI and SAP.

I'm no attorney, Mr. Comey, but I can read and the law clearly states otherwise in regards to intentions and negligence.

As Andrew McCarthy -- former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:

"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case."

Shannen Coffin -- who served in senior legal positions in the U.S. Department of Justice – writes:

"Comey simply ignored -- or rewrote -- the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for the national security. How Comey could conclude that "no reasonable prosecutor" could make this case is inexplicable in light of his own words. Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at "a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." That statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who "becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both [emphasis added]." Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit, to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires "intent to retain" classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey's own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong."

Furthermore, Erik Zuesse from Washington's Blog, outlines six federal statutes that the FBI apparently ignored in its investigation of Hillary Clinton, including 793, which was mentioned above:

18 U.S. Code § 2232  -- Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court's continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1512  -- Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1519  -- Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2071  -- Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 641  --  Public money, property or records 

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

18 U.S. Code § 793  -- Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer --   

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

What happens now?

Congressman Chaffetz is calling for a Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton's testimony to the Benghazi Committee where she allegedly perjured herself by stating that she had never sent or received any information marked classified on her non secure server.

The FBI will not comment on whether there is an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which many believe was a piggy bank for bribes and money laundering from foreign countries doing business with Madame Secretary and former President Bill Clinton.

And now, a decent man like James Comey has found himself in the hot seat, defending villains.

History will be harsh on you sir. Wouldn't it have been better to follow your conscience instead of the corrupt, twisted, evil whims of those who believe they are above the law, and which you, this week, have given them reason to believe they are?

Justice died in America on July 5, 2016. To cover up the criminal actions of a lying, delusional psychopath running for the highest office in the land, the FBI has sold its soul to the devil.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #36 

Foreign-born, hard-Left DoJ head tells Americans what our American values are


S. Noble (IndependetSentinel) says far-Left, ACLU-trained Vanita Gupta, the assistant attorney general who heads the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, said that laws keeping men out of women's bathrooms are against American values.

I don't know about you but I'm really sick of hearing leftists tell me what my values are.

At a forum held by the Washington Council of Lawyers, Gupta said, "Even after the Supreme Court's landmark gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' we see new efforts to deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee."

What about the civil rights of the people who don't want to be in the bathroom with people of the opposite biological sex? Massachusetts is now passing a law to keep sex perverts out of bathrooms of the opposite sex.

She told the lawyers gathered, "And let me add this -- efforts like House Bill 2 in North Carolina not only violate the laws that govern our nation, but also the values that define us as a people. The Justice Department recently sued the state of North Carolina to challenge the provision in H.B. 2 that prevents transgender individuals from using restrooms and changing facilities consistent with their gender identity."

"As I said the day we announced the lawsuit, calling H.B. 2 a ‘bathroom bill' trivializes what this is really about. H.B. 2 translates into discrimination in the real world."

This is bizarre. It's crazy. These people are very far left and have no values. They are clueless when it comes to justice. How dare they define our values when they have none themselves. They bully, lie, threaten and trample.

If you have values, you don't bully the majority or tell mothers their little girls have to be in a bathroom with grown men.

At a "civil rights symposium hosted by the U.S. Attorney's Office the next day, Gupta said, "We also believe that America cannot reach its full potential and promise until every person in this country -- regardless of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity -- can live free from discrimination, harassment and violence," repeating her assertion that the bathroom bill is contrary to "the values that define us as a people."

They are discriminating against the majority. The solution is to have a separate bathroom for gender fluids but the government has rejected that as a solution.

Gupta's a lunatic. The Sentinel has posted articles about her before. If Trump wins, he needs to fire her on his first day.

An article by the biased, taxpayer-funded NPR claims this is all "deeply persona" for her. She is an immigrant and her "journey took her as a small child from a McDonald's in London where her family fled racial insults and french fries thrown by bigoted skinheads all the way to the Ivy League."

Poor thing, french fries -- oh, the horror. She was able to attend an Ivy League school which most Americans can't afford.

Who even believes her?

She told NPR, "It speaks to all of us who have ever been made to feel inferior, like somehow we don't belong in our community or we just don't fit in," Gupta said. "Let me reassure every transgender individual, right here in America, that you belong just as you are. That you are supported. And that you are protected."

That's fine. We should all want transgenders protected. This is about gender fluids and it's about putting biological men in girl's bathrooms and biological women in men's locker rooms. The majority have rights also.

Why do we need to follow her values? Who gave her the right?

This woman has no clue about America or American values.

One article about her and her extremist, bully mentality is included on the link below. Our American values include nationalizing police and making all drugs legal apparently -- we're talking hard drugs here. She wants us all sedated.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Historic transparency alert -- Obama's DoJ shores up stone wall around Hillary

Twitchy reports that when he took office, barack Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. All we can say is that the Obama administration is just as concerned today about openness as they were on day one:

Hillary Clinton will appreciate this defense from the Obama DoJ:

Late Thursday evening, the Justice Department filed a court motion opposing the Clinton deposition request from conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch, claiming that the organization was trying to dramatically expand the scope of the lawsuit.

Judicial Watch is "seeking instead to transform these proceedings into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters beyond the scope of the court's order and unrelated to the FOIA request at issue in this case," government lawyers wrote in their filing, referring to the Freedom of Information Act.

The lawyers wrote that the request to interview Clinton "is wholly inappropriate" before depositions are finished in a separate case also concerning the email server.

As Attorney General Loretta Lynch has stated, she's in no particular hurry when it comes to getting to the truth about Hillary's homebrew server and deleted emails.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

Judge in Obama's amnesty case orders DoJ lawyers to take ethics class

Derek Hunter (DailyCaller) is reporting that in a stunning ruling, the judge overseeing the challenge by 26 states to Barack Obama's executive action in immigration has ordered all lawyers "employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course."

In lambasting their conduct, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote, "Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word 'Justice.'"

Accusing the DoJ lawyers of deliberate acts of untruthfulness, Judge Hanen wrote, "The United States Department of Justice has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements."

Judge Hanen's order reads, in part:

Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction."

In a footnote, Judge Hanen noted this was not the first time the DoJ has faced such an issue. Just recently, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar conclusion. It wrote:

In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws -- all of them, not just selective ones -- in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court [like the attorneys representing the DHS in this Court] falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015 -- without redactions, and without further delay.

Concluding the order, Judge Hanen wrote, "This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed."

You can read the entire order here.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #39 
Meanwhile, the court date for Trump University lawsuit is scheduled for the first day of the GOP Convention with a presiding judge appointed by Obama.  Swift action here.  Not a coincidence.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Surprise! Lynch says there's no deadline for Clinton email probe


Rudy Takala (Examiner) is reporting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch said there's no deadline for concluding the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server, and said setting a deadline would only make the probe less thorough.

"People have to have confidence that we treat every case the same, no matter who's last name is involved, no matter how much publicity it gets," Lynch said in an interview on PBS' "Charlie Rose."

"We don't make predictions on the time because that essentially cuts off the independence of that and it cuts off the thoroughness," Lynch said. She added that the department was committed to conducting "a full, thorough and independent review."

Clinton has been under investigation by the FBI for nearly a year over her use of a private server to store classified information as secretary of state. In January, the probe reportedly expanded to look at charges of public corruption related to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.

FBI Director James Comey said several times in April that he was seeking to conduct the investigation "promptly," emphasizing that it could easily extend past the Democratic National Convention in July.

Anyone that believes Obama's Justice Department is going to give this matter a prompt and fair hearing is living in La-La-Land.

Obama -- and his appointees -- will cover for Hillary all the way. Justice be damned.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #41 

Obama’s DoJ tells police officers to stop chasing suspects


Katie McGuire is reporting that one side effect of getting the federal government so deeply involved in a media fueled firestorm such as police shootings is its laying a heavy hand on local and state law enforcement.

A lot of this interaction has been shuffled off to the DoJ’s Community Oriented Policing Services office (COPS) and their chief was quick to chime in and let everyone know where his priorities lie.

Ronald L. Davis, a former police chief, who heads the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, said:

“We have to get beyond what is legal and start focusing on what is preventable. Most [shootings] are preventable."

"[Police] need to stop chasing down suspects, hopping fences and landing on top of someone with a gun. When they do that, they have no choice but to shoot."

Those two sentences really say it all. The DoJ, at this point, is taking an attitude of telling police officers that they are doing something wrong if they are chasing down suspects and hopping fences. This should come as encouraging news to any armed suspects who are considering making a run for it rather than being arrested and brought to justice.

This isn’t how it works, folks. This isn’t how any of this works. Police are there to serve and protect. How are they supposed to do any of those things when they have these false expectations that they should not be chasing criminals? T

Take a good look around. This, ladies and gents, is what is wrong with America.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #42 

Bill to reform secretive agency behind Operation Choke Point passes U.S. House

M.D. Kittle is reporting that critics of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the secretive, Obama administration-created agency that oversees the U.S. Justice Department's Operation Choke Point, won a small but key victory this week.

The House on Wednesday passed the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. The bill with the long name would require the director of the CFPB to create a Small Business Advisory Council within the shadowy agency and codify the previously established Credit Union Advisory Council and the Community Bank Advisory Council.

It now moves on to the Senate for consideration.

While the bill creates more layers of government, it provides what critics claim is some much needed , real-world counsel to an agency that operates with little oversight.

"An agency as powerful as the CFPB will benefit from the advice of small businesses, community banks and credit unions," Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said in a statement. "The CFPB should listen to them so it can issue smart regulations rather than dumb regulations that harm Main Street America."

CFPB, assisted by several other financial services regulators, has drawn political heat for its leadership role in Attorney General Eric Holder's Operation Choke Point, an initiative targeting merchants that don't fit into the Obama administration's idea of what an American business ought to be.

Two retailers have told their horror stories about being caught in the cross hairs of the multi-agency effort ostensibly aimed at going after unlawful consumer fraud by "choking" off access to banking systems.

"Our vision is a consumer finance market place that works for American consumers, responsible providers, and the economy as a whole," the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's website declares.

Critics say that vision is about picking winners and losers in the business world through an overreaching, harassing campaign.

Operation Choke Point was never intended to be made public, but that all changed last year when victims of abusive, heavy-handed tactics stepped forward.

"We're looking at one of the most prolific abuses of power this (Obama) administration has been a part of," said Brian Wise, senior adviser to the U.S. Consumer Coalition, in a Watchdog story last month. The coalition bills itself as a "grassroots organization that works to protect consumers' right to access free-market goods and services."

Operation Choke Point, Wise said, has served to limit consumer access as it interferes with legitimate businesses.

Proponents of the initiative and the CFPB assert the effort is about saving consumers from the clutches of predatory lending practices and a long list of other available, and legal, consumer products.

USCC knows of more than 100 cases of victims targeted by the DOJ, but the organization is confident there are thousands more under assault.

"Due to the lack of congressional oversight, and the unique funding and leadership structure of the CFPB, the Administration knows that it will make the perfect agency to carry on the legacy of Operation Choke Point. The Administration will continue to remove any obstacles in their way," Wise said in a statement earlier this month.

The CFPB gets its funding transferred from the Federal Reserve. It is not part of the congressional appropriations process, a "perennial sore spot" for Republican lawmakers, according to a piece this week in American Banker.

Republican lawmakers attached an amendment to the bill creating the advisory boards that would cover the operational costs of those boards by cutting the CFPB's budget. The measure, according to estimates, could cut the agency's budget by as much as $100 million over the next 10 years.

"The bill before us today is just the latest instance of (House) Financial Services Committee Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., ranking member on the banking panel, said during a heated debate Wednesday afternoon, according to a story in American Banker. "It makes clear their commitment to do all they can to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- an agency with an extraordinary record of success protecting consumers, reining in bad actors, and ensuring that we do not return to the predatory practices that put this nation on the verge of economic collapse less than 10 years ago."

But the U.S. Consumer Coalition said the bill brings accountability to an overreaching agency that has spent taxpayer resources harassing legal businesses.

"The CFPB's current structure allows for it to make unilateral policy decisions with little regard to the concerns of American small businesses and consumers," the coalition said in a statement. "(This) bill would ensure the participation of small businesses in advising and consulting the Bureau on emerging regulations."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

The deception of the Obama Department of Justice


Katie Pavlich says throughout Barack Obama's tenure in the White House he's been accused of leading a lawless presidency and cheapening the rule of law through his Department of Justice. Many say these accusations are simply based in politics, but a closer look at the way the Department of Justice has handled multiple cases in federal court suggest misleading or lying to judges is a habit, not a mistake.

Most recently, we've seen this happen in the case surrounding Obama's executive action on illegal immigration. Twenty-six states are suing against the action, and in February, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issued a stay in the implementation of the order granting temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. Shortly after blocking the implementation, Hanen found out DoJ attorneys had issued false information to the court. He accused them of misleading the court because Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under DoJ guidance, had ignored his order to halt implementation and gave temporary amnesty and work permits to more than 100,000 people.

Hanen said during a contentious hearing in March that he fell for the DoJ's arguments "like an idiot" and questioned if Obama could be trusted on the issue. Hanen is also weighing sanctions against the DoJ for its actions. Late last year, U.S. District Court Judge Francis Allegra accused DoJ attorneys of not only being misleading in their arguments but of defrauding the court in the case of retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent Jay Dobyns, in Jay Dobyns v. United States of America.

For some quick background, Dobyns sued the ATF after years of the agency ignoring death threats against his family and for framing him for the arson of his home. In August 2014 that lawsuit and trial came to an end with Allegra ruling in Dobyns's favor and awarding him $173,000 in damages. In October 2014 Allegra obtained new evidence in the case, including information showing intimidation by the DoJ of a top witness, retracted his ruling and accused the DoJ of defrauding the court.

"On October 29, 2014, the court, invoking RCFC 60(b) and other provisions, issued an order voiding the prior judgment based upon indications that defendant, through its counsel, had committed fraud on the court," Allegra wrote in an unsealed opinion from December 2014. "The Sixth Circuit has indicated that fraud on the court consists of conduct: 1. On the part of an officer of the court; 2. That is directed to the ‘judicial machinery' itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the court."

Defrauding charges are so severe that Allegra has ordered a special master to be appointed to the Dobyns case. It should be noted that the appointment of a special master is rare.

When it was discovered in 2013 that the Justice Department was monitoring the private phone lines and emails of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen and his parents, there were many questions surrounding how the DoJ was able to get approval from a judge to do. The department claimed in an affidavit that Rosen was a criminal co-conspirator who had potentially broken the law and committed a crime for seeking classified information from a source. But when the DoJ was caught monitoring him, it argued plans to prosecute Rosen were never in the works. Did DoJ attorneys lie to a federal judge about the "criminal co-conspirator" classification in order to get court approval to monitor him and his sources? With the department's history, it certainly isn't out of the question.

Moving forward, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch will certainly have to answer for the cases above and explain how judges can continue to trust DoJ attorneys in court.

"A Federal judge wrote that DoJ attorneys attempted to perpetrate a 'fraud upon the court' in a case involving Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agent Jay Dobyns. U.S. District Court Judge Francis Allegra also took the unusual steps of submitting these findings to Attorney General [Eric] Holder," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Lynch earlier this year as part of her confirmation process. "If confirmed will you personally review Judge Allegra's submission to ensure that appropriate disciplinary action in taken in this case, and will you pledge to provide updates to this committee about the status?"

Lynch has said she isn't familiar with specific cases, but promised to look into any misconduct should she be confirmed as attorney general.

Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice has been willing to mislead federal judges, ignore court orders and allegedly defraud the court so long as political goals of the White House are reached. This is the rule, not the exception.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #44 

Holder used secret email address, too

Breitbart is reporting that Attorney General Eric Holder used secretive email accounts under aliases during his tenure at the Justice Department, raising fresh questions about the Obama administration’s compliance with federal records laws as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reels from her own email scandal.

Holder has emailed under the nom de plume “Henry Yearwood” in the past, former Justice Department officials say. The Huffington Post reported Tuesday that Holder had used three aliases. The current is unknown.

Republicans familiar with the issue said that even when congressional officials traveled to the Justice Department for so-called “in camera” review of documents, Holder’s email address had been redacted, despite the fact that the documents were not being released.

Unlike Clinton, who used a personal email account and her own private email server, preventing government officials from possessing the emails for record-keeping purposes while she was in office, Holder’s email address is a government, email address.

A spokesman for Holder claimed to the Huffington Post that the secretive email accounts did not interfere with the production of Holder emails to congressional oversight officials or FOIA requests.

Former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson came under fire previously for emailing under an alias, Richard Windsor, that critics alleged had protected her correspondence from some FOIA requests.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #45 

Obama is destroying everything American

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

Government case implodes as its former lawyers allege fraud against Holder's Department of Justice

The New York Observer reports that two former Assistant United States Attorneys say the Holder Justice Department engaged in deceit and corruption of justice in connection with the DoJ's litigation against Sierra Pacific Industries, a California lumber company.

Paul Mirengoff says that as a result of the allegations, a federal district judge has ordered the recusal from the case of every judge in the Eastern District of California. He reasons that the court may have been defrauded by the government, thus requiring the appointment of an outside judge to handle the matter going forward.

The Holder DoJ brought the case against Sierra Pacific for allegedly being responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California. Sierra Pacific maintained that the fire started elsewhere and that state and federal investigators and DoJ attorneys lied about the origin of the fire so they would have a "deep pocket" from which to collect millions of dollars.

Nonetheless, as litigants confronted by the power of the federal government are wont to do, the company settled the case. It agreed to pay $55 million to the United States over a period of five years and to give up 22,500 acres of land.

But now two former DoJ lawyers in the office that prosecuted the action corroborate Sierra Pacific's claim that the DoJ's case was based on fraud and deception. Using information provided by these lawyers, Sierra Pacific told the federal court that "the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court [and] advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence or for which material evidence had been withheld."

In addition, the United States "prepared key. . .investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most important aspects of their investigation." The United States also "failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with the lead investigator's direct financial interest in the outcome of the investigation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminated."

One of the former DoJ lawyers says he was removed from the original prosecution by his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney's office, because he "rebuffed" pressure to "engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer." According to the Observer, Eric Holder will this week award Shelledy the Department's highest award for excellence.

It figures.

Another former DoJ lawyer left the prosecution team stating: "It's called the Department of Justice; it's not called the Department of Revenue." He reportedly told defense counsel that in his entire career, "I've never seen anything like this."

Naturally, the allegations of these former prosecutors made a big impression on the court. As noted, the chief judge of the District, Morrison England, Jr., ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case due to evidence that the government defrauded the court. He referred the case to Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so Kozinski could appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case.

In a related case, a California state judge found that the investigation and prosecution of this matter by the state involved "egregious," "pervasive," and "reprehensible" abuses that amount to "government corruption." The state court case "betray[ed] the primary purpose of the judicial system—to reveal the truth," the judge stated.

The Department of Justice exists to promote justice, not to collect money by winning cases. A lawyer representing a private individual may have to take positions he considers unmeritorious in order to serve his client. Even so, such a lawyer cannot advance his client's interest through fraud.

A government lawyer should never take an unmeritorious position. If doing so is required to win a case, the government shouldn't pursue the case. Unlike a private party, the government has no valid interest in winning cases it doesn't deserve to win.

This view is anachronistic, of course. Government lawyers are as ambitious as private lawyers -- maybe more so because they are more likely to be shooting for a judgeship or a move into the lucrative world of private practice. Many government lawyers are also zealots.

Thus, the modern government lawyer has no compunction about trying to sell arguments with scant support in the law or the facts, and there isn't much anyone can do about it. But when ambition and/or ideology induce government lawyers to rely on facts they know have been invented or to fail to meet the legal obligation to disclose facts, the line has been crossed.

It isn't surprising that, in the  lawlessleftist, crony-favoring environment of the Holder DoJ, Sierra Pacific appears to be the victim of a lawless prosecution. The case against it fits a pattern of abuse.

In this instance, David Shelledy, who drove the prosecution against Sierra Pacific, reportedly had a history of resisting the disclosure in environmental cases of evidence the DoJ is required to disclose. The Department's office of professional responsibility is said to have rejected his positions on this issue in previous cases.

But the Holder DoJ did not rein Shelledy in, and now, it is about to award him for "excellence."

Shelledy is thus the very model of a Holder DoJ attorney -- and if the reports of his conduct in the Sierra Pacific case are accurate, that's a disgrace.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #47 

Feds mum on prosecution of illegal border crossers

Astrid Galvan is reporting that the federal government refuses to say whether prosecutors in Yuma, Arizona, have scaled back a years-old program that guarantees jail time for most immigrants caught crossing the border illegally and which law enforcement officials say is crucial to public safety.

Reports that federal prosecutors have stopped some prosecutions under Operation Streamline surfaced nearly two weeks ago when Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking information on the status of the zero-tolerance program that circumvents the civil immigration system and lumps together months' worth of criminal proceedings into one day for immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.

Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said in a letter to the senators that he had been informed that federal prosecutors in Yuma are no longer going after first offenders.

But the government has been completely silent on the issue. Public affairs officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection have all refused to answer questions about whether the program has been scaled back.

Brett Worsencroft, president of the Border Patrol union for Yuma Sector border agents, said the U.S. Attorney's Office has in fact ended prosecutions of first-time offenders.

"Operation Streamline is like one of the last strongholds we have as a deterrent. Our manpower is dwindling on a daily basis," Worsencroft said. "The fence can only do so much."

Worsencroft said the program was a large factor in the steep decline in border-crossers in Yuma because it sent a message that even first-time offenders would serve jail time and because it allowed agents to focus their attention on drug smugglers and other dangerous criminals.

Getting rid of prosecutions for first-time offenders is a "free ticket into the U.S." for those who cross the border without legal status, he said.

Operation Streamline is used as a deterrent. Federal judges sentence large groups of immigrants within days of their arrival into the U.S. in fast court proceedings that include an arraignment, plea and sentencing in the span of one day. Most immigrants who participate in the program plead guilty to entering the country illegally and receive sentences of 30 to 120 days. Many get credit for time served.

In Yuma, all immigrants who are caught crossing the border illegally went through the program. That differs from the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, where the much higher volume of border crossers means that mostly immigrants with prior deportations are prosecuted under Operation Streamline. Prosecutors in parts of Texas also use the program, but those in California do not do so.

The Yuma Sector made 6,106 apprehensions in fiscal year 2013. The Tucson Sector, which includes most of southern Arizona, made more than 120,000 in that timeframe.

But the low numbers haven't always been the case for Yuma, which in 2004 and 2005 saw upward of 140,000 immigrant apprehended. Many attribute that drop to the implementation of Operation Streamline.

"This new guidance is of great concern because it undermines the mission of local law enforcement agencies throughout Yuma County for 100 percent prosecution of those entering the United States illegally in order to curb reentries," Wilmot wrote.

McCain and Flake in a letter also said that the program contributed to decreased immigration in that area.

"Achieving these gains in border security is no doubt a result of a combination of factors including increased manpower, technology implementation, and appropriate consequences," the senators wrote. "The Yuma County Sheriff's Office cites 100 percent prosecution as a shared goal of a partnership including federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and cites Operation Streamline as an element in the recent success in reducing illegal crossings."

Holder has not responded to the senators, a spokeswoman for Flake said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #48 

Awesome! Obama-Holder Justice Department doesn't punish known criminal activity in its ranks

Judicial Watch is reporting that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is responsible for enforcing the law, providing federal leadership in preventing crime and punishing those guilty of illegal behavior yet it allows its own officials to get away with all sorts of appalling crimes and transgressions.

As if this weren't bad enough, the DoJ also protects its perpetrators, covering up their name and allowing them to keep their lucrative government jobs. Even the agency watchdog, which is charged with rooting out corruption, conceals crucial information about unscrupulous DoJ officials, including those in high-ranking positions. Now a national newspaper chain offers insight into this astounding cover-up scheme with documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law often used by Judicial Watch to expose government corruption.

The records don't include names, but they do reveal a "startling array" of transgressions and misconduct in which DoJ officials nevertheless escaped prosecution or firing. It's like the fox guarding the henhouse because the DoJ is responsible for prosecuting corruption in the public sector. This includes government agencies and elected officials at most levels. The records show that dozens of DoJ officials, ranging from FBI special agents and prison wardens to high-level federal prosecutors, have faced no consequences for criminal behavior or serious misconduct.

In at least 27 cases the inspector general identified evidence of criminal wrongdoing yet no one was prosecuted, the records show. These cases have been kept secret, the news agency's analysis found, and reveal "more than an underside to federal law enforcement." It also proves that federal prosecutors have way too much power in deciding whether to press charges, usually choosing not to when it comes to friends and colleagues. In fact, the DoJ Inspector General expressed concern about "two standards of justice at the Department of Justice."

Yet the DoJ watchdog won't release most of the names of those accused with wrongdoing or discuss details of the individual cases, further shielding the offenders as well as agency officials who refuse to take action. What we do know is that the DoJ Inspector General got about 5,900 misconduct complaints during a recent six-month period, opened 195 probes and had a hand in 32 arrests. This clearly indicates that there are serious problems inside the DoJ that aren't likely to improve as long as the agency is allowed to police itself.

Here are some examples of what's occurring; a U.S. Attorney violated federal laws and regulations by accepting a partially paid trip to a foreign country yet nothing happened to the presidential appointee. Another U.S. Attorney helped cover up her husband's criminal activity by, among other things, misleading federal agents investigating the case. Two FBI supervisory special agents took free tickets to a professional basketball game and lied under oath about it. One of the agents misused government resources to engage in extramarital affairs with three women.

The list of transgressions and violations goes on and on and in most cases DoJ officials got off with little or no consequences. In fact, there has been an overall decline in public corruption prosecutions during the Obama administration, the newspaper analysis found. Only 34% of investigators' referrals of public corruption allegations have been accepted this year compared to 41.6% prosecuted during the George W. Bush presidency.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #49 

Holder says America has a moral obligation to provide legal representation to illegals -- and you'll pay for it

Pam Key is reporting that yesterday at the Hispanic National Bar Association’s 39th annual convention, Attorney General Eric Holder announced grants for "Justice AmeriCorps" to provide legal services for the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who flooded across the United States-Mexico border this summer saying, "Though these children may not have a constitutional right to a lawyer," we have a "moral obligation," to supply the children with counsel.

"That's why the Justice Department began planning a legal aid program well before the recent surge of unaccompanied children," Holder added. "Last July President Obama announced the creating of a task force."

Justice AmeriCorps was announced in this summer as a program from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the federal agency that also runs Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and the Social Innovation Fund.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 

The arrogance of Eric Holder

Matthew Vadum says Attorney General Eric Holder argues in a new interview that activism is the proper role of the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- and it is precisely this radical conceit that by itself ought to disqualify him from holding the office.

"If you want to call me an activist attorney general, I will proudly accept that label," he told left-wing journalist Juan Williams.

"Any attorney general who is not an activist is not doing his or her job," Holder pontificated, skating over the long-recognized fact that an attorney general is supposed to enforce the law, not fundamentally transform the nation.

"The responsibility of the attorney general is to change things [and] bring us closer to the ideals expressed in our founding documents," he said, again deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of his high office.

It is especially galling that Holder invokes the nation's founding documents, which to him are mere pieces of parchment to be ignored or overcome depending on the political exigencies of the moment.

When critics decry his Department of Justice for containing an "activist civil rights division and this is an activist attorney general -- I'd say I agree with you 1,000 percent and [I am] proud of it," Holder said.

This is not mere hubris.

Holder is the legal ringleader for today's Democrats and their culture of corruption. After being held in criminal contempt of Congress in June 2012 -- the first such citation against a sitting attorney general in American history -- he is just a few steps away from being impeached in the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate for the high crimes and misdemeanors his detractors say he has committed against the American people.

Twenty House members have introduced a formal impeachment resolution, H.Res. 411. The resolution's four articles of impeachment accuse Holder of wrongdoing in connection with his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal, refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, refusing to prosecute IRS officials who leaked confidential GOP donor tax information, and providing misleading testimony to Congress about whether he approved invasive investigative tactics against reporters like James Rosen of Fox News.

First and foremost, Holder is a whiner. When in trouble, he cowers under a tarpaulin-sized race card. It is all so tedious.

He bristled when lawmakers dared to question him in various congressional hearings. When he got into hot water for withholding documents on the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal, his arrogance burned brightly.

"What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?" he asked disingenuously.

Holder hates conservatives with a passion.

He calls conservatives "defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities." They "put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed." The hallmarks of the "conservative agenda" include "social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer."

Clearly, this, coming from a member of the most divisive administration in memory, is a case of psychological projection.

Moreover, Holder surrounds himself with unsavory people.

His former top civil rights enforcer, Thomas Perez, is a former top aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and possibly a perjurer. At DoJ, Perez, a former president of illegal alien support group Casa de Maryland, led the Obama administration's assault on voter ID laws. Before heading off to become Obama's Secretary of Labor, Perez played a major role in enacting the Church Arson Prevention Act, legislation based on the false premise that black churches were being targeted with disproportionate frequency by arsonists. He targeted Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio for legal harassment because he didn't like Arpaio's tough-on-crime approach, especially with respect to illegal aliens.

Perez, like so many Obama administration officials, believes that America is a seething hotbed of "Islamophobia," filled with ignorant rubes who irrationally fear the Muslim religion. He has worked with hardcore Islamist groups such as the terrorist-linked Islamic Society of North America and applauded Islamists for lobbying against airline security measures.

Holder backed President Obama's nominee to replace Perez, Debo Adegbile, a race-obsessed lawyer who tried to permanently free unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. A former head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Adegbile is a staunch affirmative action supporter who doesn't appear to believe that white Americans are entitled to civil rights protection. In a rare victory for common sense, the Senate rejected Adegbile's nomination.

If there is any justice, after the Obama era mercifully draws to a close, Holder will be prosecuted for a litany of abuses that have been ably documented by J. Christian Adams in Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky in Obama's Enforcer: Eric Holder's Justice Department.

But don't hold your breath waiting for justice to be done.

Like Barack Hussein Obama, Holder knows he is largely inoculated from criticism because he is black. Holder possesses an ugly combination of creepy self-righteousness, cockiness, hatred of country, and racist contempt for white Americans that makes him the darling of the activist Left and the mainstream media which refuses to report on his many, many misdeeds.

Holder is an invaluable member of the Obama cabinet because he knows where the bodies are buried. Chances are he buried the bodies. He is not We The People's lawyer but instead serves as a personal consigliere, or mob lawyer, to the highest elected gangster in the land, Barack Obama. And he will never cross the capo di tutti capi. He will bend and twist any statute into pretzels, torture any legal precedent into docility, and intimidate and persecute anyone who gets in his way.

Like all the other identity politics-focused neo-Marxists in the Obama administration, Holder is obsessed with race.

This psychopathology presents itself prominently more or less every time Holder makes a speech. Instead of thinking of himself as an unhyphenated American, Holder speaks of "my people," when referring to blacks. And although Americans talk about race constantly and often to the point of nausea, Holder thinks more needs to be said. Because most Americans don't share his race-based resentments and sense of racial entitlement, they are bad people in this view. This helps in part to explain his infamous claim that America is "a nation of cowards" on race.

America remains a deeply racist nation, just as systemically biased against blacks as it was in the Jim Crow era, as Holder sees it. Government-mandated racism such as affirmative action programs and other special treatment for minorities is desperately needed, in his view.

Holder loathes Chief Justice John Roberts's eminently sensible formulation that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Like the racial hucksters of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Holder acts like a Klansmen is hiding under every bed, ready to terrorize the nation's blacks.

"There are still [racial] issues we as a society are working our way through," Holder said. "And the lack of desire to do that, I think, undermines the ability that I think is inherent in the American people to make progress. But it also does not prepare us for demographic changes, the likes of which this country has never seen."

Some of those projected demographic changes are largely nonexistent, of course, accomplished by rejiggering definitions of various races, for example, of Hispanics, a group whose membership ebbs and flows depending on which party controls the Census Bureau.

"The justice system is part of the larger society and to the extent there are racial issues we are still grappling with, it is not a shock that you are going to see them in the justice system … [There is] a whole range of ways the justice system, if it is run properly, can make this country the country it wants to be."

How Holder knows what the country "wants to be" is unclear. What is clear is that he is willing to foment racial tension and hatred that get people killed in order to change society. Under Holder, the Department of Justice sent taxpayer-paid community agitators down to Sanford, Florida, to whip up hysteria against the so-called white Hispanic, George Zimmerman, since-acquitted of the murder of black juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin.

Holder's idea of justice consists of letting thugs go free -- provided that they have the right skin color. He has steadfastly refused to prosecute hate crimes committed against white Americans. He presided over the DoJ's dismissal of an otherwise open-and-shut case involving two members of the New Black Panther Party who intimidated white voters in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008.

Interviewer Juan Williams writes that "Holder remains indifferent to conservative protests that he is an ‘activist' looking for trouble by digging into what he calls ‘policies [with] disproportionate impact on communities of color.'"

Disparate racial outcomes "are not only shameful and unacceptable  -- they impede our ability to see that justice is done," according to Holder. "And they perpetuate cycles of poverty, crime and incarceration that trap individuals, destroy communities and decimate minority neighborhoods."

Setting aside the seductive sociobabble, it needs to be stated that decades of social studies show pretty conclusively that blacks violate these so-called policies with disparate impact, also known as "the law," more than whites and other groups do and grossly out of proportion to their numbers. By Holder's reasoning, laws against honor killings have a disparate impact on Muslims -- even though Muslims commit most honor killings in Western civilization. The only reasoning progressives like Holder understand is circular logic.

Again, as America's first black U.S. attorney general, Holder knows that whatever he does in office, he is likely never going to be held to account. His misdeeds will not see the light of day because the Obama-worshipping media and opposition party lawmakers are either sympathetic to Obama's agenda or are too afraid to confront the president and Holder out of fear of being tarred as racist.

"The havoc Holder has created goes far beyond corruption on any single issue," according to J. Christian Adams.

"The damage he has done crosses all components of the Department of Justice, and has trickled down to infect the systems of law and legal jurisprudence throughout the country. He has tried to transform the federal agency intended to be above politics into an institution advocating radical change and extreme remedies."

And Eric Holder doesn't give a damn who gets hurt in the process.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved