The amount of irony here is astounding. Leftist liberal and former attorney general Eric Holder’s firm was enlisted by the leftists over at Facebook to investigate the social media giant’s bias against conservatives. There couldn’t be a more humorously ironic story than this one.
At first, it seemed like Facebook might be trying to do the right thing: investigate the bias against those who aren’t leftists using the social media platform. The tech company enlisted a team from law firm Covington and Burling to advise them on combating perceptions of bias against conservatives. But there’s one minor detail that Breitbarthappened to pick up on: Covington and Burling is the firm of Barack Obama’s left-wing former attorney general, Eric Holder.
In issuing an “apology” to the clients represented by the ACLJ, the IRS admitted that it was wrong to use the United States tax code simply because of an entity’s name. They also admitted the bombshell fact that this discrimination happened specifically because of the applicants’ political viewpoints. Keep in mind the fact that the mainstream media has spent years telling the American people that this didn’t happen.
In other words, outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times directly lied to their readers and viewers to protect a Democratic president whose administration was openly breaking the law. –SHTFPlan
After the apology from the Department of Justice, Eric Holder flat out said that the DOJ should not have apologized to conservatives for using the IRS as a weapon against their political enemies.
Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder said the Trump administration was wrong to have apologized to tea party groups snared in the IRS’s targeting scandal, saying it was another example of the new team undercutting career people at the Justice Department who’d initially cleared the IRS of wrongdoing.
“That apology was unnecessary, unfounded and inconsistent, it seems to me, with the responsibilities that somebody who would seek to lead the Justice Department should have done,” Mr. Holder said. –The Washington Times
Holder had ordered a criminal probe into the IRS’s handling of tea party applications after the 2013 revelation by an inspector general that the tax agency had subjected conservative groups to intrusive and inappropriate scrutiny when they applied for nonprofit status.
And not surprising in the least, that probe eventually cleared the IRS, saying that while there was bungling, there was no ill intent. The probe specifically cleared former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner, saying rather than a problem, she was actually a hero, reporting bad practices when she spotted them.
The good news is that The Heritage Foundation will also be working with Facebook on the same issue. According to Axios, the conservative think-tank will “will convene meetings on these issues with Facebook executives.” Klon Kitchen, a former adviser to Senator Ben Sasse who now works as a tech policy expert at Heritage, has reportedly hosted an event with Facebook’s head of global policy management.
President Trump could lose the support of 51% of his voter base who have used the highly beneficial plant known as marijuana and liked it
WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) Well, it’s official, President Donald J. Trump has gone from being my favorite president to being essentially a laughing stock of the country after his boy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions suddenly declared war on the highly beneficial plant known as marijuana, and that, my friends, is where I draw the line.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions managed to secretly rally the Republicans behind the scenes to rescind an Obama era policy that discouraged prosecutors from bringing charges against those who use or sell marijuana in states that the all natural plant has already been legalized for medical or recreational use.
Sessions botched move was likely financed by Big Pharma and lobbyists who seek to go against the word of God altogether.
Behold, Genisis 1:28-1:30 (The New American Standard Bible) states the following:
You see, so no one, not even the Attorney General can tell Americans that a plant (marijuana) is equal to a Schedule I substance like heroin, LSD, ecstasy, methaqualone, and peyote because of the fact that it’s simply just a plant, nothing more.
The bottom line is that the plant was put here by God for the people of the Earth to use and if some politician in Washington thinks he can defy God than Trump has lost all of my support and possibly the support of 51% of the countrymen and women who have partaken.
Should President Donald Trump fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his pointless battle with a plant known as marijuana?
Should President Donald Trump fire @jeffsessions over his pointless battle with a plant known as #marijuana?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions push to criminalize marijuana on a federal level may cost him his job
(INTELLIHUB) — A recent Twitter poll shows that nearly 80% of those who took it feel that President Donald Trump should fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his botched ideology of the plant known as marijuana.
The 24-hour poll which closed out Saturday asked 81 participants the following question: “Should President Donald Trump fire Jeff Sessions over his pointless battle with a plant known as marijuana?”
Should President Donald Trump fire @jeffsessions over his pointless battle with a plant known as #marijuana?
California Governor Jerry Brown said that the lawsuit filed against California by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over recently passed state laws was an “act of war.” During a press conference with the California attorney general on Wednesday, Brown looked every bit the easily offended liberal.
Upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was.
“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reincorporate that comment,” Brown responded.
In the video below, you can hear Brown say that California and the federal government are now going to war with each other. With the states attorney general, Xavier Becerra by his side, Brown declares “this is basically going to war against the state of California.”
“No, we are state of laws,” Brown answered. “We want to observe the law now. The [U.S.] attorney general has basically thrown the gauntlet down and done it in a highly politicized way. Yeah, this is a very aggressive act on the part of the Trump administration, and it’s not right, and it won’t stand. And as I say, I’m sure this lawsuit will last has more longevity than the Trump administration itself,” Brown concluded.
Attorney General Becerra the gets a moment to speak as well, and with a straight face, says “here in California, we respect the law and the Constitution. We expect the federal government to do the same.”
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed)There will be moments in political life when people who incessantly profess stalwart principles in public—never, ever letting you forget their self-proclaimed moral righteousness— tell you: ‘Now is not the time to do the right thing, my friend. Now is the time to do the right thing for the cause! Sacrifice your silly ideals for the greater good of the nation! Didn’t you know already, growing up into a mature political adult means shedding one’s ideals and rebranding one’s disappointments as first principles?’
This is the pickle Jeff Sessions finds himself in today. Unfortunately, it seems Sessions never received tutelage in an old American adage that “In politics, man must learn to rise above principle.”
No, Sessions, a literal boy scout, fancies himself a moral and principled man for many reasons, but especially because of his adherence to American “rule of law” and law enforcement. A indefatigable defender of some of United States’ most immoral and heinous laws, Sessions is an apt representative of two mistaken yet quite common political beliefs — (1) that the laws on the books are the embodiment of justice simply because they are the laws on the books and (2) that morality can and should be imposed on society through the violent means the law provides at the expense of individual freedom.
Yet, as it has been said for over a thousand years, “an unjust law is no law at all,” and to conflate law with justice is to presume that the state is not the servant of moral thought but the authority in matters of deciding what is good and evil. This puts the state beyond good and evil. This makes morality a set of marching orders rather than a matter of individual choice. This perverts morality, transforming social and political life into a horrid, involuntary game of sadomasochism dressed up in moral pronouncements.
To hell with this way of thinking! Morality is not merely whatever some authority says; morality is not simply a case of following this or that command (no matter how appealing that may sound to some masochists). To the thinking person, authority does not define what is good and proper. No, as it should be, what is good and proper defines who or what has authority.
But, instead of encouraging each of us to use our reason and persuasion to reflect upon our desires and choose a sound course of action, Sessions and many statists like him from both parties would have us blindly submit to authority and law. They would have us subject our moral wits to ‘the will of the people’ or ‘the experts’ or ‘the silent moral majority’ or the ‘forgotten men and women’ on the Trump train or else, suffer the legal and violent consequences.
But at least, if we follow the law, we should be just fine, right Jeff?
Well, no. We must also not look suspicious.
For example, betraying his supposed fealty to the 10th amendment, the 4th amendment, and limited government, Sessions has continued to doggedly defend efforts such as the federal drug war and, in particular, the practice of civil asset forfeiture, through which the DEA has seized $4 billion in cash over the last decade with 81% of the seizure cases having no accompanying criminal charges. Put simply, 81% of the time the DEA robbed people blind over their mere suspicion they were involved in illegal activities that shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. Jeff Sessions is just fine with that because, well, it’s legal and serves his cause to make us a nation of “good people” who just say no to drugs.
That said, Jeff Sessions is getting a taste of his own medicine. I do not believe in karma, but I do believe in cause and effect—in particular, that those who live by authority may very well die by authority.
Sessions hasn’t broken any laws, protocols, or procedures. He hasn’t outright betrayed anyone (with the exception of the liberty of those people he wishes to save from their vices). Nevertheless, Sessions is now threatened by the prospect of having two of his most beloved assets seized from him — his title as AG and his standing in national politics — because he has fallen under the suspicious eye of the new authority: the hip cause in town, Donald J. Trump.
Good riddance.
Jeff Sessions went by the book when he recused himself from having anything to do with the Russian-Trump collusion investigation. Under normal circumstances, he would be lauded for behaving on the up-and-up and preserving the largely mythical independence of the Justice Department from politics. But his moody boss, President Trump, is no boy scout. And ever since Sessions made his by the book decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, Trump has been stewing and is now spewing like a portly, orange Mt. St Helens for the all the world to see.
Though some people may sympathize with the “beleaguered” Attorney General and find Trump’s public tongue-lashing of Sessions shocking and unseemly, I am not surprised one iota to see Donald Trump lambasting one of the earliest supporters of his presidency. Now that water is reaching the upper deck, the presidential rat has no patience for his followers doing something as silly as following established rules and procedures. No, Trump demands they must follow him and his orders. This is an emergency!
So, what will it be, Jeff? How does it feel to have some authority tell you to give up your convictions and change your behavior or else suffer the consequences for having done nothing wrong?
Jeff, you went to work for a man who allows you to continue policies that trample on individual moral lights and rights, policies that scapegoat vast swaths of people based on mere fear and suspicion, policies such as civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, the larger drug war, stringent immigration enforcement, and mass surveillance. When you went to work for such a man, you should have been prepared for the possibility that you would be treated the same way as those poor souls he has allowed you to torment and scapegoat in the name of the law and your pet moral causes.
So, it’s time, Attorney General Sessions, for you to come to heel or leave town. It is time for you to give up your sense of propriety and serve your president’s wishes and whims or step down. In my opinion, you deserve to be fired for your terrible policy positions rather than your recusal, but I am not the president of the United States, thank the gods. I am also not foolish enough to believe your resignation or firing would mean the end of all the unjust laws you support.
No, even without you, they would continue, unfortunately. You are merely an example of a much bigger vermin problem in D.C. swamp, an infestation Donald Trump has no intention of eradicating. No, he is the king of vermin, yet another presidential Grand Poobah who believes and leads the hordes who claim we must sacrifice liberty to the state in almost every aspect of our lives for us to have a functioning and prosperous society.
Nonetheless, Jeff, if Trump punishes you for doing nothing wrong other than being “unfair” to him and his cause, I will not shed a tear. You have advocated and directed the same towards the American populace in regards to you and your cause. What a beautiful irony that even presidents with unjust intentions can deliver up poetic justice at times, as unwitting as it may be.
Hell, if you are fired and your greatest asset — your dream job — is stripped away from you, Jeff, have hope. Take heed: I hear whispers here in Alabama that if you were to come back to your native soil, even so downgraded and downtrodden, the governor’s office would be yours for the taking. Whether that is because the people of Alabama are incredibly forgiving, pitying, and merciful or simply prone to nincompoopery, I have no clue and do not care.
Just know, Jeff, whether you stay on as AG or fall from your high perch only to rise again in the Heart of Dixie, your political career will be ignominious as long as you continue to confuse the law with what is right and treat your personal notions of morality as a justification to sap the freedom of your fellow Americans who disagree with you and your cause.
(CN) – The Justice Department is making changes to its policies on subpoenaing news organizations as part of its crackdown on government leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday.
“We respect the important role that the press plays, and we’ll give them respect, but it is not unlimited,” Sessions said. “They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance the press’s role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in the intelligence community, the armed forces and all law-abiding Americans.”
Sessions noted during a late morning news conference that the DOJ under his leadership has devoted more resources to “seriously ramping up” investigations of classified leaks.
Since he took over, Sessions said the DOJ has charged four people for classified disclosures or hiding contacts with federal officers.
He outlined a zero tolerance policy for classified leaks from government employees.
“Criminals who would illegally use their access to our most sensitive information to endanger our national security are in fact being investigated, and will be prosecuted,” Sessions added.
The attorney general said the department does not confirm or deny the existence of specific investigations, but nevertheless offered that “since January, the department has more than triple the number of active leak investigations compared to the number pending at the end of the last administration.”
Advertisment
Sessions also stressed repeatedly that a way to solve the problem is to change the culture in government, which routinely leaks classified information. After a review of how the agency handles leak investigations, Sessions said he said he discovered “too few referrals” and “too few investigations.”
READ MORE:Cop Vs. Black Guy: Funny or Die Crew Sums Up the Police State in One Hilarious Video
“This culture of leaking must stop,” he said. Directing his comments to would-be leakers, Sessions cautioned: “Don’t do it.”
The press conference came after eight months of continuous leaks that have beleaguered the White House and the Trump administration, the latest of which on Thursday revealed details of conversations President Trump had with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Trump has repeatedly called for the DOJ to more aggressively prosecute leaks.
“I strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms, the staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country,” Sessions said.
“No government can be affective when its leaders cannot discuss sensitive matters in confidence or talk freely in confidence with foreign leaders,” he added.
Sessions said the National Security Insider Threat Task Force, established in 2011 during the Obama administration, has made some changes to help ramp up their efforts to investigate and prosecute leaks of classified information.
He said the agency would prioritize cases involving classified disclosures, which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and newly confirmed FBI director Christopher Wray will oversee.
Part of the DOJ’s ramped up effort also includes a new FBI unit dedicated specifically to investigating media leaks.
During an untelevised session after the press conference, Rosenstein said the unit was created because media leaks pose unique challenges.
He had no comment, however, when asked if he would commit the agency to not prosecuting journalists. But he did say that he anticipates meeting with media representatives before making any changes to the agency’s policies on media subpoenas.
READ MORE:Fastest Way to Get Through a Border Patrol Checkpoint without Submitting
Rosenstein stressed, when asked, that the department is only reviewing those policies and taking a “fresh look” at them.
He did not say what, if any, changes the department is considering making to those policies.
During the press conference, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the intelligence community has in the past several years had to contend with the worst disclosures of classified information it has ever faced.
“They have resulted in a major threat to our national security,” Coats said, adding that they have endangered the lives of Americans at home and abroad.
Rosenstein had no comment when asked to elaborate on Coats’ comment, saying that he would not specify how leaks put American lives on the line.
Sessions, Coats and Rosenstein all said the DOJ should do more to make government employees with legitimate concerns aware of proper internal whistle blowing channels.
According to Coats, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, which the Office of the Director of National Intelligence oversees, will make recommendations to strengthen the security clearance process.
Efforts will also be made to restrict the universe of government employees classified information is circulated among in order to narrow the pool of potential leakers, making them easier to identify, Rosenstein said.
Coats said his agency would take all steps necessary to identify leakers and will support prosecution. He added that he will exercise his full authorities as DNI to punish leakers, issuing a warning of his own to would-be leakers.
“We will find you, we will prosecute you to the full extent of the law, and you will not be happy,” he said.
READ MORE:Fraternal Order of Police Calling For Cops to Be Included in Hate Crimes Statute
We asked a very simple question about why the DNC has failed to cooperate with Russia investigators by handing over their infamous email server to either the FBI or Robert Mueller’s team (see: DNC Server: Most Critical Evidence To Proving “Russian Hacking” Is Being Withheld From Mueller, Why?). After all, if Russia did “hack the election”, as we’ve been told 24/7 by CNN going on 8 months now, then the evidence could very well be on that server. Which prompted us to ask this very simple question:
All of which brings us back to our original question: If the DNC is in possession of actual tangible evidence that could prove once and for all that Russians hacked their servers and attempted to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton, why not share that evidence with investigators and enjoy the blissful vindication that its public release would provide?
We concluded by wondering whether the stonewalling from the DNC just might have something to do with this “purely coincidental’ meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and/or Loretta Lynch’s ‘assurances’ to members of the Clinton campaign that the FBI’s investigation (or, “matter” if you prefer) of Hillary Clinton “wouldn’t go too far“? After all, if evidence of “Russian hacking” were on that server, so to would there be evidence of Lynch’s transgressions…if they existed, of course.
But we’re not the only ones wondering whether there’s more to the Lynch story. According to an article in the New York Post, some testimony that Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her. In that testimony, Lynch said that she had “not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”
That said, and as we’ve reported before, that statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton’s campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI’s investigation “wouldn’t go too far“…more from the Post:
When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.
Lynch’s lawyer says she is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to several questions, as well as relevant documents. Among other things, they want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.
And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” rather than what it actually was, an investigation.
Now, as The Post points out, there are new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about the alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and promptly asked to leave.
And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.
And then there is that meeting with Bill Clinton on that Phoenix tarmac that just happened to get noticed by a local reporter who just happened to be on scene.
After all the drama around the Clinton email investigation, which included multiple people being offered immunity and the revelation of what appeared to be numerous federal crimes committed by several people on Clinton’s staff, wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s Attorney General were the only one to take the fall? Scandal free administration indeed…
(ANTIMEDIA) — For those who have failed to notice the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America until now, it is high time to look down at the Lilliputian now occupying the Attorney General’s office.
As AG Jeff Sessions appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee to the discuss the ongoing Russia scandal, do not let his diminutive stature, mousy demeanor, or “aww-shucks” Southern drawl fool you; he is a mouse that has long roared: “Law enforcement can do no wrong.”
Now a nation of too many laws, the United States has truly become a government of men and again — as is the case with Attorney General Sessions — mice, and this gives Jeff Sessions immense power to implement his vision for law enforcement to exterminate American vice.
However, no one should expect Sessions to take many, if any questions regarding his heavy-handed vision for law enforcement when he appears before the Senate on Tuesday. No, he will be asked about meeting with the Russian ambassador, as well as his conversations with James Comey and President Trump as part of the ongoing Russia-Trump melodrama consuming Washington D.C.
So, while Sessions and his former colleagues in the Senate use their time in the media spotlight to spar and speculate over scandal, I would like to ask a few questions of Mr. Sessions that actually deserve time in the spotlight.
All of my questions are based on one general inquiry: is there any limit to the freedoms you are willing to sacrifice, Mr. Sessions, for the sake of government power, security, and law enforcement?
Mass Surveillance, Yay or Nay? — Mr. Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, do you think it is in the spirit of the 4th Amendment for the federal government to be collecting personal information on millions of American citizens through “foreign intelligence” surveillance programs? The last time major surveillance reforms were discussed when you were a senator, you came out against any reforms that would weaken the bulk collection of Americans’ communications. On what authority do you and the Congress claim the right to usurp the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights? Do you, Mr. Sessions, still support the full and permanent reauthorization of the FISA 702 program despite the reported abuses of power that program has fostered?
Robbing the Populace Blind, Yay or Nay? — Mr. Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, do you continue to support the practice known as civil asset forfeiture? How can you claim to uphold basic American law when this law enforcement practice flips the presumption of innocence on its head, labeling Americans criminals without conviction only to then seize their hard earned property? Are you so afflicted by your own brand of “reefer madness” that you will continue to allow American law enforcement to, for example, seize a family-owned motel without convicting the owners of any crime? In light of a recent Inspector General report on the DEA’s seizure of $4 billion over the last decade — wherein the I.G. found 81% of the cases involving the stolen property had no accompanying criminal charges — how can you still believe such a practice protects Americans’ liberties and property?
Mandatory Minimums, Yay or Nay? — Mr. Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, why did you see it fit to reinstate harsh mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders? Why on earth do we have so many judges and prosecutors nationwide if you will not allow them to use their own wisdom and discretion on a case-by-case basis? Why would you prod them to blindly enforce disproportionate sentences that do not fit the crimes? Why would you continue a practice that puts more non-violent people in prison and disproportionately affects minorities when it comes to mass incarceration?
I may be wrong, but I suspect your answer will have a lot to do with your antiquated few of drugs in America, and that leads us to my next question.
The War on Cannabis and Other Drugs, Yay or Nay? — Mr. Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, do you stand by your statement as a senator when you claimed that “Good people don’t smoke marijuana?” If you still do, and I suspect you do, I must say, Mr. Sessions, your belief here is utter nonsense — morally blind, authoritarian, and shallow nonsense dressed up as folksy, high and mighty judgment. I’m sure millions of Americans who have used cannabis would quibble with your moral shaming, if not mock it outright. Excuse me, Mr. Attorney General, but where is your respect for the 10th Amendment when it comes to states that have legalized medical and recreational cannabis? Excuse me, pardon me, but where is your respect for federalism, as well as the individual freedom and personal responsibility people have over their own bodies?
Immigration, Yay or Nay? — Mr. Sessions, as Attorney General of the United States, do you intend to not only continue your quest to crack down on illegal immigration but also restrict legal immigration, as well? What will be the effect on the American economy if you encourage the president and Congress to pursue restrictions on legal high- and low-skilled immigration? Should we not grow the economic pie, Mr. Sessions, rather than considering the economic pie of jobs and wages as fixed? Can you promise that so-called dreamers or DACA enrollees will not be targeted and deported, or do you stick by your statement from April of 2017 that you “can’t promise people who are here unlawfully that they’re not going to be deported?”
Furthermore, pursuant to your testimony from 2013, are you truly prepared to play the Biblical role of those who turned away the ancient Israelites? Are you really ready to assume the role of a callous authority? On this issue and the others mentioned above, where is your respect not only for the American people’s liberty but for the freedom innate in each human?
Now, these questions and more may have been asked of you in the past, Mr. Sessions, but they received short shrift in the media spotlight. Hopefully, this will change.
But in the meantime, what a shame that the media is more intrigued that you met with the Russian ambassador when you were a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee than they are with issues you have direct and indirect power to control in your capacity as Attorney General.
Deep State sponsored partisan move lands Trump in a new lawsuit
(INTELLIHUB) — In a partisan move, two democratic Attorney Generals filed a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump in a Federal Court Monday which alleges that the President is “flagrantly violating the Constitution” with his business entanglements.
Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh spoke at a press conference Monday where they provided the details of their suit.
“Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements or a president who refused to adequately distance themselves for their holdings,” the D.C. Attorney General stated.
Racine claims that the Constitution explicitly bars the President from receiving “gifts or inducements” from foreign or domestic entities.
“President Trump’s businesses and his dealings violate the Constitution’s anti-corruption provisions known as the Emoluments Clauses,” Racine said. “The framers included these two anti-corruption provisions to prevent foreign and domestic entities from seeking to influence the President by bestowing money or other things of value on to him.”
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh also took the mic to say: “This case is about the right of hundreds of millions of Americans to honest government. Elected leaders who serve the people and not their own financial interests are the indispensable foundation of our democracy. And the President, above all other elected officials, must have only the best interests of Americans at the heart of every decision […] and is not acting out of concern for his own business.”
“Never in our history has a President maintained an domestic and international business empire where his personal interests are tangled up with the policy interests of our country,” Frosh said. “The President’s conflicts of interests threaten or democracy [and] he continues to take monies from foreign governments.”
Additionally, Frosh said that they will be seeking the President’s financial and tax records.
Featured Image: Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (right) and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (left) (Screencapture via PBS NewsHour/YouTube)
(ZHE) In a report by Axios this morning, citing White House sources, President Trump is reportedly considering a “huge reboot” of his core staff and cabinet members that could lead to the termination of everyone from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon, to counsel Don McGahn and press secretary Sean Spicer: “He’s frustrated, and angry at everyone.”
According to Axios, the conversations intensified this week as the fallout from the Comey firing “pushed the White House from chaos into crisis” and notes that Trump’s friends are telling him that many of his top aides don’t know how to work with him, pointing out that “his approval ratings aren’t rising, but the leaks are.” As a result the advice he’s getting is to “go big — that he has nothing to lose,” the confidant said. “The question now is how big and how bold. I’m not sure he knows the answer to that yet.”
Additionally, Trump reportedly feels he has been “ill-served” by several of his Cabinet officials.
Trump has two complaints about Cabinet members: Either they’re tooting their own horns too much, or they’re insufficiently effusive in praising him as a brilliant diplomat, etc. Among the cross-currents:
Under threat are some of his key economic and domestic policy advisors, including:
Wilbur Ross took what was perceived as a victory lap on a China trade announcement that does little new in actuality.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a big announcement about increasing prison sentences, at the same time that Jared is working on criminal-justice reform.
HHS Secretary Tom Price shares the blame for the glacial pace of health-care legislation.
Axios notes three caveats:
i) no Cabinet member is expected to “go this soon”, even though a West Wing shuffle looks likely. “One obstacle to recruiting new top aides is finding people who would have real clout with a president not prone to enforced order”;
ii) it could be just Trump venting: “Trump often talks about firing people when things go south and does not follow through on it. So it’s possible these conversations are his way of venting, and seeking reassurance”
iii) any internal moves could take a while: “Trump heads out on his first international trip at the end of the week. Also, there’s an internal argument for minimizing drama by cutting people out of the information flow rather than firing them.”
In all, it appears that virtually everyone is in danger of losing their jobs, except for the core cadre of ex-Goldman advisors who have now effectively taken over Trump’s “circle of trust.” One other official winning Trump’s approval is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who will be on “Meet The Press” this morning defending his boss.
While a major cabinet shakeup is possible, another major problem emerges, however: if Trump does purge Priebus and Bannon, gutting the core of his inner circle, what would be left is “a straight line of mid-30s family members with scant governing experience: Jared and Ivanka. So while the fighting and leaking might ease, the problems may not because it’s the president, not the staff, calling the shots.”
In other words, Trump may unleash a firing spree, and shift the blame for the fallout from last week’s turbulent events to his top advisors, but once the internal purge is complete, it will be only Trump – and his immedite family members – left to take the blame… and there are still 3 years and 8 months left.
The words ‘undocumented immigrants’ might make it seem like they are just ordinary and perfectly legal immigrants missing the relevant documents when in fact they are here in the country illegally. While ‘illegal immigrant’ is a much more accurate term to describe the situation, the dishonest media are starting to paint the usage of the word as racist rhetoric. Simply ridiculous; almost as ridiculous as cities actively not co-operating with national law enforcement agencies. We are talking of course, about sanctuary cities.
In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the ongoing battle surrounding the illegal immigration issue, both from a legal and narrative standpoint. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced that DOJ grants will not be awarded to such cities; if you don’t want to uphold the law, why should you get DOJ funding? It makes perfect sense, but the New York Attorney General has already openly stated that he will continue to not enforce (aka violate) federal laws.
For all the talk on the left about Trump ‘breaking the law’ with the so-called Russian collusion, they seem to have no problems with violating federal laws in this case. Will this hypocrisy ever end?
Moments ago Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a surprise appearance at Sean Spicer’s daily White House press briefing to announce that his DOJ will be taking steps to not only require that so-called “sanctuary cities” enforce federal immigration laws but would also be seeking to claw back past DOJ awards granted to those cities if they refuse to certify compliance.
“Today, I’m urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition for receiving those awards.”
“This policy is entirely consistent with the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration.”
Sessions also called on states like Maryland and California to scrap their plans for becoming a sanctuary state.
“That would be such a mistake.”
“I would plead with the people of Maryland to understand this makes the state of Maryland more at risk for violence and crime, that it’s not good policy.”
Sessions’ full comments can be viewed below:
Update:
It didn’t take long for New York’s Attorney General to release a statement vowing that he will continue to violate federallaws.
NY A.G. ‘WON’T STOP FIGHTING’ TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES
NY AG: STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY TO NOT TAKE PART
For those who missed it, here is an excerpt from our previous post detailing which sanctuary cities receive the most federal funding.
Our organization, American Transparency (website: OpenTheBooks.com) was able to identify that number. We found nearly $27 billion ($26.74 billion to be exact) in federal funding (FY2016) for America’s 106 Sanctuary Cities. Our new report, “Federal Funding of America’s Sanctuary Cites” details federal grants and other forms of federal spending that flow to those cities.
Using our OpenTheBooks interactive map, search federal funding by city. Just click a pin and scroll down to review the municipal agencies and entities (FY2016).
Across America, there are over 300 governmental jurisdictions claiming “sanctuary status.” Of those governments, there are 106 cities, while the rest are states, counties or other units of government.
Under Trump’s order, mayors defending their sanctuary city status are essentially imposing a defiance tax on local residents. On average, this tax amounts to $500 per man, woman and child. Major cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago have the most to lose, and nearly $27 billion is at stake across the country.
Here are the top 10 takeaways from our findings:
1. $26.741 billion in annual federal grants and direct payments flowed into America’s 106 sanctuary cities (FY2016).
2. On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.
3.Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois governments received the highest amount of federal funding per resident and, therefore, have the most to lose by maintaining their sanctuary status.Washington, D.C. municipal government received the highest amount of federal funding on a per capita basis: $3,228 per person; $12,912 per family of four; or $2.09 billion total. The City of Chicago, IL received the second highest amount of federal funding on a per capita basis: $1,942 per person; $7,768 per family of four; or $5.3 billion total.
4. In cities with populations of 100,000 and above, the communities with the least per capita federal dollars ‘at risk’ are St. Paul, Minnesota ($47 per person, $14.2 million total); Downey, California ($36 per person, $4.2 million total) and Miami, Florida ($67 per person, $29.7 million total).
5. $15.983 billion in federal funds flowed into just twelve major American cities where 1 in 5 illegal entrants reside (FY2016).
6. Department of Justice grants to law enforcement – i.e. city police departments – totaled $543.97 million (FY2016). Typically, this funding was only a small percentage of the local law enforcement budgets.
7.$4.23 billion in federal funding of the 106 sanctuary cities flowed via the ‘direct payment’ type. These payments funded municipal services such as housing, education, community development, and schools.
8. $21.5 billion in federal funding of the 106 sanctuary cities flowed via the ‘grant’ payment mechanism. These payments funded local police and fire departments, schools, housing, and city services.
9. In Los Angeles, fully 1 in 5 city residents (22-percent) are illegal entrants. However, the amount of federal funding amounts to only $126 per resident; $504 per family of four; or $502.5 million total.
10. In Newark, New Jersey, 19-percent of city residents are undocumented entrants. However, the amount of federal funding amounts to $733 per resident; $2,932 per family of four; or $206.7 million.
The threat of losing nearly $27 billion in federal funding seems to be having an effect on some cities. In fact, Miami already reversed their sanctuary city policy.
THIS IS FOR LIBERALS WHO DON’T SEEM TO KNOW HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS…
The Trump administration officially put sanctuary cities on notice Monday that they are violating federal laws and could lose access to billions of dollars in Justice Department grants if they continue to thwart efforts to deport illegal immigrants.
And counties and cities that have taken money in the past, despite refusing to cooperate with federal agents, could have that money clawed back, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. That would mean Chicago, Philadelphia and other prominent sanctuaries would not only lose money going forward, but might have to pay back tens of millions of dollars from their treasuries.
But Mr. Sessions didn’t say when he would actually start withholding money, making his announcement more signal than substance — and leaving Democrats to argue he was trying to change the subject from White House controversies and the failed Obamacare repeal effort on Capitol Hill.
“Countless Americans would be alive today — and countless loved ones would not be grieving today — if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended,” Mr. Sessions said from the White House, saying the time is ripe to take action.
Mr. Sessions’ announcement was a reiteration of a policy first announced by the Obama administration last year.
Immigrant rights groups, however, blasted Mr. Sessions, calling him a “bully” and blaming him for poisoning relationships between immigrants and local police.
THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.
In a move that will likely provoke further media, and pundit, fury despite it being a routine act that is concurrent with every change in administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. Attorneys for their resignation.
Sarah Isgur Flores, Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, released the following statement:
"As was the case in prior transitions, many of the United States Attorneys nominated by the previous administration already have left the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations in order to ensure a uniform transition. Until the new U.S. Attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. Attorney"s Offices will continue the great work of the Department in investigating, prosecuting, and deterring the most violent offenders."
Trump had previously asked the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, to stay on. In addition, the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, Dana Boente, is currently serving as acting deputy attorney general, and Trump has nominated the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Rod Rosenstein, for the deputy attorney general, Politico adds.
However, as NBC adds, Preet Bharara is one of the Attorneys asked to resigns, suggesting that something may have changed in the amicable realtionship between Trump and Bharara in the past few months.
The issue of removing U.S. attorneys at the change of administration has been a contentious one in past years. According to Politico, in 2007, President George W. Bush’s administration sought to defend his firing of eight U.S. attorneys by asserting that President Bill Clinton had fired all sitting U.S. attorneys in 1993 “in one fell swoop,” as a top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put it. However, that was not true. In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, the vast majority of U.S. attorneys were replaced in the first year, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007. The Clinton team asked for resignation letters in March, but also allowed many prosecutors to stay until their successors were confirmed. Trump has not yet formally nominated anyone to a U.S. attorney post.
Today"s decision, long-overdue accoring to many, comes less than two months after then President-elect Trump said on January 18 he would allow U.S. attorneys appointed by President Barack Obama to remain in their roles for the time being. Before the announcement, officials in several U.S. attorneys’ offices told The Huffington Post they had received no guidance from the incoming administration on whether they were expected to resign when Trump became president.
“Currently serving U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals were informed today that they are able to stay in place after January 20th while the process for identifying and confirming successors is further determined,” Wyn Hornbuckle, a DOJ spokesman, said in a statement. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys informed the officials of the decision, he said.
As a reminder, it is standard practice for a new president to appoint his own U.S. attorneys, who are political appointees.
In retrospect, this decision should perhaps have been taken earlier, especially in the context of the constant pushback Trump"s immigration EO - both original and revised - has received by various Obama-appointed Attorneys in the past month.
The bottom line, however, is that what Sessions has done, is considered standard operating procedure, and if anything Trump was late making the announcement. Sessions’ request for the U.S. attorneys’ resignations comes as he prepares to implement a series of significant policy shifts at the department, pushing for tougher prosecution of gun and drug offenses and parting company with the Obama administration’s embrace of more lenient sentences for some drug convicts.
(ANTIMEDIA)It seems Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ former comments claiming the enforcement of federal marijuana rules is a “strain on federal resources” have been completely forgotten. The former Alabama senator showed his true colors on this issue during a recent exchange with reporters, and we now know his office is “going to look” at cases in some states of people violating local marijuana rules. After all, he told journalists, “[s]tates they can pass the laws they choose … [but] it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not.”
Worse than ignoring states’ rights by asserting the federal government might intervene in certain cases is Sessions’ claim that marijuana has been inviting more violence.
“We’re seeing real violence around that. … Experts are telling me there’s more violence around marijuana than one would think, and there’s big money involved.”
Unfortunately for the attorney general, this is nothing but a bogus claim.
In Colorado, crime has been dropping considerably ever since the state passed recreational marijuana laws, with homicides dropping 12.8 percent in the first year of legal pot. Other studies suggest that while Sessions believes marijuana legalization is associated with more crime, attempting to make this case is nearly impossible. According to a 2014 study, “findings run counter to arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime and property crimes.”
But even if in an alternative universe the legalization of weed had, indeed, led to higher crime rates, what’s at stake in this case is not public safety — or even health for that matter. The essence of prohibitionist policies has nothing to do with safety. Instead, these policies are here to restrict personal freedoms.
Like similar prohibitionist rules, marijuana criminalization is about control of what one does with one’s body. Not about safety or health.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman famously admitted years later, explaining the war on drugs was never meant to boost domestic security.
He continued:
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”
Controlling groups of people who fail to go along with government policy has always been a political aim of people in power — whether Democrat or Republican. Tools put in place to criminalize certain behavior help any administration to keep groups of people from persuading others to follow along. And what better tool to accomplish that than to use the power of the law to crush dissent?
Winning the war on drugs doesn’t mean anything to those writing the legislation. In the end, the public safety rhetoric is nothing but hot air. But to those living under these immoral rules, reminding the wider public that the war on pot is a war on the sovereignty of the individual and his right to self-ownership is what is going to turn the public’s attention to what really matters.
What’s at stake is not people’s health or their right to choose what poison they use but what makes us human: our right to make our own decisions.
Watch Jeff Sessions address the National Association of Attorneys General below:
(RT) President Donald Trump has fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates, making Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia the new acting attorney general.
Yates was relieved of her post Monday, just hours after news broke that she was instructing Department of Justice lawyers not to defend the executive order.
.@POTUS has named Dana Boente, US Attorney for the Eastern District of VA as Acting Attorney General. Sally Yates has been relieved.
Yates “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” a press release from the Office of the Press Secretary read.
“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” Boente said as Acting Attorney General in the press release.
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Yates wrote in a letter, according to the New York Times. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”
Trump responded to Yates’ move on Twitter, calling it an example of Democrats’ obstruction “for purely political reasons.”
The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.
As we detailed earlier, in what those with a flair for the dramatic might be allowed to call "mutiny", Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who is the current acting Attorney General, has given orders to Justice Department lawyers not to defend Trump"s executive order.
Her just released statement is below:
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC"s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC"s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order"s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution"s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
While it is clear that Yates is making a purely political statement, her glaring insubordination to the Trump administration will take on a largely symbolic hue, and may be imitated by various other government agencies which still have interim or permanent democratic leadership, as is the case with every instance of political "mutiny."
As The New York Times notes, Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.
That said, Donald Trump"s response, once he realizes he may have a mini mutiny on his hands, should be interesting.
Trump aide (and reported architect of Trump"s immigration executive order) Stephen Miller explains "this is further demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become..."
Shepard Ambellas
Shepard Ambellas
