Friday, October 28, 2016

Justice Department

by -
sanctuary cities

The Obama administration rewards sanctuary states, counties and cities that shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and one of the biggest recipients recently made headlines for protecting a serial criminal who murdered a young woman. The money flows through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. The DOJ is also charged with providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, according to its mission statement, and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior.

Apparently this doesn’t apply to local governments that support the president’s broad open borders policies, even when they violate federal law. The DOJ doled out $342,168,401 to 10 sanctuary states and cities that proudly reject federal claims for criminal illegal aliens earmarked for removal, according to the agency’s independent watchdog. Among them is Connecticut, a trailblazer in the sanctuary movement that received more than $69 million in grants from the DOJ. Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, known as Drive Only. The state also gives illegal aliens discounted tuition at public colleges and universities and authorities work hard to restrict the feds from deporting illegal immigrants. Last year an illegal immigrant who had spent 17 years in prison for attempted murder stabbed a 25-year-old woman to death in Norwich, a city of about 40,000 residents. The murderer had been earmarked for deportation at least three times.

California, also a renowned sanctuary state that offers illegal immigrants a number of taxpayer-funded perks, topped the list with $132,409,635 in DOJ grants. Judicial Watch has investigated the state’s illegal sanctuary policies for years and back in 2008 launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain the arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country. Last year Judicial Watch obtained records showing that violent crime—including murder and rape—in the Bay area has skyrocketed since the San Francisco Sheriff and City Council expanded illegal alien sanctuary policies in 2013.

Under the ordinance San Francisco law enforcement agencies are required to ignore most U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. Judicial Watch is also investigating whether the city violated the law again with its sanctuary policy that led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant deported five times who gunned down Kate Steinle at one of the most popular tourist spots in San Francisco.

Two cities—New York and Chicago—got $60,091,942 and $28,523,222 respectively from the DOJ and Philadelphia followed with $16,505,312. South Florida’s Miami-Dade County received $10,778,815, Milwaukee, Wisconsin got $7,539,572, Cook County, Illinois $6,018,544, Clark County, Nevada $6,257,9851 and Orleans Parish, Louisiana $4,737,964. In some cases elected officials in these municipalities brag about defying federal immigration laws. One, the mayor of Chicago, is mentioned in the DOJ Inspector General report for publicly stating: “We are not going to turn people over to ICE, and we are not going to check their immigration status.” The city also prohibits employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, the report says.

Other recipients of our taxpayer dollars do the same with no consequences. The Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office has an “ICE Procedures” policy that states the agency shall not initiate any immigration status investigation into individuals in their custody or provide the feds with information on an inmate’s release date or address.

Philadelphia’s mayor issued an executive order stating that the pending release of the subject of an ICE immigration detainer shall not be provided to the agency unless the person has been convicted of a felony and New York enacted a law years ago restricting jail personnel from communicating with ICE regarding an inmate’s release date, incarceration status or court dates. The law resulted in ICE closing its office on Riker’s Island and ceasing operations on any other NYC Department of Corrections property, the report reveals. It’s beyond comprehension that these law-breaking local governments are being rewarded with federal funds distributed by the agency responsible for enforcing the law.

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 -

America is free because we allow for open discussion, criticism and opposing views. What happens when one party tries to criminalize opposing thought? We could find out soon.

This year the Democratic Convention is going to be unprecedented for two reasons.

1. Thousands are expected to protest outside in support of Bernie Sanders.

2. For the first time the DNC is going to propose the Department of Justice criminally investigate corporate climate change deniers.

See for yourself. The DNC posted this on their website to outline the platform Hillary will stand on.

“Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.”

Despite the fancy phrases to distract you like “corporate fraud” or “unanimous consent”, the idea is to prosecute those who don’t agree with climate change.

How can they even say things like “unanimous consent”? I’m no ecologist, but I am positive that there are scientists who don’t agree with climate change.

15 years ago Al Gore said the east coast would lose the beaches due to rising seawaters. That didn’t happen. There has to be some disagreement, right?

Not according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is leading the team drafting the platform. She and the DNC now believe corporations that question climate change will be prosecuted.

How far off is prosecution for citizens who don’t agree? How is this possible in America?

If there is condemnation for those who “mislead” the public on climate change by questioning the severity, then shouldn’t the other side be prosecuted as well?

If climate change is a real, then shouldn’t people who overhype it and sensationalize the effects to scare people also be prosecuted? Al Gore should be prosecuted for sensationalizing global warming with his movie An Inconvenient Truth.

The thought that one political party will try to silence an argument by prosecuting those who don’t agree is unfathomable. It is un-American and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

What is really sad about the DNC platform is that it will become a reality if Hillary wins in November. You better question climate change while you still can.

Do you think climate change is real?

Let us know more on the matter in the comments below.

by -

What better way to help the war torn country of Afghanistan than to take $6.1 million and invest that it into Italian goats.

That’s right, our government, in their infinite wisdom, spent $6.1 million buying 40 Italian male goats and shipping them to Afghanistan to mate with female Afghan goats in order to create a growing herd for cashmere to help fund the local town.

The brilliant idea didn’t work though. The Afghan ladies were infected with some goat disease that could have killed the whole herd. Only two goats ended up mating and that wasn’t enough to keep the project running.

Lawmakers on the House Armed Services committee had a hearing with the Department of Justice about waste in Afghanistan.

The goats were at the top of the list and almost hardly believable.

Some other facts came out during the hearing like the DOD spending $43 million building a gas station and thousands and thousands of dollars letting DOD employees stay in luxury villas.

The committee was dumbfounded at the waste, but like usual, nothing will really be done about it.

Well, at least the goats are cute… sort of.

by -

Hillary Clinton has maintained that she did nothing illegal with her personal email server and that she is innocent in this politicized smear campaign, but the FBI thinks differently.

It is breaking that the FBI wants to speak directly with the Democratic frontrunner for president. This isn’t a friendly call; this is the final step in the yearlong investigation into her criminal activity.

Some might think this is a politicized scandal, but it is far from it. The Department of Justice has offered immunity to the IT person that worked on Hillary’s server.

The witness is Bryan Pagliano, and he knows everything about Hillary’s server. He has immunity and he is speaking to authorities. Mr. Pagliano got immunity in a deal he worked out with Obama’s DOJ and immunity is not something they like to dish out often.

The Department of Justice only issues immunity deals when they know that they are going to get very valuable information. In this case, the valuable information could derail the presidential hopeful.

It doesn’t help when Hillary’s husband and potential first lady Bill Clinton is going around bashing President Obama. President Obama has considerable pull when it comes to whether the DOJ presses charges against Hillary.

This has never happened before. Never has a presidential candidate that is leading their party ever been questioned and investigated by the FBI. She has maintained her innocence from the beginning.

Hillary has continued to downplay the emails through the entire political season, but what else could she say?

“I have no concerns about it whatsoever.” She said.

It is all coming to a head for Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t help that Bernie Sanders has won 10 of the last 12 states and the Democratic base is starting to revolt against the super delegates. Her poll numbers are slipping and trustworthy numbers are down.

None of that could matter though if she goes to prison. Let’s just hope that she isn’t in the White House when that happens.

by -
Law Enforcement

From the Ferguson Police Department’s first public statement about the police-involved shooting of Michael Brown in August 2014, the town of Ferguson, Missouri was doomed. Like Newton’s First Law of Motion, the shooting started a cascading series of events that continues a year and a half later.  The rounds of looting, rioting, protesting and media circuses, has morphed into a massive lawsuit filed against the small suburban town by the U.S. Department of Justice.

If one accepts the allegations in Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s lawsuit, Ferguson is nothing but a teeming hotbed of racial hatred and official incompetence; the only solution for which is federal control.  In the government’s eyes, the town has no regard whatsoever for the Constitution and laws of this country, and has engaged in widespread and systemic violation of civil rights.  Tough stuff, indeed; but the Department’s approach reflects more an example of how to address a manageable problem with a wrecking ball than a tool kit.

Tragic as it was, there was nothing so remarkable or unique about the shooting of Brown that justifies this action by the Justice Department. The aggressive and authoritarian manner in which the Department has hounded the Ferguson Police Department over the past 18-months is far different from the way in which previous presidents and federal prosecutors, including myself, dealt with incidents in which law enforcement officers or departments violated individuals’ civil rights. By vigorously prosecuting such cases individually as warranted, prosecutors and the Department of Justice itself were able to hold the officer or officers accountable; and without attacking entire departments or needlessly imposing federal government control over local government responsibilities.

For U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice, however, control – not justice – is the real goal; and Ferguson has become ground zero for its crusade to scrutinize and punish law enforcement officers and departments for perceived racial injustices. In effect, the Department is seeking to implement its own form of “Common Core” for Law Enforcement, wherein local control is stripped away in favor of federal policing standards that have been packaged into what may be “politically correct” on the surface, but have little actual impact on the troubling issues that linger in the criminal justice system.

To an Administration obsessed with “optics” more than genuine reform, this façade may fulfill its objectives. However, for those who genuinely care about individual liberty and constitutional conduct within the justice system, they actually are poisoning public debate about criminal justice reform and exacerbating the already strained tensions between citizens, police and the federal government.

By showing that it cares about civil liberties by attacking police, the Obama Administration is making it harder to protect civil liberties.

For the first time in decades, for example, we have an opportunity to achieve substantial and lasting criminal justice reform through federal legislation. Reforms that would help restore civil liberties to the criminal prosecution process while providing much-needed relief to an overcrowded and costly prison system, currently are pending in the Congress. These measures enjoy strong bipartisan support, including among policy organizations ranging from the leftist Center for American Progress to conservative FreedomWorks. It is one of those rare scenarios in which Democrats, Republicansand the President are in at least partial agreement on an issue that actually strengthens civil liberties.

Unfortunately, without Administration support and in the absence of public demand for passing these reforms, the pending bills have languished without votes to send them to the President for signature.  Ironically, the Justice Department’s highly visible crusade against Ferguson (and other police departments) is much to blame for this failure.

By antagonizing police departments and politicizing police-involved shootings of minorities, the Obama Administration has turned the conversation about “justice reform” into a false dichotomy between support of police on the one hand, or social justice groups like “Black Lives Matter” on the other. In such a polarized environment, real efforts at reform, such as those pending in Congress, are given nary a thought, much less active support from those members of Congress who can help win their passage. Meanwhile, individual Democrats and Republicans who oppose such efforts are undermining the bills before they ever reach the floor.

The clock is ticking on criminal justice reform, and an opportunity such as this for genuine, lasting reform is truly once-in-a-lifetime. If Obama cares to salvage at least a sliver of a notable legacy, he should abandon his shortsighted and misguided drive to place local police departments under Uncle Sam’s thumb, and help shift the public conversation back to substantive reforms that really matter.


by -
Hillary Emails

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has come forward to say that many of the emails found on Hillary Clinton’s personal email server are “too damaging” to release.

The statement, provided to Fox News was corroborated by the State Department that found 22 documents that would be held “in full” due to their Top Secret designation.

The penalty for mishandling classified information can carry sentences of up to 10 years in prison.

Worse for Hillary are the documents found by the FBI. Investigators found documents considered “special access programs” that are a significant level up from the Top Secret designation.

It will be up to President Obama’s justice department to prosecute the former first lady, which is highly dependent upon his personal relationship with the president . . . rather than according to the law.

This week, Hillary recommended Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court if she were to be elected as the first female president.

Comment below.

by -

Former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, Hillary Clinton has been caught red-handed by investigators for mishandling highly classified information.

Given that Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have to recommend and pursue a conviction of Clinton, do you think Hillary will be prosecuted for her actions against the United States?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

by -

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is spiraling downward amid more key revelations Wednesday. Judge Andrew Napolitano, appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, disclosed that contents of Clinton’s e-mails from her private server included sensitive classified information.

Napolitano’s allegations are nuclear-grade political material with the serious possibility of ending Clinton’s campaign, and might even result in jail time. “I saw emails that have been revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,” said Napolitano. “And in them, she is discussing the location of French fighter jets during the NATO bombardment of Libya, how big the no fly zone is, where the no fly zones are, and are you ready for this? – the location of Ambassador Stevens, who of course was murdered, in Libya.”

This bombshell ties Clinton directly to the deaths in Benghazi and, as the Judge noted, Hillary can no longer deny that she had no classified information on her private server. In fact, investigators had already determined that 10% of the e-mails they’d examined as a random sample contained information that was classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

This new information comes on the heels of a New York Post report that the FBI’s probe of Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails is in fact a criminal investigation. Previous reports stated that the FBI investigation was merely a fact-finding mission.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” said the Post’s anonymous source. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

As we have previously reported, the Clintons as a couple have been extraordinarily lax in security during their time in the national spotlight. Bill Clinton had many of his salacious phone calls with Monica Lewinsky recorded by international intelligence agencies, and the Secret Service detail assigned to the couple routinely bends the rules for Bill’s paramours.

For her part, Hillary proved incapable of juggling her private e-mails and classified e-mails from legally mandated separate servers. Instead of using the secure White House servers, Mrs. Clinton maintained her own server in the Clintons’ Chappaqua home. Her personal server went down shortly after the Benghazi attacks, leaving her State Department aids in the dark as to her orders.

With experts of all stripes, including former CIA director Michael Morrell, pointing out the obvious vulnerability of a private server in a private house, Clinton appears to be facing a long uphill legal battle. As Napolitano pointed out: “What Mrs. Clinton did, by transferring and moving classified information through a non-classified venue, that’s a felony for each piece of information she passed through.”

While Bill earned a reputation as a Teflon president, Hillary seems increasingly to be a thoroughly sticky surface.

by -

With self-radicalized Muslim extremists going to the Middle East to fight for ISIS and others remaining behind to conduct mass casualty attacks on American soil, the Department of Justice has decided to study “far-right” groups and how they use social media to engage in “violent extremism”.

The Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Michigan State University $585,719 for the study that Eric Holder praised at the time the award was announced by the former attorney general earlier this year. According to the grant language:

“There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence…”

“The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements.”

Despite the reference to “Islamic extremist movements”, the study will concentrate on “right-wing” forums rather than Islamist extremists. The grant language says:

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement…”

“The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement…”

“In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally.”

The project will go further than collecting posts and monitoring blogs. Academics will use the grant to identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities” in effect creating a blacklist of individuals engaged in conservative and libertarian political activity.

Grant recipients will use the results to create a public webinar designed for use in presentations to counterterrorism experts in the United States.

At the time of the grant award, Holder highlighted the study in remarks at a February White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism saying the study was an example of the Justice Department’s new approach to combat terrorist threats.

While the grant does not name the “far-right” groups that would be examined, other federal agencies have devoted their energy to… the so-called “sovereign citizen” movement – people who support original intent Constitutional law… believe the Federal Government has and continues to exceed its Constitutional authority to govern the people… and that citizens are “sovereign” which is to say, in charge.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report on the movement that characterized its members as citizens who “believe that U.S. laws do not apply to them” just as the White House held its summit on violent extremism. To buttress the point, critics of the study said the administration did not use the phrase “Islamist extremism” in the announcement.

This isn’t the first time DHS took a position demonizing citizens who consider themselves strident patriots. In 2009, DHS issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.



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