Monday, October 24, 2016


by -
wells fargo

Wells Fargo is going to pay $124 million to the person who directed a group that created over two million fake accounts in customer’s name.

Carrie Tolstedt was put in charge of a new Well’s Fargo goal to get account holders to open multiple accounts. Her division performed very well.

So well, she was rewarded handsomely, for her efforts. She was paid around $9 million for her fantastic job. Her division grew by leaps and bounds and she made out like a bandit.

How did she do it? She cheated.

Under her supervision, many employees were creating fake accounts for current customers and even forging their signatures.

The new accounts would charge bogus fees to the account holder and making more money for Wells Fargo.

In all, over two million accounts were falsified, and the incredible growth in her division was fraudulent.

What is Wells Fargo going to do with Tolstedt?

When the 56-year-old Tolstedt retires at the end of the year, she will be paid $124 million for the phenomenal work she did at the bank.

There doesn’t look there will be any repercussions for Tolstedt or any of the employees that engaged in forging documents and creating false accounts. Wells Fargo was fined but that is it.

Anthony Try, a former Wells Fargo employee explained what the workers were doing.

“There would be days where we would open five checking accounts for friends and family just to go home early.”

It seems like the culture at Wells Fargo is corrupt. The unrealistic sales goals came from the top, and the employees did what they had to do to reach the goal.

Everyone had their hand in this mess and the bank and the employees should be held accountable.

As of right now, it doesn’t look like anything will happen to Wells Fargo, Tolstedt or any employee.

Apparently it is ok for the banks to sign your name to open an account for you, but try cashing a false check and see what happens.

This is just another example of the Wall Street corruption that has gone unchecked for too many years.

Will you start or continue banking with Wells Fargo? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

Hillary’s “untrustworthy” number has shot through the roof the past few months, but this takes it to a whole new level.

Former president Bill Clinton runs the Clinton Foundation and through his work, he has managed to raise hundreds of millions of dollars while the actual charities and grants only receive about 15%.

The foundation is under fire because we have learned of the unique access that foundation donors had to Hillary when she was at the State Department.

Some of the largest foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation have been able to receive favorable agreements between them and the U.S. government.

It is no surprise that Hillary doesn’t want this information exposed, mainly because it points to major conflicts of interest if Hillary was to win.

Hillary says it isn’t a problem when she spoke on ABC News.

“I don’t think there are conflicts of interest. I know that that’s what has been alleged and never proven. But nevertheless, I take it seriously.”

During an interview with Tim Kaine and Hillary, the Democratic candidate said this about the Clinton Foundation.

“I’m very proud of the work that the Clinton Foundation has done. It’s a world-renowned charity because of the work that my husband started and many, many people helped him with. … He started this great work. He has made it his life’s work, after the presidency. And he has said, if I am so fortunate enough to be elected, he will not be involved. And I think that is appropriate.”

The biggest question is why would he have to step down at all if there were not conflicts? We know the answer though.

There were conflicts when she was at Secretary of State and those conflicts and the Clinton corruption would only be magnified if she won the top office in America.

Do you think Bill should step down from the foundation if Hillary becomes president? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Indicted Democrat

Politicians have a well-earned reputation for being sleazy, but a corrupt Florida congresswoman is in a class of her own for suggesting that federal agents could have prevented the Orlando terrorist attack if they weren’t preoccupied investigating her. Last week the veteran lawmaker, Democrat Corrine Brown, and her chief of staff were slapped with a 24-count federal indictment for using a phony education charity as a “personal slush fund.” The disgraced legislator, who is black, also played the race card by comparing her indictment to the recent fatal police shootings of two black men that have ignited nationwide civil unrest.

First elected to Congress in 1992, Brown represents Florida’s fifth district which spans from Jacksonville to Orlando. The 69-year-old lawmaker and her trusted assistant, Elias Simmons, used a fake charity that was supposed to give scholarships to poor, minority students to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, according to the feds. Brown used her position as a congresswoman to solicit charitable donations from corporate entities that she “knew by virtue of her position in the U.S. House of Representatives,” according to federal authorities. The money was used to pay for lavish receptions, luxury boxes for a Beyonce concert and a professional football game, repairs to Brown’s car and several vacations. More than $735,000 of the charitable contributions went to pay a close family member for a job in Brown’s office that involved no work, the indictment states.

After getting slammed with charges of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction and filing of false tax returns in Jacksonville, the disgraced congresswoman went on a tirade outside the federal courthouse that she proclaimed was built “without minority participation” as if that was relevant to her case. “I represent Orlando,” Brown said. “These are the same agents that was not able to do a thorough investigation of the agent and we ended up with 50 people dead and over 58 people injured,” she said referring to the massacre carried out by terrorist Omar Mateen in an Orlando nightclub. “Same district! Same Justice Department! Same agents!” Brown also said the prosecution is racially motivated and wrote this on her blog: “I’m not the first black elected official to be persecuted and, sad to say, I won’t be the last.”

A political columnist for the Orlando Sentinel countered Brown’s claim that she’s a victim of racism by pointing this out in a piece published this week: “The Justice Department — which happens to be run by a black attorney general who answers to a black president — targets shady politicians, not black ones.” The column also reveals that “Brown is notorious for getting fat wads of campaign cash from the industries she helps regulate.” For instance, Brown sits on the House Transportation Committee and transportation industries—railroads, trucking companies and transportation unions—account for three of her top four industry donors. Let’s not forget that back in 1998 the House Ethics Committee investigated Brown involving several issues, including a $10,000 check she got from a Baptist official in legal trouble and a pricey car her daughter got from one of the congresswoman’s millionaire Florida pals embroiled in a bribery scandal.

Another interesting tidbit is that the president of Brown’s phony nonprofit, Carla Wiley, pleaded guilty earlier this year to conspiracy to commit wire fraud surrounding the scam. As part of the plea she agreed to cooperate with investigators, so Brown is probably in a boatload of trouble. Under the deal Wiley admitted to conspiring with an unnamed public official—referred to as “Person A”—who used an “official position to solicit contributions to One Door for Education and to induce individuals and corporate entities to make donations to One Door for Education based on false and fraudulent representations that the funds would be used for charitable purposes.” Instead, federal investigators revealed at the time that the money went toward personal gain for the co-conspirators.

by -

$125 billion dollars.

That’s how much money the General Accounting Offices (GAO) says federal agencies wasted, lost to fraud or spent on duplicative programs despite hundreds of all but ignored GAO recommendations to address these issues over the last five years according to a report published in The Washington Times.

440 GAO recommendations were made involving 180 service areas where federal agencies could cut back on overlapping and duplicative spending programs but only 29 percent of these recommendations were implemented according to the report.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a private watchdog group, said the GAO survey strengthens their argument that incidences of government waste and abuse are rampant and that taxpayers are footing the bill. ATR tax policy director Ryan Ellis said:

“According to GAO, the federal government made about $125 billion in improper payments in 2014 alone. Solving that would give you enough money to kill the death tax, repeal the federal gas tax and airline ticket tax, end all federal excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco and remove all federal taxes on phone and Internet bills…”

“After that, there would still be enough money left over to give everyone in America a tax cut of $60 just for having a pulse.”

For ignoring these recommendations, federal bureaucrats earned The Washington Times Golden Hammer Award, “a weekly distinction given by The Washington Times highlighting examples of wasteful federal spending.”

Leslie Paige, vice president for policy and communications at the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste said:

“The report just emphasizes for the umpteenth time that wasteful spending is marbled throughout the bureaucracy, and there are hundreds of millions in savings there for the taking, if only Congress would exercise its constitutional mandate to exercise oversight and then act to winnow out the programmatic underbrush and force overdue management changes…”

GAO investigators warned that unless the government takes firm action to end waste fraud and abuse, the government will be forced to cut back through blunt instruments like sequestration to cope with the financial toll. The GAO report highlighted instances where federal agencies with similar or identical programs overlapped in funding.

“For example, (the GAO) reported in 2013 that a total of 31 federal departments and agencies invested billions of dollars to collect, maintain and use geospatial information — information linked to specific geographic locations that support many government functions, such as maintaining roads and responding to natural disasters…”

The GAO report targeted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for mismanaging programs most responsible for wasteful spending.

“For the first time in recent years, the government-wide improper payment estimate increased in fiscal year 2014, primarily due to significant increases in the improper (IRS) payment estimates for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)”.

“These programs combined account for over 76 percent of the government-wide estimate. We have made numerous recommendations that if effectively implemented, could help improve program management, reduce improper payments in these programs, and achieve cost savings.”

The Washington Times could not reach HHS for comment. The IRS blamed budget cuts and manpower shortages to explain away the improper payments cited in the report.

by -

A release of documents resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Washington Free Beacon reveals that former IRS official Lois Lerner received $129,300 in retention bonuses between 2010 and 2013.

This covers the period during which Lerner, a long-term Democrat party activist, ran the tax-exempt division of the IRS and stands accused by members of Congress of using her discretionary power to scuttle applications filed by Tea Party groups for Not-for-Profit status leading up to the 2012 elections.

Lerner’s alleged actions act hobbled the ability of Tea Party and other groups opposed to the Obama Administration to organize effectively and receive tax-deductible contributions from the public – speed bumps that effectively kept these groups from impacting the re-election of President Barack Obama from winning a second term.

Over a three-year period, Lerner received a 25 percent “retention bonus” to stay with the IRS averaging $43,000 a year in addition to her regular salary of $177,000 and a pension pegged at $102,600 annually or $3.6 million over her life expectancy reports CNS News. According to CJ Ciaramella writing for the Beacon:

“Former acting IRS commissioner Steven T. Miller recommended Lerner for a $42,000 retention bonus in December 2009, when she first became eligible for retirement.”

“Ms. Lerner is eligible for retirement and as an attorney with extensive experience would likely command a much greater pay and benefits if she left the Service,” Miller wrote. “Without a retention incentive she will leave the Service.”

Miller said that there was no senior official ready to take over the position if Lerner left, and that “her unique blend of specialized technical expertise, broad organizational knowledge, and leadership skills cannot be matched.”

Ciaramella also writes, “Joseph Grant, the deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt division, approved the bonus. The second-level review of Lerner’s retention bonus was approved by Miller himself.” In 2011 and 2012, Lerner’s retention bonuses were $43,050 and $44,250 respectively.

The Lerner IRS scandal broke on May 10, 2013 when Lerner revealed in response to a planted question during a speech at the American Bar Association that the IRS had singled out groups applying for tax-exempt status that had “tea party” or “patriot” in their names according to Ciaramella. Quoting Ciaramella:

“The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report on May 14, 2013, finding that the IRS “used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.””

Miller resigned on May 15, 2013. A day later, Grant announced his retirement, effective June 3, 2013.

Readers will recall that Lois Lerner was summoned before Congress to testify under oath about her actions regarding applications filed by Tea Party groups, the numerous lengthy questionnaires they were asked to provide and processing delays that continued past Election Day in 2012.

Lerner opened her testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with a statement that she had done nothing wrong and broke no law before invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify because her testimony might incriminate her before the law. The Fifth Amendment reads in part:

“No person”…“shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

House committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – a six-year federal prosecutor prior to his election to Congress – said that Lerner had waved her Fifth Amendment rights by giving an opening statement declaring her innocence without cross-examination.

Lerner retired in September 2013 to ensure that she receives a full federal pension even if a court finds her guilty of any crimes she may have committed during her tenure at the IRS.

by -

President Barack Obama announced his plan today to designate nearly all of Alaska’s 19.6-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as permanent untouchable wilderness lands.

That means there will be no oil drilling, timber harvests, fracking operations, mining, road building, development or any other human activity that would damage the area’s otherwise natural and pristine appearance.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior announced the release of its Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge. Quoting the statement:

“The release of the CCP and the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the refuge, which recommends additional protections”. . .”President Obama announced he will make an official recommendation to Congress to designate core areas of the refuge – including its Coastal Plain – as wilderness, the highest level of protection available to public lands.”

In a piece by Ron Arnold writing for The Daily Signal, “Alaska’s U.S. senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and at-large Rep. Don Young, all Republicans, vowed at a press conference to fight Obama’s offshore decision…”.

Rep. Young is quoted as saying, “It’s becoming undeniably clear that this administration does not view Alaska as a sovereign state, but rather an eco-theme park for the most extreme environmentalist allies of the president and his party.”

Most disturbing is the role that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin may have played in the decision.

Former Heritage Foundation investigative reporter Lachlan Markay now a staff writer with The Washington Free Beacon reported that:

“Russian money for anti-oil and gas campaigns had been laundered through a Bermuda investment house, bank, and shell corporation and the California-based Sea Change Foundation.

“The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011. . .”

More evidence.

In July 2014, the U.S Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee issued a report called The Chain of Environmental Command – an in-depth environmental collusion report detailing how a “Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA”

The report revealed that three Russian energy investment firms funded a company called Wakefield Quinn, a Bermuda law firm that laundered the funds through a front corporation called Klein, Ltd. Klein in turn passed it on to Sea Change, which distributed the funds to anti-oil-and-gas green groups based in the U.S.

Now that President Obama has walled off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas exploration at the behest of environmental groups that make their budgets with Russian money, Putin is asserting vast claims to oil and gas reserves for Russia in the Arctic.

That’s an astonishing return on the investment that Russia has made in eco-organizations that may not have America’s best interests at heart – something that might change when President Obama leaves office in 2017.

Until then, when the cats away, the Russian bear will play.

by -
Sheldon Silver

In a development that some believe may be a little housekeeping before President Barack Obama leaves office is the arrest of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on charges that he traded influence for millions in kickbacks and bribes over the past 10 years.

Mr. Silver, a Democrat who represents the Lower East Side of Manhattan area of the Empire State has served as speaker for more than 20 years. During that time, he has used is his power to intimidate colleagues, reward allies and allegedly enrich himself in the process.

The charges arise from what prosecutors say was a series of schemes to collect bribes and kickbacks from a prominent cancer doctor and a personal injury law firm in exchange for research grants, official state recognition and referrals – an amount of money that the charging documents say exceeded $6 million during the life of the schemes.

Prosecutors allege that Silver used his position to direct state research grants to a prominent oncologist who referred asbestos related cancer patients to a law firm where Silver said he worked that paid him for the referrals even though he provided no legal services to the firm.

Another charge involved helping real estate developers win tax breaks.

Mr. Silver, 70, turned himself in to federal authorities at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) last Thursday in Lower Manhattan. Preet Bharara, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York brought the charges.

Mr. Bharara said Mr. Silver made “a nice profit on being a public official” adding “politicians are supposed to be on the people’s payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for.”

Prior to the federal investigation but after evidence surfaced that Silver was involved in illegal activity, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a fellow Democrat and political ally, created a special anti-corruption group known as the Moreland Commission to root out corruption in state government.

This past March, Gov. Cuomo abruptly shut down the commission after it had issued subpoenas in an investigation into the outside income earned by lawmakers including Silver that Silver sought to challenge in court.

It was apparent to many observers that Cuomo saw where the investigation was going and pulled the plug before evidence could be presented against Silver or depositions taken under oath.

The plot thickens.

Back in 2008, when the Senator’s Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were locked in a no holds barred battle to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Speaker Silver – already the most powerful Democratic establishment politician in the state – through his weight behind Clinton. Silver’s action allowed Clinton’s candidacy to remain viable in the weeks leading up to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Colorado.

So when Gov. Cuomo ended the political corruption investigation just as investigators were closing in on Silver, Obama’s Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder was passed the baton in the investigation.

Some believe this is payback for Silver’s early support for Clinton during the 2008 nomination fight – and investigation and prosecution launched while there is still time to sink Silver while President Obama remains in office.

The New York State Assembly canceled its session last Thursday so Democratic leaders could plan their course of action in the wake of the indictment.

Silver’s lawyers, Joel Cohen and Steven Molo, said in a statement: “We’re disappointed that the prosecutors have chosen to proceed with these meritless criminal charges. That said, Mr. Silver looks forward to responding to them — in court — and ultimately his full exoneration.”

In a statement, Richard Frankel, the F.B.I. special agent in charge, said:

“Those who make the laws don’t have the right to break the laws.” …“As alleged, Silver took advantage of the political pulpit to benefit from unlawful profits.” … “When all was said and done, he amassed nearly $4 million in illegitimate proceeds and arranged for approximately $500,000 in state funds to be used for projects that benefited his personal plans.”

The charging document accuses Mr. Silver of “using the power and influence of his official position to obtain for himself millions of dollars of bribes and kickbacks masked as legitimate income.”

Quoting a story by William K. Rashbaum, Thomas Kaplan and Marc Santora in last Thursday’s issue of The New York Times, Silver is “charged with honest services mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, extortion “under the color of law” — using his official position to commit extortion — and extortion conspiracy.”

The authorities seized approximately $3.8 million of Mr. Silver’s money on Thursday morning adding credence to the old adage – what goes around, comes around.

by -
Congress in Scandal

They didn’t fess up willingly. But after we applied the appropriate pressure, government officials responsible for operating the Washington D.C. Obamacare “Small Business Exchange” have finally admitted that Congress is taking advantage of health benefits its members and staff are not entitled to claim.

At least 12,359 members of Congress, congressional staffers, and their spouses and dependents currently purchase health insurance in D.C.’s Small Business Exchange even though Congress far exceeds D.C. law’s 50-employee limit for participating in the exchange. That’s why we filed a lawsuit in October on behalf of Kirby Vining, a D.C. taxpayer, against the D.C. Health Exchange Authority.  In a court filing, the D.C. government conceded that, under D.C. law, the U.S. Congress is not permitted to obtain insurance through the District’s Small Business Exchange. But members of the political class, true to form, do not believe the rules apply to them. How do we know?

Our lawsuit cites applications filed by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate with the D.C. Exchange Authority.  The applications, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, show that the House and Senate claimed to have only 45 employees each. They also show that the House and Senate attested to having “50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees.”  Congress employs upwards of 20,000 people.  D.C. law limits participation in the exchange to small businesses having fewer than 50 full-time employees.  The applications also falsely state that the House and Senate are “local/state governments.”  The “electronic signature” section of the application includes the following language:

I’ve provided true and correct information to all the questions on this form to the best of my knowledge.  I know that if I’m not truthful, there may be a penalty.

The actual names of the signatories were blacked out by the D.C. Exchange in the documents Judicial Watch obtained. If nothing else, the political class knows how to cover its tracks. But on November 7, 2014, the Exchange Authority filed a Motion to Dismiss in which it clearly admits that the law does not allow Congress to participate in its Small Business Exchange. Here’s the key paragraph:

The Health Benefit Exchange Authority was created by the District of Columbia Council under the ACA, and authorized to operate a SHOP Exchange [“Small Business Health Options Program”] in the District through which qualified small businesses could access health coverage for employees. By limiting the SHOP Exchange to “small employers” with an “average of not more than 50 employees during the preceding calendar year,” D.C. Code 31-3171.01 prevents Congressional enrollment in the D.C. Shop Exchange because Congress does not fall within the definition of “small employer.” [Emphasis added]

But just because the D.C. government now admits it knows what’s right doesn’t mean it intends to do what’s right. Remarkably, District officials now argue that federal bureaucrats in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) could override the District’s laws (and, implicitly the Affordable Care Act).  As our attorneys point out in the JW response, Congress plainly knows how to block or reverse D.C. laws. The D.C. law that created the Small Business Exchange is completely consistent with, not preempted by, federal law. And if it is “preempted,” it can’t be undone by a bureaucrat ignoring the Affordable Care Act at the Office of Personnel Management. This Obama power grab is not constitutional and cannot be used to change federal law or “force” a local government to ignore the rule of law.  Unfortunately, from the D.C. government’s point of view, this case is not about logic, reason and honesty.

We are asking the court, on behalf of Mr. Vining, to:

(a) declare the House and the Senate’s participation in the Small Business Exchange to be unlawful; (b) enjoin Defendants from continuing to allow the House and the Senate to participate in the Small Business Exchange, or at a minimum, from expending further taxpayer funds on the House and Senate’s participation in the Small Business Exchange; (c) issue a writ of mandamus ordering [District officials] to deny the House and the Senate further participation in the Small Business Exchange . . .”

We are pushing ahead even as the opposing side pushes back.  On December 12, 2014, we filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Vining.  The D.C. Exchange then filed a Reply to the Opposition on December 22, 2014. So, the legal battle continues to rage. And you can rest assured that your JW will continue to go to toe-to-toe with the D.C. government that is undermining the rule of law.  In the meantime, you might want to check with your local congressman and senators about what they think about the possible fraud now being committed to provide illegal health insurance to Congress.  You can point them to our documents and demand accountability.

by -
Filthy Feinstein

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, vice chairman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, is demonstrating how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich, according to a newspaper columnist that writes about the senior Democrat’s most recent scandal.

Like many of Feinstein’s past scandals, this one involves her enormous influence as a veteran federal lawmaker translating into big bucks for her husband, real estate mogul and investment banker Richard Blum. The U.S. Postal Service is selling 56 buildings and Blum’s commercial real estate company, CBRE, stands to make about $1 billion in commissions, the news report says. A few years ago CBRE was selected as the sole real estate agent for the huge deal, most likely with the help of his powerful wife.

Here’s a line from the article, which appears in a New York paper this month: “This feat of federal spousal support was ignored by the media after Feinstein’s office said the senator, whose wealth is pegged at $70 million, had nothing to do with the USPS decisions.” It’s not surprising that the mainstream media swallowed the unbelievable denial since Feinstein is the prototype of the liberal politician that seldom receives any real scrutiny. We’ve seen evidence of this in the mainstream media’s ongoing love fest with President Obama.

Judicial Watch has helped pick up the slack and in fact has exposed many of Feinstein’s transgressions over the years, mostly involving abuse of power to enrich her family assets. The atrocities were so rampant that in 2007 the San Francisco lawmaker was forced to resign as chair of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, where she annually supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars. As chair Feinstein supervised her own staff of military construction experts and she lobbied Pentagon officials to support her favorite projects. During her tenure her husband’s companies got billions of dollars in government contracts.

But Feinstein’s ouster from that influential post didn’t stop the cash from flowing to her husband’s various businesses. A few years after getting booted from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, the senator sponsored legislation to route $25 million to a government agency (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—FDIC) that had just awarded one of his firms a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than industry norms. Feinstein wasn’t even a member of the Senate committee that has jurisdiction over the FDIC, which means she shouldn’t have been involved in the matter. Furthermore, the FDIC is supposed to operate with funds from bank insurance payments and not direct federal infusions.

Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, has also been under fire for using “private bills” to keep illegal immigrants in her district from being deported. In fact, Feinstein is the lawmaker who most abuses the unorthodox method to block the deportations of illegal aliens in her northern California district. Private bills are seldom introduced because, unlike public bills, they only benefit specified individuals and are therefore viewed as special treatment susceptible to fraud. Over the years the senator helped a deported family of Egyptians that overstayed their U.S. tourist visa by more than a decade, a Mexican family that lived illegally in her district for 20 years and an Asian couple that that entered the country as tourists and never left. Feinstein also intervened on behalf of Philippine woman who violated deportation orders for two decades and was denied asylum by a federal court.

More recently Feinstein has been embroiled in the CIA enhanced interrogation fiasco. Like many lawmakers she purported to be stunned over the CIA “torture report,” which she made public recently, though Congress knew for years that enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorists and in fact dozens of members were repeatedly briefed on the subject. Nevertheless, Feinstein led the kabuki theater, comparing the CIA methods to those used by torturous regimes during the Cold War and proclaiming that the spy agency provided “extensive inaccurate information” about the program to policymakers. The CIA was “far more brutal” than it represented to Congress, Feinstein asserted.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...