Showing posts with label Loretta Lynch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loretta Lynch. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

GOP Wants To Eliminate Shadowy DOJ Slush Fund Bankrolling Leftist Groups




Further proof that the Obama regime used taxpayer funds to politicize government agencies and used those agencies against the American people.

Via Fox News:

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading…

Thank You Fox and Huck Funn

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Loretta Lynch Plans To Visit Mosque Once Raided In Counter Terrorism Probe

Inauguration Day can't get here fast enough.

weaselzippers


Via Daily Caller:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch will visit a controversial Virginia mosque next week, likely as a response to a recent FBI report that found a spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S.

The visit to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center (ADAMS) will mark Lynch’s first to a mosque since she took over the Justice Department last year. And that will be one visit more than the number she has paid to a synagogue. That despite there being two-and-a-half times as many hate crimes against Jews reported last year than against Muslims.

No details have been provided about Lynch’s visit or for why ADAMS was chosen.
Keep reading…

Thank You DC and Nick.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Grassley Asks Justice Dept To Investigate The Investigators In Clinton Email Probe

CNSNews
By Susan Jones | November 3, 2016 | 6:46 AM EDT



(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is asking the Justice Department's inspector general to examine whether "high-ranking" DOJ and FBI officials "compromised the public trust in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server as Secretary of State and potential mishandling of classified material."

Several of those high-ranking officials had previous ties to the Clintons, he said.

"The public’s lack of confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to handle investigations related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton impartially ought to be of grave concern for its leadership," Grassley wrote. "The entire matter is in desperate need of independent, objective, non-partisan oversight.  As the Inspector General, that is your statutory duty," he told DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

Grassley named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who met privately with former president Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport in July, just days before the FBI announced it would not recommend the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Grassley said Lynch's meeting with Clinton "creates the appearance of a conflict," given that she was appointed to the role of U.S. Attorney by then-President Bill Clinton and she was a partner at a law firm that represented both Bill and Hillary Clinton in their official government capacities.

Grassley also wants to know about possible conflicts of interest stemming from Peter Kazik's close ties to Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. Kadzik, the Justice Department's liaison to Congress, emailed Podesta in May 2015, giving him a "heads up" that the head of the DOJ Civil Division was about to testify before the House Judicial Committee and was "Likely to get questions on State Department emails."

In the May 19, 2015 email released Tuesday by WikiLeaks, Kadzik also informed Podesta that the latest FOIA filing "indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails" recovered from Hillary Clinton's private server.

Podesta forwarded Kadzik's email to the Clinton campaign team, telling them: "Additional chances for mischief."

Sen. Grassley also flagged Andrew McCabe, the second-highest ranking official at the FBI. McCabe led the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office, which provided personnel and resources to the Clinton server investigation around the same time Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s political action committee and the Virginia Democratic Party donated more than $675,000 to McCabe’s wife’s political campaign for a Virginia Senate seat.

(McAuliffe, a Hillary Clinton supporter, was a prolific fundraiser for President Bill Clinton and is under investigation for allegedly taking campaign contributions from foreign entities, a review that McCabe was recused from during his wife’s political campaign.)

Finally, Grassley wants the IG to examine why the Justice Department granted so many "unusual immunity agreements" with Hillary Clinton’s closest associates. The senator said it looks like the Justice Department, until now, has relied on immunity to get information, instead of approving the use of search warrants or grand jury subpoenas to compel cooperation with FBI’s investigation.

(The Justice Department reportedly approved a search warrant last weekend to examine a new trove of emails found on the home computer of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's top aide.)

“The American people deserve to know whether political considerations have improperly affected the handling of this inquiry and understand why key officials failed to recuse themselves to protect the public’s confidence in a fair and impartial inquiry based on merits and the evidence rather than on politics,” Grassley said in his Nov. 2, 2016 letter DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

The full letter is printed below:

November 2, 2016

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Inspector General Horowitz:

The public’s lack of confidence in the Justice Department’s ability to handle investigations related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton impartially ought to be of grave concern for its leadership.  The entire matter is in desperate need of independent, objective, non-partisan oversight.  As the Inspector General, that is your statutory duty.

The Department has utterly failed to manage the significant appearances of conflicts of interest.  The leadership of the Department has stuck their heads in the sand, assuming that their reputations and silence would be enough to insulate them. The American people are all too aware of the troubling meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport and the Justice Department’s acceptance of the FBI’s recommendation not to prosecute a little over a week later.

However, the potential conflicts are much deeper and broader than that one meeting.

Attached please find two previous letters that I sent to the FBI relating to Attorney General Lynch’s potential conflicts and the FBI’s second in command, Andrew McCabe and his potential conflicts related to Clinton fundraiser, Gov. Terry McAuliffe.  Additionally recent reports have also illustrated long running, close ties between Peter Kadzik and the Clinton’s inner circle.

It is vital that the American people have confidence in the ability of the Department to be impartial with regard to criminal inquiries related to senior officials and candidates for high office.  Yet, the Justice Department has failed to appoint a special counsel to ensure that these inquiries are insulated from the appearance that decisions are being made based on political considerations rather than on the merits.  

Attorney General Lynch has professional associations with the Clintons that created the appearance of a conflict long before her meeting on an airplane with the former President. President Clinton appointed her to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  She was a partner at a law firm that represented both President and Secretary Clinton.  In addition, reports around the time of Attorney General Lynch’s meeting with President Clinton indicate that Secretary Clinton was considering keeping her on as Attorney General.   Executive Order 12674 demands that “[e]mployees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standard promulgating pursuant to this order.”   

As the senior official in the Office of Legislative Affairs, Mr. Kadzik is being allowed to participate in decisions about what information on these matters will be disclosed to Congressional oversight committees.  Reports have noted that Mr. Kadzik continues a very close relationship with John Podesta, the Chairman of Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  For instance, news reports have noted:

•    Mr. Kadzik represented Mr. Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

•    Mr. Kadzik lobbied Mr. Podesta for then-President Bill Clinton to pardon Marc Rich.  On this point, the House Committee on Government Reform found that Mr. Kadzik was hired by Marc Rich because of his connections with Mr. Podesta.

•    Mr. Podesta emailed Obama campaign officials to recommend Mr. Kadzik for a role in the Obama campaign and called Mr. Kadzik a “fantastic lawyer” that “kept me out of jail.”

•    Mr. Kadzik met with Mr. Podesta for dinner one day after Secretary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony.  Mr. Kadzik also met at Mr. Podesta’s home for dinner on January 13, 2016.  During both times the FBI was still investigating Secretary Clinton.

•    On May 5, 2015, Mr. Kadzik’s son asked Mr. Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

•    On May 19, 2015, Mr. Kadzik emailed Mr. Podesta and warned, “[t]here is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify.  Likely to get questions on State Department emails.  Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.”

Given these facts, Mr. Kadzik’s relationship with the Clintons and their associates is incompatible with the ability of Congress to have any confidence in his ability to be fair and impartial in advising on decisions about how to respond to Congressional oversight inquiries related to these matters.

At the FBI, Mr. McCabe’s wife accepted more than half a million dollars from entities associated with Gov. Terry McAuliffe for her political campaign.  Given Gov. McAuliffe’s ties to the Clintons and the control Mr. McCabe later exerted over the Clinton investigation, some have suggested that there is at least the appearance of a conflict.  All government employees must avoid situations that create the appearance of impropriety.  Specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, advises that a government employee should seek clearance before participating in any matter that could cause his or her impartiality to be questioned.  

Against the backdrop of these apparent conflicts, the public has also learned that the Justice Department entered into unusual immunity agreements with all of Secretary Clinton’s close associates.  These immunity agreements inexplicably limited the scope in which the FBI could review relevant emails.  For example, the immunity agreements between Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson only permitted the FBI to review email archives from Platte River Networks created after June 1, 2014, and before February 1, 2015, that included emails sent or received from Secretary Clinton’s four email addresses during her tenure as Secretary of State.  That limitation in scope would have excluded any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 touching on the destruction or concealment of federal records being sought by Congress.  Further, the scope would preclude the FBI from reviewing any of Secretary Clinton’s emails if they were not from the four listed in the agreement.  Finally, the agreements included an inexplicable agreement to destroy laptops that contained records subject to congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.

These unusual limitations, coupled with the sheer number of immunity agreements, without any charges being filed, seems to indicate that the Justice Department likely refused to authorize any compulsory process, such as search warrants or grand jury subpoenas.   Not until October 30, 2016, did the first reports surface that the Justice Department obtained a warrant to search the laptop associated with Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner in the context of the FBI’s investigation into Secretary Clinton.   That appears to be the first compulsory process authorized in the matter, and it appears to have been authorized only after the FBI Director informed Congress of the need to obtain the information.

In addition, the public now knows that the investigation’s scope was arbitrarily limited to classifications issues, with little or no effort to make a case against anyone for intentionally alienating federal records to subvert the Freedom of Information Act process and potentially obstruct Congress.

In light of all of this, an independent, objective, non-partisan review is vital.  The American people deserve to know whether political considerations have improperly affected the handling of this inquiry and understand why key officials failed to recuse themselves to protect the public’s confidence in a fair and impartial inquiry based on merits and the evidence rather than on politics.

Accordingly, please conduct a review sufficient to answer the following questions:

1.    In light of Attorney General Lynch’s previous history with the Clintons, does her involvement in the Clinton investigation create, at the minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest?  If not, why not?

2.    In light of Mr. Kadzik’s previous history with the Clintons, does his involvement in the Clinton investigation create, at the minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest?  If not, why not?

3.    In light of Mr. McCabe’s wife’s relationship with a close ally of the Clintons, does his later involvement in the Clinton investigation create, at the minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest?  If not, why not?

4.    When individuals such as Attorney General Lynch, Mr. Kadzik, and Mr. McCabe fail to recuse themselves for prudential reasons to avoid the appearance of a conflict, what policies and procedures exist to protect the Department from the consequences of those individual decisions and how can they be improved?

5.    Prior to Director Comey’s October 28, 2016 letter to Congress did the FBI ever seek from the Justice Department any compulsory process in the Clinton email investigation?  If so, please describe each request and note which requests were denied by the Department.  For those that were denied, what were the reasons given for the denial?  
 
6.    In what ways, for what reasons, and by whose decision was the scope of the FBI’s investigation and prosecutorial recommendation narrowed to only national security matters, with relatively little time or attention devoted to determining whether there were criminal violations for intentional alienation of federal records, perjury, or obstruction of Congress?

7.    Why were the searches of the laptops of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson limited to the timeframe that Secretary Clinton was in office, excluding potential evidence about the intent behind decisions to delete emails after Secretary Clinton was out of office even though they were subject to Congressional subpoenas?

I anticipate that your written reply and any responsive documents will be unclassified.  Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee.  In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.  Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.  Please respond no later than November 7, 2016.  If you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley            
Chairman    
Committee on the Judiciary


Thank You Ms Jones, CNS, and Senator Grassley.

pic cred to thepeoplescube.com

Obama DOJ: Handmaiden of Clinton Corruption

frontpagemag

How the Clinton machine is perverting U.S. federal law enforcement to shield Hillary.

Joseph Klein


The Obama Department of Justice has been corruptly aiding and abetting the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to escape legal accountability for her actions. From Attorney General Loretta Lynch on down through the Justice Department’s political ranks, the Department has blocked the FBI from searching for the truth and following the evidence of potential criminality to its logical conclusion. Whether it is Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State or her involvement in the pay-for-play Clinton enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, the Obama administration is applying a banana republic-style double standard to pervert justice and the rule of law in order to shield her. 
Lynch and President Obama were reportedly furious with FBI Director James Comey for sending a letter to Congress on October 28th indicating that new evidence potentially pertinent to the e-mail case had come to light, which required further investigation. This evidence consisted of a batch of e-mails FBI investigators had found on one or more computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, Clinton confidante Huma Abedin’s estranged husband, while they were searching for evidence in an unrelated case involving Weiner’s alleged sexting to an underage girl. Comey sent his letter after months of agonizing over his previous decision to let Hillary off the hook in the e-mail case last July. He was said by a source close to him to have been particularly disturbed by the mounting number of resignation letters from FBI agents who felt betrayed by that decision. 
Department of Justice officials had leaned on Comey not to send the letter to Congress, claiming that it would violate Department protocols and procedures against taking any action that could be perceived as interfering with the upcoming presidential election. To his credit, Comey ignored the Department officials’ objections, claiming he had an obligation to keep the Congress and the public informed of any potentially significant new developments in the case.
Democrats, who had lavished praise on Comey for his July decision, lashed out at Comey for sending his letter updating Congress. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid went so far as to make the baseless charge that Comey may have violated the law by informing Congress, because, Reid argued, he appeared to be taking sides in an election. The disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder, held in contempt of Congress for withholding information relating to the Fast and Furious scandal, said about Comey’s action, “I fear he has unintentionally and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people.”
Since when has Holder been genuinely concerned about protecting our system of justice and best serving the American people? Holder had already contributed to the erosion of public trust, with his blatant politicization of the Obama Department of Justice.  As evidenced by the Obama Department of Justice’s handling of the multiple FBI investigations involving Hillary Clinton, the Department has continued its slide into the muck of corruption. It interfered with both the normal course of criminal investigations and the election by stacking the deck in Hillary’s favor, ensuring that no indictment would occur to derail her path to succeed Obama and preserve his legacy. 
First, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to empanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”
Kallstrom’s belief that Lynch acted to influence the results of the FBI probes in Hillary’s favor is buttressed by Lynch’s 30 minute private tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before FBI Director Comey faced the cameras on July 5th with his exculpatory announcement. 
Second, at least five immunity agreements were handed out in the e-mail case, including to Hillary’s lawyer and confidante Cheryl Mills and to Platte River Networks’ Paul Combetta.  It appears that Combetta had previously lied to government investigators – a crime in itself – while trying to cover up the fact that he had evidently Bleachbited e-mails to delete them, even though they had been subject to a previously issued Congressional subpoena. The immunity agreements garnered nothing in return, but had the effect of blocking access to the computer devices of the immunity beneficiaries in the FBI’s separate Clinton Foundation investigation.  Apparently, the Department decided against the alternative option of subpoenaing the computer devices or seeking a search warrant, rather than granting useless immunities, in order to obtain any evidence relevant to the e-mail investigation that might have been contained in those devices. 
Third, the Department and FBI did not conduct their last minute interview of Hillary Clinton under oath and allowed Cheryl Mills – herself a material witness – to sit in during Hillary’s interview. They did not ask pertinent follow-up questions. There was no verbatim transcript of the interview to use in checking the veracity of Hillary’s statements during the interview against her sworn Congressional testimony or her many public statements. 
Fourth, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. In fact, senior Department officials reportedly would not authorize a more thorough FBI investigation because they claimed there was not sufficient evidence gathered thus far to justify going further. Such a circular argument was a mere cover to prevent seasoned career investigators from learning the full extent of foreign government donations while Hillary was Secretary of State, their true motivations and any favors extended by the State Department in return.
Finally, the cross-connections between the Clintons and some high level Department of Justice and FBI officials cry out for recusal. But not so in this administration. For example, the wife of the deputy FBI director who was involved in the laggard Clinton Foundation investigation, Andrew McCabe, just happened to have received a large donation from close Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to her 2015 run for the State Senate.
To make matters worse, the Obama Department of Justice assigned Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik, a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, to communicate with Congress about what Kadzik promised would be a “thorough” review of the newly discovered e-mails from Anthony Weiner’s online account.
Podesta praised Kadzik in an e-mail to an Obama campaign official back in 2008 as a “Fantastic lawyer,” and said about his pal, “Kept me out of jail.” Their history together goes further back than that. During the waning days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, it was Kadzik, then representing the infamous billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who lobbied Podesta, then serving as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, for a presidential pardon on his client’s behalf. Kadzik’s lobbying effort, no doubt helped along by contributions to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to Bill Clinton’s presidential library, paid off. Bill Clinton delivered the requested pardon on his last day in office.
Kadzik joined the Department of Justice in April 2013, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, and then as the Principal Deputy. With the Podesta connection intact, Kadzik has served as a highly placed Clinton campaign mole in the Department. An e-mail dated May 19, 2015 from Kadzik to Podesta, released by WikiLeaks, proves the point.  Bearing the subject heading “Heads Up,” Kadzik advised Podesta about upcoming Congressional testimony by the head of the Department’s Civil Division, and about another filing in the Freedom of Information case that would mean “it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.” Podesta forwarded Kadzik’s heads up e-mail to several senior Hillary Clinton campaign officials with the admonition: “Additional chances for mischief.”
Exploiting his coordinating role in the re-opened e-mail investigation and contacts with FBI investigators, Kadzik will now be in a position to relay inside information to his pal Podesta and to provide inside information to the Clinton campaign’s supporters in Congress as well.  
The Clintons manage to turn virtually everything they touch into a cesspool of corruption. The Obama Department of Justice is no exception.  

Clinton's Web of Deception

frontpagemag

The unraveling of Hillary's corrupt sphere of influence.


 


The 2016 elections are in the final stretch and were shaken to the core by the latest revelations from FBI Director James Comey on Friday, October 28, 2016 as reported by NBC News on October 30th, “FBI Obtains Warrant for Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Probe — as Reid Accuses Comey of Hatch Act Violation.” Once again the Clinton scandal is creating turmoil in a presidential election that has gone way beyond “unconventional.”  Indeed, Tom Clancy could not have scripted this year's presidential election and intrigues.
While Comey's recent remarks regarding the Clinton investigation have been extremely vague, the issue to focus on is how Hillary's use of a private computer server, private e-mail account and non-secure digital devices to store, send and receive classified materials may have drawn others into her tangled web of deception.
The current focus of the Clinton quagmire is on whether or not the laptop computer shared by Weiner and his estranged wife contains sensitive information.  If that laptop had been hacked both Weiner and Abedin could have been vulnerable to blackmail.  This was an issue raised by Congressman Louie Gohmert, Texan Republican and former judge in a Fox News Business interview on October 31, 2016 in a segment that was posted under the title, “Rep. Gohmert: Clinton is a potential victim of blackmail.”
Additional individuals may also have been drawn into this web of deception through these e-mails as well.  A chain is as strong as its weakest link.  The weak links begin with Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin and may now include Anthony Weiner and perhaps others. Meanwhile, there is no way to yet determine how many other weak links are “out there” petrified that WikiLeaks or perhaps, a hacker may yet disclose their improper dealings with the Clintons or their foundation.
Could not these additional individuals be subject to blackmail as well? 
Let's take a moment to understand how all of this began.
Just months earlier Hillary Clinton had been let off the hook by an FBI Director who, in his official statement on July 5, 2016, included this excerpt:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
By Comey's own words, anyone else might have had their security clearance lifted permanently.  This raises the issue about such an individual demonstrating fitness for duty as president and raises the question as to why Comey did not see fit to take comparable action with Ms Clinton.
Comey's ultimate decision to not present the case to a Grand Jury was frustrating to those who have had security clearances and fully understand just how profound an impact these transgressions might have on national security.  
However, perhaps Comey's hard to comprehend decision can be traced to a meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch less than one week before the FBI Director conducted that press conference.  On June 29, 2015 ABC News-15 reported, “US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meet privately in Phoenix before Benghazi report.”
That article served as a predication for my article, “Loretta Lynch's Private Meeting With Bill Clinton Prior to Release of Benghazi Report: Why would the Attorney General, who sets the tone for law enforcement, do this?” 
As Attorney General, Lynch is FBI Director Comey's boss.
At the time of this meeting the Justice Department was not only investigating Hillary's illegal use of a private e-mail server, non-secure personal digital devices but was also, conducting an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
In fact, on October 30, 2016 Breitbart reported, “Clinton Foundation FBI Investigation Confirmed By Former Assistant FBI Director.”  Therefore Bill Clinton, was likely the target of an ongoing criminal investigation yet he had a totally inappropriate private meeting with the Attorney General to supposedly discuss golfing and grandchildren.  
However, just days after that meeting, news organizations reported that Hillary was contemplating keeping Lynch on as Attorney General if she won the election.
On July 4, 2016 Newsmax reported, “NY Times: Clinton Weighs Keeping Lynch as Attorney General if She Wins.”  Hillary's statement that she might keep Lynch on as Attorney General could have provided the incentive for Lynch to “Go along to get along.”
Indeed, Lynch did precisely that during her confirmation hearing as I described in my commentary, “Loretta Lynch: Same as the Old Boss: The Attorney General nominee's disturbing views on U.S. immigration law.”
My article included an excerpt from a Yahoo/AP news report, "Attorney General nominee defends Obama immigration changes." Here is the exchange in which Lynch discussed the administration's immigration's policies:
Lynch said she had no involvement in drafting the measures but called them "a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem" of illegal immigration. She said the Homeland Security Department was focusing on removals of "the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us."
Pressed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hard-liner, she said citizenship was not a right for people in the country illegally but rather a privilege that must be earned. However, when Sessions asked whether individuals in the country legally or those who are here unlawfully have more of a right to a job, Lynch replied, "The right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here."
Sessions quickly issued a news release to highlight that response. Under later questioning by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, Lynch clarified it, stating there is no right to work for an immigrant who has no lawful status.
This was disturbing and telling, clearly Ms Lynch's views on immigration and likely, therefore on other issues are malleable and subject to revision if modifying her position is consistent with her personal goals.
As Attorney General Lynch directs the operations of the entire Justice Department and all those who work for that department.  Ms. Lynch must understand true democracy can only exist when justice is blind and totally objective.
However, Lynch and the others who have fallen under Hillary Clinton's corrupt sphere of influence are trapped in Hillary's web of deception, having fallen victim to the Hillary Virus. Throughout Clinton's many decades in American politics, this highly contagious and virulent malady has proven to be virtually ineradicable. It is not likely to change no matter the outcome of the next election. 

ABOUT MICHAEL CUTLER

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.
READ MORE

Thank You Mr Cutler and FPM.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Morale At DOJ Hits Rock Bottom

daily caller
Richard Lawless



Over one year ago I filed a report with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office regarding the on-going theft of tens of billions of dollars in the municipal bond market.

After a full year has passed, no action has been taken and the criminal activity continues.

Over this time period I have had the honor of talking with dozens of FBI field agents and they have made it clear that they have no confidence in their leadership. Using their colorful language, the field agents made it clear to me that nothing will come of my complaint because of the widespread political corruption infecting the entire Department of Justice.

I was told more than once that the rank and file officers feel that the Director of the FBI and many of the Assistant Directors are likely to “drop their pants and bend over their desks when the Attorney General or the President calls. They feel this is done in some sad, misguided attempt to preserve or enhance their positions. One field agent actual suggested the Director and his Assistants begin wearing skirts to work to save time the next time their phone rings.”

Pretty powerful and descriptive off the record feedback!

What was more disturbing to me was the conviction of the agents that in many cases it made no sense to proceed with a criminal investigation, even if the agent felt they could build a good case. The agents suggested that after all their hard work is done, the investigative findings are sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where it will go through a political screening to first determine if the administration will allow this specific prosecution.

If this is in fact true, it leaves the American people without any legal recourse in many cases.

I can only speak from my experience and I have been told no one will allow my complaint to be honestly prosecuted. To date, that FBI agent seems to be right.

Mr. Lawless is a career Banker and CEO of Commercial Solar Power, Inc. Mr. Lawless has been working with the SEC, the FBI, The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Treasury Department to uncover the reasons for Puerto Rico’s $70-billion-dollar bond default.




Tags: Department of Justice, FBI, Richard Lawless


"Over one year ago I filed a report with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office regarding the on-going theft of tens of billions of dollars in the municipal bond market.

After a full year has passed, no action has been taken and the criminal activity continues."


Mr Lawless, are you familiar with that old time keeping adage about Hell Freezing Over?

Over a year? A Whole Year? Check the dates of our postings.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

DOJ Against Holding People Because They Can't Afford Bail

weaselzippers



Which means all of these people would be let out without bail and more would skip, because they would have nothing to lose.
Via Washington Examiner:

It is unconstitutional for defendants to be held in jail simply because they can’t afford to post bail, the Justice Department asserted this week.
This marks the first time that the federal government has sided with this position before an appeals court, according to NBC News.
In a friend of the court briefing, the DOJ said: “Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be denied “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
Keep reading…

Thank You Wash Ex and Nick.

"The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be denied “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

Well now ain't that just 'special'.

From each according to everything they Earned,

To each according to Buying them into voting us back in.

Where's the due process to insure equal protection for people who do have the money to pay a bailbond firm, usually because they have ties to the community they Worked for it in? (further reasons for them to not skip town).


"It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself."
Justice Antonin Scalia.

Want more on the absolute travesty this Regime has made of the Rule of Law?

SCOTUS

Due Process and Equal Protection mean squat to the Lynch/Obama DOJ. 





Except to appoint Janet Napolitano as President of the University of California system.


We got your Due Process and Equal Protection for ya Right, Here, America.

San Francisco Govt: Hides Psych Gulags, Then Shows World Its Johnson

Friday, July 8, 2016

How Convenient: Hillary Says Keep AG Lynch, FBI Lets Her Walk, Race Riots Murder Cops In Dallas TAKING OVER THE HEADLINES

AG Lynch babbles misdirecting nonsense.

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/751454004031344640?lang=en

Thank You BBC.

more at weaselzippers

AG Lynch Calls For Gun Control, Calls Anger At Police 'Justified' Protesters Shouldn't Be Blamed.

And we have a petition to the Whitehouse, too. Over 15,000 signatures since July 6, 2016.

Formally Recognize Black Lives Matter As A Terrorist Organization

Monday, June 27, 2016

Feds Arrest More Than 300 In National Fraud Bust

Well, Zip, a dee do dah day. When it's not in Auntie DiFi, Uncle Sid, Cousin Kamala, and that weird guy down the street, Gavin's, back yard they Can actually find HC Fraud.

(Actually they found it, repeatedly, according to our stat counter way back when we Reported it. Then they appointed Janet, DHS Napolitano as President of the UC system. Go figure.)

fiercehealthcare
by Evan Sweeney |
Jun 22, 2016 1:30pm



Federal authorities announced a record-breaking coordinated fraud takedown Wednesday that charged 301 people involved in various healthcare fraud schemes totaling $900 million in false claims.

The historic fraud bust, led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, was another notch in the belt for federal authorities, surpassing last year’s coordinated arrest of 243 people linked to $712 million in false billing.

Like last year’s takedown, authorities underscored the importance of the collaborative effort, which spanned 36 federal districts and involved several federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, as well as local and state authorities, including 23 Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

“As this takedown should make clear, health care fraud is not an abstract violation or benign offense,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said during a press conference announcing the takedown. “It is a serious crime. The wrongdoers that we pursue in these operations seek to use public funds for private enrichment. They target real people--many of them in need of significant medical care.”

Lynch highlighted several specific schemes, including one in which a network of clinics in Brooklyn is accused of bribing patients in order to bill Medicare and Medicaid more than $38 million for unnecessary medical treatment. She also identified several new fraud trends within Medicare Part D, including evidence of stolen doctor IDs used to create fake prescriptions, and a growing number of schemes involving compound medications, which were linked to a massive spike in fraudulent billing within Tricare last year.

HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell credited the work of nearly 1,000 federal agents who “employed advanced analytics and cutting edge investigative work” to expose various schemes. She added that the high cost of drugs, and the fact that Part D is a relatively new program,makes it a target for fraud.

For more:
- read the DOJ announcement
- here’s Lynch’s remarks
Read More:
HHS Office of Inspector General
DOJ
CMS

Thank You Mr Sweeny and FH.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

AG Loretta Lynch, Black Lives Matter Blame Intolerance, Not Islamic Terrorism For Orlando Attack

From the crowd who tossed $201 Billion of money we Don't have, down the rat hole to get you to buy in to their duplicity.

CNSNews
By Jeannette Richard | June 22, 2016



"Mere Tolerance is the Virtue of a man who no longer believes in anything."
G.K. Chesterton

(CNSNews.com) -- U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch made no mention of radical Islam in her remarks about the June 12 massacre at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida on Tuesday, instead blaming “hatred and intolerance” in American society for the nation's deadliest mass shooting.

In a 9-1-1 call to Orlando Police, shooter Omar Mateen - a 29-year-old Muslim who killed 49 people wounded 53 others -described himself as an “Islamic soldier” and said he had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

But the transcripts of Mateen’s calls during the shooting spree, which Lynch released to the public on Monday morning, were missing his references to Islam, and the portion of the call where Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS was edited out.

However, after a public outcry, the full transcripts were released by the FBI late Monday afternoon.

Lynch made no specific mention of Mateen’s reference to the radical Islamic terrorist group and said investigators may never pinpoint a single motive for the bloody attack, although she did refer to the shooting as "clearly an act of terror and an act of hate."

She added that "our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love."

“The message of Orlando that I have seen today – and what the American people have seen in the wake of this horrific assault – is a message of determination to remove hatred and intolerance from our midst...,” Lynch said.

“I am deeply moved by the way that this community – and our national community – has stood together in support of one another, in defiance of terror and in defense of our most cherished ideals,” she continued.

“And let us be clear, those ideals include the understanding that our diversity makes us stronger – and that no matter who we are, what we look like, where we are from, or whom we love, this extraordinary nation belongs to us all.”

The activist group Black Lives Matter went even farther in shifting blame from radical Islam to America’s supposed intolerance of diversity, blaming “white-supremacy, patriarchy, and homophobia” for the Pulse attack.

“Despite the media’s framing of this as a terrorist attack, we are very clear that this terror is completely homegrown, born from the anti-Black white supremacy, patriarchy and homophobia of the conservative right and of those who would use religious extremism as a weapon to gain power for the few and take power from the rest,” the group said in a press release after the shooting.


“Those who seek to profit from our deaths hope we will forget who our real enemy is, and blame Muslim communities instead. But we will never forget.”

“Homegrown terror is the product of a long history of colonialism, including state and vigilante violence. It is the product of white supremacy and capitalism, which deforms the spirit and fuels interpersonal violence...

“We need a world that realizes that the word ‘terrorist’ is not synonymous with Muslim, any more than ‘criminal’ is synonymous with Black. The enemy is now and has always been the four threats of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and militarism. These forces and not Islam create terrorism. These forces, and not queerness, create homophobia.”


Thank You Ms Richard and CNS.


Seriously? AG Lynch Says We May Never Know The Orlando Killer's Motive.