Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 08, 2016, 02:29:42 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92577 Posts in 2300 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The war on the rule of law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print
Author Topic: The war on the rule of law  (Read 67412 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #400 on: July 19, 2015, 09:06:45 AM »

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/14/how-the-irs-fbi-and-justice-department-are-agents-of-modern-american-tyranny/

Fundamentally changed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #401 on: July 22, 2015, 09:13:51 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/watch-as-ice-director-is-forced-to-tell-ted-cruz-hes-absolutely-right-after-he-disputes-her-claim-during-hearing/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202015-07-22
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #402 on: July 23, 2015, 10:16:42 PM »

Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015


WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington in January 2009, before she took office. In emails, aides asked if they could share her address with members of the Obama administration.
    New Trove of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Highlights Workaday Tasks at the State DepartmentJUNE 30, 2015
    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department in Washington on Sept. 12, 2012, discussing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
    A Closer Look at Hillary Clinton’s Emails on BenghaziMAY 21, 2015

The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign.

The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment.

At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.

She faced sharp criticism after her use of the account became public, and subsequently said she would ask the State Department to release her emails.

The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status." But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

The memos were provided to The New York Times by a senior government official.The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.

In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

In May, the F.B.I. asked the State Department to classify a section of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that related to suspects who may have been arrested in connection with the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The information was not classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received it.

The revelations about how Mrs. Clinton handled her email have been an embarrassment for the State Department, which has been repeatedly criticized over its handling of documents related to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers.

On Monday, a federal judge sharply questioned State Department lawyers at a hearing in Washington about why they had not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press, some of which were four years old.

"I want to find out what’s been going on over there — I should say, what’s not been going on over there," said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court, according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding."

Two days later, lawmakers on the Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, said they planned to summon Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to Capitol Hill to answer questions about why the department has not produced documents that the panel has subpoenaed. That hearing is set for next Wednesday.

“The State Department has used every excuse to avoid complying with fundamental requests for documents,” said the chairman of the House committee, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina.

Mr. Gowdy said that while the committee has used an array of measures to try and get the State Department to hand over documents, the results have been the same. “Our committee is not in possession of all documents needed to do the work assigned to us,” he said.

The State Department has sought to delay the hearing, citing continuing efforts to brief members of Congress on the details of the nuclear accord with Iran.

It is not clear why the State Department has struggled with the classification issues and document production. Republicans have said the department is trying to use those processes to protect Mrs. Clinton.

State Department officials say they simply do not have the resources or infrastructure to properly comply with all the requests. Since March, requests for documents have dramatically increased.

Some State Department officials said they believe many senior officials did not initially take the House committee seriously, which slowed document production and created an appearance of stonewalling.

State Department officials also said that Mr. Kerry is concerned about the toll the criticism has had on the department and has urged his deputies to comply with the requests quickly.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #403 on: July 28, 2015, 06:36:11 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421698/john-kerry-iran-deal-obama-could-defy-law-congress
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #404 on: August 03, 2015, 12:07:36 AM »

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-seeks-to-delay-federal-lawsuit-to-force-action-on-clinton-emails/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #405 on: August 03, 2015, 07:33:37 AM »


Dems uber alles.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #406 on: August 03, 2015, 11:38:25 AM »

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-gun-20150801-story.html#page=1



Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi's history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.

What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.

Soofi's attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

As the owner of a small pizzeria, the Dallas-born Soofi, son of a Pakistani American engineer and American nurse, would not have been the primary focus of federal authorities, who back then were looking for smugglers and drug lords.

He is now.

In May, Soofi and his roommate, Elton Simpson, burst upon the site of a Garland cartoon convention that was offering a prize for the best depiction of the prophet Muhammad, something offensive to many Muslims. Dressed in body armor and armed with three pistols, three rifles and 1,500 rounds of ammunition, the pair wounded a security officer before they were killed by local police.

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an "urgent firearms disposition request" to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.

Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed "to assist in a criminal investigation," according to Johnson's letter, also reviewed by The Times.

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.

Asked recently for an update on the Garland shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey earlier this month declined to comment. "We're still sorting that out," he said.

Officials at the Justice Department and the FBI declined to answer questions about whether the 9-millimeter pistol was one of the guns used in the Garland attack or seized at Soofi's apartment.
cComments

    Guest
    at 7:09 AM August 03, 2015

Add a comment See all comments
129

It remains unclear whether Soofi's 2010 visit to Lone Wolf is a bizarre coincidence or a missed opportunity for federal agents to put Soofi on their radar years before his contacts with Islamic extremists brought him to their attention.

Though Islamic State militants have claimed to have helped organize the Garland attack, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Soofi and Simpson received direct support from the group or were merely inspired by its calls for violence against the West.

Comey suggested that the attack fits the pattern of foreign terrorist groups indoctrinating American citizens through the Internet. He referred to it as the "crowdsourcing of terrorism."

In a handwritten letter apparently mailed hours before the attack, Soofi said he was inspired by the writings of Islamic cleric Anwar Awlaki, an American citizen killed in a 2011 U.S. drone strike in Yemen.


"I love you," Soofi wrote to his mother, Sharon Soofi, "and hope to see you in eternity." In a telephone interview, Sharon Soofi described the letter and said her son had been shot twice in the head and once in the chest, according to autopsy findings she received.

At the time of the 2010 gun purchase, Soofi ran a Phoenix pizza parlor. His mother said that was about the same time he met Simpson, who worked for Soofi at the restaurant. They later shared an apartment, a short drive from the Lone Wolf store.

Reached by telephone, Andre Howard, owner of Lone Wolf, denied that his store sold the gun to Soofi. "Not here," Howard said before hanging up.

Sharon Soofi said her son had told her he wanted the pistol for protection because his restaurant was in a "rough area." She said he also acquired an AK-47 assault rifle at the end of last year or early this year, when authorities believe he and Simpson were plotting an attack on the Super Bowl in Arizona.

"I tried to convince him that, what in the world do you need an AK-47 for?" she said in a telephone interview. Soofi told her they practiced target shooting in the desert. Her younger son, Ali Soofi, was living with his brother and Simpson at the time, she said, but left after becoming frightened by the weapons, ammunition and militant Islamist literature.

She blamed Simpson for radicalizing her son, who she said had no history of religious extremism. A month before Soofi bought the pistol, Simpson was indicted on charges of lying to the FBI about his plans to travel to Somalia and engage in "violent jihad," according to federal court documents.

Simpson was jailed until March 2011 and convicted of making false statements. But the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the false statements were connected to international terrorism. Simpson was released and placed on probation.

After the Garland attack, the FBI arrested a third man, Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, and charged him with planning the Garland attack. At a detention hearing on June 16, prosecutors and an FBI agent provided details about the plot, but avoided discussing the history of the firearms.

Sharon Soofi said she found her son's letter in her post office box. It was dated the Saturday before the attack, and postmarked in Dallas on Monday, the day after the assault, suggesting he dropped it in the mailbox before he and Simpson arrived in Garland. "In the name of Allah," the letter began, "I am sorry for the grief I have caused."

He referred to "those Muslims who are being killed, slandered, imprisoned, etc. for their religion," and concluded, "I truly love you, Mom, but this life is nothing but shade under the tree and a journey. The reality is the eternal existence in the hereafter."

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Twitter: @RickSerranoLAT
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #407 on: August 03, 2015, 02:57:23 PM »

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wife-of-judge-blocking-pro-life-videos-is-a-proud-abortion-supporter/#.Vb-WEnOA3I0.facebook
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #408 on: August 03, 2015, 09:28:44 PM »

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/all-clinton-records/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #409 on: August 03, 2015, 10:32:19 PM »


I am going to have to start sending money to judicial watch.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #410 on: August 12, 2015, 10:31:42 AM »

Solomon should not have had the job.
Lafe Solomon in 2011. ENLARGE
Lafe Solomon in 2011. Photo: Sonja Y. Foster/Bloomberg
Aug. 11, 2015 7:47 p.m. ET
118 COMMENTS

One of President Obama’s legacies will be his abuse of executive authority, and his hits keep coming. On Friday a federal appeals court struck down a ruling of the National Labor Relations Board because, incredibly, its acting general counsel was in the job illegally.

The scofflaw was Lafe Solomon, whom readers may recall for his legal complaints against the likes of Boeing for wanting to build planes in right-to-work South Carolina instead of union-dominated Washington. It turns out Mr. Solomon was the one violating the law.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2014 NLRB ruling against an Arizona ambulance company, SW General. The panel found that Messrs. Solomon and Obama had violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which generally holds that a person cannot serve as an “acting” officer of an agency while also nominated for the post.

Mr. Obama directed Mr. Solomon to serve as NLRB acting general counsel in June 2010. Six months later he nominated Mr. Solomon for the post. The Senate refused to confirm him and he left the NLRB in November 2013. Yet before he departed Mr. Solomon issued the complaint against SW General and many other companies.

Congress passed the vacancies reform law to prevent precisely this kind of presidential gambit. In 1997 Republicans blocked the nomination of Bill Lann Lee for assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. President Bill Clinton then named Mr. Lee in an “acting” capacity—a move designed to let him serve the remainder of the Administration without Senate approval. Congress then tightened the rules, which Messrs. Obama and Solomon violated so flagrantly that the Administration barely offered a defense in court.

Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote the opinion and was joined by two Obama appointees. The ruling only applies to the SW General case, but it is an open invitation to Mr. Solomon’s other corporate targets to seek relief as well.

This is the third legal strike against Mr. Obama’s NLRB. The D.C. Circuit ruled against his recess appointees in 2013 and the Supreme Court did the same in 2014. The evidence builds that this is the most lawless Administration since Richard Nixon’s.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #411 on: August 15, 2015, 08:08:21 AM »

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/12/meet-the-obama-appointees-who-could-sink-hillary/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=Flashpoints
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #412 on: September 01, 2015, 01:42:35 PM »

Another cop shot and killed this morning in Illinois.

I am listening to the Police Scanner on my Ipad. Lake County Sheriff. Interesting listening in to the hunt.

Did this for Ferguson and Baltimore. When they were going on, listening really provided a true understanding of how bad the riots were.  (Full disclosure.....I  was a military cop so I LOVE this shit, as long as cops don't die.)

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #413 on: September 02, 2015, 01:59:22 PM »

by James Taranto
Sept. 2, 2015 1:30 p.m. ET
WSJ

Hillary Clinton is not the only official of the Obama administration to have engaged in email shenanigans. While we were away last week, as the Washington Times reported, a court filing from the Internal Revenue Service revealed that “Lois Lerner had yet another personal email account used to conduct some IRS business”:

    The admission came in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at emails Ms. Lerner sent during the targeting [of political dissenters for IRS harassment].

    IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.

    “In addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner‘ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,’ ” Mr. Klimas told Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is hearing the case.

At first we wondered why Lerner would use a masculine pseudonym. Then we realized Toby is an epicene name and we’d been thinking of Toby Flenderson, the officious bureaucrat from NBC’s “The Office.” At any rate, Fox News appears to have come up with the explanation: “Two sources told Fox News that Toby Miles is the name of Lerner’s dog.”

Confusingly, Lerner’s canine shares a surname with her husband, and Fox adds that “Lerner’s husband Michael Miles also reportedly may have been linked to the account.” Which goes to prove the old saying: On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

This week, as blogger William Jacobson reports, yet another fake Lerner email came to light:

    In . . . an August 31, 2015 Status Report, the IRS revealed that Lerner also used “a second personal email account” that, unlike the Toby Miles account, “does not appear to be associated with a denomination; only the email address itself appears.” The IRS refuses to disclose the email address for either the Toby Miles or the newly discovered account.

“Denomination,” in this context, is a fancy name for “name,” not a reference to money or religion. In its filing, the IRS reported that the emails in the denominationless account “all were either non-responsive [to the Freedom of Information Act request] or were duplicates of material previously released to Judicial Watch.”

Why Lerner needed so many email addresses is something of a mystery, but she’s not alone among Obama administration officials. The Daily Signal’s Sharyl Attkisson noted in March:

    Former Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used private email accounts, as well as a secret EPA email address under the pseudonym “Richard Windsor,” to conduct official business. That included communicating with a climate lobbyist.

    In Justice Department emails turned over in a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, [then-Attorney General Eric] Holder’s email name is redacted with no explanation. It’s unknown whether the redactions conceal use of an email address that does not belong to an official government account.

The Washington Times reports on yet another thwarted IRS attempt to evade public scrutiny:

    A federal judge Friday ordered the IRS to turn over the records of any requests from the White House seeking taxpayers’ private information from the tax agency, delivering a victory to a group that for two years has been trying to pry the data loose.

    It’s not clear that there were any such requests—but Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the IRS cannot just refuse to say so by citing taxpayer confidentiality laws, known as section 6103 of the tax code.

Richard Pollock, then of the Washington Examiner, explained the background in a 2013 piece:

    Treasury Department investigators completed but never released a 2011 law enforcement probe of White House economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, The Washington Examiner has learned.

    The investigation by the Treasury Department Inspector-General for Tax Administration was sparked by Goolsbee’s remarks during an Aug. 27, 2010, White House news briefing in which he appeared to possess confidential tax information on Koch Industries, the private conglomerate controlled by the Koch brothers, Charles and David.

    “So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multi-billion dollar business,” Goolsbee said.

    It is illegal for government officials to make public confidential tax information. Goolsbee was chief White House economist at the time.

Six senators requested an investigation of Goolsbee’s remark under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which protects taxpayers’ privacy. The IRS conducted the probe, then refused to reveal its findings, including to the senators and the Kochs—because, it said, they included taxpayer information that was confidential under Section 6103.

A group called Cause of Action filed the FOIA lawsuit seeking, among other things, “any communications by or from anyone in the Executive Office of the President constituting requests for taxpayer or ‘return information’ ” protected by Section 6103. Again, the IRS balked, saying such requests were private under Section 6103. That was the claim Judge Jackson rejected:

    Congress amended section 6103 in 1976 “in the wake of Watergate and White House efforts to harass those on its ‘enemies list,’ ” in order to “restrict[] government officers and employees from revealing ‘any return’ or ‘return information,’” and its “core purpose” is to “protect[] taxpayer privacy.”

    So, this Court questions whether section 6103 should or would shield records that indicate that confidential taxpayer information was misused, or that government officials made an improper attempt to access that information.

    The IRS argues that “section 6103’s definition of ‘return information’ . . . makes no distinction based on the purpose for which a person might seek disclosure of the documents.” But accepting this argument would require a finding that even requests for return information that could involve a violation of section 6103 constitute “return information” that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 3 [which incorporates other statutes’ nondisclosure provisions] and section 6103.

    The Court is unwilling to stretch the statute so far, and it cannot conclude that section 6103 may be used to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit.

Whether the IRS is concealing misconduct is unknown; it’s possible, for instance, that the Goolsbee report found nothing amiss and its suppression was a product of mere bureaucratic monomania. Similarly, it’s possible Mrs. Clinton actually did turn over printouts of all her work-related emails to the State Department, but we may never know. In any case, it’s unreasonable for government officials to expect us to trust their assurances when they take such pains to prevent their verification.

On a happier note, it’s worth mentioning that the judges in both these cases were Democratic appointees. Emmet Sullivan was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1994 and Amy Jackson by Barack Obama in 2011. Independence and integrity are not dead, at least in the judicial branch.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #414 on: September 03, 2015, 08:44:04 AM »

http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/09/03/hillarys-election-civil-war/?singlepage=true#undefined

Coming soon?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #415 on: September 04, 2015, 08:23:36 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/02/who-needs-this-police-recruits-abandon-dream-amid-anti-cop-climate/

Obama's legacy
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #416 on: September 04, 2015, 09:59:07 AM »

GM,

My nephew is "Motorcycle 1" on the DC Metro Police. He used to be the number 2 in Homicide and also SWAT.  He was on Facebook the last couple of days talking about losing 2 more officers before retirement. They had 16 and 13 years in, but just walked away. Better to be alive than carried by six.

The responses to his comment was met by officers on other forces throughout the East Coast. They were all reporting the same is occurring. Cops are just walking away.

As to DC, it is inn the midst of a crime wave not seen since the 90's. Murders and violent crime are up tremendously. The cause are liberal politicians and cop leadership that are into "feelings" and not cop policing.

In DC, there is the "bad" area. The crime there is incredible. A murder occurs and when cops investigate, no one will speak up.  It has now reached the point where the cops have told the residents in that area, "keep it inside your neighborhood. Do what you want. We will investigate, but we know what will happen. But don't come out of your area and do this elsewhere. If you do, we are coming in full force."

More of the Obama revolution.
Logged

PPulatie
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2937


« Reply #417 on: September 04, 2015, 11:30:02 AM »

Situational outrage:

http://reason.com/archives/2015/09/04/remember-the-law-is-only-sacred-when-it
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #418 on: September 04, 2015, 08:51:28 PM »



Can't wait to get out of law enforcement. So disgusted at what this country has become.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #419 on: September 04, 2015, 11:15:18 PM »

If we get a good Rep elected President and keep the House and the Senate, you might be surprised at how much things can turn around.  The Carter years were pretty awful but then came Reagan.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #420 on: September 04, 2015, 11:46:05 PM »

If we get a good Rep elected President and keep the House and the Senate, you might be surprised at how much things can turn around.  The Carter years were pretty awful but then came Reagan.


The America that elected Reagan doesn't exist anymore.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #421 on: September 07, 2015, 12:51:48 PM »

Beefing Up Obama's Pro-Amnesty Agenda
By Arnold Ahlert
 

The Obama administration's intention to force-feed a pro-amnesty agenda to a recalcitrant American public has reached a new low. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced it had reached an immigration-related settlement with Nebraska Beef Ltd., a meat packing company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. The DOJ had accused the company of discrimination — because the meat packing company demanded that workers show proof of immigration status to demonstrate they were eligible to work legally in the United States.

The DOJ insisted Nebraska Beef violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because it required "non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.” Yet the act itself states that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S.) and aliens authorized to work in the U.S. The employer must verify the identity and employment eligibility of anyone to be hired, which includes completing the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9).” Adding insult to injury, the act warns employers that they can be penalized if they fail to complete and/or retain those I-9 forms.

Judicial Watch put this outrage in the proper perspective: "You know the nation is in trouble when a U.S. business gets investigated by its own government for following the law."

Regardless, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, was adamant. “The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” she stated. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”

"Relief" in this case amounts to Nebraska Beef paying $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement, establishing an uncapped back-pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally, and two years of compliance monitoring. The company is also required to train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act and to revise policies within its office.

The anti-discrimination provisions of the act can be seen here. The germane clause states that employers "may not treat individuals differently based on citizenship or immigration status. U.S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination.” All well and good, save for one seemingly inherent contradiction:

How is a company supposed to determine a potential employee’s status and eligibility to work in the United States without documentary proof?

A 2014 federal audit conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general revealed the bigger stakes in play here, noting the Obama administration has not only been “inconsistent” in enforcing the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), but it reduced the average fine for businesses caught hiring illegals by a whopping 40% between 2009 and 2012. Now the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is getting in on the act, helping to facilitate the administration's pro-amnesty agenda.

All Americans should be outraged, but none more so than black Americans. Another disappointing jobs report Friday revealed that only 173,000 jobs were created in August, despite predictions of 220,000. And though the unemployment rate dropped to 4.4% for whites, a drop of 0.2% from July, black unemployment is 9.5%, up 0.4% from July.

Unfortunately, both of those figures hardly tell the real story. The daunting reality is that a record-setting 94,031,000 Americans were not in the labor force last month, and the labor participation rate is 62.6% — the lowest level since 1977. When those people are counted, the overall unemployment rate, trumpeted to be 5.1%, more than doubles to 10.3%. Even worse, wages for all American workers have declined from the time the so-called recovery began in 2009, right through 2014 — with lowest paid workers taking the biggest hit.

All while Obama champions amnesty for million of illegals who would drive those wages even lower — for as long as a decade.

In short, the fundamental transformation, or more accurately, the balkanization of America, continues. Assimilation has been tossed on the ash heap of history, in favor of the multiculturalist "celebrating our differences” nonsense that is tearing this nation apart. The transnationalists who would abet our descent into Third World-ism for cheaper labor and reliable big-government votes must be thoroughly rejected by an electorate that still treasures national sovereignty. And it’s about time presidential candidates other than Donald Trump heartily embrace the one irrefutable statement he has made (echoing Ronald Reagan, by the way): A nation without borders is no nation at all.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #422 on: September 14, 2015, 12:41:21 PM »

America’s Legal Order Begins to Fray
Amid the escalation of violent crime are signs of a breakdown of basic respect for law enforcement.
WSJ
By Heather Mac Donald
Sept. 13, 2015 6:23 p.m. ET


After two decades of the most remarkable crime drop in U.S. history, law enforcement has come to this: “I’m deliberately not getting involved in things I would have in the 1990s and 2000s,” an emergency-services officer in New York City tells me. “I won’t get out of my car for a reasonable-suspicion stop; I will if there’s a violent felony committed in my presence.”

A virulent antipolice campaign over the past year—initially fueled by a since-discredited narrative about a police shooting in Ferguson, Mo.—has made police officers reluctant to do their jobs. The Black Lives Matter movement proclaims that the police are a lethal threat to blacks and that the criminal-justice system is pervaded by racial bias. The media amplify that message on an almost daily basis. Officers now worry about becoming the latest racist cop of the week, losing their job or being indicted if a good-faith encounter with a suspect goes awry or is merely distorted by an incomplete cellphone video.

With police so discouraged, violent crime has surged in at least 35 American cities this year. The alarming murder increase prompted an emergency meeting of the Major Cities Chiefs Association last month. Homicides were up 76% in Milwaukee, 60% in St. Louis, and 56% in Baltimore through mid-August, compared with the same period in 2014; murder was up 47% in Minneapolis and 36% in Houston through mid-July.

But something more fundamental than even public safety may be at stake. There are signs that the legal order itself is breaking down in urban areas. “There’s a total lack of respect out there for the police,” says a female sergeant in New York. “The perps feel more empowered to carry guns because they know that we are running scared.”

The lawful use of police power is being met by hostility and violence, often ignored by the press. In Cincinnati, a small riot broke out in late July when the police arrived at a drive-by shooting scene, where a 4-year-old girl had been shot in the head and critically injured. Bystanders loudly cursed at officers who had started arresting suspects at the scene on outstanding warrants, according to a witness I spoke with.

During anticop demonstrations in Ferguson, Mo., last month, 18-year-old Tyrone Harris opened fire at police officers, according to law-enforcement officials, and was shot and wounded by police in response. A crowd pelted the cops with frozen water bottles and rocks, wounding three officers, while destroying three police cars and damaging businesses, Ferguson police said. “We’re ready for what? We’re ready for war,” some protesters reportedly chanted.

In Birmingham, Ala., an officer was beaten unconscious with his own gun last month by a suspect in a car stop. There was gloating on social media. “Pistol whipped his ass to sleep,” read one Twitter post. The officer later said that he had refrained from using force to defend himself for fear of a media backlash.

Officers are being challenged in their most basic efforts to render aid. A New York cop in the Bronx tells me that he was trying to extricate a woman pinned under an overturned car in July when a bystander stuck his cellphone camera into the officer’s face, trying to bait him into an argument. “You can’t tell me what to do,” the bystander replied when asked to move to the sidewalk, the cop reports. “A few years ago, I would have taken police action,” he says. “Now I know it won’t end well for me or the police department.”

Supervisors may roll up to an incident where trash and other projectiles are being thrown at officers and tell the cops to get into their cars and leave. “What does that do to the general public?” wonders a New York detective. “Every time we pass up on an arrest because we don’t want a situation to blow up, we’ve made the next cop’s job all the harder.”

Jim McDonnell, head of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the nation’s largest, tells me that the current anticop animus puts the nation in a place where it hasn’t been since the 1960s. “The last 10 years have witnessed dramatic decreases in crime,” Sheriff McDonnell says. “Now, in a short period of time, we are seeing those gains undone.”

Even the assassination of police officers doesn’t appear to cool the antipolice rhetoric. A day after a Houston police deputy, Darren Goforth, was murdered while filling his gas tank last month, Black Lives Matter protesters—as online video chillingly attests—marched in St. Paul chanting: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

An organizer with the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis refused to apologize for the tenor of the movement, while denying that it condoned violence. “Until the police aren’t the dangerous force that black people fear, the rhetoric won’t change,” she told the New York Times, after Houston Sheriff Ron Hickman, in the wake of Deputy Goforth’s murder, pleaded for antipolice protesters to temper their language. A Texas legislator, state Sen. Garnet Coleman, assailed Sheriff Hickman for showing “a lack of understanding of what is occurring in this country when it comes to the singling out of African-Americans.”

The irony is that the historic reduction of U.S. crime since the 1990s was predicated on police singling out African-Americans—for protection. Using victims’ crime reports, cops focused on violent hot spots; since black Americans are disproportionately the victims of crime, just as blacks are disproportionately its perpetrators, effective policing was heaviest in minority neighborhoods. The cops were there because they believe that black lives matter.

Thousands of African-Americans are alive today because of a law-enforcement achievement that now is in danger of being squandered. In the current eruption of violent crime, the overwhelming majority of victims have been black. The Baltimore Sun reported that July was the bloodiest month in the city since 1972, with 45 people killed in 30 days. All but two were black.

Police officials I have spoken with in recent months say that they long to hear America’s leaders change the tone of the national conversation before respect for the rule of law itself deteriorates further. They’re still waiting.

Ms. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #423 on: September 28, 2015, 01:31:59 PM »

http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #424 on: October 01, 2015, 04:07:30 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/30/gangster-government-secret-service-tried-to-discredit-jason-chaffetz-for-investigating-the-agency/

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #425 on: October 02, 2015, 01:28:40 PM »


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-director-revises-account-of-his-role-in-leak-case/2015/10/02/d00eb4f6-689e-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html

I can remember when I respected and admired the Secret Service.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #426 on: October 23, 2015, 04:15:50 PM »

Compare and contrast.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/vegas-tax-resister-irwin-schiff-dies-serving-prison-term


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/23/justice-department-no-criminal-charges-for-ex-irs-official-lerner/
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #427 on: October 23, 2015, 04:50:06 PM »

The law only applies to the little people, not the DC elite.
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #428 on: October 23, 2015, 04:53:14 PM »

The law only applies to the little people, not the DC elite.

Scooter Libby might argue that point. However, that was before the fundamental change we have experienced.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #429 on: October 23, 2015, 05:02:16 PM »

Sheeez, that was 10 years ago.

How time flies when you are having fun.......................or in my case, getting old.
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #430 on: October 25, 2015, 05:17:21 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/25/the-banana-republic-of-america/comment-page-1/#comments

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7494


« Reply #431 on: October 27, 2015, 08:27:06 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/27/house-gop-begins-impeachment-against-irs-chief/

House Republicans begin impeachment against IRS chief John Koskinen

A consequence for lying, cheating and stealing?  Who knew?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4967


« Reply #432 on: October 28, 2015, 07:56:32 AM »

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sheriff-says-third-video-shows-south-carolina-student-punching-officer-n452481

Leftist attacks on the police continue.   How does one remove a student who disrupts the classroom and refuses to cooperate with the teacher and an assistant principle?

All these police on video incidents start with someone NOT cooperating with law enforcement.  And every time that gets downplayed.

This is not a civil rights issue.  It is not an FBI matter.   And it is not a lawsuit that is not going to be defended by innocent taxpayers. 

Yet it will be all of the above.   This student will come out with money and offers for college tuition.   I wish someone threw me to the ground when I was in school.

Though in those days I recall even the worst kids would have left the room when told to.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #433 on: November 09, 2015, 08:08:50 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/9/obama-plan-shield-millions-deportation-rejected-ap/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #434 on: November 28, 2015, 12:45:31 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/tighter-lid-on-records-threatens-to-defang-government-watchdogs.html?emc=edit_th_20151128&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #435 on: November 28, 2015, 02:53:48 PM »

WHEN it comes to poor people arrested for felonies in Scott County, Miss., Judge Marcus D. Gordon doesn’t bother with the Constitution. He refuses to appoint counsel until arrestees have been formally charged by an indictment, which means they must languish in jail without legal representation for as long as a year.
From Our Advertisers

Judge Gordon has robbed countless individuals of their freedom, locking them away from their loved ones and livelihoods for months on end. (I am the lead lawyer in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Scott County and Judge Gordon.) In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.”

There are many words to describe the judge’s blunt disregard of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Callous. Appalling. Cruel. Here’s another possibility: criminal — liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, prison time.

If this notion seems radical, it shouldn’t. Federal law already provides a mechanism to prosecute judges and district attorneys as criminals when they willfully deprive people of their civil rights: Title 18, Section 242, of the federal code.

This isn’t some dusty, rarely used legal tool. The Department of Justice typically wields Section 242 against police and correctional officers accused of physical or sexual violence. But Section 242 applies with equal force to those who prosecute and sentence, the state officials whose deliberate skirting of civil rights can be most devastating.

At least, that’s how it is on paper. The federal government has not in recent memory pursued a judge under Section 242, and it has only rarely enforced this law against prosecutors.

It is absolutely essential to bring rogue law enforcement officers to justice, particularly in a post-Ferguson world in which violations of constitutional rights have come under intense scrutiny. However, the government’s focus on abuses by law enforcement officials leaves the burden of curbing abuse by judges and prosecutors to private individuals.

This is a responsibility few lawyers are willing to accept, in large part because the United States Supreme Court has made pursuing a civil case against a prosecutor or judge practically impossible.

Consider the case of John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row for a murder he didn’t commit because the New Orleans Parish district attorney’s office intentionally concealed forensic evidence establishing his innocence. After his exoneration, Mr. Thompson sued the office under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, landmark legislation intended to provide a federal forum to those deprived of their civil rights by state officials.

Though Mr. Thompson won a $14 million jury award, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict on appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that the New Orleans prosecutors had similarly withheld evidence in at least four other cases, or the fact that several prosecutors suppressed the evidence in Mr. Thompson’s own case, the court said that Mr. Thompson had failed to demonstrate a pattern of wrongdoing by the district attorney’s office, which it held was required by Section 1983. The court’s decision illustrates just one of a host of protections it has given to prosecutors and judges to shield them from liability.


Civil cases like Mr. Thompson’s reveal a frightening reality. In privileging the discretion of prosecutors and judges to enforce the law, we have come perilously close to placing these officials above the law. We do not know the extent to which judges and prosecutors cross the line into criminality. After all, cellphones rarely capture the moment when a judge or prosecutor illegally locks someone away.

Nonetheless, advocates across the country continue to expose judges who unlawfully deprive defendants of lawyers or throw people in jail simply because they are too poor to pay small amounts of money. We are constantly confronted with wrongful convictions rooted in a prosecutor’s belief that winning a case is more important than seeking justice. These experiences compel us to recognize that sometimes the criminals our justice system most needs to confront are actually running it.

There is a solution: federal criminal prosecutions of state judges and prosecutors who flout the law. The nearly insurmountable barriers to justice in civil court don’t apply in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has invoked the availability of Section 242 prosecutions to justify its sealing of federal courthouse doors against people seeking to vindicate their civil rights.

Last month, the Department of Justice provided a rare glimpse of the law’s untapped potential. A Missouri prosecutor pleaded guilty under Section 242 of concealing police officers’ brutal assault of an arrestee, then prosecuting the victim on charges the officers fabricated to cover up their crime.

Missouri marks a promising, yet incomplete mandate. Judges and prosecutors violate civil rights every day, in plain sight, and with seeming impunity. To make them answer for these crimes, the federal government must continue to extend its reach beyond the streets and into the courtroom.

Brandon Buskey is a staff attorney with the A.C.L.U.’s Criminal Law Reform Project.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #436 on: November 28, 2015, 04:30:34 PM »

Who is going to prosecute the DOJ for civil rights violations?

WHEN it comes to poor people arrested for felonies in Scott County, Miss., Judge Marcus D. Gordon doesn’t bother with the Constitution. He refuses to appoint counsel until arrestees have been formally charged by an indictment, which means they must languish in jail without legal representation for as long as a year.
From Our Advertisers

Judge Gordon has robbed countless individuals of their freedom, locking them away from their loved ones and livelihoods for months on end. (I am the lead lawyer in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Scott County and Judge Gordon.) In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.”

There are many words to describe the judge’s blunt disregard of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Callous. Appalling. Cruel. Here’s another possibility: criminal — liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, prison time.

If this notion seems radical, it shouldn’t. Federal law already provides a mechanism to prosecute judges and district attorneys as criminals when they willfully deprive people of their civil rights: Title 18, Section 242, of the federal code.

This isn’t some dusty, rarely used legal tool. The Department of Justice typically wields Section 242 against police and correctional officers accused of physical or sexual violence. But Section 242 applies with equal force to those who prosecute and sentence, the state officials whose deliberate skirting of civil rights can be most devastating.

At least, that’s how it is on paper. The federal government has not in recent memory pursued a judge under Section 242, and it has only rarely enforced this law against prosecutors.

It is absolutely essential to bring rogue law enforcement officers to justice, particularly in a post-Ferguson world in which violations of constitutional rights have come under intense scrutiny. However, the government’s focus on abuses by law enforcement officials leaves the burden of curbing abuse by judges and prosecutors to private individuals.

This is a responsibility few lawyers are willing to accept, in large part because the United States Supreme Court has made pursuing a civil case against a prosecutor or judge practically impossible.

Consider the case of John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row for a murder he didn’t commit because the New Orleans Parish district attorney’s office intentionally concealed forensic evidence establishing his innocence. After his exoneration, Mr. Thompson sued the office under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, landmark legislation intended to provide a federal forum to those deprived of their civil rights by state officials.

Though Mr. Thompson won a $14 million jury award, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict on appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that the New Orleans prosecutors had similarly withheld evidence in at least four other cases, or the fact that several prosecutors suppressed the evidence in Mr. Thompson’s own case, the court said that Mr. Thompson had failed to demonstrate a pattern of wrongdoing by the district attorney’s office, which it held was required by Section 1983. The court’s decision illustrates just one of a host of protections it has given to prosecutors and judges to shield them from liability.


Civil cases like Mr. Thompson’s reveal a frightening reality. In privileging the discretion of prosecutors and judges to enforce the law, we have come perilously close to placing these officials above the law. We do not know the extent to which judges and prosecutors cross the line into criminality. After all, cellphones rarely capture the moment when a judge or prosecutor illegally locks someone away.

Nonetheless, advocates across the country continue to expose judges who unlawfully deprive defendants of lawyers or throw people in jail simply because they are too poor to pay small amounts of money. We are constantly confronted with wrongful convictions rooted in a prosecutor’s belief that winning a case is more important than seeking justice. These experiences compel us to recognize that sometimes the criminals our justice system most needs to confront are actually running it.

There is a solution: federal criminal prosecutions of state judges and prosecutors who flout the law. The nearly insurmountable barriers to justice in civil court don’t apply in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has invoked the availability of Section 242 prosecutions to justify its sealing of federal courthouse doors against people seeking to vindicate their civil rights.

Last month, the Department of Justice provided a rare glimpse of the law’s untapped potential. A Missouri prosecutor pleaded guilty under Section 242 of concealing police officers’ brutal assault of an arrestee, then prosecuting the victim on charges the officers fabricated to cover up their crime.

Missouri marks a promising, yet incomplete mandate. Judges and prosecutors violate civil rights every day, in plain sight, and with seeming impunity. To make them answer for these crimes, the federal government must continue to extend its reach beyond the streets and into the courtroom.

Brandon Buskey is a staff attorney with the A.C.L.U.’s Criminal Law Reform Project.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #437 on: December 11, 2015, 11:02:13 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/Oversight/videos/10153418211287517/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #438 on: January 04, 2016, 05:00:52 PM »

ttt
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7494


« Reply #439 on: January 08, 2016, 09:29:37 AM »

Citizen Asks ATF: Do I Need a Federal Firearms License to Sell Thousands of Guns to Mexican Cartels?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/01/06/citizen-asks-atf-very-important-question-about-selling-guns-with-a-federal-license-n2100639
https://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/gunwalker-update-atfs-operation-facebook-and-furious/atf-facebook-furious-160106-get-off-this-page/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #440 on: January 19, 2016, 06:25:18 PM »

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/judge-rejects-obamas-executive-privilege-claim-over-fast-and-furious-records-217970
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #441 on: January 20, 2016, 02:46:45 PM »

Jim Geraghty of NRO:

El Chapo’ Drug Kingpin Had a Rifle from Federal ‘Fast & Furious’ Program
The Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal is one of those stories that the government and the media declared over . . . that wasn’t, or isn’t, actually over.

Here’s a nice example:

A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

After the raid on Jan. 8 in the city of Los Mochis that killed five of his men and wounded one Mexican marine, officials found a number of weapons inside the house Guzman was staying, including the rifle, officials said.

When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives checked serial numbers of the eight weapons found in his possession, they found one of the two .50-caliber weapons traced back to the ATF program, sources said.

Also, did you remember this? I didn’t.

This week the scandal took on a new dimension with the revelation that Nadir Soofi, one of two Muslim terrorists killed attempting to murder attendees of a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest held in Texas in May, had acquired one of the guns he owned as a result of the Fast and Furious operation. This meant that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was in the position of indirectly selling Islamic terrorists one of the weapons they may have used in an attack on Americans on American soil.

I wrote after the Inspector General’s report came out:

The inspector general’s report concludes that they can find no evidence Holder knew about Fast and Furious until well after [Border Protection Agent Brian] Terry’s death, but . . . well, the circumstances of Holder being so out of the loop, so in the dark about a major operation certainly appear unusual, perhaps to the point of straining credulity. The report states:

 “We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude and that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General. We would usually expect such information to come to the Attorney General through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General . . . [Holder] was not told in December 2010 about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious. Both Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler and Counsel to the Attorney General and Deputy Chief of Staff Wilkinson were aware of this significant and troubling information by December 17, 2010, but did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding this development.”

Not “sufficiently important”? Baffling. Maddening. Some might even say, “implausible” . . .

Repeatedly, everyone under Holder seems to do everything possible to make sure he isn’t informed about an operation that, in the words of the IG report, failed “to adequately consider the risk to public safety in the United States and Mexico”. In fact, information about the program went all the way to Holder’s office -- but somehow, the memos, emails and other communications never reached the man himself. It’s as if he wasn’t there.

From the IOG report, again:

“As we describe below, we identified information regarding Operation Fast and Furious that reached the Office of the Attorney General in 2010 but not Attorney General Holder himself.”

Well. If you’re wondering if this is covered by some sort of obscure procedure or rules, it isn’t:

“[Holder] should have been informed by no later than December 17, 2010, that two firearms recovered at the Terry murder scene were linked to an ATF firearms trafficking investigation … We found that although [Holder’s then deputy-chief-of-staff Monty] Wilkinson forwarded to Holder during the afternoon of December 15 three emails from the US Attorney’s Office providing further details about the shooting and law enforcement efforts to find and arrest the suspects, he did not notify the Attorney General of the revelation that two weapons found at the murder scene were linked to a suspect in an ATF firearms trafficking investigation.”

See, this all occurred at a time when reining in out-of-control, unaccountable law-enforcement officials wasn’t a priority to the Left. It is now, but, eh, sorry, you missed the news cycle.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #442 on: January 20, 2016, 09:29:59 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/20/irs-wipes-hard-drive-that-court-ordered-it-to-preserve/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #443 on: January 25, 2016, 02:04:53 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/23/obama-state-dept-wants-to-delay-release-of-hillary-emails-because-of-snow-storm/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #444 on: January 25, 2016, 05:15:48 PM »

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/again-irs-destroys-another-hard-184100221.html

Hat tip CCP
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 05:20:14 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #445 on: January 25, 2016, 05:17:53 PM »


Must have the same get out of jail free card issued to Lois Lerner.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #446 on: January 27, 2016, 01:00:16 PM »

http://www.teaparty.org/ag-lynch-decided-whether-turn-fast-furious-documents-140286/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ag-lynch-decided-whether-turn-fast-furious-documents
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35839


« Reply #447 on: January 27, 2016, 07:48:13 PM »

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/26/planned-parenthood-board-member-works-in-office-of-d-a-who-indicted-david-daleiden/?utm_content=buffer0c73b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13265


« Reply #448 on: January 27, 2016, 07:54:37 PM »


The blatant politicization of prosecutors and prosecutions has become something kafkaesque.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7494


« Reply #449 on: February 03, 2016, 07:57:56 AM »

Current Sec of State John Kerry sent classified information to then Sec of State Hillary Clinton's private email on HIS private email...

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08635-JAN29/DOC_0C05788004/C05788004.pdf
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267949-kerry-sent-secret-email-to-clinton-from-personal-account
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!